Now you’ve pushed me over the edge.
There is no metaphysics is Nietzsche.
That was all metaphor.
But I’ll not argue the point. Maybe another time.
Uh oh, now you’ve done it!
Of course, a great deal of Nietzsche’s writing is metaphorical, especially where it is necessarily so: in its heights and depths - this constitutes part of his uniqueness and genius, the other being the ideas he expressed and the profundity of their (spiritual) insight.
the Übermensch is man at the height of his spirituality.
Ah, so now knowledge must be not only certain, but now it must also be absolute and perfect?
more or less - you have taken one sentence that I wrote out of context - and you are now expecting me to follow you down a rabbit hole. Surely you can read more than one sentence at a time?
I’m already too far behind here to catch up. But this caught my eye:
How so? It’s when you arbitrarily stop yourself at some convenient point from finding causes, conditions, and infinite relativities that you fixate on some concept like “god” or “brain function” or “mind” or “oneness” or “twoness” or “emptiness” or whatever it is that floats your boat. I’m not suggesting becoming some anxiety-ridden Woody Allen type constantly seeking answers to unanswerable questions until you have a panic attack. I’m just saying it behooves a person to be aware of their stopping point, because that stopping point has a certain character and a certain outlook and that character and outlook will determine a very limited view of the world and may cause myriads of problems, if not for you at least for others in life. We can at least not take such stopping points so seriously. We don’t have to believe in them.
By the way “you” here doesn’t necessarily mean you. It probably means me. 
That’s my point, anon. These questions exist within a paradigm. If you keep asking the 'why" question, you will eventually leave the paradigm. It’s good to be aware of that. Often, philosophers aren’t.
Cool.
Is the awareness/consciousness a paradigm/perspective itself?
Personally, as soon as I became aware, I had a question about the awareness (when I was 3).
So, I tend to see the awareness as the basic/primordial paradigm.
And just like other perspectives, it seems we can drop it if we wanted (at least for a while). 
In other words, I don’t think it’s possible to see things “as is”, if you wanted to say that we can see things without any perspectives.
But I guess it’s possible to reduce numbers of distorted perspective, if we are aware enough.
Also, according to my observation, not all of us have this primary perspective — awareness — very solidly.
I mean, many of us aren’t very aware. And it often prevents us from being aware of the nature of perspectives. Without it, adopting and dropping perspectives at will isn’t probable.
In short, some of us have more or less fixed (or limited) perspectives and it’s easier to be fanatic and less flexible.
Since it’s like being blind, showing different perspectives produces practically no change in people without enough awareness.
I agree Nah. The thing about perspective is that it can be more or less fluid, more or less flexible, broader or narrower, etc. And accuracy and critical thought aren’t necessarily less fluid, less flexible, narrower… In fact the more accurate view is likely the broader view. At least that’s the way I see it. 
When is everybody going to quit talking about Perspectivism, because it is essentially one of the worst philosophical standpoints of all time.
It’s like concentrated narcissistic-Subjectivism without the consideration of Individuality: a complete slave-mentality.
I don’t even know what perspectivism is. I’m talking about human perspectives.
…which is what, a mere opinion, something unsubstantiated?
Well that’s what I started to address in my posts.
Nah - I guess awareness is a paradigm, but not a conceptual one. It’s just the way we are built. In other words, it’s not a philosophical stance, but a biological fact.
Holy smokes I am also too far behind to catch up with this thread, but I was thinking before that even if a event was caused by randomness or accident the cause and effect principle would still apply here and the chain would not be broken(A3)?
Faust- Would the universal constants, in your opinion, fall into the category of possible “uncaused causes?” Randomly caused, yet leading to a non-random series of cause and effect?
No, I expect you to say things that make sense and defend your points or clarify them. But then according to you I can only read one sentence at a time apparently.
Gosh, I sure like your threads.
More or less - I can’t even find where I said that. I think I was talking about the probvlem of unduction, but I don’t know. But I do know that that comment can mean different things in different contexts. If you can’t be bothered to respond to an entire point, then I cannot answer you.
unduction?
wtf