/lit/ - Literature

>>19817256
Too based.

For you.

>>19817256
Non readers and non understanders, but pop sound bite consumers entirely mis quote and misrepresent the presentation and thought experiment of eternal reoccurrence.

eternal recurrence is the only option, thermodynamically.

>>19817313
To further express:

Nietszchzshe brings up as a thought experiment:. That one should live thier life as if they would have to live it all over again, as a barometer, a measuring of values and acceptances.

He nowhere near posited some magicy multi dimensions fantasy metaphysical belief that such a thing is the truth that occurs:

As much as you pop sci pop phil pop psych fantasy buzz feed buzzword loving tabloid writers crave for getting readers eyes on headlines.

There, that falsity is over with, dispelled and to be no more.

*Sheaths glowing sword of truth*
*Spits sunflower seed accidently onto shoe*
*Wipes it off with other shoe*
*Grimice smiles like tough guy video game character*
*"Next"*

>>19817404
cringe if this is how you would spend your life over and over, responding seriously to a shitpost on /lit/ and being a namefag

>>19817415
Nah Op probably didn't know the truth but consumed the tricky pop lie.

I never said I was an adherent to this rule of Nieysxhe, it is interesting and valuable in ways.

>>19817313
>>19817353
I understood it as a contrast between Religious faiths where the end goal of living is an afterlife, so they live in according to the values set by that religion to get the good place there.

>>19817353
debunked by the teletransportation paradox

>>19817489
Is there any chance, if I asked you politely to stop using a name on your posts? That you would comply? What are you willing to put up with if you are not? What measurement of endurance do you think could be quantified to represent where you would physically not be able to withstand the consequences of refusing to comply with my request? Are you willing to suffer in multiple different ways indefinitely before complying? Or do you believe you possess the steel fortitude of some painless machine to shrug off all pain that might come of it? Please answer.

>>19817791
I will answer if you kindly answer why it bothers you so much

>>19817404
>Nietszchzshe brings up as a thought experiment:. That one should live thier life as if they would have to live it all over again, as a barometer, a measuring of values and acceptances.
>He nowhere near posited some magicy multi dimensions fantasy metaphysical belief that such a thing is the truth that occurs:

As much as you pop sci pop phil pop psych fantasy buzz feed buzzword loving tabloid writers crave for getting readers eyes on headlines.
In The Will to Power he literally gives metaphysical and cosmological arguments for the eternal recurrence of the same. I think it is fair to say the he really thought that eternal recurrence is real

>>19819165
Oops, I meant to greentext "As much as you pop sci pop phil pop psych fantasy buzz feed buzzword loving tabloid writers crave for getting readers eyes on headlines" too

>>19819165
>he literally gives metaphysical and cosmological arguments for the eternal recurrence of the same.
Why couldn't you have saved me this post and included a shred or hint of said metaphysics and cosmology?

What does he say, "I dont believe In god, but if I had to I believe this is likely the case, because it would be most just? Or reincarnation is a cool idea but only if it's this way therefore it likely is?

>>19817404
>>19819503
Nietzsche literally thought the eternal recurrence was his most important idea, one he thought most scientifically accurate even.

>>19819563
>Nietzsche himself suggests that the eternal recurrence was his most important thought, but that has not made it any easier for commentators to understand. Nietzsche’s articulations of the doctrine all involve hypothesizing—(or inducing the reader to imagine, or depicting a character considering)—the idea that all events in the world repeat themselves in the same sequence through an eternal series of cycles. But the texts are difficult to interpret. All Nietzsche’s official presentations of the thought in published work are either presented in hypothetical terms (GS 341), or extremely elliptical and allusive (e.g., GS 109), or highly metaphorical and quasi-hermetic (Z III, 2, 13), or all three together. Most allusions to the idea, in fact, assume that one already knows what it means—even the claims in Ecce Homo that it is the “fundamental conception” or “basic idea” of Zarathustra have this character. In the early reception, most readers took Nietzsche to be offering a cosmological hypothesis about the structure of time or of fate (see Simmel [1907] 1920; Heidegger 1961; Löwith [1935] 1997; Jaspers [1936] 1965), and various problems have been posed for the thesis, so understood (Simmel [1907] 1920: 250–1n; Soll 1973; Anderson 2005: 217 n28). Many later commentators have focused instead on the existential or practical significance of the thought (Magnus 1978; Nehamas 1980, 1985), or its “mythological” import (Hatab 2005).

>>19819563
>>19819611
No. A certain sect of pop thinkers tend to misread things when struck with the excitement of having a fancy shiney new idea to draw attention to themselves with by misinterpreting thought experiments as true states of reality.

It can get them tenure, or a book deal, or research funding,etc.

>>19817256
Syphilis

>>19819503
iirc it's in the section called "The Will to Power in Nature", which I havent quoted because it' like 50 pages long (that said they're a pretty easy read). As the other anon said, it is absolutely clear from those pages that Nietzsche thought that the eternal recurrence could be defended both philosophically and scientifically (this is done through arguments that try to establish that an infinite universe in an infinite time will necessarily give rise to a cyclical course of events). Nietzsche did not treat these arguments as mere hypotheticals, and in general it seems clear that it wasnt a mere metaphor to him.

Of course existential and poststructuralist interpreters tried to downplay these "metaphysical" aspects of Nietzsche' philosophy, just as they did with many of his political positions. When respected interpreters like Vattimo claim that Nietzsche (who defended slavery, aristocracy and mass violent eugenics) was the philosopher of caritas, or when people like Deleuze claim that Nietzsche was a "nomadic" thinker, or when Kauffmann basically reduce Nietzsche to an eccentric liberal, you can be sure that the standards in Nietzschean scholarship are quite shacky, and that the "authorities" in this field often do not get even close to being accurate (they usually get away with it because they're interesting in their oen right, like in the case of Vattimo and Deleuze).

>>19819678
Read
>>19819611
He only ever writes about it as metaphor and thought experiment

>All Nietzsche’s official presentations of the thought in published work are either presented in hypothetical terms (GS 341), or extremely elliptical and allusive (e.g., GS 109), or highly metaphorical and quasi-hermetic

>>19819611
>>19819619
For god’s sake, read these:
> At that time, the recurrence idea had not as yet become a conviction in Nietzsche's mind, but only a suspicion. He had the intention of heralding it when and if it could be founded scientifically. We exchanged a series of letters about this matter, and Nietzsche constantly expressed the mistaken opinion that it would be possible to win for it an indisputable basis through physics experiments. It was he who decided at that time to devote ten years of exclusive study to the natural sciences at the University of Vienna or Paris. Then, after ten years of absolute silence, he would - in the event that his own surmise were to be substantiated, as he feared - step among people again as the teacher of the doctrine of eternal recurrence.

> Nietzsche confided his revelations of the Eternal Return to me during a visit to Basel, in the summer of 1884 (at the Croix Blanche Hotel), in the same mysteri- ous fashion he had revealed it to Mme Andreas Salomk, according to her own testimony. Bedridden, suffering, in a hoarse and sinister voice, he communicated to me part of his esoteric doctrine. He may have spoken with me about the doctrine before, but only in passing, as if
it were merely a well-known doctrine of ancient philo- sophy, without there being anything to draw attention to the fact that it was a matter that concerned him personally.

>>19819731
See >>19819758
Nietzsche thought not only ER doctrine had scientific accuracy and basis on physical reality, it was his most personal truth.

>>19817256
Anybody ever take this aspect of his philosophy seriously?

>>19817256
More like

>realized, after reading Schopenhauer and Plato, that "reality" is the product of will, and the philosopher's task is to make his will the other's reality
>writes an entire philosophy around it

>>19819960
> the philosopher's task is to make his will the other's reality
Where is this voluntarist philosophy in Plato?

>>19819960
Btw as for Schopenhauer, wouldn’t it be more proper to say that in his case the philosopher’s task is to impose his lack of will on other’s reality?

>>19819978
Plato was a disciple of Egypt. His entire philosophy was an exercise in the Egyptian art of self-realization.

>>19819983
Schopenhauer concluded that "reality" is the product of will, he just didn't have an interest in perpetuating this process, unlike Nietzsche.

>>19820017
>Plato
Yes, but what does this have to do with voluntarist philosophy? Self-realization is the knowing thyself, nous-inclined activity.

>Schopenhauer
Yes, and Nietzsche criticizes him because of that. He says that Schopenhauer preached about self-negation, ascetism, etc.

>>19820208
You don't seem to be following what I'm telling you. Plato was a student of the Egyptian occult and Nietzsche recognized this about him even when our understanding of Egypt was far less comprehensive than it is today. A quote from Nietzsche's Antichrist:

>At the bottom of Christianity there are several subtleties that belong to the Orient. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little consequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is believed to be true. Truth and faith: here we have two wholly distinct worlds of ideas, almost two diametrically opposite worlds—the road to the one and the road to the other lie miles apart. To understand that fact thoroughly—this is almost enough, in the Orient, to make one a sage. The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it. When, for example, a man gets any pleasure out of the notion that he has been saved from sin, it is not necessary for him to be actually sinful, but merely to feel sinful. But when faith is thus exalted above everything else, it necessarily follows that reason, knowledge and patient inquiry have to be discredited: the road to the truth becomes a forbidden road.—Hope, in its stronger forms, is a great deal more powerful stimulans to life than any sort of realized joy can ever be.

Schopenhauer reached the exact conclusion, that "reality" is the product of will, in his work, and he lamented it. Nietzsche pointed out the irony in that lamentation, not irony of the conclusion itself. The conclusion itself is one that Nietzsche shared with Schopenhauer. What he did not share with Schopenhauer was his weariness of will.

>>19819758
Anecdotes said by 'who's for clout after nietsche was dead?

