Philosophy vs speculations

As we see often on this forum, under philosophy modern people understand first of all “giving opinion” which is not very relevant, maybe like giving a blow job.

The modern humanoid is not capable to do anything, he is an old man who only talks and sits. He has given up any personal experience or to strive beyond limits of anything. He is not doing anything!

A true philosopher is a living populus, he wants to test everything in reality, he wants states and city states. He wants a new, higher race, and he wants clearly to finish with everything idle and outdated. He has a principle of truthfulness which never turns “only into an opinion”.

An old many like those modern are above all speculators, they are trying to finish with every certainty, because their own future is fully uncertain.


Might you have that in English? :-k

Why, for you?

This is true, but strictly speaking, it is false.

The problem is not that they are not doing anything, the problem is that they are doing stupid things. And the reason they are doing stupid things is precisely because they are incapable of not doing anything.

Nietzsche distinguished between “action” and “reaction” in order to explain the problem, but I think the two terms are insufficient: we need a third term.

Action: tension, high-energy activity, bellum.
Inaction: release, low-energy activity, otium.
Reaction: tension, high-energy activity, bellum.

Nietzsche conflated reaction with inaction.

The problem with these people, once again, is not that they are in-active but that they are re-active and they are reactive precisely because they are incapable of being inactive: reaction is an action the goal of which is inaction.

Slaves: it is precisely because they lack otium that their goal is otium (i.e. world peace.)
Masters: it is precisely because they have otium that their goal is bellum (i.e. war.)

And the reason why slaves lack otium is quite simply because they lack courage.

So all this philosophical blabbering is a consequence of the inability to SHUT THE FUCK UP which is itself a consequence of cowardice.

(Courage is a physical thing which is why “philosophers” tend to dismiss it.)

That is too simple. People have the need to ridicule everything (comedy) because they want to quit with doing anything. The loss of strength requires from them to deny everything that still asks for attention and action. Otherwise they would run into war after watching 300, if they couldn’t resist.

Yes, but what kind of strength?

Complete loss of strength leads to inaction, it does not lead to reaction. Reaction requires strength – a truly weak person cannot react. But the strength of a reactive person is a strength of a coward, for it is a strength without courage and integrity (courage and integrity being practically inseparable.)

It is possible for a person to be strong in many ways, courageous even, and still be reactive (such types are the most dangerous of them all.) For what separates active from reactive is not a lack of strength but a lack of integrity – that is a lack of coordination between abilities – which is a kind of strength. Reactive types are only capable of attaining partial integrity (i.e. tyranny) which means that their actions are always powered by self-deception of some kind, whereas active types are distinguished by their full integrity (i.e. self-mastery.)

“all weakness is weakness of will”

Willing is a consequence: what we will is what we are in terms of our abilities (which is defined by our body, not by our consciousness.) Our system of abilities determines what we will. Everyone wills, willing different things – even reactive people will.

Willing and willpower: two distinct concepts. Willpower, as understood by Nietzsche, refers to what I call “integrity” i.e. the strength of connections between abilities (if we understand man as a system of abilities.)

A man of reaction is not the one who does not will (for everyone wills) and not necessarily the one who wills less (for a person can will less and be active, and a person can will more and be reactive.) A man of reaction is he who lacks integrity, and to lack integrity means to be composed of a conflicting set of abilities. A man of reaction is a man of broken strength, of strength turned against itself (or as Deleuze puts it “[of] force separated from what it can do”.) That’s what broken will is: lack of integrity. And what leads to “broken will”, to “loss of integrity”? Loss of strength, sure. But what kind of strength? Courage, willingness to die.

We have discussed things earlier and you cant be repaired.

Descartes says will is action and instincts (passions, passivity) reaction, but for you all is equal. I think you are a decadent and hedonist. Stay where you are.

Reactive people never do anything independently from the public opinion.

One look on this board proves.

I have never said that will and instincts are one and the same thing (rather, I’ve said that they are related, which is a different thing.) You have terrible reading comprehension skills.

What I’m saying here is that everything is predetermined, including what we will and what is optimal for us to will (for what we will is not necessarily what is optimal for us to will.) Our strength is determined by our bodies, not by our “free will”. You do not “force” yourself into being strong – you are either strong or not. In other words, willing is a consequence of a strong body.

You give way too much importance to consciousness and willing, which is against what Nietzsche thought us. Similarly, you seem to be fully incapable of appreciating the positive aspect of the faculty of forgetting, which is also against what Nietzsche thought us. There is no communication to be had if you do not understand your Nietzsche properly.

Will and instincts are not related. Strength of will has nothing to do with body. etc You have failed to get into things, you dont even know german, so, why bother showing your presence?

You are an idiot – a vain idiot, no less. There is no way in hell you would ever admit to committing a mistake (and you have committed an arsenal of them so far.)

Everything is related. Things that are not related cannot co-exist. You’re merely talking out of your ass.

Orly? So body and mind are separate? And willpower is a metaphysical entity?

You’re vain as fuck – everything proves it. Your contempt for the body, subconsciousness and forgetfulness, your inability to admit your mistakes, your inability to either communicate properly or disengage, your inability to admit that you haven’t read your Nietzsche in entirety: all of these are a sign that you’re a man of ressentiment, just as I suspected.

Thanks for your ossified and idiosyncratic opinion.

=D> :laughing: =D> :laughing:
Confucius say you run the fastest when standing still: you are at your most lonely when you are with your friends; and you are most hungry after a good meal.

This discourse is not acceptable under forum rules; Historyboy and Magnus can take this to PM, Rant or face warnings.