/lit/ - Literature

>>11380014
sorry but only butthurt anglo stem moralists who fail miserably do this..

No such book or person exists. Everyone's arguments amount to petty ad hominem and incomplete and immature understandings of his philosophy. His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization at this point and denying him means denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time.

>>11380035
>His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization at this point
*snap*

>>11380035
>means denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time
Speak on this, please.

>>11380046
He conceived the theory of relativity before Einstein did, and we know how essential that theory is now. Take your cringe memes elsewhere.

>>11380067
You got a citation? I'm not convinced you know what relativity is.

t. physics PhD

stirner did it without even knowing

Do you know why Nietzsche hated Plato? It's because Plato anticipated him thousands of years ago and refuted most of his major points.

>>11380109
The citation is Nietzsche's bibliography. I'm not convinced you know what Nietzsche's philosophy entailed. Nietzsche was not a scientist, so of course he did not provide the "proofs" needed for the math and science communities to approach the concept, which Einstein did, but Nietzsche had already understood the underlying premises which drove it and already formulated them in his philosophical analysis of the world.

>>11380014
He certainly emulated his worthless punditry well.

>>11380140
.... that's not how citations work. Define your terms please. Find particular passages that make the same claims about space/time/matter/energy/gravity/curvature/manifolds that GR does. I want to be proven wrong here. I want you to show that I'm being a nitpicky asshole.

However since you're apparently reluctant, I'll point out that relativism (a term we might use to describe Nietzsche's philosophy; is this what you're thinking of?) is NOT relativity (a theory about the structure of space/time, matter/energy, and gravity.) GR is not a claim like "everything is relative ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" or "our previous ideas about time, space, etc. are wrong and the Übermensch will something something will to power."

Can you find me an E=mc^2 in Nietzsche? Or the claim that space and time are not separate, but together form a 4-manifold? Or that gravity is the curvature of that manifold? That the distribution of energy and momentum determine that curvature? Because that's GR. It's not something about truth being relative. Please please please please give me page numbers or at least books, because if it's true I would find it interesting.

>>11380126
how so

>>11380140
>>11380067
>>11380035
none of these posts make any particular claims about Nietzsche's philosophy. You just keep saying "duhhhh Nietzsche uhhhh good and important." Say something coherent and precise.

>>11380035
all of nietzsche is one big ad hominem

>>11380221
It's scattered throughout the dialogues. The Republic, for example, knocks down the will to power.

>>11380223
>Say something coherent and precise.
lmao do you not get how any of this works

>>11380236
true chains, thanks b.

Also, how can I make the most of the ancient philosophers' dialogues?

>>11380067
>Moral relativism is the same as the theory of relativity
Of all the dumb shit I've seen today, this has probably got to be at the very top. You just failed physics AND philosophy in one sentence.

What was the difference between Nietzsche and mainlander? Nietzsche wanted to resurrect god, mainlander wanted to pass with god into non-being.

>>11380111
cool post

>>11380250
So many stoner bros at parties believe this (and worse) is true

>>11380252
>Nietzsche wanted to resurrect god
No he didn't

>>11380250
>nietzsche was a moral relativist

>>11380301
Yes, that's why I wrote down "AND philosophy". Anybody who's actually read and understood Nietzsche will know that he was not a moral relativist. He didn't believe in morals as something to be respected at all.

>>11380187
*snap*

>>11380240
toss them out with the trash

>>11380307
Sorry but that's not correct. Read the genealogy of morals.

>>11380265
>What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed [killing God] too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.

You would have to say he wants to resurrect God (as the highest ideal), unless you were going to argue that killing God was an affirmation of the will to live, in which case any further striving for power must be a kind of dancing on his grave. But this would be a very revealing admission.

>>11380014
Look into the people who followed after him, Camus is someone good for extending his phil and thought, while Foucault for the most part has some good critiques that pit N as a struggle against language. So I think It would be worth looking into criticisms of the existentialists as a whole, from Kierkegaard to Sartre. As everyone after the former (Kierkegaard) was influenced b N.
>>11380035
>His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization at this point and denying him means denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time.
:really:
>>11380067
t. I've never read Nietzsche
pic is mfw I read this
>>11380126
Sure it wasn't because of the sophists :-) ? Nietzsche did say they were correct and Plato was wrong after all

>>11380014
If you read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and thought it was impressive you won't find any book that "eviscerates" Nietzsche. He doesn't make cogent arguments half the time, he literally wrote a chapter of aphorisms (I'm a professional quote maker mom!), and by the time I got 2/3 through I was bored, not just on an entertainment level, but on an intellectual "there's nothing interesting here" level. I had to force myself to finish.

I almost didn't even pick up the book after I tried reading through Genealogy of Morals, a work so devoid of substance or argument that it's no wonder Richard Spencer cites it as the impetus for him giving up Christianity. I used to take Spengler's philosophy seriously before I realized he respected Nietzsche, and now that I know Heidegger liked Nietzsche I just can't force myself to invest time into what will undoubtedly be a voyage through pseudery and fraudulence masked with the title "Being and Time". At least Nietzsche was honest; he admitted philosophy is the confession of the philosopher. But people who admire Nietzsche and then continue to philosophize are pseuds of the highest tier.

>>11380371
Richard Spencer bastardizes N though, he applied individualist points to collectivism. One of his recruitment video's for his 'policy institute' is literary: 'become who we are'.

>>11380423
Nietzsche is like Hegel. There's two schools of thought that descend from both of these thinkers, and both are wrong. For Hegel, the resulting schools were Right Hegelians and Young Hegelians. Young Hegelians produced Communism. Right Hegelians essentially died off. For Nietzsche, the schools are Right Nietzscheans and Left Nietzscheans. Right Nietzscheans produced Nazism. Left Nietzscheans haven't died off quite yet.

Now imagine if someone took Hegel and Nietzsche seriously. They'd be a seriously disturbed individual no doubt, and they could fall into one of four camps. Right-Right Nietgels like Richard Spencer form the basis of the modern white nationalist movement. Left-Left Nietgels like Marcuse follow the notorious Frankfurt school. Right-Left Nietgels (that is right Nietzschean, left Hegelian) include people like Zizek. Left-Right Nietgels include people like George Grant, and are typically not very famous. They are by far the most sensible of the four camps.

>>11380474
this is your brain on reductivism

>>11380490
classic example of ressentiment

I can't believe the state of this board.

>>11380187
>Find particular passages that make the same claims about space/time/matter/energy/gravity/curvature/manifolds that GR does.
>Can you find me an E=mc^2 in Nietzsche?
If you think I meant that there are passages like this, then you don't get what I'm saying at all. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this:

>Nietzsche was not a scientist, so of course he did not provide the "proofs" needed for the math and science communities to approach the concept, which Einstein did, but Nietzsche had already understood the underlying premises which drove it and already formulated them in his philosophical analysis of the world.

So why would you ask me to provide proofs of the formula in his work, or passages where he discusses scientific terms, when I just said he was not a scientist? He is a philosopher, so he uses philosophical terms.

Do you need the connection spelled out for you? Then you need to read Nietzsche more, who had read Heraclitus closely, who said:

>No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

An initial understanding of the concept of spacetime exists in that passage. You can find this same line of thought in Nietzsche's work everywhere, in all his ideas, in all his arguments against the thing-in-itself. Hence why I said that he understood the "underlying premises." He in fact understood them better than any of the scientists ever have, which is what the role of the philosopher is all about: possessing mastery over the realm of ideas.

