/lit/ - Literature

>>18269241
>reads a book about nihilism once.

Having sex
Accepting Christ

His arguments themselves aren’t very compelling

>>18269241
there are none

>>18269241
>there are no facts, only interpretations
The problems with this formulation were apparent already 2000 years ago, it's self-annihilating. It also contradicts his understanding of will to power, which doesn't make much sense if total perspectivism is employed.

>>18269360
So there are facts AND interpretations? Articulate yourself please.

>>18269306
Which ones? Obviously BoT is a joke as philosophy...

>>18269378
the statement itself being a fact is the issue, again this was discussed by the ancients and Nietzsche did not address the problem. Nobody actually believes that there are no facts, to actually believe such a thing would be to have extremely psychotic schizophrenia.

>Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.

>This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor port. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce -- G.K. Chesterton, "Orthodoxy", Chapter 7

>>18269360
>>18269418
It's not a fact, it's an interpretation. The paradoxical nature of the statement stems from your own interpretation as well.

>>18269455
The paradox stems from recursion, as pretty much all paradoxes do. It is simply logically incoherent.

>>18269418
Which ancients? Equivocation has always been an issue, definitely. Nietzsche seems to be taking the opposite stance of Plato's Socrates.

imagine being such a fucking retard you try to “logically debunk” nietzsche hahahahaha

>>18269468
>It is simply logically incoherent.
How? Note that an interpretation for Nietzsche is not the same thing as a mere opinion. "There are only interpretations" does not mean "I interpret things however I want" but "I interpret things according to how I can." His "interpreter" works more like an "observer" in science than an opinionated bystander, as in that the interpreter necessarily filters the world through the interpreter's own set of organic instruments and can only ever understand the world in this privately filtered state.

>>18269468
It's just another interpretation, relax. Nothing illogical there.

>>18269494
>>18269493
Because it allows for the opposing interpretation that there are objective facts and you can't privilege the prior interpretation that there aren't facts over it.

>>18269241
Ngl that photo looks badass af

>>18269516
Interpretations can be ranked and privileged.

Nietzsche's works are on the same level as self-help books. Pure trash that does not deserve to be called philosophy.

>>18269516
>it allows for the opposing interpretation that there are objective facts
As an interpretation, and that interpretation comes from a less complex organism, since it describes a less complex world.

>>18269532
according to what? If there are no facts then what basis can you order them by?

>>18269537
>that interpretation comes from a less complex organism, since it describes a less complex world.
This is itself an interpretation that can be discarded at will.

>>18269540
Did you not read Nietzsche's works? Rank them by their use to you.

>>18269549
You still don't get it.

>>18269558
>their use
The concept of use supposes facts about the world as well as values. There is no way to privilege any interpretation or behavior above a schizophrenic delusion that you are king if there are no facts.

>>18269578
There is nothing to get, you can't explain the concept because it is logically incoherent. You don't believe it anyway, you 100% believe there are facts about the world such as 'if I jump off a building i'll likely die'. It is nothing but a childish game to pretend otherwise.

Only the powerless require concepts like amor fati.

>>18269580
A fact would need consensus, no? You see how you've mislead yourself?

>>18269586
Must be nice living in that simple world of yours where there are clear "facts" to discover and no nuance whatsoever. Glad I'm not a part of it though.

He was the only incel in history who didn't mind the ruthlessness of the status quo. In fact, he exalted it.
The question is, why?

>>18269597
No it doesn't need consensus, it needs evidence.
>>18269605
Again you are playing an adolescent word game you don't even believe, it's honestly pathetic.

>>18269608
>>18269263
He banged Lou Salomé and had an illegitimate kid with her. Y'all cringe.

>>18269624
>evidence
You really didn't do the reading huh? Plato-Kant-Schopenhauer-Nietzsche are required to have an intelligent discussion about this.

>>18269636
Yes evidence, conformity of prediction with outcome.

>>18269644
Such as?

>>18269656
Your belief that you will drop to the ground if you jump off a building based on countless observations of objects falling to the ground when dropped. Having an 'interpretation' opposed to this is psychosis

>>18269624
Love how you types act confident in these threads despite having read nothing from the author in question.

>Suppose such an incarnate will to contradiction and antinaturalness is induced to philosophize: upon what will it vent its innermost contrariness? Upon what is felt most certainly to be real and actual: it will look for error precisely where the instinct of life most unconditionally posits truth. It will, for example, like the ascetics of the Vedanta philosophy, downgrade physicality to an illusion; likewise pain, multiplicity, the entire conceptual antithesis "subject" and "object"—errors, nothing but errors! To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality"—what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason—a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!" (Incidentally, even in the Kantian concept of the "intelligible character of things" something remains of this lascivious ascetic discord that loves to turn reason against reason: for "intelligible character" signifies in Kant that things are so constituted that the intellect comprehends just enough of them to know that for the intellect they are—utterly incomprehensible.) But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation of the intellect for its future "objectivity"—the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge. Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," "absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be.

>>18269665
I'm going to slap that fedora off your head, m8. The <factual> <reasons> for things appearing to return towards the center of the earth are interpretations, not facts. There have been endless interpretations and will be more. How many were facts?

>>18269685
drivel that avoids the fact that we judge beliefs by their outcomes in a world we have shared access to. We both see the object fall when we drop it, there is no interpretation

>>18269703
>we judge beliefs by their outcomes
And by we you mean the herd.

>>18269700
The fact is that it drops.

>>18269710
Everyone apart from schizophrenics actually. You yourself are totally, utterly incapable of 'interpreting' reality such that you are able to fly off the building instead of dropping. Your will cannot alter the facts on bit, you are constrained by the fact, which everyone knows, that you will indeed fall to the ground.

