Philosophy is and has throughout history been the creation of conditions for new, more reality-adapted types of value-positing.
It arises in situations where old values have decayed or become unrealistic.
In this paradigm, there are two types of philosophy.
The first type is possible when old values crumble under new health. Increased power requires greater goals.
The second type is possible when old values have become too difficult to attain. Decreased health requires “more realistic” or “more prudent” goals.
Internet philosophy is mainly a type 2 situation. A pit of decay.
Type 1 internet philosophy mainly occurs around and as an offspring of Nietzsche, who is the main philosophical portal to pre Socratic times.
This post is out of a visceral urge for a vein of type 1 philosophy in an increasingly type 2 environment.
PreSocratic as in before Conscience replaced Power as a criterium for Good.
When Right replaced Great - thus when the question “is might right?” occurred.
I would say that nobility is well identified as ‘power justified to itself’. Not defined, certainly, but it gives us a general direction.
Socrates knew that as an Athenean, an obedient citizen, he was not justified to himself. We must assume this when we read what he says before he happily empties the chalice. In his last act he was justified. I see Socrates as a pessimistic metaphysician; his wit as treacherous. Wit is always treacherous, in a sense of bypassing conventional consequentiality. Nietzsche uses it to opposite ends, but not without getting lost in the woods once in a while. His errors are ornaments to his style and his tastes, we can accept them without wanting to convert them into truths because they are part of the narrative that leads to where we stand. Because I had learned about the nature of my own virtue through Zarathustra, I learned about his errors by seeing hate where I know (some) love. I was granted much more honesty in my early life, I suppose, and my environment was not Christian. Love - positively valuing and valuing that valuing - allows disclosure of the will.
The will of mankind is sick.
[size=95]Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit. For it involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual greatness, independence ought not to be allowed, it causes mischief, even through its desire to do good and practice “justice.” Small spirits must obey–hence cannot possess greatness.
II. Dionysus
1003 (Jan.-Fall 1888)
To him who has turned out well, who does my heart good, carved from wood that is hard, gentle, and fragrant–in whom even the nose takes pleasure–this book is dedicated.
He enjoys the taste of what is wholesome for him;
his pleasure in anything ceases when the bounds of the wholesome are crossed;
he divines the remedies for partial injuries; he has illnesses as great stimulants of his life;
he knows how to exploit ill chances;
he grows stronger through the accidents that threaten to destroy him;
he instinctively gathers from all that he sees, hears, experiences, what advances his main concern–he follows a principle of selection–he allows much to fall through;
he reacts with the slowness bred by a long caution and a deliberate pride–he tests a stimulus for its origin and its intentions, he does not submit;
he is always in his own company, whether he deals with books, men, or landscapes;
he honors by choosing, by admitting, by trusting.
1007 (Spring-Fall 1887)
To revalue values–what would that mean? All the spontaneous–new, future, stronger–movements must be there; but they still appear under false names and valuations and have not yet become conscious of themselves.
A courageous becoming-conscious and affirmation of what has been achieved–a liberation from the slovenly routine of old valuations that dishonor us in the best and strongest things we have achieved.
Difficult question. I think that all the great philosophers I’ve met on the forums have done this to the extent that their conscious symbolic order was a type 2 one and their force compelled them to break it open and, maximally to the extent that type 1 philosophy allows for total coherence (which is not absolute, excess of “Real” is a necessary product of overflowing strength, the actor can not totally integrate the consequences of his actions in the logos that grounds his acts), restructure the order to allow for the logos to be coherent with reality.
But anyone who is able to break open a type 2 order is a type 1 will.
I am not sure, but I sense more type 1 than 2 in your evolution. A calmness pervades your judgments. These are sometimes inaccurate or inadequate in the context, but a philosopher should always be read in his own context, to the background of his life.
You might well advance as a type 1 agent by detailing, by describing, by giving glimpses of the world in which your thoughts were born.
Not so much a narrative, as description of events. Content for your judgments. Philosophy deepens when it starts do engage the particulars around it. How Nietzsche overcame his type 2 environment by engaging Wagner - to see the fear in the summits of glory of the old world, this is to enable the new.
“The butterfly of freedom is born out of the cocoon of fear.”
“Fear is the ground to freedom. Every night, kiss the fear under your feet.”
I rather see it as artistic will.
The second power requires the first power.
I can not see how any form of cooperative endeavor is possible at all without the second type.
Effective cooperation is basically gently coercing each other to do the best each can. Competence is a latent quality, it needs to be propelled into relevance by action toward a purpose. All purposes are aspects of your second category, “might”.
Take this as you will, but please think it through before you judge. I don’t want to get angry on this thread, so I’ll do a ‘3 strikes you’re a foe’ thing from now on.