Yeah an extremely well spoken man who spent his life writing every thought he had and only ever write of this thought as metaphor, is said to have stammered and murmored in his final dying delirious years to absolute geniuses with perfect memory and understanding that alas the reason for his thought experiment was mystical revelation from the non- God magic generous to humans divinity of cosmos.

No likely what happened was Nietsche living in a time with many man's existential concerns of death conforted by religion, what Nieyszche spent much power attacking, and given how much nietsche loved his life and brain and imagination and self, nearing his death began to fear of his eternal absense, therefore the obvious solution, believe in eternal existence.

The same trick that would compel someone to not only believe this could be the case, or that it is the case, but that because smart nietsche believed or said it is the case gives it any more or any validity or credence.

Being an age of the nobility and mysteries of science, and Nietsche ultimately being but a wordsmith, then craved a stronger sense of lasting glory, imagine that, lil ol nietsche, not being merely the writer of edgy thoughts, but a real special science boy in the history books, that would be good for his ego and his will to power so he must believe it, after all he is delirious and dying and this is terrifying and his work is not as celebrated as he hoped, as he felt it should be all those sleepless nights his mind glowing with intense brilliant genius, the sublime adventurous pleasure of which rewarded the belief he was on the right path

>>19820254
Yes, it’s difficult for me to follow what you are saying. This quote confused me a bit more even. Nietzsche understood from Plato collaterally that reality is product of will when Plato himself posited the nature of reality to be pure reason or such a reality only attained through reason? I don’t know if we could say that those who are ignorant are willingly ignorant, in the dialogues this is the opposite of what Socrates claims repeatedly (that they are only ignorant because of knowledge/reason - lack thereof).

As for Schopenhauer I agree completely, I was just making a joke about his ascetic, denying philosophy - a philosophy which Nietzsche also disdained a bit.

>>19820337
>Anecdotes said by 'who's for clout after nietsche was dead?
Those are testimonies of two of Nietzsche’s most intimate friends, you monkey. Also, listen what other people already told you, read what Nietzsche himself said about the ER doctrine.
I don’t even know if I’m interacting with a real person or a bot, your posts make no sense at all.

>>19820361
Plato was a devious man. He taught many principles that ran counter to his own and made appeals to many different minds in his effort to establish his will as "reality" for the other, something that he learned from Egypt (understood by Nietzsche as the Orient, as our knowledge of Egypt at the time was rather lacking). We have a more comprehensive understanding of Egyptian religion today and know Plato's connection to Egypt. In other words, Nietzsche was right in his evaluation of Plato.

>>19820254
I hope you use the term as such "reality" to refer to the work of individual and collective human minds and efforts and vision while acknowledging Reality as the Totality of that which is and of itself to degrees knowable to degrees and to degrees unknowable

>>19820455
Capital r Reality is the will of the other having an impression on your will. The more you accept Reality over "reality," the more you allow the other's will to command your will. This is the fundamental lesson of Egyptian religion, the lesson that Plato learned very well, and the realization about philosophy that Schopenhauer started and Nietzsche completed.

>>19820337
>is said to have stammered and murmored in his final dying delirious years
No, this is not what is said at all. At least read what is there: ''Nietzsche confided his revelations of the Eternal Return to me during a visit to Basel, in the summer of 1884''.
But let's see a bit of Nietzsche directly, then:

>The eternal recurrence. A prophecy.

>The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.

>In place of ''metaphysics'' and religion, the theory of eternal recurrence.

>>19820380
>read what Nietzsche himself said about the ER doctrine.
I did.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#EterRecuSame

All the smart people naturally understand he was using metaphor, all pseuds (maybe nietsche included when nearing death) want to believe this out of thin air imagined theory to be Truth.

You really couldn't parse what I said?

Nietsche first used this thought ER as a metaphoric thought tool.

When he was near death he got scared of his brilliant mind and his love of beauty forever no longer existing.

So in his German fear of death, like that which compelled his ancestors of northern barbaric hordes to erect Christian temples once life became plesent and all the more unbearable to part with, the same forces Nietsche rallied against, he succumbed to.

Nietsche on his deathbed thus spoke, and craved the comfort of the myth of eternal existence. Totally understandable, but having nothing to do with theory or probable truth or evidence.

Nietsche the great mystic at last

>>19820409
>in his effort to establish his will as "reality" for the other, something that he learned from Egypt
He learned a theory of will in Egypt? Source, please. Nietzsche's quote of yours does not say this in any way, actually the opposite, that he valued reason, knowledge.
You seem to be suggesting a Nietzschean doctrine to be what Plato himself taught, this is obviously absurd (Plato was a rationalist) Yes, we know Plato went to Egypt and this information is known since what? Diogenes Laertius?

>>19819731
Reread this >>19819678
I told you exactly where to find the passages that refute what youve quoted (which are not in the Gay Science and in TSZ, the two works cited in your quote).
Honestly, this is nit even a matter of debate, rather it's a matter of you taking 1 hour of your time sk that you can read that chaprer

>>19820507
I suggest you read Jan Assman. You lack a modern understanding of ancient Egypt and how it affected the rest of the world.

>>19820380
>your posts make no sense at all.
Of course you don't comprehend what Nieszche wrote and meant if you can't parse my sentences, I admit there are typos due to my phone typing, but still, my posts contain pristine sense, an amount my papa Nietsche would certainly agree with

>>19820505
>maybe nietsche included when nearing death
Already said his testimonies above are before his years in Turin, one being in 1884.

>want to believe this out of thin air imagined theory to be Truth.
We are not saying this. We are saying that the doctrine of ER was considered by Nietzsche to have scientific precision, to be HIS ultimate truth.

I'm sure I'm responding to a bot.

>>19820515
I'm not saying anything about Egypt. I'm referring to Plato, holy fucking shit. There is no voluntarist metaphysics in Plato. This is the point, jesus fucking christ.

>>19820505
I'm not that guy, but youre just wrong. The fragments from which The Will to Power (the text in which Nietzsche clearly states the theory of eternal recurrence as a cosmological, metaphysical and scientific theory) were written between 1887 and the first months of 1888, and he was fully sane in those times and certainly not near death (he was far more ill when he was writing the Gay Science, iirc).
Frankly, this is just anglo cope (mixed with post structuralism cope). Nietzsche had a metaphysics, had a philosophy of history, and even had a philosophical anthropology. To suppress the positive aspects of Nietzschean philosophy is to suppress it all.

So, to reiterate it one last time: Nietzsche actually believed in the eternal recurrence of the same. For him it wasnt a metaphor: it was a metaphysical and scientific certainty.

>>19820516
>my papa Nietsche would certainly agree with
He would spit on your face for being this much of a obsequious retard.

>>19820535
Plato was influenced by Egypt, so if you don't understand ancient Egypt and how it affected the world, how can you say how Plato was influenced and where he was coming from?

>>19819678
>Deleuze
I'm reading his book on Nietzsche right now. I'm at the very beginning and I'm really linking it so far. But ah, I can envisage what Deleuze tries to suggest with this ''nomadic'' remark about Nietzsche. Disappointing. But does he go too far with this kind of suggestions?

>>19817256
>>writes an entire philosophy around it
Did he tho

>>19820492
>Nietzsche confided his revelations of the Eternal Return to me during a visit to Basel, in the summer of 1884''.

How is this person to be trusted, his perfect memory and perfect selfess innocence?

Did he write the anecdotes only after Nietszche died?

Why did this person have the most clear distillation of Nietszches thoughts on the subject? Clearer then all written in his books? Nietszche lived 6 more years after this anecdote occured, did he write on the topic in that time window?


>>The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.

Yea sure, big bang big crunch big bang big crunch or eternal spiral... Give an estimate as to how much quantity of matter and energy exist in the universe.

Then geuss about hie much of that is contained on earth:

And you and his educated geuss of a theory is that that quantity of matter and energy, after entropying down, the blossoms, and happens to do so by n the exact same orientation down to each cubic planck length over the time of a quadrillion trillion light year milenias, every particle follows the same path.

>>19820563
He was above all influenced by Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates and Pythagoras. Pythagoras was the one who really lived good part of his life there. And guess what? Not a voluntarist, or whatever the dumb shit you are trying to peddle here. Rational mathematical theology. Like Plato. I doubt you provide any source on what Plato learnt there in Egypt. We know basically nothing. But we have, you know, Plato's own writings. Jesus, this board is simply impossible to browse now.

>>19820580
Ok I'm not answering and wasting time with a fucking bot or a subsaharan brainlet.

>>19820486
You are not one of those fools however that would declare That if all humans died, the earth and sun would no longer exist.

>>19820583
>I don't know shit about Egypt, but you're wrong about it and how it affected my favorite thinkers
Stay in the dark if you like. Mediocre minds such as yours seem to prefer that.

>>19820486
And if a rock is thrown at your head, before the rock hits the head, would you consider the rock to have existed?

>>19820608
Go on and try to show how the Good in reality is anything related to any sort of Will. This is my belief, but to say that this is what Plato was about is one of the most retarded things I have seen in this board.

>>19819563
Never take nietzsche serious when he claims a superlative. It will help you alot not to misinterpret him.

>>19820593
If all eyes were to disappear, so would the visual existence of energy. It is because energy willed the eye that energy became visual.

>>19820613
See above. Same applies to the rock, your head, and the pain resulting from the impact.

>>19820621
And saying that Nietzsche regarded the doctrine with great importance due to the simple fact that he wanted to show its known correspondence with scientific facts is misinterpretation?

>>19820510
>In the early reception, most readers took Nietzsche to be offering a cosmological hypothesis about the structure of time or of fate (see Simmel [1907] 1920; Heidegger 1961; Löwith [1935] 1997; Jaspers [1936] 1965), and various problems have been posed for the thesis, so understood (Simmel [1907] 1920: 250–1n; Soll 1973; Anderson 2005: 217 n28). Many later commentators have focused instead on the existential or practical significance of the thought (Magnus 1978; Nehamas 1980, 1985), or its “mythological” import (Hatab 2005).

