/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22913039]

TRUTH

[Anonymous No.22913054]

>>22913039
2+2=4 is a function of power not truth?

[Anonymous No.22913055]

>>22913039
Or power?

[Anonymous No.22913059]

>>22913039
Is he saying that there is no such thing as a true interpretation? Only ones that gain traction?

[Anonymous No.22913064]

>>22913054
Do statements of fact count as interpretations?

[Anonymous No.22913070]

>>22913039
Is saying something is true an interpretation of that thing? If so then nothing is true and this quote defeats itself.

[Anonymous No.22913171]

>>22913064
Nietzsche famously (and wrongly) claimed there are no facts, only interpretations.

[Anonymous No.22913177]

>>22913039
To accept this, you would have to eschew any notion of scientific progress. After all, scientific theories are interpretations of observations. Do we believe that the Earth orbits the sun just because heliocentrists were so powerful they were able to impose their interpretation on others regardless of its truth? Is that how it works?

[Anonymous No.22913178]

>>22913039
Nietzsche didn’t actually believe in the truth

[Anonymous No.22913201]

>>22913039

[Anonymous No.22913217]

>>22913059
he said that people who have power to convince others of their interpretation doesnt mean that the powerful individual's interpretation is truthful. and a timid meek philosopher can be the truthful one but noone cares about him or his popularity

[Anonymous No.22913261]

>Prevailing dogmas are a function of power not truth
>SO TRUE1!!!!1!

[Anonymous No.22913297]

>>22913261
>>22913177
>>22913171
do chuds STILL conflate facts with truths?

[Anonymous No.22913371]

>>22913054
>ummm but what about the heckin numbers and facts

[Anonymous No.22913379]

Nietzsche said 99% retarded shit and 1% profound truth, we literally keep the 1%. He is revered because 1% profound truth (fact, uh oh) is better than 100% dogshit other philosogays spouted
Yes the bar is that low

[Anonymous No.22913403]

>>22913371
Look, Nietzsche clearly wasn't a math guy, he probably said that stuff just because so many of his other contemporaries were coming to the conclusion that geometry was synthetic.

[Anonymous No.22913440]

>>22913054
can god make a married bachelor?
>yes he's le god
your 2+2=4 falls apart, have fun worshipping a jew

[Anonymous No.22913466]

>>22913171
I see. So his statement is just another interpretation then. So its self defeating. Unless >>22913217 is correct (which makes more sense so Im inclined to believe him), the statement is self defeating.

[Anonymous No.22913520]

>>22913440
>Since God is also good, rational and consistent (among other qualities), there are some things God can’t do: will himself out of existence, create a being equal to himself, be evil or sin, make a rock so big he can’t lift it, or anything else that is either logically incoherent or pits God’s power against something else that is inherent to God’s nature.
Is the common answer to "Can God do the logically impossible"

[Anonymous No.22913541]

>>22913201
STEM schizo who starved to death because the only person he trusted not to poison him was his wife and she was in the hospital and this faggot couldn't just cook the damn food himself. Believed in conspiracies and gave an Anselm """proof""" of God's existence. Not worth taking seriously.

[Anonymous No.22913596]

>>22913466
If we are going to measure his statement according to logical rules he rejected, then it would only be self-contradictory if he claimed his interpretation as objective fact and not just another interpretation vying for supremacy over the others.

[Anonymous No.22913613]

>>22913596
Thats fair. But wouldn't that concede that the statement is based off of some other structure that would also ultimately be an interpretation?

[Anonymous No.22913618]

>>22913297
Hey moron, there has to be fact if truths exist. One function of the latter is to embed themselves in the former, which is ironically more powerful than merely truistic interpretations.

>>22913371
Hmmm I wonder what the nature of the principles are that govern such claims and link them with their corresponding examples. But we can ignore it and blindly cite Nietzsche as an authority on philosophy if you want, given that it’s his philosophy that permits doing so. Talk about liberating!

>>22913466
Even if anon’s explanation makes sense, it doesn’t necessarily mean the quote isn’t self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.22913627]

>>22913613
It would be based on his perspective, which itself would be another interpretation, yes.

[Anonymous No.22913641]

>>22913618
The statement wouldn't be self defeating if it boiled down to "just because the majority interpret it as true doesn't mean it is true, only that the mob is powerful (or the idea is powerful)."

[Anonymous No.22913652]

Why not insert a period after the first "interpretation." As in:
>All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Without the period he sounds so much like an autistic raging retard.

[Anonymous No.22913654]

>>22913371
Explain how mathematical equations for orbital mechanics successfully guided astronauts inside a spacecraft to the moon.

[Anonymous No.22913668]

>>22913627
Thats what I was thinking. I have only read the gay science and the birth of tragedy and not very well at that. Did he ever establish an objective frame work in which truth can exist? The idea seems very Kant coming from someone I took to have taken umbrage with Kants ideas.

[Anonymous No.22913677]

>>22913654
Gravity is very powerful. And also a tulpa of the modern age. Before modern day men were held to the ground by daemons.

[Anonymous No.22913691]

>>22913641
But that the idea is considered powerful does not follow either, is the point. The reality of its power might as well depend on the function of truth.

[Anonymous No.22913702]

>>22913691
An interpretation can be powerful and not true. The Bohr model of the atom is a super useful interpretation, which is why its still taught. It is also thought to be incorrect. Hell the idea of particles at all has been massively useful. Also thought
to not be true.

[Anonymous No.22913704]

>>22913520
Pick between this explanation and omnipotence. Do it now. You cannot have both, there is a fundamental mutual exclusivity here. You cannot eschew the capacity to do a single thing - be it an affront on logic or not.

[Anonymous No.22913712]

>>22913702
Power is use?

[Anonymous No.22913716]

>>22913668
This can be a difficult question to answer, if we take early Nietzsche, later Nietzsche, and post breakdown publication Nietzsche into account then the best answer I can synthesize for you in the simplest way is to say something along the lines that 'objective truth' as you are perhaps referring to it is nothing more than a notion propagated by one with sufficient will to power/truth and accepted by those who lack this will. This is an area of contention for people who argue about whether he was existentialist or nihilist. He makes statements in TL, which is honestly probably one of the few works he actually makes explicit epistemological statements in, that are definition wise nihilistic, factoring in his other works he seems to err frequently to the existentialist side where meaning is derived from the will to power/truth in this case.

