The Nietzsche Talk

[The_Author]

He is a scientist observing the world but beyond what we now think as science, because he is willing to take science to "morality".

A scientist searches for empirical evidence. Nietzsche makes vague assertions about will to power. Never even makes an argument for its primacy.

All philosophies necessarily have presuppositions. Nietzsche made the will to power his. By consequence, all experience, thought and appearance is determined through it. He escapes from the circle that appears by observing that only those with great will to power will be capable of such a Weltanschauung.

It is possible to make an axiom of anything, but whether it is prudent is another question. A true axiom is something irreducible, inexplicable. Inductive reasoning, for example, or the principles of deductive reasoning. Will to power is a claim about a force that exists in the world. It either does or does not exist in the world. It is not self-evident. So it cannot be an irrefutable axiom.

The difficult thing about self-evidence is that anything can be claimed to be self-evident, and the only counterargument is basically "it is self evident that it isn't", because things that are self-evidenced cannot be explained. However, there are actually things that are not self-evident, even if claiming that they are self-evident can be rhetorically discourse stopping. It's obvious if you don't LIE or think UNCLEARLY ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER that a physical force of "will to exert control over space" is not self-evident, even if it might be true. It isn't true though, because it is neither self evident nor plain evident.

The kind of justification you would like, would not be possible in his system.

Let us be more particular than to use the vague word "system". Nietzsche makes claims. Those claims stand up to the laws of logic and the empirical study of reality or they do not. They do not. So you're right. The totality of all claims that he makes, which you call a "system", may be internally consistent, sure, but if its internal consistency is against logic and without evidence then it is false.

You can be PSYOPed into believing as self-evident a system that is not self-evident, and thus accept "will to power" or whatever as your standard of evidence, above the standards that are actually obvious. But all you have to do is stop FUCKING LYING, in order to default to the proper understanding; that claims must be logical and evidenced by observances in the world.

I know you are playing devil's advocate. Speaking to the devil, so to speak.

[The_Author]

Nietzsche's 'philosophy' is not a philosophy. It is a spirit - and it is one of laughter, dance, and eternity.

Doesn't matter if it is a philosophy, a spirit, or a bong. He makes claims and they are false.

[The_Author]

The statement "Your car is covered in snow." is neither true nor false. Sometimes you car is covered in snow, sometimes it is not, sometimes you wake up on a winter morning and do not know if your car is covered in snow. If you consider the implication "Your car is covered in snow."=>"To drive your car, you will need to wipe snow off your windshield", then the implication is almost always true even as the antecedent varies (and it still might be sometimes false, if there is snow on the roof but not the windshield!). This is the practical and experienced logic of reality. It is how we actually reason and how we actually do science. Things have varying degrees of truth, varying probabilistically, temporally, and along a thousand other axes. You cannot obtain truth - only refine your understanding, and improve your confidence. And these understandings - they are guided by intuition, observations that come to us in sparks of insight - irreducible to any definite origin.

To put it plainly, truth is an unnecessary fiction, when what we really seek is identification and elaboration on the nature of patterns.

The temporal poses no problem for the principles of logic whatsoever. "Your car is covered in snow" as a general statement is false, because snow is something that happens at certain periods. Unless the car is IN ANTARCTICA which is also not a problem for ordinary logic. The statement however always implies a period of time, such as usually "right now" which can also be true or false. At any period of time, or for eternity, a car either is or is not covered in snow. And before you may say it, it is not possible to make that statement without implicitly referencing some period of time, whether it be eternity or now or later. If you say "your car is covered in snow irrespective of any concept of time" you are saying "for eternity". If you say "your car is covered in snow within a world where time does not exist" that is also a simple statement that can be evaluated true or false.