>>18269713
that's not even the correct way to phrase it, though. if you choose a non-inertial frame of reference moving with the falling person (which has been a valid choice since 1915), you could say the earth is moving to you

>>18269721
>You yourself are totally, utterly incapable of 'interpreting' reality such that you are able to fly off the building instead of dropping.
You're not even reading my posts, are you? This is irrelevant, in fact I disputed this very notion of what an interpretation is already. See >>18269494 again and maybe actually read the quote I posted above.

>>18269241
As you can see by his pose, he thought of himself as a new Napoleon, but in actuality he achieved nothing, while Nappy conquered a continent.

>>18269740
That is the correct way to phrase it because it is what you yourself observe and verify and can use as a prediction that allows you to accurately manipulate your environment. The fact that you know about the world is that the object will fall when dropped. It is again a childish word game to pretend you don't know this fact and that there is some kind of room for your will to interpret reality however it likes.

>>18269751
All his achievements were posthumous as he predicted.

>>18269713
Wrong. It appears to drop. Oriented around your senses.

>>18269721
But you are flying, just into the bosom of Gaia where you may be released into the void.

>>18269747
You are trying to avoid the very obvious reality that you know the object will fall when it drops, that this is a fact and not an interpretation.

>>18269755
you ignored everything I said. this concept of "fall" isn't totally well-defined. that isn't a game, it has important physical implications. it's literally general relativity. what you are saying is that relativity is just a childish word-game.

>>18269760
>Wrong. It appears to drop. Oriented around your senses.
More childish word games to avoid that there is no room for interpretation in this instance, that everyone agrees on the factual nature of the event.

>>18269765
It's not falling. You're interpreting it that way. From your layman armchair.

>>18269771
The only agreement (consensus???) is movement.

>>18269765
>the object will fall when it drops
There is only "the object" and "falling" because of my organic structure interpreting phenomena in this way. A tree, which doesn't have eyes, does not perceive falling objects.

>>18269769
>this concept of fall isn't totally well-defined
Sophistry. The object accelerates towards the ground, everyone knows what is meant by the concept. Relativity is a more sophisticated explanation of the same phenomenon, but the phenomenon itself, the fall, can be verified by anyone with a pair of eyes and functioning brain.

>>18269771
does it make sense to say two things happened at the same time?

>>18269782
Why are you still arguing with this goy

>>18269772
You are totally incapable of 'interpreting reality' such that you will not fall to the ground when you jump off a building. No matter how much you try to wriggle out of this you are constrained by the fact that you will fall and your knowledge of this fact.

>>18269786
Ableist nonsense.

>>18269797
That's like, your interpretation bro. I don't see it that way at all.

He's based

>>18269782
A tree does not possess any facts because it doesn't have a brain with which to construct them.

>>18269813
>he thinks brains make facts
lockdown really is melting brains

>>18269804
yeah you do, which is why you'd piss yourself if I dangled you off the edge of a building. It is actually infantile to pretend you can just reorder reality according to your own interpretations by force of will, literally a child screaming that he won't accept reality.

>>18269819
Yes brains make facts, a fact is a correct(verified by outcome) belief, a belief is a pattern in a brain.

>>18269821
You're afraid of dying still? You'd PISS yourself? Hahahaha. You've redeemed yourself a little bit. Lit's own reality monkey.

Do you interpret your reality or do you accept it on authority from the internet?

>>18269821
Is this a threat?

>>18269813
>brains "possess" facts
>ignores the function of eyes entirely
lol, read a biology book.

>>18269241
This retard argued against the morals of Christianity. The morals of Christianity are not important if Christianity is factually wrong. And if Christianity is factually wrong, it's redundant to attack Christianity for its morals. But if Christianity is a matter of fact, then it doesn't matter if their morals are right or wrong or slavish or gay, if you don't follow them God will send you to hell where you will burn eternally with the rest of reprobates. Nietzsche, like the good idealist he was, followed Lucifer into thinking that the fundaments of reality aren't important, what matters is adhering to your noble cause even when it doesn't have a practical reason behind it to make it operative in reality. But the world doesn't work like that. Reality is that God is omnipotent and you have to materially submit to him because he has all the power and you lack it. Reality is that a cause that doesn't have practicals reasons to be operative isn't noble, it's wrong by nature due to its impracticity and doomed from the start. Nietzsche can only be followed by people who already are Atheists, it doesn't convince anyone else because in the moment you believe in hell and in the immortality of the soul, you realize that Nietzsche didn't so he could avoid being refuted by OLJC with a single sentence: "he who does not believe is condemned already".

>>18269837
Yes I'm sure you're le ebin ubermensch who doesn't fear death and you would totally not react to your life being threatened because it's all just like an interpretation bro. Unbelievably juvenile

>>18269848
The eye gathers information which it feeds into the brain

>>18269860
Yes, but it also conditions that information, which means all knowledge is filtered through a set of organs, making none of it absolute.

>>18269854
Reality-Ape talks back and digs itself in deeper. It's a fact that everyone fears pitching off into nothingness? What are you so afraid of?

There's nothing juvenile about getting over yourself.

Not knowing what the ubermensch means is extremely cringe. Where did you glean this surface level phil from buddy?

>>18269786
>but the phenomenon itself, the fall, can be verified by anyone with a pair of eyes and functioning brain.
but what is "the fall"? do you think you can formulate it in a way that actually makes sense in any frame of reference?
one can formulate it in that way, of course. i just think that YOU specifically cannot, which makes this whole thing very ironic
like, the world is much more complicated than you realize, and you'd even ignore and deny subtle empirical truths to hold onto your naive view of the world

>>18269872
It doesn't need to be absolute, again its value is determined by its predictive power

>>18269884
>It doesn't need to be absolute
Then it is an interpretation i.e. conditional and not factual, at least in the sense that it is meant in Nietzsche's statement.