[Anonymous No.22913720]

>>22913704
>The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make a square circle.
You aren't that smart, only assumptious.

[Anonymous No.22913722]

>>22913712
Power is its ability to gather followers it would seem in this context. Which in the case of those examples would be its usefulness yes.

[Anonymous No.22913730]

>>22913668
I think there’s a passage where he says that the quantity of perspectives on something makes that thing more objective. I personally read him as a epistemological nihilist trying to create a vision of the world that would combat the pessimism of his time. Whether this vision is true or not isn’t as important to him as whether it’s life-affirming.

[Anonymous No.22913735]

>>22913720
Omnipotence is capable of all things, and illogic is subsumed as a thing under this capacity. The only assumption being made is that omnipotence is a predicaye of human understanding, and not something completely outside of it i.e. paradoxical concepts. I don't think I'm smart either, just explain how I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.22913751]

>>22913730
I must have read the gay science really poorly because I took his idea of life affirmation as distinctly anti-nihilistic. I will have to revisit it at some point. I can see from >>22913716 how you could get to nihilism but he seemed so against that. I don't know. I have most of his works and need to go more in depth. I will check out TL. Thanks anon (or anons, as the case may be).

[Anonymous No.22913790]

>>22913722
Influence for what ends? It is concrete neither in anon’s explanation nor the text itself.

[Anonymous No.22913802]

>>22913652
you can use a colon instead of a period since the idea leads into the next

[Anonymous No.22913816]

>>22913704
You simply have an incorrect assumption as to what omnipotent is

[Anonymous No.22913846]

>>22913816
I don't believe so, my friend. Ofc maybe I'm just ignorant, but I've not seen a single conception of omnipotence that claims otherwise. Your concept seems as assumptive as you claim mine to be.What gives it validity?

[Anonymous No.22913863]

>>22913751
He does make a number of explicit statements condemning nihilism throughout his works, and TL was published after his breakdown but supposedly was written after BoT. I generally tend to believe Nietzsche found himself in intellectual paralysis like many of the early existentialist thinkers but he does provide a valid if tenuous existential framework. I don't personally consider him a nihilist but I can definitely understand why someone would.

[Anonymous No.22913886]

>>22913751
Ok I just finished reading TL and he does mention the "thing in itself" claiming that it is "where pure truth, without consequence, would be" (Kaufmann translation). He also makes mention of there being the universe before beings that can interpret and after so it seems there is that framework present in his metaphysic. This work also reads way more nihilistic than the gay science to me so I think the impression I was getting from my first reading of the gay science was maybe the lack of demoralizing nihilism rather than affirming nihilism. Im still not on the "Nietzsche the nihilist" wagon yet but I can see how I could have missed it in my preliminary reading of TGS after seeing the tone of TL.

[Anonymous No.22913892]

>>22913886
He also makes it pretty clear that he believes that any statement that can be formalized and expressed is an interpretation. including things like 2+2=4. Im still not sure what he means by power in the context of OP's quote though. The only reference I saw is that people with low will to power are apparently more inclined to useful fancy where truth would most likely be without consequence.

[Anonymous No.22913903]

>>22913751
Nietzsche’s definition of nihilism and how the word is commonly used have different connotations. Truth in a religious context, for example, is distinctly nihilistic. He also finds truth derived from dialectics—e.g., Plato—as decadent and nihilistic. However I do not see him as a skeptic because skepticism itself is really only the reverse side of dogmatism and still believes in objectivity, even if that objectivity is the objective lack of truth. The truth doesn’t have to be rejected outright, it simply needs to be put in service of life rather than the other way around.

[Anonymous No.22913904]

>>22913790
Usefulness to people with low will to power according to TL.

[Anonymous No.22913924]

>>22913790
So if an idea gathers followers via its power, to what end does it gather this influence? I feel like I misunderstood your question when I hastily wrote >>22913904

[Anonymous No.22913939]

>>22913903
>Nietzsche’s definition of nihilism and how the word is commonly used have different connotations.
Thats always the way with these kind of things it seems. No one is ever meeting on the same ground in these weird is he or isn't he debates.
>I do not see him as a skeptic because skepticism itself is really only the reverse side of dogmatism and still believes in objectivity, even if that objectivity is the objective lack of truth.
If you mean human objectivity I agree with you but it seems from my reading of TL that he did believe in an objective reality (the thing itself), just that we could not formalize it (possibly that intellect doesn't even have access to it).

[Anonymous No.22913968]

>>22913702
yea this nuance is not seen in the op quote, because things which majority agree with are agreed upon because we dont believe there is another model superior to then one we like

[Anonymous No.22913969]

>>22913939
>How could something originate from its opposite? For example, truth from error? Or the will to truth from the will to deception? Or the selfless deed from self-interest? Or the pure sunny gaze of the wise man from greed? Such origins are impossible; whoever dreams of them is a fool, even worse; the things of highest value must have a different origin, their own—they are not derivable from this transitory, seductive, deceptive, meager world, from this chaos of delusion and craving! On the contrary, in the lap of being, in the everlasting, in the hidden god, in the 'thing in itself—there must their ground lie, and nowhere else!"—This kind of judging constitutes the typical prejudice by which the metaphysicians of all times can be recognized; this kind of valuation stands in the background of all their logical procedures; from this their "faith" they strive for their "knowledge," for something that in the end is solemnly christened as "the truth." The grounding faith of metaphysicians is the faith in the opposition of values. Not even to the most cautious among them did it occur to doubt already here at the threshold, where it was after all most necessary; even when they vowed themselves to "de omnibus dubitandum." For one may doubt first whether there are oppositions at all, and second whether those populist valuations and value oppositions upon which the metaphysicians have pressed their seal are not perhaps mere foreground valuations, mere provisional perspectives, even more, perhaps from an angle, perhaps from below, frog perspectives as it were, to borrow an expression familiar to painters? For all the value that may be attributed to the true, the truthful, the selfless, it would be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for all life would have to be ascribed to appearance, to the will to deceive, to self interest and craving.
This is from BGE. I will admit that there are passages where he does suggest an objective reality, and some of his ideas simply contradict each other. That’s part of the experience of reading him I guess.