Inductive reasoning deals with probabilities. Deductive reasoning with definite analysis of categories. This is standard, logic 101, "truth is an unnecessary fiction" does not follow from it. Truth consists of inductive reasoning. It is not possible to make a definition of truth without inductive reasoning. The thing which results from high probability inductive inference is and always has been called "truth". If you want to call it something else, nothing follows from that, you will just be using a different word. So you cannot base any argument in this case upon the mere fact of inductive reasoning.

[The_Author]

I just want to do things where instincts say "this is definitely right" because that is a neat coordination between body and mind. None of this is at all incompatible with searching for truth. No clue if this is niche's stuff

Also relevant to other guest.

That instincts may in mundane ways be good guides does not mean they are good guides to physics or biology. Instincts guide me to drink water, to fuck, to understand facial expressions, etc.

You don't build a PHILOSOPHICAL theory on animal spirits.

That very inference is deeply illogical. You find one area, or a few areas, in day-to-day life, where instinct guides you acceptably. Then you reason that it must become the basis for a grand philosophical theory about, say, the driving force behind all motion in the universe (will to power). Fallacy of composition, common. Common because "big" claims seem impressive, so it works rhetorically.

[The_Author]

Anyhow, it is un-necessary to read him unless you are curious. One is what one is. I still remain unsure if the other posters have read any of his work, or are merely incapable of reading. It is probably the latter. The quality in all places is exceedingly low.

I am still unsure if you have read any of his work.

[The_Author]

I also have never seen or read a Nietzchean cogently explain why their aesthetic preferences should be cherished over others, beyond “I want it to be so fuck you”

Why should one affirm the world? Why should beauty be prioritized? What is the point of any of it?

All the Nietzchean has in response, he who rejects absolute truth and morality is “because I like these things”.

I in my absolute wisdom have to fight on two fronts now.

There are two different claims here. One that there is no absolute truth, another that there is no absolute morality. Morals are imperative rather than descriptive, so these are not the same thing. Yes, morals are potentially imperatives corresponding to laws that exist descriptively, but it is possible for this particular type of descriptive entity to be nonexistent yet for descriptive reality to exist in general.

It is false that there are any moral laws. Hume's Is-Ought Problem is all one needs to know this. No need to make it difficult. If you imagine that you annihilate all of your preferences, which are but emotions attached to ideas, then you will see that you could state no imperatives. This would not only be a procedural problem, as in "the inability to initiate a moral statement", but would destroy any apparent reason to make one. Why say, for example, that a man shall not kill another to obtain a painted rock? Why are not painted rocks important? You'll say something like "sentience" or whatever. Then why sentience? Then why, and so on. If, much like the earlier Nietzschean case, you choose not to LIE, you will eventually come to something that you just prefer. All moral arguments are implied from that preferred thing. The gap from Is to Ought is bridged by preferences.

I argue, in Templist Canon, that this preferred thing is generally (but I can make no claim about edge cases, since the claim is psychological) human beauty. Or, animal beauty for animals. That the inquiry will always come down to something like "humanity" or "my race" or "my family" rather than "rocks" or "planets" because it is the former that are preferred. And then, that this in turn shall be said to be preferred "for its qualities", and then, that upon questioning, "there are some specimens of that class with qualities I don't like", and so you see that preferred individual qualities are the final good. Psychologically speaking.

[Zed]

The statement "Your car is covered in snow." is neither true nor false. Sometimes you car is covered in snow, sometimes it is not, sometimes you wake up on a winter morning and do not know if your car is covered in snow. If you consider the implication "Your car is covered in snow."=>"To drive your car, you will need to wipe snow off your windshield", then the implication is almost always true even as the antecedent varies (and it still might be sometimes false, if there is snow on the roof but not the windshield!). This is the practical and experienced logic of reality. It is how we actually reason and how we actually do science. Things have varying degrees of truth, varying probabilistically, temporally, and along a thousand other axes. You cannot obtain truth - only refine your understanding, and improve your confidence. And these understandings - they are guided by intuition, observations that come to us in sparks of insight - irreducible to any definite origin.

