Got it. You threw me off with the mention of Maimonides.
I like Hume. The only reason I know of to even consider him a genuine philosopher, however, is his Dialogues on Natural Religion, which I’ve only heard of. (The phrase “genuine philosopher” is from BGE 211.)
We do not any longer “comprehend.” From the Latin, comprehendere, to unite, seize, integrate, take together. One only truly overcomes something, to speak like your master, when one contains that which is to be overcome, when one has integrated it into his own nature, and not been in this way stained by it- when one “comprehends” it. The fruit of the tree of knowledge- why did it introduce us to sin? Why did it corrupt us? This corruption could not have been in the fruit itself. We could not contain the fruit in this sense, we did not comprehend the knowledge of good and evil, we could not integrate it into our own finite and mortal nature without being withheld, stunted, by it. Instead of illuminating the world, as it does no doubt for the angels, it intoxicated us. Philosophy, then? What is that?
To comprehend, philosophically; to comprehend, to understand in the absolute sense, in the truest sense, one must reformulate the subject of inquiry in a higher language. Nietzsche comprehended those who came before him, because he reformulated them in a language higher than that in which they formulated their own concepts, a language higher than that of metaphysics. In this language he united what appeared disparate, he integrated these older philosophers and their ideas into his own nature, but by virtue of his higher language ( of his philosophy…) he was not constrained by this. Philosophy has always been just such an art, the art of comprehending.
Scientific comprehension- isn’t that just the opposite of this, of this philosophy? Science does not continually reinvent the language in which it structures its concepts. One scientist does not “comprehend” another or even his own subject of study, he builds on top of an edifice. The scientist, scientific knowledge in general, and by scientific knowledge I mean knowledge attained not only by natural scientists, but also by philologists, psychologists, scholars of the aesthetic… this scientific knowledge is impotent without that rich philosophical vision which unites what is disparate. With regard to our science, what have we really comprehended? What we have in science is ultimately a body of disparate knowledge that can only be integrated, that can only be comprehended, through that philosophical art I have just described, and that art is dying. To return to the first image I used, the Biblical fall into sin, our science has not illuminated the world for us, it has only brought us into a state of intoxication.
The language of metaphysics, that Nietzsche overcame, and the language of science, which is constituted by more than a few common modes of expression, but rather by common modes of thought… must be overcome, comprehended. But it is only just now, when philosophy has grown so pale, and is so closest to dying, that the sciences and the knowledge belonging to them have been delineated to the extent that a philosophical reformulation of them and their contents is possible. Certainly it couldn’t have been accomplished until the emergence of our current, democratized culture and the emergence of our current, democratized conception of knowledge, which is so beneficial to the scientist, and this culture and concept of knowledge, in its turn, could not have arisen without their having been a Nietzsche to make us aware of the propagation of nihilism, of the end of metaphysics. In this interim, in which no philosophical comprehension of the sciences was possible, philosophy has grown sickly, diseased, and approached death. Does it have enough of life in it to rise up to this new task?
This is definitely a typology, the divisions are a set of four, Jung did a massive amount of research on this very topic. You should know this, it’s rather embarrassing for someone who is so hardcore into Nietzsche not to know the main theory that evolved from Nietzsche’s Dionysian and Apollonian mindsets was Jung’s Quaternity that IS the main basis from MBTI. Your attracted to a system that divides men up into four parts, and your foolishly trying to break out of that mindset. Jung’s system is a holistic approach, derived from careful analysis of alchemical systems and mandala drawling. Your explanation sits very tightly into this, as it’s governed by the medial prefrontal cortex that would link these four systems together.
And for your emphasis on Intuitives, MBTI INTJ, ENTJ, AND ISTP are controlled by the same parts of the mind- they are not even unconscious aspects of one another, but are centralized by the interactions of the Basal Ganglia and the Supplementary Motor Area of the mind. A ISTP would be a Sensing person as well as being a overman. INTPs however- which a considerable amount of this forum would include, are not processed in this brain region, but rather link up with the Thalmus at another stage of the pump. It’s a three pump stage system in the brain controlling dopamine distribution, this is very basic brain science. It’s no longer up for debate, it’s been known what the Basal Ganglia’s functions are, very well mapped out. What your describing relates to it.
