Actually, it is merely that you have a perverted sense of “spiritual” … pathetically un-philosophical.
Oh gyahd … give it a break. “Postmodern” refers to after 1980. Nietzsche died 3-4 generations before then, even before actual modernism (circa 1900).
What are we going to do with this obscene degree of ignorance?
Lets just let these guys troll on a bit, Sauwelios. Dit is echt te dom om los te lopen.
Ignorance of what exactly, or are you just too damn drugged up to know what you are saying (again)?
Ignorance of all you mentioned. Its too much, Im serious.
I don’t know who is telling you stories about drugs, I assume you’re on KTS now. That s low even for you.
New people:
So what you will get now, if they don’t scare off, is the trolls throwing some insults at the real posters and doing their best to obscure the fact that they are never addressing any issues, and never using a logical argument.
Back to topic though.
Logic requires a consistency of discernment and type of decisions.
Logic can not provide this consistency.
It is not necessarily logical that one would want to use logic, for one.
It would be logical if it were sure to lead to the sort of values that one values.
This is a matter of ethics.
Why use logic? Because of certain values. (terrain: ethics)
How use logic? By upholding a certain standard. (terrain: ethics)
Just more of your lies and unsubstantiated BS. How pathetic can you get.
Logic IS “consistency”. That is all that “logic” means - the “logged”, “docked”, unchanging", “consistent”.
And without consistency in thought, no one can even know what ethics" means. much less study it.
Because ones capacity for both axioms and consistency in logical argument relies on ones control of ethics (integrity, etc) we can see that those who do not understand ethics to be prior to logic are entirely incapable of addressing the logical arguments that those that do present them with; that is to day, those that argue for logic to be prior aren’t actually arguing at all, but writing strings of unrelated statements.
No. Because “ethics” does NOT mean “self-control”, “discipline”, “having standards”, or even “integrity”.
All of those things are your particular bias concerning what YOU believe GOOD ethics are. But that is only YOUR version, opinion, preference. It has nothing to do with what ETHICS actually entails.
It is an utter disgrace that at best 10 percent od Sauwelios writing is being quoted so as to be directly responded to by his challengers - a disgrace for them of course - it is a sign that 90 percent of his responses are too difficult for them to engage.
Parallel to this we have the 90 percent of his challengers posts that consist of nagging and trying to find ways to prickle, to win the emotional battle, to exasperate the thinker.
The opposition in 2001 was stronger though. Well, back then we were the opposition.
All these posts of mine here are largely ethics. Exhibition of standard vs standard - my ethics versus those of the ones that can not attain to logic;
self-assertion is required to hold a position. A position is necessary for positivism. Positivism is the paradigm of logic.
Oh, try posting without looking into the mirror. Your effort to create heroes, especially of yourself, is kind of pathetic.
To say that 1+1=2, we need to lay a lot of groundwork.
This groundwork is the formulation of standards, which is always done with non-abstracts; real consistencies.
This can be a wide range of things, from a physical object always falls with the same acceleration, or a symbol that is always drawn the same, etc.
“A”=“A” is an ethics. It may be or seem self-evident, but that doesn’t make it logical.
Logic uses ethical agreements like this in combination with each other.
Logic can be practiced by using this law of identity (ethics) in combination with the decision to try to be able to work with physical quantities of qualities that approximate perfectly equal amounts of the same stuff - physics.
Physics is the bringing about of logical strings of controlled events by strictly upholding several ethics at once, so that the hypothetical event A accurately describes a real event A’, and can be related to hypothetical and real events B and B’.
Well that was informative.
James, you give such. perfect demonstration.
Your lack of ethics, consistency, prevents you from doing the logical thing and abiding by the real-world (empirical, actual) meaning of the term.
It means exactly what I said it means.
Ethics is that which pertains to standards.
An ethos is a standard or set of standards.
A standard is a consistency, a character, a nature.
Yes, it is “AN” ethic. It is one ethic recommended so as to maintain sanity and coherence in society. And what is it’s name? - LOGIC.
Logic is ONE Ethic that is recommended, once a society actually forms in order to have a need for ethics.
You are the definition of it. How many times have you blatantly lied about ME? - TOO Many.
No, it is a definition.
That definition, the law of identity, is one of the requirements of logic. Another requirement is that there is something besides “A”. And there are a bunch of others, some of which are only comprehensible through Nietzsche, Heidegger, Lacan - signifier theory, the destruction of the belief in language, the start of its subjection - to logic. The young Wittgenstein would have liked RM. The later one would have seen its inability to account for the actual gradations of differentiation. Youre a dimension off.
Again, logic is a high form of ethics, requiring several standards in play at once.
I am the definition of your lack of ethics. That is uncannily true.
BS. The definition of ethics has nothing at all to do with laws of logic. Ethics is about social behavior. It is a good idea to be consistent in communication and behavior in society, but that is not the definition of logic, nor of ethics.
Now you are just off in the weeds again.
We managed to arrive at logic despite language - Nietzsche did this by appointing a supreme term.
Will to power.
He identified such a term that could form an logical emerging hierarchy of hypothetical events that resembles the real world.
His work is the constant relaying of the identity between the actual character of specific cases of existence and the hypothesis of will to power.
So that is how a principle is born from the reality of man. Which is the reality Aristotle conveniently circumvented by opting for “A”. It was useful for the time being.
Now, “A” means : a quantum of will to power. An minimum of WtP, of which I have no clue if it is infinitesimal or an actual physical minimum; there is no way to know, and it doesn’t matter. We seek only to understand how a thing comes into being and how it proceeds through becoming until its merges with its environment in a larger becoming, not anything a priori to being.
I do not presuppose a logic before being - being is predicated only partially and then only very passively, by the lack of necessity of its opposite.
I rather allow myself to restrict myself to define that which, if there is being, must be its most fundamental character.
Where WtP is the filling in of the equation “A”=“A” as WtP matches WtP,
VO is the inquisition imposed on the = sign, so as to discover how one quantum matches another. How exactly is the match established? What is the criterium? This criterium is the same thing as the origin of the uncovering of the logic of quality from the insufficiency of purely quantitative reasoning to ground itself.
On the stock market the law of identity pertains to the technical analysis, which is to say the graph, the moving post-facto distribution of forces, where value ontology pertains to the fundamentals, the nature of the company and the climate of the economy - the qualitative background of the technical analysis, which is analogous to Rational Metaphysics.
As they say, when news breaks, charts go out the window. Fundamentals are what I interested in, how to predict those without having to go in and do forensics. Thats how I arrived at the concept of valuing. Its the most accurate all round identifier, completely inevitable as a standard for every bit of logical equation you can build.
Wow. After all this time, you STILL have no idea what Nietzsche meant by “will to power” … damn.
It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Logic.
That is why I told you to stop worshiping people of the past.
Logic is a system that can be taught because its rules are universal and objective. That is to say they are true for everyone
Ethics is not a system that can be taught because its rules are arbitrary and subjective. That is to say the ethics of one will
not be the same as the ethics of everyone. This is the basic difference between them and so logic cannot come from ethics