>>18269884
>committing this same logical fallacy still
bro

>>18269877
Nobody believes you have no fear of death you petulant child, it's a universal instinct that even people who kill themselves possess.

>>18269881
>but what is "the fall"? do you think you can formulate it in a way that actually makes sense in any frame of reference?
You are engaging in unbelievable levels of sophistry, the fall is the fact that the object moves towards the ground.

>>18269886
Facts don't need to be absolute, something being a fact merely means it can be and has been verified by observing reality. The fact is not conditional if nobody ever produces conditions in which it doesn't occur as a counter-example.

>>18269893
Reality-Ape slings his interpretations too.

>petulant child
I wonder what we can glean from your having this in your argument vocabulary?

>it's a universal instinct
No it isn't.

You get a lot of your <facts> from the internet I bet. Which websites will get us the most and best facts? I want to become a Reality-Ape too.

>>18269912
>Facts don't need to be absolute
When Nietzsche said "there are no facts" he was referring to absolute knowledge. You're arguing something else rather than his statement at this point.

>>18269901
>the object moves
that depends on your reference frame. you might think this is all sophistry and silly, but thinking carefully about what effects are relative and which aren't literally leads you to special and general relativity.

>>18269893
>>peepee boy is calling someone else a child
KEK

>>18269241
This hack got permanently BTFO in the moment he had to rely on slave morality to survive. If it were for his theories the medics would have thrown his useless body from a cliff. Based God sent him what he deserved.

>>18269924
Reframing the movement doesn't alter the fact of the movement itself.

>>18269974
**Appearance of movement**

>>18269985
It is not mere appearance though, the appearance you are given corresponds to something actually happening.

>>18269921
'interpretation' implies you have some say in the matter, when you actually don't. You can't interpret basic facts however you like, you are constrained by them.

>>18269999
How can you tell?

>>18269916
>reality-ape
>I don't fear death
>nothing is real bro
rather pathetic

>>18270058
Because it reliably predicts reality. It is possible of course that everything is mirage, you can't know absolutely, but there is no reason to believe so. It is much more reasonable to assume that your senses are giving you accurate, useful, if incomplete and flawed, information that corresponds to things actually happening in the world.

>>18270090
>>18270071
Wussah matter Reality-Ape? Reality-Ape stopped learning biology in high skewwl? He duddn knew how he wittle body wewks? Space? Time? 3 dimensional vision? Thought, sleep, memory?

Corresponds how? Predicts how?

>>18270046
>'interpretation' implies you have some say in the matter, when you actually don't.
So now you're going to just go back to arguing in favor of absolute knowledge?

>>18269360
>>there are no facts, only interpretations
He never published this. It's scribbled a notebook. There's no reason to wire this up with his carefully thought out intentionally published works.

>>18270121
Verifiable does not equal absolute. It's not open to interpretation because no interpretation can make it such that you don't see the object falling to the ground. You have to deal with this fact, you can't interpret it away. It's still not absolute because it could be entirely an illusion, but this doesn't open up the possibility of interpretation, it merely negates the ability to know anything at all.
>>18270114
anon really you don't have to degrade yourself like this, it's sad

>>18270160
>Verifiable does not equal absolute.
"All is interpretation" does not mean knowledge does not need verification. Like I said before, "facts" refer to absolute knowledge and you're arguing something that's besides the point now.

>>18270128
I think you're right, but the thought is basically in his published works still. However, it's wrapped in the necessary context there, which is why so many get confused about it.

>>18270187
Verification is opposed to the very concept of interpretation. Everyone verifies that the object falls, where do you see room for interpretation in this process?

>>18270209
>Everyone verifies that the object falls, where do you see room for interpretation in this process?
You're still mistaking what is meant by interpretation in that statement. Nietzsche was mostly responding to Enlightenment ideals, chief among them being that science leads to absolute knowledge about the world. When he says that all is interpretation, he wants us to consider what was previously being overlooked in the equation, which is the necessary presence of an observer in every observation, an observer who ultimately influences the observation, in order to refute that ideal. And since his time, science has incorporated this insight, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Another poster pointed out that the statement is actually from an unpublished notebook, which is a good point to make. So a better passage you should refer to is in The Gay Science 354.

>>18270301
>an observer who ultimately influences the observation, in order to refute that ideal
In the case of the falling object though there is no significant observer effect whatsoever. Everyone agrees that the object falls, the light bouncing off it and into our eyes that lets us observe it has an imperceptible and negligible effect on the on the event. The basic fact of the situation is quite unambiguous. I feel that referring to what we do when we process a situation like this as an interpretation is simply misusing language. You should not use the same word for that process as you do for the process of 'interpreting the meaning of a song' for example, they are very different types of process.

>>18270187
>I think you're right
It's not up for debate. What context is it wrapped in? How is it basically in his published works? What are you talking about?

>>18270160
Peepee boy thinks he can really nail in a point by dangling anon off a building like a fucking capeshit movie

>>18270385
The point is that you know you'd fall if you were let go. It is a fact about which you don't have even the slightest doubt, you are not free to interpret reality in some other way where you'll actually fly off or something, you can imagine such things happening but you can't seriously believe them. People who do have beliefs like this are severely delusional and are typically a huge danger to themselves and to others.