Nietzsche is the Indirect path and Hyper DIrect Path, ALONG with Hobbes. Hobbes did it better, as Nietzsche was prone to
Your Bacon would process via thalamic reticular nucleus, meaning the access in this part of the brain is not directly possible. INTPs are stationed here. The two do not combine. INTJs and INTPs are similar only in name, the behavior scopes for the two are considerably different, whereas the behavior of ISTPs relate much more closely to INTJs and ENTJs, the two dominate and are the smartest and more successful of all the types, not just the Ns. INTPs are notorious herd animals, hence Bacon’s synthesis was aimed at the herd. He was successful, he collected the best of them. But they cannot but be who they are. It’s basic brain science.
It also needs to be realized in MBTI there is always auxillary functions. A S will become a N in a heartbeat. There is usually at least a trinitarian division between them. Someone like me is going to be a little more complex than the average bear given my interrelationship to the indirect and hyperdirect path will expose me to depression and forgetting- as is the case with Nietzsche… this will result in also times of conditioned response being suppressed and modified from learning new experiences. I can overcome a situation by forgetting, then at a later date go back and reassess the past- and try to recombine my memories into a coherent whole again. This can lead to horrible depression as well as a ascension via having two views on the same lesson. Two different lessons can result in two very different cognitive lessons, and two modes of approaching something thinking wise. Enough times you gain enough capacity to act in highly complex unorthodox manners that still are competent. Unfortunately for the personalities centered around the Thalmus, it’s not possible- it’s more involuntary in blending information received from it’s superconscious (that would be my area as well as the direct path- a different type altogether- for Nietzsche that would be his overman possessing a pure dionysian spirit, but having met a few I just call them stupid douchebags and meat heads. Literally Lord Byron or the antiheroes from The Satyricon- however, in modern times they ride the short bus, and take remedial classes, and get themselves into trouble all the time cause they are much less intelligent and in control of themselves- as the indirect path to the basal ganglia literally prohibits this via self discipline using acetylcholine)
Nietzsche’s overman didn’t use acetylcholine save in cases of self discipline in self overcoming, which puts a HUGE emphasis on direct access to the cortex’s memories. However, either side of this division of the mind can access it directly… just one does it much better, and the other one daydreams and acts impulsively. These two are the main themes of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Bacon is not. He cannot biologically be. Dopamine production decreases as habit overtakes the methodology of new learning- and science ain’t anything but methodology to learning. It’s why scientist get lazy, become more herd like, and need to relate more and more to a group, controlled by top down hierarchical structures of administrators and business owners directing them. The best scientist we have ironically- mad inventors like Tesla and Edison… don’t do this. Edison was the top, and Tesla didn’t give a fuck about anyone. A INTP makes the perfec scientist, and everything is sensory oriented. They work well AMONG scientist, but are not overmen, they are highermen.
Jung would see through this in a heart beat. Your clearly following a typology. I would strongly encourage you to break out of this mindset if you are indeed a Nietzschean interested in self overcoming. The quaternity isn’t easily broken, and you can’t do it with a super ego sitting over your head.
Also… cute with using the Hindu Swastika, but everyone knows damn well what your doing. Your not fooling anyone. Try to grow up for a change, and live up to your own knowledge and pronouncements. I don’t even see the logic in trying to follow Nietzsche in trying to be original. It’s sheepish. Your own behavior and admittance to being stuck in a Baconian mindset only underlines this. YOU ARE NOT A NIETZSCHEAN. You cannot be, and unlikely ever will be. Your use of neurochemical processors need to shirt to serotonin and dopamine.
These are not polite, consensus friendly neurochemicals. They are intense, not inherently prone to the blending and balancing of Bacon or Freud.
I’m throwing my knife into the soil and packing out of this thread, and any like it. It’s tiresome seeing people set up theories like this without a basic understanding of how neurology and brain chemicals interreact. Even more frustrating is the grade school quaternity emphasis. Like I can’t see the results of that coming from a mile away… INTP influence. They don’t even have direct access to the moral centers of the brain. It’s a fucking joke seeing them bitch and whine about the death of god and how they should smoke pot, do what they want, and become the last man while pointing at others for doing it. It’s the herd Nietzsche sold his books to. Nietzsche was desperate and hoped these things would make him strong and healthy because his family were priests and domicile for generations… it wasn’t happening, because of the acetylcholine… the very thing that caused him to discriminate, reject and overcome anchored his consciousness on the indirect and hyper-indirect paths. He was a damn fool for this, and put the power to fuck around in the herd. Now the world as a result is EVEN MORE STUPID, AND EVEN MORE SOCIALIST, whereas before, it was more Dionysian and Revolutionary under Marx. Both betrayed humanity. We think dumber now as a result. Nothing is sadder than reading the Dionysian Dithrambs and seeing how exactly this played out in him. Utterly pathetic, and represents the lowest and weakest within me. None the less, what would throw me into a nihilistic state would bring wonders to a Baconian thinker. That is how far the cognitive gap is between us. My will to destroy myself or control others via the hyper direct path would still be more advanced than the blending of forms, consensus, and methodological breaking down and rebuilding up of modalities of a Baconian thinker.