In the aftermath of Nehamas (1985), an influential line of readings has argued that the thought to which Nietzsche attributed such “fundamental” significance was never a cosmological or theoretical claim at all—whether about time, or fate, or the world, or the self—but instead a practical thought experiment designed to test whether one’s life has been good. The broad idea is that one imagines the endless return of life, and one’s emotional reaction to the prospect reveals something about how valuable one’s life has been.

>>19820545
>clearly states the theory of eternal recurrence as a cosmological, metaphysical and scientific theory)
Please please quote this and post it here, please anything of it, the smallest snippet that alludes

>>19820669
Dude, is there a part of
>I told you exactly where to find the passages that refute what youve quoted (which are not in the Gay Science and in TSZ, the two works cited in your quote)
you didn't understand?
>>19820694
Please read any of the responses I have already written on your quote

>>19820591
Give an estimate as to how much quantity of matter and energy exist in the universe...please

Then g
rough estimate how much of that is contained on earth:

And you and his educated geuss of a scientific theory is that that quantity of matter and energy, after entropying down after a trillion million years of all those particle movements, then blossoms, and happens to do so by the exact same orientation down to each cubic planck length, and so again over the course of a trillion years each particle follows the exact same path.

Gee, how very scientific of you

>>19820636
>See above. Same applies to the rock, your head, and the pain resulting from the impact.
Give a direct answer.

Someone throws a rock at your head. You don't see it. Does that rock exist in reality?

>>19820702
The part where my quote is not about the gay science or other book you quoted, you saw they were referenced in the other quote, but not in this quote, this quote is an overview of the history of multiple philosophers take on this topic over 100 years, and seems to conclude the modem consensus is it was only considered a thought experiment tool and not a scientific hypothesis.

If it was the latter, it was merely a sorry excuse in the quantum age gold rush of eerie mysterious science

>>19820743
If energy did not will a nervous system in the first place, there would be no pain. If it did not will the eye in combination with that nervous system, there would be no time and space as it is commonly known. There is no declarable property of energy that energy did not will into existence. It does not matter whether a declaration is true or not, only whether it is believed to be true.

>>19820510
>I told you exactly where to find the passages
Not exactly, you said, if you recall it's 50 pages of a section, I geuss I will trudge through that garbage to feel the satisfaction of knowing you are wrong.

Ok let me rephrase, you may be right that nietsche thought wrongly on this topic. I am just defending nietesches honor in hopes that he was not so foolish as to propose this as a science theory (after certainly undisputedly the earliest notions of discussing the topic was metaphor)

I am doing so because I do appreciate nietesches zest and poetics and lucidity and nerve and grandeur and extasy. Remember first reading him on the train to New York city when I was 12 and being profoundly inspired and enlightened by his mental powers as I approached the NYC skyline, great experience that began my interest in philosophy.

>>19817353
Is this the argue about philosophies that dont exist thread? The Will to Power is based off of a manuscript with very little of Nietzsches work. Most was cut and pasted together to have a different meaning, if not outright fabricated by his nazi sister. The only other philosopher who believes the Will to Power is essential, was Heidegger, coincidentally, a nazi as well.

>>19820803
>only whether it is believed to be true.
Thats what I'm asking. Do you believe the rock exists in reality?

Someone throws a rock at your head.

You don't see it.

Does the rock exist in:
'reality'?
"reality"?
Reality?
REALITY?
"Reality"?

Do you believe the rock exists

>>19820833
>Heidegger, coincidentally, a nazi as well.
How did they it know he was Jewish?

>>19820669
>an influential line of readings has argued that the thought to which Nietzsche attributed such “fundamental” significance was never a cosmological or theoretical claim at all—whether about time, or fate, or the world, or the self—but instead a practical thought experiment designed to test whether one’s life has been good.
Influential in the same way Nietzsche is deeply misunderstood. This mere “thought experiment” theory is fucking dumb and contradicted by Nietzsche’s life, his writings and the testimonies of the closest friends of his.

>>19820702
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power_(manuscript)

>>19820902
Just to be clear, this is the scientific hypothesis:

Give an estimate as to how much quantity of matter and energy exist in the universe...please

Then give a rough estimate how much of that is contained on earth:

And you and his educated geuss of a scientific theory is that that quantity of matter and energy, after entropying down after a trillion or so years of all those particle movements, then blossoms, and happens to do so by the exact same orientation down to each cubic planck length, and each vector if each hertz of each wave if radiation,
and so again over the course of a trillion years each particle follows the exact same path.

That is the idea of the theory?

>>19820766
>seems to conclude the modem consensus is it was only considered a thought experiment tool and not a scientific hypothesis.
I wont answer anymore because I am tired of repeating myself. You can trust that little quote, which references an handful of interpreters (the idea that there is any such thing as a consensus about anything in Nietzscheian studies is laughable in itself), OR, you can check the passage I have mentioned, which will certainly show you with the utmost evidence that Nietzsche believed in the eternal recurrence of the same. The choice is yours. What do you pick? A random overview about a field of study in which there is no consensus on anything, or a primary source (which is accessible and quite short)?
Also, if you're interested in Nietzsche, I advise you to read The Will to Power in its entirety. It's a bit long, but it's not a gruesome read, it flows really well.
>>19820808
>Not exactly, you said, if you recall it's 50 pages of a section, I geuss I will trudge through that garbage to feel the satisfaction of knowing you are wrong
Please do. Unfortunately you will discover that I was right, but do not worry, I do not hold a grudge. Unfortunately Nietzsche has been often mistreated by his interpreters, which means that most students have a completely distorted view of his ideas. I can forgive such a mistake from your part: you probably had bad teachers!
>Ok let me rephrase, you may be right that nietsche thought wrongly on this topic. I am just defending nietesches honor in hopes that he was not so foolish as to propose this as a science theory (after certainly undisputedly the earliest notions of discussing the topic was metaphor)
I dont think Nietzsche needs you to defend him. That said, feel free to dispense with those arguments by Nietzsche, just know that they were there, and that he didn't think they contradicted anything of what he had said earlier. I find them interesting, since the fact that Nietzsche thought he could offer cosmological, metaphysical, scientific arguments seems to really go against the perception of Nietzsche held by most of his readers.

>>19820851
>Do you believe the rock exists
Assuming by "exists" you mean "independently of will," then no.

>>19820959
>and each vector if each hertz of each wave if radiation,
**If*** = **of*** typo

>>19820959
>And you and his educated geuss of a scientific theory is that that quantity of matter and energy, after entropying down after a trillion or so years of all those particle movements, then blossoms, and happens to do so by the exact same orientation down to each cubic planck length, and each vector if each hertz of each wave if radiation,
and so again over the course of a trillion years each particle follows the exact same path.
No one talked about a trillions years. We are talking about an infinite quantity of time, meaning that the cycle of eternal recurrence might be trillions of orders of magnitude over a mere trillion of years. That time, for Nietzsche, is infinite is a crucial factor in the host of arguments he gives in tWtP

>>19821416

>>19820975
>>Do you believe the rock exists
>Assuming by "exists" you mean "independently of will," then no.

So. Someone throws a rock at your head.

You don't believe it exists.

It hits you in the head.

Now you believe it exists?

According to you, the truth of your acknowledgment of reality, a rock appeared absolutely out of nowhere possessing no history, it appeared directly on your head.

You would refuse, for perfectly profound reasons we would presume, to allow your self to believe that the person standing to your right on a hill, says, "I threw that rock at you!",

I myself saw him do it and I videotaped it.

You saw his arm following though.

You will not permit your self to reason, a case being more or less likely.

Either a rock materialized out of thin air directly on your head possessing an intrinsic velosic force. Or it may be more likely it is possible for someone out of your vision, to pick up a rock a throw it.

>>19821427
>You don't believe it exists.
Not independently of will, no.

>Now you believe it exists?
Why would I? Nothing has changed. The pain I felt was the result of my nervous system, which energy willed into existence. The rock, as I perceive it, was the result of my eye and nervous system, which energy willed into existence. The "you" that threw it, likewise, was the result of my eye and nervous system. Motion, as in the "throwing" of the rock, and the "hitting" of it towards my head, was the result of my eye and nervous system. No declarable property from this entire phenomenon has been the result of anything other than will.

>>19820646
He never published that essay because it was dogshit.

>>19820963
Read the wiki
>>19820911
It was a mixture of notebooks by his sister and randoms, with lots of research after the fact criticising the carefulness of care placed into the relative perfection of editing. There is a section of the wiki on will to power book solely about the receiving of the original source notebooks and comparing them to what was published

>The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.
No one can disprove this. They can only cope and say shit like "well, it was in his unpublished notebooks, so he didn't mean it," which isn't a fact anyway.

>>19821416
>>19821420

Did Horea Belcea write this?

>>19821541
No, icycalm did

>>19821472
We have: testimonies of the closest of his friends, repeated notes and publications about it, Nietzsche's letters, scholarly support; against: i disagree because he probably thought it was shit.
Yes, this is the level of discussion we have on this shithole of a board.

>>19821475
>WtP notebooks by his sister
this shit again

>>19817263
>be a whoremonger
>curse god
>die a syphilitic loser

>>19817256
He had nihilistic/cotard delusion

>>19821679
Nietzsche probably never had syphilis.

>>19817256
i see knee-chu as a millenial shit , made a lot of progress but as of now / with the current time, isn't saying anything really new nor is it worth resenting or worshipping.

