/lit/ - Literature

>There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity. All that is is whatever I want.

What a juvenile way of thinking. A child would say this. You're not free, you're enslaved to your own petty wishes.

>>11965101
no when someone believes this the immutable laws of the universe kills them. like nietzsche

>>11965101
You've only reached level 2.

Think about who actually does the "wanting" and realize you're still a slave to your biology. That should get you started

>>11965101
poo poo pee pee

>>11965112
its the mode of thinking of the schizophrenic. children are above this

>>11965112
>>11965121
IQlets, you even read any of these philosophers I'm referencing?

This ketogenic diet has really cleared my mind. I'm no longer a Kantian. Nietzsche has saved my life.

I understand this point completely and I've never read a philosophical text in my life. Thank fuck I didn't waste years reading trash like you did, OP.

>>11965131
You probably don't you're probably just a millenial post-modern nihilist like everyone else is subconsciously. I'm talking about something else, you big big faggot.

If only it were that easy. It's natural to think you've grasped Nietzsche at certain points of reading him, but I don't know if you can. As far as I understand him, he doesn't offer a worldview, forcing the reader to try to come up with their own. I don't think Nietzsche would say the pursuit of truth is pointless. He pointed out that it is not as innocent or honest as it might seem, and seems to assert that the condition of the will to truth is the will to deception. However, for Nietzsche this does not seen to lead to the total abandonment of the pursuit of truth. Beyond Good and Evil is, after all, called "prelude to a philosophy of the future. Towards the beginning the first chapter, in which addresses in a very direct way what your post is talking about, he asks:
>"HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness?
This is part of the broader question into the inquiry of the value of the pursuit of truth. But here is his conclusion, which I think is a lot more nuanced than "the pursuit of truth is meaningless":

>>11965138
>A proper physio-psychology has to contend with unconscious antagonism in the heart of the investigator, it has "the heart" against it even a doctrine of the reciprocal conditionalness of the "good" and the "bad" impulses, causes (as refined immorality) distress and aversion in a still strong and manly conscience—still more so, a doctrine of the derivation of all good impulses from bad ones. If, however, a person should regard even the emotions of hatred, envy, covetousness, and imperiousness as life-conditioning emotions, as factors which must be present, fundamentally and essentially, in the general economy of life (which must, therefore, be further developed if life is to be further developed), he will suffer from such a view of things as from sea-sickness. And yet this hypothesis is far from being the strangest and most painful in this immense and almost new domain of dangerous knowledge, and there are in fact a hundred good reasons why every one should keep away from it who CAN do so! On the other hand, if one has once drifted hither with one's bark, well! very good! now let us set our teeth firmly! let us open our eyes and keep our hand fast on the helm! We sail away right OVER morality, we crush out, we destroy perhaps the remains of our own morality by daring to make our voyage thither—but what do WE matter. Never yet did a PROFOUNDER world of insight reveal itself to daring travelers and adventurers, and the psychologist who thus "makes a sacrifice"—it is not the sacrifizio dell' intelletto, on the contrary!—will at least be entitled to demand in return that psychology shall once more be recognized as the queen of the sciences, for whose service and equipment the other sciences exist. For psychology is once more the path to the fundamental problems.

>>11965112
>What a juvenile way of thinking. A child would say this.

Guess why he likes Nietzsche.

>>11965127
the fact that you can posit ideas then put them in to language and other people can understand the words that you've used is obvious proof of logos. but if you posses zero critical thinking skills it must be easy be lead astray

>>11965143
Read any philosopher you fucking subhuman. At least read Wittgenstein and Quine you retarded mongrel oh my fucking god. Google "Word and Object pdf". "Logos" oh my fucking god SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU PSEUD YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE YOU DIDNT READ ANY FUCKING PHILOSOPHY OIN YOUR LIFE YOU GODDAMN NIGGER

>>11965101
>There's no truth,
Wow, cool truth you discovered there, bro.

>>11965136
lol based

>>11965148
he calls others pseuds when he thinks reading nietzsche and wittgenstein is impressive

>>11965130
The connection between diet and thought really needs to clarified. Its a shame that mind body dualism is still popular

>>11965101
You’re ready

>>11965174
this unironically
holy fuck op, get a grip and try the bigboy books for a change

>>11965101
You are never free in this prison of a universe. in this prison of the body. Real freedom is through Jesus Christ. If Neetzshe lived a bit longer I think he would've done the same.

>>11965101
Drinks beer once

>>11965101
holy fuck
> kant
> hume
> hegel
> wittgenstein
> kripke
> quine

fuck you pseud lol

>>11965101
>reads nietzsche
>thinks hes become free

>>11965101
I figured this out when I was 17, without reading anything. Nietzsche goes beyond this simple thought, though.

>>11965136
>I'm talking about something else, you big big faggot.
No you literally aren't. Read your own post again. Maybe you think you're communicating something else when in fact you really aren't.

who cares what an ill person thought

I’d argue that death and the total reconciliation of existential futility are the same thing. Otherwise, what would you stand to achieve in posting here? In doing anything human? Access to such truths infers a divine degree of agency. The very fact that you’re posting here only highlights how naive/how much of a liar you are.

>>11965667

Oh yeah well I invented Cartesian skepticism when I was 12.

>>11965705
Mine came out of depression and overthinking, though.

>>11965101
Imaging studying the great minds of analytic philosophy and then unquestioningly swallowing the motivational aphorisms of a glorified self-help guru.

OP probably never had any interest in the truth. He just wanted something that made him feel good and gratified his ego.

>>11965710
fuck off

>>11965101
Good God you're retarded

Kek

>>11965714
go fuck yourself Mr Big Revelations

>>11965112
>A child would say this.
And the child would be right. The moralist, aka the camel, is the first and lowest spiritual level according to Nietzsche.

Nietzsche truly split the history of philosophy into two. There is a before him, and an after him. No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus. But that is only part of it. The other part is that, though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff. No one would propose that Rorty or Dewey invented their best stuff: it's got N's mark all over it, and they copied it straight off him (and in the instances where they denied him credit, they plagiarized...) Or Adorno and Horkheimer. Or Heidegger. One after another, failed attempts at understanding what N had said. And the HIGHEST ideas of his of all have not even been TOUCHED on. I have yet to read of anyone even MENTIONING his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics, decades before the quantum mechanists ran up against them in the lab. Or the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle decades before the astronomers dreamt it up. I am literally the first person to find these ideas and the beginnings of such ideas in Nietzsche, while everyone else had trouble parsing such simple statements as "men aren't equal". Deleuze was still trying to "deconstruct" that lol (read: convince us that he meant the opposite lol). All this is simply what happens when genius texts fall into the hands of merely above-average intelligences, and the fact that two entire massive traditions — the "analytic", and the "postmodern" — flowed directly from him, is merely a symptom of how vast the power of his intellect was, and therefore, naturally enough, how vast his influence, for better or worse (and in the case of the "analytics" and the "postmoderns", clearly for the worse).

>>11965773
A poer post I've never seen.

>>11965101
>No truth
You're getting closer. Now read Evola and ride le tiger :^)

>>11965741
>Moralism is lowest form because it is in this book that Go- I mean Nietzsche wrote
You're super gay anon.

>>11965148
>he thinks spouting off references of dead men is somehow the epitome of enlightenment
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Anon you're such a riot. Have a good day.