Hobbes was so much more! You are so much less!
Christian, our correspondence is hereby closed, and you are placed in my foes list.
That’s it Thalmus, close down and deny me. It only encourages a right hippocampus and right parietal lobe- a retreat into fantasy and unfounded idealistic assertions without apprehension to the long term serviceability or consequences of the aims acquired in this retreat. Nietzsche would not tolerate this retreat. This is pure cowardice in it’s purist form, as it’s escapist emotion built on a denial of what is. It’s a shit poor use of idealism. It’s the beginnings of the construction of a new idol.
Knock it off Sauwelios, and confront yourself. You know better than this. Your looking backwards instead of forwards. Idols occupy the void nature abhors. Your self denial in this case, especially against the evidence, only amplifies that fact.
We have just witnessed the spiritual death of Sauwelios, and the birth of a zealot in his ashes. I want everyone to be very clear of when and where it occurred. He stood at the precipice, and then turned away. He couldn’t stand staring at his own limitations, and the gulf that separated him. He looked into it, and backed away in denial. He has turned his back on psychology, and therefor Nietzsche. He is erecting falsehood and hero worship in it’s place, appreciating what he finds pleasant and denying the distasteful… both wholly within him, and a disruption to his honesty and integrity as a Nietzscean. He possesses from now on Neither Truths nor Arrows, only cowardice and feminine self deceit.
For any theorist of the Slave Master Morality, pay close attention to his actions and attitudes to me, most often indirect, when he posts and not posts, from now on.
Well, I see now why Machiavelli should perhaps replace Bacon in my list. I base this on my reading of the end of Mahdi’s Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy. There, Mahdi first lists the five phases of the cycle described by Aristoteles/Aristocles:
[size=95]Men perish in diverse ways: i[/i] plagues, famines, earthquakes, various diseases, and so forth; i[/i] above all, by more violent cataclysms, such as the one in the time of Deucalion, but not the greatest of all, for herdsmen and those on the mountains and foothills were saved. Not having the means of sustenance, they were: (1) “Forced by necessity to think of useful devices—the grinding of corn, sowing, and the like—and they gave the name of wisdom to such thought, thought which was useful to the necessities of life.” (2) They devised the arts, going on to the production of beauty and elegance, and called it wisdom. (3) They turned their attention to politics and invented laws and all such things that hold a city together. They called such thought wisdom. (The Seven Wise Men were men who attained political virtues.) (4) Then they went further. They proceeded to “bodies themselves and the nature that fashions them.” They called it natural science, and “we” describe its possessors as wise in the affairs of nature. (5) “Fifthly, men applied the name [“wisdom”] in connection with things divine, super-mundane, and completely unchangeable, and called the knowledge of these things the highest wisdom.” [pp. 232-33.][/size]
Then, he summarizes Machiavelli’s view:
[size=95]Accepting the cyclical view of history […], Machiavelli blames the ancients for acquiescing to it, for their lack of resolve, courage, and the will to fight and control the cycle by political means—that is, by continuously renewing the political regime. The ancients’ view of science, their contemplative ideal, was a cowardly surrender to the forces of nature, both external and human. […] Man can control his own destiny and conquer nature by means of science, which is now seen as a servant to be used rather than a master to which one submits. With the political order well under control, the new science offers limitless vistas for progress in the future. The cycle should be arrested at phase 3, and the circle unbent, in deed, by eliminating the phases that follow the high point of political virtue.
The old activities in phases 4-5 sponged on phase 3 and contributed to its decline. The new science—religion—and rhetoric will be based solidly on the practical political art that will preserve the high point of political virtue[.] [p. 239.][/size]
This may be said to have succeeded, but at what cost? One need only consider the title of Fukuyama’s 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man…
[size=95]The Baconian-Cartesian technological conquest of nature is only a means, if an indispensable means, to the achievement of the ideal of the large majority, universal comfortable self-preservation, which makes the other type [i.e., the master type] expendable. [Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 104-05.][/size]
Machiavelli was a genuine philosopher only inasmuch as his politics were aimed at preserving and/or advancing philosophy, i.e., at the (continued) sprouting and flourishing of genuine philosophers… But the genuine philosopher belongs to the master type. Therefore, Nietzsche had to complete the project begun by Machiavelli, by replacing the ideal of the large majority, in the possessive sense of the word “of”, with the ideal of the genuine philosopher, in the non-possessive sense of the word “of”: see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2271234#p2271234.