>>11380223
>>11380250
>>11380358
You guys are clueless and need to read something beyond a Wikipedia summary.

>>11380014
Here you go, anon.

>>11380371
congratulations, you are really smart

>>11380642

How so, Nietzsche was deeply obsessed with jesus. He attacked a so called Platonic-christianity. Nietzsche said: "There is only one true christian, and he died on the cross."

>>11380014
Schoppy did a good job at teaching Nietzsche about the will as thing-in-itself.
Nietzsche never fully abandonned this teaching, and his positing of the will to power only proves this.
Read the WWR.

Hegel and the important of the collective over the individual.

>>11381147
Looks to me he was very introvert and expected the most out of himself as much as from the greatest men in history. Maybe that was his greatest falling.

God I love it when this board goes full retard
>>11380238
This

>>11380642
The bible doesn't do that. It's a polar inversion of his philosophy, which means it never comes in contact with it.

>>11380014
>>11380035
Rene Girard does this. Except rather than completely BTFO (which he does) he says, "Very good, Mister Nietzsche, you are right, but you see...you have just activated my trap card. Now become a Christian or go insane!"

>>11380014
>refutation
you really don't get him, do you? after nietzsche "philosophy" becomes an epistemological question: in what way does power manifest itself.

Cyrano De Bergerac

>>11380524
>Hence why I said that he understood the "underlying premises."
Then he didn't conceive shit. That's not the theory of relativity, it's just his intuition.

>>11380524
No, you are just a fucking hack retard. Talk to anyone who has a philosophy degree (yeah, yeah, it’s a stupid degree, whatever) about how Nietzsche understood relativity before Einstein, they will laugh in your face. You’re such a pathetic fucking idiot, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Nietzsche’s perspectivism and claim that everything is relative to the observer is far from the scientific and mathematical brilliance Einstein needed to come up with general relativity, and I like Nietzsche, too, but this is just pathetic. There’s no suggestion in his work that time and space are relative to the observer as well.

>>11380035
>denying him means denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time.
gladly

>>11382030
>after nietzsche "philosophy" becomes an epistemological question: in what way does power manifest itself.

>>11380035
>His philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization
>a mix of la Rochfoucauld, Emerson, Carlyle, and Schopenhauer

>>11380307
>He didn't believe in morals as something to be respected at all.
absolutely false, why do this guy's biggest fanboys always think he's some sort of edgelord nihilist

scheler
evola
did a decent job

>>11380014
YOU CAN'T STOP DUH WILL TO POWA
WE IS EMPERUHS N SHEEIT NOW
DUH WILL TO POWER STOPS ALL JELLY NE SHEEIT
JUST BECOME WORTHY OF DUH DETH OF GOD N SHEEIT
DON BE JELLY OF DUH DEMZ
BE A RUHL BASED MAGAPEDE WITH POWA

Why is Nietzche even relevant is beyond me, everything he wrote was said before him by schopenhauer and mainlander

>>11380014
Lukács has a chapter on in his "Destruction of Reason"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm

>>11381429
Was he the real life raskolnikov?

>>11382143
An intuition which inspired the eventual development of the theory, because it already understood the underlying premises, i.e. the ideal mechanisms running it, and even charted their ultimate conclusions. That's conception.

>>11380035
>denying all major scientific and technological advances since his time.
very cringe, excellent b8

>>11382569
Fuck off back to /sci/

>>11382568
>Nietzsche inspired relativity
nope sorry you’re a retard

>>11380035
This needs to be posted in every Nietzsche thread

>>11382571
I’ll stick around for a few more laughs if you have anything else to say

Nietzsche could completely destroy Kant, Stoicism, Schopenhauer, christianity, all with one sentence. In his own words, he was not a man, he was dynamite. I honestly think he is underrated still. He will be up there with Plato and Kant in history.

>>11382581
There's no way he isn't trolling. No way does someone confuse dialectical thinking through philosophical ideas with relativity and confidently post this on basket weaving forums.

>>11382598
>No way does someone confuse dialectical thinking through philosophical ideas with relativity
Explain the difference then you psued.

>>11381204
Except Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer completely killed Hegel and his obscurantist charlatanism.

>>11382581
>>11382598
This is the problem with the modern sciences. Scientists have forgotten where they got all their methodologies from: from philosophers. They don't understand that while philosophy and science have different aims, they are analyzing the same things. And because they specialize in the sciences rather than in philosophy, they fail to see how the ideas and terms from the philosophers coincide with science's.

>Nietzsche didn't inspire relativity
>philosophers have had no bearing on the development of the sciences
is fucking hilarious and absurd and the fact anyone here is asserting this is quite telling of how low this board has fallen.

>>11382614
>>Nietzsche didn't inspire relativity
objectively true
>>philosophers have had no bearing on the development of the sciences
no one said this, pseud

>>11382626
>it's objectively true that Nietzsche didn't inspire Einstein despite his ideas aligning perfectly well with the theories he developed and despite that he was being read by all the intellectuals during his lifetime

Also, it might have been hyperbole, but this is what you faggots are insinuating when you say that Nietzsche's ideas were not influential. The biggest philosopher in the past few hundred years and one of the most groundbreaking in all of human history having no influence on the sciences. What a fucking joke.

>>11382647
during Einstein's lifetime*

is what I meant.

>>11382647
Nietzsche had no impact on science. I’m sorry if this hurts your feelings. Nothing he wrote “aligns with” relativity in any meaningful, substantial way, and you’re either very misinformed about what relativity is or intentionally dishonest to claim otherwise.

>>11382598
>>11382614
Again, pure troll.

>Explain the difference then you psued.

How the heel can anyone who's actually familiar with Einstein's theory make such a statement? There's no point to make because relativity makes extremely specific predictions about spacetime that aren't made by Nietzsche, who's non-existence would hardly have impeded Einstein.

>philosophers have had no bearing on the development of the sciences

You know, maybe Einstein actually explicitly discussed what philosophical influences formed the basis for his theories himself. Wouldn't that be funny.

>>11382663
>My opinions are facts
lol, this is why you are on /lit/ instead of doing something important

>>11382614
That's a straw man. No one implied anything of what you said. You have yet to provide any proof of Nietzsche influencing Einstein. Until you have that, don't post again.

>>11382663
>Nietzsche had no impact on science.
Solid argument.

>Nothing he wrote “aligns with” relativity in any meaningful, substantial way
Let's actually talk about something of substance here. Tell me how the fragment from Heraclitus I posted earlier does not relate to spacetime in "any meaningful, substantial way." Define spacetime for me, and then explain what that fragment meant.

NOW THEN now that we've dealt with Nietzsche and his irrelevance to relativity can we talk about the chad Mainlander and his reworking of Kant's system in a manner which entirely circumvents the supposed death blows which Einstein's theory is purported to have dealt to the notions of an a priori space and time?

>>11382680
It wasn't an argument, it was a statement.
>lel prove me wrong
Not how it works, bud.

>>11382680
>Tell me how the fragment from Heraclitus I posted earlier does not relate to spacetime in "any meaningful, substantial way."

You're being extremely vague. The quote makes no 'predictions' about the nature of space-time and nor does it act as a prerequisite thought for relativity. It is about how we conceive of objects and things that undergo continuous change on a basic level and how this is at least partially independent of identity. Leibniz established a basis for Einsteins ideas, Neitsche did not and you can find no evidence of this because the vague ideas that philosophers of the past influence science, which is obviously true, but doens't apply to N in any way with regard to Einstein.