To put it plainly, truth is an unnecessary fiction, when what we really seek is identification and elaboration on the nature of patterns.

The temporal poses no problem for the principles of logic whatsoever. "Your car is covered in snow" as a general statement is false, because snow is something that happens at certain periods. Unless the car is IN ANTARCTICA which is also not a problem for ordinary logic. The statement however always implies a period of time, such as usually "right now" which can also be true or false. At any period of time, or for eternity, a car either is or is not covered in snow. And before you may say it, it is not possible to make that statement without implicitly referencing some period of time, whether it be eternity or now or later. If you say "your car is covered in snow irrespective of any concept of time" you are saying "for eternity". If you say "your car is covered in snow within a world where time does not exist" that is also a simple statement that can be evaluated true or false.

Inductive reasoning deals with probabilities. Deductive reasoning with definite analysis of categories. This is standard, logic 101, "truth is an unnecessary fiction" does not follow from it. Truth consists of inductive reasoning. It is not possible to make a definition of truth without inductive reasoning. The thing which results from high probability inductive inference is and always has been called "truth". If you want to call it something else, nothing follows from that, you will just be using a different word. So you cannot base any argument in this case upon the mere fact of inductive reasoning.

I hate getting pulled into pedantry in discussions like this. 

Strictly speaking, in logic, the very notion of 'truth' can be contingent. All logic is traditionally taught at an elementary level in the 2-valued boolean model where 'true' and 'false' are the only definite possibilities (but even then, not the only possibilities - statements like "this statement is false" are simply non-sensical and cannot be accommodated). Now, there are actually multi-valued models of 'truth', where the contingency is itself embedded into the possibilities of 'truth'. Now your distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is correct (in the world of classical logic), because you are operating with the classical view. You can *embed* and study non-classical logics with classical logic (indeed, this is most commonly how they are studied) - but the debate concerning the foundations of logic/mathematics concerned which logic should be - well - foundational.  

Either way, a close inspection of these systems reveals that the notion *truth* is itself not that important. Even in classical deductive logic, truth is verified by examining a sequence of statements and verifying that every inference in a sequence is valid and logically deducible from prior inferences/axioms. Practically, does one need a notion of 'absolute truth' - such as the set of all true statements in a given logic, or does one simply need a mechanical procedure for verifying that the inference sequence is formed according to the rules of the game? An intuionist would concern himself with the latter, and the Platoist with the unobtainable abstraction 'the set of all true statements' - something that can never be felt, held, or understood.

Here is another way to understand what I mean when I say "truth is irrelevant", consider this: Bayesian reasoning does not require any notion of truth at all, only a prior distribution and an update procedure. Mathematical convergence results (eg, the CLT) are based around the assumption that data is sourced from a fixed and known distribution, and thus we can conclude that probabilstic convergence happens under certain give hypotheses (and in such cases, even understand the rate of convergence). Yet pure Bayesian reasoning *requires* none of this. Does a statistical model need an internal notion of truth to be fitted to data? Of course not. Because it was never 'truth' that is important, it is the fitting of patterns within a context of allowable procedures.

[Guest]

Anyhow, it is un-necessary to read him unless you are curious. One is what one is. I still remain unsure if the other posters have read any of his work, or are merely incapable of reading. It is probably the latter. The quality in all places is exceedingly low.

I am still unsure if you have read any of his work.

How is this relevant to the fact that you are baselessly (without definite examples) critiquing Nietzsche without reading him? It’s a very illogical action and poses possible signs of mental degeneration. But in the view of the feeble minded I am sure this is a killer refutation.

[The_Author]

All logic is traditionally taught at an elementary level in the 2-valued boolean model where 'true' and 'false' are the only definite possibilities (but even then, not the only possibilities - statements like "this statement is false" are simply non-sensical and cannot be accommodated). Now, there are actually multi-valued models of 'truth', where the contingency is itself embedded into the possibilities of 'truth'.