>>18270406
Pissboy Reality-Ape must know you can interpret his power fantasy peepee fear play in many ways. The fact of the matter is you are cringe and factually wrong. I know for a facty fact that when you argue irl you raise your index finger when making a facty fact logical truth bomb annihilation =)

>>18270477
Your dishonesty, unpleasantness, and fixation with urine are becoming boring. We are discussing the fact that you will fall, you can't actually argue against because you know that pretending otherwise is to be genuinely delusional, so you are just embarrassing yourself by talking about pee.

>>18270334
>In the case of the falling object though there is no significant observer effect whatsoever.
Of course there is. Even Zeno's paradoxes show us that there is. Motion is not absolute, there must be a perspective that perceives it.

>>18270380
>It's not up for debate.
I meant that I'm pretty sure you're correct.

>How is it basically in his published works?
Perspectivism is still a concept in his works.

>>18270497
The Reality-Ape has lost the petty argument. He brought up peepee. He got backed into a corner when trying to differentiate fact and interpretation. He wears a black button down dress shirt. And he's hurt now that we know about the index finger raising.

BASED

>>18270508
>Of course there is. Even Zeno's paradoxes show us that there is. Motion is not absolute, there must be a perspective that perceives it.
You don't really believe this though, if you make a machine that involves something falling you don't believe the machine will stop working the same way if you stop watching it.

>>18270512
I said 'piss yourself' to refer to the fact that you'd be afraid if someone threatened your life, you then spent a dozen posts talking about pee.

You still can't actually address the issue either, you know that there is no room for interpretation in whether an object will fall or not.

>>18270514
>You don't really believe this though
Why wouldn't I? We even have scientific experiments to demonstrate it, like the double-slit experiment.

>>18270522
You don't believe that eg the engine in your car will stop working if you're not watching it.

>>18270520
Reality-Ape thinks he can save face by getting in the last word about threatening anon by [use husky Batman voice here:] MAKING HIM FEAR DEATH AND PEEPEEING.

The issue was addressed by at least 3 ppl above. You've been intellectually eviscerated. You should have done your reading. Wikipedia and plato.stanford.edu do not count.

Reality breaks down upon examination whether by physics or mathematics or philosophy.

And your argument style is extremely cringe.

I do hope that one day you will live out your fantasies of making a n intelligent argument and dangling a man off a building and making him piss in fear (gross).

I backtraced your webcam as you can see

>>18270528
No, but I don't believe that the engine is an engine to a dog either. To a dog, it's just a solid object without a mechanism. And, without anyone anywhere to see shape at all, I have no reason to assume that it retains one, or at any rate the same one that our eyes see. The shape it has has been constructed by our eyes.

>>18270544
You still know that the object will fall no matter how many times you try to avoid admitting it, is a fact you can't deny.
>>18270545
What does a dog not knowing about how the engine works have to do with anything? That just means the dog has fewer facts about the engine than you do.

>>18270568
Reality-Ape is still interpreting it as falling. An interpretation he cannot deny. And that's a fact.

Another fact: His shoes are one color: black.

>>18270568
>What does a dog not knowing about how the engine works have to do with anything?
"Engine" carries a meaning that our brains in particular have imbued the object with. Outside our brains and other brains like ours, the meaning is not there. It's perspectival rather than absolute. Same with the engine's shape and movements and the sounds it makes.

>>18270576
You realize you would sound silly if you outright stated that you think you can fly, or any other variation that would contradict the fact, so you are just fumbling around avoiding it.
>>18270579
The engine is an object about which you can say things that can be verified by their ability to predict outcomes. The dog can believe eg. the engine is hot and would burn him, you can believe the engine powers your car, etc.

>>18269241
WHy did Nietzsche rebel against his coomer reputwtion?

>>18270591
>The engine is an object about which you can say things that can be verified by their ability to predict outcomes.
What do you think is doing the verifying?

>>18270596
You verify yourself by seeing if your beliefs lead to accurate predictions. Eg. if you take out the engine and then your car no longer runs you can reasonably infer that the engine is integral to the functioning of your car. Any other person can perform the same experiment, there is no room for interpretation between you and the other person as to whether the engine does power your car, you both have to use the same process to verify the belief.

>>18270591
Reality-Ape is committing logical fallacies left and right AND arguing with a strawman who thinks he can fly because there are no facts only interpretations (of experienced reality).

Reality-Ape is not someone to engage in argument. He is totally detached from logic.

He thinks dangling anon off a building and making him peepee in fear proves something.

He thinks overcoming the fear of death is not possible.

Lol

>>18270641
Do you or do you not admit that if you drop a rock it will fall to the ground? Is it not a fact that the rock will not fly off towards the sun rather than dropping?

>>18270615
>Any other person can perform the same experiment
Anyone who does so must have similar organs which produce the same interpretation.

>>18270648
Reality-Ape is backed into a corner. He doesn't grasp the chain of logic from Plato to Kant to Schopenhauer to Nietzsche's statement.

Reality-Ape sees. Reality-Ape calls it falling. Reality-Ape has no facts. Reality-Ape has his interpretation and endless fallacies and a fucking strawman to argue with.

Reality-Ape isn't being engaged. Reality-Ape keeps posting.

>>18270660
Why can't you answer the question? Is it a fact that the rock will drop rather than flying off of its own power?

>>18270659
Yes they must have the same types of organs but it's not an interpretation because there is only one conclusion that can be drawn. It's not the same as the way you would interpret the meaning of a song where several different conclusions could be drawn. The engine either affects the functioning of the car or it doesn't.

>>18270672
Reality-Apes question has been answered tenfold above. Reality-Ape is too stupid to read. Reality-Ape shouldn't be expected to understand given the logical fallacies it keeps committing. Truly an amazing beast. It keeps digging in and continuing its long cringe ditch.

>>18270696
You know it's a fact that the rock will drop rather than fly off. you know there is no room for interpretation here.