>>11382705
You're not proving me wrong, you're proving me right, because I am right. Now go ahead and answer.

>>11382716
Prove yourself right you lazy bum.

>>11382681
>notions of an a priori space and time?

Kant's notions of spacetime are psychic. His whole point is how space time, as it exists 'for us' is at best a representation of the real nature of things that is determined by our mental make up. They are a priori as 'intuitions'.

>>11382728
Would you please reread my post? Where did I ask you to explain Kant's theory to me?

>>11380035
>his philosophy is the bedrock of Western civilization at this point

I fucking wish it was. Anyone who unironically thinks Nietzche's philosophy has had any broad effect on modern civilization deserve to have their heads twisted off.

>>11382713
What Heraclitus is demonstrating there is an understanding of being / soul (the man, the river) possessing a relentless correlation to the passage of time; being (which he would have understood as defined by physical properties, since he is pairing a person and a river together in his analysis, making this "space") is related to time. A model of spacetime acknowledges that the third and fourth dimensions ("time") fuse in a continuum together. Heraclitus can be said to have grasped the notion of spacetime in the universe then. This is important because in order to understand Nietzsche you must understand Heraclitus, since the latter had a tremendous influence on the former.

>Leibniz established a basis for Einsteins ideas, Neitsche did not
I find this disingenuous. I'm not saying that Nietzsche alone is responsible for inspiring Einstein. That said, are you denying that Nietzsche wasn't being read by almost all of Europe's intellectuals while Einstein was alive? Are you denying that he was one of the first to embrace and criticize Darwin? We have endless accounts of other intellectuals commenting on his work, and we even had an event which some people refer to as World War II happen, during which we know Hitler to have read and distributed copies of Nietzsche's work to his lieutenants. Nietzsche was not simply a fart in the wind; he was being read by everybody worth their salt at one time.

But back to Heraclitus for a second. That passage is particularly important here because unless you understand what is being implied about the universe there, there is no way you could ever hope to follow some of Nietzsche's discussions on the concept of the thing-in-itself. In those discussions he goes incredibly in-depth into being and becoming and the fundamental nature of the universe itself. These discussions don't just pertain to the realm of thought, these thoughts arise from observing the physical world. Philosophy reflects on life and seeks to uncover the truth about it. What inspired Nietzsche to even write Zarathustra for example was a pyramid-shaped rock that he found during one of his many nature walks, an activity which led to most of his thoughts in fact. So, I don't buy for a second that Nietzsche had "no impact on science" when so much here is pointing to the opposite.

>>11382801
>A model of spacetime acknowledges that the third and fourth dimensions ("time") fuse in a continuum together
unsurprisingly poor understanding of spacetime in a relativistic sense

>>11382565
He did "kill" God. Seemed to suffer for it too.

>>11382816
What is poor about it?

>>11380014
Just read Kierkegaard

>>11382801
>an understanding of being / soul (the man, the river) possessing a relentless correlation to the passage of time; being (which he would have understood as defined by physical properties, since he is pairing a person and a river together in his analysis, making this "space") is related to time. A model of spacetime acknowledges that the third and fourth dimensions ("time") fuse in a continuum together. Heraclitus can be said to have grasped the notion of spacetime in the universe then
we all knew this before you tried explaining it but you have literally no clue what relativity is, nor what newtonian physics is. it doesn't seem you even know what you yourself are trying to say with "spacetime" here

>>11382827
I didn't *try* explaining it, I did explain it.

>it doesn't seem you even know what you yourself are trying to say with "spacetime" here
The problem since the beginning of the thread has been that you and others seem to think that I am making a 1:1 conflation between what the philosophers have said and what the scientists have outlined in their theories. It's like the concept of "influence" has no bearing with you people.

>>11382850
the concept of influence is yet another thing you don't understand, as exemplified by you trying to claim nietzsche influenced einstein's theory of relativity. not only it makes literally no sense but it is quite simply not what happened. the development of relativity is very well-documented.

>>11382856
Are all Nietzsche posters this insufferable?

>>11382856
If there is zero documentation on any scientists having read Nietzsche, then either:

A) the documentation isn't complete, which is likely given how much it has been tampered with since WWII, or
B) scientists really ought to fucking start, since he demonstrated an understanding of what science came to understand about the universe in the 20th century a whole century prior.

>>11382865
who fucking said "no scientists read nietzsche"

you just said nietzsche intuited the theory of relativity before its time, which is completely fucking bonkers. relativity is an extremely technically oriented development and the "world-changing" impact people like to claim it has, is not as global as its name implies but circumscribed to the world of modern physics. nietzsche probably didn't even know what the state of physics was during his time, go ask him what a lagrangian is and see if he can answer

>>11382875
>who fucking said "no scientists read nietzsche"
The guy who said that Nietzsche had no impact on science.

>you just said nietzsche intuited the theory of relativity before its time
I said that Nietzsche demonstrated an understanding of the universe which science arrived at later on. That does mean intuiting the theory of relativity, yes. That doesn't mean having a 1:1 outline of the theory, of course that would be bonkers, since he lived prior to the contextual data which was used to develop the theory.

>nietzsche probably didn't even know what the state of physics was during his time
Find out for yourself what he read:

http://www.nietzschecircle.com/Pdf/NIETZSCHE_S_LIBRARY.pdf

>>11382913
>ctrl+f 'lagrange' 'hamilton' 'newton' 'maxwell' 'physics'
>0 results
nice self-own

>>11382927
Leibniz, Pascal, Darwin, and a number of chemists are in there. He was also a professor so he had plenty of colleagues.

>>11382968
so no physics, thanks we knew.

nietzsche as a philologist would obviously gravitate towards the more pop-friendly sciences like biology, because it's easier to wave the pseud stick around with concepts from these. physics pre-QM was not fun for laymen

>>11381204
>Hegel and the important of the collective over the individual
t. has not read Hegel

It's true that he argues that the individual gains a greater reality in the state than it has in isolation, but at the same time the state has its reality in the individual, both are mediated by, and gain freedom through each other, neither is subordinated.
You can't eliminate power, but you can sublate it, trading in the direct battle of man against against nature for the oppressive power of a social structure without any kind of regulatory power beyond tradition and convention, and then in turn trading that in for the state, a centralized entity which, if it functions correctly, mirrors the individuals, and so creates the stable framework in which they can flourish, a kingdom of the absolute on earth, where a group of subjects give themselves and each other a framework through reason. The driving force behind this is the individual subject.

>>11382976
Leibniz, who was just said for establishing a basis for Einstein's ideas, is not physics now. Okay then.

>>11382984
people read leibniz for his whole project, not 'as a physicist'.

>>11382986
So you're saying Nietzsche read him for his ideas? No fucking shit, he was a philosopher. Are you also saying Leibniz's ideas didn't relate to his physics?

>>11382997
i'm saying nietzsche having read leibniz is completely irrelevant to the (correct) point that nietzsche was not in the know about the current state of physics in his time, and perhaps not even about the general state of newtonian physics.

>>11383004
He was not "in the know" to the degree that matters to you, for whatever reason why it matters, because that was not his goal. It shouldn't matter though, because one does not have to be "in the know" to that degree in order to grasp the ideas behind it. To suggest otherwise means that the ideas do not relate to them. But they do relate to them, so if one is clever enough to be able to understand the ideas and intuit their application in the universe, one can arrive at a scientist's applications through his ideas.