I am a hardcore Aristotelian traditionalist about logic. Even the Boolean Square can go fuck itself. All such "new logics" result from someone bringing up a supposed paradox, and academics succumb to the "new logic" only because they fail to explain that paradox in terms of Aristotelian logic, which is always possible. Other systems of logic aim to "be less unwieldy than Aristotelian logic" which is just utter STEM autism and not the behavior of a logician who wants to know how logic actually operates, rather than to "use an illogical system with ease in most cases". 

I will give an example concerning the "this statement is false" problem, from Templist Canon. You say it is a problem, I explain it using traditional logic:

"'This sentence is a lie' requires more information to evaluate. It could be true or false. Falsehood is not lying. Lying is saying one thing while believing another. Falsehood is when a proposition does not correspond to reality. It is as simple as if someone said 'I am swimming'. You would have to evaluate if that were true in the world. Likewise in this case, you would have to evaluate the intentions and beliefs of the person saying the sentence. Lies are often but not necessarily false. This is incidentally important to Templist doctrine. For, The Author lies while telling the truth. That is, he claims as true that which he does not believe, but despite his beliefs his claims are divinely true.  

What about 'this sentence is false'? This is a much better paradox. But it is not really a paradox. There is a difference, in all cases, between uttering a sentence and asserting a proposition. For example, if I say 'that guitar is false' I am both uttering that exact sentence and in doing so asserting a proposition about a guitar. The 'this is false' paradox is generated by pretending that these are the same, but they aren’t. The uttered sentence 'this statement is false' is true because it exists in the world. Therefore the proposition 'this statement is false' is false.  

What about this: 'this proposition is false.' This provides a real answer. It is: a proposition is a statement about truth. This causes two problems for the paradox. The first is [irrelevant to this argument] ... The second is, as it applies to the paradox overall, that it really says 'this statement about truth or falsehood is false', which has the same solution as 'this sentence is false.' This is because it refers to 'this' proposition in a concrete (empirical) sense and not 'the' proposition in a theoretical (propositional) sense. 'This proposition' is just another way of saying 'this statement offering the proposition that X'. What if it was: 'the proposition is false'? That just wouldn’t make any sense, it would be an incomplete sentence. Which proposition? 'This proposition is false' specifies 'which proposition' because it refers to 'this specific instance of propositional utterance', but propositions themselves are always theoretical and exist in no particular 'case'. What about 'the theoretical non-uttered proposition that ‘this proposition is false’ is true'? The answer is simply 'false' and it is no longer a paradox.  

To tie it back to the correspondence theory [source text was talking about it], propositions can be 'theoretical and non-uttered' because they are relations. That is, relations between what is thought or supposed and what is in the world. They therefore exist separately from speech."

I know its not an argument, but as a heuristic: it is also true that one should not discard an entire theory just because of a hard paradox, when the principles of that theory seem to be perfectly sensible. The reason being that one's abilities to solve paradoxes are limited, unless you are a world historical prophet of a divine religion. Aristotelian logic is perfectly sensible, no matter if Boole says "what if I make a proposition about a unicorn?" or whatever the case may be, and therefore eliminates subalterns and etc. despite their eminently obvious logical sensibility. I have an explanation for that paradox too but I forgot it unless the issue is re-explained to me (don't).

[The_Author]

How is this relevant to the fact that you are baselessly (without definite examples) critiquing Nietzsche without reading him?

There are definite examples linked, you have just not read them as the original post explicitly instructed you to. There are also definite examples concerning Zarathustra in this very thread. So that is straight up wrong, and you will never recover from this.

[Guest]

There are also definite examples concerning Zarathustra in this very thread. So that is straight up wrong, and you will never recover from this.

Yes I did neglect to interpret it, and I'll do it again.

Ah yes, your self-proclaimed poor evaluations are now to be taken seriously. Reading also requires some honesty in interpretation. 

