Which is First?

[Alf]

I don't know what VO is and I do not know a great deal about Nietzsche otherwise I agree.

VO is Vanity Occultism.

[Sauwelios]

I wasn't going to respond (to Arminius) anymore, but this trolling of his kind of forces my hand:

Sauwelios is in a dilemma. If he admits that logic is before ethics, then he also admits that Nietzsche was partly wrong, but he does not want to admit that Nietzsche was partly wrong.

I promptly acknowledge that Nietzsche was partly wrong. He wasn't wrong about this issue, though (possibly about some details regarding it, but not about the fundamentals).

The modernity of philosophy is a philosophy of ethics. Okay. But this does not prove that ethics comes before logic - the reverse is true, because it gives evidence for the developmental fact that logic comes before ethics.

So if Sauwelios admitted this, then he would have to give up his idol (false god) Nietzsche who was justifiably a famous philosopher of the modern times of philosophy. I know that this is an imposition for Sauwelios. But maybe - someday - he will learn just from Nietzsche at last, because Nietzsche at least seemed to give up his idol at last.

The historical development of the philosophical question of our current subject - "logic comes before ethics" - can be called "modern war of philosophy" and has a parallel in science: "modern war of science". On the one "war front" ("left") are fighting ethical philosophers and social scientists, and on the other "war front" ("right") are fighting logical philosophers and natural scientists and spiritual (especially logical, mathematical) scientists. (Note: There are also "spies", "renegates", "defectors", "deserters" in that said "war".) - If the ethical-social side will "win" that "war", then the science as we have known it and will have known it till then will be finally "dead".

So? That only means modernity will be over--and it's always been highly questionable whether modernity be a good thing.

Calling logicians and mathematicians "spiritual" scientists is pathetic, especially coming from a German(-speaker).

Nietzsche was of course the father of postmodernism (which doesn't mean he was himself a postmodernist, even as he wasn't himself an existentialist. Nietzsche overcame postmodernism and existentialism before those terms were coined, but he was misunderstood--especially by Heidegger).

::

Something is not "nonsense" just because it's possible to think deeper, to elaborate on it.

It is, because you have not thought deeper and not elaborated on it.

The reason that what I said is nonsense just because it's possible to think deeper, to elaborate on it, is that I haven't thought deeper or elaborated on it? That makes no logical sense, buddy.

And how do you know I haven't thought deeper on it, or elaborated on it elsewhere?

The child will indeed first have to have learned that "bad", "not allowed" etc. mean that the kind of behaviour of which that is predicated tends to be followed by experiences that are unpleasant for the child.

So you admit that logic comes before ethics. Okay. :)

Premiss 1: "If I behave like this, that and that will probably happen."
Premiss 2: "I do not want that and that to happen."
Conclusion: "I will not behave like this."

Makes sense. But then you should also believe that dogs think logically when they are conditioned (the so-called "Pavlov response")...

By the way, premiss 1 rests on what may be a great stupidity:

"The question 'why' is always a question after the causa finalis [final cause], after the 'what for?' We have no 'sense for the causa efficiens [efficient cause]': here Hume was right; habit (but not only that of the individual!) makes us expect that a certain often-observed occurrence will follow another: nothing more! That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force--in will, in intention--it is the belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the 'subject.' Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?" (Nietzsche, Will to Power 550, Kaufmann trans.)

Habit, by the way, falls squarely in the domain of ethics. "Habit" is after all a synonym of "custom", and the morality of custom (Sittlichkeit der Sitte) is the oldest morality.

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." (Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories".)

This does mean ethics is preceded by--aesthetics...

Nobody said that here.

I'm saying it now. "Unpleasant" is an aesthetic judgment.

"In its more technically epistemological perspective, [aesthetics] is defined as the study of subjective and sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics)

"[Axiology] is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics--philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth--or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology)

The ONLY "argument" you have is "Nietzsche". But Nietzsche was not always right, as you should know.

The typical dismissal of those who cannot deal with the content of my quotes.

It does not matter whether it is typical or not, because you are in any case more typical than most others here (including me).

And what you are saying here has nothing to do with dealing with the "content" of your posts. It is just that I am not always in the mood to talk about the words of your god.

I asked you to consider that passage from "On Truth and Lies". Did you? And if so, do you not consider it most sensible?

I did.

That answers my first question, but not my second.