>>11383015
dude, you're a pseud. you know this deep down. stop trying to make grand assertions and reinvent history before being an expert.

>>11383033
>no argument, resorts to name calling
Like pottery. But this is why you fucking brainlets lost your shit over >>11380035, because you don't grasp the relation between ideas and their in-world applications or how a philosopher manages to grasp BOTH from the starting point of ideas.

>>11380371

This. Most of Nietzsche's works are just moderately witty aphorisms, intercut with strawman critiques of whichever philosophy he didn't like that week and completely ahistorical assertions about the Greeks or early human societies. He is a textbook case of theory begging for evidence, which he hides behind a facade of poetry.

>>11383141
According to nietzsche the dictionary counts as a history book.

>>11383187
that's philology as a whole

>>11383187
Analyzing the history of words is actually a very clever way of understanding how ideas have changed in history.

>>11380371
>>11383141
>bragging about not understanding work
Jesus, you brainlets are getting worse by the minute.

>>11380014

His premise that there is no God to begin with is false. The foundation of his philosphy is corrupt, logically and morally. You can basically dismiss any "thinker" after Aquinas.

>>11383306
>His premise that there is no God
That's not his premise.

>>11381972
Seconding this, Girard is perhaps the best anti-Nietzsche I've read

>>11382753
Do you even follow pop culture?

>>11383332

>muh God is dead
>muh go make your own values
>muh Übermensch

>>11383367
>muh Wikipedia

>>11383277
He doesnt actually recognize what caused the change though. He thinks we moved from a master definition of good to a slave definition because
>muh uppity god damn plebs started calling weakness good and the masters adopted their morals for legitimacy
While that may be the case sometimes, many of the roman political elite suffered during the 3rd century too. They are just as prone to using slave morals to cope when they could be assasinated any day.

>>11383367
You have to be baiting

>>11383398
He identifies Christianity as the cause. You would need to argue why Nietzsche was wrong in typing Christian morality as slave morality. You would also need to argue with both his and Schiller's view on Greek culture which they saw as emphasizing beauty and which they regarded as being inaccessible when the self is fragmented, which the structure of society being divided into specializations has made mandatory for everyone to become.

>>11383054
>haha dude neetch ACKSHYUALLY invented and understood relativity
have enough respect for philosophy to stop trying to bandwagon onto science.

>>11383556
Science is an application of philosophy.

>>11383606
oof

>>11382598
I don't think Nietzsche could have described the laws of relativity as they exist now, but you have to admit that the theory fits with a nietzschean worldview.

>>11383610
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Get educated, son.

>>11383623
Isn't a "nietzschean worldview" that truths are nothing more than expressions of desire/will to power or whatever thing he invented and can't be accessed objectively? The theory of relativity is a pretty objectively-minded approach to the natural world. What's stated there is supposed to be True, at least until something Truer comes along.

>>11383625
oof

>>11383668
I might be fucking wrong but theory of relativity seems to break the classical physics foundation of objective measurements.

and scientific theories aren't objective either, which is recognized, they're just good enough

>>11383682
>I might be fucking wrong
you are

>>11383689
cool
how

>>11383691
because the thing you said isn't true.

>>11380014
Someone is struggling with the truth of the artificiallity of truth

>>11383695
cool
how
also I realized the better term I wanted to use, objective frames of reference instead of objective measurements

>>11383668
>or whatever thing he invented
You haven't even read him. Why you're trying to discuss him is beyond me.

Also, you are (unsurprisingly) wrong about his stance. "can't be accessed objectively" is inaccurate — "subject and object are interdependent" is more accurate. Nietzsche doesn't think that there isn't a natural world; instead, he sees its nature as fundamentally relativistic.

>What's stated there is supposed to be True, at least until something Truer comes along.

This is basically how Nietzsche approaches truth, given that he sees that truth exists in this relativistic world; none of it is permanent, it can continuously evolve.

People tend to just associate Nietzsche with the skeptics when they hear this. They think he means that there are no rules to the game or that there can't be rules. On the contrary, there certainly are rules, one of which is that the natural world is relativistic. This is complex, as you might say, "But if it is relativistic, then in some instances, it is NOT relativistic." Those "instances" (which are just ideas) are like scientific theories that have been disproved; they still exist, but as ideas that are no longer valid because they no longer hold up to the more complex experiments (in the philosopher's case, more complex observations) that have been done.

>>11383668
>>11383789
To bring this into perspective more, here are a couple passages from Nietzsche:

>"Everything is subjective," ye say: but that in itself is interpretation. The subject is nothing given, but something superimposed by fancy, something introduced behind.—Is it necessary to set an interpreter behind the interpretation already to hand? Even that would be fantasy, hypothesis. To the extent to which knowledge has any sense at all, the world is knowable: but it may be interpreted differently, it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses.—"Perspectivity." It is our needs that interpret the world; our instincts and their impulses for and against. Every instinct is a sort of thirst for power; each has its point of view, which it would fain impose upon all the other instincts as their norm.

>A criticism of the concept "cause."—We have absolutely no experience concerning cause, viewed psychologically we derive the whole concept from the subjective conviction, that we ourselves are causes—that is to say, that the arm moves.... But that is an error. We distinguish ourselves, the agents, from the action, and everywhere we make use of this scheme—we try to discover an agent behind every phenomenon. What have we done? We have misunderstood a feeling of power, tension, resistance, a muscular feeling, which is already the beginning of the action, and posited it as a cause; or we have understood the will to do this or that, as a cause, because the action follows it. There is no such thing as "Cause," in those few cases in which it seemed to be given, and in which we projected it out of ourselves in order to understand a phenomenon, it has been shown to be an illusion. Our understanding of a phenomenon consisted in our inventing a subject who was responsible for something happening, and for the manner in which it happened. In our concept "cause" we have embraced our feeling of will, our feeling of "freedom," our feeling of responsibility and our design to do an action: causa efficiens and causa finalis are fundamentally one.

>>11383702
SR and GR don't pose any problem for "objective measurements", only for the metaphysical presumption of absolute simultaneity (and therefore space and time) that were at the base of Newtonian physics. You just have to rethink some concepts and change the mathematical description of the world, therefore changing its properties in your model. But there's nothing that contradicts the expectations that physics be objective, empirical, backed by evidence etc. I'm not sure if it could be called 100% compatible with textbook positivism, but it's pretty close.

>>11380035
This post is the /lit/ equivalent of 'To be fair you have to have very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty...'

>>11381972
>>11383334
specific works of Girard's?

>>11382614
Scientists methodolgies came from Descartes not Nietzsche you buffoon.

gtfo

>>11383912
>there was no science before Descartes and his ideas came from... well let's ignore that part
Fascinating.

>>11383701
okay you tall midget

>>11383918
Bifurcation and Atomism, bud. That's what physicists are horny for, considering the discussion is about GR

>>11383933
Keep going. You will eventually find that the original scientists were all philosophers.

>>11380014
Nietsche can be BTFO, I think, only where it is clearly influenced by Schopenhuer individualism. And nobody wants to be an individualist, I hope. Nietszche kinda got it himself, if you read the posthumous fragments. Anyway:

>Heidegger

Here you will find a. a critic to the metaphysics of Vorstellung. Also his essay on Zarathustra is great for getting over of the Wille zur Macht trap.
Moreover, in Sein und Zeit the description of Sorge as a basis for human Dasein is a great tool to handle individualism and the "dyonisiac" disregard for guilt – and actually one could ultimately argue that Nietzsche's genalogy does not de fact dismantle guilt, as long as it doesn't became resentment.