>>19820983
Then there would be infinite, infinitely more universe manifestations in which ER did not occur

The case for Nietzsche believing in Eternal Recurrence is overwhelming. See this paper:

http://www.nietzschecircle.com/Pdf/Diorio_Chouraqui-FINAL_APRIL_2011.pdf

some key points:
> Nietzsche was reading with avid interest works that discussed eternal recurrence as a serious cosmological possibility.

> Nietzsche's notebooks are filled with passages that discuss eternal recurrence as a true fact about reality. (see pic)

> In Gay Science s. 109 Nietzsche says the "world is a music box that eternally repeats its tune, which must never be called a melody". This is a assertion of eternal recurrence as true fact about the world in a section discussing the true nature of the world.

> Zarathustra is the teacher of cosmological eternal recurrence. He tells the dwarf he must recur eternally. His animals describe eternal recurrence as a cosmological doctrine.

Its also worth noting that if eternal recurrence is just a thought experiment, it is a stupid thought experiment. If I am to have a true amor fati then I need to love my life as it truly is. If eternal recurrence is false, then I must embrace my finitude like the epicureans did, and not revel in false fantasies of eternal life.
See the "ethics of eternal recurrence" section of this paper for more objections eternal recurrence as just a thought experiment:

https://www.academia.edu/1507388/_Eternal_Recurrence_in_The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Nietzsche

>>19821614
Everything in the Will To Power was written by Nietzsche in his notebooks. The Will to Power was edited by Nietzsche's close friend Peter Gast. Here is the editor and co-translator of the recent Penguin edition, R Kevin
Hill discussing the merits of Gast's work:

I have certainly come out of this project with a much higher opinion of Peter Gast’s work than I had when I embarked on it..

there is next to no evidence that Elisabeth actually dealt with the text itself in any significant way. She was a promoter. I also had a real question concerning the nature of Peter Gast’s work. I went into the project expecting to discover all sorts of outrageous manipulations of the text. And that’s really not what I found.

She never denied, however, that The Will to Power was a constructed text. That said, she encouraged people to believe that what they had succeeded in doing was re-creating a book by Nietzsche. She never denied that they had done the creating, using Nietzsche’s texts, so it wasn’t entirely dishonest;

Significantly, Peter Gast had intended the work to begin with a philological introduction explaining his methods and the text’s origin, and to have the book be called something like “Notes from the Revaluation Period.” Elisabeth scrapped this and replaced it with a much more grandiose Introduction, essentially claiming – “this is the essence of Nietzsche’s thought”.

http://speculumcriticum.blogspot.com/2018/09/recapitulating-not-just-thought-but.html

>>19821452
The point is that things exist and they are different. Why would the effect of a rock hitting your head result in a different reaction than a boulder?

>>19821951
>eternally repeats its tune, which must never be called a melody". This is a assertion of eternal recurrence as true fact about the world in a section discussing the true nature of the world.
He could have meant: history repeats itself, in that instance. Not that in the world, the same people live the same lives.

He says the world is a... There is no evidence on the world that the sane humans have lived again and again

>>19821960
>The point is that things exist and they are different.
But what do you mean by "things exist"?

>Why would the effect of a rock hitting your head result in a different reaction than a boulder?
A boulder is larger than a rock.

>>19821951
>Its also worth noting that if eternal recurrence is just a thought experiment, it is a stupid thought experiment. If I am to have a true amor fati then I need to love my life as it truly is. If eternal recurrence is false, then I must embrace my finitude like the epicureans did, and not revel in false fantasies of eternal life.
>See the "ethics of eternal recurrence" section of this paper for more objections eternal recurrence as just a thought experiment:
If eternal reoccurrence is true as presente.

Then there is no worry or effort or free will...
It doesn't matter what you do..unless it is assumed this is the first time the universe ever happened.

That this is our one and only shot, we are all brand new souls, and we get this one first shot to absolutely cement the exact ways out lives play out for eternity.

I just ate a slice of pizza at 5:30 on my 32nd year and 5 days. That's it set in stone. I will groundhogs day this moment for eternity.

If it is purely meant as a thought experiment, the idea of it is merely,

This is my one shot to live, i should live as if I had to live my life over and over again, each second the same, because that might motivate me to live my best life gurrlfrienndd

This mechanics of the idea thought experiment are identical if it is true or not.

It is just the proclaim it is true that is a leap of faith.

Similarly, someone can say: I should be good because God might exist and give me eternal life, and if everyone on earth is good, life will be good.

Compared to, I should be good because if everyone on earth is good, life will be good.

I could expand and clean those but you get the idea,

>>19817256
>eternal recurrence is based on one episode of deja vu
Hmm source for this claim?

>>19820983
>No one talked about a trillions years. We are talking about an infinite quantity of time
But the established flow of the universe would have to come to an end, to begin again, I threw out trillion to express how long the manifestation of the universe might last.

>>19821951
>there is next to no evidence that Elisabeth actually dealt with the text itself in any significant way
>She never denied, however, that The Will to Power was a constructed text. That said, she encouraged people to believe that what they had succeeded in doing was re-creating a book by Nietzsche.
>She never denied that they had done the creating, using Nietzsche’s texts, so it wasn’t entirely dishonest;

>>19822008
>But what do you mean by "things exist"?
This is exactly what I mean
>A boulder is larger than a rock.

>>19822124
"A boulder is larger than a rock" is a description of properties stemming from will. You want the description independent of will? "Energy is distributed unevenly." There you go.

>>19822091
he saw a rock and it gave him deja vu look it up

>>19822142
sorry a boulder

>>19821475
>Read the wiki
Read what Nietzsche actually wrote
>It was a mixture of notebooks by his sister and randoms, with lots of research after the fact criticising the carefulness of care placed into the relative perfection of editing. There is a section of the wiki on will to power book solely about the receiving of the original source notebooks and comparing them to what was published
The Colli-Montinari edition of the 1887-1888 and 1888-1889 Fragments solved this problem 60 years ago. Furthermore, the manipulation by Elisabeth all regarded Nietzsche' judgement on the German spirit (which has nothing to do with the section I've mentioned, which I still invite you to read).

>>19822118
His point is that Elisabeth was not involved in the editing of the book. Gast is the one who created the structure and ordering of the Will to Power.

>>19820618
>to say that this is what Plato was about is one of the most retarded things I have seen in this board.
This wasn't being said at all. How did you miss the point this hard?

>>19822854
maybe because you don't know how to convey whatever you want to express

>>19822915
Plato was not teaching the same values that he himself possessed. That's all that was being said.

>>19822941
Moving the goalposts so hard. You have no idea what you're talking about

>>19822954
Cope seethe and dilate

>>19822954
>You have no idea what you're talking about
Says the guy who knows absolutely nothing about the ancient Egyptians and their influence on our intellectual history and is proud of this ignorance to boot.

>>19822990
>the ancient Egyptians
literally who

>>19823029
Read the Assman

>>19823038
You are literally positing the retarded idea that a modern egyptologist with a lot of widely conjectural interpretation is necessary to understand Plato. This place never ceases to surprise me negatively.

>>19822941
>Plato was not teaching the same values that he himself possessed.
What does it even mean? Present something concrete, cite anything Plato ever wrote, explain things like a normal human being.

>>19821599
A shit brain full of a shit ideas for a shithole board. You belong, fucking loser.

>>19817404
>not bad
>>19817718
bit better, also not a namefag

>>19823142
This entire board is sophomoric by construction. You think anyone here is going to have a take other than "I read a thing which suggests X, which means X is true and you're a retard for not agreeing"?

Just look at OP, he's acting like a sperg raging retard because he's able to piece together a couple loose pieces of evidence which suggests Nietzsche liked eternal recurrence, then gets mad if you've actually read alot of Nietzsche and don't agree.

This isn't a place for serious discussion, it's to shitpost and laugh at the shit retards actually believe. If you get super lucky you may be shown an interesting author from time to time but 4chan is not capable of producing rational discussion.

>>19822990
>the ancient Egyptians and their influence on our intellectual history
wat

>>19823142
History is more complex than you think it is. The Egyptians caused a revolution in thought that had a ripple effect for millennia, primarily perpetuated through Judaism. There's a reason Nietzsche speculated that Plato was a Semite.

>>19823149
It means ideas influence us as much as we influence ideas and even great minds like Plato aren't exempt from this historical process. Why not look into my recommendation if you want to know further?

>>19823215
>There's a reason Nietzsche speculated that Plato was a Semite.
Sounds more like his sister...

>>19823314
Fuck no it doesn't, have you even read Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols or The Antichrist?

>>19823342
Nah, I've only read ABOUT Nietzsche, that's all you need these days,as most degrees are all about mastering jargon generated by experts writing about philosophers, or even experts writing about those experts. A good command of the most used quotes and nobody will ever know, and only a hopeless sperg will ever ask you what you've read.

>>19823414
quite based

>>19823185
But Nietzsche liked eternal recurrence. You think what, that he didn't? Many different posts here proves ER to be very important.

>>19823713
Sure, it's an important concept and it matters. But you'll always read Nietzsche wrong if you try to take one concept as central to his philosophy.

>>19823215
>Why not look into my recommendation
in order to know Plato? Nah, I prefer, you know... actually reading Plato and great secondary literature about him. But yeah I'm sure you'll be fine reading a second rate egyptologist to acquire knowledge about Plato.

>>19823723
I don't think anyone here thinks this is the case. The concept of will to power is sovereign as well.

>>19823726
>in order to know Plato?
In order to understand another dimension of Plato as an individual.

>>19822138
Lack of detail does not equal totality of accuracy understanding

>>19823916
"Detail" is just properties, and all properties reflect the properties of the observer (e.g., an object that is "cold" has that property in relation to an observer that possesses more heat than the object). Properties fluctuate and are not persistent on account of this reciprocation, or in other words, there is no property independent of will. This remains undisputed in the thread. Your "accurate understanding," if it relies on properties, is only an understanding of an inversion of your self.

