/lit/ - Literature

File: 103 KB, 850x440, 2C4F1D56-C7CE-46CF-B6BE-39D04CD79EC6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:41:33 2022 No.21436719 [Reply] [Original]

I’ve never seen a refutation of this. Power is always nice to have, and if you don’t want it, it can given away easily. Whereas the weak person does not easily acquire power. Seeking “happiness” and “pleasure” just leads to hedonistic confusion, whereas power is easily understood as the ability to dominate one’s environment throughout life, and this naturally leads to a happy life. All else is cope stemming from weakness

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:45:15 2022 No.21436733 >>21436719 >what is good >all that enhances feelings of power murder is good then, by this definition. or, if you reject this definition, all that follows within the quote is invalid as well.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:47:25 2022 No.21436739

>>21436733
Don’t we murder and eat animals? The difference is that we can get away with it, because we have enough power over them to do so. The average person after murdering a human would most likely feel guilt stemming from the lack of power, even if they felt temporarily powerful during the murder

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:49:15 2022 No.21436744 >>21436739 intraspecial killing is not murder. dont make a false equivalence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:50:35 2022 No.21436752 >>21436744 Define murder without being circular

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:54:32 2022 No.21436768 >>21436752 the killing of a human, by a human, with malicious premeditation

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:57:32 2022 No.21436791 >>21436768 Then the US murdered Osama bin Laden, by this definition

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:58:47 2022 No.21436796

>>21436752
actually, I think hes on to something. I think slaughter might be a better term. murder usually requires malicious intent rather than the act of killing in itself. thats why we have murder and manslaughter as different catagorize of crime. As the sort of intent differentiates on from the other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:59:53 2022 No.21436801 >>21436791 he forgot to mention that murder implies a killing without state sanction

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 20:59:58 2022 No.21436802 >>21436791 is this supposed to be a gotcha? by the definition i gave, yes. seal team 6 extremely murdered bin laden.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:00:04 2022 No.21436803 >>21436791 from a certain point of view, yes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:00:37 2022 No.21436807

>>21436719
Power is inherently incoherent due to the effort you have to expend in getting it. If you do not like that effort, certain type of power isn't necessarily nice to have, to use your words, or "good", to use Nietzsche's. Let's refute this by a simple example
>What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing, that resistance has been overcome.
I went to the gym for a year, increased power and overcame a lot of resistance, objectively speaking. Yet this didn't give me even slight happiness, it mostly seemed like a stupid and irritating chore, despite Nietzsche maintaining that it should automatically lead to happiness on account of its attribute of overcoming resistance. I'm sure anyone can think of an example from their life that refutes this statement by Nietzsche. Hence, it is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:01:15 2022 No.21436813 >>21436802 >>21436803 >the UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of one human being by another.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:01:58 2022 No.21436818 >>21436807 that's happiness, happiness is power and sadness

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:02:23 2022 No.21436819 >>21436802 >>21436803 Cool. So now argue why murder isn’t good based on the theory of power

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:04:34 2022 No.21436828 >>21436807 post body

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:05:09 2022 No.21436831

>>21436801
i didnt forget, i excluded. the unlawful part is a built in loophole used to justify killing. i dont believe its a true definition of murder.

>>21436813
he asked for non-circular. leaving unlawful in can be considered circular because the definitio makes it wrong instead of the definition following from the properties of murder.

>>21436819
based on the "theory of power" or rather the quote above because you are leaving your ideas undefinied, murder is plenty good if it makes you feel more powerful. but if you base this sense of goodness on this idea, its tautological. im saying the common sense ordinary language ethical viewpoint of murder is that its wrong. i gave that as a counterexample of this idea.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:05:33 2022 No.21436832

>>21436801
eh, not quite getting to the heart of it. murder is an ends in itself. so its hard for an organization of not a single consciousness to do it. its usually too impersonal to really be considered murder in the convential sense (though not always)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:05:58 2022 No.21436834 >>21436744 ignored the point. Murder is sometimes good but not generally

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:06:50 2022 No.21436838 >>21436807 post body

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:08:26 2022 No.21436847

>>21436818
So it's more nonsense philosophy. Did he learn nothing from Kant? Your statement, due to the "subtleties" of redefinition, is like
>blob is blab and bleb
To avoid nonsense, show me how the concept of happiness contains what nietzsche describes in that passage or else, by what means does Nietzsche extend his knowledge of this quality to enable to him to make such a general statement about the nature of this quality. Because even a single empirical counter-example refutes his claim, as he positively identifies "happiness" with this completely separate thing.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:08:29 2022 No.21436848

>>21436831
>im saying the common sense ordinary language ethical viewpoint of murder is that its wrong
and I agree that it’s wrong in the general case. But just as we are able to kill animals because of the difference in power, and this be viewed as good or justified, the same is true when we kill humans. It’s just that most humans aren’t powerful enough to kill other humans, because the collective force of society with its rules and enforcement is much more powerful than a single person. For cavemen murder is just a part of life. Or the elite

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:09:25 2022 No.21436853

>>21436834
i did not ignore the point.
>we murder and eat animals (wrong)
>this is considered fine because we can get away with it (because this follows, its also wrong)
>we can get away with it because we have power over them (because this follows it is also wrong)
>some (or even most) people feel guilty after murdering, even if they felt powerful during said act (ireelevant)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:10:49 2022 No.21436858 >>21436848 >But just as we are able to kill animals because of the difference in power, and this be viewed as good or justified, the same is true when we kill humans. no. do not make a false equivalence.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:15:35 2022 No.21436874

>>21436853
Your view that eating animals is wrong is just a personal preference and nothing more. Power is useless without some sort of desire or preference, but no matter the desire, power is always good, because it facilitates satisfying the preferences. There is no right or wrong morality concerning veganism. It just depends on whichever preference has the most power. Currently the meat-eaters are more common, and therefore have more power, so veganism is not mandatory.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:20:23 2022 No.21436893
File: 37 KB, 1024x578, 1659769254811360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21436791
Uh, yes retard, they did. Targeted killings of political or even military rivals would've been seen as totally barbaric by the Founders for obvious fucking reasons. It WAS murder. Bin Laden also didn't do 9/11, which the government already knows because all of the terrorists involved were from Saudi Arabia and Jordan or some shit.

Osama Bin Laden may not have been a nice guy but yes, we murdered him and yes, it was a moral crime.

I don't even disagree with the core premise that the power to murder people is desirable, but it isn't good. Nobody SHOULD have that power because sooner or later you're going to get someone like me who has it. Human beings should not seek pleasure or power, they should seek peace with their own demons. THAT is the road to self-actualization.

It is not that power corrupts necessarily, I don't believe that. I think that power enables people to act upon their darker impulses, it doesn't corrupt, it reveals what was always there. If you gave me the power to snap my fingers and have everyone to the Left of Mussolini struck by lightning I'd do it, I'm just old enough to recognize now that that's because I'm a crazy wounded person--one of billions--who should not be allowed to wield the sword of Kalki.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:23:25 2022 No.21436899 >>21436893 I’m not going to listen to someone who admits that he thinks he shouldn’t have power. You deserve to be weak

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:26:36 2022 No.21436911

>>21436719
It is not an issue of desiring power, but desiring power over contentment. Power is a means to contentment. Power for power's sake is a hamster treadmill with no destination. If you could feel contentment without power, but seek power anyways, congratulations, you played yourself. You rejected happiness to inflate your own ego. However, few people can live happy in monk-like destitution, so I find myself in the middle between Schopenhauer and Nietzche.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:29:05 2022 No.21436924

>>21436874
i dont mean wrong as in evil action, i mean wrong as in incorrect. sorry for being unclear. i have no qualms about eating animals. we need not to discuss vegitarianism and veganism, but as a side note that i find quite hilarious: Veganism is an off shoot of straight edge, initially animal producs were seen as a sort of addiction that relied on animal abuse in a similar way that drugs were an addiction that relied on relationship abuse nowadays the people i associate with that do the most drugs and hedonistic things are vegans.