>Giorgio Colli
This italian scholar is the man who organized Nietzsche's opus. Others – including germans!– translated from what him and Montinari did for the absolutely based Adelphi editor. He wrote a lot about the Greeks and Nietzsche. His book "Dopo Nietzsche" ("After Nietzsche") is a really good critique of Nietzsche's subjectivism, and just generally gives you good insight. I don't know if it got translated. If you are fluent in italian, you can find it on libgen.

>>11383918
I'm saying his ideas came from philosophy, yes. But what I'm getting at is that you're a retard for suggesting N inspired GR. Just because Descartes laid down the basis for how we view physics, does not mean the same is true for N and Relativity. Don't try to divert the issue either; we are talking about N.

>>11383946
Sorry for the typos. Have a good life.

>>11383947
>>11383939
Here you go, champ. I'm singling out that the point you made in >>11382614 is true for someone like Descartes, just not N.

>>11380140
Ahahaha what the fuck are you talking about, special relativity is entirely mathematical my guy

>>11383947
Whether Einstein read Nietzsche or not is up for debate since we don't know for certain. If there is no historical evidence suggesting he did then you could assume he didn't, and yes, then you can say that I was wrong to assert that he influenced its development. Regardless, Nietzsche already understood the ideas behind it and anticipated the arrival of such a theory. If we had more scientists reading philosophy then GR could have even been developed sooner, maybe.

>>11383991
>If we had more scientists reading philosophy then GR could have even been developed sooner, maybe.

>>11383991
i wish more philosophers read any science at all before trying to have opinions about it

>>11384001
And I wish scientists would realize that science is applied philosophy. But they are doomed to their specialized fields and thus can't see the bigger picture anymore, which is philosophy.

>>11384010
scientists like the geniuses of the early 20th century were more informed on philosophy than the common philosopher is on science

Neecher was so vague and contradictory that you can legitimately read his work in whatever way you want. Everyone thinks that they, and they alone, "get" Neetch when it actual fact they only understand their biased cherry picked version.

>>11384012
What's your basis for that assertion? Nietzsche's ideas wouldn't have fermented and come forth as they did onto the page without the technological breakthroughs of his time and certain scientific papers that were published, AND his ideas aligned perfectly well with a number of scientific theories developed in the next century. So what you say makes no sense.

>>11384019
Go ahead and provide a passage that you think can be read "in whatever way you want."

>>11383991
GR was the result of explaining Mach's principle. Just stop.You're half baked idea doesn't hold.

>since we don't know for certain.
then why are you acting so certain?

>>11384047
Did you even read the post? I just admitted to being wrong there.

>>11384035
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Friedrich_Nietzsche

>>11384077
You should consider reading something on there for once, then you might be full of something other than shit.

>>11384086
Take your own advice, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Stop basing your opinion on what other people have said. Educate yourself. Nietzsche was not a serious philosopher but a dribbling madman incel with both a inferiority and superiority complex. The sooner we move on from his scrawlings the sooner philosophy will make some progress in the 21st century.

>>11384105
Is this a serious post? It better fucking not be, but I honestly can't tell anymore.

>>11384109
Why wouldn't it be? Stop being a brainlet and engage for once.

>>11384122
>Why wouldn't it be?
Because it's so unbelievably retarded that it's laughable.

>>11384130
nid yw hynny'n ddadl faggyo'tnl

>>11384158
you need to work on your trolling.

>>11380067
Einstein's relativity owes itself to thinking about Galileo and Maxwell, but you know, here's your (you).

>>11384189
What the fuck are you on about? You haven't said one concrete thing this whole thread and you accuse ME of trolling?! Fucking Nazi bitch, go back to your hole and take your small-minded petty "philosopher" with you. He is no longer relevant and neither are you. Bye.

>>11384382
>Fucking Nazi bitch
lol. I figured one of you had an agenda of some kind. If you aren't a troll you are one dumb motherfucker who has no right to speak on anything philosophical and who clearly has no respect for one of history's most renowned and complex philosophers to date. You think you're making progress by calling me names but I've been reading Nietzsche and philosophy in general for well over a decade, so unless you provide a real argument, you're just a shitposting child to me. I'm not engaging with you because you aren't worth engaging with.

The absolute fucking state of this board.

>>11384486
>triggered Nazi pseud
Get off of this board Incel.

>>11384490
Instead of the name calling, why not try responding to >>11383789 and >>11383831, seems they got ignored for whatever reason.

Semi-unrelated, but why was Nietzsche friends with Franz Liszt? Liszt was a christian who was inspired by peasant music. They couldn't be more unalike.

>>11384901
Why would a difference in views prevent two people from having a relationship?

>>11384499
>waaaah, why does no-one respond to my tedious longposts?! I put all this time into them and nobody cares ;(

Pathetic. Go away virgin.

>>11380035
>the bedrock of Western civilisation

How come all our villains are characterised as Nietzschean and all our heroes conform to Christian morality?

>>11385774
That's not true at all. Plenty of characters from Marvel and DC break that mold. But there are a lot of characters who don't because Christianity seized the entire Western world for millennia and you can't expect it all to just go away in a century or two.

>>11380035
Do Nietzsche fags realize he literally just plagiarized Ralph Waldo Emerson for pretty much his entire career, and threw in a couple personal opinions?

>>11386554
And stirner

>>11385979
>that's not true, look at my capeshit
yikes

>>11386572
It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Whether you like it or not is besides the point.

>>11386692

>>11380014
I'm interested in this as well. I've read all of Nietzsche and I've never once felt impressed. His prose is amazing, no doubt, but his arguments are weak as fuck.
>b-b-but let me tell you what you're akshually thinking
>causality is an argument against presentism

>>11386703
First I'm a Nazi bitch, now I'm a leftist onions boy. How many more memes can you retards throw at me to cover up your inability to discuss anything proper?

>>11386717
I didn’t call you a nazi or a leftist although I can see my soiboi designation was dead on

>>11380371
This is literally how I feel about Heidegger. I was like, this guy isn't so bad... Then I came across a section when he says Nietzsche is the greatest philosopher ever and shitttt and nobody understands him yet nigga, like NIGGA, he's CHANGED THE WORLD... just you wait and see.

>>11386725
I'm not a Christcuck seething over Nietzsche's existence so no, your designation is a miss.

>>11380236
The will to power is by his sister.

>>11385979
>Plenty of characters from Marvel and DC break that mold.
Name 'em, racist.

>>11386773
*snap*

>>11386714
I think his logic starting from society's growing-out-of-God is pretty solid. I just find his premises wrong.

>>11387154
t. hasn't read Nietzsche for shit

>>11383432
>inaccessible when the self is fragmented, which the structure of society being divided into specializations has made mandatory for everyone to become.
But society was already specialized by the time of the Greeks, what are you talking about?

>>11388633
The Greeks had a limited democracy that allowed for a privileged elite. We don't have that.

>>11380014
neechee made no contributions to philosophy. he made concepts already explored by previous philosophers accessible to the layman and added some of his opinions on top of it. that is all. you could compare him to richard dawkins though many people see this comparison as rude. it's a very good comparison.

>>11389005
>philosophy and opinion
>being separate

>>11383896
follow up, pls

>>11380035
bait

>>11389045
brainlet.