You were willing to read that passage, but are unwilling to talk about it?

Also: If you try to teach a child "to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself", then the child will always ask "why?" (if not "what does that mean?" [see above]). So without referring to logic you will always (always!) be unsuccessful, because you will not be capable of giving an answer to the child without referring to logic.

If by "logic" you're referring to the logos in the sense of a (walking) stick, as I have investigated in my videos...

"Don't do that!"
--"Why not?"
[Smack]

:?:

Yeah, the word I was looking for was "explored", not "investigated". And I should probably have written "[whack]" instead of "[smack]". Or "'because I say so!'"

The stick is still the "trump card" of the Indian warrior caste. It's like magic!

"India Untouched", 45:43 f.

We use language in order to teach, and we use just the logical part of language in order to teach. And even more so in the case of ethics, because ethics can only be taught by using logic.

If ethics can only be taught by using logic, how can logic be taught?

Did you never learn logic?
Are you that ignorant?
Or are you just joking? :P

Logically, logic cannot be taught by using logic... at least not only; at least not the fundamentals.

And how do we learn language? Our first words--"mama", "papa" and the like--are sounds we utter spontaneously, without referring to anything; it's only because our parents tend to use them to refer to themselves that they come to refer to anything. Later, our parents/guardians will point to things while saying words, and we're encouraged to imitate those sounds (not typically with a stick, by the way, but with a carrot: the joy our parents express at us when we get it right, or even when we get it only partially right--wrong in a funny way).

What you are saying is always the same:

[...]

That is no argument.

Forget the last German romanticist, leave the 19th century and be welcomed in the 21st century, Sauwelios! :)

That's grand, coming from someone who thinks Kant is the greatest philosopher. Or have you come around on that since http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2531041#p2531041?

I was referring to af fact, the fact that you are always using the quotes of your false god and some of his translators (also always the same).
Again. I am not always in the mood to talk about them. Okay?

Okay man, whatever you say.

You said there that you were not a Kantian, but a historian of philosophy. But it's precisely as a historian that you are lacking. Where's your solution to the problem posed by historicism?

If you had the tiniest idea of what history is could be, then you would know that history has not much to do with solutions, unless they themselves are historical objects (but this is not the case here).

I wasn't referring to history "proper", but to philosophy of history--this is ILovePhilosophy, after all. Strauss immediately continues:

"In a word, the difficulty indicated compels Heidegger to elaborate, sketch or suggest what in the case of any other man would be called his philosophy of history."

Nietzsche was not Heidegger, and his philosophy should indeed be called a philosophy of history:

"In contradiction to Pascal, whom he unwaveringly read and loved, Nietzsche equates the God of the philosophers with the God of the Christian faith, because theology and the Church have fused Christian faith and metaphysics into an undissolvable unity since Clement of Alexandria at the latest. With the death of God and the end of metaphysics, however, very much more begins to totter than one should think on superficial consideration. Nietzsche teaches--and in this he is a student of Hegel's--that the whole of European culture, its religion, but also its morality and, last but not least, European science rest on the foundation of that metaphysics from which they have sprung. If God is dead, a priori knowledge loses its basis and the categories lose their validity. Logic is then no longer true but a system for the production of fictions, and all the principles of morality are put into question and shaken, indeed, turned over into their opposite. Nietzsche is far removed from wanting to bring about this process of the great catastrophe of European culture with his philosophy. Already in 'Things Human, All Too Human' does he refer to his philosophy as 'historical philosophy'. History is the essential content of his philosophy, and therefore he can characterize his prediction of European nihilism and its terrible consequences by the paradoxical concept of a historiography that does not recount the past, but anticipates the future." (Georg Picht, Nietzsche, "By way of an introduction: the philosopher as (at)tempter", my translation.)

"Like Heidegger, I too depart from a fundamental thesis [..., namely] that, through Nietzsche, history has become the sole content of philosophy." (op.cit., page 15.)