>>11965115
You can become skilled at defying your biology.

>>11965162
>>11965881
>>11965667
>>11965671
You guys are fucking low-IQ monkeys. Unless you read Quine's Word and Object you are simply misunderstanding me, modern analytic thought supports Nietzsche.

>>11965101
No, that's not his message and never was.

You are a retard.

>>11965115
I've reached the level 3 years ago and I've stayed there we're just slaves of our biology written up by dna code that managed to survive through million of years by living on jumping from vessel to vessel and that's alot of time more than what a human mind can conceive this leads me to believe that we are nothing more than fancy built information and if theres a god it is a god of information and thats it i dont know where to go from this im stuck in this level i dont think theres a deeper level than this

>>11966536
Also i should add, this life and consciousness we have we take for granted that is about us that we're the maim character but it was never about us we're just a secondary effect of the lifespan of dna code we're vessels

>>11966515
Why are you being such a massive insufferable little spoiled faggot?
You were very simple and clear in the OP, it's logical that people will continue on that though, but you decided that
>unless you read this and this you're misunderstanding me
what the fuck did you want then? for people to ask you what you've read? to wait for a moment like that?
fuck off you enormous fag

>>11965101
>free
lel

>>11966515
>modern
>analytic
>thought

>>11965101
>read a bunch of memes
>be surprised none of it manages to make sense of existence
All that's happened is that you've read so many shitty philosophers that you've finally overwritten what good sense you once had.

>>11966553
Depending on who you are you either said "I figured this out when I was 17 on my own" or I'm just reiterating juvenile nihilism. What I'm saying is that I'm fucking not doing so, I have come to realize philosophy doesn't work and you can't understand my argument without having read Wittgenstein and Quine. That's what I'm saying you faggot, stop replying to me as if you know what I'm conveying, you simply aren't.

N I G G E R
I
G
G
E
R

>>11965101
suck a dick already you phantom dicksucker.

KETOGENIC DIET AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THIS IS AMAZING MY IQ HAS QUADRUPLED DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>11966581
I'm neither of those guys and I'm neither black, why are you obsessed with black men?

I responded because I wanted to point out that if you're going to spew shit like this
>All that is is whatever I want. That's it lads, that's it.
then you wil certainly encouter comments such as 'I figured this out when I was 17'
if you wanted to talk about Quine then you should've said so and not wait for people to say something and respond with 'BUT I READ MOAR BOOKS THAN U U DONT UNDERSTAND MY LEVEL OF BRAIN'


And really, what's with the nigger stuff, I doubt you're figuring anything out if you're still obssesed with calling people
N I G G E R
I
G
G
E
R
anonymously on the internet when you get angry because they 'don't know what you're conveying' lol

>>11965883
And the reason you decided to defy your biology lies within your biology.
You don't understand what that anon is telling you.

>>11966536
I'm impressed you managed to remain in that stage for so long without killing yourself. When I went through the phase of realizing that natural selection doesn't bestow value and that the mind's like an arrow of zeno I could tell that in a couple days I'll either be dead or on some next level weltanschauung.

Anyway, here's your level 4:
I take it you've familiarized yourself with the idea that the physical universe is the manifestation of the concept of decay already, and the role time plays in that system.* From here you've got the "natural selection is a by-product of time" that the plebs always write off as a platitude. With that you can make some progress and reacknowledge your biological desires as them being a direct result of universe's a priori configuration. Finally we've got the uberman as the ultimate agent of time, thus god's, and got our reason to strive for his ideal.

Hope I could help; apologies if we're on different rails altogether.

*I'm not going to waste my time trying to portray shit in a non-edgy way just to appease some autists' projected insecurity; use this as an opportunity to practice applying principle of charity.

>>11965101
What will piss you off is Buddhism explains this faster and easier than trying to decipher the pretentious BS of "thinkers".

>>11965855
It's the lowest form because people who grow up to be stern moralists lacked the will to develop an integrity early in life that would carry them into adulthood without the need of an outlying system to shoulder their insecurities. Moralism is a symptom of degeneracy, in other words.

>>11965101
the only way this would be any more on the nose is if you swallowed a literal blue pill before posting this

>>11967051
>blue and red pill meme
You dumb fuck. Don't you know that The Matrix got Baudrillard wrong with that concept, and Baudrillard just learned everything from Nietzsche? The pursuit of capital t Truth in a post-Nietzsche world is, per your shit meme, the ultimate blue pill. The red pill is that both pills are placebos.

>>11967238
>The red pill is that both pills are placebos.
Which is what Matrix is about.

>>11967250
The entire concept of there being a virtual world versus the real one is a placebo effect, a delusion. There's no separate worlds like that. So no, it's not what The Matrix was about.

>>11965883
neurology is biology. You can't manifest ideas out of nothing because your mind isnt magic. You got that idea from a neurological process.

>>11966651
>>11967271
This.
And trying to work against your biology will make you miserable, because in the end it's all about whatever gets you the good brain chemicals. The main "choice" is between short term (instant gratification) and long term pleasure.

>>11965101

Reading Nietzsche correctly would be enough to find out that his opinion was that there is a truth.

There was no "truth" jjust truth.

To see it correctly what he meant is to understand that there is a larger scale in things than in names for things we have and everything seems simpler in talking and this is the non truth of it. Thoughts are made in a correct way and Nietzsche never denied that. I recommend that you read Nietzsche again and in full.

>>11965101
>There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity.
You do realize that this itself must be truth in order for you to proceed?

>>11967458
Right. It's helpful to think of it as a distinction between capital T Truth and local truth. There are an abundance of truths, personal truths, truths of experience. But the universal cosmic Truth framing all small localized truths is beyond reach since we always color such propositions with a will to power subjectivized to our private wills.

>>11967473
Decentralized "truth" =/= personal truth

>>11965112
What a juvenile way of thinking. A bootlicker would say this. You're not free, you're enslaved to others petty wishes.

>>11966798
Still on level 4? Lol. Level 5 is where minimalist free-will monotheistic fatalism is discovered and you realize ascribing your life to ideology is a lifestyle you will phase out of. Just do what you naturally want to do, get influence from whatever you get influence from, and the endstate will come regardless because all choice will diverge into one of the same inevitably.

>>11965101
>>11966515
>this is you

>>11967479
Faggot you diddn´t catch my meaning

obviously you all are not prepared for a Nietzsche Philologist.

i´m sure you don´t have experience in reading.

and i´m fine with it so no matter what y<ou write now afterwards i will not answer to such a swampbrain.

>>11967524
Level 5 is pathetic. Level 6 is where you realize god is absence, for god is in all things (absences in all things), we converge into making god (pure absence), and God created everything (Big Bang created by total absence).

>>11967538
cuck

>>11967524
>>11967524
>Just do what you naturally want to do, get influence from whatever you get influence from, and the endstate will come regardless because all choice will diverge into one of the same inevitably.

Following one's will or "doing what you naturally want to do" is slavery to the will and programmatic desire. To overcome the tyranny of the will requires changing it, and the way to do this is through self-questioning, which is synonymous with self-awareness. The meaning of life is an ever-present question mark, which gives inexhaustible meaning and endless becoming. Seeking an endstate, a perfect permanence reduces yourself to an object, and damns you to functioning as one. You are not an object, a self-representation, but rather your objective self is a temporary model used to facilitate the subject of self, which is a question questioning itself.