[Anonymous No.22913970]

>>22913054
2+2=4 is just a property of our definition of the integers. It is absolutely a function of power in that you could make 2+2=4 false if you have the power to change society.

[Anonymous No.22913991]

>>22913924
Is a powerful idea’s influence an end in and of itself? That seems to be the sense of the argument, which would be circular. If not, for what ends does it channel this influence?

[Anonymous No.22913992]

>>22913969
>That’s part of the experience of reading him I guess.

Thats the sense that Im getting from reading him which is a little discouraging. I think Im just going to treat him as different people for each of his major writings and collections of is minor ones according to things like time period produced and who he is talking to. That way at least I can pit arguments against one another and puck the better of them to measure against other philosophers and my own ideas.

[Anonymous No.22913996]

>>22913892
In the 1st aphorism of TL he does make reference to a natural conformity that spatial object representation seems to possess from a mathematical standpoint and in a wierd Nietzsche way gives math its own sort of epistemological 'category' of sorts. He might not take umbrage with putting 2 apples with another 2 apples and then making a statement to the effect that there are now 4 apples, he would probably say that the symbols 2 and 4 are just illusions used for convenience and humanity has forgotten the distinction along the path of human progress.

[Anonymous No.22913998]

>>22913201
Based, fuck positivism

[Anonymous No.22914013]

>>22913991
Does the power channel the influence or is it just its nature? Who knows, ultimately any attempt on our part to formalize power would be the concept of power. The only clues I've really been given is that, theoretically, sufficient will to power can wake you from the sleep of which the usefulness of ideas as justification for them is but a dream.

[Anonymous No.22914026]

>>22913996
I think the point he would make in that regard is that the idea that there is more than 1 of anything is interpretation based on lumping things together in the same category though right? And even that one is suspect because it could be made up of other things making its categorization as a 1 interpretation. I gotta go into a better version of TL to see that stuff I guess. The portable Nietzsche doesn't have that in it.

[Anonymous No.22914038]

>>22914013
I said concept when I meant interpretation. I need to slow the fuck down when I write these posts.

[Anonymous No.22914054]

>>22914026
I wouldn't argue with the thought process you are following due to other statements made in TL, perhaps category was a poor choice of words on my part, TL had a notable amount of wordplay even for a Nietzsche work, the title itself can be interpreted 2 ways in English, he makes numerous references to the way German words sound in relation to the evolution of the language that honestly don't translate to English, at least not with meaning. I also want to say he makes a similar reference to math having a special epistemological significance in Pre-Platonic Philosophers as well. I remember it being in the first aphorism of TL, he makes a word play about whether we conform to forms or forms conform to us in regards to the 'law of numbers' as he refers to this anomaly.

[Anonymous No.22914074]

>>22914026
>If we are forced to comprehend all things only under these forms, then it ceases to be amazing that in all things we actually comprehend nothing but these forms. For they must all bear withing themselves the laws of number, and it is precisely number which is most astonishing in things. All that conformity to law which impresses us so much... thus it is we who impress ourselves in this way.

Not sure if that helps but I was looking it up as I typed my first response.

[Anonymous No.22914082]

>>22914054
I wouldn't be surprised if he did make such a special consideration. Especially if he is going to be acknowledging some kind of thing in itself. I can't help but think that he was capable of seeing a special reality to the whole numbers through the derivation of 0-infinity from "thing and its lack" or 1 and 0. Especially since he was so well read in the greeks. I just didn't remember seeing it in my edition (which I now suspect is ass).

[Anonymous No.22914086]

Philosophers haven't produced anything useful, informative or even conclusive in half a millennium.

[Anonymous No.22914088]

>>22914086
Right. Because real philosophers only deal in truths!

[Anonymous No.22914091]

>>22913054
Arabian numerals...

Go ahead say it in mayan

[Anonymous No.22914116]

>>22914088
Even in the fantasy isekai philosophy of things far removed from our reality, there have been nothing but hot takes over the centuries. The only significant insight we had was Godel's incompleteness theorems which came from a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.22914121]

>>22914116
I blame the academy.

[Anonymous No.22914123]

>>22914082
>Empty space and empty time are ideas which are possible at any time. Every concept, thus an empty metaphor, is only an imitation of these first ideas: space, time, and causality. Afterwards the original imaginative act of transference into images: the first provides the matter, the second the qualities which we believe in. Comparison to music? How can one speak of it?

I generally tend to suspect Nietzsche held Hegelian beliefs about the concept of 'infinity' which is to say that it is just a linguistic placeholder of sorts until some sort of mathematical operation is conducted in which case it acquires aspects of finitude. But yes, to your point I don't think he is making a complete caveman argument that fighting about 2+2=4 would change the results from a mathematical standpoint, it would really just be taking issue with the symbols used. In fairness to your copy I have seen multiple English versions and have noticed that some seem to omit paragraphs and just don't include some of the Germanic centric references, it was published after his breakdown so as with everything his sister had control of there will always be some guessing.

[Anonymous No.22914144]

>>22914123
>I generally tend to suspect Nietzsche held Hegelian beliefs about the concept of 'infinity' which is to say that it is just a linguistic placeholder of sorts until some sort of mathematical operation is conducted in which case it acquires aspects of finitude.
That makes sense to me considering that the argument of deriving infinity from 0 and 1 would still be based on a logic frame work that interprets induction from the thing in itself, so it would be equally contingent. I'll have to see what he says on mathematics, though all of the considerations about translations and completeness of sources is a bit discouraging. Did he say anything about if its just our formalizations are interpretations bit we could still experience the thing itself (or what ever he may have called his equivalent concept outside of my edition) or if even our experience is intelligence interpreting reality?