>>19823713
>>19823723
ER is literally (live laugh eat pray love) Live Your Best Life!

That is all

>>19823775
So tell us a few things Egyptian that affected Plato in what ways?

The whole idea of dynastic elite rulers with convoluted mystery religions? Extreme hietschial society? Though harmonized,?

Why didn't you save 15 posts and just say so

>>19823982
>So tell us a few things Egyptian that affected Plato in what ways?
This was already given in the first few posts, you're just a retard who doesn't read the posts you reply to:

>>19819960
>>19820254

And you were given a reading recommendation. What more do you want, your ass wiped for you?

>>19823964
We want to speak of truth.

Reality is truth.

Reality is composed of details.

If we are speaking of truth

We are speaking of details

If we are not speaking of details
when trying to speak of truth

We are not speaking of truth

>>19823986
Ok so Nietszche proposed Plato believed his own theories to be faith?

But Plato believed his theories were Truth and Plato's theories were Truth

>>19823976
So Epicureanism aka Nihilism

>>19824021
Which organ of yours do you think is for grasping and communicating capital r Reality and capital t Truth?

>>19824030
How is living your best life nihilistic?

What if often being virtuous is your best life?

Or you think If there is not an objective agreed upon rubrick of what equates to best life,that is nihilistic?

Because someone's perception of their best life may be stealing, and and anothers may be being a lifeguard?

>>19824279
you will understand as you get older (I know this may sound pretentious but it's the truth)

i-is this a trick question?
>>19824045
>Which organ of yours do you think is for grasping and communicating capital r Reality and capital t Truth?


are you trying to get me to say penis

>>19824045
>Which organ of yours do you think is for grasping and communicating capital r Reality and capital t Truth?
Eyes and brain system

>>19824281
Just try to explain a little?

Here's a good way to ask? What would be the conditions for something to not be nihllistic?

It did you equate live ones best life to often doing drugs ,

>>19824294
>he thinks his eyes and brain have anything to do with parsing ultimate Reality or Truth
Hahahahahahaha

>>19817256
had a dream bout this nigga two days ago

>>19820017
>Plato was a disciple of Egypt. His entire philosophy was an exercise in the Egyptian art of self-realization.
Where can I read moar on this?
Anyone has sources?

>>19820507
>He learned a theory of will in Egypt? Source
Not the anon you are speaking with.
You will be interested in this book
>pic related

>>19820535
>I'm not saying anything about Egypt. I'm referring to Plato, holy fucking shit. There is no voluntarist metaphysics in Plato.
You can't be this much of a pleb.

>This collection of essays deals with anthropological rather than theological aspects of the Near Eastern and Mediterranean religions from the archaic period to Late Antiquity. Part one focuses on Confession and Conversion, part two on Guilt, Sin and Rituals of Purification.
https://www.amazon.com/Transformations-Ancient-Religions-Studies-History/dp/9004113568

>>19824279
>How is living your best life nihilistic?
Because Epicureanism doesn't adress nor care for Life Affirming values.
>dont ride the wave bruv; just chill

>>19820486
>Capital r Reality is the will of the other having an impression on your will. The more you accept Reality over "reality," the more you allow the other's will to command your will. This is the fundamental lesson of Egyptian religion,
Where can I read about this?

>>19826306
What are some life affirming values?

>>19824646
If Plato or pythogoras had never had eyes I doubt they would have been able to consider spheres and triangles.

That is not true I now consider, they can understand shapes be drawing with their finger tracing in the sand

But, they need some senses, to have any input data, with which to start the process of any understanding (mental development)

>>19827010
Do you know the difference between a truth and Truth?

>>19827239
As far as I think and know, it refer to truth as the total collection of human activity and Truth as the total collection of universe activity, while acknowledging truth is to degrees based on and approaches and to degrees accesses Truth

>>19827239
>>19827761
Yo be more clear: truth is grounded or grown or developed from the human perspective, while Truth is the universes perspective of being exactly what it is at all times

>>19827779
>>19827761
To be more clear, like Russian nestling dolls:

all truth is contained in Truth, but not all truth, contains Truth

>>19826272
>>19826290
What do these say about Plato or what does Plato say that is of egyptian origin? The only thing I’m aware of is the theory of forms and the correspondence with the immanent eidetic archetypes (which is common to all primeval religions).

>>19827793
To be more clear, the loose, or otherwise, correlation of the terms, do so to: truth = subjectivity, Truth = objectivity.

All subjectivity is contained in the ultimate set: objectivity.

All objectivity is not contained in subjectivity

Ok

>>19827761
>>19827779
>>19827793
>>19828067
Thanks for the elaboration. Now, allow me to make some corrections for you:

The universe does not have a perspective or will.
Subject and object are also constructions of will.
Spheres and triangles, math in general, are also constructions of will.

The only thing we can claim to know, with intellectual honesty, is our own will, and even that is a rather dubious claim.

bump

>>19817353
It's a good thing thermodynamics is not the only necessity, logically.

>>19828672
Goo goo GAA ga gee gee gee!
Gom gom? GOOOOD geeem geeem ggggoooogg gooogggg. Gggggooog; goo goo gogaaa. Goog googaaa? Gaghh! Geere gore, gas GAA goo

>>19828672
>Goo goo GAA ga gee gee gee!
>Gom gom? GOOOOD geeem geeem ggggoooogg gooogggg. Gggggooog; goo goo gogaaa. Goog googaaa? Gaghh! Geere gore, gas GAA goo
t.you

>>19829560
>>19829564
Solid rebuttal

>>19829557
>the only necessity, logically
OH NO NO NO NO
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>19827949
Not that guy, but read this:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/128/Does_Western_Philosophy_Have_Egyptian_Roots

>>19830303
What does it say about anything I asked before?

>>19831401
It will introduce you to Egyptian philosophy and the connection between it and Greek philosophy, especially Plato, while summarizing some of Assman's work in relation to the topic and providing other references.

>>19817256
>>got deja vu once
>>writes an entire philosophy around it
Evidence?

>>19820361
>his quote confused me a bit more even. Nietzsche understood from Plato collaterally that reality is product of will when Plato himself posited the nature of reality to be pure reason or such a reality only attained through reason?
Read pic related; sorry for the bad quality.
>anyone know the source?

Plato destoyed how Humans, tthe Theomorphic being, Comprehends reality, both Sacred (Spirituality) and Profane ( material ) and thus in consecuence, destroyed our own abilitty to make sense of ourselves within Our World ( see alchemy-Jung).
>Do nont trust our senses!!
But reality is only percieved and comprehended through the senses!! all of them! Imagination and Reaason, and Sight, and Touch, etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Tragic_Age_of_the_Greeks

>>19820593
Isn't that correct from a quantum theory standpoint?

>>19820874
Doesn't matter, because what is valuable is valuable because itself. Of course, I'm talking from my ass.

>>19829973
I thought you would tell the way it is a solid rebuttal.

I was referring to your theory being that of the babies

>>19831662
>Isn't that correct from a quantum theory standpoint?
The theory is not perfect or complete, who is the authority figure that claims that is a true unalterable doctrine of the theory?

Or are you unaware under the banner of Quantum Theory there are many interpretations and theories of various tweakages

>>19831698
No it's just strange the Nazis embraced him when so obviously,

What did Heidegger write that was important or valueable, that wasn't already known in the story of Philosophy?

>>19831566
Thank you for the recommendations. I'm aware of some influence from Egyptian theology on Greek philosophy, especially on Pythagoras and thus Plato. I pointed out that this was the case with Plato's theory of forms. However it should be obvious of the strong differences between Greek philosophy and Egyptian theology (I think we could say Plato was obviously influenced by both and shows a reconcilitation of both in his dialogues).
The issue, however, is that that other anon was implying Plato had a voluntarist metaphysics, downplaying the obvious ubiquous rationalist (dialectical) element and structure of his metaphysics. Then I've been asking him to give any concrete rationale for it and, you see, after days he still hasn't shown anything.

>>19829973
Ok I will give another shot, but this is the last time I swear that i discuss science with a baby.

>The universe does not have a perspective or will.

By referring to, a, "the universe", at all, you are declaring and admitting to it's existence.

By rules of experience, evidence, contemplation, and the sum of all possible honest efforts, and language; by evoking the consideration that a: 'thatness' exists

It nessecarily follows that, that that, exists in some way.

That which exists, exists.

That which is the way it is, is the way it is

It doesn't matter if the universe has a will or perspective or not, I meant it colloquially and proverbially when I used the term, simply that, it exists, and it exists exactly as it exists continumoulosly as it is, and that all Human efforts would conclude that this occurs whether humans are here or not, all have their eyes closed or not, etc.

I do agree the fascinating uptmost importance of human will in the shaping of the human world, absolutely, the total reality of the human realm is the total reality of the human will, if course in relation to the natural facts of nature.

Did he lose weight?

>>19832102
>Voluntaryism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God’s reason. The voluntarism/intellectualism distinction was intimately tied to medieval and modern theories of natural law; if we grant that moral or physical laws issue from God, it next needs to be answered whether they issue from God’s will or God’s reason. In medieval philosophy, voluntarism was championed by Avicebron, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. Intellectualism, on the other hand, is found in Averroes, Aquinas, and Eckhart. The opposing theories were applied to the human psychology, the nature of God, ethics, and the heaven. According to intellectualism, choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as good; the will itself is determined. For voluntarism, by contrast, it is the will which determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Concerning the nature of heaven, intellectualists followed Aristotle‘s lead by seeing the final state of happiness as a state of contemplation. Voluntarism, by contrast, maintains that final happiness is an activity, specifically that of love. The conceptions of theology itself were polarized between these two views. According to intellectualism, theology should be an essentiall speculative science; according to voluntarism, it is a practical science aimed at controlling life, but not necessarily aimed at comprehending philosophic truth.