>>11967538
Dingus.

>>11967542
De-levelization is synthecizing the dualisms of creator/creation and one/many into a rhizomatic web of bi-directional co-creativity, where all occurrences create and are created by all others. It is the universe as a tapestry of continually self-creating art among all strands. To maintain this not merely as a "truth" to be upvoted on Mindbook, or even a perception of reality, but a relationship with existing is a priceless gift, simultaneously liberation from all suffering and endless desire to suffer, to be endlessly content yet ever yearning. There are no magic words that can be given to develop such a relationship, it must be cultivated, but knowing that such a thing is possible allows one to seek it.

>>11966553
This. OP is a cunt.

>>11966581
If philosophy doesn't work then why did it help you reach such conclusion? Are you autistic?

Nietzsche is a dumb bitch. Probably was gay too. And he's wrong. There is an ultimate truth accessible to science and empirical methods. Ethical truths are different but are evolved from Darwinian biology as Nietzsche correctly pointed out in On the Genealogy of Morality

>>11967716
>Nietzsche is a dumb bitch.
>There is an ultimate truth accessible to science and empirical methods.

>>11967492
Either it's true or not nigga wat? By very definition of the damn word.

>>11967753
Life cannot be understood by mere words, padawan.

>>11965656
>thinks Nietzsche is nihilist

>>11967753
The truth about my coffee cup being a singular object breaks down at the microscopic and cosmic scales, as well as through time: it's object-ness as a coffee cup is but a temporary pattern. However considering it as a coffee cup allows me to use it with a high degree of efficacy to drink coffee. To get to the actual truth of something would require considering it from all possible perspectives all at once, not just in the present but across the vastness of time, which is impossible, and so we must necessarily simplify to make sense of anything, to limit our considerations to what we consider relevant to what we want to do or talk about. There is no Absolute Truth, no absolute frame of reference, but truth is entirely dependent on context.

>>11967524
Unironically level 2, anon.

>>11967524
>>11967542
>>11967592
>They haven't transcended from The Levels yet to true freedom and peace where you move freely between all available ideals and modes to whatever brings you fulfilment at the time knowing it will never last, but you will find it again soon.

>>11965101
You're a fucking retard if this is your ultimate conclusion lmao

>>11965112
Brain is bulging out of this guys skull.
OP has lost.

>>11965671
>No you literally aren't.
Holy shit how hopeless do you have to be? It doesn't fucking matter what your interpretation of his opinion is; if he tells you you misunderstood him you misunderstood him, are you fucking retarded?
>You misunderstood my post
>Well sucks for you, I dont get what you mean and neither do I intend to give you a chance when Ive already judged you to be a loser

Half this thread is at a teenagers level of close-mindedness, literally on a level of "You can't gain new perspectives from people dumber than you"

>>11966581
Read W's PI, then Russel's criticism of it, then judge that opinion yourself and see where you stand

>>11968028
>"free will doesn't exist"
>whoah dude, are you, like, einstein? how heavy is ur brain? fuuck

>>11968056
I would read Russell's criticism of W if only to appreciate W BTFOing Russell more.

>>11965101
Youre a relativist or in literary terms a Romantic? How odd.

>>11965174
>More like Penisées

>>11967861
No, your apparent complex problem is solved very simply by defining what a coffee cup is. You're just using the vagueness of language there.

Of course when you talk about things you make it easier and consider simpler definitions, this however does not change the meaning of true and false.

>>11967797
So we should communicate with pictures? I'm not sure I follow you.

>>11968152
Not the same anon but youre either very dumb or missed the point or both

>>11968111
Fucking hell

No anon. I do not think that any stupid statement is right if you just whip out your star-shaped glasses and look at it from as trivial an angle as it takes for it to be true - if that's the impression you got. Correct me if not.

I think that an actually "smart" guy, let's say the smartest guy you or I will ever meet, the good, """wise""" kind of smart, that that guy wouldn't mind talking to people like us, people like OP, normies and anyone in general, and that whenever he finds himself in the situation of having to, if you will, speak with the kind of people you find on /lit/, he'd decide to make the most of it and try to interpret the opinions read on here as tolerantly as possible. Like reading something written by a genius who utterly sucks at putting his thoughts into words - trying to see what the wisdom he might've wanted to put into the sentence may have been. It's fucking game theory dude, you maximize the number of interesting ideas discovered.

inb4
>but that's literally relativism
The difference lies in the result. The former abstracts the stupid shit until the statement makes sense, the latter attempts to rectify and expand it into an interesting statement. The former moves the goal line until the post works out, the latter heaves the post to the goal line.

Why do I have to explain this? If this is new to you you might as well go all the fucking way back to Plato.

>>11968175
Alright yeah just fuck me up
I mistook the (You) from the above post for one in yours

>>11968152
Fuck off analytic philosopher scum. You're worthless to the world. No one cares and no one is paying attention.

>>11965148
you sound like a man that is not heterosexual.

>>11968056
>It doesn't fucking matter what your interpretation of his opinion is; if he tells you you misunderstood him you misunderstood him, are you fucking retarded?
I'm looking at this original post, there's nothing else beyond what it literally says.

>I'm fucking crying /lit/.I finally figured it out, I finally understand this madman. After years of reading the Greeks, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Quine... I finally understand what's happening. I realize the pursuit of truth is pointless. There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity. All that is is whatever I want.That's it lads, that's it. I'm finally free.

This isn't something deep nor insightful. If you had to read the entire canon of philosophy to reach this conclusion, then you might as well kill yourself.

>>11968152
>No, your apparent complex problem is solved very simply by defining what a coffee cup is.
But the anon you responded to did that, and called such definitions the "limit[ation of] our considerations to what we consider relevant to what we want to do or talk about." That is what a definition is.

>>11968199
>neither deep or insightful

hilarious that the arbiter of what is "deep or insightful" still doesn't understand that the most profound truths are often the most simple. even Hegel's entire system is the elucidation of the "The True is the Whole"

you're a pseud dude and have never brushed your brow on the numen once in your life, while I can tell the OP has

>finally understood
It's actually the first thing people find out when reading him.

>>11968164
No either you're smart and can conceptualize it without words or any other form of qualia or you're too retarded to think it up yourself and will spend the rest of your life in banal ignorance. The latter's you anon. I'm, so, so sorry.

>>11968199
>"There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity. All that is is whatever I want."
>There's nothing else beyond what it literally says.
For the love of god anon, take a deep breath and look at yourself. You're writing off statements regarding shit like "truth" and "desire" at face value.

>>11968191
Perhaps I've been doing too much maths lately and my mind has become too axiomatic. But claiming there is no absolute truth and then justifying it by coming up with an example where the truth is simply too difficult to determine due to it's complexity and vagueness just seems a bit silly.

There is not such thing as "personal truth", at least there is no evidence to suggest such a thing exists.

>>11965115
You think you mean (((who))) actually does the wanting.

>>11968247
A perspective can only know itself.

>>11968256
Go away Kierkegoethe; that's a perspective of absolutes worthless to take.
If you gain a new perspective from someone else's perspective then you still gained a new perspective. Who's there to care about the fact that your idea of his perspective isn't a perfect imitation?