>>21436893
out of Risperdal refills it seems?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:30:21 2022 No.21436931 >>21436899 >I’m not going to listen to someone who admits that he thinks he shouldn’t have power. then why do you listen to nietzschean quotes?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:33:49 2022 No.21436946
File: 39 KB, 850x400, 0825559becb43a676495f9d94a33cabd-2077385113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21436893
Power is to be used gratuitously, with violent intent. Indeed, that is why the masses fear another Nero. I, however, adore our Neros, and despise our dark cardinals. Were I sufficently powerful, I should think I'd take a few notes from Gille de Rais, and the Marquis de Sade.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:34:01 2022 No.21436947

>>21436924
So then it just goes back to semantics. I don’t see the difference between premeditated killing of animals and humans. It’s just that one is more satisfying and more easily executed without fearing consequences. The more power you have, and the more necessary it becomes to kill humans, the more similar these actions become. The definition you (?) have was humans killing humans, so you think aliens killing humans wouldn’t be “murder.” I just don’t see the need to make that distinction. I like the standard definition that murder is unlawful because it represent’s society’s view on what types of killing are allowed. So when you murder it is your power against society’s

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:35:19 2022 No.21436950 >>21436802 So some murder is justified? That’s what Nietzsche believes you retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:37:03 2022 No.21436954 >>21436899 >I’m not going to listen to someone who admits that he thinks he shouldn’t have power. You deserve to be weak A slave who believes that he should not have power has a kind of honesty and earnestness which would endear him to Nietszche.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:39:44 2022 No.21436967 >>21436954 Maybe so, but such a person isn’t qualified to tell me that I should not have power. He is right about himself, though

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:39:57 2022 No.21436968 >>21436719 Nietzsche is not speaking about political power, or power "over" something, but something more akin to "energy". i.e., it's "puissance", not "pouvoir"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:40:15 2022 No.21436970 >>21436719 Don't quote if you don't quote the book it's extracted from. I bet it's from "The Will to Power", a book he never wrote

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:43:07 2022 No.21436978

>>21436791
Yeah. The act took place in Pakistan and was illegal there. It would be a subset of murder called assassination. But sometimes assassination is warranted. Normally, it is not.

Israel is the only developed country that regularly carries out assassinations outside of drone strikes. There is more work on their program, and there is a moral argument to be made that the targeted killing produces less violence than other methods would.

For example, drone strikes on a terror leader might stop later sectarian bombings that would kill many more people. Popular support for drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is much higher than many people might think. While the impression is mostly negative, also consider the attack by the "Pakistani Taliban," where almost 300 grade school children were massacred at a school. People there were quite happy to learn the US had bombed some involved. I've seen similar reports on drones and special forces raids wiping out drug lords that were raping and taxing with impunity in the Afghan hinterlands before pissing the US off by supporting the Taliban.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:45:11 2022 No.21436986

>>21436967
>Maybe so, but such a person isn’t qualified to tell me that I should not have power. He is right about himself, though
This is true. Insofar as he tells you that you should not have power, it usually proceeds from a kind of resentment and weakness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:45:21 2022 No.21436987 >>21436970 >I bet it's from "The Will to Power" it’s not

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:46:12 2022 No.21436994
File: 1.62 MB, 2713x3133, Wait mister seal please don't hurt me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21436899
It's not that I believe that I deserve to be weak, it's that I'm aware that I AM weak because I'm not a narcissistic psychopath. Power is ephemeral, it exists as a product of social hierarchies primarily, and these hierarchies are abused not by the strong, but by the weak who want to compensate for their inner weakness by outwardly altering the world.

The problem is that it never works. Pol Pot did not die happy. Stalin did not die happy. Hitler... Well Hitler died in Argentina in the 1970s so maybe he was having a good time sipping tequila sunrises or something, but the official story says he didn't die happy. This whole "discharge your strength" stuff is horribly misinterpreted by midwits as a sign that you need to be a dictator in order to be happy, but that's obviously bullshit. The Stoics were right, you need to be a tyrant, but to yourself, not others. If you cannot master your own heart and your own delusions of superiority then mastering anything else would not only be pointless, it would only bring misery.

Only a very rare few people possess the self-command of character and the mastery of the self to be allowed to wield temporal power, and that is the problem we have been struggling with since the Greek wrote The Republic, and nobody can agree on how it must be done, can you engineer good people? Can you breed good people? Can you aggregate decision-making out among people because people are good? Nobody agrees, and that is how we find ourselves in this solution. I merely decided that whatever the solution is, I know it isn't me, because my solution would involve genocide and I'm self-aware enough to suspect that that makes me a crazy person.

The ability to honestly assess yourself is the first step to coming to terms with this reality.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:49:59 2022 No.21437007

>>21436994
>It's not that I believe that I deserve to be weak, it's that I'm aware that I AM weak because I'm not a narcissistic psychopath. Power is ephemeral, it exists as a product of social hierarchies primarily, and these hierarchies are abused not by the strong, but by the weak who want to compensate for their inner weakness by outwardly altering the world.
This is unironically the most Nietszchean take in the entire thread. Nietszche thought that the higher man was compassionate and magnanimous, and that cruelty was a kind of self denial which was how slave moralists thought that the powerful act.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:52:42 2022 No.21437014

>>21436947
>So then it just goes back to semantics.
*sigh* we are, it seems, stuck in the postmodern mindset.
>you think aliens killing humans wouldn’t be “murder.”
correct. we would probably need a neologism or use a word related to other types of killing, such as genocide, slaughter, or simply killing. murder, in this technical sense, would not apply.
>I like the standard definition
whose standard? the one I gave is internationally recognized barring the lack of mention of unlawful. the one you gave, is as far as
>So when you murder it is your power against society’s
yeah, by your weird and abstract definition of murder.
Lets address the big question:
>I don’t see the difference between premeditated killing of animals and humans. I
extraspecial killing is observed between most if not all animals. creatures on this planet, nearly universally, are killed or kill other creatures. humans fit into this as well, we kill many types of animals, and are killed, but not preyed upon, by a few as well. interspecial killing, however, is uncommon. Nature provides us with a difference here. perhaps you can now see it. they are not equivalent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:53:42 2022 No.21437017 >>21436733 Brainwashed christian hands wrote that. You really think murder is objectively bad? Lmao. That was the worst you could come up with? You christcucks are so cute. Give me the other cheek babby, I wanna pinch it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:53:43 2022 No.21437018 >>21436950 what? where did i say that? i never said that. >you retard. uhh actually sweaty, no u

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:56:39 2022 No.21437033 >>21436733 >murder is good then if you get away with it and it doesnt limit your power it is perceived as individually good, but that doesnt mean that society views it as good

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 21:57:25 2022 No.21437034

>>21437017
>>21437017
>You really think murder is objectively bad? Lmao.
i never said that. I said that Nietzsche defined murder as good. if you accept the definition so be it.
>Brainwashed christian hands wrote that.
Nietzsche wasnt the "based athiest" you think he was. and im not the "cucked christian" you think i am. we are both, actually, a mysterious third thing.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:04:09 2022 No.21437050

>>21437034
>I said that Nietzsche defined murder as good
And also not murdering someone if it's in your self interest. He didn't say if murder is generally good or bad, that's what your closeted christian brain read.
>Nietzsche wasnt the "based athiest" you think he was.
I don't care what he was, I don't believe in labels. Like people saying someone is a social darwinist and then you can reject him without thinking, because that label has a bad rep. But when you actually read social darwinist books, they are so good and almost impossible to refute.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:04:52 2022 No.21437052 >>21437034 going to jail is the opposite of feeling powerful. I don’t know why you still don’t understand this point

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:05:37 2022 No.21437053 >>21437050 you literally dismissed me by labeling me??

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:09:42 2022 No.21437062 >>21437053 Saying you're part of the christian faith is not labeling you, it's something believers self identify with. I also don't say don't call Richard Dawkins atheist, because that's part of his identity that he himself chose.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:11:19 2022 No.21437064

>>21437062
>Saying you're part of the christian faith is not labeling you, it's something believers self identify with.
you called me a christian out of nowhere, then called me one again when i told you i wasnt one. do you have down syndrome or somthing? its profound how illiterate you can be and still be allowed to post on this board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:14:04 2022 No.21437073 >>21437062 fuck me youre stupid as shit. >...is not laveling you You labeled him, he never professed his self identity. You colossal mouth breather, just end it already lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:14:10 2022 No.21437074 >>21437064 If you think murder is generally bad you're christian. If you're humanist you're christian. If you're socialist you're christian. They share the same core morals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:15:47 2022 No.21437078 >>21437073 He implied murder is bad which makes him a christian

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:16:10 2022 No.21437080 >>21437074 then you dont mean christian, you mean something else and are calling it christian, you have created a label, and using it to label me. you are either masterfully baiting me or genuinely and actually retarded.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:21:01 2022 No.21437087

>>21437080
No I don't mean something else, what I'm talking about is the true meaning of being christian. All the mumbo-jumbo magic shit and fairytales were created after the fact for the masses that were not able to grasp general or abstract concepts. The intellectual elites always were only concerned with the morals. They genuinly believed murder was bad without thinking that a guy resurrected 3 days after he died. When you think the same you are part of their club.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:23:06 2022 No.21437093 >>21437087 okay then, youre a jew, because youre retarded, and jews are retarded, so you are a jew, and because jews are also christian, because they also expouse murder, you are a christian jew. reminder, i am not labeling you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:25:07 2022 No.21437098 >>21436733 >>21436739 >>21436744 >>21436752 >>21436768 Killing is not inherently bad, it happens all the time in wars, or if someone trespasses. All you need is cause. It's murder without cause that's bad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:25:12 2022 No.21437099 >>21437093 Being retarded is not a jewish invention. And jews of today are not the jews of the old testament, so they are not christian.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:25:52 2022 No.21437102 >>21437099 yeah, but you are a jewish christian, nevertheless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:27:49 2022 No.21437107 >>21437014 interspecies killing is not uncommon and species categories are a poor, artificial basis for the evaluation of killing anyways

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:28:00 2022 No.21437109 >>21437102 Christcuck logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:29:10 2022 No.21437112 >>21437107 uncommon compared to extraspecial killing. >>21437109 christian jewish statement.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:32:11 2022 No.21437120

>>21436739
Guilt only comes when you know you have nothing to back it up. It's a lack of self worth. That's why the Romans valued their Dignitas so highly and committed suicide if their honour was tarnished.