>>18270704
Wow you really are strawmanning. What point are you arguing? No one is saying it will fly off - you can interpret what happens. Are you really arguing with a strawman publicly?

>>18270704
Reality-Ape continues violating basic logic. At least it stopped raising its index finger.

We know about the speech impediment =)

>>18270750
I am stating a fact 'the rock will drop rather than fly off'. I am pointing out that you obviously believe in this fact and it is not a matter of interpretation.

>>18270755
Wrong. Do you see why your statement is wrong? Why am I talking to a retard. God damn it.

>>18270765
You will not be able to actually argue that you don't believe in this fact, you obviously do.

>>18270686
>but it's not an interpretation because there is only one conclusion that can be drawn.
This is unscientific and unfounded as you can't verify yourself that something with organs completely different from yours can't / won't draw a different conclusion. And if this were the case, and there were no question at all as to how our own organs play a role in the observation of phenomena, then would we even have quantum physics at all?

Your example is also extremely simple and for that reason unsuitable for the subject matter we're dealing with. If we start talking about something far more complex like, say, the subject of politics and the question "what makes a good government?", then you will get an endless number of interpretations coming from an endless number of different kinds of brains / bodies.

>>18270800
>something with organs completely different from yours can't / won't draw a different conclusion.
No matter what organs it has it can't draw the conclusion that removing the engine wouldn't affect the functioning of the car.

>>18270800
And yes I agree that when it comes to ethics and politics the situation is much more ambiguous. My point was merely that some facts do exist in an unambiguous manner. Without these facts we could not even interact with the world functionally at all, everything would be an unstable and shifting dream.

>>18270810
Sure, but it can still draw a different conclusion, one that is appropriate to its organs, just like how your interpretation, that there is an "engine" "moving" a "car," is appropriate to your organs.

Is Heidegger wrong?

>"The greatness and superiority of natural science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rests in the fact that all the scientists were philosophers. They understood that there are no mere facts, but that a fact is only what it is in the light of the fundamental conception, and always depends on how far that conception reaches. The characteristic of positivism - which is where we have been for decades, today more than ever - by way of contrast is that it thinks it can manage sufficiently with facts, or other and new facts, while concepts are merely expedients that one somehow needs but should not get too involved with, since that would be philosophy."

>>18270819
The car actually exists, both we and our imaginary organism can gain knowledge about said car by testing the predictive value of our beliefs about it. This process is the same for the organism and for us, we may just focus on gaining different facts about the car, but we are both looking at the same external object and gathering information about it. To say 'the car is black' and 'the car requires an engine to function' are not opposing interpretations but simply different attributes of the same object.

>>18270818
>My point was merely that some facts do exist in an unambiguous manner.
We still have no means of verifying that there is any knowledge that exists independently of all bodies. Everything we know is dependent on our bodies.

>Without these facts we could not even interact with the world functionally at all
Nietzsche calls these necessary illusions. They aren't facts, but they are so important for us to believe in them that we must assume their necessity to avoid the risk of neurotically questioning ourselves into perpetual impotence or suicidal anguish.

>The car actually exists
Something exists, but "car" doesn't "actually exist." "Car" is your interpretation of it. The "actual existence" isn't something we have any right to, biologically speaking.

>>18270830
>necessary illusions
But they are not illusions, they are true. If you genuinely do have illusions then you can't function, like if you believe you can fly so you jump off a building, you will die or injure yourself.

I am not seeing the point of your separation between the label car and the object's actual existence. You can just point to it and say 'that thing' if you want, the point is that it really exists such that you and an independent observer can't reach contradictory conclusions about the object if you test the conclusions by interacting with the object.

>>18270770
Reality-Ape abandoned basic logic and Reality-Ape expects us to answer his question again.

It's been answered by his trainer and by others. Yet Reality-Ape keeps asking.

Why would anyone engage Reality-Ape? He thinks his feet are "down" and that objects "fall" and has a lisp as an adult.

He doesn't know what a frame of reference is. Reality-Ape doesn't know what a perspective is. Reality-Ape doesn't know what interpretations are. Reality-Ape is a fat mess.

And Reality-Ape has been wrong for hours. Lol

>>18270844
Wassuh matter Reality-Ape? Believing you can fly? No one said that. That's a strawman. No one interprets that as being able to fly away, retard. Reality-Ape is an endless lolcow, He never stops!

>>18270852
'the rock will fall' is not an interpretation that can be held simultaneously with a contradictory interpretation depending on your perspective, as you can do for ambiguous subjects, it is a fact.

>>18270867
It's an example of an actual illusion, if you use the same word to refer to beliefs that allow you to make accurate predictions and beliefs that don't you are misusing language.

>>18270869
Reality-Ape keeps saying retarded things =^)

Does it mean the rock would fall? The rock might fall? Reality-Ape doesn't know that its feet aren't down and that it's Hell magnetically pulling objects toward it. But we know all about Reality-Ape and its cage.

Keep talking Reality-Ape! You've already lost your argument 20x over!

>>18270878
Whassa matter Reality-Ape? Too much youtube? How can any animal think like this? Wha happen Mistah Reality-Ape? Why you brain goo?

>>18270887
It means the rock will fall, there is no ambiguity. You are really a rather deranged person

>>18270844
>But they are not illusions, they are true.
What do you mean by true?

>You can just point to it and say 'that thing' if you want, the point is that it really exists
Yes, it really exists, no one ever questioned that. But what you see comes from you. You see "car," while a dog sees something else. No brain / eye perceives the "actual existence," that is, an absolute form unconditioned by a perspective. No one has "the facts," absolute knowledge, the final judgment possible.