Your argument about the yellow hair vs the yellow-colored hair is not Machiavellian enough. Or “the genuine philosopher wills the Eternal Return” (as an ideal). How can somebody idealize a fact? How can somebody idealize reality? Only if he stands outside of it, only if he lies!
Nietzsche’s attempt was to draw the master-type out of the cooking plebeian mass. He made in sum 3 revaluations (BOT, TSZ and AC) and killed the god (who became an artisan), and there you come with your plebeian lyrics, god and metaphysics to give life to that what needed to die.
You are the one who wants to be the master because you can quote like crazy and you have yellow hair. That is a sufficient argument to you.
One can see how little of his own thoughts he has. He hides behind stolen quotes and then he wonders if he gets only ad hominem arguments.
Btw. Aristotle did everything to control “the circle”.
Only Nietzsche was able to give a statement without being wrong. And the ancient Greeks and the renaissance thinkers.
Most others make only flashy statements with a high percentage of mistakes.
Whoa… This has got to be the most rigorously nonsensical load of bullshit I’ve read in quite some time. It’s almost impressive, albeit totally erratic and profoundly inaccurate. That any part of this statement was ever construed as a viable ‘argument’ or critique, is downright comical.
Frankly, I can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next.
I think it’s a matter of…errr…perspective. There are only a few great philosophers. I count Plato because of his place in history, and for the scope of his thinking and writing. He got most of it wrong, though. He set the benchmark, but belonged to the pre-Hume era, when philosophers felt that they had to underpin their morality with epistemology. Descartes, for much the same reasons. Then the true giant of the pre-modern era, Hume. He took epistemology out of the equation (and no, Kant didn’t get that memo). Kant, the great boob of philosophy, for his influence, as sad and tragic as that has been. Nietzsche, the first to exploit Hume’s achievements. Frege/Russell, which we may almost count as one.
The second tier we may count as Aristotle, perhaps Mill and Locke, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Ayer and Rawls, who died only recently.
There are no great philosophers today, mostly because great philosophers are rare.
The master/slave dichotomy is best understood in the context of morality, or meta-morality, but does not translate so well into the sphere of talent or accomplishment within a profession. No one paid more homage to those who came before him than Nietzsche did - no one worked harder to serve the Western philosophical tradition. Nietzsche wasn’t as original as he was honest.
Religion protects values, science confirms them. Philosophy creates and destroys them. Each dances with the others. It’s not a war, but a masked ball.
Now Faust has proven again why Nietzsche calls Englishmen the un-philosophical race.
How can somebody lie, falsify and stupify everything that exist is unknown even to them, I suppose. It must be Christianity which has embodied itself in them since the Roman times. I guess the Englishmen are a proof what can happen to strong people if they don’t live in danger!
Right, then.
Finally some recognition for Hume, though you’ve never really been a stranger to him from what I’ve read in the past. In fact, you’re probably somewhat responsible for sparking my interest in Hume as hardly anyone so much as mentions him anymore.
I see Hume’s influence as massive, though it did seem to take a significant amount time for his ideas to be accepted in modern thinking. And, even now, with scientism gaining more momentum than ever, people still don’t seem to realize how much Hume contributed to the application of scientific method in philosophy. Not only did he manage to remove epistemology from the equation, but also metaphysics in large part. I’d say he even limited ontology to a primarily human and behavioral consideration. Plus, in my own opinion, his views regarding mitigated skepticism are pretty profound—even now. Those who do know of Hume seem to think of him as the ultimate skeptic, even though he actually advocated very few, specific forms of skepticism. He was very rigid and rational in his thinking; systematic and temperate. But, at the same time, he undoubtedly recognized a very necessary and natural emotive aspect of the human condition. I would guess that’s why his ‘science of human nature’ never really reached fruition.
I never really considered Nietzsche as having exploited Hume’s ideas. Would you mind elaborating on that some [nothing fancy, I’m just curious what you mean]. And I seem to remember a passage by him in which he called the likes of Hume and Bacon anti-philosophical, as Cezar mentioned. I could never agree with him on that, though. What am I missing? Was it the lack of idealism and/or metaphysics in his thinking?
