Which is First?

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

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“.

Indeed. He does not know what he is saying.

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

Exactly. =D>

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.


When I opened this thread I had the hope someone had done anything else than throw their little turds around.

I have provided a whole array of logical arguments and some beautiful analytic context.

I guess you’re not ungrateful, just unable to do it justice.

Anyway, I don’t write for trolls.

Have a nice day.

eurozine.com/what-does-nietz … ers-today/

Very good read.

I wonder if Freddie would be turning in his grave about now after reading some of these posts? lol

He did say that
One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

but HOW MUCH chaos does it take to bring forth that dancing star?

As much as it takes?

So “Faust” is another account of yours?
That makes five now, as far as I know. Well, if one can’t get any real supporters …

I was going to mention the same thing but then I decided that maybe Jakob did somewhere open another thread, branched out a bit.

I’m beginning to wonder if all of this chaos in here has more to do with semantics than with anything else.

I also intuit that Logic has to necessarily come before Ethics even though it might seem to be a moot issue since anyone who studied Ethics might necessarily have to have a logical mind to begin with or would that be wrong?

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

Back to Top. Logic (from the Greek “logos”, which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.

How does one go about being able to study and grasp hold of certain concepts of ethical moral behavior and distinguish that from unethical moral behavior or any concept except by way of using one’s right reason, one’s logical functions, which include clear cognitive thinking and following all the facts made available and investigating them.

Then there is the work ethic of say self-discipline, hard work, stick-to-it-iveness, focus, et cetera that it takes to achieve one’s desires and goals.

I really think that most of the problem between you guys besides ego is a question of semantics.

When he opened this thread in a window…

Ego killed this thread Arc not semantics and that is a shame because it had some real potential

Arcturus, I pointed out well before all this chaos began that there’s a difference between ethics and Ethics, or between ethics and the study of ethics, respectively. Same for logic and Logic. And yeah, one needs (a) logic–though not necessarily Logic!–to study ethics well. But this “chaos” is more about whether ethics or logic comes first than about whether Ethics or Logic comes first.

Stay tuned for my reply to surreptitious.

Then again, the outcome of this “chaos” could change the answer to the latter question as well. If logic is an ethics, Logic needs to be at least complemented by Ethics in order to truly understand logic: one would need to study logic under Ethics, and only then, when one fully understands where logic originated, how it evolved, etc., should one move on to Logic–i.e., to the study of logic as an independent system.

Stay tuned for my reply to surreptitious.

Actually I had that same stance with Einstein. I had/have nothing against the actual Einstein papers and theories, although the Relativity ontology isn’t entirely coherent. But the worship of it all drives me to be “anti-Einsteinean” and “anti-Relativist”. The good sense within gets lost by the subsequent exaggerated nonsense.

Hey guys, I’m just going to jump in here with both feet because I think this topic is neat.

Well, we need some sensible rationale:

  • what is
  • processing what is (is it good?)
  • prediction based on processing of what is (how can I find more?)
  • develop codes of conduct based on predictions from the processing of what is (should I share?)
  • question what is (what is it really?)

Starting from the top, a progressively higher manner of organism is required to execute the task.

A simple organism can perceive (what is). Even an atom can perceive the presence of charge and react without neural processing. So, perception is most fundamental followed by discernment through a rudimentary network of specialized cells for memory and recognition. Prediction requires a more complex network for statistical processing and ethics is yet more refinement. The pinnacle and full-circle achievement is to develop to the point that reality itself is questioned and we, possibly, start over on another plane of consciousness where ideas are observable objects to be judged, predicted, etc.

How one decides to pigeon-hole arbitrary fields of study into each category is subjective to the semantic interpretation of labels as there seems quite a bit of overlap in some, but I’m thinking:

  • Ontology (what is)
  • Logic (is it good? yes/no, simple binary)
  • Epistemology (how can I find more?)
  • Ethics (should I share?)
  • I’d put metaphysics here because it should encompass phenomenology (is it real?)

Thoughts?

I’ve read about halfway now, and I think the only one worthy of my response is Patton. He says:

“Some of his remarks about women are among the most offensive of Nietzsche’s writings. I take these to be indications of the extent to which he was a man of his time who could not see beyond the existing cultural forms of the sexual division of humankind. Like the vast majority of nineteenth century European men, Nietzsche could not divorce female affect, intelligence and corporeal capacities from a supposed ‘essential’ relation to child-bearing. His views on women are representative of his attitude toward morality and politics in the sense that they are in tension with possibilities otherwise opened up by his historical conception of human nature. For example, at times he recognizes that supposedly natural qualities of women or men are really products of particular social arrangements. We can conclude from this, even if he could not, that these qualities are not natural but open to change. In this domain as in other of his social and political views, he was not able to foresee some of the ways in which the very dynamics of human cultural evolution that he identified could lead us into a very different future.”

Nietzsche was very much able to foresee that. He by no means considered human nature, including human sexual dimorphism (mental as well as physical), as a “given”. But he wanted the eternal recurrence of it, in the sense that natura usque recurrat, “nature keep coming back”. As I wrote elsewhere:

“Hedonistic Transhumanism likewise [i.e., like (Mahayana) Buddhism] wants the bliss of all sentient beings. This is the ‘potentially […] glorious future’ such Transhumanists want to follow life’s ‘grim past’ (David Pearce, 2011 interview in Manniska Plus magazine). But can the future, however ‘glorious’, ever justify the past for such people? If it can, and the future is as glorious as can be, then if that future eventually comes to an end, as it most probably shall, such people should want the eternal recurrence. But the same compassion that makes them judge that the pleasure of a beast of prey successfully hunting down a prey can never justify the corresponding horrors undergone by its prey must prevent them from feeling that way. Even in their universally shared bliss they would have to dwell on the ‘grimness’ of the past–which would nullify their bliss. Those who do feel that way, on the other hand, will want the future to be the mirror image of the past in all essential respects.” (http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t990-reflecting-on-yesterday-s-high-with-watered-down-wine)

And all these worshippers are one (not the only, but nevertheless one) of the main reasons why science has become almost unable to make progress.