Also yes, I will never stop bring up how much of an idiot you are for critiquing an author whose books you have never sought to read or interact with honestly.

[The_Author]

Yes I did neglect to interpret it, and I'll do it again.

Ah yes, your self-proclaimed poor evaluations are now to be taken seriously. Reading also requires some honesty in interpretation.

I think it is prudent not to even attempt interpreting waffle. It is an obvious sign that someone doesn't have anything important to say. "No ur waffle", anticipated it so now you can't do it.

But even if we may regard this lack of interpretation as an indiscretion, it is the case that I addressed responses directly to Other Guest's helpful interpretation of that text. I also addressed responses in the linked work to various excerpts about the will to power concept.

Therefore it is not true that my responses do not regard any source material.

If I "did a bad thing", "did a lazy thing", that may arouse a certain emotion within you. But like all my reply-guys in almost all subjects, you must distinguish the emotions you have from the facts of the case. The facts are, my messages with regard to "Nietzsche obscuring a meager statement in poetic language" are directly relevant to Guest's interpretation of the source material, and my various statements in the linked essay and concerning it are directly addressed to various sources. I did read, after all, Zarathustra, but refused to interpret it. It did turn out that I was right; the poetic narrative added no meaning above the moral of the story contained within a sentence. And, though it is irrelevant to the question at hand, I must reiterate for the sake of your cherished emotions that the moral of the story was also worse than common knowledge.

[The_Author]

Emotive statement: I am big brained enough, perspicacious enough, of enough Preußentum, to know immediately when something is rambling, when something is biased, when an artifice is meant to obscure a lack of value, when there is no argument being made, when a philosopher cannot stand on the merit of staid argumentation. I roll my eyes when I have to interpret such a work for someone like you, while I already know it contains nothing.

Other Guest can interpret as many passages of Zarathustra for me as he wants, and I will show every time that the conclusion is mediocre or worse, because meritorious philosophers say what they mean. After a certain point, one uses inductive reasoning to obviate the need to interpret every huckster's word-slop.

I highly cherish a work known as A Pickle For the Knowing Ones, by Timothy Dexter. Read it, and you will perceive the way I perceive Zarathustra.

Templist Canon says, "ethos arguments for the ethos minded", and you are ethos minded. Beyond the straightforward truth of the statements I previously made, what you are looking for is expertise to convince you. It is not enough to show you a statement that pertains to a source, and say, "look, here refutes the claim that my statements do not pertain to sources".

So this is the response that is actually appropriate to you, Recent Guest.

[The Green Groyper]

The trannies joining in is a stroke of genius in coming to the essence of both the author and green’s argument, which is they just don’t like Nietzsche. I predict when both the author and green can not longer continue after being brain mogged by these super trannies they will stick to associating Nietzsche and his philosophy with trannies and fags, which will then reveal that lack of substance in all of their arguments. Both of them will fall for this, because they lack intelligence, even after I state this.

This is why Amarna is an amazing forum. Even the most retarded statements are inherently funny.

[cats]

The Author is remarkable. He is Billionaire if he maintained some pretense about not being a retarded Brazilian. His great refutation is reading one of Nietzsche's aphorisms, completely misunderstanding it, and then "refuting" this totally incorrect interpretation with all the hard-hitting philisophical analysis of a Southern Baptist pastor and the prose of a ninth grader padding out an essay so he can hit the word count. He does this while accusing philosophies that contradict his cool new branch of Protestantism of being "word vomit".

Why is "affirming" the world good? Because that's what Homeric greeks did? Why are they special? Why is denying or rejecting the world bad? [...] something something beauty, or life-why do these things matter? Why should anyone prioritize these subjective idealized constructs over any other?

To people of the requisite biological and spiritual composition to understand Nietzsche, telling themselves that they are a retarded ugly slave in a sewer with other retarded ugly slaves who all must bow before YHWH for a chance to get out is not only an assault against their dignity, but a totally illogical lie. They possess a special ability which allows them to determine that niggers are bad because they look and smell like shit (based off subjective, idealized constructs of European beauty which are actually transcendental truths, dumb libtard moralist), not just because they commit lots of crime and are a drain on the economy.