I geuss maybe anon referred to that term because the will of leaders were required to install and maintain a new system?

>>19832120
>By referring to, a, "the universe", at all, you are declaring and admitting to it's existence.
Do you understand that words have meaning insofar as we give them meaning? Then you should understand that one's meaning of a word will not necessarily be another's meaning of it. By "universe," I mean "a shorthand for everything, as I understand the word 'everything'." The universe is not an entity onto itself with existence / will, according to my meaning, and you could have detected this if you paid attention to my other assertions and the textual context they produce.

>all Human efforts would conclude that this occurs whether humans are here or not
But in what nature does it "occur" then? Not a single property given by you or anyone else in the thread regarding the "occurrence" of things can be separated from human observation. Therefore, the "occurrence" of the universe (of "everything") does not appear or behave according to how you observe it outside of your observation, or at any rate, this has not been demonstrated at all.

>>19832140
This >>19819960 was his first post. I asked him about what was implied in his post (associating will with Plato as it is, correctly, with Schopenhauer). Then he proceeded with a quote by Nietzsche that addressed nothing about my question and even showed the pertinence of knowledge to Plato. Then he proceeded with all this Egyptian stuff without ever presenting a single argument just telling “read this”, “oh you are ignorant, read this one here”.

>>19832102
It doesn't seem like the point was to make Plato's philosophy out to be voluntarist, but to suggest that Plato had esoteric knowledge that was circulating at the time which regarded humans as creative agents capable of shaping society through language. If you delve deeper into the sources that have been given in the thread, this was one of the main principles that descended from the Egyptians to other civilizations, and which was subverted early on by the Israelites who were enslaved by the Egyptians. Whether this is accurate of Plato is debatable, it seems, although given that he wrote out his philosophy in the format of dialogues and used Socrates as a mouthpiece for much of it, it also seems plausible that he was conscious of himself in the act of philosophizing.

>>19832059
>who is the authority figure that claims that is a true unalterable doctrine of the theory?
I don't know
>Or are you unaware under the banner of Quantum Theory there are many interpretations and theories of various tweakages
Yeah. That's why I posed the question

>>19832197
Yes I saw. The Nietszche quote said, "even Plato knew this"

After Nietszche discussed the two paths: truth and faith. And that faith was more powerful maybe? Or something I can't recall and don't want to scroll up.

So I geuss Nietszche is reading Plato's effort as Plato being aware ultimately all of Plato's philosophy and system and excited claims, are at the end of it, excersizes in belief and faith. At the end of it, Plato's forms and hietarchy and thoughts on governance. Faith, to speak and believe authoritatively, "certainly" about something...with out really knowing for true.

That other anon seems to be convinced Plato would not have thought of what he did if he didn't first see Egypt. Though hierarchy, dynastic rule, and mystery religions were a part of Greek roman heritage as well so idk.

That anon did seem to have an aire of scoundrelality about them with their refusal to be direct and clear so who knows

>>19832154
So what is it you believe? Beyond this obnoxious discussion over misspeaking misinterpreting mistaking semantics and minutiae and rankings of importance:

What is a summery of your personal belief and doctrine you think or know to be thee truth and the correct understanding of: that which is

>>19832575
>So what is it you believe?
That knowledge of anything other than the self is impossible, and anyone who claims otherwise is deceived or trying to deceive.

>>19820515
>I suggest you read Jan Assman. You lack a modern understanding of ancient Egypt and how it affected the rest of the world.

Egypt is the most overrated ancient civilization purely because it had god tier aesthetic and it's racially ambiguous and authoritarian enough for WE WUZZERS of all shades. The fact that most researchers are sycophants helps.

>almost all their cultural advancement comes from Sumerian, Babylonian or fucking Syrian influence
>divine kings who are all inbred idiots with clubfoot
>people actually think said clubfooted inbreds are the source of their souls
>mass human sacrifice
>bestiality
>no lawcodes
>kings lived in mud brick hovels because they were using all the stone and metal on tombs
>afterlife was a money making scam
>never invented a concept of rationality something that fucking canninbal Tribesman in New Guinea have
>ridiculously prone to instability and disasters, culture survived due to sheer xenophobia and autism
>decadent culture of dandies who waxed everything
>unable to fathom metaphysical concepts beyond the material
>hate Mesopotamian and Levantine cultures out of sheer resentment
>invented proselytizing wars
>first to invent ethical justification for Slavery rather than just 'We won'
>half of the achievements pharaohs record are either stolen, or made up

>>19832797
>post glitched out before I could finish
The reason the Greeks used Egypt as a 'source for wisdom' is one, as a post bronze age collapse civilization they bought the propaganda. Two, most new traditions had to rely on imaginary appeals to antiquity to catch on, foreign origins obviously being easier to fool people with. Three, Egypt didn't like the Persians. The minute the literate classes actually had to interact with Egyptians on the daily they realized they were genuinely awful to deal with.

>>19832668
>That knowledge of anything other than the self is impossible, and anyone who claims otherwise is deceived or trying to deceive.
Ok, perfect. So my rock example did in fact prove your sentiment wrong. Phew, I may rest assured. gg, thankfully the best man won, consider adieu to be bidded, mon bon monsieur

>>19832797
>>divine kings who are all inbred idiots with clubfoot
>>people actually think said clubfooted inbreds are the source of their souls
Very smart of the nobility class to promote their kings to be inbred idiots, easier to control, similar to the state of presidents generally

>>19832998
>So my rock example did in fact prove your sentiment wrong.
Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

>>19833019
If one is able to read and think proficiently our exchange is self explanatory and evident

>>19833016
>Very smart of the nobility class to promote their kings to be inbred idiots, easier to control, similar to the state of presidents generally
Except in Egypt there was no nobility class except the turbo autist priests. All sufficiently high up positions were handpicked by the Pharaoh himself. Judging by tombs, this led to a system where hairdressers, cooks and prostitutes were treated better than generals and administrators.

>>19833035
I can read and think, and yet it's not self explanatory and evident, so go ahead and please explain.

>>19833047
>I can read and think, and yet it's not self explanatory and evident, so go ahead and please explain.
The stipulation hinged on the word: proficiently
Its pretty clear according to the statement I made that:
>I can read and think
Could not possibly follow:
>it's not self explanatory and evident
Therefore your statement is incorrect

>>19833075
I can read and think proficiently, and yet it's not self explanatory and evident. Please explain. Or be a coward and not. Up to you.

>>19833077
hehehehe, I get it, I truly understand your meta motivation, yes, really, wink wink, yes, I am aware, but still I will respond, wink wink.

My rock example destroys the philosophy perspective of the baby, for maybe it was purposefully glossed over, but to add onto the evidence of proof I snuck in there that I video taped the rock being thrown. Use That Proficiency Please

>>19833099
Are you alright, anon?

>>19833099
>Use That Proficiency Please
Ironic, since your rock example didn't prove anything besides your own weak introspective ability. A rock is only a rock while there is a body to perceive it, i.e., a rock ceases to exist outside of a body's perception of it, and I can easily prove this by pointing out that all of the properties which constitute "a rock" rely on a contrasting body in order to identify them (the size of a rock, the hardness, how fast it is moving, etc. are all understandable only in contradistinction to the size of a perceiving body, the hardness, how fast it is moving, etc.).

Further, to be hit in the head by an unseen rock doesn't equate to being hit by it prior to one's perception of it either, because perception is performed by a body, not only a part of a body, or in other words, the nerves in a head producing the sensation of the collision is part of a body's capacity to perceive.

So, what DOES exist, you might ask. Clearly, something exists, since the phenomenon happened at all—but whatever it is, we, as bodies, do not have the capacity to know it.

>>19823142
>You are literally positing the retarded idea that a modern egyptologist with a lot of widely conjectural interpretation is necessary to understand Plato.
reading Jan Assmann isn't necessary to undersstand Plato

It's necesary to understand how Plato
destroyed what we now reference to as "religion"

Plato didn't comprehend his own Sacred World and he invented a new one that annihilated our capacity to comprehend anything from the ancients and anything we could create in the future.

>>19833172
>A rock is only a rock while there is a body to perceive it, i.e., a rock ceases to exist outside of a body's perception of it
Says who?
On what grounds are you so proud to make this declaration with such certainty?
Are you just practicing to be a criminal defense attorney, you are very good at lying to your self and others, or if unaware, of being ignorant. Of ignoring.


>Further, to be hit in the head by an unseen rock doesn't equate to being hit by it prior to one's perception of it either,
Nothing of the sort was brought up. It was never a question of before: it was a question of me successfully disproving the validity of your sollipsism.

>So, what DOES exist, you might ask. Clearly, something exists, since the phenomenon happened at all—but whatever it is, we, as bodies, do not have the capacity to know it.

Ok I now see you may have been arguing simply over my use of the word Rock.

I was proving the point that things do proveably exist outside your awareness, which it seemed to be something you were denying:

Though I refered to an object, we never got to that point, because you were denying the existence of anything. The ground work was establishing proof that somethingness existed beyond the shell of your head.

At that point in the discussion, irrelevant the details which could be said of it. The focus was only the something.

I wasnt going to exposition on the history of how the word Rock came to be developed just in the ground floor foundation of discussion disprove your raw absolute sollpsistic take.

Your entire stance was based on semantic traps and tricks, it was my fault fir assuming we were cooperating civily toward understanding

>>19832810
You can also argue from the Archeological record that the Greeks are just as indebted to Phoenicians, and in important ways also shaped by the cultures of the Hittites and the Sea Peoples. In fact, Plato was enamored with Egypt exactly to the degree its culture was *NOT* adopted by the Greeks and fetishized the parts of Egyptian society not duplicated by the Greeks. This shows greatly when you compare him to say, Herodotus. BUT, importantly, it should be noted Plato's idealized concept of Egypt should not to be thought of as actually representative of Egyptian culture and society. (Similar to the Romantic's conceptualization of the Ancient Greeks, actually)

>>19833188
I would think "science" did that. Though a lot of scientists were religious.