>>11380014
Nietzsche's ideas are hard to eviscerate because he doesn't really provide a bedding of theory or reason to found them on. Nietzsche focuses more on reading experience (a lot more stylism than most philosophers) than actual theory. You could even argue him not to be a real philosopher in my opinion.
As for your question, I dont know of such a book and sorry that I actually just repeated what you didn't want to hear.

>>11385730
>/lit/
>doesn't like reading
Well I am a crossboarder so I don't know what I'd expected but this shouldn't have come as a surprise.

>>11383606
Science is philosophy, and the sooner you fags see that as much as science should listen to philosophy, philosophy should listen to science, then we'll really start getting somewhere. What good is figuring out that time is relative if you don't even know how it varies? How could you have your famous trolley problem without science having invented trolleys? Would it really matter if you know god didn't exist if you couldn't prove it, or if it didn't have an impact outside of "knowing it"?
Like fitness books will have quotes at the beginning saying "muscles are the most important things, and intellectuals can suck it", philosophers are so afraid of becoming redundant they resort to calling science "heartless, thoughtless", even "useless". Pathetic. Rather than look back fondly like an old man might to the house he built with his own hands, who realised that the biggest gift his strength gave him was to not need strength one day, when science invents artificial intelligence, philosophers should look back and celebrate the steps that got them there, hopefully realising their biggest achievement was in fact the invention of science.
But no, instead replies of "good luck getting terminator'd" and "pseud", a term now used to better understand science!, will be thrown at me in the hopes of having the last word if nothing more.

>>11389649
/lit/ only reads things of quality.

>>11389559
Not an argument.

Marx in The German Ideology btfo's Stirner and with him Nietzsche.

>>11380423
Because you apply Nietzche to Sociobiology and Group Evolutionary Theory.

>>11380524
Discussing basic themes of philosophy of time is not predicting the Special or General Relativity of physics. Philosophy of Time is not a modern field, ancients have always discussed it. Your Nietzche quote is toddler-tier.

>>11390500
>Your Nietzche quote is toddler-tier.
No Nietzsche quote was posted there. That's a quote from Heraclitus. Nietzsche delves much deeper into the matter than he did, but since you didn't recognize that quote, I think it's safe to assume you wouldn't know that anyway.

>the ammount of pseuds getting assblasted by Nietzsche destroying metaphysics
SEETHING

>>11390801
Why did nietzsche have to exist
I just wanted to be a comfy platonist mystic

>>11380014
I did, honestly.

>>11388992
That's irrelevant to specialization.

>>11390334
>How could you have your famous trolley problem without science having invented trolleys?

>>11390931
There were people in Greek society who were able to attain a higher sense of beauty thanks to that form of government, is what I'm trying to say. Your sense of beauty depends on the developed state of your self. When everyone is specialized, like we have today, there is no one who can achieve a holistic sense of self, and everyone is approaching matters like beauty in skewed manners. Which is precisely what the Romantics were lamenting and what Nietzsche lamented when he regarded society as going downhill since the Renaissance, a period which itself was a step down from the Greeks.

>>11383332
It is though. "The world is will to power - and nothing besides!" People are so far up their own ass correcting others when they misinterpret "God is dead" they forget Nietzsche was actually an atheist.

>>11391042
>no one who can achieve a holistic sense of self, and everyone is approaching matters like beauty in skewed manners
And that was already happening with the Greeks. Unless you're going to say slaves and workers don't count, even though they're necessary to the functioning of the society.

>>11391074
The poets, philosophers, and artists were not all slaves and workers. Everyone is today.

>>11391088
But they lived in a society which required slaves to function, so their understanding of it was not holistic.

>>11391104
You are completely missing the point. There was an established class that was recognized for its exemption from such obligations. We don't have that anymore. People who are even wealthy enough to have ample free time don't get even a week of breathing space without being told things like they need to donate to charity, they need to contribute to the good of society, they need to participate politically, etc. Because there is no established class and recognition of its utility, there is no environment which supports healthy idle time and investigation into higher things. Everyone who is doing so whenever the opportunity arises is coming from a specialized mindset and that leads to fragmented and incomplete results.

Read some Schiller m8

>>11391136
>Everyone who is doing so whenever the opportunity arises is coming from a specialized mindset and that leads to fragmented and incomplete results.
And how was it different before? Did the people who had idle time not come from a specialized class? Did they do nothing for all their lives besides being idle?

>>11380524

at first i thought this was a classy troll of a typical "physics phd". now i am not so sure.

t. Pure Math (K-Homology Theory) PhD

>>11391151
They were raised in an environment that had an established privileged class. They were not specialized in the way that slaves and workers are, or trained in preparation for this lifestyle in their adult years, because it was understood that they would never have to adopt it.

Idle time leads to many activities.

>>11391168
>They were not specialized in the way that slaves and workers
And how does that make them different?

>>11391183
>And how does that make them different?
For starters, most of the philosophers were fucking body builder tier. Look at the state of philosophers since; not many of them excelled physically or placed much importance on this. The Greek privileged class (or simply the Greeks; people only ever refer to this class when talking about them, never the underclassmen) worked out and participated in sports all the time. The idle time that came from this system allowed them to freely pursue mastery over all categories of their lives, and many of them did so. They were also clearly geniuses and their artistic works and philosophies to this day influence us. Better your body, better your mind; but there is no way to attain that degree of expertise that they did without some kind of established class like they had, at least there's none that we know of yet.

>>11388118
t. doesn't know the biography

>>11391204
It's mentioned in Twilight of the Idols, Beyond Good and Evil, and Thus Spake Zarathustra.

t. wrote his master's dissertation on the Will to Power

if it makes you feel any better Nietzsche will be completely forgotten in the future superpowers, the European caliphate and greater confucian China.

>>11391212
>European caliphate
>superpower
Europe will barely have electricity in the future. Asia in general and China specifically will be the sole superpower in the future.

>>11380524
>No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.

>An initial understanding of the concept of spacetime exists in that passage.

Can you elaborate on that?

>>11391215
Maybe, The main point is fanatic dogmatists and pragmatic chinamen will kill Nietzsche.

>>11391198
>there is no way to attain that degree of expertise that they did without some kind of established class like they had, at least there's none that we know of yet.

Not that other anon, but are you implying that being rich and idle somehow makes you pursue the higher mind automatically. Why not just become a hermit as a rich man (to be free from negative influence), make some children and raise them without having the everyday obligations in mind. Shouldn't they become übermenschen?

>>11391224
It's a shame because Nietzsche demolishes basically all of Chinese philosophy with a single passage in Twilight of the Idols.

>>11391198
Again, that's still a specialized class
>inaccessible when the self is fragmented, which the structure of society being divided into specializations
still applies to them.

It's impossible to have such a sense of beauty in a true sense, because leaving other people to do things for you is what a society is. No matter how "high" the Greek upperclass's self was, it still could not divorce itself from the underclasses.

>>11391224

The era of the last men will end

>>11391233
And what is that?

Pic related preemptively B him TFO.

Nietzsche is the nu metal of philosophy, a teenager fad. His ideas have almost no bearing on the state of philosophy as of now

>>11391227
>are you implying that being rich and idle somehow makes you pursue the higher mind automatically.
Not at all. We have rich people today, and we even have idle people (they're called NEETs). Neither of them are attaining anything of the sort. They are either idiots clueless on everything besides how to make more money and appease people or they are fat slobs slowly whithering away and doing nothing constructive at all. Culture is what is needed; an environment that will encourage it is needed. That's what's missing.