I am not looking for anyone to agree with me, but I do wish to be understood. Take nothing that isn’t absolutely clear at face value. No statement is independent from its time and place. Put everything I say in the context of the rest of the text. Just friendly pointers to anyone who might feel misjudged by me.
But that is life. We all eat lesser lifeforms.
If we did not deem them lesser we would no sacrifice them for our continued being.
One question a philosopher is faced with is: why am I justified in continuing to live even at the cost of all these millions of lifeforms I burden and destroy?
I am not a humanocentrist. “Humanity” is not a term that implies a very significant standard of equality.
And I definitely do not identify less with other mammals than with the other humans on this planet, nor do I judge their potential as less. For example, a free and healthy jaguars potential to self-value is certainly not less than that of the average obese wife of a stupid patriarch.
My issue is with those who have want the second form of power.
Those who want to control and force.
From my experience, those who seek this second form of power directly don’t ever consider cooperation, or the welfare of the other.
Coerce - To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
If two parties have mutual goals, then neither need be threatened or intimidated into working towards the mutual goal.
The two parties could see, if they cooperate, they could realize their mutual goal with greater efficiency and effectiveness.
I believe your idea of cooperation is tarnished. By modern demonstrations of ‘cooperation’.
Understood.
There’s a difference between no respect and less respect.
We can’t survive without eating other forms of life. To my knowledge, we have no alternatives. Thus, to eat another form of life, is to demonstrate higher respect for the self, than the other.
To have little or no respect for the other, would be if would could completely sustain ourselves on water and sunlight, yet we went around eating other animals alive, because we enjoy the taste or experience.
That would be extremely disrespectful and inconsiderate. I’m confident that there’s people who would engage in the latter activity, even with alternatives.
I do not value or respect that mindset.
My answer to that question:
Justify - to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right + to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded
Right is relative to one’s standards, values and goals.
Objectively, beyond the bias of life, nothing is justified, and nothing is unjustified. All is neutral. It’s only when an objective is set, that things are attributed value relative to that objective.
Life is defined by being self sustaining. Life that does not cater to it’s own survival, dies. Beyond the bias of life, dying is neutral, along with living.
Life is shaped by the demands of the environment. If there was no contribution towards survival due to prioritizing one’s own welfare over the welfare of others, then this attribute wouldn’t become prominent.
Therefore, to prioritize the self over the other, is a reflection of an unrelenting environment. We as individuals did not choose to have this influence, it was chosen for us.
Am I justified in living at the expense of another?
Depends on one’s values and objectives.
I say, yes. I am a healthy, reasonable and honest human being. I am as I am, because the environment influences me so.
I want to live, as most life does. I believe all would act the same if put into this position. Therefore, I wouldn’t hold another responsible, as I do not hold myself responsible for the current state. I’m a determinist.
However, surviving isn’t all I, and other healthy human beings value. I also value the welfare of those around me. This means, that I desire a balance between our interests being met.
I would rather consume a life form that has lived a fair length of time, and experienced what there is to experience, as opposed to one that is in it’s prime.
We need not burden or destroy our environment. We can find a balance, and even be mutually beneficial. We can’t do this effectively with our current practices, yet there are practices that would enable this.
I’d seek this change, as opposed to my or our extinction.
I understand your focus isn’t limited to humans, but your second sentence is a bit confusing to me.
Humanity means humans as a collective, which doesn’t refer to equality.
Or you mean in terms of being humane, in which case, it’s defined by compassion for the suffering. How this undermines equality, is beyond me.
Yes, I can see where you’re coming from.
I sense an underlying distaste for humans (Not every, but generally), which would make attachment to other animals more appealing.
I was specifically trying to reference and focus on the mutual potential among human beings. Meaning, you can grab a child from anywhere, put them in a healthy environment, and the can do great things, to the highest standards.
It’s my argument against people who say, only a few people can ever meet a certain standard of quality. I deny this fundamentally, and all based on this.
Whilst I definitely agree of the potential for other animals to have quality lives, this isn’t my priority as you implied.
I would say if we can’t love our parents, siblings, children and ourselves, then we’ve little hope in loving other lifeforms and treating them with respect.
In an ill attempt to larken… harken
Toghether a synthesis of morns… norms
There’s a traction, without roofing
Buuuut, it couldn’t be as if it could.
By nature it is otherwise.
Otherwise, what is there, their.
They’re their own there.
And yet when they’re her… here.
They’re is, a worse way to be
Being isn’t icing… ising
By all that isn’t holly… holy
They’re theirs only heres… theres… there
And Else wear… wears a sign that says…
A red sign that says… meet… me…
I’m Pat, see, I’m Patrick
Sayn’t dead, sayn’t Patrick dead…
Say it isn’t sewed up…
For a cheap few, you real?