>>18270893
Reality-Ape uses his skeleton as a frame of reference and its brain's illusion of cause and effect as yet another frame!

Whassah matter Reality-Ape? You've committed so many basic logic mistakes that no one is listening. kek

>>18270897
>What do you mean by true?
They allow you to make accurate predictions. An illusion causes you to make inaccurate predictions, the belief you can fly is an example of such an illusion, which will be contradicted if you test it.

>>18270915
Who thinks they can fly?

>>18270913
Why do you think cause and effect are an illusion? Your experiences show that x always causes y, why do you doubt them? You can speculate that maybe you are being deceived in some fundamental way but there is no reason to believe this.

>>18270930
Reality-Ape says the most fucking basic bitch kek stuff. Reality-Ape has engaged zero philosophy? Is this possible? Why is it talking to us?

>>18270929
People who are experiencing psychosis, usually due to drugs.

>>18270936
It being basic doesn't mean it's not true, you don't appear to actually have an argument against it.

>>18270940
Reality-Ape is confusing television show memes with the real world. There are zero documented cases of this. None. Reality-Ape is a based retard. It keeps on talking. It'll say anything it thinks will win an argument it's already lost hours ago.

BASED

>>18270946
Reality-Ape doesn't know that the case has been famously laid out for him. Reality-Ape doesn't know who argued it. Reality-Ape has engaged no philosophy except his own showertalk. Cringe.

>>18270951
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/henry-kwan-leapt-to-his-death-in-a-synthetic-psychosis/news-story/4d7e0127fe0b16b575690b6f261d44a6

here is an example. You are missing the point though, any belief that leads to incorrect predictions is illusory.

>>18270956
If the case is so easy to make you would just make it instead of endlessly meandering around repeating 'reality ape' like a retard. Why do you think cause and effect are an illusion? Not why they might be and we can't really know, why do you believe that they definitely are?

>>18270915
>They allow you to make accurate predictions.
Accurate in what sense?

>>18270979
eg. if you predict that removing the engine from your car will not impair your ability to drive it, you can test this and when your car doesn't work you can verify that the belief was inaccurate. If you predict that it will impair your ability to drive the car then your inability to drive the car after doing so will make the prediction accurate.

>>18270962
>he fell
It says he fell. You think he was telling his family he was going to fly? Think.

>>18270970
Why would I engage Reality-Ape who can't argue logically, fights strawmen constantly, and doesn't know phil 101? It's a dancing lolcow that will dance until it falls asleep.

>>18270991
>In a drug-induced psychosis on Wednesday night, Henry stripped naked then plunged from the top-floor balcony of his family's north shore home in Sydney - because he "believed he could fly".
It really doesn't matter anyway, believing you can fly is just an example of an inaccurate belief, any other belief which is contradicted by reality is also inaccurate. If you believe the train leaves at 9:00 but it was actually moved to 8:30 it's an inaccurate belief which will be proven inaccurate when you show up at 9:00 and the train is already gone.

>>18270996
I don't know what your motives for behaving in such a ridiculous manner for so long are, you are clearly sort of unwell

>>18271002
His family is lying. Clearly. So it's not an example. There are none.

>>18270988
Sure, but what does this have to do with the conversation, exactly? I'm not seeing your point.

>>18271014
You don't know that is family is lying but it's irrelevant anyway, because any other example of an inaccurate belief illustrates the same point.

>>18271007
>>18271002
Reality-Ape keeps going even after he's proven he can't do basic logic, argues strawmen, and is completely unfamiliar with what the best philosophy has to offer.

What an atrocious ape for /lit/ to gawk at! Look how its mind slugs along expecting anyone to take this logic ignoring ape in good faith! Eeh eeh ooh ooh wassuh mattah Retard-Ape?

>>18271017
You asked me what I meant by accurate beliefs and truth, so i explained that I mean they generate predictions which are shown to conform to reality. Obviously we need to distinguish between such beliefs and beliefs that lead to inaccurate predictions.

>>18271020
Reality-Ape offers its interpretation. Why??

>>18271022
You can't even formulate one argument about why you think causality is an illusion?

>>18271030
I asked you that hoping you would bring it back to the conversation. At this point I don't know what you're trying to say in relation to Nietzsche's statement, unless you think he meant that we should entertain any and all beliefs for the sake of it, in which case you sorely missed his point.

>>18271036
Reality-Ape doesn't know a well known genius already made the case. No one can take Reality-Ape seriously. Reality-Ape keeps babbling. OOH OOH EEH EEH whassah matter Reality-Ape? Why doesn't it stop and go read some classics? They're good readin.

>>18271037
My point is that 'facts' should refer to this category of unambiguously predictive beliefs as opposed to interpretations, which should refer to beliefs about ambiguous things like ethics or art.

>>18271054
This is totally wrong. Completely wrong. Why do you think this? You know what, don't answer.

>>18271054
You don't talk about your homebrew pilosophating with ppl irl right? Right?? I hope not. Do not.

>>18271051
I know that Hume pointed out cause and effect were just an example of arbitrary association of concepts and determined by habit rather than being a logically necessary aspect of reality, that Kant contradicted this by stating that cause and effect were part of the very fabric of our minds and determined the structure of the phenomenal world to which we have access but not the noumenal to which we do not. I don't agree with these because I think our concept of causality mirrors an actually existing structure in reality because i find this the most reasonable interpretation of the fact that the world operates in a predictable manner even if we have access only to a limited portion of this reality. I think this position is called causal realism.

>>18271065
>>18271072
You are not providing any actual argument. This is the most reasonable and useful way to use these words and is in fact how they are used by most people.

>>18271081
Hey buddy, I noticed you not agreeing with statements because you didn't follow the precision logic chains linked together by infinite IQ geniuses. I just wanted to tell you that's really cringe. See ya around...