[Anonymous No.22914259]

>>22914144
Nietzsche wasn't a math guy, and his ontological derivations are all over the map, TL is honestly the only work I know of from him where he bothers to make explicit epistemological statements at all. From a thing in itself perspective, he makes references to the following: every natural process is inexplicable to us. Logic is slavery in the veneer of language. A possession of truth is just a belief that one possesses truth. Even total skepticism is in error since it fundamentally rests on a logical predicate. The belief of truth presupposes an individual to have a power of knowledge. There are no truths, truth is nothing more than a worn coin that has lost all meaning. He does pose a question as to whether the uniformity of mathematics is a result of just the brain or a soul, but he answers the question by saying it is completely subjective and seemingly also shared by all humans. He also states pure knowledge has no drives, and all drives derive from pleasure and pain which are completely sensory in origin. Truth cannot be recognized and everything knowable is an illusion.

You could spend some time picking over TL and probably find a good deal more than that desu but I'm not sure how much of a workable ontological framework you would be able to pull out of it from a traditional philosophical perspective. Nietzsche definitely was a product of the hedonist loop, ventured into nihilism a bit, settled on the existential subjectivity, and probably had a serious love/hate relationship with other major ontological philosophical classifications to the point he just didn't bother making identifying remarks, picked what he liked and ignored the rest. I would also say it might be a fair statement that he may not have cared as much about some of those things, he really just wanted to take a hammer to society, morality, ethics, and had what I would characterize as an exceptionally honed and deep fascination with human nature.

[Anonymous No.22915187]

>>22914086
>>22914116
It's because philosophy has no consensus and academic philosophy is structurally incapable of it. Whereas math consists of a set of constructions and axioms that are well-defined, philosophy rests upon natural language. As such, it is very easy for mathematicians to agree on working definitions of numbers on which to establish their work while it is impossible for philosophers to agree on simple definitions like "action," "identity," or "truth." Without a common language and set of definitions, philosophy is doomed to become several competing sub-schools that have nothing to do with each other, an outcome that in turn dooms philosophy to irrelevance.

[Anonymous No.22915235]

>>22913379
which works did you read?

[Anonymous No.22915254]

>>22914116
What is there even left for philosopher to say?

[Anonymous No.22915297]

>>22913054

Yes.

[Barkun No.22915301]

>>22915297
GRADE and BEAUTY are at opposite ends of genetic rank. You can be multiple characters with grade, and you can be more expensive with beauty. There will be wars of mind in the future based on these. Check the guy on the front of the baldurs gate 3 cover with the horns. He's 2 characters. Law and Beauty are opposites.

[Anonymous No.22915358]

>>22914259
This is all kind of what I suspected. It seems to me that a major part of his project really was to irritate people into thinking about the concepts he talked about. There a value of an ideas ability to incite action that Nietzsche seemed to think was being overlooked, even if that idea isn't correct. I also agree that his philosophy was way more focused on the social order, thats probably why I was so interested in what he had to say outside of that order, since you don't see or hear about it much.

[Anonymous No.22915361]

>>22915254
Thats a great question. You should dedicate your life to finding out. Settle the thing once and for all. I think there is a term for people that do that

[Anonymous No.22915377]

>>22915361
>I think there is a term for people that do that
Is it, by any chance, "philosopher"?

[Anonymous No.22915422]

>>22915377
No. That would be stupid.

[Anonymous No.22915435]

>>22913054
Mathematics works over axioms. That have to be assumed.

And besides. You did not state over which field you have difined your addition. This could be in the field of the real or complex numbers, or anything modular, that includes 2 and 4.

Even the symbols are up for interpretation.

If I say || = 2 and |||| = 4, then we can define it that way lol.
Or we define one as the symbol 2 and two as the symbol 4.

I hate philiosophy so much. I just hate it.

[Anonymous No.22915464]

>>22915435
See but that can be boiled down to language games but the more profound point I think he is making is that even the idea of being numbered (or what ever language you could put that classification in) is itself an interpretation that isn't necessarily true of the thing itself ("the thing itself" being a formal interpretation that implies oneness, but still just an interpretation).

[Anonymous No.22915466]

All beliefs are survival strategies

[Anonymous No.22915474]

>>22915466
And you believe that?

[Anonymous No.22915493]

>>22913054
If the powerful wanted for 2+2 to be 5, it would be 5. I mean, it would still be 4, but it would be as if it was 5.

[Anonymous No.22915496]

>>22913201
>>22913054

All 'a priori' knowledge is really just tautology, and offers no new information. Many thinkers are extremely attached to the feeling of 'certainty', since their sense of self-value and security is built on being 'correct' and avoiding being 'wrong'. They want to feel safe from being humiliated by someone showing them to be incorrect, so they are extremely drawn to notions of 'absolutes' and 'objectivity', while subjective concepts feel repulsive and dangerous to them.

"2+2" is really just another way of writing "4", and likewise "bachelor" is just another way of writing "homosexual".

[Anonymous No.22915497]

>>22915474
Yes. Your gotcha doesn’t work this time

[Anonymous No.22915498]

>>22915464
I just hate philosophy

[Anonymous No.22915499]

>>22915497
Im just fucking around. Though it is weird that somehow seeing that your belief is just survival strategy us somehow a survival strategy. How does such a believe make survival easier?

[Anonymous No.22915500]

This threads really full of psueds trying to justify why 2+2=5 huh?

[Anonymous No.22915502]

>>22913735
Omnipotence is the power to freely actualise all potentia. The things you list have no potentia.

[Anonymous No.22915503]

>>22915498
Understandable. So do most philosophers.

[Anonymous No.22915506]

>>22915500
I don't see anyone trying to justify anything. Mostly just people trying to wrap there head around what some guy said, regardless of if its true or not. Your constant need to try to elevate yourself above others is born of fear.

[Anonymous No.22915512]

>le insane Reddit man was actually LE profound
Kek. Good chuckles in this thread.

[Anonymous No.22915518]

>>22914259
>There are no truths
So MUCH THIS! The truth is…. There is no truth…. And yeah, that is profound… This is like the Elon Doge!