Origins playing…
As if they didn’t flatter… matter.
A few mornings raining…
After the crow cried
And the serve Iers?
The server Iers who…
Serve I, did they… did they see…
What is it that they saw, illed… the ill
In hell, they…
They go for words…
For words that’re of more sense…
Since sense sends similar cents… goodgod
Sent, sent, sent… A was sent…
A was in good hell, they knew it now…
You sound almost like you’ve been reading my posts. I’d be surprised if you were.
I am trying my best. Trying to move forward, but my passed was like dirt. Dirt and a plant.
I consider fear a form of restriction. Without restrictions we would melt. I think that happens to some nihilists, even though most of them still have some restrictions. There are so many different roads leading to this “melting”. One of our main restrictions in life is our ego and memories. Then also the desire to refuse to let go of things. I think will is generally good, and so is restriction. Truth is also important, but would you die just to learn whether it would rain or snow tomorrow? Some “facts” just aren’t important. I think a lot of people don’t recognize this. Also the chance of being wrong means you need to not invest 100% into anything. So philosophers at the surface appear indecisive, compared to the religious. That’s just a bit.
I came to learn some things down the years.
Moving forward is often impossible without truly understanding the past. And understanding the past is often not possible without analyzing it in speaking or writing. We may think we understand, but when we talk about it to someone who has no clue, we notice that much of what we took to be a coherent story is full of holes and hidden emotions on our part. Psychoanalysis is one form of dealing with this, in general trying to describe early conditions and family situations to someone who isn’t familiar with them.
Most of us take much for granted that’s actually pretty bizarre and that holds us back because we take it for granted.
I’m sure I misunderstand, but it seems like you a re saying that fear, as a restriction, is necessary to prevent melting, and then that this melting is caused by fear.
Type 2 philosophy is only the remainder, the slowed-down wave of type 1 philosophy. Life is a continuum in 4D space-time, like a worm stretched out, one end anchored, the other end devouring. What shit it excretes oozes out from pores somewhere in the middle and becomes “history”, or at least “perspective”.
Dionysian will can never die. It can only be transferred up and down.
To try to fool heaven, but for hell; the con. Some umption is detrimental, for cyclically is he in his admonishments of cyclically-ness. It’s a strange pattern how the whys fall, when the hows and wheres have finally come into place.
Types 1 and 2 are separated by the progression of culture, history, ‘nature’. A type 1 philosophy paves the way for the rise of a powerful culture, period of history. It remains intact within the Law/fantasy structure of the culture until, after some centuries, this culture isn’t able to reproduce itself anymore. It then necessarily gives birth to a type 2 philosophy to justify its decay, its decayed state, as the new Good.
I do not think that there is a direct line from type 1 to type 2 - that is, not a philosophical, epistemic line. The two types rely on fundamentally different physiological realities, and the only possible translation between them is history. A=A as applies with type 1 does not equal A=A as applies with type 2.
Of course, in our modern world, types 1 and 2 can exist alongside each other. This also means that peoples between which no meaningful communication is possible can exist alongside each other. We have plenty of examples on this board for that. But even the difference between RM and VO can be seen in this light. RM aims for modesty, the same goals for every man, it warns of danger, it is essentially a scientific form of prudence. VO on the other hand aims for boldness, different goals for each man, it seeks out danger and, if it is prudence, it is the type that translates into honor.
The line between RM and VO is thus a historical one, even though they exist in the same moment.
I agree, that was sort of what i was getting at with “slowed down wave” thing. I also don’t think that it has much to do with the state of decay or non-decay of a culture in which philosophy takes place. Culture is the birthing ground for values, perspectives, and powers; philosophy rises from that. Granted. But philosophy ITSELF is something much different, always a bastard child if ever there was one. Type 2 tries to adjust itself to the extant domain, type 1 never does that shit.
Yep. Psychological types determines the possibilities for type 1s and 2s. That is essentially the ONLY difference: psychological. The nature-character of a being is the ground or lack of ground for truth, that is all.
Beyond the cultural aspect thing, type 1 and 2 are basically models of kinds of psyches. Historically independent, living in death, and contextually bound in their outer extremes, in the horizon lines which they are able to criss-cross. Awakening to itself somehow in this situation type 2 capitulates instinctively, tries to coerce, to join, to justify and to appease, basically aborts itself in a utilitarian orgy of fear and anxiety, whereas type 1 just laughs and says ‘fuck it’, drinks itself to death or does a shit ton of drugs and becomes a hippie. I don’t mean a hippie, i mean a fucking HIPPIE.
Oh yeah, and before it does so, type 1 writes and/or creates a bunch of interesting and original shit, that will probably inevitably guide a bunch of neophytes toward the sweet dark depths of self… type 2 never does anything interesting at all, ever.