The shaming of suicide is a Judeo-Christian slave morality invention. There is nothing more honourable than suicide because honour/esteem/ /self-worth/dignity isn't recoverable and it's what makes a master a master and the lack of it a slave.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:33:59 2022 No.21437124
File: 56 KB, 660x489, image_2022-12-26_163309151.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21436733
nietzsche said that barbaric cruelty over the weak is easier than kindness toward the weak, and the more noble expression of the will to power would be kindness, and nietzsche emphasized personal power over oneself through for example the virtues

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:35:48 2022 No.21437129 >>21437124 >Nietzsche said >posts nico ethics table ?? have you actually read either of these writers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:44:57 2022 No.21437164 >>21437120 >because honour/esteem/ /self-worth/dignity isn't recoverable Let's say you got fucked in the ass, then after many years you've become a Legate. Doesn't that mean that you've recovered, and even increased your esteem/self-worth/dignity?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:46:25 2022 No.21437168 >>21436733 >murder is good then If it benefits me, 100%

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:46:35 2022 No.21437169 >>21436719 >I’ve never seen a refutation of this Because it's utter nonsense

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:46:51 2022 No.21437171 >>21437164 >Legate I meant Legatus

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:49:53 2022 No.21437177 >>21437164 No because it comes from within. Self-esteem doesn't depend on anything external; once it's gone it's gone forever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:51:02 2022 No.21437181 >>21437169 What don't you get about it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:52:40 2022 No.21437187 >>21437181 It has nothing to do with me "getting it" Simply, none of it is true

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:53:10 2022 No.21437189 >>21437187 It has everything to do with you not getting it, since it's straightforward and makes perfect sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:53:21 2022 No.21437190 File: 65 KB, 750x725, kpke5a51q9d31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Murder isn't wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:54:48 2022 No.21437194 >>21437189 >makes perfect sense. it makes no sense

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:57:05 2022 No.21437202 >>21436719 So what it feels like to have power over your lust for power?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:57:25 2022 No.21437204 >>21437194 Observe the unconscious mind of those around you and you'll see that it makes perfect sense.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:57:41 2022 No.21437205
File: 96 KB, 1024x1001, bs-11-30-DW-Kultur-Rom-jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21437181
>>21437189
Don't even try it.
It's like Goebbels said
>The Christian is immunized against all dangers: One may call him a christcuck, weakling, other cheek turner, hypocrite, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But mention Nietzsche and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "They found my weak spot."

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:59:32 2022 No.21437210 >>21437204 >Observe the unconscious mind of those around you That makes even less sense: Good is subjective and mind is an abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 22:59:47 2022 No.21437211 >>21437205 Because he knows he's a slave of the highest order.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:01:37 2022 No.21437216 >>21437210 Unconscious mind = parts of one's body outside conscious thought.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:02:23 2022 No.21437217 >>21436807 Post body

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:04:45 2022 No.21437223 >>21437216 if this were true, how would it give sense to the original statement?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:05:01 2022 No.21437224

>>21437017
murder in the sense of unlawful and unjust killing is intrinsically evil, yes (retard). this must be distinguished from killing in self defense, execution of those who are sufficiently harmful to society, and killing which occurs in just wars (which is just self-defense on a larger scale)

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:06:10 2022 No.21437227

>>21437223
>if this were true
If what were true? That there are parts of one's body outside conscious thought? There's no "if" there. Soon as you start observing those parts in others, you'll (assuming you aren't a retard) very quickly start to understand how Nietzsche's statement in the OP makes perfect sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:06:52 2022 No.21437229 >>21437224 If I would kill you for being an annoying faggot, how is that evil?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:06:55 2022 No.21437230

>>21436719
the obvious fucking fallacy in this concept is that it equates goodness with power, when we can all imagine (in the abstract) goodness without power, or, conversely, powerful evil

but you are not arguing against the *actual* truth about goodness, but your cucked mindless redditor hedonism...

Happiness in its thomistic/aristotelian definition is *not* about pleasure, it's about more than subjective states, it's about flourishing, the sum total goodness of a creature, only incidentally indexed by that creature's subjective state...

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:07:15 2022 No.21437232 >>21437224 >murder in the sense of unlawful and unjust killing is intrinsically evil, yes (retard). And?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:09:16 2022 No.21437235

>>21437229
The definition of goodness is being. A greater goodness has more being. Being and goodness are more objective. The greatest goodness is to act for the good of all beings, those greatest beings most of all. Human beings are greater than other beings by virtue of their rational nature, their ability to intellectually participate in eternity, if only partially. As such, the willful destruction or even neglect of a human being is a greater moral evil than the killing of an animal or a plant, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:10:57 2022 No.21437243 >>21437235 This is just egotism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:11:28 2022 No.21437245 >>21437227 Assuming that those "parts of the body outside of conscious thought" made up the entirety of the unconscious, how would that give validity to the statement that good is everything that enhances the feeling of power?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:13:55 2022 No.21437252

>>21437245
>how would that give validity to the statement that good is everything that enhances the feeling of power?
Because then you would see that the animal called "human" is like any other animal on earth, and operates under the same desire for power as all those other animals. We pursue what empowers us no matter what it is we do. The Christian prays because it is empowering and for no other reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:14:36 2022 No.21437254 >>21436719 Ones' environment also implies one's mind and one's body. That's what Nietzsche failed to understand.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:17:03 2022 No.21437260

>>21437243
that's incoherent... egotism comes from the latin word for "I." In reality, Nietzsche's might make right ethos is more egoistic, because it appeals to the strongest element in the soul, its pride. To strive to become powerful is clearly more selfish than striving to make the objective, external world as good as possible.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:17:12 2022 No.21437262

>>21437235
>The definition of goodness is being. A greater goodness has more being.
That's just pseudo-deep nonsense, it literally means nothing
>Being and goodness are more objective.
What?
>The greatest goodness is to act for the good of all beings
No just thing IRL, just on paper
>Human beings are greater than other beings by virtue of their rational nature, their ability to intellectually participate in eternity, if only partially.
True, but it's not irrational to kill others
>As such, the willful destruction or even neglect of a human being is a greater moral evil than the killing of an animal or a plant, etc.
The conclusion falls flat as the built up is nonsensical.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:19:04 2022 No.21437268 >>21437262 >No just thing IRL, just on paper *such, not just

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:19:09 2022 No.21437269 >>21437252 Therefore a "greater good" would not be possible, right? Since every good obtained by any being is actually power taken from another being, there's no possible good for all beings. Is there?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:20:26 2022 No.21437272

>>21437017
>Brainwashed christian hands wrote that. You really think murder is objectively bad?
Maybe to an evangelical heathen but to real Christians murder can justified. God demands it plenty from his subjects. What kind of God tests the loyalty of his flock by asking one of them to murder his own son and finds murder abhorrent? Unjust murder yes, but plenty of deaths can be morally justified.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:21:45 2022 No.21437278 >>21437269 It doesn't matter. Any abstractions of good are born out of the desire for power. Therefore, the more accurate statement of the good is what Nietzsche said in the OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:22:42 2022 No.21437279 >>21437272 >What kind of God tests the loyalty of his flock by asking one of them to murder his own son and finds murder abhorrent? Deprecated by Jesus. The NT God is a hippie.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:24:08 2022 No.21437283 >>21437278 Ok, since all abstractions of good are born from the desire of power, what happens to the powerless? Nietzsche says that they perish. Isn't that good for them?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:24:42 2022 No.21437287 >>21437272 God has the right to kill. Nobody dies who wasn't killed by God in the sense that God is the one who makes all things happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:26:00 2022 No.21437290 >>21437283 The powerless are either killed or they kill themselves, the latter being the dying human animal's final attempt at the empowerment it seeks.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:27:03 2022 No.21437295

>>21437260
>that's incoherent... egotism comes from the latin word for "I." In reality, Nietzsche's might make right ethos is more egoistic, because it appeals to the strongest element in the soul, its pride. To strive to become powerful is clearly more selfish than striving to make the objective, external world as good as possible.
*sigh* Being is a projection of ego as absolute substance. It's egotistical to the very core.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:27:21 2022 No.21437297 >>21437290 So there's a difference in the power obtained when perishing by others and perishing by their own hand?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:28:03 2022 No.21437302 >>21437297 No, just who obtains it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:29:45 2022 No.21437315 >>21437302 So anyone that makes themselves or others perish is obtaining power, therefore making good?