[Anonymous No.22915521]

>>22915358
Well, if we go back to some of what he said on the tonal and phonetic properties of a word being the source of meaning instead of the agreed upon definition, while we may not be able to directly translate this into another language, if I were to, entirely without context, just say that the recognized and agreed upon definition of a word is not relevent and that the tonal use of it is actually what gives it meaning you might be inclined to say I am an idiot, and you may very well be justified in saying this since the statement at face value is contradictory. If we were to conduct ourselves as independent and impartial observers to a stratified social system, like a military operation for instance, we would likely concurrently realize, without need for interpersonal communication, that the soldiers seem to possess an intrinsic ability to discern an order based on tone and phonetic usage without having to be told the difference. We would also likely reach similar conclusions if we observed communications between soldiers in danger close environments and in other fire control language scenarios wherein the participants are able to discern the meaning seemingly independent of definition and without having to be told the classification of language but are intrinsically capable of deriving the meaning from tonality and phonetics as they relate to their shared situation. The analogy takes into consideration that the participants all receive training which gives them a certain, auditory lense of sorts, with which to facilitate this process, but on the whole neither of us could really argue that Nietzsche's argument is wrong since we are viewing it in actuality to be valid. His use of words involving: snake, coil, string, and strike, and a handful of the others may not mean much to us since we don't share the common German auditory lense but with the same lense the argument is valid, and I don't even think Nietzsche was fully able to grasp why, just able to observe that the effect is occurring and validity is there. If you remove some of his comical/annoying megalomaniacal language I think he genuinely understood that his legacy and significance would be undermined and eroded if he chose to confine himself to existing ontological frameworks and instead chose not to do this and in a wierldy paradoxical sense he simply just commented on his philosophical observations in a way that is valid, if albeit annoying, his attempts to create frameworks are more often than not lackluster, yet his enduring appeal is ensured due to perhaps the uncomfortable aspects he observed about human nature.

[Anonymous No.22915525]

>>22915499
I’m not confused about the way reality works. I believe that we evolve and everything is essentially a survival strategy. Truth is just that which survives. I don’t have to use autistic definitions for objective truth, morality, free will, etc. because these are all just survival strategies with no real meaning to them behind the conviction of the belief itself. You FEEL as though truth is objective, that you should never stop believing in it. You FEEL as though morality is unchanging, to validate your moral beliefs. What happens when these people consider that they are just trying to impose their subject values on others? They call everything “meaningless,” as if suddenly their values have become non-existent. So you can see why they evolved the need to believe in objective values. I recognize that my values and beliefs are subjective, but I want to impose them on the world anyway. Why is this MY survival strategy, and why is it so rare? Perhaps because it simplifies the world for me, or perhaps because it makes me feel superior to others who do not take the theory of evolution to its logical conclusions, or perhaps because I emphasize the importance of the subject, of eradicating things like nihilism not by discussing life itself, but the nihilist, whose genes probably predispose him to be a nihilist in the absence of the comfort that religion and systems of objectivity bring him.

[Anonymous No.22915528]

>>22914259
> Truth cannot be recognized and everything knowable is an illusion.
Wow… I had to stop right there and THINK… The profundity of me recognizing this truth is comparable to discovering the Smartness that the materialistic atheism of the school of Alex O'Connor et al espouses…

[Anonymous No.22915531]

>>22914259
>he really just wanted to take a hammer to society, morality, ethics
He is like me! He is literally me!

[Anonymous No.22915534]

>mfw I'm a 32 year old virgin loser, that lives with his parents and has never seen a vagina but I just owned neeche on leet

[Anonymous No.22915537]

>>22915525
>I believe that we evolve
False presupposition, so the rest of the post is already worthless. You can delete it. And if there is no truth you don’t know this in the first place.

[Anonymous No.22915541]

There are not ethics. There are no truths. And that is the profundity of it all. We do not know. But we did evolve. We do not speak truth, yet we do…

[Anonymous No.22915543]

>>22915537
Try to keep up here. My belief in evolution is just another survival strategy. Evolution is not just about the past, but primarily about the future. If humans evolved from monkeys, then something greater can come from humans, and that is exactly what I want to bring about. Not just better technology, not just better cultural values or beliefs, or better politics, but better GENES. A new species entirely, if necessary. How I could I aim for this unless I believed in evolution?

[Anonymous No.22915544]

Ethics and morality… they are limiting to me. They do not exist. And I know this. There is no phony truth… Let people who consent do what they wish in the privacy of their home. And do not impose this false objectivity. Or else… you’ll meet my Will to power…

[Anonymous No.22915548]

>>22915543
> If humans evolve
False presupposition. The rest of the post is automatically worthless. Also there is no “evolved” or “better” if there is no greater truth or telos.

[Barkun No.22915551]

>>22915548
Life free.

[Anonymous No.22915552]

>>22915548
EVERYTHING is a presupposition. But when you call it “false,” what exactly do you mean? If I believe in evolution, and in making humans greater, and this leads to eugenics or genetic engineering and becoming a new species, then I will be proven right. Whereas you sat around thinking that your god made humans as perfect as possible, without needing any improvement.

[Anonymous No.22915584]

>>22915548
>Also there is no “evolved” or “better” if there is no greater truth or telos.

So you are fine if your children are as dumb as the dumbest humans, as short as the shortest humans, as impulsive as the most impulsive humans, physically weak and with bad eyesight, coordination, and low-energy? You really think it would be useless to improve the intelligence of the species? Interesting survival strategy you have there, but I don’t think it will work for too long.

[Anonymous No.22915599]

>>22915541
Did we evolve though? Or is that not just yet another interpretation?

[Anonymous No.22915606]

>>22915552
>twitter
Didn’t read.
>>22915584
You say this but you can’t believe in these things since there is no truth. There is no better. It just is. Why is survival good? It isn’t. There is no truth or ethics.

[Anonymous No.22915609]

>>22915599
Don’t ask too many questions!? We did evolve, okay? The science shows… it is fact checked.