>>18270301
>the observer factors in
this only means that the interactionist locus of observer and observed is the absolute knowledge located. though we are able to slowly compose the thing-in-itself through transcendental abstraction and eidetic variation. put shortly, intentionality, motherfucker

actually, on the contrary it is this conditioning mediation which permits us to refer to the same positivities in the first place. it is the very initial condition of absolute knowledge attainable in social practices, yet some will have us believe that the very opposite is the case

honestly from what ive seen of nietzsce, he either stresses stuff that's like basic knowledge of anyone trying to study the mind as embedded in nature, or he makes all sorts of careless sophisms. people like hoffman who have similar ideas aren't much better

>>18271094
Again not actually saying anything. You could at least attempt to make some point

>>18271087
Reality-Ape has viciously and repeatedly violated basic logic, argued with strawmen, pretended to be Batman, and exposed really lame ignorance about philosophy.

So there's nothing to argue. Who would argue with a stupid Reality-Ape? Keep dancing!

>>18271101
Reality-Ape is too stupid! Dance Mistah Reality-Ape! OOH OOHH EEEEHH EEEHK! Whassah matter? Reality-Ape should keep replying!

>>18271105
You've been having a sort of extended mental breakdown because I made one post where jokingly pointed out that you would be afraid if someone threatened your life as an illustration of why it's absurd to claim there are no commonly agreed upon facts.

>>18271123
Reality-Ape just keeps on going and going after it lost track of its argument that it lost twenty times already. What a wonderful Reality-Ape. Can't do logic, can't think, can't reason, doesn't read and doesn't know. Amazin.

>>18271054
>My point is that 'facts' should refer to this category of unambiguously predictive beliefs as opposed to interpretations
That's nice, but this is besides his point. If you don't like the particular words used in the translation of that statement then let's just change them to what was meant by it: "There is no absolute knowledge about anything."

>>18271134
That you treat my position as unthinkably wrong actually indicates you haven't read much at all of the philosophical material you keep gesturing towards, or you'd know that people have defended these positions.

>>18271154
Reality-Ape has cycled through so many cliche fedora arguments today. Now it whips out well-actually. The cringe never ends. I predicted it. Was it a fact or interpretation?

The tables have turned again somehow on Reality-Ape.

What a dopey ape.

>>18271164
you still can't make an argument lel.

>>18271148
But I don't think the lack of absolute knowledge implies perspectivism because there are methods of testing the validity of different perspectives.

>>18271185
Reality-Ape missed the arguments above. All of them. Reality-Ape is a oohOOHEEHEEH dumb ape. Whassuh matter Reality-Ape? Not reading something doesn't make it go away.

Reality-Ape is the dumbest poster Reality-Ape Trainer has ever seen.

>>18271100
>this only means that the interactionist locus of observer and observed is the absolute knowledge located.
It's a new interpretation, not absolute knowledge. We don't grasp anything outside the body when we understand it.

>>18271148
>>18271100
another wrong nietzsche claim: "God is dead". if this was true, metaphysics would be dead, which is clearly false and probably impossible

>>18271199
The way you're behaving is not normal btw, this isn't how stable people respond to someone disagreeing with them in a discussion about epistemology.

>>18271205
>metaphysics would be dead
huh

>>18271193
>I don't think the lack of absolute knowledge implies perspectivism
You're right, I was focused on the "facts" portion of the statement since that's what you were talking more about. The full statement would be that there is no absolute knowledge about anything, and that all knowledge is "known" by a perspective.

>>18271205
>if this was true, metaphysics would be dead
Well, metaphysics IS dead, so...

>>18271208
Reality-Ape can't discuss philosophy because he isn't familiar with the hard work that has gone into building the foundations.

Reality-Ape only talks to posters by blowing off logic, setting up strawmen, making ad hominem feints, pretending to be Batman, talking about peepee, ignoring foundational philosophical arguments, and operating on the idea that having the last word means anything.

Whassuh matter Reality-Ape? The tables turn. Reality-Ape eekeeks.

>>18271201
>We don't grasp anything outside the body when we understand it
clearly false, as this would have us commit to a conception of the body as an autonomous substance which is radically self-modifying. at which point, what's put at stake is how i even exist in a physical world in the first place. to the extent we admit that the body is only a relatively closed system, we admit access to mediating (as in between organism and environment) causal interaction as a frequently provided material for science

>>18271230
I pointed out that there are facts which don't permit of contradictory interpretation, which are clearly a different class of belief then ambiguous subjects where multiple contradictory perspectives can be held and there is no mechanism for testing their validity. You have not even tried to explain your disagreement with this. You didn't make an argument for your position on causality either.

Every other post you talk about pee, repeat the word 'strawman', and babble about apes. You are among the worst posters I think I've ever encountered.

>>18271210
a main ramification of the statement is that we do not have comprehensive theories in which we can place humans. when we already look at evolutionary biology, sociology, and physics, this is obviously false. especially in the first an second examples just mentioned, teleological notions are alive and well
>>18271218
physicalism is a very common metaphysical position

seriously, how can God be dead when there are still so many humanists, transhumanists, etc? i don't think the death of God is a real issue. it is a problem which can be fixed by a better diet and lifestyle... though i am afraid nietzsche may agree with such suggestions on how to treat nihilism

>>18271254
Reality-Ape can't think for itself. Reality-Ape has its dumb "arguments" listed again and again. Whassah matter Reality-Ape?

Everything Reality-Ape has put forth has been demolished all the way to its foundation again and again. Reality-Ape keeps postin.

