Thing in itself as the nihilistic tool

Thing in itself was invented out of hate for reality, change, nature. As if nothing can develop itself and everything is static in the nature.
The nature is static (equal) and only a disaster can bring change, i.e. development unexpectedly, so they say. The change and evolution are a reaction against disasters, like hunger, overpopulation, etc. Consequently, if you fight against hunger, you fight against disaster and you will develop a higher being out of yourself, so they think. An aristocrat is only a parasite for them. A man who fights for power and overabundance is only “evil” for them.
A man who does not repeat this theories, who has a different opinion, he is “evil” for them. They don’t want morals, their morals are struggle against disasters and evils. They have their “thing in itself” which may be equality, but this equality has the quality to observe disasters differently. Jesus was equal but he took an other course upon disaster. So they say and think, the followers of the good nihilistic god. They observe all people equally and therefore see no sense for morals or upbringing. Morals and upbringing only make difference and they don’t want differences. Difference means that they will become officially losers again and that must stop, so they think. The nature is once for all defined and thus there is no need to argue. We are slaves of god and so it must stay, because only slaves are an equal thing in itself.

Please hurt me and use me as you see fit Sire.

Was that not slave Jesus and your Sire God?

I feel like Nietzsche makes makes a categorical error in his criticism of the TIIS:

The view of noumenon as atomistic in nature, instead of in appearance.

Anyone know if/how he resolves that? Atomism is a definitive property of something in the sense that Nietzsche is using it here, and then he goes on to criticize the TIIS for it’s lack of definitive properties pushing it outside of the causal chain, and so out of relevance.

For Kant, the TIIS is a limiting concept. It is an object of the mind that exists behind a logical wall. That is different than it being atomistic in nature. After all, presumably this is, in plain language, the ‘real’ world ‘out there,’ which obviously isn’t some 2d plane of static sameness. Nietzsche thinks that a theory—a proper theory—should be one that is capable of being falsified and roughly approximates the scientific view of falsity, which is used to, because there so exists a logical wall, bring is close enough to understanding the ‘real’ characteristics of that which exists beyond the senses.

Molecular Geometry… see Feynman. Its a size paradox… it straddles all our divisions of space and time. Ive brought up dramatically evolved circumstances for disscussion before on this, but nobody bites. Its too young of a philosophy.

Geometry is a property inherent in nature, not psychological. But its only inherent in circumstance… size, some of our nature grasp this… one can and yet cannot have a triangle larger than the size of the universe. How we approach this analytically straddles opposed and contradicting assumptions in our conscious dialectic. Most people cant accept one with the other at the same time. Were essentially stuck with two kinds of geometry, and can pursue them in paradoxial yet quite scientific and rational ways, however absurd that seems… such as my search for the primary particle of Liebniz, the Monad, not ever smaller but larger. Its absurd to do so, but shows a fetishment in our scientific method in terms of cultural assumptions, operational expectations and standards, and logistics. Were used to blasting matals, smashing atoms, ever smaller and smaller. Why the bloody hell not bigger and bigger? Cause our theory doesn’t point that way… but it does point in a direction… with a matric scale.

Were still quite the alchemist in our thinking. Not the Nietzschean or Jungian or Taoist kind… I mean the stereotype given by hoodlum science teachers perverting the minds of the youth. There is the capacity here to build the foundations to a new endeavor to know and comprehend science… but I doubt the republic of science can withstand such a shattering revolution.

Morals as a thing in itself was invented to take the power from nobility and give it to the common people. The famous herd-instinct in morals.
Otherwise virtues would be only the privilege of nobility.

What is race (latin: natio)? - A group of people who have done great things in the past and intend to do even more. (Renan)
What are morals? - Definitions about what is great (good) and what is embarrassing (bad).
“In Plato’s Republic everything fires with the morals of Thucydides” - Nietzsche
What is generosity? A sense for great deeds.

What are modern people? Modern people are everything but virtuous, great and race.

How many angels fit on the tip of a needle?

The only exception, and it’s hardly really an exception, is when extra-sensory stuff influences that which is sensed.

EDIT

A stupid ad hominem was here.

Virtue (Latin: virtus, Greek: ἀρετή “arete”) is moral excellence.

It is simple to be moral, but it is excellent to be virtuous.

That is why the simpletons frequently are against the Excellencies.

Aristophanes was very probably one of the Excellencies.

For example, he was objected for abandoning his shield in the battle… but courage is also to know what is frightful, not only what is not frightful.

Also generosity as an act of greatness means: to do the right thing to the right time and person in a right place.

The greatness lays obviously in not losing your head and heart.

To pity the weak is a sign of losers. - Descartes

Nietzsche resolved with aesthetics. He called aesthetics great, precicely because it determined the totality of non noumenological phenomenalism. Thus, noumenal phenomenalism is simply that which is not yet aesthetic.

In other words, ascribing characteristics to TIIS is wrong. You can’t do that, and N’s critique depends on it bring atomistic. It is atomistic in logic, but not any other way.

Actually I think I just answered my question. He knows that it is, he just doesn’t care.

He knows that it is, he just would never have acknowledged it until it became aesthetic.

Everytime he talks about masks, deep superficiality and aesthetics as the pinnacle of profundity, he is referencing to that.

The thing is that words themselves are aesthetic. As soon as you give something a name, it is no longer purely noumental: obviously there is a link. Nietzsche would have said that the link is always at least in metaphor (in the case of words) because words are sound patterns. By adding a sound-pattern to a concept, the concept is rendered aesthetic, visible, a “thing.”

In other words, there is no TIIS. Things begin existing only in relation to subjectivity.

Pezer, you misunderstand TIIS when you say something like “TIIS is subjectively relative”. TIIS can ONLY be OBJECTIVE in nature. Otherwise TIIS is impossible. The problem and paradox is objectivity.

TIIS requires a subject-object reconciliation. Otherwise you cannot understand the difference between noumena and phenomena, by words, definition, math, metaphor, anyway at all.

In order to properly comprehend TIIS, you must question and revise the subject-object division.

Precicely, TIIS is always impossible.

There is no such goddamn thing. There are only things as they relate to subjectivity.

Why do you guys do this? I gave the answer… and now everyone is slowly arguing to my point ever so slowly. Just give it up and accept it. I installed a fucking elevator, screw the million steps to the top. Next everyone is going to be jumping into dividing aesthetics from probability theory in terms of epistemology, and then bringing up metric and paradox, and I’m going to before to light myself on fire in protest.

This shit isn’t hard to figure out. Two loafs of brain, and seemingly one concept. The thing perceived is empirical, but also quite real. The means to judging it is in flux. You can however measure the flux. That’s just fucking all you gotta know. No more of this silliness. No more ‘he means this’ no… ‘he means that’… it comes out in this way in the end.

Oh… and don’t forget Cezar is typing words. Someone needs to respond to him, cause he keeps posting as if somehow this was all related to him and his posts.

I dunno CN… your psychological layer is too heavy. I prefer light-footedness over… certain fields. In fact, your use of psychological terms is usually what thwarts our attention spans (raise your hand if you have ever been diagnosed with ADD or ADHD).

Also, the “he meant” is the closest we can get to having a conversation with a dead man we very much respect. Nietzsche didn’t write a bible, he wrote an analysis.

Aww. No one wants to talk to you.

How is it always impossible? TIIS is just another way of saying ‘the real world.’

N just isn’t concerned about paying attention to it, because even though we’ve deduced that far, we have no way of knowing our deduction is correct. Even though Kant basically says it’s a logical eventuality.

Oh yeah?

Like what?