[Anonymous No.22915611]

>>22915609
Okay I wont. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Anonymous No.22915615]

>>22915606
You prefer some foods more than other foods. This doesn’t mean those foods are objectively better. This also doesn’t mean that you should starve to death. So why do you eat? Will you tell me that your food preferences are based in objective truth? Lol

[Anonymous No.22915657]

>>22915518
>>22915528
>>22915531
My first paragraph was an extrapolation of what Nietzsche said in TL if you guys want to read more about it.

[Anonymous No.22915661]

>>22915552
>To prove something literally means to test it
This twitterfag doesn't even know what proof is.

[Anonymous No.22915669]

>>22915661

[Anonymous No.22915697]

>>22915615
>destroyed by a simple food analogy
it is too easy lmao

[Anonymous No.22915758]

>>22913039
>ITT: Retards getting filtered by Nietzsche saying "Might is Right"

[Anonymous No.22915801]

>>22915669
Test, approve, or demonstrate

Proof in this case refers to the latter. You demonstrate something to be true.

[Anonymous No.22915807]

>>22915801
correct, so how do we demonstrate that evolution is true? By EVOLVING

[Anonymous No.22915810]

>>22915807
By examining evidence, you mean?

Evidence can be acquired through testing and experimentation, but tests do not prove anything in themselves.

[Anonymous No.22915818]

>>22915810
There has been loads of evidence for evolution, but creationists are still unconvinced. The only way to conclusively prove evolution is to evolve. So let’s prove it.

[Anonymous No.22915830]

>>22915818
>There has been loads of evidence for evolution, but creationists are still unconvinced
There are two truths to your statement: evidence is not proof, and creationists are retarded.

[Anonymous No.22915841]

>>22915525
Huh? How can this cavedude make an objective truth claim (objective truth is an illusion) while at the same time denying that there is such a thing as objective truth?

[Anonymous No.22915858]

>>22915841
no one is saying that it is objectively true that objective truth does not exist. But that the concept of objective truth is faulty to begin with.

[Anonymous No.22915867]

>>22915858
>Truth can only be defined in relation to a subject
I make that subject everything. The truth is defined in relation to everything, and so is a universal (and thus objective) truth.
Either truth cannot be defined in relation to subjects, or universal truth exists.

[Anonymous No.22915868]

>>22913039
Did he mean interpunction perchance?

[Anonymous No.22915869]

>>22915867
subject as in you and me. Truth for you, truth for me, etc

[Anonymous No.22915881]

>>22915869
>subject as in you and me
Subject: a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with.

>Truth for you, truth for me
Personal truths are objectively true, though. No matter your beliefs, it is objectively true that you believe what you believe in.

[Anonymous No.22915885]

>>22915858
Yea, I can agree with pic related, although I have a different belief. I believe there's objective truth, but I can't prove it as an objective truth. It is based on faith

[Anonymous No.22915884]

>>22915881
What do you think subjective means?

[Anonymous No.22915891]

>>22915884
Truth in relation to a subject is not equivalent to subjective truth (which I already proved is a limited form of objective truth). Learn English before you try to discuss philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22915898]

>>22915891
What do you think subjective means?

[Anonymous No.22915899]

>>22915898
I already answered that

[Anonymous No.22915906]

>>22915899
>>22915885
define truth

[Anonymous No.22915912]

>>22915906
You first

[Anonymous No.22915925]

>>22915912
truth is just that which we label beliefs for which we feel strong conviction. We don’t think they will ever be not true, that is, that they will stop believing in them. That’s why we use the word “true” even for obviously subjective opinions:
>this food is the best
>—true!

[Anonymous No.22915926]

>>22915906
The truth I have faith in is this: "thy word is truth" (John 17:17). So my definition of truth is that the Bible is truth.

[Anonymous No.22915931]

>>22915926
>it is true that 2+2=4
>it is Bible that 2+2=4
lol

[Anonymous No.22915944]

>>22915925
>truth is just that which we label beliefs for which we feel strong conviction
Then truth is irrelevant. People don't "feel strong conviction" that math works, that science works, that walking works. They work and we describe them ex post facto. When they fail to work, we recognize their failure.
But if strong conviction is the only thing that makes something true or not, then there must be some external "conviction" that can override our own strong convictions and convince us to change them. i.e. either a superior being like God or the existence of an objective reality.

[Anonymous No.22915954]

>>22913668
There's a framework but there's no "the framework", in the same way a spider spins a web but doesn't spin "the web". This isn't to diminish the web being spun, that the web "doesn't exist" or is a pale reflection of the "true web". Neither is the spider "just" spinning a web, as the web isn't being spun in subordination to, antecedent in, or above itself that somehow reflects poorly on the efforts of the spider. The spider is spinning a web and that's good.

[Anonymous No.22915958]

>>22915944
> People don't "feel strong conviction" that math works, that science works, that walking works.
They literally do though.

[Anonymous No.22915960]

>>22915931
True

[Anonymous No.22915961]

>>22913039
>pull out a shotgun
>shoot nietzche directly in the chest
>he is dead
>"I believe might makes right and nothing else matters. Your rebuttal, kraut faggot?"
>no response because he is dead
>win debate
>win all debates, forever

[Anonymous No.22915963]

>>22915958
And just as many others don't. Math still works, science still works, walking still works even if people don't believe it.

[Anonymous No.22915964]

>>22915961
that would only prove his point, not refute it, imbecile

[Anonymous No.22915965]

>>22915961
>if might makes right then me agreeing with you means i win

[Anonymous No.22915968]

>>22915964
>>22915965
I'm correct because I remain alive to assert it and impose my will through adequate force. He is incorrect because he is not alive.

[Anonymous No.22915972]

>>22915963
that’s your conviction

[Anonymous No.22915975]

>>22915968
>correct
about what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.22915979]

>>22915968
That both parties in a fight believe might makes right doesn't mean the losing party was incorrect

[Anonymous No.22915982]

>>22915972
And? Even if I didn't believe in it, math would still be useful. Unless you can convince me otherwise.

I'm surprised it took you this long to run back to the definition, that "that's just your opinion, bro."

[Anonymous No.22915985]

>>22915975
Whatever I like with reference to Nietzsche, as dead people may not refute nor assert anything, and in one penultimate moment I proved I was superior by killing him.