>>11391240
>His ideas have almost no bearing on the state of philosophy as of now

Which is honestly telling of todays "philosophy"

>>11391238
It won't. The last man is represented as an alternative outcome if humanity doesn't embrace the Übermensch as the next step. But the concept really isn't all that fleshed out. It's only one short chapter in Zarathustra that discusses it at all.

>>11391239
>The other characteristic of philosophers is no less dangerous; it consists in confusing the last and the first. They place that which comes at the end — unfortunately! for it ought not to come at all! namely, the "highest concepts," which means the most general, the emptiest concepts, the last smoke of evaporating reality — in the beginning, as the beginning. This again is nothing but their way of showing reverence: the higher may not grow out of the lower, may not have grown at all. Moral: whatever is of the first rank must be causa sui. Origin out of something else is considered an objection, a questioning of value. All the highest values are of the first rank; all the highest concepts, that which has being, the unconditional, the good, the true, the perfect — all these cannot have become and must therefore be causes. All these, moreover, cannot be unlike each other or in contradiction to each other. Thus they arrive at their stupendous concept, "God." That which is last, thinnest, and emptiest is put first, as the cause, as ens realissimum. Why did humanity have to take seriously the brain afflictions of these sick web-spinners? We have paid dearly for it!

>>11391242
>Culture is what is needed; an environment that will encourage it is needed. That's what's missing.

How many people are needed for culture? Could a secluded family provide such an environment?

>>11391234
>that's still a specialized class
But not slave / worker styled specialization. The only specialization it is is being specialized in your own self-development. Very different thing, because that path leads to the opposite of specialization: holism and mastery over all categories of your life.

>still applies to them.
It doesn't. But you are free to explain why you think so.

>It's impossible to have such a sense of beauty in a true sense
Yet, the Greeks did! And as a result almost all of human art since has paled in comparison to their works.

>No matter how "high" the Greek upperclass's self was, it still could not divorce itself from the underclasses.
But it did, for a time. It didn't last. It's not impossible to achieve, it's just near-impossible to maintain.

>>11382647
>The biggest philosopher in the past few hundred years and one of the most groundbreaking in all of human history

big lol

>>11391254
>Could a secluded family provide such an environment?
No, unless your family is an extended one and filled with brilliant trainers of various disciplines. You can't expect children to achieve mastery over things without having ample resources available.

>>11391255
>you are free to explain why you think so
It's very simple
>mastery over all categories of your life
These are categories limited by your position in society, they do not extend to all human activity which is required for your continued existence. So they could not have achieved mastery over all categories of their life.

>>11391249
>All Chinese philosophy is Daoism
Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>11391244
Nietzsche was an inane thinker, a polemicist with decent prose

>>11391287
>These are categories limited by your position in society
"Categories of your life" don't include occupational categories. These are categories like body, mind, soul and spirit, and whatever emergent subcategories arise in mixture of these. Categories of YOUR life: it is important to realize the importance of the ownership there. One can certainly achieve mastery over yourself (the whole self) in a single lifetime if things are arranged accordingly. But they aren't arranged accordingly and never will be without the environment that such an established class provides.

>>11391221
Bump

I just want to learn and I read previous explanation.
When I think of that Heraclitus quote I am reminded of the boat problem, man's ever changing nothing stays the same, if you replace a thing one by one - is it still the same?
Spacetime; I think of a sheet of fabric with marbles on it, gravity distorting space and with it time.
>>11382801
Is this a correct understanding of your post?
>Heraclitus' quote and spacetime correlate ONLY in the fusion of space and time.
How do the concepts of being and change relate to spacetime. Is Heraclitus even speaking truthfully when he asserts that the man and the river are not the same? They do change, but no one would truly argue they are not the same anymore. Either way, how does General Relativity factor into this?

I'm not trying to troll, or argue against you. Genuinely interested.

>>11391249
imagine being enough of a 16-year-old to think that paragraph “demolishes” anything

>>11391301
>"Categories of your life" don't include occupational categories.
And why not? What distinguishes an athlete or a poet from all other occupations, other than those activities are done for their own sake?

>Categories of YOUR life: it is important to realize the importance of the ownership there.
Ownership which has to be arbitrarily defined, because no one person can attain mastery of all those categories in a true sense. How could they? What would that entail? They have no way of controlling whatever they receive and take from the world. Whatever "mastery" they could achieve was within the confines of a human being.

>>11391304
>Is Heraclitus even speaking truthfully when he asserts that the man and the river are not the same? They do change, but no one would truly argue they are not the same anymore.
He is talking truthfully, but only if you understand what the objects of his analysis are. Of course, since he was a philosopher, he dealt with objects of the mind above all; the "ideas" of these things. You pretty much got it when you brought up the boat problem. Heraclitus realized that a thing's identity changes when its properties change, and that a thing's properties must be linked to time. Exactly how he reasoned this we don't know, but we see it in the conclusive statement from his observations that he realized this much. And if a thing's properties are linked to time, and a thing's identity is linked to its properties, then a thing is linked to time, and a thing constitutes a certain amount of space. The idea of spacetime is forming there; the idea of objects in space independent of time is being questioned already.

>>11391327
Imagine being a brainlet

>>11391338
>And why not?
Because they're constructs external to yourself. We are talking about things you directly possess, your many instincts and drives.

>What distinguishes an athlete or a poet from all other occupations, other than those activities are done for their own sake?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.

>Whatever "mastery" they could achieve was within the confines of a human being.
Of course... mastery over YOUR life, and you are a human. So yes, naturally "mastery over your human life." I never suggested otherwise. But it sounds like you are suggesting that all human beings are equal here, when they aren't.

>>11391367
truly based reply, neetch would be proud

>>11391373
>your many instincts and drives.
And do those instincts and drives exist in a vacuum, by themselves, or do they exist in direction and relation to the things in the world?

>I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Just how it is that they are different. How are those other activities different when it comes to self-expression?

>mastery over YOUR life, and you are a human.
Except such a mastery would entail little of the whole of a human being's life. Not their inner organs, not their birth and body, not their growing old, not their getting sick, and so on. This is not even taking into account the rest of human experience that would go without their control. Surely, they didn't have control of the weather.

What they had a sense of control over was a small part of their existence. But what is necessary for a human being is more than muscle and mind.

>But it sounds like you are suggesting that all human beings are equal here, when they aren't.
They are certainly interchangeable in many important ways.

>>11380035
This......but unironically

>>11380250
Kill yourself

This entire pathetic thread

>>11391344
Thank you.
>Heraclitus realized that a thing's identity changes when its properties change
Is there any way to bring a... constancy into this? The thing in itself, THE identity in my understanding is unchanging, but Hercalitus leaves no room for that seemingly. I need to think about this. In my idea of identity in the sense of consciousness I of course allow for change, but still believe it to be a continuous thing.

Regarding the discussion: it seems like a matter of semantics and perspective. I see your point now but I also would have liked/expected a tighter entanglement of H.'s ideas and the further implications of spacetime. You have to concede it's more than 'space and time are connected'. That's the foundation, which is already quite much but a lot more follows from that.

>>11391420
>Heraclitus realized that a thing's identity changes when its properties change
>Is there any way to bring a... constancy into this?
Logic (Logos)
and its history (see Hegel for history, ignore (((marx))) being a pyramid scheme artist)

>>11391401
>And do those instincts and drives exist in a vacuum, by themselves, or do they exist in direction and relation to the things in the world?
How can you possibly ask such a question when I've been talking about the significance of one's environment this whole time?