>>18271240
>what's put at stake is how i even exist in a physical world in the first place
I don't see how that follows, unless I'm not following by what you mean with "exist" and "physical world" here.

>>18271267
>seriously, how can God be dead when there are still so many humanists, transhumanists, etc?

>>18271274
pathetic

>>18271299
Reality-Ape pulled out all the stops and still got wrekt.

Reality-Ape called someone a petulant child earlier and also pretended to be Batman. Whassuh mattah Reality-Ape? Never stop replying!

>>18271335
It's amusing that your bugman sensibilities make you think of Batman when someone describes dangling someone off a building

>>18271281
our perceptions typically depend upon interaction of our body with the external world. in such cases, we are really perceiving the causal interaction between body and world. now, it is true that our perceptions are occasionally autonomous as in dreams, but to pretend this is the default case is just a repeat of cartesian skepticism

the issue here is you start at the position that our observations always require the observer, but then you cut out external-reference so that we only have the observer. but this now collapses a reasonable claim into solipsism and dualism
>>18271285
this is just promissory. im going to have to side with markus gabriel on this one --- we naturally make judgements on how to behave based on our conceptual of our place in the world. the idea that the abyss will come simply rests on on the precarious belief that it is natural for men to recognize any form of is-ought gap and apply it to their daily lives. the peculiarity here is that really God has been dead for thousands of years, technically. if we go back to plato's euthyphro we see first see the apparent contingency of our comprehensive beliefs to moral life

>>18269241
>Are there any good arguments against his ideas?
Yes.

1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
2. So, actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualized it. This is the principle of causality.
4. So any change C is caused by something already actual A.
5. The occurance of change presupposes some thing S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes itself presupposes either:
+ the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence (a) or
+ A's being purely actual. (b).
9. (a) If A's existence at the moment it actualizes *S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either
+ infinite (c) or
+ terminates in a purely actual actualizer (d).
10. (c) But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitue a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8))
11. So, either (b) A itself is a purely actual actualizer or (d) there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, (4) the occurence of change C and thus (6) the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer (PAA).

>>18271360
christ my writing is attrocious
*based on our conceptions of our place in the world
*plato's euthyphro we first see

>>18271364
looks interesting. which of nietzsche's claims is this an argument against anon?

>>18271380
The claim that Being and the Subject is an illusion of language, and that there is only becoming predicated on cause-and-effect (his whole belief in wanting to make "becoming innocent again"). It's hilarious that Nietzsche admits cause-and-effect back into his metaphysics, when that is exactly what philosophy had spent the past 2000 years trying to get rid of, so that they could get rid of God (the PAA).

>>18271360
>the issue here is you start at the position that our observations always require the observer, but then you cut out external-reference so that we only have the observer.
Where did I or Nietzsche do that?

>>18269306

>>18271408
im basing this off of the quote:
>We don't grasp anything outside the body when we understand it

>>18271354
Reality-Ape fantasizes about dangling anons from buildings to make them peepee. Reality-Ape has power fantasies. Reality-Ape needs to go back to logic school.

Whassah matter Retard-Ape?

>>18271421
Reality-Ape goes and goes and goes.

>>18271426
It's also amusing that the guy who claims he has no fear of death clearly reacted extremely negatively to an off-hand joke about his death meant only to illustrate an unrelated point. That you chose to fixate on this(as well as the piss thing) reveals a lot more about you than me.

>>18271421
Well, the intention there wasn't to isolate the observer but rather to state that what an observer (or in Nietzsche's term, a perspective) learns is only really itself, like Leibniz's windowless monads. You might say that that's solipsism, but I'm not refusing the existence of anything external (that would contradict my acceptance of myself as a perspective), and instead I'm just acknowledging that everything I know is an interpretation of my own making.

>>18271441
Whassa mattah Reality-Ape?

Reality-Ape has
>ignored logic
>well-actuallied
>called someone a petulant child
>pretended to be Batman
>argued strawmen over and over
>said no u multiple times
>claimed to be completely unfamiliar with foundation level philosophical logic chains
>claimed there are facts
>proven he uses his biological body as the ultimate frame of reference
>committed multiple fallacies multiple times

Why would anyone take Reality-Ape seriously? Reality-Ape is the best lolcow lit has had go on so long while being so wrong. Dance Reality-Ape!

>>18271476
There is no need to be so fearful of your death that you pretend facts and reality don't exist you know

>>18271435
im not the same person biting ur bait
>>18271462
yeah but saying everything is an interpretation of one's own making is something that you know. like you can go a higher level in metacognition and incorporate this point in your tools to forge an accurate conception of the external world which is independent of the particular observer (via the phenomenological operations mentioned earlier)

>>18271491
Reality-Ape shocked that not everyone is afraid to die. What a moron Reality-Ape.

Whassah mattah Retard-Ape? No one can take Retard-Ape seriously anymore.

>>18271507
Regardless of how complex my conception of the world becomes, it will never become "accurate," only more / less useful. To say that it becomes accurate means that I must be capable of knowing something beyond myself, which is tantamount to suggesting that I am not myself.

>>18271543
That's a good way of articulating it. Makes sense now. Thanks.

>>18271543
>which is tantamount to suggesting that I am not myself
self-transcendence is possible here though. via transcendental abstraction i can hold an invariant of the object which is separated from myself. this object is now subject to revisability. this step is crucial, as it allows the social dimension of scientific practice to be thinkable at more profound level. when we use alternative measurement apparatuses, we are now taking advantage of the faculties of other assemblages than our own. this self-othering is what permits the expansion of what things are useful, and also allows us to have a notion of accuracy that is immanent yet still not (at least naively) solipsistic. i guess this idea is some weird mix of agential realism, actor network theory, and phenomenology