[Barkun No.22915986]

>>22915979

[Anonymous No.22915995]

>>22915982
>And? Even if I didn't believe in it, math would still be useful.
Math seems so intrinsic to how the world works it almost seems to precede humans. If we go back far enough there is just math. Math is the origin of all things, it's not even a matter of belief.

[Anonymous No.22915997]

>>22915954
That seems like a pretty good summation of what has been discussed. I guess the question from there is "is this frame work "web" something we are stuck in or can will to power change the very framework, allowing us to functionally escape it, even if it is just into another framework? From what I read in my lame edition of TL Nietzsche suggests the latter. But again my reading of him is very limited and honestly I'm starting to think that he didn't get as caught up in that train of thought as I am. He probably didn't see it as terribly crucial.

[Anonymous No.22916000]

>>22915979
Then why did he lose?

[Anonymous No.22916002]

>>22915982
math isn’t useful for every single Subject though. So it’s subjective. And your view that’s it’s useful for others is also subjective. Just because you have a conviction doesn’t mean you can prove it to be everyone’s conviction. Truths can be personal while also not being true for everyone, even if most people share the same conviction

[Anonymous No.22916008]

>>22915997
It's good if a spider sees it's in a web and imagines how its web might extend further, but it's bad if a spider sees its web and imagines being stuck in it. Nietzsche would really hate the word "stuck"

[Anonymous No.22916009]

>>22916000
If a fighter has long reach, good techniques, but bad endurance, and loses the fight, did he lose because of his reach and techniques? No. Beliefs are just another attribute, another trait, that gives someone an advantage. In any particular circumstance it’s not clear if the belief is what caused the loss or if it was something else.

[Anonymous No.22916014]

>>22915985
>dead people may not refute nor assert anything
Sounds like an interpretation to me my friend. Your assertion is not necessarily true. As a matter of fact it is most likely un true because it serves a function (substantiating your idiotic claim). And as we know from TL, truth is most likely useless.

[Anonymous No.22916018]

>>22913054
>2+2=4 is a function of power not truth?

It is. Right now common core says that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.22916020]

>>22916014
*kills you*
I am once again correct in the absence of any possible refutation. This trend may continue until no one else exists on earth, in which case I will be the lone arbiter of all truth.

[Anonymous No.22916021]

>>22916002
>math isn’t useful for every single Subject though
Prove it.
>And your view that’s it’s useful for others is also subjective. Just because you have a conviction doesn’t mean you can prove it to be everyone’s conviction
"It's just your opinion, bro" shows you have no conviction in your own belief in truth. You can't actually demonstrate that my belief is false or subjective other than relying on a tired definition.

If I say "my truth" is objectively true, there is no way under your framework to refute the existence of objective truth, because my subjective truth is then objectively true.

[Anonymous No.22916023]

>>22915801
demonstration is done through metaphysics which is how you prove god exists

[Anonymous No.22916028]

>>22916008
But its good for flies to recognize they are stuck so that they might break free, to survive. I think its a good analogy since the spider would be the master analog and the fly would be the slave analogue. I do see your point though. Better to imagine the possibilities than look for escape. One creates new patterns, the other destroys and ultimately only leads to being trapped in a new web for the trouble.

[Anonymous No.22916032]

It's funny that Nietzsche spends so much time strawmanning and attacking Plato when he is:

A. An IRL caricature of a sophist
B. Recapitulates like 70% of Plato and claims it as novel insight and adopts similar positions. Unfortunately, that last 30% is the stuff that stops you from being a solipsistic sophist who stands on nothing.

[Anonymous No.22916035]

>>22916021
When you say something is objectively true, this means it’s true for everyone. But I already defined truth to mean a belief for which we have strong conviction. If there exists even one Subject which doesn’t have that conviction, then it’s not objectively true.

[Anonymous No.22916036]

>>22916009
>it’s not clear
That doesn't mean its not true my guy. Plenty of truths are unclear. Especially if you don't even try to look for them.

[Anonymous No.22916037]

>>22914013
I guess I am just not persuaded, as I don’t find the groundlessness of that ultimatum and the authority of the “clues” convincing.

[Anonymous No.22916038]

>>22913654
it works until it is no longer works for the situation, where it's back to the drawing board for the next best theory.

[Anonymous No.22916042]

Beliefs are just traits which are subject to natural selection like any other trait. The better they assist in survival and reproduction, the more likely we are to call them “true”

[Anonymous No.22916043]

>>22916020
There is only one way to actually be right in this situation. You know what you must do.

[Anonymous No.22916044]

>>22916035
>When you say something is objectively true, this means it’s true for everyone
>But I already defined truth to mean a belief for which we have strong conviction
Then the fact that I believe in my beliefs is objectively true, because it's true for everyone that I believe in what I believe in.

You're just espousing a limited form of objective truth.

[Anonymous No.22916048]

>>22916044
> because it's true for everyone that I believe in what I believe in.
it’s not true for organisms that are unable to form an opinion. They don’t care what you believe or don’t believe.

[Anonymous No.22916053]

>>22916048
>it’s not true for organisms that are unable to form an opinion
Why? They can't believe, so nothing is true when it comes to them.

In fact, if the only thing that can observe these organisms is themselves, then their own existence isn't true under your definition.

[Anonymous No.22916055]

>>22916037
Neither am I brother. I'm just trying to understand more precisely what he meant by messing with the idea. I can't help but feel that was his goal all along though. Not to convince, but to kick off.

[Anonymous No.22916058]

>>22915858
The positivist idea of objective truth that most people work with is just bad. People make "objective" a synonym for "noumenal," or "in itself." But objectivity only makes sense within the context of subjectivity. It is the view with relevant biases removed. That the Earth is not flat or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 are objective facts. That people, a very few, deny this, does not negate this.

This view isn't new. Plato is bagging on it in the Protagoras. A lot of new stuff is actually very old. Like, cutting edge pansemiotic views of reality on Continental Philosophy? Already done by Augustine and Cusa.

The same problems with denying truth remain as before. Truth has a way of reasserting itself. You can claim everything is opinions but the person who thinks they can fly still falls to the ground and dies when they jump off a cliff.