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:31:12 2022 No.21437323

>>21437262
Being, existence, has degrees.

We call a broken hammer a "bad" hammer because it does not do what it is supposed to do. It has less existence, thus it is bad. Thus If it were a good hammer, it would hammer very well. So you see that being and goodness are interchangeable.

The invisible immaterial world has a greater reality than the visible world, because it is immutable, and everything immutable is greater than that which is subject to change. A hammer which never wore out (over all eternity) would be better than all really existing hammers, which do wear out. This is why mathematics and philosophy are such sources of wonder. When we really understand some mathematical truth, we are able to grasp something eternal.

So the good of the only animal which has any real access to this invisible eternal world is greater than the good of animals or plants.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:31:20 2022 No.21437324

Starting a whole long ass discussion over one out of context quote. Nobody even feels the need to look where it came from, what he said before and after that, how it fit in the arguments of the whole book etc.
Nobody also references anything else. This whole thread is just about that izquotes pic.

Is that the power of /lit/?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:31:52 2022 No.21437325 >>21437315 It's not that complicated, dude. What empowers us, we call good. Bottom line.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:32:56 2022 No.21437329 >>21437325 so we can conclude that living is >le good and dying is >le bad ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:34:33 2022 No.21437334 >>21437329 Depends on who's concluding.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:34:51 2022 No.21437335 >>21437323 You say something true and make crazy leaps of logic. There is no connection between "being good" and "not killing others".

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:35:45 2022 No.21437342 >>21437334 "We" as in "you and I"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:37:07 2022 No.21437344 >>21437342 I don't know how you feel, but for me, yes, living is good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:37:53 2022 No.21437349 >>21437344 Yeah it's good for me too

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:41:19 2022 No.21437358 File: 424 KB, 250x189, stewart-clap.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21437349

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:43:33 2022 No.21437363

>>21437323
>The invisible immaterial world has a greater reality than the visible world, because it is immutable, and everything immutable is greater than that which is subject to change. A hammer which never wore out (over all eternity) would be better than all really existing hammers, which do wear out. This is why mathematics and philosophy are such sources of wonder. When we really understand some mathematical truth, we are able to grasp something eternal.
The higher orders of being are the most empty. They don't actually mean anything.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:43:53 2022 No.21437364

>>21436733
Murder if used to systematically increase your own power as opposed to suicidal spree killing then could be considered "good" even in the common sense. I mean just look at the CIA. Even the most patriotic people have to admit that what they do is often just murder for US interests. If it's for us it's good but if someone else does it it's bad. At least this definition avoids the inherent hypocrisy of most ethical conceptions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:44:42 2022 No.21437367 Socrates (pbuh) would’ve turned this pseud inside out

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:45:48 2022 No.21437368 >>21437367 Go to bed, Plato.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:48:37 2022 No.21437375 >>21437367 unfortunately for Socrates, Nietzsche wasn’t just a retarded straw man like Thrasymachus. As we all know, Plato invented most of the dialogue himself, so it’s obvious he just wanted to make Socrates look good to peddle his own dogma

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:49:49 2022 No.21437382 >>21436719 Yes AND nietzche was a huge fucking incel

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:50:13 2022 No.21437384

>>21437368
If you, or anyone else in this thread of whom there appear to many, actually agree with this inflammatory statement — one which Nietzsche himself did not believe — I suggest rereading the first two chapters of the Republic… or just reading it for the first time since that would be more accurate advice to the illiterate /pol/tards who inhabit this site

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:51:41 2022 No.21437391

>>21436719
>Refute
Nietzsche's position is not open to abject refutation. It can be sublated, qualified in a certain sense as a moment of the whole (not absolute in-and-for itself), but an attempt at abstract negation would not succeed. Indeed, it would take the form of the moral posturing that he was opposed to and would only strengthen his position.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:53:04 2022 No.21437392 He could just have said he was happy to be alive

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:55:06 2022 No.21437398

>>21436848
The elite bit is an interesting take and certainly food for thought. On the other hand, I've spent a LOT of time with retired generals, cabinet secretaries, and senior state dept folks – with the notable exception of one, most of them seem profoundly unhappy and deeply insecure. The power/happiness doesn't really correlate.

Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:56:17 2022 No.21437401

>>21437295
Nietzsche was right, your philosophy will have to abandon language if it has any hope of being coherent.

Your (utterly groundless) proposition that "[the concept of] Being is a projection of ego as absolute substance." itself has the structure of an absolute truth claim about reality and thus presupposes some idea of being or substance, which itself implies absolute substance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 26 23:58:50 2022 No.21437406 >>21437007 Agreed. This thread has been a showcase in people who obviously misunderstand Nietzsche and use him to justify their own absurd power fantasies. >>21436994 is closer to Nietzsche's actual philosophy than OP.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:02:08 2022 No.21437417 keep pushing that hecking stone amirite??!?

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:03:55 2022 No.21437421

>>21437375
unfortunately for you, I am a warrior of Plato

>what is good? All that enhances the feeling of power
Hopefully — I HOPE — this is a mistranslation. All that enhances the “feeling” of power. Immediately this is refuted. So meth is good, being that it enhances the FEELING OF POWER? We can tell this is untrue because meth enhances the feeling of power yet is objectionable for several reasons, leads to social and bodily destruction as well as mental deterioration. This is one of many examples of that which increases feelings of power yet is not GOOD as it both does not provide sustained power and also leads to social expulsion
>the will to power and the power itself in man
Hopefully a bad translation otherwise redundant addendum. Bad writing
>what is bad? All the proceeds from weakness
I take it life itself is bad, being that adulthood proceeds from childhood, childhood from infancy, and infancy from pregnancy, all proceedings being weak

>what is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing-that resistance has been overcome
So you Nietzscheans also agree that meth and cocaine equate to happiness? They provide the feeling of power increasing and resistance overcome. Is revenge-murder happiness or will you soon find yourself paranoid and guilty? Is paranoia happiness since it is the most often symptom accompanying someone to murder someone?

>war is happiness
I’ll just stop there. Clearly Nietzsche was a pathetic chud incel who got himself worked up into an anger thinking about his fraulein rejecting him and then wrote a bunch of inflammatory statements he could not back up nor could any sane human being. It’s a shame such a chuddy guy had to suffer the punishment he did

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:09:47 2022 No.21437435 >>21437367 You can read him do it in real time to Nietzsche's expy (Thrasymachus) in the Republic

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:11:02 2022 No.21437445 >>21437421 examples like that don't work >a child has the power to become an adult >a meth addict can outlive a health freak etc.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:11:22 2022 No.21437447

>>21437421
>We can tell this is untrue because meth enhances the feeling of power yet is objectionable for several reasons, leads to social and bodily destruction as well as mental deterioration.
In other words, it weakens us, which just proves the point. Thanks, retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:12:43 2022 No.21437451 >>21437445 >>21437447 Not what he said. He said that which increases the FEELING OF POWER. Take it up with Friedrich not me. Or the translator.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:14:54 2022 No.21437456 >>21437451 What is power if not a feeling?

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:17:46 2022 No.21437464

>>21437451
You just can’t into nuance like the anon who thinks murder is automatically good because it makes you feel powerful for a brief moment. Only a retard would think we should ignore the future effects of the action in relation to our feelings of power. If doing meth actually made us more powerful, then everyone would do it. But it doesn’t, obviously.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:18:41 2022 No.21437467

>>21436719
Moreover happiness without power can easily be taken away. Power without happiness can be used to gain happiness. After all, if power is the capacity to reshape conditions in accordance with one's will, and happiness is a shape of conditions which is in agreement with one's will, then power can bring happiness.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:18:59 2022 No.21437469

>>21437260
>Nietzsche's might make right ethos
You fuckers are dumber than rocks. This is the most reductive, inaccurate reading of life-affirming morality I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing.

>>21437272
You missed the point of that story. It was an allegory to show that God won't actually ask his worshippers to kill, that's why an angel stops Abraham.
>>21437382
Nietzsche was not a celibate, and he did not hate women.
>>21437421
Quote is badly translated and out of context. Below is the proper versions:

>What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
>What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.
> What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome.
>Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
>The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
>What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity....
[https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19322/pg19322-images.html]

Note that the Will-to-Power is what Nietzsche refers to in defining good, NOT the actual accumulation of power. There is a huge difference here.
When Nietzsche says "weakness" he means it in a spiritual sense, and the same goes for removing the weak.
War is metaphor. Nietzsche is referring to struggle/conflict - the process of overcoming obstacles, not literally bombing people.