>How are those other activities different when it comes to self-expression?
If you are asking what the difference is between a worker and a member of a privileged class when they may occupy similar roles, the difference is cultural.

>Except such a mastery would entail little of the whole of a human being's life.
What is your point? The Greeks were still geniuses and lived this way while at their peak.

>But what is necessary for a human being is more than muscle and mind.
What else do you think is necessary, then?

Who /icycalm/ here? I know y'all are out there since Heraclitus was mentioned.

>>11391431
>I've been talking about the significance of one's environment this whole time
You were the one that said those things were construct external to oneself. So when you say they became masters of themselves, you mean only their "inner" selves, which you admit are dependent of outer factors, of which they were not masters of and would not be accounted for.

>what the difference is between a worker and a member of a privileged class when they may occupy similar roles
No, I'm asking what is different between the activities of a worker and someone of the high class.

>What else do you think is necessary, then?
Anything in their environment.

>>11391344
>dude did you ever notice things change in time?
>mom look I invented relativity
amazing, what a visionary

>>11391478
>You were the one that said those things were construct external to oneself. So when you say they became masters of themselves, you mean only their "inner" selves, which you admit are dependent of outer factors, of which they were not masters of and would not be accounted for.
I see your point there. There is an issue with making an internal vs. external dichotomy when discussing attainment of a higher self, or mastery over life, because one's environment is interconnected to one's self, and life contains all things, therefore mastery over one requires mastery over the other. However, it is possible to acquire degrees of mastery over both; perfect mastery? no. But degrees, definitely: an athlete will have acquired a greater degree of mastery over his body than a clumsy, overweight, untrained oaf, for example. My point was that the Greeks acquired a greater and more holistic (which lends itself towards its greatness) degree of mastery over life than other societies have since.

>No, I'm asking what is different between the activities of a worker and someone of the high class.
The aims of those activities and the instruments used in them.

>Anything in their environment.
And we can have control over certain aspects of our environment.

>>11391543
>an athlete will have acquired a greater degree of mastery over his body than a clumsy, overweight, untrained oaf, for example.
I would say that, just as instinct doesn't exist on its own, skill doesn't exist on its own. An oaf isn't fat and weak because he lacks "skill", but because he does not do the activities required in order to be otherwise. Nonetheless, he is as much as someone who we think is the opposite, he is not less, there is nothing lacking in him, like there's nothing a large rock lacks in comparison to another for not being eroded.

>The aims of those activities and the instruments used in them.
And what are those?

>And we can have control over certain aspects of our environment.
Yes, but not all, wouldn't you say?

Not to say the breadth of knowledge of our times is very different from that of the Greeks', our scope is simply far larger. It is impossible to conceive of a whole class of people who would achieve mastery in all aspects of all worthwhile activities that we know of, wouldn't you say?

>>11391589
>Nonetheless, he is as much as someone who we think is the opposite, he is not less, there is nothing lacking in him, like there's nothing a large rock lacks in comparison to another for not being eroded.
Now you are the one insinuating that things exist in a vacuum. Because in the world, when compared to the athlete, there is clearly something lacking in the clumsy oaf. There is clearly a difference between the culture and achievements of the Greeks and the culture and achievements of a number of third world countries in the modern day. Comparisons can be made, and in those comparisons we see degrees of things, which by nature mean "less and more."

>And what are those?
That has nothing to do with your question before. Just get to the point you're trying to make instead of beating around the bush here.

>Yes, but not all, wouldn't you say?
Sure. Again, what is your point?

>>11391612
>Because in the world, when compared to the athlete, there is clearly something lacking in the clumsy oaf.
In a literal sense, of course. But that's not what I mean. What I mean is that there isn't such a thing as skill, and then those activities. It is those activities that make the athlete what he is. We simply classify them as such, and then can say one lacks it and one doesn't. But there's no difference between the oaf and his not doing those activities. There's nothing else that the oaf could be, and your idea that he should is simply you comparing him to the athlete. Likewise, when you say the Greeks could develop such higher senses of self, you are classifying those phenomena under one term, but there's no sense of self and then the experiences of those people, and then our experience which is not like them. There is nothing for us to live up to.

>That has nothing to do with your question before.
No, it does, because you never defined what it is that makes them different.

>Again, what is your point?
That mastery, as you conceive it, is always limited, and therefore not mastery.

>>11391666
>It is those activities that make the athlete what he is.
It's not just the activities that make him what he is. It's his relation to others as well.

>Likewise, when you say the Greeks could develop such higher senses of self, you are classifying those phenomena under one term, but there's no sense of self and then the experiences of those people, and then our experience which is not like them. There is nothing for us to live up to.
You'll need to clarify what you mean here.

>No, it does, because you never defined what it is that makes them different.
I already told you what makes them different: the aims and the instruments used.

>That mastery, as you conceive it, is always limited, and therefore not mastery.
It does not have to be perfect mastery to be regarded as mastery. This is just semantics now. If the word mastery bothers you, let's use expertise instead.

>>11391706
>It's his relation to others as well.
His relation to others also falls under activities.

>You'll need to clarify what you mean here.
That when you think modern people deficient for not being like the Greeks, you're talking as if modern people could be somehow else, while remaining modern people, but this is impossible. For that to be possible, there would need to be something besides the totality of what they are; you can find something like that as convention, but nothing else.

>the aims and the instruments used
Which is why I'm asking you what about them is different and what they are.

You should read Heidegger's Nietzsche lectures, in which he explains the relevance and original points of Nietzsche's thought as well as its shortcomings.

They might be somewhat challenging, especially if you're not familiar with Heidegger's thinking at all, but I found that they provide a thorough elucidation of both Nietzsche's as well as Heidegger's own thought.

>>11391740
>His relation to others also falls under activities.
But do you get my meaning here? One's "activities" i.e. actions are relative too. The athlete is the athlete because not everyone else is an athlete, because he performs in ways not everyone can. That's how we recognize him and label him as such.

>That when you think modern people deficient for not being like the Greeks, you're talking as if modern people could be somehow else, while remaining modern people, but this is impossible.
I don't disagree there. I wasn't saying that modern people must become like the Greeks absolutely; that is definitely impossible. What is done is done, you can never replicate the same exact experiment twice, because you can never replicate the same exact conditions twice, despite what scientists may wish to believe. But we can learn from the Greeks, we can understand some of the mechanisms which led to their success, and we can possibly adapt them where applicable or arrive at new ideas and structures which seek similar aims but which are suited for the conditions we now find ourselves in. At the end of the day, we can still compare their culture to ours, and we should do that, at the very least so that we may understand ourselves a bit better.

>Which is why I'm asking you what about them is different and what they are.
Everything about them is different because everything about the people are different, because everything about the environment is different, etc. These things don't change linearly and separately either; people and the environment change with one another and influence one another's change. The average person today is either going to live his life following a "career" or he is going to go in and out of unemployment his whole life, in which case he will feel at least some of the many societal pressures associated with that, or he will be full on NEET, in which case he will feel at least some of the many societal pressures associated with that. This is how the culture is setup today, and it has its purposes, but it is also going to appear lacking when evaluated in view of other cultures and vice versa.

>>11380490
Kek

>>11391836
Well, I don't think we can be in disagreement then, if you say this is all relative. What we might disagree is in our admiration for the Greeks. I certainly think they're special, but I don't find them to be the end-all-be-all. I think their society was far from what I would think ideal.