Peacegirl: Everything I wrote above does not require free will. My mind still cannot comprehend why this knowledge doesn’t interest you even though I know you can’t help yourself. My guess is that you want to believe that you’re not a machine who has no mind or autonomy of his own. As long as you hold onto the standard definition that doesn’t allow for your ability to choose what you yourself desire, not some puppeteer holding the strings, I would be hoping for freedom of the will too.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
I respect this and the man behind it who started the modern science and about whom so few of Europeans know about.
Have you read any books lately, … or at all?
I read a lot but I am too stupid to understand anything other than porno magazines and children’s stories.
And I assume these are “chewed and digested:”, by yourself?
I dont follow…these kind of deep and abstract allegories…too much for me…me big Aryan…me only think what me only see…
Well, if reality [human or otherwise] is only as it ever could have been, that would include both our assessments of what is or is not weird.
So…
1] We’re still both covered
2] We’re still off the hook
Nothing she hasn’t said before, right? Almost as though nature planned it that way. Bringing us back to the most profound mystery of all: teleology. If not God’s meaning and purpose, then nature’s meaning and purpose? But how can that be possible with nature? In fact, that’s when nature makes my head spin and the part about weird keeps popping up.
Anyway, given a real deal free will world, this distinction she makes between that world and the one where our “choices” are but the embodiment of a psychological illusion, the part she configures into “choices”, where’s the part in the book where the author brings this down to earth?
Like, for example, someone able to note that while both an incandescent light bulb and a fluorescent tube produce light, they do so as a result of the same laws of nature, but with different kinds of matter. Both of which are able to be demonstrated. Where is the author’s equivalent of that in regard to human behaviors that go in different directions?
Again, nature has compelled you to think yourself into actually believing this. Or, if you really were able of your own free will to think it up yourself, I now have no illusions that I will be able to explain to you just how preposterous it is to suppose that what we think we know about anything has nothing to do with an understanding of existence itself. That, in my view, is all embedded in your own rendition of the psychology of objectivism above. This need on your part – compelled or not – to take comfort in the belief that, through the author, you are privy to the understanding of, well, everything right?
And, in that respect, here at ILP, join the crowd. We’ve had dozens of folks over the years present us with their own version of it. You can’t all be right. But none of you are ever wrong, are you?
Note to nature:
See what I mean?!!
Okay, if human morality is genetic what does that mean for all practical purposes? In other words, how “hardwired” into us is it?
All the way?
If so, then what does that mean for all practical purposes?
And what wouldn’t automatically make sense in a world where the behaviors we choose are just another manifestation of nature itself on automatic pilot.
How do we determine the extent to which the very act of contemplating is or is not entirely genetic?
Memes then becoming just another component of the only possible world.
Or, perhaps, the Only Possible World?
This dullard confuses conscience and morality. Somebody should write to this genius and inform him that there is such a word and a concept attached to it. I wonder what Nietzsche would say if he saw the trenches of WW1 and gas chambers of the second, given his narrative and given he collapsed into neurosis seeing a horse being given a rough beating with a whip. These autistic dullards are fucking insane.
Explain to me, how the overman was created and elevated to his heights in Nazi Germany. I am lost.
Nietzsche was and is so misunderstood. I have read a couple of really fucked up things on here regarding him.
I wonder too. Insane about sums it up.
I find Nietzsche perverse and bizarre. Glorifying pain and suffering make no sense to me at all and his bizarre attempt at synthesizing conquerors and ruthless conflict with love and embrace of art and aesthetic beauty is just a pinnacle of bizarreness. I don’t think one should blame him for the Nazis, Nietzsche would have ridiculed the idea that some charlatan kook fanatic like Hitler or Himmler was an overman in the same league as Napoleon or Alexander. But he was not a nazi…I completely share his deep respect for Socrates and his life, for example.
He was a bit of a cunt, but it was his sister that made a Nazi of him.
Why a cunt? Cunt to whom? He was gravely wrong as any book on the history of the 20th century can evidently show to anybody sane and literate but judging retrospectively is a bit of nonsense. May he rest in peace and may his name be saved from the slime of both the neo-nazi and post-modern kooks.
I find it perverse and bizarre, that you post this after you’ve already said Nietzsche was perverse and bizarre.
You are just too post-modern for me.
I love your ability to throw a counterpunch! Good for you!!
You are trying to be clever too hard dumb kook. Yet another coward. I can find good and bad, admirable and disgusting, in all people and especially people of the magnitude of Nietzsche. Nietzsche is not a cunt and is leagues above and beyond the post-modern shit and neo-nazi kooks who try to assimilate him.
You are too ignorant to bother with.
wanna go on a date??? 
sculptor you autistic kook stop being butthurt you are just another half-sane dullard its ok. books are for reading, not eating.