Navigate This… if you dare.

In consideration of the revaluation of values (Nietzsche) that results from wielding self=other as a litmus (Kant’s categorical imperative, or the Golden Rule found in every major culture in history), it must be stated that legislating or purposing toward the eternal (self=other) is the only sort of creation that builds without nihilizing (&/or reifying) the essential.

You must take a stand against discontinuity. Where there is selfishness, inseparability cannot thrive. Pain is born in the gap where choice has been excluded.

It’s funny when a Christian refers to Nietzsche.
The re-evalution he refers to is Abrahamic values…herd psychology…victim-values.
These became seductive in a world of exploding populations - urbanites - and so it attracted the world’s feeble, desperate, ill, needy…across racial and cultural boundaries.

FJ: “You must take a stand against discontinuity. Where there is selfishness, inseparability cannot thrive. Pain is born in the gap where choice has been excluded.”

If individuation/togetherness/differentiation is not a choice, separability/inseparability loses meaning. Inseparability [necessary, (super)natural] is not a choice (contingent/supernatural), so is not consensual togetherness. It is better to talk about wholes than ones/singularities in that context, or to view ones/singularities as wholes. And there is a wholeness that is chosen. We choose the essential when we create toward the eternal.

Selfishness as Ayn Rand defined it does not conflict with Golden Rule (self=other) selflessness (she was mistaken that altruism is selfishness… and that non-brutish selfishness is selfishness…), because she rejected the selfishness of the brute, and acknowledged that interest moderated by reason is not brutish (in disregard of the other). She didn’t realize she was arguing for that which she strawmanned.

To exclude choice is a choice. Excluding/choosing comes with pain, sure. You want both, but both cannot be chosen—otherwise, choice is a non-issue, or you’d only want one. You can’t want unless you can also not get what you want. In other words, you can’t even want one unless you have options. Opt for wholeness. The all loses meaning without many which bare minimum reflect it. Like a rainbow distributing light.

If that makes sense.

He couldn’t get very firm on whether or not revaluation was good or a nihilization, actually.

Anyway.

I need to merge these documents:

docs.google.com/document/d/1HPP … AkXH8/edit

docs.google.com/document/d/18NB … BCh7Y/edit

Yeah…he was…confused. :confused:
Not you, he was.

All those aphorisms would attest to it.
#-o

One-liners, you mean?

We all go a little _______ sometimes.

He was going through a phase…I know dear.
Maybe, like the retarded man-child says, he critiqued Christianity because he could not benefit from it…
A loser, resenting the Christian status quo. A closet homo?
Maybe…let’s go with the last.

You go girl. :sunglasses:

His mom effed him up in the head.

Yes, that explains it.
Ad hom can deal with the critique.

You aren’t fucked in the head…he was.

Doubt your doubts.

Girl, you are so deep.

You haven’t offered a critique. I steel-manned him, and gave mitigating circumstances for the straw.

Sweetie you are so right.

I wrote my post using this New Age Bullshit Generator.

sebpearce.com/bullshit/

I’m glad you could find meaning in it.

Same :wink:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E_RLvcZ8jI[/youtube]

fast forward to 24 minutes

He obv did not understand Kant.

I’ve discussed this elsewhere on the site. I’ll dig it up later.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTzCaZ8LBt0[/youtube]
My major disagreement with Schopenhauer was on his choice of the term ‘will.’
Allowing fanatical, desperate imbeciles, across time, to make their own personal inferences.
I would have chosen ‘energy’ or ‘force.’
Something neutral, reserving the term ‘will’ to refer only to intentionality and life - the distinguishing factor identifying life is will - expressed as action - choice.
Everything that exists, including intentionality, can be explained without presuming intentionality.
Including morality, as well.
The moral acumen could only have been naturally selected because it contributed to cooperative reproductive and survival strategies.
Without it social organisms could never have lasted.
It involves multiple functions, we encompass with the term ‘moral’, involving self-repression, or self-control, and imprinting.

here is the thing I said I would dig up:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 0#p2893850