Once again, this comes off as edgy bullshit if you aren't already familiar with Nietzsche's earlier writing and fondness for dramatic metaphor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:21:59 2022 No.21437481 >>21437229 Nigger detected

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:35:22 2022 No.21437515

>>21437467
>happiness without power can easily be taken away
>Power without happiness can be used to gain happiness
depends on what the source of your happiness is
>power is the capacity to reshape conditions in accordance with one's will
a volcano has no will and it's powerful

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 00:58:08 2022 No.21437575 >>21437469 >Nietzsche is referring to struggle/conflict - the process of overcoming obstacles, not literally bombing people. He would condone bombing people too, though.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 01:15:58 2022 No.21437626

Power and good are relative to the ones subject to them, not to the ones exerting them, therefore God, having the ultimate power, is the only being capable of absolute good. Every other manifestation of goodness or power is stained by evil and weakness, no matter for how long it lasts or how high it reaches. If the source of a man's happiness is his faith in God, no human power can take his happiness away, yet not everyone that is faithful is good, since the faithful cannot harness the absolute power of God. Since no man can be all powerful, no man can be all good, unless goodness was not related to power at all. Would God be as good as he is for us if he held no power? Apparently, he did that once by incarnating in the form of his own son. Still we aknowledge that incarnation as God himself so God without power proved to us that he was still capable of being all good. If it is was possible to God to be good without power, would that work for humans too? According to Jesus, absolutely yes. According to Nietzsche, absolutely not. According to Nietzsche, all we have is life on Earth. According to Jesus, we have much more than that, so it all comes down to wether perishing is good or not. If perishing is good, the we're capable of goodness without power. If it isn't, then we're not capable of goodness without power. How to tell if perishing is good or not? It's all relative to the one who perishes.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 01:41:14 2022 No.21437699

>>21436733
It very obviously is. Your problem is that you perceive good as absolute good.
Obviously if someone is murdered it's more good to be the murderer than the person who is murdered.
Obviously serial murderers typically proceed from weakness and their behaviour is an effort to develop and exert feelings of power. Well, maybe this isn't obvious unless you are familiar with criminal profiling which is counter-intuitive in some ways.
But your logic is not consistent. It's also obvious that murder can fail to enhance feelings of power, and accomplish the opposite.
And if you wished to have a productive discussion you would also have to define murder as any killing of another person could be defined as such depending on your perspective.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 01:45:39 2022 No.21437711 >>21437699 huh?

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 01:55:19 2022 No.21437732

>>21437626
>therefore God, having the ultimate power, is the only being capable of absolute good
Thinking that you can extrapolate universal morality to the point of doing the will of God using only your idiot monkey brain is the source of more evil than is vicious self-interest.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:02:09 2022 No.21437746

>>21437230
This

Can someone please explain how getting more ‘power’ actually makes one more happy? Because by power we’re implying responsibility right? Control?

Fuck why do all these philosophers always come up with the one ‘will go’ to rule them all?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:11:50 2022 No.21437774 >>21437746 *Will to

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:12:20 2022 No.21437775 >>21437230 >>21437746 He's not equating goodness with power, but with the will to power / the process of growing in power. He's saying that process is what determines what is perceived as good. It establishes the "for" and "against" in our judgment.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:20:19 2022 No.21437796
File: 796 KB, 1569x2560, 91TwB-7ng7L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21436719
Refuted by Ellul.
>Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:23:26 2022 No.21437803 >>21436719 Representing Nietzsche just by this quote is going to turn a lot of people off and give them the wrong idea

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:24:04 2022 No.21437806 >>21437796 This shit is retarded and reads like the average /lit/ poster who hasn't read Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 02:29:11 2022 No.21437828 >>21437732 That's exactly what the sentence you're quoting means

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 03:40:38 2022 No.21438015 >>21437451 >FEELING OF POWER Meth increases the feeling of power. Junkies are the wisest of them all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:05:13 2022 No.21438075 >>21438015 >Junkies are the wisest of them all. No, but the most desperate for that feeling, yes.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:19:41 2022 No.21438106

>>21436719
Those who want power never have it. Those who are powerful do not desire power, yet maintain it through a kind of inertia, it comes naturally to them without any will or striving. It's easy to see what follows: "Will to power" is a misnomer, the powerful are those who no longer feel compelled to act, whether that is strive after power or anything else, they are totally free from all outside influences, and are therefore masters of themselves and their surroundings. The powerful are those who have attained complete knowledge of absolute simplicity, the simplicity which contains every diversity within itself without being divided. Everything buckles to these men without a word being uttered.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:22:14 2022 No.21438114

>>21438106
Nietzsche said as much. He criticized tyrants for possessing an inner weakness and in The Antichrist he called the elite few intellectuals who felt that the world was already perfect and who, by virtue of this intellect, were "not at liberty to play second."

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:30:01 2022 No.21438127 >>21436807 The point is that having the option to move heavy things around should make you happier, not the journey of getting stronger. It gives you more choice, to be able-bodied.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:37:59 2022 No.21438142

>>21438114
No, he only implied as much. Nietzsche was not one to admit that true knowledge was the end of existence, that it is the terminus where "perfection" is truly glimpsed in its essence (how else could they "feel the world is already perfect" unless they were able to know perfection?). "Will to knowledge" would be a complete turnaround were it to be placed in Nietzsche's mouth. Yet as knowledge (= unchanging simplicity, eternal truth) is the one end everything looks for (every action taken by every being is a futile gesture towards eternity, reproduction being the most apparent symbol where incomplete beings attempt to eternalize themselves), the only end which actually terminates in itself (it is entirely self-sufficient, without a second, it has no compulsion to continue acting for a sake other than itself, like a "will to power") without leading to an infinite regress, where the master of himself finally attain absolute centrality as an anchor rooted in the deep of all that changes, is the fire of knowledge, which through its heat burns all else to ashes without diminishing itself. Power is an accident of knowledge, this is why the powerful do not strive for power, but already have it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:40:33 2022 No.21438149 >>21438075 And because they get what they crave are they not masters of the world?

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:41:54 2022 No.21438154

>>21438142
You are mistaking Nietzsche's will to power as referring to the conscious mind. It refers to the unconscious mind, from which the conscious mind emerges. The powerful DO strive for power, but not consciously, because they have it; what they consciously strive for is to release their power, which, again, emerges from the unconscious will to power.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:51:39 2022 No.21438168 >>21438154 If they are striving unconsciously or power, then they are not powerful. Read what I've already posted.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:56:31 2022 No.21438177

>>21438168
>If they are striving unconsciously or power, then they are not powerful.
Will to power is the impetus for growth. It occurs at the unconscious level of an organism. The conscious mind emerges from the unconscious, so will to power dictates the form it takes. All organisms are evolving, so, in a sense, no organism is ever perfect in its power—there is always a lack, otherwise there wouldn't be evolution. The conscious mind concerned about truth, knowledge, expression, etc. is still evolving, still operating from the will to power, but is at the stage at which power is being released rather than absorbed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 04:57:16 2022 No.21438180 >>21437124 Me on the left

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:00:45 2022 No.21438191 >>21438154 >>21438168 >>21438177 >>21438180 Junkies are the master of the world! It is undeniable! They are unhappy but they get to feel the feeling of power!

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:11:38 2022 No.21438224 >>21438191 Stop posting you fucking brainlet, you add nothing to the discussion

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:20:17 2022 No.21438250 >>21438224 How's that meth tasting my fellow Dionysian blonde beast anti-christ anus licker?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:21:35 2022 No.21438257 >>21437124 This table is from Aristotle, not Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:32:27 2022 No.21438284 >>21438257 no wonder it's all fucked up...

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:43:28 2022 No.21438318

>>21438177
>All organisms are evolving, so, in a sense, no organism is ever perfect in its power
assumes evolution as a progressive phenomenon which it isn't
>Will to power is the impetus for growth
Growth and decay are both implicit in life. Will to power is dichotomous nonsense.
>>21438154
>It refers to the unconscious mind, from which the conscious mind emerges
Wrong, both the conscious and unconscious mind are constantly intertwining.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:46:14 2022 No.21438322 >>21436719 >rpg numbers go up philosophy lmk when you wake up

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:54:29 2022 No.21438339 >>21438318 Power is love.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 05:57:38 2022 No.21438349 >>21438339 love of power is not power of love

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 06:02:09 2022 No.21438355 >>21436744 https://youtu.be/QkGvblv_ts4

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 06:18:07 2022 No.21438399 >>21438349 Love of love.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 06:33:09 2022 No.21438436

>>21438318
>assumes evolution as a progressive phenomenon
The way I used the word meant constant change. We are constantly changing. Will to power is the driver.

>the conscious and unconscious mind are constantly intertwining.
Yes, but the unconscious mind comes first, always.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 06:57:47 2022 No.21438498 >>21438436 The love of immortality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 07:18:23 2022 No.21438540 File: 106 KB, 562x334, 1672098599001043.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I love Power!