Well, Statik, you already know. As you said, it took a while, but Hume removed epistemology/ontology/metaphysics from philosophy. But which thinker was the first who was truly committed to such a philosophy? Who assumed what Hume sought to show? Our boy Nietzsche, of course. Hume was the first great atheist, as well. Hume’s entire “skepticism” was really about atheism.
While we’re talking about handmaidens, Epistemology has long been the handmaiden of politics or God - or the politics of God, or public morality - or the whole mess of a socio-politico-moral Hobbesian/Lockean extravaganza theory. Hume wasn’t after causation - he was after Causation. He was after metaphysical Causation. That’s the big fucking problem everyone has with causation. They can believe their eyes, but not their very own metaphysical extrapolations. Hume’s idea was that there was nothing to extrapolate.
What happens when something is caused? Nothing, really, except what we see. Well what did Nietzsche see when he looked at religion? Everything but the god. Nietzsche was the first godless, atheist, materialist, commonsensical philosopher. Except for David Hume. Hume worked hard to demonstrate most of what Nietzsche simply took for granted. He was unphilosophical, in much the same way that Nietzsche was.
I have to agree with Cezar here. The Anglo-Saxons are unphilosophical in that they are superficial. Just consider the term “analytical philosophy”. William Blake, an exceptional, namely profound Anglo-Saxon, also stood up against that superficiality, saying it was but lost time to converse with someone whose works were only analytics (source: Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Plate 20). Blake’s own works, on the other hand, were highly “continental”:
“This is shewn in the Gospel, […] that Reason may have Ideas to build on, the Jehovah of the Bible being no other than he who dwells in flaming fire.” (Source: ibid., Plate 6. Note that originally, Blake had been explicit, writing “the Devil who dwells”.)
This is basically the same as what Nietzsche says. Blake’s Devil-God is entirely reminiscent of the early Nietzsche’s “primordial One”, which corresponds to the mature Nietzsche’s “will to power” (cf. BGE 37, where the will to power is first explicitly called the Devil, and then implicitly God).
Nietzsche’s argument against Bacon, Hume, etc., is that they are the originators of the “modern ideas”. These ideas have impoverished the noblesse of the French and thereby of Europe in general. As Nietzsche says earlier in BGE (he calls the English an unphilosophical race in section 252), the Platonic way of thinking, the Idealistic way, was—in sharp contrast with the modern, sensualistic way—a noble way of thinking (BGE 14). In Nietzsche’s philosophy, the world becomes the Idea of the Good.
I consider Blake superficially profound, though, and Bacon and Hume etc. profoundly superficial.
Sauwelios, what is the significance of your avatar?
Good to see Onasander hasn’t yet given up his ambition to paint the internet over with his nonsense.
Greetings again, old friend.
After reading this a few times, I finally understand. It’s not the info itself, but maybe the phrasing that threw me off at first. Thanks for the clarification - both you. The question[s] I posed have been in the back of my mind since I started reading Hume, and this [above] is an exceptional answer.
There is nothing to extrapolate. I don’t know why, but that statement alone strikes me as pretty damn profound. And I think I agree with that position. We observe physical phenomena in terms of ‘cause and effect’, and maintain a belief therein, to set a foundation from which we might understand the dynamics involved. However, as much as we hate to admit it, such an understanding will always be inherently probabilistic. That is, we are becoming more familiar with tenancies and relations among physical objects, rather than affirming certainties or solidifying ‘objective’ absolutes. Which is why science and philosophy are, and ought to be [in my own opinion], part of a continual progression.
Now, the part about Nietzsche was very well put, but that’s what had me confused at first. But, like you said, he apparently saw everything but the God. He saw what was most apparent, immediate, and commonsensical, but saw the metaphysical extrapolations as unnecessary – or, otherwise, just perverse and contradictory. We don’t need a metaphysic to observe and understand ‘cause and effect’ any more than we do something like morality. Immersing oneself in the metaphysical side only promotes a further detachment from what is most practical - most human - in our conceptions of reality. Observation and study of our behaviors, inclinations, and sentiments are easily mislead by fantastic metaphysical claims. Claims that have no real basis and detract from the immediacy of what we directly experience.
…there is nothing to extrapolate. Now that is some deep stuff to me. Am I following you properly here? I love Hume and all, but he tends to get wordy [not to mention comma-crazy] and looses me sometimes.
Yup. I’m gonna start a new thread on causation. Or something.