If God exists-then any claim about "slave morality" is utterly worthless. Or as I said on the chat-the resurrection makes every claim about Christianity void.

The Semitic mountain sprite and his prophet Rabbi Yehoshua were real, and yet Nietzsche's concept of slave morality has been totally vindicated in this very thread. Problem, libtard?

[The Green Groyper]

The Author is remarkable. He is Billionaire if he maintained some pretense about not being a retarded Brazilian. His great refutation is reading one of Nietzsche's aphorisms, completely misunderstanding it, and then "refuting" this totally incorrect interpretation with all the hard-hitting philisophical analysis of a Southern Baptist pastor and the prose of a ninth grader padding out an essay so he can hit the word count. He does this while accusing philosophies that contradict his cool new branch of Protestantism of being "word vomit".

Why is "affirming" the world good? Because that's what Homeric greeks did? Why are they special? Why is denying or rejecting the world bad? [...] something something beauty, or life-why do these things matter? Why should anyone prioritize these subjective idealized constructs over any other?

To people of the requisite biological and spiritual composition to understand Nietzsche, telling themselves that they are a retarded ugly slave in a sewer with other retarded ugly slaves who all must bow before YHWH for a chance to get out is not only an assault against their dignity, but a totally illogical lie. They possess a special ability which allows them to determine that niggers are bad because they look and smell like shit (based off subjective, idealized constructs of European beauty which are actually transcendental truths, dumb libtard moralist), not just because they commit lots of crime and are a drain on the economy.

If God exists-then any claim about "slave morality" is utterly worthless. Or as I said on the chat-the resurrection makes every claim about Christianity void.

The Semitic mountain sprite and his prophet Rabbi Yehoshua were real, and yet Nietzsche's concept of slave morality has been totally vindicated in this very thread. Problem, libtard?

I must have really hit a nerve. Thank you for proving me right.

[cats]

I must have really hit a nerve. Thank you for proving me right.

About what?

[The Green Groyper]

I must have really hit a nerve. Thank you for proving me right.

About what?

You're response to my post. All you could present is enraged invective and Adam Green tier rhetoric. You don't have an argument, because your investment in Nietzche is an emotional one, and something you've clearly structured your identity around. Which confirms my point Nietzche and his supporters are very weak to any sustained scrutiny. 

Thank you for aiding me in this investigative venture.

[cats]

You're response to my post. All you could present is enraged invective and Adam Green tier rhetoric.

You're right, I was positively fuming as I wrote that post. Who is Adam Green?

You don't have an argument,

I actually presented a number of arguments, all of which you have failed to address with this post.

because your investment in Nietzche is an emotional one, and something you've clearly structured your identity around. Which confirms my point Nietzche and his supporters are very weak to any sustained scrutiny. 

This seems like projection w.r.t. whatever form of based Christian libertarianism you received from Bleppsama. I don't actually talk about Nietzsche all that much.

Thank you for aiding me in this investigative venture.

Reddit.

[The Green Groyper]

You're response to my post. All you could present is enraged invective and Adam Green tier rhetoric.

You're right, I was positively fuming as I wrote that post. Who is Adam Green?

You don't have an argument,

I actually presented a number of arguments, all of which you have failed to address with this post.

because your investment in Nietzche is an emotional one, and something you've clearly structured your identity around. Which confirms my point Nietzche and his supporters are very weak to any sustained scrutiny. 

This seems like projection w.r.t. whatever form of based Christian libertarianism you received from Bleppsama. I don't actually talk about Nietzsche all that much.

Thank you for aiding me in this investigative venture.

Reddit.

Someone like you. 

No you did not. 

Evasion.

I accept your involuntary concession.