[Anonymous No.22916070]

>>22916053
organisms have their own convictions, even though they aren’t represented by language. Or do you think that a human who hasn’t learned language can’t have beliefs? Just to think “I should eat” is a conviction.

Either way, what you’re trying to do is just show that some beliefs can be held by every subject. I can always imagine a scenario in which that isn’t the case. We all inhabit a similar environment, so yes we are going to have some common truths, but there may be other universes or other planets with very different organisms that operate on different truths.

[Anonymous No.22916081]

>>22916070
>organisms have their own convictions
You literally just said that it's not true for organisms that are unable to form an opinion.

Please stop with the sophistry, since you're clearly relying on a definition that has more holes than Swiss cheese.

[Anonymous No.22916088]

>>22916058
Precisely. Objective truth is truth within our experiential frame work (capital We not individuals, a we that the jury is still out on if its strictly corporeal even). Its silly to talk about truths outside of that framework since we would never access it anyway. The Objective part is Just to separate from purely individual experience. Every body arguing here is talking around each other because of this lack of common ground (like always).

[Anonymous No.22916091]

>>22916081
Yes, they’re not able to form an opinion on whether or not you think math is useful. And they don’t care

[Anonymous No.22916097]

just gonna leave this here and let you go crazy and shit your pants

[Anonymous No.22916100]

>>22916091
Anon, you can't even hold consistent beliefs. Your convictions aren't real. Therefore nothing you are saying is true, including your definition.

>>22916097
It would be best if you go back to Twitter. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.22916113]

>>22916100
It's difficult to make a case against subjective pragmatism in favor of objective truth when you yourself find objective truth more practical to believe in

[Anonymous No.22916120]

>>22916113
It's difficult to make a case against objective truth in favor of subjective pragmatism when you yourself find subjective pragmatism more objectively true

[Anonymous No.22916132]

>>22916120
> when you yourself find subjective pragmatism more objectively true
I don’t though

[Anonymous No.22916134]

>>22916132
Clearly you do, because you're telling me that subjective pragmatism is true even if I disagree with it.

[Anonymous No.22916141]

>>22916134
Yes I want to impose my beliefs on you. That doesn’t mean I think they are “objectively true.”

[Anonymous No.22916159]

>>22916141
>Yes I want to impose my beliefs on you
Unsuccessfully
>That doesn’t mean I think they are “objectively true.”
The fact that you are trying to impose those beliefs on me by convincing me that they have more merit than belief in objective truth itself demonstrates that you believe your beliefs have more merit. But what does merit mean if truth is entirely subjective? Nothing.

[Anonymous No.22916172]

>>22916159
Sometimes I want to convince others to eat a certain food or buy a certain brand. Either they don’t like it or they do, in which case they may spread the word and increase demand, which would make it more accessible for me, and may even decrease the price. But taste is still subjective. I don’t need to believe that my taste is objectively true to convince others to try and like something, because at the end of the day I’m just trying to bring about preferable consequences for myself. Truth is will to power.

[Anonymous No.22916365]

>>22916172
>Truth is will to power
TRUTH

[Anonymous No.22916387]

>>22915502
My friend, where is this concept coming from? This is the first I've heard it, and it doesn't differ from above stated. Please take the next step and explain why this one supplants the one I'm putting forward, one which is more commonly regarded as omnipotence.

[Anonymous No.22916394]

>>22913064
Yes and no. Reverse the equation, however, and the Yes resounds

[Anonymous No.22916707]

>>22913039
There is a difference between a fact, the abstraction of a fact, and the verbal statement of a fact.

The fact itself cannot be communicated. What happens is that we form an abstraction from it, omitting things as our cognition deems relevant. Then we give verbal form to this abstraction, a verbal formulation which results in further omission and which is also temporarily displaced from the abstraction it tried to represent.

To the extent that a verbal formulation of a fact fits with our own abstraction of a fact, we deem that verbal formulation (a proposition) "true."

This process can be corrupted by the severing of the connection between the verbal formulation, the abstractiom and the fact. Someone may assent to a proposition while not having an abstracted fact to assign to it. In that sense, the person is not so much making a truth judgment but simply expressing submission or a sentiment under the guise of a truth judgment. This is mostly what happens when a "belief" is imposed by power: it is not really a "belief", not even a perspective, because the fully completed chain doesn't happen. It's a disembodied abstraction, that serves solely as a nexus or signal to some kind of affect.

[Anonymous No.22916964]

>>22913371
Ok so Nietzsche was a retard. This is why continental philosophy isn't taken 1/10th as seriously as analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22917001]

>>22916964
>This is why continental philosophy isn't taken 1/10th as seriously as analytic philosophy
Who the fuck takes anal-tick philosophy seriously? Also cope, math is made up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.22917005]

>>22913654
Trial and error

[Anonymous No.22917015]

>>22915995
>Math seems so intrinsic to how the world works
How?
>IT JUST DOES, OKAY?!

[Anonymous No.22917026]

>>22915958
People only believe in math and science after lots of social conditioning (aka education).

[Anonymous No.22917037]

>>22917015
Fundamental units are quantified and interact relationally in mathematical terms. Without individual experience or direct observation required. If this is not intrinsic to how the world works then nothing is.

[Anonymous No.22917041]

>>22917026
Math is the language we put fundamental operations into. Even without the language formalism, the concepts would still be fundamental. It is in this way that math exists outside of man.

[Anonymous No.22917052]

>>22917037
>Without individual experience or direct observation required.
Then it is not intrinsic to the World because I can't directly experience it.

[Anonymous No.22917069]

>>22917041
Saying math and science are able to be intuited in the same way walking is is retarded, sorry.

[Anonymous No.22917627]

>>22915496
> "bachelor" is just another way of writing "homosexual"
I keked

[Anonymous No.22917699]

>>22913201
i would like if you stopped LARP-osting this literal aspie as if his philosophy was relevant

[Anonymous No.22917926]

>>22916365
Will to power cannot be truth.

[Anonymous No.22918144]

>>22913039
Ha! Midwits WISH!