Thanks. That’s very kind of you. But just for the record, you did piss all over yourself, and I avoided it.
And you’re sure I wasn’t talking about duty to the truth in the first place?
So you’re sure of that, at least. But someone who’s sure is not a philosopher, but either wise or delusional.
“Absence of the will in the addressee to actualize voluntary intelligible notions in cities or nations somehow affects his theoretical understanding of them, or it produces a lack of enthusiasm for divine and human things as distinguished from logic and physics.” (Mahdi, “The Attainment of Happiness”, ‘The Investigator and the Prince’.)
You asked for examples, not specific examples. And I immediately provided multiple examples.
I think maybe one cause of Nietzsche’s contradictions may be his definition of power & the Dionysian. He seems to rationalize which emotions are actually powerful & which aren’t… I think that’s where he whammied himself into the point of no return. I’ll come back to it. I think if he was truly of power, the contradictions wouldn’t be there.
It is bizarre to me that some one would try to interpret a “will of the people” (of one mind) into his thoughts on being of one will.
Still processing.
Literally no idea what you mean, or why you need to keep making up lies and saying weirdly untrue things. Is it really that difficult to simply engage in the debate? What are you afraid of?
Stop the childish ad homs and made-up insults, and start taking responsibility.
Ok. I always do what I’m told.
“You’re not my supervisor.”
#context
Man wants to be an agent of chaos, willing bullshit rather than not will, until he meets woman and becomes an egoist who doesn’t even know what is in his rational self-interest.
micdrop
I want to finish the quote from that section. “Oh how fortunate we are, we men of knowledge, provided only that we know how to keep silent long enough!”
See also: “our … quiet problem and one which fastidiously directs itself to a few ears” (begining of section 5 of the first essay) … “a silent struggle as a rule” (middle of section 14 in third essay) … “the noble mode of valuation … in respect to the sphere with which it is not sufficiently familiar … gaurded … misunderstands … looking down from a superior height … falsifies the image … in effigie … by the submerged hatred, the vengefulness of the impotent,” (section 10 of first essay). It’s interesting that he thinks a slave mindset is more critical and therefore understanding or familiar with the noble sphere than vice versa. Did he diagnose this from a pathos of distance? He seems super conflicted.