>>11965705
>>11965667
>Not developing structuralist semiotics, bayesian probability, and mendelian genetics by the end of primary school.

Lol get on my level brainlet plebs. This is precisely why /lit/ still fails to appreciate the depth of people like Dawkins, Peterson, and Zizek.

>>11968256
So you think MP is different depending on perspective? If you discard even that level of reasoning you can no longer show anything and any talking or philosophy you do is pointless.

>>11968275
It's inaccurate to say that you've "gained a new perspective." Your perspective has changed; it didn't gain a new one except if by new you are comparing the present perspective to the past edition, since perspectives are linked with time. Perspectives can interact, but they can never know one another, only themselves.

>Who's there to care about the fact that your idea of his perspective isn't a perfect imitation?
You are.

>>11968299
Why are you discussing semantics? Yes, it's not a new perspective. What I meant is that your perspective changed into one encompassing the one you had before as well as a new one; and not literally because they're not actually perfectly contained and yadda yadda literally pointless to specify.

>You are.
I disagree. Perfect imitations are impossible. That's a fact we agree on. Therefore there's no point in lamenting it, it can't be changed. You could lament it for sake of by-product insights gained from the lamenting, but here we get into pointless semantics again.

>>11968245
>You're writing off statements regarding shit like "truth" and "desire" at face value.
No, I'm not, I consider these words have weight and strength, but we all know that this point. The questions is what are you gonna do about it? Perish like a dog, or fight despite the very meaninglessness of life?

Evola on Nietzsche: https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-active-nihilism-of-friedrich-nietzsche/

>>11968214
>hilarious that the arbiter of what is "deep or insightful" still doesn't understand that the most profound truths are often the most simple.
But OP said there's no truth... kek you faggots are bunch of pseuds who think you just discovered some superduper secret thing.

>>11968336
>What I meant is that your perspective changed into one encompassing the one you had before as well as a new one
And what I'm saying is, you aren't encompassing a "new one" at all — just your own, which has now grown. It is always just your own. Other perspectives are always just yours, and there exists no life where yours can't reach. You are your own boundary.

>Therefore there's no point in lamenting it, it can't be changed.
I'm not lamenting it. I am declaring what makes the most sense, and what makes the most sense to any of us is what pushes us forward the furthest towards our goals. My goal being power, and your goal also being power, but in a different form called "Truth," because that is a form of power you can grasp.

>>11965101
Yea there's no higher truth (educated folks know this since kindergarten), so fucking what?

>>11968363
There is however, and introversion, reflection and, ultimately, mysticism existed in all cultures ever since times immemorial.

>>11965101
Tell us more, OP. You sound like someone who invested heavily in the matter and reached your personal breakthrough. I personally would be really interested to read your elaborations on the position you've stated.

>>11968362
You literally swapped my "changed" with "grown" man, don't do me like this

And the lamenting was my choice of synonym for "care." All I'm saying is that there's no point in considering the impossibility of perfect imitations something to care about; in your words "That it doesn't bring you closer to power."

We could've made progress here, come on.

>>11968175
The impression I got is that with this 'figuring out' there's nowhere left to go, generally speaking, --but especially if youre planning to describe just how this pass (or this revelation) was reached (or experienced). There are of course institutions like money, and law, and various other contrivances that will limit just how free one can be howsoever enlightened, of course. And these institutions though mutable once planted don't need to be 'true' to exist..

>>11965115
>dont hunger
>dont worry about being eaten
>can wank to porn whenever you feel horny

being a slave to your biology ended some time ago. people are slaves to their thoughts and misplaced anxieties

>>11968392
>there's no point in considering the impossibility of perfect imitations
That's not what's being considered. What's being considered is the irrelevancy of God as an absolute frame of reference. Such a thing has always been a projection of our wills onto the world. God is merely ourselves, and we should not work in service of an "absolute" God, but in service of a God among men, i.e. the Overman. That means different valuations, different traditions, different priorities, different goals, etc. What is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose and it would be wise to know this.

>>11965101
>There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity. All that is is whatever I want.
You mean, you devise names for what you see, and in the act of such naming exercise your freedom of will - due to which there can't ever be perfect mutual understanding, which makes philosophy effectively obsolete, since it would impossible to establish whether two people name SAME things using different individually chosen words, or if they name DIFFERENT things differently using those different individually chosen words?

>>11968595
>That's not what's being considered.
>>Who's there to care about the fact that your idea of his perspective isn't a perfect imitation?
>You are.

Anyway, I agree with your conclusion, although I put it differently: >>11966798
Don't trip over the "agent of god," I'm talking about as much of an agent as you: Your übermensch may fulfill himself to his own utmost extent, but it's still god who made that the road to take.

>>11968672
"That's not what's being considered" as in that is not and was never the primary focus on my argument, even when I replied to your question. My point was to guide you towards realizing that you can have agency over everything in your life if you develop yourself. You matter the most in this regard. You matter more than God.

>Your übermensch may fulfill himself to his own utmost extent, but it's still god who made that the road to take.
This is a shifty line that I don't agree with. It implies that the Overman is ultimately subservient to a higher power, but that is wrong, and one is not the Overman if one still thinks that. The Overman is more powerful than any of the gods. God in your use of the term is merely the Overman. The Overman develops himself to such an extent that even the road that was supposed paved for him becomes an extension of himself, his own pavement and not another's. The Overman doesn't exist without the underlying systems to create him, like the tip of a pyramid does not exist without the rest of the pyramid underneath it, but the whole pyramid works to form the tip i.e. the Overman which becomes the purpose of the rest of the pyramid. What I agree with you on is the need to acknowledge the rest of the pyramid in the creation of the Overman, but that's all; the rest of the pyramid isn't God once the Overman arrives on the scene.

>>11965101
>no meaning
nietzsche was against nihilism. you misunderstand nietzsche and are just putting words in his mouth. your thought process if infantile

>>11968744
To take your metaphor further, the god I'm talking about would be the physical space your pyramid is built in. Perhaps you're thinking more into it than it is, since honestly it is quite the platitude: /something/ configured the universe in a way that made the übermensch's way of living the ideal. In my terms: The übermensch doesn't stand above time.
The reason I'm obstinate about that part is that it's integral to the way I arrived at the übermensch way of being - to me it's the way of life that most utilizes time. A way of life that accelerates the story of the universe, if you want.

>>11965101
>There's no truth
Ok so therefore that statement is false and truth exists. Glad we cleared this up.

>>11968755
>if

lol you spelled a word wrong.

>>11968755
Nietzsche certainly did believe that there's no meaning bestowed to us by some high entity. That's the kind of meaning OP means.
The kind of meaning you mean is the meaning we make ourselves, which OP addresses in literally the sentence after the one you quoted.
You misunderstand philosophy and are just using it to satisfy some petty urge.

>>11968803
Excluded middle much?

>>11968803
There's something you're not realizing. The idea being expressed is bigger than the grammar used to express it.

I mean, if I have a point of view, and you have a point of view, and we can't know each other's point of view, and every attempt at communication is abstraction, then of course there is no truth.

You can't comprehend the inner workings of a motor vehicle just because someone says "motor vehicle" but a mechanic does. Language always means different things to different people based on their own experiences which are flawed. There is no truth, you just keep shapeshifting through life.