"[T]he full phenomenon of a cow is for a Hindu constituted much more by the sacredness of the cow than by any other quality or aspect. This implies that one can no longer speak of our 'natural' understanding of the world; every understanding of the world is 'historical.' Correspondingly, one must go back behind the one human reason to the multiplicity of historical, 'grown' not 'made,' languages. Accordingly there arises the philosophic task of understanding the universal structure common to all historical worlds. Yet if the insight into the historicity of all thought is to be preserved, the understanding of the universal or essential structure of all historical worlds must be accompanied and in a way guided by that insight. This means that the understanding of the essential structure of all historical worlds must be understood as essentially belonging to a specific historical context, to a specific historical period. The character of the historicist insight must correspond to the character of the period to which it belongs. The historicist insight is the final insight in the sense that it reveals all earlier thought as radically defective in the decisive respect and that there is no possibility of another legitimate change in the future which would render obsolete or as it were mediatise the historicist insight. As the absolute insight it must belong to the absolute moment in history." (Straussthus: Nietzsche,"Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy", with my emphasis.)

Nietzsche [duh!] solved the difficulty indicated here, by his philosophy of the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power.

Sauwelios, I have nothing against Nietzsche. I have something against the fact that it is not you who is talking when you are "talking". Nietzsche was a human being that lived in the 19th century. He has done many great things and some silly things. He is important for the history of philosophy, of literature, but he is certainly not that god that you obviously see in him.

He's not just important for the history of philosophy, but also and especially for the present and future of philosophy. That is, not just for philosophy's--and mankind's--past history, but also for their present and future history.

"Whereas in Kant the apriority of reason is condition of the possibility of designing, through the change carried out by Nietzsche the design becomes the condition of the possibility of reason. The model from which the essence of the design can be read, however, is still the experiment. Hence philosophy as a whole must now emerge as an attempt, for the attempt is the design of the open horizons for the future forms of thinking and acting. The attempt is the design of the possibilities of the future history of mankind. [...]
If the attempt is understood as the design of the future possibilities of historic existence [Dasein--Picht had just mentioned Heidegger], the experiment carried out here can no longer be interpreted as if the experimenter stood toward the experiment he conducts as an impartial observer. In this design he designs his own possibility. The carrying-out of his own life [or living--Leben] is the attempt. [...]
This [i.e., life conceived as a means of knowledge or cognition (Erkenntnis)] is the total sublation [Aufhebung] of the traditional distinction between theory and practice. Since Nietzsche, every thinking is reactionary which does not venture to accomplish the entire life of him who thinks as an experiment of the knower, as a designing [Entwerfen, lit. "unthrowing oneself"] into the future possibilities of human history." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 72.)

[Fixed Cross]

I don't know what VO is and I do not know a great deal about Nietzsche otherwise I agree.

VO is Vanity Occultism.

No, it means Value Ontology.
It'll be a bit tricky to discern proper sources from fake ones - all the trolls on these boards have attached themselves to VO and are incessantly working to invent their own meanings.

For a lot of them it is frustrating that a great degree of capacity for protracted reasoning is required, hence they call it "vanity", after the Vanir - he highest Nordic Gods, and "Occultism" in the sense that it is hidden to most, since it involves reason.

Anyway, just playing.
VO gets a lot of attention, mostly it is people who are frustrated that its not as simple as they would like life to be, but sometimes someone capable of handling it will turn up. Were at about 8/10 people now that have cultivated methods with it.

Sauwelios - a great bear can be moved my a swarm of mosquitos -
I should thank the mosquitos. That is a beautiful post.

There is no chance that the troll you responded to will be able to read it, and so much the better - our writing is here for the occasional thinker that stumbles on it. We may have more friends than Nietzsche did, but the vast majority of people still absolutely hate the fact that their cranium contains so inconveniently much brain matter. They mostly use that matter to have it obstruct its own function - another thing explained by VO; A drab, dumb person can simply not value intelligence.

N's ideas about the ER as a selective mechanism, a fitness determinator, apply to VO as well, it has been apparent since 2011 - all the most ostensibly unwholesome types rush on stage to do their little desecration dance with it, unwittingly making the most preposterous and unsalvageable messes of themselves - where the most ostensibly intelligent types have all adopted it in one way or another.
Some of the latter have been producing their own parallel theories, none of which however is as dynamic as VO - and reality.

I dont counteract all the attempts at obscuring the doctrine for simple reasons of utility. It will be beneficial for me in the long run if there are a lot of inferior versions of the theory around; the actual logic will cut through them all like a hot knife through butter. This is why I expect of people that want to actually learn the logic to seek it out on their own strength. It is in terms of this strength that they will learn the meaning. I killed intellectual neutrality.

[James S Saint]

Calling logicians and mathematicians "spiritual" scientists is pathetic, especially coming from a German(-speaker).

