No, for as a Nietzschean, I
“see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the “martial society.””
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]
It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.
You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won’t work. In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste. The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday. There are deaths and there is so much destruction along with the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction the size of which could destroy much of the population that I do not want to get into an intellectual debate about the tendency to war. Our world is on the brink of a catastrophe, and I am not willing to discuss an abstract intellectual debate when I am much more interested in a practical solution that can save many lives.
[laughing]
Busted Jenny! Empty your bookbag and reach for the sky!
No but seriously. There is only your will, PG. You must rise up like a pheonix from its ashes. Rise up, PG, and demand that Sauwelios obey you!
I am laughing. 
But seriously, without understanding these principles in full, which does take understanding the economic system, you cannot try to put ideas from previous philosophers and apply it to this knowledge. It won’t work and it’s a waste of time. I like you all but I need people who are not ready to put up their dukes over something they feel is a threat in some way. Believe me, this is not a threat to anyone; it only prevents our desire to strike a first blow (doing something to others that they don’t want done to themselves).
I cannot put aside my ideas, as that would mean to put aside myself. And it is not just knowledge, but a worldview.
Isn’t there? Is everyone of equal rank in today’s military?
Sure: on television…
Why save lives - do they have value?
They might not have personal value, but they have intrinsic value. Even if you say this couldn’t work because I don’t think people have value; you would never be able to strike a first blow under these conditions, and this goes for every person. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. No matter how you slice it, when this immutable law is applied on a worldwide scale, it will allow man to prevent what military might and punishment could not. But the discovery MUST BE UNDERSTOOD. Can you explain the two-sided equation off the top of your head? I’m sure you can’t by the questions you are asking.
My “philosophy” is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.
Sorry, I thought you meant the modern Western world by “this world” - not your utopia.
But I want them to come into play, I don’t want there to be no more international conflict, as peace leads to mediocrity and nihilism. I am concerned with the joy of the Overman, not with the happiness of mankind!
I don’t need to read the entire book, as I have already found flaws in its foundation (which means that if all people believe in determinism, this will not preclude there from being “first blows”).
I am not talking about shows. I am contending that we only see war on television, in the newspapers, etc.
Your “discovery” is the idea that, if one believes in determinism, one cannot shift responsibility to other people or things, and therefore must bear it oneself. As I have shown, this is a flawed argument, as determinism - the absence of free will - precludes any responsibility whatsoever.
To the contrary: they may have personal value, but they sure as Hell do not have intrinsic value.
Even better: I can quote it for you:
“This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do, everybody else knows that you are not to blame because you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your existence.”
There is only one side to this equation, as the other side is flawed: I do not know that I am completely responsible for everything I do, as this is simply not true.
“Now if you know absolutely and positively that not only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way because you know we are compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever hold you responsible, criticize or question your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control?”
This train of reasoning is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sadism. The sadist does not derive his pleasure from his victim’s blaming him, but from his observation of his victim’s suffering. There will still be suffering even when it is known that nobody is to blame; consequently, there will also still be pleasure at the suffering of others.
That is true in the world in which we live because people are sociopaths and have become sadists. But this is not how we are born. Eventually people who have no conscience, who like to see others suffer, will die out and a new generation will be born. Mental illness will one day be a thing of the past.
No, that is nonsense. My perspective is a function of what I am. You cannot ask a beaver to put his beaverhood aside for a moment and contemplate a question objectively. It is really quite outrageous of you to think that this is possible.
Sheer arrogance: this “proof” turns out to be a flawed argument.
By the way, I am not one of those who want to “solve the various problems of human relation”. I don’t want an utopia.
I don’t believe in God.
That is yet to be seen.
I don’t want to eliminate those things. I want suffering to increase a thousandfold, as only suffering brings man to the pinnacles of his genius.
Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?
That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.
But this will is a passion, something passive - something suffered. It is something that arises, that is aroused. I cannot choose whether to will something or no.
Not so much lack of understanding as mental illness: for I do not have such a conscience. I am a sociopath! But whoever said sociopaths can’t be truthful?
Why do you call yourself a sociopath? Maybe you have a mental illness and maybe you have been damaged by society, but this still doesn’t mean you would be able to act out aggression under these conditions. And if you did, you would have to be taken off the streets, just like they do today, except without blame.