>>11968790
>/something/ configured the universe in a way that made the übermensch's way of living the ideal.
This is not a given. In fact, in Hawking's last paper, his final judgment on the origin of the universe was that there wasn't one as we could understand it, i.e. there was no "before the universe," i.e. there is no "outside the universe," i.e. the concept of a creator is unwarranted. We projected it. Is creation even possible in the universe, or is it just shorthand for a blip of transformation in the passage of time that our narrow perspectives are capable of perceiving? This is what Hawking's conclusion means, and what Nietzsche meant as well. As the Overman's development and understanding of himself climbs higher, the universe starts to appear celestially irrational.

>to me it's the way of life that most utilizes time. A way of life that accelerates the story of the universe, if you want.
An interesting way of putting it.

>>11968835
A=A

>>11968852
>there wasn't one as we could understand it, i.e. there was no "before the universe," i.e. there is no "outside the universe,"
I'm having trouble parsing this as something that doesn't fall into "we can't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist," and don't really see the conclusion of why the idea of a creator is unwarranted. I agree that god/creator is silly in that it wasn't the conscious act of a being we can fathom, but are you saying there's no ur-cause at all?

And I feel like you'll at most reach a point of minimal caring about stuff that's not within your immediate reach of manipulation due to being able to focus better on what you /can/ change this way, but in the end we're still at the mercy of the universe.
Granted, I also consider humans nothing more than biological computers/the mind and life not real/perception unable to exist in a true sense since we're unable to perceive something in its absolute form and thus an irrelevant tool in philosophizing.

>>11968915
>Nice smiley, but what did you mean by it?

>>11968926
That A equals A. Any incorrect interpretations are a clarity issue or the fault of the interpreter.

>>11968915
Identity and objectness is an abstraction, a temporary pattern. Nothing stays the same, everything changes. Fundamental truth is not to be found in stasis and identity, but in change and relation.

>>11968919
If it can't be understood, then how it influences us can't be understood either. If how it influences us can't be understood, in what sense can it be said to be relevant? And, if it's not relevant in any sense, in what sense can the claim of its existence be said to be warranted?

>I agree that god/creator is silly in that it wasn't the conscious act of a being we can fathom, but are you saying there's no ur-cause at all?
I'm not saying there's none at all, but that it's utterly knowable, and therefore utterly irrelevant. And if it's utterly irrelevant, it might as well not exist. I realize that that was a little bit of a leap there now.

>in the end we're still at the mercy of the universe.
We as in all of us who are not the Overman, yes. The Overman's not "at the mercy" of it, but is instead struggling with it, like in a constant battle.

Okay, faggot just one question, because you seem to shit on everyone here: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

>>11968957
utterly unknowable*

>>11968957
>If how it influences us can't be understood, in what sense can it be said to be relevant?
Caring about it may be irrelevant, but it itself isn't irrelevant. So, in that sense.
Consider this: We can't wrap our head around pi, but that doesn't mean it only exists to the degree of precision we are able to specify it to.

>>11968953
>everything changes
Yeah those darn pesky laws of physics changing all the time, for once I just want to be able to drive my car without gravity turning into a force of repulsion and flinging me up into the sky.

>>11966581
So what? Basic Epistemological doubt?
Hahahahhahahahah wtf nigger, that shit is entry level shit

>>11965101
Congratz you fucking idiot. Took me just reading about his ideas once on Wikipedia to really figure that out. Now I'm reading bg&e finally and I'm really enjoying this dude laying out my own thoughts into beautiful prose so that I can better understand myself.

>>11965101

If your studies of four years can be summarized in a single 3-line 4chan post, then I'm afraid those studies have been fruitless.

>>11968986
>We can't wrap our head around pi, but that doesn't mean it only exists to the degree of precision we are able to specify it to.
Why doesn't it? Can you point to a part of the body that isn't linked to the passage of time? If not, what warrants the skepticism towards the assertion that it only exists as a limitation of our perspectives? What warrants the assertion that we could be capable of understanding something that would require omniscience, which requires an omnipresent perspective that extends across all of time, to understand?

>>11968919
>I'm having trouble parsing this as something that doesn't fall into "we can't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist"

It might help to consider: "it doesn't exist until we understand" instead. It's really from this that "we can't understand it, so it doesn't exist" follows.

>>11968986
Pi is not a number, but a process of reaching a number, as is the case with all irrationals. We can understand the process.

>>11968996
this, OP is a faggot.

Guys, my idea for living is about concordance with Christian values, and reading philosophy without any particular purpose other than to keep my mind going, and hopefully die once life becomes weary. Am I an NPC? Is this square 1?
Does my asking those questions change the answer?

>>11968996
>>11969103

>he still doesn't get the difference between knowing something intellectually and knowing it in your bones

bugs

>>11969085
The latter I wouldn't say I'm asserting; I don't think there'll ever come a time where we'll be able to wrap our heads around pi, for example.
The former is intriguing, but still, all you're saying is that there's reason to doubt my idea of a god, which is cool, but you haven't proven he doesn't exist.

>>11969092
I disagree: Laws of physics existed before there was anybody around to contemplate them. I get that you're talking about a more complicated kind of "exist," but I don't see the point in introducing that kind of existing in the first place.

>>11969096
If you draw two random points they'll be an irrational amount of distance apart. Sure you can't define an absolutely precise start and end point for the measurement, but I want to say two such points do exist, and thus such an irrational length must exist, and thus irrational things do exist in the world, despite our inability to fully conceive them.

>>11969107
We're all NPCs, just to different degrees. You're pretty NPC. Square 1 would be not questioning it. So yes to your third question.

>>11969131
>you haven't proven he doesn't exist.
I've shown that proof is a consequence of our values because truth is as much so. So, in a way, I certainly have proven that he doesn't exist. He doesn't exist as long as you share my mode of thought, and exists as long as I share yours, because existence is not a function of truth; it is, like everything else, a function of power.

>>11969157
I'm going over your previous posts again but I can't see a satisfying thread of deduction.
I feel like it's all just the philosophical equivalent of symbol moving in mathematics, which is great and all, but at the end of the day it's not the übermensch who made übermenschship the peak of existence. And I realize that it's tempting to go "No, that actually is the very definition of what the übermench does," but that would be a recursive definition, which invites paradoxes, which invite all kinds of nonsensical conclusions. Instead of going the infinitely long road of meta steps, take a step to the side. At the end of the day the übermensch will always exist within a system that enables his übermenschship.

But again, my idea of the übermensch ends at a humanely feasible mode of being; I disregard any kind of notion of übermensch who can, I don't know, manipulate the laws of mathematics beyond just deluding himself he's doing it. And that delusion I wouldn't call what Nietzsche had in mind.

>>11969131
>If you draw two random points they'll be an irrational amount of distance apart.

I'm sorry but how do you *know* they are an irrational distance apart? They *could* be a rational distance apart, and you will never be able to measure that they're an irrational distance apart. You might reply with something about right triangles or any other process where a set of "measured" rationals gives rise to a set of non-measured irrationals, but in fact the rationals have not be measured to infinite precision, and in the case of the right triangle for example there are infinitely many Pythagorean triplets falling within the measurement error of the triangle.

Irrationals are about the way things act, not the actual numbers themselves. It is this action we understand.