Actually, it is merely that you have a perverted sense of "spiritual" .. pathetically un-philosophical.

Nietzsche was of course the father of postmodernism (which doesn't mean he was himself a postmodernist, even as he wasn't himself an existentialist. Nietzsche overcame postmodernism and existentialism before those terms were coined, but he was misunderstood--especially by Heidegger).

Oh gyahd .. give it a break. "Postmodern" refers to after 1980. Nietzsche died 3-4 generations before then, even before actual modernism (circa 1900).

[Fixed Cross]

Calling logicians and mathematicians "spiritual" scientists is pathetic, especially coming from a German(-speaker).

Actually, it is merely that you have a perverted sense of "spiritual" .. pathetically un-philosophical.

Nietzsche was of course the father of postmodernism (which doesn't mean he was himself a postmodernist, even as he wasn't himself an existentialist. Nietzsche overcame postmodernism and existentialism before those terms were coined, but he was misunderstood--especially by Heidegger).

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.

[James S Saint]

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)?

The dates of the Modernist movement (itself a problematic term, as there was in no sense a singular, consolidated, “movement”) are sometimes difficult to determine. The beginning of the 20th century is an extremely convenient starting point.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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)

[James S Saint]

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.

Just more of your lies and unsubstantiated BS. How pathetic can you get.

[James S Saint]

Logic requires a consistency of discernment and type of decisions.
Logic can not provide this consistency.

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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'.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

Well that was informative.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

ethos (n.)
"the 'genius' of a people, characteristic spirit of a time and place," 1851 (Palgrave) from Greek ethos "habitual character and disposition; moral character; habit, custom; an accustomed place,"

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.

[James S Saint]

"A"="A" is an ethics.

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.

Your lack of ethics, consistency

You are the definition of it. How many times have you blatantly lied about ME? - TOO Many.

[Fixed Cross]

"A"="A" is an ethics.

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.

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.

Logic is ONE Ethic that is recommended, once a society actually forms in order to have a need for ethics.

Again, logic is a high form of ethics, requiring several standards in play at once.

Your lack of ethics, consistency

You are the definition of it.

I am the definition of your lack of ethics. That is uncannily true.

[James S Saint]

"A"="A" is an ethics.

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.

No, it is a definition.

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.

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.

Now you are just off in the weeds again.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[James S Saint]

We managed to arrive at logic despite language - Nietzsche did this by appointing a supreme term.
Will to power.

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.

[surreptitious57]

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

[Arminius]

The main reason why it is not possible to discuss something with Nietzscheanists is that they are too fundamentalistic, just too extremely religious: they believe in Nietzsche as their god, their false god. Even a Nietzschean as the one who is not that religious like them is their enemy, their "heather“.

[Arminius]

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)?

Indeed. He does not know what he is saying.

Ignorance and arrogance - the result of his drug abuse. First it was only ignorance.

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.

untab

Jakob's first lesson.

the_guide_to_ilp_rhetoric.jpg (48.97 KiB) Viewed 401 times

Jakob's second lesson.

the_guide_to_internet_rhetoric.jpg (48.92 KiB) Viewed 401 times

Jakob's third lesson.

the_guide_to_a_certain_rhetoric.jpg (51.74 KiB) Viewed 401 times

Jakob's last lesson.

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.

Just more of your lies and unsubstantiated BS. How pathetic can you get.

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.

We managed to arrive at logic despite language - Nietzsche did this by appointing a supreme term.
Will to power.

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 "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.

Exactly.

That is what all those Nietzscheanists will never understand (but Nietzsche or some Nietzscheans certainly would), because Nietzscheanists do not know what logic means, are too fundamentalistic, just too extremely religious ... (see above).

It seems that they are not capable of thinking, that they are merely capable of believing, having faith in their false god. And this although their false god himself has said that faith means "not wanting to know what is true“ (translated by me). Thus they do not know what their idol wanted them to be, to do, to live for.



They are just too dumb. When I joined ILP I had sympathy for Nietzsche. After merely three days, having had contact with Nietzscheanists on ILP, this sympathy for Nietzsche was eliminated by Nietzscheanists (!). Later I started to get some sympathy for Nietzsche again, but each time when I talked to a Nietzscheanist the just gotten sympathy was blowing away again.

Nietzscheanists are not capable of missionizing either.

Thank you, idiotic trolls.
_____________________