I suppose what I would want first is an overview. A list of the chapter titles and then a short description of each chapter and the reasoning behind the progression of chapters.
This would allow me to chose what chapters I want to read. If there is a chapter, for example, about “God”, I would know immediately not to read it since I stay away from that stuff. 
If, say, Chapter Seven has “The Three Main Points”, I might skip to that.
If the argument is that every word must be read successively to understand the point, then the point is too complicated and will fail. Not that complication makes things always fail, it’s just that we’re talking about something that is supposed to be accessible to the everyone on the planet, right? It shouldn’t be much more complicated than “Love One Another”.
I am a Nietzschean, and according to Nietzsche “there are no philosophies, only philosophers”. So my philosophy is indistinguishable from what I am. You are asking me to put my Sauwelioshood aside for a moment - ah, like so many others!
As I said, I don’t believe in a “God” (an “infinite intelligence guiding our planet”).
How would you know?
Exactly: and that part of the equation is flawed!
Again, what do you mean by “we”? This is how I first meant the question. Are you a substance dualist? If not, you must agree that “we” consist completely of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, and that we are therefore fully determined by it (even before the first blow). Or do you believe there is a ghost in the machine that is somehow separate from it and can yet influence (indeed, even control) it? Making it not even a “real” ghost (which would move right through the machine if it tried to exert force on it)?
“The mathematical concept of the person”… Pray tell me, then: where does the person begin? Where does it end? Is the person its body? Or is it somehow separate? You need not answer this if you already answered my questions about the ghost in the machine above.
There is no “you”; your body is just part of the stream of events that resulted in my (body’s) being hit.
Why should I care about my family? And what about the person who doesn’t have any family? Don’t bring family into it - let’s rephrase it as follows:
“If you knew that by raping someone, you would be killed instantly, would you be able to control your passion?”
That would probably be a factor in the equation. I don’t think it would matter, though, to anyone really overwhelmed by passion (as in “crimes” of passion). Though it would then probably rather be killing than raping.
Only if one is still thinking rationally enough to weigh such things against each other.
Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?
“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not
free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of
greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make
man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do - for over this he
has absolute control – let us observe what miracle happens when these two
laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because
I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal
my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and
‘turn the other cheek’, and open the door to this new world.â€
At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot called here,
and are constantly in the process of moving to there. You know as a matter
of positive knowledge that nothing has the power, that no one can cause or
compel you to do anything against your will; and this other, who is standing
on this spot called there to where you plan to move from here also knows
positively that you cannot be blamed anymore for your motion from here to
there because the will of man is not free. This is a very unique two-sided
equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible
(MEANING THAT WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE,
NOT SOMETHING ELSE)
for everything you do, everybody else knows that you
are not to blame
because you are compelled to move in the direction
of greater satisfaction
during every moment of your existence
(this proves that man’s will is not free and by not
being blamed you are compelled to accept what is
your responsibility. This in no way contradicts the fact
that man’s will is not free).
Now if you know absolutely and positively that not
only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish
you for hurting me in some way because you know we are
compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely
beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think
very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus
far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any
satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt
when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one,
including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever
hold you responsible, criticize or question your action,
ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be
considered a compulsion beyond your control?
(We know there are sociopaths that are so damaged
that their conscience will not control their desire to
strike out at others even with the change in our environment
to no blame, but this is a rare occurrence and will become
more rare with of passage of time. This does not negate
the validity of this discovery).
Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet, (the new condition of no blame changes the entire landscape of human relations thus changing the determinants that compell one to choose one thing over another; if you don’t understand this then you must reread the author’s definition of determinism, which cannot be denied if understood) and you know (this is the other side
of the equation) as a matter of undeniable knowledge
that absolutely nothing can compel you to hurt me unless you
want to, for over this you have mathematical control;
consequently, your motion, your decision as to what
is better for yourself is still a choice between two
alternatives – to hurt me or not to hurt me.
And when it fully dawns on you that should you go ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now
understands is a compulsion beyond your control –
ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL
AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT
ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO –you are compelled,
completely of your own free will (your desire), to reliquish
this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so
under these conditions.
Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive
knowledge that no one in the entire world is going to blame you or question
your conduct, is it possible for you to make others culpable, to extenuate the
circumstances, to lie or try to shift your responsibility in any way?
As was
just demonstrated, it is not possible, just as the same answer must apply to
the question is it possible to make two plus two equal five.
[b]How can you shift what you know you have done,
whether intentional or unintentional, when no one is holding you responsible?
This proves
conclusively that the only time you can say, “I couldn’t help myself because
my will is not freeâ€, or offer any kind of excuse, is when
you know you are
being blamed for this allows you to make this effort to shift your
responsibility. Let me explain this in still another way.
When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do, it also
means that you must assume complete responsibility for everything you do
since you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions [how can you shift the blame to someone else when you are not being blamed? Again this is impossible. Try to do it and you will see it cannot be done].
We have become so confused by words in logical relation that while we
preach this freedom of the will we say in the same breath that we could not
help ourselves, and demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that
the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility when
instead it does the exact opposite. Did you ever see anything more
ironically humorous? The only time you can use the excuse that your will
is not free is when the world believes it is free. The world of free will has
allowed people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift
responsibility away from themselves when questioned. Many philosophers
have gotten confused over this one point because they believe that a world
without blame would make matters worse, decreasing responsibility and
giving man a perfect opportunity to take advantage of others without having
to worry about consequences. But this can only occur when man knows he
will be blamed, which allows him to come up with reasonable excuses.
How is it possible to come up with excuses when one is already excused?
That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.
Who is disagreeing with this? There is only one possible
course of events and there could never have been two
parallel worlds. There is only one world, but what changes
when this law becomes a condition of the environment [when all blame and punishment are removed], is that mankind will veer in a completely direction but still acting according to his nature.
This law PROVES that man’s will is not free; what changes
are the determinants. You are confused over the second part
of the two-sided equation but hopefully you will put on your
thinking cap and stop using your knowledge as the frame of reference. [You will resist
this knowledge if you feel threatened in some way but I am working
with you because I believe you are sincerely trying to understand].
Then you will easily grasp what is written. You certainly have the capacity.
I have already replied to this. I think it is absolute nonsense. What do you mean by “make up his mind”? To sincerely intend? But intention is only a very small part of the equation (a conscious part - but most of what we do and decide happens unconsciously).
Does man have absolute control over his mind? I think not. And anyway, how do you distinguish “man” from his “mind”? Do you mean that his body has absolute control over his mind? Or his mind? But his mind cannot control itself, it can only be that a part of his mind controls another (different) part of his mind.
But I never do anything that I am responsible for, as I have no free will.
I don’t have to.
Ah, I have it now. You are not sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience…). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I side with Membrain. While I’m curious because of how you trumped it up, I have plenty of other books to choose from. Since many of those are recognized as well-assembled and influential, a book posted on an internet forum by an author who is unnamed (I don’t think you’ve named him, anyway) needs to work pretty hard to get me to commit. I read the intro, and skimmed a lot of the rest, and it honestly didn’t seem to be going anywhere I haven’t been before.
What are you trying to show?
You are right. You can’t have free will and determinism at the same time, this is true. I am not contradicting the FACT that man’s will is not free. I don’t know if you will continue to listen, but if you do, as I said before, you will get it. Until then, you must put your preconceptions aside.
It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can’t be proven wrong and you will know this once you grasp the principles entirely. It is more complicated than “Love One Another”. We have been saying that for years and it doesn’t always work, BUT THIS KNOWLEDGE DOES WORK.
Less satisfaction does not mean no satisfaction.
But I don’t have a block. I don’t even believe in free will! But the consequence of the absence of free will is that nobody is responsible.
Nietzsche’s Greek society need not be a free will society. So that doesn’t get in the way. As for my definition of determinism: please give me an accurate definition that leaves room for responsibility.
I know I can’t, but then again I don’t have to, so it isn’t a problem that I can’t. I am not blaming myself (and neither is my conscience).
But I know I am not responsible for it, as I don’t have free will.
Only the former applies here. There is nothing that is unjustifiable in this scenario, as everything is justified (or rather, neither justified nor unjustified, as the whole concept of “justice” is senseless in this scenario).
My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to “win” the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.