>>11969111
I know it in my bones. Depression can be helpful to find such outlooks on life, to the point where suicide might seem like the only option.

>>11969218
>but at the end of the day it's not the übermensch who made übermenschship the peak of existence
No, it's the base of the pyramid that does. But the value of the base of the pyramid comes to a point at the tip, making the tip the value of the base of the pyramid itself.

>And I realize that it's tempting to go "No, that actually is the very definition of what the übermench does," but that would be a recursive definition, which invites paradoxes, which invite all kinds of nonsensical conclusions.
Paradoxes only exist for weaker perspectives. The Overman is going to appear paradoxical to everyone who isn't the Overman or can't conceive of even a shred of him. That's how it is. That's why God appears paradoxical to us; which just harks back to my comment much earlier in the thread that the Overman is God. God is paradoxical for us, the Overman is paradoxical for you.

>>11969245
They literally could not be a rational distance apart. Like, literally cannot be. There exists no distance between two points in the real world that is rational. Without wanting to be rude, you don't seem to understand that it's no coincidence that natural constants are irrational.
I'll say the opposite of what I believe is your opinion (and also my actual belief) and you can point out what you consider wrong with it: Irrationals are real. The universe does not only feature rational numbers and irrational approximations. A single example is enough to prove this, for which I can point you to the ratio of lengths on a ruler that's had a random line drawn somewhere near the middle of it.
You could argue that the example is flawed in that there's no true end/start to the ruler, but then you'll be left with no numbers at all.

>>11969277
>But the value of the base of the pyramid comes to a point at the tip
I mean, that's poetry rather than dialectic. But to roll with it: You could just as well look at the tip in this case as serving the entirety of the pyramid in its striving for meaning, which puts us back to what I called an agent previously.

>The Overman is going to appear paradoxical to everyone who isn't the Overman or can't conceive of even a shred of him.
Here we stumble into a spectrum with the "a shred of him," which personally ruins the whole argument for me.
That said, I imagine I understand what you're talking "at," i.e. the übermensch's ability to stand at the end of the meta road, atop the meta mountain, within the meta singularity, where he exists in his prime--but that's the realm of the metaphysical.
If you acknowledge your idea of the übermensch as one that can't exist in reality, literally cannot exist, then I can agree with everything you're saying. If you think that, on some distant planet, at some point in time, there will exist your idea of the übermensch, I'd disagree: It'd be like saying some being out there managed to count to infinity.
But, of course, I agree with a non-apex übermensch. One that's just suitably close to the ideal, like, well, the one I've got in mind.

After typing it out I guess that's the root of the disagreement: I reject the übermensch which I consider impossible, who may admittedly stand on the level of god, leaving only an imperfect version which certainly doesn't.

>>11969409
>Without wanting to be rude
No need to tread so carefully, I can see you're talking in good faith.

Now as for the ruler, let's say you mark two points on it, okay? Then I can choose a set of evenly spaced markings that come arbitrarily close to hitting both of these points, right? Add a third point and I can still do. Indeed I can do this with any finite (or even countable?) set of point you give me. And of course there's always measurement error. As a result, you can *never* demonstrate that two points are irrational relative to one another.

To say the same thing but in fancypants mathspeak, I think you're forgetting that the *rationals*, not just the irrationals, are dense in R. Unless you can find the distance between two point to perfect precision, I can always find a possible rational value for that distance. Indeed, for *any* function of real variables that is continuous almost everywhere, if there is uncertainty in the inputs, I can find a rational set of inputs and outputs that fall within the input uncertainty.

I won't assume that you're wrong if you haven't, but I *am* curious if you've done any real analysis.

>>11969554
>I *am* curious if you've done any real analysis.
I have, and I'll admit I'm feeling less comfortable with where I'm sitting.
Alright so we can fill any spot taken up by an irrational number with a rational one, and as such sensibly propose that irrational values don't exist per se, that it was those rational values from the very start - I believe that's what you're saying?
You remind me of a post on here of somebody saying that nothing in the universe is truly continuous, which I remember scoffing at back then.
Well, now I'm at your mercy; from your point of view, would you say irrational numbers don't exist in the physical world? Or just that we can't possibly prove they do?
I imagine you could argue that we really do have input uncertainty in the real world in the form of the planck constant and maybe some spatial equivalent I'm not aware of? That even if I gave you the example of a bucket getting filled to its brim and said that it has to pass through irrational values of being filled, you could argue that we can't actually prove it does because we can't pause at a moment where it does? (Unlike with math I've never taken a purely physics-related lecture so correct me if I'm talking nonsense)

Now I'm starting to see why Wittgenstein described it as mere "touching" when to me it seemed like "overlap in a single point."

>>11969736

>Alright so we can fill any spot taken up by an irrational number with a rational one, and as such sensibly propose that irrational values don't exist per se, that it was those rational values from the very start - I believe that's what you're saying?

Not exactly. I'm saying that irrational numbers are of a different nature than rational ones. They're a sort of shorthand for values that would be impossible if our precision was infinite. But in actuality they are a Cauchy sequence of rationals-a process of approximation of a solution rather a solution itself. But of course, in another sense the approximation *is* a solution, as it provides an infinite supply values that are within the uncertainty of our measurement.

As for the bucket, I think the key thing is again, that the rationals are dense in R. You don't need the irrationals to get from A to B. The rationals form a field by themselves. The fact that *any* limit is a sequence of rational numbers means that any "continuous" physical system is described arbitrarily well by a discrete system, as long as you're incredibly careful in how you go about it.

Can you ever imagine a bucket filled to an irrational level? If yes, then irrationals are conceivable. If no, then go watch a bucket fill up. Did you observe it hit an irrational level? Then they're conceivable. No? Then what reason do you have to believe they exist.

This method of reasoning is generalizable to any claimed "inconceivable concept". If you can't *possibly* conceive of it, then you cannot witness it. And that's why people say something doesn't exist if it's inconceivable.

I'm afraid you've got me on the Wittgenstein though I've only skimmed his notes. Admittedly I'm a pleb when it comes to philosophy, so I have no confidence in my previous two paragraphs.

>>11965101

Baby's first philosophical realization

Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche was wrong though, there is an anarchist "morality".

seems like you've reached an epitome of nothing, anon. only your soul can be freed, ONLY through God's grace, granted by the blood of his son. give this a look.

>>11965112
fpbp

>>11970188

Will to Power
God is Dead
Amor Fati

>>11969107
looking to Christian values for guidance was the first light of God's regeneration in me. however, God does indeed choose the souls that may enter his kingdom, so it would be impossible for any man to say what that may look like for you. from my own deficient perspective, it sounds like you may be on the precipice of receiving God's grace.

have you read the Bible?

>>11967503
What a juvenile way of thinking. You are only enslaved by your own perception of reality. If you think that you are enslaved by the wish of others, then why not break of that wish? Because then your own perception of reality and values based on that own perception colapse
Truly freedom is to realize that the world and his everything only exists because you want it to exist

>>11966515
>>11966636

I've read a fair amount of Quine, including Word and Object. I don't know of anything in there that supports Nietszche's views. And certainly not anything that "There's no truth", which Quine would ridicule as the nonsense that it is. (Pretty sure Nietszche didn't think that either, but who cares)

Anyways, you wanna spell out the argument that brought you to these profound conclusions. You can cite Q&O page numbers if you want, I've got the book on my shelf.