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 07:41:22 2022 No.21438582 >>21438540 Beautiful.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:07:40 2022 No.21438618

>>21438436
>Yes, but the unconscious mind comes first, always.
Investigate the principle of proportionate causality before dabbling further in metaphysics. It is easy to confuse order of precedence (both in time and in dependency) when you have not isolated the entities you are dealing with intellectually. As a rule of thumb, you should consider a statement problematic whenever it goes something like this: "X comes from [negation of X]", as this directly violates one of the most fundamental principles of reality, which, in very simple terms, is that nothing comes from nothing, and the contrapositive that something comes from something (where these two somethings are related in their quiddity). There are at least two methods for dealing with this dilemma, however, neither of which you have admitted: Either we say that consciousness is caused by consciousness, thereby erasing the negation, or we say that consciousness is caused by something which is superior to consciousness (known as a "virtual cause"), in other words, "supra-consciousness", in that it is not the same as consciousness (thereby is a negation of consciousness) yet possesses the power to actualize it and is superior in that it has this power, whereas consciousness itself does not. In other words, the "unconscious" only comes first when considered relatively, in isolation from reality as a whole. This is equivalent to a "chicken-and-the-egg" dilemma which cannot be resolved unless there is recourse to principles, which would clearly affirm the primacy of the chicken, at the very least in contingency.

Also, riddle me this: What is the difference between an unconscious mind and a computer, or any other mechanical contraption which performs computations? I don't believe "mind" has any meaning apart from consciousness, which makes "unconscious mind" a kind of oxymoron.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:41:01 2022 No.21438698 >>21438618 Instinct you idiot we're animals not computers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:42:02 2022 No.21438699 >>21438618 >What is the difference between an unconscious mind and a computer Will

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:43:03 2022 No.21438701 >>21438699 >>21438618 Passion Love Everything.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:45:35 2022 No.21438704

>>21437323
>>21437262

This is just Aquinas 101, some of the most mainline scholasticism there is. Might not seem very logical when said quickly on here, but these are some of the most scrutinized arguments there are. I dig up the excerpts from the Summa if you would like.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:49:10 2022 No.21438711 >>21438698 >>21438699 >>21438701 You are not answering the question. The question is how we differentiate between unconscious things (in this case mind and non-mind) without appealing to consciousness (will, instinct, thought).

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:57:10 2022 No.21438720

>>21438711
>unconscious
The unconscious is the will, is the instinct. Your consciousness is retarded and only processes your actions after you've done them.

Why do you Magnus Calsen loses in seconds to a computer? Because he's retarded. A barbarian from Germania would eat his heart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 08:58:56 2022 No.21438722 >>21438720 >The unconscious is the will, is the instinct Then it is not really unconscious, is it?

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 09:05:47 2022 No.21438734

>>21438722
Yes it is, you just don't have the self awareness to realize it while I do. What retarded technicians like Carlsen do is the real consciousness; the Logos.

It's what makes you do repetitive things that have no value. It's autism and computers are much better at it than we are.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 09:11:28 2022 No.21438740

>>21438734
>Yes it is, you just don't have the self awareness to realize it while I do.
Well then I'd like you to answer the question I originally posed to you, which you still have yet to answer:
>The question is how we differentiate between unconscious things (in this case mind and non-mind) without appealing to consciousness (will, instinct, thought).

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 09:15:47 2022 No.21438751

>>21438618

If this wasn't written in such theologically-inflected jargon, it would be clear that it's a blinkered response and tangentially applicable at best to Nietzsche's notion of unconscious or 'being'. It relies on a definite hierarchy of being, where being is a stable and valorized category. Nietzsche would disagree that being is stable and that it is unconditionally valorized. Happiness and goodness often decrease with intelligence (which is a premier category on the scholastic hierarchy of being), thus challenging the convertibility of being and goodness, and accordingly that whole valorization of being. In terms of challenging 'being' as a stable entity, you can just read the first 15 pages of Deleuze's book on Nietzsche or The Gay Science.

That notion of causality really struggles with emergent behavior and evolution, which is why you see it most often in terms of God, a first principle that can conveniently make all other causes "relative"

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 09:20:00 2022 No.21438759

>>21438740
Because you find yourself rationalizing your actions later on, as if you hadn't done them. And then you try to feel guilty because you hurt your girl and you don't want to do it again or some other shit.

You see where I'm getting at? You do things and then you think - you correct the behaviour - which then goes into your subconscious - and then you can act on better instinct.

Everything else is autism and not part of you. Autism comes from trauma. It's literal retardation - a mental defect. That's why girls hate it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 09:42:32 2022 No.21438796

>>21438751
>it would be clear that it's a blinkered response
There is no jargon here, only terminology that is necessary for having a nuanced and accurate understanding of reality (the fact you do not understand any of it is more indicative of your intellectual level, than anything else). "What Nietzsche thinks" is not very important if he is simply incorrect, or, what is effectively the same thing, unable to justify his opinions (I have yet to see anyone do anything other than say, "this is what Nietzsche thought", as if that has any weight whatsoever).
>That notion of causality really struggles with emergent behavior and evolution,
In reality, it is the other way around: emergent behavior and evolution struggles to justify itself through the PPC, because they are intrinsically flawed theories which, upon a closer inspection, do not hold up to scrutiny against laws which are presupposed by any theory which attempts to explain anything whatsoever (namely: PSR, PC, and PPC). It's similar to the old example of someone claiming to have proven 1 + 1 =3. The question is not if he is correct, it is where he went wrong in his proof.
> In terms of challenging 'being' as a stable entity, you can just read the first 15 pages of Deleuze's book on Nietzsche or The Gay Science.
Or you could read something a bit more insightful, namely Plato's Sophist, Aristotle's De Anima, or any of the countless works by the metaphysical preeminents in Scholastic Philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 09:57:50 2022 No.21438820 >>21438796 You know, Jeffrey Epstein always used to say "and how does this help you get pussy?" He was right. May he rest in peace.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 10:15:41 2022 No.21438855

>>21438751
>where being is a stable and valorized category.
Also, being is not a category, nor did I ever state it was. This is actually an incorrect belief Aquinas goes to length to refute, because it results in all kinds of absurdities. If you'd like to read more about this, look up "the analogy of being" in association with Aquinas and the Scholastics. In short, positing being as a category or genus means that we require something which does not exist in order to differentiate its species, which is the obvious absurdity that most people should know about. It's also why I recommended Sophist, because Plato touches on this issue himself in this dialogue, and presents his own solution.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 10:28:44 2022 No.21438874 >>21438855 Both Plato and Aquinas were homosexuals and full of absurdities because of it. You have to remember that they're just people throwing darts at a board; they miss a lot. God doesn't exist.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 10:46:10 2022 No.21438902
File: 159 KB, 576x512, 5EB96DFD-42BA-45D4-9F87-DF77EAB7C9F6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21436719
Yes this seems true to human nature. However, it seems many people misinterpret this to mean that being a violent sociopath or a warrior archetype is the natural consequence of applying this philosophy. The reality is that the dynamics of power are much more complicated in modern society, and that social success is the most direct pathways to power for the average person. In any situation where it seems that exerting a primal sort of power would actually make one lose power, this is because it violates the social collective’s rules of value. It seems to me that it’s in the complicated dynamics by which value is assigned by the social collective where the profundity of this Nietzsche quote really starts to blossom.

Perhaps it’s true that if you are in the social position to be a violent sociopath you may feel transcendent in terms of power and happiness, but of course history shows us this is wrought with unique pitfalls that may correct power, such as the failing of one’s psyche. Just look at Putin. The man had it all in terms of power, but this caused him to lose his grip on reality, and as a result he’ll be remembered as the retard of modern geopolitics and could even meet with a torturous end.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 10:49:16 2022 No.21438909 >>21436807 If it felt stupid and irritating then it can’t have been very empowering lol When Nietzsche talks about power, he means things with consequence. Not whatever motifs you associate with the word (eg having muscles)

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 11:00:46 2022 No.21438931

>>21436733
Nietzsche isn’t telling you what to consider good. He is describing what gives rise to this sort of valuation. People deem as “good” what benefits them, empowers them, etc. The question of what is good or bad in the abstract is the product of a confused and twisted path of cultural development.

So whether we should regard a murderer as “good” or not is a fairly irrelevant question. If murder gets you off, that’s all you, but you won’t be a very sophisticated character in Nietzschean terms. The power Nietzsche elevates is the power to create, lead, and shape the world. Feeling good at petty acts of destruction is small.