So what really did it was the religious containing scientific declarations whicj when proven wrong by science, eroded consideration in anything of the divinity of Nature.

God could exist, if God does exist it is certainly the most impressive scientist/engineer/artist but all that was claimed of God was very specific writings in this book or that book: and that book won.

>>19833376
>it was a question of me successfully disproving the validity of your solipsism.
Different anon here. How could anyone possibly disprove the validity of any solipsistic claim?

>>19833376
>Says who?
Says me and a number of philosophers.

>On what grounds are you so proud to make this declaration with such certainty?
On the grounds that no argument has yet to sufficiently dispute it.

>It was never a question of before: it was a question of me successfully disproving the validity of your sollipsism.
Except you didn't, and this isn't a case for solipsism either, but a case for honestly acknowledging 1) our bodies as creative powers, and 2) our bodies as limited knowing subjects. Also, ironically enough, in your claim that you can know something beyond how you perceive it, you demonstrate an arrogant solipsism yourself, since you are positioning yourself outside of your body and on the level of a universal position, of everything all at once. If any stance is solipsistic, it's yours, whether you realize it or not.

>I was proving the point that things do proveably exist outside your awareness
Yes, but you were also arguing that we can know something about that existence. We can't. The proof? Already given here >>19833172

>>19833435
>Different anon here. How could anyone possibly disprove the validity of any solipsistic claim?
By throwing a rock and a boulder at their head while video taping and asking if there was a difference between the two.

At some point everyone must take a leap of faith in a: "from everything I've gathered , what seems to be most likely": stance

>>19833388
>. BUT, importantly, it should be noted Plato's idealized concept of Egypt should not to be thought of as actually representative of Egyptian culture and society. (Similar to the Romantic's conceptualization of the Ancient Greeks, actually)
Great qualities are rare, when one comes across something worth admiring, worth utilizing, they can ignore any bad qualities attached and use the great ones for their admiration.

>>19833389
Modern science is founded on the Socratic method, so ultimately, Plato is still responsible.

>>19833441
>in your claim that you can know something beyond how you perceive it,
Explain this claim of mine

>Yes, but you were also arguing that we can know something about that existence.

Would you agree we can either know something about that existence, or absolutely cannot?
That knowing the single smallest thing about that existence would be a complete victory for my stance?

>>19833464
Solipsism depends entirely on the fact that you can only know for certain that you exist. You cannot prove that anything exists outside of your own mind. That's the whole point of solipsism, however much stock you put into it

>>19833502
>Explain this claim of mine
"If one is able to read and think proficiently our exchange is self explanatory and evident"

>Would you agree we can either know something about that existence, or absolutely cannot?
We absolutely can't. Any possible property we can know is one that we had a hand in creating.

>That knowing the single smallest thing about that existence would be a complete victory for my stance?
Yes.

>>19833482
>modern science founded on socratic method
What the fuck are you on about? Do you even know Bacon, Hume, Kant? And how much influence did these three have from Socrates? Almost none. Modern science is founded on the very scientific process, from Greek natural philsophy, passing through scholastics, trough Renaissance, etc.

>>19833547
>Do you even know Bacon, Hume, Kant?
None of them would have existed without the philosophical framework established by Socrates through Plato and consequently the Neoplatonists and medieval scholastics.

>>19833576
epistemological framework*

Nieztsche is to actual philosophy what a witty YouTube vlog is to proper filmmaking: kind of entertainment and kind of refreshing but ultimately useless and derivative.

>>19833576
Medieval scholastics adopted Aristotelian epistemological framework. And this was the case even among neoplatonists themselves. But anyway we could say that actually, modern science is founded on phoenician and indo-european episteme for there would have no philosophy at all without their shaping influence on Greek language.

>>19833482
So who's fault Is it not sufficiently expressing the divine in life and nature?

>>19833584
Go to bed, Russell.

>>19833526
>>19833441
>in your claim that you can know something beyond how you perceive it,
>>19833526
I cannot percieve the bottom of the ocean, but I will claim there is a bottom. All becomes a leap of faith, a matter of a wager. I believe my stance has greater odds at being correct.

>>19833502
>>19833526
>We absolutely can't. Any possible property we can know is one that we had a hand in creating.
Now youre saying We, before it was just you alone.

Is it impossible, according to you, for a reality to exist, for parts of that reality to develop into entities, that can grasp any information about the reality they exist in?

That is either absolutely eternally impossible on principle because.........

Or it may be possible.

Would you wager for certain it is impossible?

>>19833905
>All becomes a leap of faith, a matter of a wager.
Sure, there is some faith in all action. I don't see what this has to do with what I'm saying, though.

>Now youre saying We, before it was just you alone.
You have poor reading comprehension. I was always talking about all perceiving bodies, not just my own.

>Is it impossible, according to you, for a reality to exist, for parts of that reality to develop into entities, that can grasp any information about the reality they exist in?
Obviously that "reality" exists, since there is the act of perceiving at all, but we, as bodies, do not have the capacity to know anything about it.

>>19834039
>Obviously that "reality" exists, since there is the act of perceiving at all, but we, as bodies, do not have the capacity to know anything about it.

What do you think about things seen in a microscope?

One person looks at a petri dish and sees a brown smudge, the other puts it under a microscope and sees many moving entities in detail .

Would you suggest the 2nd person is in that instance knowing more about an aspect of reality than the 1st?

Do you not think physiscits and chemists have seen more of at least some aspect of reality, than cavemen did?

I see you are speaking of the concept Noumena. Do you think there possibly is a gap bridged from the Noumena to our senses?

Did you think even if we may never fully or at all understand and know the Noumena, as if reality is composed of scales and layers, we can know scales and layers closer to the Noumena?

As in, humans may never dig to the center of the earth, it may be impossible to actually see and know what is directly at the center of the earth, but if humans dig, 5, 10, 15, 50, 100 miles down, they may be knowing more about reality, than a human who had only dug 1 foot?

>>19834158
>Would you suggest the 2nd person is in that instance knowing more about an aspect of reality than the 1st?
I don't think either of them are gaining knowledge of an "aspect of reality" like you say. They are gaining knowledge about their own reality, and that's it. Further, they are participating in the creation of the reality they are gaining knowledge about, since its presentation is a reflection of themselves.

>Do you not think physiscits and chemists have seen more of at least some aspect of reality, than cavemen did?
No, not at all.

>Do you think there possibly is a gap bridged from the Noumena to our senses?
Also no.

>Did you think even if we may never fully or at all understand and know the Noumena, as if reality is composed of scales and layers, we can know scales and layers closer to the Noumena?
No, we can't get our knowledge closer to resembling knowledge of the Noumena. What we can do, however, is get our knowledge closer to resembling ourselves. To go back to your comparison between a physicist and a caveman, the physicist is not any closer to knowing anything about the Noumena than the caveman is, but the physicist IS closer to knowing himself than the caveman is.

Brb

>>19833389
>I would think "science" did that. Though a lot of scientists were religious.
Science was invented by the Hellens.


I thought this board was supposed to be cultivated. Why are plebs posting here?

>>19833870
kek

>>19833547
>Modern science is founded on the very scientific process, from Greek natural philsophy
>>19833547
>What the fuck are you on about? Do you even know Bacon, Hume, Kant?
You literally BTFO your own post pleb.

>>19817256
Untermeschen such as kiked and niggers, mostly

>>19833847
Decadent Hellens.

>>19835156
A lot of the empirical basis of science began with the natural philosophers of Ancient Greece. Things don't emerge out of nothing. In the same way natural philosophers represented a break from old Greek sages, the modern empircists broke from scholastic aristotelianism.

>>19835157
>kiked and niggers
Funny way to spell Germans and the English

>>19835147
I meant modern science bub. Around begginging of 1700 1800 1900

Earlier too times were dominated by The Church.

So there was set up Science vs. The Church.

But The Church was beholden to a very specific text for it's God.

As was the temple, and the mosque.

Here and there legit scientists had beliefs in God, an intelligent orderer of the universe

But when scientists believed the only possible conception of God is contained in these 3 books. And they could logically, scientifically disprove some statements in the books, they threw the God out with the Religion water.

And society at large has been lacking in Divinity ever since.

Recently only leaking itself back in as The Simulation Hypothesis.

To take it back to Plato, Plato reached behind God, in a beautiful powerplay, and pulled a sphere from behind his ear, and said this has existed before even you were born

>>19833847
>So who's fault Is it not sufficiently expressing the divine in life and nature?
>>19835335
>To take it back to Plato, Plato reached behind God, in a beautiful powerplay, and pulled a sphere from behind his ear, and said this has existed before even you were born
And God said, no shit you little cunt, where did you think I got the idea for stars and planets? And don't give me any of that oblate spheroid shit aight? Let's see you try to do it

>>19833464

At some point everyone must take a leap of faith in a: "from everything I've gathered , what seems to be most likely": stance

Great qualities are rare, when one comes across something worth admiring, worth utilizing, they can ignore any bad qualities attached and use the great ones for their admiration.

So who's fault Is it not sufficiently expressing the divine in life and nature?

>>19834039
>Obviously that "reality" exists, since there is the act of perceiving at all, but we, as bodies, do not have the capacity to know anything about it.
Not even that something we call rock and boulder,are, and have different masses?