>>11970282
I'm under the impression that my room's pitch black right now and I can't seem to think that it is otherwise. I finally worked up the resolve to just pretend like I can see and walked confidently forward but I almost immediately tripped over a chair. What am I doing wrong, anon? pls help

>>11970452
You should know the differences bewteen the material understanding of what it is in front of you and can be understand easily by using your senses.
And the philosophical and abstract understanding of something so complex like the world, or society, or the universe, that cannot be understand by the use of your human senses

And turn the fucking lights on

>>11970500
So what's the cutoff point? My room is mundane and simple and obvious, and therefore is immune to my will. Can I understand the sun by my human senses? I can certainly see it. If I become more ignorant do I gain more power? Should I blind myself, deafen myself, cut off my nose, cut out my tongue, and cauterize my entire body to become a celestial being?

>>11965101

I am here too lads. I was saved. Fuck them all, even good old Schoup. I am going to do some wild shit niggers. It's time to head south.

>>11970544
>My room is mundane and simple and obvious, and therefore is immune to my will

Not necessarily, you can destroy your room by brute force and tools

If I become more ignorant do I gain more power?

Why do you think that the creation of your own interpretation of your surroundings is to blind yourself while the adoption of others interpretation of their sorroudings isn't?

>>11965136
So what are you taking about? Explain it. What do you mean there is no a priori?

>>11965101
Zizek is true freedom

I cant tell if Nietzsche actually had any significant contribution to philosophy or not

the memes have eaten my head

>>11970577
Yeah sure I can destroy it but I can't do lots of things with it like turn it into a banana when I blink my eyes. Why did you think I meant destroy it lol.

>If I become more ignorant do I gain more power?

That's what you seemed to suggest.

>Why do you think that the creation of your own interpretation of your surroundings is to blind yourself while the adoption of others interpretation of their sorroudings isn't?

Why does your interpretation of your surroundings lead you to believe there are others?

>>11970618
>That's what you seemed to suggest.

No, i didn't

>Why does your interpretation of your surroundings lead you to believe there are others?

Because i decide to believe that history has existed, and other people capable of thinking too
Im not sure if that's correct, but i decide to believe it because other suppositions seems less accurate

>>11970630
>no I didn't

Just respond to the hypothetical I gave as a critique of your "cannot be understood by human sense" statement. Nobody thinks you're smart because you can skirt around a rebuttal.

And *why* do you decide to believe in history? In part because of your senses, and observations. Therefore you do not have total control over your perception.

>>11970661
>Nobody thinks you're smart because you can skirt around a rebuttal.

What?

>And *why* do you decide to believe in history? In part because of your senses, and observations. Therefore you do not have total control over your perception.

No, not at all. Because is fun and is too much of a responsability to believe that history doesn't exist.
Now, if we asume that even if to not belive history exist is imposible for an individual, their own way of believing becomes an interpretation even that the individual decides to manufacture or is manufacture by other individuals
As the current understanding of history is based on a linear way, while history itself isn't
necessarily linear but is more of a bunch of variables colluding to each other, but we haven't reach a point where we discover how to use of language to understand it in that way

You seem to be really willing to try to validate others perspective, but not your own

>>11968835
>The idea being expressed is bigger than the grammar used to express it.
Que sçay-je?

>>11965773
>No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus

You're a fucking idiot.

First of all, Neitzsche did not "espouse evil". He was famously skeptical of the concept of "evil". In line with his usual motivational self-help bullshit, Nietzsche said "evil" was a word that people used to express their own weakness and resentments.

The concept of evil had already been thoroughly examined by philosophers from various backgrounds, and Nietzsche was by no means the first philosopher to express skepticism about the concept. The Neoplatonists, for example, rejected the idea that evil existed, defining it negatively as a privation of substance and form.

As for "espousing evil", Nietzsche was not the first philosopher to advocate "immoral" behavior either. Look at gnostics such as Ophites and Carpocrates, who urged their followers to flout the commandments as proof of the incorruptibility of the soul. Or any of the hundreds of philosophers who had already rejected the moral doctrines of religion, notably Hobbes and Machiavelli.

>saying the poststructuralist and analytic philosophers have both plagiarized Nietzsche

Nietzsche wrote in a highly literary style, and made sweeping unverifiable claims about the falsity of almost everything he didn't agree with. Therefore it's easy to draw connections between his quotations and later works.

> his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics
This is so unbelievably stupid I am now convinced you're trolling.

>>11970015
Don't have anything else to add, thanks for the talk.

>>11965101
didn't read the thread, seems gay, just become christian anon,

>>11968835
If there were no truth, how could that mechanic know how to fix your car?

>>11968279
>lumping in Peterson and Dawkins with Zizek
Peak pseud

ITT:
S E E T H I N G Christ cucks

>>11968279
>he thinks Dawkins didn’t contribute to biology or make poignant arguments against humanistic evo bio

>>11968820
>All that is is whatever I want.
>The kind of meaning you mean is the meaning we make ourselves, which OP addresses in literally the sentence after the one you quoted.
pretty sure nietzsche didn't mean that to create meaning one must literally lie/create meaning out of some will-to-deception... to nietzsche, the meaning of life was joy

>>11968820
>You misunderstand philosophy and are just using it to satisfy some petty urge.
misunderstanding nietzsche, who himself said he was not meant to be understood, is not misunderstanding "philosophy" as a whole, you stupid fuck
nietzsche wasn't even a philosopher in the proper sense of the term

>>11971227
>nietzsche wasn't even a philosopher

True

People who like Nietzsche are insecure people who feel disempowered in their lives and want to find a way to get rid of those feelings. Nietzsche's motivational writings resonate with them because he not only diagnoses their own insecurities, he projects those insecurities onto the rest of the human population.

>>11971260
No wonder he's so boring.

>>11970243
I've known the fragments through weekly service attendance and some partial readings over the years, but only recently began to read it in a structured way. I haven't gone through the whole of it yet, but what I have gone through already grounds me in me beliefs.
It probably sounds flat, but the only sure thought I have is that life is something given to me, so I should rejoice and live it according to these simple values without any particular aims of becoming an übermensh and similar fantazies.

>>11965101
Go back and read Hegel

>>11968987
brainlet

>>11965101
The way of being free leads through accepting that you don't know everything and that your view (and others views) may be (and even are probably) biased.

It's not like there is no thruth, there is some kind of objective truth... problem is that people often avoid it as they can...

I'll give you an example:
- Terminating life of another human would be considered murder.
- Prohibiting abortion for women would be considered tyrrany.
- Therefore terminating life of another human while in prenatal state would be considered "not a murder" because society want's to promote it, but don't want to promote murder.

=> Women gets angry when you say abortion is technically murder.
=> People are gettin prosecuted when saying abortion is murder.

Problem isn't the lack of objective thruth, problem is that we are not accepting it and most of it we don't even know kiddo.

>>11965169
This. go carnivore and watch the world unfold in your mind

Laughing so hard rn 10/10 bait OP got everyone

>>11965174
>Penées
lol

>>11967821
yes, you meme-spouting fuck
the eternal return is an absurdist view of time and space
even nitsch himself says that his philosophy is built upon nihilism
now shut the fuck up and repent for your sins, you enlightenment-adhering pornography consumer

>no meaning
OP, somehow after years of reading philosophy and Nietzsche, you've completely missed his point. That is, that in the absence of a higher spirituality, it is necessary for people to forge an individual sense of meaning and morality.