So no, Nietzsche doesn’t endorse murder, neither does he endorse much at all in particular, at least not in explicit terms. The few times he does venture to endorse something, or at least appears to, it won’t be quite as immoral as you expect. He’s not evil. In fact he’s a fairly nice guy once you get to know him :)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 11:14:59 2022 No.21438951 >>21438874 >You have to remember that they're just people throwing darts at a board They are not physicists, so I fail to see how this could be the case.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 11:15:08 2022 No.21438952

After reading Beyond Good and Evil for 10 minuets, I have come to a problem. He makes a claim that every impulse is imperious.How is the impulse to smoke a cigarette imperious? Is he not projecting in the same way he reproached other philosophers. I don’t claim to be a scholar or scientific man so what he says afterwards isn’t applicable to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 11:17:07 2022 No.21438953 >>21438952 Minutes*

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 11:29:35 2022 No.21438969 >>21438951 Psychics and philosophy have a lot in common. Both full of contradictions. Logos is a cheating bitch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 11:30:57 2022 No.21438971 >>21438969 Physics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 13:05:38 2022 No.21439118 >>21438969 Typo aside, based comment

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 13:51:51 2022 No.21439204 >>21438759 >Autism comes from trauma Not who you replied to. I'm looking this up now and finding stuff linking autism with PTSD. Never realized there was a connection.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 14:48:19 2022 No.21439375

>>21438909
Your pretty far into circular and meaningless words by now, right? Power as the capacity to overcome resistance was the one thing you can hold onto in assessing Nietzsche's statement. If you state that happiness is the same as power, yet when given an example of overcoming resistance you, or hypotetically Nietzsche, switches up so that this can't have been power because there was no happiness, there's only an assumption rather than proof that some separate things actually are the same

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 15:47:31 2022 No.21439577 >>21436791 LMAOO

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 16:26:44 2022 No.21439721

>>21436719
this mindset works great if you're playing a video game like Civilization, where the purpose of the game is to win.
but real life encompasses much more than the purpose of Civ.
Nietzsche's ideology is what leads family members to assassinate each other in order to "increase their power". The only enjoyment this power-mindset has is the destroying of any rivals and putting the boot to the collective neck of humanity.
And even here Nietzsche still falls into the "trap" of trying to redefine Power in terms of Pleasure.
If Pleasure is the ultimate goal, then there absolutely are better ways to acquire it besides through will to power. Will to power creates lots of destruction and only benefits a very small group of people, whereas "hedonistic pleasures" (as he terms it) result in pleasure for many, with little-to-none harm of others.
Will to power is the ideology of literal criminals.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 16:48:35 2022 No.21439800

>>21438618
Mind is an ambiguous abstraction, it has no clear boundaries. Consciousness means awareness, the unconscious mind is whatever the mind does without awareness. Since mind is an ambiguous abstraction, one can argue that the unconscious mind fiddles around concepts like instinct, intuition, reflex etc. if one is relating the mind as an entity living inside a body. If the boundaries of the ambiguous abstract called 'mind' go beyond the body, then the unconscious mind can be found in concepts like vibes, aura, charm and the conscious mind outside the body can be astral projections, telepathy etc. The whole problem of consciousness/unconsciousness derives from the ambiguity and ignorance around the mind's own extent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 18:01:16 2022 No.21440068 >>21436719 Did this niqqa just recite darwin in a flowery prose? Dafuq my nibba?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 20:01:34 2022 No.21440685 >>21436807 /fit/niggets cant use their brain

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 20:05:50 2022 No.21440705 >>21437515 >a volcano has no will and it's powerful A volcano isn't a sentient behavioral agent wtf lol. I would say a volcano is FORCEFUL. Forcefulness is one possible feature of power but not a requirement or sufficient condition for it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 20:11:59 2022 No.21440738

>>21440705
For example, a raging bull freaking out and rampaging through a town square is not powerful, it is strong and forceful in a destructive way. But it is not in command of its circumstances and instead lashes out at them. More powerful beings, humans, can capture, trap, or sedate it. It lives within the greater power of humanity. Physical strength or destructive force alone is not true power. True power is control, the ability to replace what is with what is desired.

Anonymous Tue Dec 27 20:29:48 2022 No.21440819

>>21438127
Why should it make me happier? What's the reason? Are you sure you aren't just assuming your conclusion and when presented with an opposing case, switch to ought-level, with the power, the very concept in question, determining the value of "ought to be happy when".

Secondly, this ignores the effort-part of the equation anyway, which actually severely limits other things you can do. Ability of lifting heavy objects would give me more choice, so would learning how to plumb, or fix a car, or whatever. Yet the world is full of infinite amount of things to do which would enlarge your choice by this logic, so choosing one of them over the other cannot be done on account of its quality of giving me more choice, if we are talking of any extension of skill or knowledge or even activity at all. Really, almost anything you do enlarges your scope in some way and constructs some new pathways in your head which would be inaccessible were you to do something else.

In the quoted passage, Nietzsche also emphasizes the feeling of resistance being overcome instead of extension of choice, which makes your comment, and also the above paragraphs, slightly misguided compared with Nietzsche's intention. For Nietzsche, it would seem that to be extremely miserable and poor in a constant struggle for the next meal would be better than to be a mighty aristocrat with few things to do. After all, the former provides much more opportunities for overcoming all sorts of resistance. It is basically fetishization of suffering, IMO not a surprising result for someone who wants to affirm life. Keep on pushing that fucking stone and so on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 20:30:50 2022 No.21440826 >>21440819 >the above paragraphs *the above paragrapH

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 27 21:39:47 2022 No.21441136 >>21440819 >the feeling of resistance being overcome Through drugs. Ulysses Grant used the same method and he won the war. Hitler used drugs too

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 01:55:18 2022 No.21442118 >>21439721 >And even here Nietzsche still falls into the "trap" of trying to redefine Power in terms of Pleasure. He's not doing that, and in fact he shit on Epicurus hard in his writings. Nietzsche championed suffering for power.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 01:59:51 2022 No.21442132 >>21437034 >Nietzsche wasnt the "based athiest" you think he was. and im not the "cucked christian" you think i am. we are both, actually, a mysterious third thing. mysteriously based

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 02:03:37 2022 No.21442145

>>21436893
While moral principles can be used to decide to kill Osama and provide a framework for understanding right and wrong, they cannot be used to definitively determine virtues and a moral code to live by. This is because moral principles are subjective, and different people will interpret them in different ways. Ultimately, the best way to determine virtues and a moral code to live by is to act like an animal and make the republicans mad

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 03:52:30 2022 No.21442539 >>21440685 /fit/fags actually enjoy getting stronger That guy is a larping fatty

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 04:03:01 2022 No.21442579 >>21439800 >the unconscious mind is whatever the mind does without awareness. You're still refusing to answer a very simple question.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 04:26:12 2022 No.21442654

>>21442579
Which question, this one?

>What is the difference between an unconscious mind and a computer, or any other mechanical contraption which performs computations?

At a certain distance there is no difference. At a certain distance there is no difference between the conscious and unconscious mind, either. YOUR entire mind is unconscious as far as my mind is concerned.

Zoomed in, the unconscious mind (i.e., the body) is far more complex than a computer. It has various instincts that often conflict with one another. It has needs while a computer does not. It wants power, it wants to grow. A computer doesn't possess this because it's not really alive.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 04:32:21 2022 No.21442682

>>21442579
You mean this question?
>What is the difference between an unconscious mind and a computer, or any other mechanical contraption which performs computations?
That an unconscious mind, simply by being a part of the abstract called 'mind', is permanently bonded to the actions, thoughts and everything else related to a senitent being. A computer may be similarly connected or it may be operating autonomously.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 04:49:03 2022 No.21442766

>>21440705
As I said before, power is not inherent to the ones exerting it, but to THE ONES SUBJECT TO IT. Life on Earth depends on the power of the sun, regardless of the sun being conscious of such power. An ant may feel our power over it when we step on the floor next to it without noticing, and we are unaware of that power. We feel the power of the Earth over us when we experience an earthquake. Is the Earth a conscious being? Is it alive? Arguably not yet, all of our existence depends on its wellbeing. So who holds power over what?
>>21440738
A raging bull is powerful as long as he does not get trapped sedated, etc. The moment he is subdued to a group of humans, his power gets transfered to them. They had no power over the bull until the moment he is submitted. The paradox is activated if the bull dies in the process, where does his power go? According to Nietzsche, to the humans that killed it. According to Jesus, it returns to God it's rightful owner.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 05:07:30 2022 No.21442820 >>21442539 note the past tense, idiot

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 05:12:40 2022 No.21442845 >>21439204 Yeah autism is like a dog banging his head on the wall because his owner hits him. Repetitive traumatic behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 05:38:45 2022 No.21442937 >>21436733 >murder is good then yes?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 08:53:21 2022 No.21443472 >>21436719 Very simple: good distinguishes itself from Evil by being more Evil.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 11:03:21 2022 No.21443819

>>21439375
No, you are. Lol. I’m not just saying that to clap back. You’re playing with words and choosing the interpretation that makes the least sense. There are indeed instances where one meets resistance with irritation and not joy. In fact that’s possibly most of the time. Nietzsche says it’s an uncommon quality to actually relish this. He means something different in this quote.

Needless to say, you’re not talking about anything resembling “power”. You described it as stupid and irritating. You can curl more, that’s an increase in “power” on some level you could argue. But compare it to what Nietzsche means and see which makes more sense.

do you feel in control? Does your environment bend to your will? Do your words and actions leave significant impressions on the world, do people follow after you and your creations?