>>19820254
>it knows that it is of very little consequence whether a thing be true or not
*it knows that it is of very little importance whether an egghead can scientifically prove a thing to be true or not*

>>19820254
When he says Plato knew it, he could be referring to that Plato so tried to seek truth away from faith, that Plato's large focus was observing others various faiths, sophists, and Plato was motivated to try to aim down the wholly different path toward truth

>>19834294
>No, we can't get our knowledge closer to resembling knowledge of the Noumena
Thay not what I meant . I said even if we can't know the Noumena, can we know layers closer to the Noumena. We see a tree. We believe we know with good reason trees are made of atoms, we presume atoms are closer to the Noumena than our perception of bark and leaves.

The Noumena is not absolutely the totality of reality. The Noumena generates emergent phenomena and structures. Like bark and leaves.

Knowing about barks and leaves is knowing about aspects of reality.

>>19834294
Are you just a narssisitic sollipsisticb deist with such an inferiority complex you cannot operate other than under the assumption you are the center of the universe most important thing in the world and creator of everything?

Seriously please excuse my rudeness, I am very upset, the would not take these playful shots if I didn't think you can handle them, seriously, brother, I am not trying to be obnoxious all the times I was during our convo, I appreciate your patience and enthusiasm and fighting spirit. Love you bro be well

>>19835576
Adam

>>19836184
>he could be referring to that Plato so tried to seek truth away from faith,
>tried to seek truth
>faith
I can't even ; Literally shaking with the level of ignorance in this thread.

>>19836214
>Are you just a narssisitic sollipsisticb deist with such an inferiority complex you cannot operate other than under the assumption you are the center of the universe most important thing in the world and creator of everything?
>projection, the post
Nice trice yahwe.

>>19836136
>Not even that something we call rock and boulder,are, and have different masses?
No, because mass is part of time and space, both of which are subjective.

>>19836201
The answer is still no due to the exact same reasoning provided.

>>19837158
And by subjective I mean defined by a subject / relative, which should be obvious given the conversation and my posts, but apparently everything has to be spelled out for people on this board these days.

>>19837169
Everything has to be spelled out because your philosophistcal position is eyes closed fingers in ears lalalalalalala


I think you ignored my important question about your wager on the impossibility of entities developing in a reality that can determine aspects of that reality.

Why would you suggest that is an eternal impossibility to occur?

Why is it impossible in your opinion, for entities to develop, possesing sensational instruments that detect informational aspects of reality, and even though the informational aspects are translated, they still contain nontrivial relation to what they are translated from?

Answer all these please.

>>19837158
What's your theoretical hypothesis as to why a subjective could never possibly know about a single thing thats how objective?

>>19817256
this thread have stayed up for 2 days.
i'm tired of looking at this faggot

>>19837630
>Why would you suggest that is an eternal impossibility to occur?
Because A) all conceivable knowledge is derived from the senses (which includes all Kantian faculties and categories) and B) Russell's paradox, or in other words, if you allow a set to be an element of itself, you undermine the function of language and arrive at inconceivable nonsense.

>>19837158
This post
>>19836201

The Noumena is only a word for that which we don't know, can't know of,.

But we do know about many things,things you would say are will and subjective based. But they make sense regardless, there seems to be lots of consistancy. Rocks, minerals, trees, in climates and soils, seeds, DNA, water, temperature, gasses, molecules, atoms, insects, metals, foods, there is a tremendous amount of things we can consistently catagorize and navigate and utilize.

The Noumena is that which is not or cannot be known.

You posit this Noumena is the true reality, the purest realist actualness of reality.

How would you reconcile an absolute non relation between the Noumena and all we know; your wager is that it is eternally impossible for the Noumena to produce non Noumena?


You are sure you have proven to yourself for certain, that the world of trees and rocks and elements, can exist with all it's consistent robust complexity and catagoricalizationability, and not touch or have any relation to or be sourced from the Noumena in any way?

Please answer all these questions, please, sincerely, I'm finally seeing the finish line, the victory circle

>>19837643
It's not complicated. Just ask yourself the question: can an instrument, which is a device designed to measure a certain thing other than itself, measure itself? Does an eye or a camera ever see itself, or can it only see reflections of light of itself through a mirror? Further, can an instrument ever produce a measurement outside its own limits of measuring? Can any measurement be conceived without an instrument?

>>19837745
>You posit this Noumena is the true reality, the purest realist actualness of reality.
I only posit that it is unknowable. I don't claim that it is more or less true, because these claims assume I can have knowledge of it either directly or indirectly through a counterpart / opposite.

>How would you reconcile an absolute non relation between the Noumena and all we know; your wager is that it is eternally impossible for the Noumena to produce non Noumena?
It's not that there is no relation between the Noumena and our reality, but that the relation is unknowable. Perhaps our reality "develops" out of this Noumena, but what does that mean if this Noumena is pure randomness? That's just a hypothetical, mind you—I'm not saying it's pure randomness, but given that I can't know it, I can't assume that there is anything consistent or sensible about it as understand consistency and sense. And if this Noumena is pure randomness, then "development" does not mean what it means for us, which is to say: nothing about ourselves may reflect anything meaningful about this Noumena in any discernible way.

>You are sure you have proven to yourself for certain, that the world of trees and rocks and elements, can exist with all it's consistent robust complexity and catagoricalizationability, and not touch or have any relation to or be sourced from the Noumena in any way?
All that this consistency and complexity can mean, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves, is that we ourselves desire consistency and complexity. It does not mean we know anything separate from ourselves that is consistent and complex.

>>19821679
>loser
subjective. He literally killed God and will go down in history as the first modern man brave enough to free mankind from the specter of religion. Despite religious people breeding like retarded rabbits and doing everything they can to indoctrinate their children from birth, the world is still continuing to become more atheistic as the self evident truth of atheism is realized by more and more people who have realized that god is in fact DEAD.

Like imagine how much religioncucks seethe at Nietzsche for finally pulling back the curtain on their shitty magic act. By golly I bet that if I was a religionfag I would literally be pissing my pants in impotent rage over Nietzsche murdering god with his superior wit and intellect.

Brb

>>19838623
Me too, need to mull over, and collect my thoughts, my thoughts have seemed to scatter, there and there, I need to stoop over and kneel down and collect them, I need to collect myself, I need to refresh, I need a refreshment, I need to visit the powder room for some refreshments, pardon me, pardon, scuse me, scusey.

>>19838260
stfu atheistcuck deism is the truth

>>19838260
not to be that guy, but as far as I'm concerned his philosophy is mostly shitposting. but entertaining shitposting from what I've read.

>>19838260
Feuerbach is the one who killed God; Nietzsche just wrote the obituary.

Yeh

>>19838192
>It's not that there is no relation between the Noumena and our reality, but that the relation is unknowable.

Well you don't know that relation is unknowable. All my point is is, it may be possible to know degrees about reality. That the result of appearances are generated closer to the Noumena than further, though that's not even true, because emergent phenomena have powers and abilities beyond the sum of their parts. A single atom can do this or that, but 99999999999999999999 of them in certain order can move as a human body, and a different amount in a different order a car, and different amount different kinds in different order, a cloud. And a bowling ball, is an object composed of parts.

This is why I brought up the rock example. The bowling ball doesn't coelesce into the pins when it strikes them, this is evidence of something. Some other objects do coelesce into others when they collide, some times with fire involved, sometimes with bubbling.

Everything, that, appears... to exist, is nessecarily composed of smaller parts, though those smaller parts can so tightly attach, many small parts appear as 1 large part. This is something fascinating to look towards, not simply ignore.

Further and further, it, appearss, smaller parts are made of smaller parts and so on. There must eventually be an end to the scale, hey that's something I can know without looking! We can go down that deffinitly ending rabbit hole if you must be an unknowing contrarian.

So you make the statement of the Noumena possibly being random. And i am forced to use this same most reasonable tactic again, are you certain it must be random?

Is it impossible for it to not be random?

Is pure randomness given a large enough set possible?

In pure randomness is it impossible for patches of order to come about?

Is it possible for pure randomness to produce the order we percieve of as the appearances of reality? (Periodic table, standard model, galaxy and solar systems)

Or must you say from our position of ignorance, if it is possible for the Noumena to be completely random, that it may be possible for it to contain some amount of order,

And if it is possible fir the completely random to produce the affirmentioned orders we percieve, that it may be possible for Noumena with orders to produce our percieved orders?

Nietzsche's most profound and significant work is Untimely Meditations, particularly On the Use and Abuse of History for Life though the other 3 essays are also top tier.

>>19840895
Any quick rundown?

Tbc

im pretty close to the end of beyond good and evil and would like to know what the fuck i just read. i dont study philosophy directly and this is literally my first nietzsche book and philosophy book in general but im pretty well read on history, broader culture in general. i general agree with most of his thoughts in the earlier sections and was already practicing his ideas and arrived at them independently.

Bruh

Uhhh... Bruv?

>>19841675
Nietzsche; the first European to be an European instead of a Abrahamist in a while.

>>19817256
eternal recurrence in the will to power was his fundamental ontology

Oi mate, righto, righto mate, oi

>>19838260
>literally

Oh where oh where could my interlocutor be, oh where oh where could they be

>>19846288
It's gone first, then be

Any other ideas, any other mysteries, uncertainties, puzzling problems we can discuss?

>>19847152
?? Send em here I'll take a crack at them

>>19840807
Until you or someone gives an example of a property or event that does not hinge on the organic structure of the observer / perceiver, then everything you are saying here is empty conjecture only serving to delay self-realization.

>>19840895
>Untimely Meditations, particularly On the Use and Abuse of History for Life
Thank you for the recomendation anon.
Amazing read.

>>19817353
but thermodynamics are not.

>>19849001
Sleep with a pin under your bed

>>19817718
Standards

>>19820337
Some Bolivian Grimsby still available In todays town expects a bunch of peony that find butterscotch races a human condition.tennect sow. Luckily Zoot