That’s power. The capacity to make and take what you will, especially in direct or immediate ways. Nietzsche will also say that there’s something distorted in the concept of withheld power or latent potential. There may be energy in tension ready to release like Heraclitus’ Bow, but it isn’t power until that release. Until the *effect*. I don’t know how much Nietzsche commits his way of speaking about power to this sentiment (I have certain remarks from the genealogy of morals in mind here), but it should be kept in sight… Power is something that involves some sort of positive emanation, some consequence. If it doesn’t emanate then it’s status as “power” is suspect.

As for the proof behind all this… that’s elsewhere. It’s a borderline naturalism, framed in some parts as a riposte against Darwinism. Contest for power as opposed to contest for survival. He goes on to say that it is the weak who tend to win this - like in Plato’s Gorgias, the many, weak but colluding masses - are ultimately the stronger. The weak tend to win. They’ve won history, as it stands.

Now this is probably the problem. Nietzsche spitting on something we consider important, supposing something unhealthy and cruel in its place. Endorsing selfishness and domineering over fellowship and altruism. It’s subversive, maybe a bit ugly, but he will tell you in the very beginning of most of his works: He’s putting these ideas, and his audience, to the test.
The seed of the Genealogy of Morals: “what happens if we question the morality of compassion?”
The seed of twilight of the idols: “what sound will philosophy make as we hit it with a hammer [as with a tuning fork], will it ring hollow?”

That’s not to say it’s all hypothetical. He means more than enough of it. But the essence of any given argument is a step subtler than the bombastic and villainous rhetoric. He’s fucking with you. Lightheartedness is what Nietzsche declares to be one his absolute operating principles. If you don’t see this - the playfulness- if you hear someone cruel and hostile instead, you’re missing something vital.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 11:05:06 2022 No.21443827 >>21439375 Also I’m ( >>21438909 ) not any of the people you were arguing with before. I was called in by the elders to end the debate

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 13:21:29 2022 No.21444103

>>21443819
>He means something different in this quote.
No he doesn't, because he explicitly says that the feeling that resistance is being overcome is equal to happiness in this quote. It's bizarre that you intend to defend him by saying that it's a rare thing to feel happiness about, since that would obviously mean it is not identical with happiness, as Nietzsche claims.
>But compare it to what Nietzsche means and see which makes more sense.
He basically identified power increase with resistance being overcome in this very quote. But let's assume that power increase and resistance being overcome are two distinct components of the same unnamed "feeling" (which cannot be power due to circularity, ultimately)
>Needless to say, you’re not talking about anything resembling “power”. You described it as stupid and irritating.
It really seems like you again simply assume that Nietzsche is right from the outset, since we can't even have this discussion if the concept of power includes the concept of happiness necessarily. But this is not the case, is it? So whatever your definition of power is, it can't contain any concept of happiness if you wish to extend my knowledge about power. Note also that make whatever of the resistance as we may, Nietzsche identified happiness with power increase or combination of resistance-overcoming therewith.
>Do your words and actions leave significant impressions on the world, do people follow after you and your creations?
That has happened before but I didn't get happiness from it. And you must admit, regardless of any empiricsl content, that it is entirely conceivable thst one could do those things and not be happy. Are you now going to say that it couldnt've been real power then? That would just reveal the circularity and the abject nonsensicality of the statements you try to defend.
>The capacity to make and take what you will, especially in direct or immediate ways.
But if happiness is equal to the conjunction of power increase and resistance-overcoming, whence do we get this will? I trust that will implies preference which is inconceivable without happiness attached with some object or sensation. Without such affectivity, even a simple preference would be impossible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 14:15:17 2022 No.21444243 File: 382 KB, 631x561, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21436719 >Puissance Power, Macht, Potencia, Potenza >Pouvoir Power, Macht, Potencia, Potenza

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 15:02:28 2022 No.21444344

>>21436733
Yes Nietzche supports criminals and their crimes as "university pranks" for poets to laud, he's not hypocritical about this. Like de Sade in Philosophy in the Bedroom, or an Albanian village, he believes that circles of murder and retribution will promote social vitality rather than backward low-trust and underdeveloped societies. Unsound methinks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 15:03:47 2022 No.21444347 File: 94 KB, 1200x804, 1_EVPxdeF7Gy7clRBJU3uvdw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] cute

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 19:20:49 2022 No.21445109

>>21436719
Nietzsche's entire philosophy was about how Europe was failing to comprehend the psychological dynamics of power when they think about their dominant position in the world, and thus fail to pick up on the resentment of other races toward themselves, and react to it the wrong way when they do notice it. Take Jews vs. European Christians, Nietzsche knew the history there and that Jewish antipathy toward Euro gentiles was motivated by resentment and humiliation and all those feelings due to having been quasi defeated so often, NOT by any sort of poor material treatment they were receiving in contemporary times. Same with Africans, Chinese. He knew that it wasn't a lack of material equity that was pissing these groups off, but the loss of their power and the ascendancy of Europe's, causes a resentment, that would inevitably be Europe's undoing if not dealt with. He knew that attempts to further oppress these groups to keep them at bay would only fuel their embittered resolve, and it has to be confronted and dealt with directly...any attempts to oppress or buy off these groups wouldn't do anything to tamp down the resentment and thus heal the relationship. Since we are on the cusp of material bliss, nietzsche saw anything that could screw that up as a bad thing for the whole human race.

So, basically, faggot LARPers online think Nietzsche meant "go after power," when he was just remarking that power dynamics exist no matter what and are deeply tied to root emotions, such as those connected to self image and the image one has of others. Every one of his books was about trying to heal these wounds to make a better world. He would have been appalled at Nazism, though assuredly not shocked by it. Stop talking about Nietzsche you fucking n00bs make me so mad. The man had a heart you all do not deserve bc you're too stupid.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 19:22:13 2022 No.21445113

>>21436733
Murder detracts from the feeling of power. The soul weight and panic of conscience invoked by murder, the total loss of moral calibration and fear of transgressing God is deeply rooted in the psyche... there is no rest for the wicked, no rest for the murderer. That's not power that's a self imposed weakness.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 19:23:31 2022 No.21445116

>>21436719
So it's good to help people because it's psychologically proven that helping others does give a sense of power as in that very moment the helping person is above the helped person e.g. they have more means, more knowledge, more strength. This also means it's bad to take help from others. Therefore disabled and sick persons are bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 20:12:47 2022 No.21445273 >>21436994 Ironically This is the most Nietzschean post in the thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 20:29:04 2022 No.21445325 >>21445109 And therefore, therefore, therefore! To the ships, you philosophers! Greater than any before! Gayer than ever before! Laughter and Gay wisdom! Ah one, uh two, ah one, two, three, fo!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 28 20:48:21 2022 No.21445380 >>21444344 This whole post has 'off by one' energy.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 20:50:36 2022 No.21445390

Is Master / Slave morality supposed to be some definitive solution for Nietzsche? While I do understand it and think there’s some good points I think it’s a bit limiting. There are people with a lot of money who consider themselves Christian and have power; who practice monogamy, purity, give to the poor or what have you. Different characteristics of slave morality. They have power and influence yet do not actively pursue the will to power.

Anonymous Wed Dec 28 23:53:24 2022 No.21446069

>>21445390
Master / slave morality is just a pre-Freudian modeling of the ego, which psychology has fully adopted but without using those terms. It has to do with where you subconsciously place "the center of authority." Master moralists place the center within themselves, while slave moralists place the center outside themselves; they're polarities with extremes. Psychology renders the extreme side of master morality as narcissism / psychosis, for example.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 29 00:43:01 2022 No.21446243 >>21436739 > guilt stemming from the lack of power So this is the only reason to feel guilty about murdering someone? So there's no reason to feel guilt if you're certian to get away with it? God, you Nietzscheans are all the same.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 29 01:48:40 2022 No.21446438 >>21438699 Computers have wills, everything does. Their wills are just, currently, completely subservient to human wills.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 29 08:43:14 2022 No.21447709 >>21436719 test

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 29 08:45:01 2022 No.21447716 File: 26 KB, 500x479, 1663005879373.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21436719 Basically what you're saying is... Hitler did nothing wrong?

Anonymous Thu Dec 29 09:03:33 2022 No.21447747

>>21436719
I'm going to bed but I'll give my two cents on why this philosophy is retarded
this philosophy, if everyone were to follow it (or at least enough people), then it would tear society apart
humans are stronger together than they are apart so really this would end with each individual having less power and being able to gain less power since society is now destroyed.
to work together, to live in society, means giving a certain amount of power that you could have had to others so that you may all benefit and thus gain more power together than you ever could alone and so the individual pursuit of power would be counterintuitive to progress and to society
goodness is subjective and so this philosophy to every societys concept of goodness is bad

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 29 10:23:56 2022 No.21447865 >>21436719 I think Plato was able to refute this quite thoroughly in The Republic. Thrasymachus was practically a proto Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 29 13:43:24 2022 No.21448330 >>21447865 >Plato refuted basic biology Damn, Plato was good

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]