Either you've wasted your time or you're lying to inflate your ego. I'm going to assume the latter

>>11971863
>even nitsch himself says that his philosophy is built upon nihilism
Source?

Some of you need to learn the basic ethics of so-called discussion.
The thing I think of funny is people with no self thought of subjects, for example OP is ready to cite every ''virgule'' out of the books he has read, does that mean he undestands them the way the author intended them to be? Probably not.
Praising oneself with the number of books one had seen and memorized(but and read and understood) is against the teachings of the wisest of metaphisicans and moralists, for your ego is closing your box of consciusness and doubt, it opens the trash can of delusion and outer thought, which is most often evil. One has to leave the cave, but that doesn't mean he can't reenter now full of consciousness, for there are other deluded souls(everyone in this thread, including me)
>>11971876
Is correct.

>>11970573
the real image this was based upon?

>>11971739
>=> People are gettin prosecuted when saying abortion is murder.
sauce

>>11972154
I'm sorry it was just a thought experiment i have no sauce cause sth so fucked up as that probably never happened.

I choose this topic to use it in it so that it would be easy to understand not because its true.

>>11972214
>so that it would be easy to understand not because its true.
are you some sort of a progressive liberal or something?

>>11965101
okay lol

>>11969131
>>11969096
May I join your discussion?

As far as I can see there is no "philosophical" difference between the rational numbers and the irrationals. You say Pi is not a number but merely constructed through operations, surely the same applies to rational numbers.

The way we notate and understand rational numbers is through division, not a number directly.

You can even go further and say that the naturals are merely constructed by addition and multiplication and the only numbers that really exist are 0 and 1.

Similar thing with complex numbers, negative numbers... the only difference in all cases is the coneptual complexity. So if it seems simple we consider it a number directly without thinking carefully about how we constructed it.

>>11965101
No. That wasn't his point.
His point is that the search for truth requires a desire for truth ; that this desire can be harmful if it itself is wrongly motivated. Analysis of said motivations, among others, was the objective of his work.
He wasn't arguing there was no such thing as truth.

>>11965101
If you had to read theedgy German man larping as a Polack noble to understand there's no ultimate meaning in anything, bruh, you're pretty dumb.

>>11972795
This is my favorite type of discussion. Time for me to tag in boys

Books Mu and Nu of Metaphysics and Book X of Euclid’s Elements seem particularly applicable here.

Books Mu and Nu- defines ‘archetypal numbers’. This is particularly endemic to the discussion at hand and what were talking about. The idea that the CONCEPT of the number exists before the actual defined number is mirrored in Euclids Elements. In some ways you could say that Geometry is really just an analogy for the concrete ‘ideas’ or archetypal numbers behind the numbers themselves. After all, a triangle is defined BEFORE a unit is.

Book X - Euclid defines Irrational numbers with the help of rational numbers. The idea that something exists that can’t be defined or concretely explained is endemic to that book, but the only way the concepts exist is through the definitions of rational numbers. You cannot explain the irrational without the rational. This principle is mirrored in real life: conceptually, linguistically it makes sense.

I was talking the other day to a woman about this, Leanne. She said that truth is subjective, as most people do, or that Pantheism exists, with some kind of temporal attachment to the earth. As opposed to quoting verses from a religious text, I merely pointed to the fact that there are objective truths, and used mathematics, specifically the definitions of Euclid’s Elements to prove this. As such, if there are parallels between reality and constructions of our mind, then shapes are like the objective moral truths of reality: you cannot change their definitions no matter how much you try. She then proceeded to ask how it was that I could prove reality mirrored these ideas, or constructions. I said look at the shape of the Moon or the Earth, or even your Iris that you see through, they are all the shape of Proclus’ idea of infinity: a circle. Technically speaking any other shape is inferior due to its finitude. And in this way you can see how the unlimited persists with various bounds set by God. The same way our lives and history have worked thus far

>>11972842
>Imblying """Nietzsche""" was German

Dont get me wrong, chosen one or not, I respect big daddy N and his work, but he's about as Aryan as your local deli owner.

>>11972795
To clarify a little, the reason they are called "irrational" is because, for example, we struggle to convert some square root numbers to the more familiar fractional numbers. When you think about it however, there is no real reason to assume that these two unrelated operations should have the same codomain.

And the negative numbers arise from subtraction, at least I don't see how to conceptualize negative numbers other than as subtraction from positive ones (or as is common notation, zero.)

Any operation on some domain that is not closed and whose range is not a subset of already known numbers gives rise to a new kind of number.

>>11970451
>you wanna spell out the argument that brought you to these profound conclusions
lol how can he. He's already denied the existance of truth. He can't really argue anything at this point

>>11972856
>thinks aryan is a real category
>>>/pol/

>>11972873
t. Cant into entry level genetics and historical/anthropological linguistics

>>11965692
>>11965773
For what it´s worth - out of encountering the outmost enlightment, occuring this past summer after facing the tragedy of my life. I gained one insight about Nietsche. I have never studied Nietsche at all. But what one has to know is that at a certain level of non-dualistic commencement, since time is out of the equation, everything that has an answer - has been answered. Thus - when asking "what did nietsche see" - (in the way questions are asked with the answer already seen). The answer was "This".

I asked this because in one instance during this personal death a quote or saying entered my mind about the Nietschean ubermensch.

Even if laughed at, my intention for this post is just to confirm that - if you´d ask me - indeed you are onto something.

This knowledge is defied by my lacking knowledgeability about Nietsczhe. But in the way the sincerity of what I´m writing this out of inescapebly fixes your attention to the post, this same intentionality can be (queitly) tried on Nietsches texts for approval of these very qualities I´m writing of. It is the Truth.

And if it´s not apparent yet what I´m talking of i think Nietsche was enlighthened.

Sorry for ranting post - I am quite tired. And not at all in any enlightened state what so ever any more... Cheers.

>>11972795

I agree, rationals are also constructed through operations. *Every* number, indeed, every object we can conceptualize, is constructed through operations; they are defined by their relationship with other concepts that we possess. However, I was just trying to demonstrate how the rationals, which anon seemed to already agree were conceivable, could be used to construct the irrationals in a conceivable fashion.The difference between the two is that irrationals are constructed from the rationals, but not visa versa. I don't know if you want to call that a philosophical difference or not, up to you really.

>>11973250
Hm, I'm not sure how 0 and 1 would be constructed from more basic mathematical objects. It seems to me they arise from pure intuition.
That the naturals are all alike and 2 also arises from pure intuition I could see, but if you want to construct things with operations you need some inputs to get started.

>>11973523
This guy gets it. First the concepts like Unity (1) and duality (2) are formed, and then lesser concepts like additive qualities. This is the reason why 0 cannot be formed first. As a matter of fact zero might be an extremely lesser concept, akin to nihilism philosophically. It is developed last. Neither Euclid nor Archimedes nor Apollonius ever explored zero.

>>11973553
>nihilism
There I related it to the OP again. It all comes back. Zero is the equivalence of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

>>11967693
>Implying universes aren't greater than others
>Implying control is equal
HAHAHHAHAHA

>>11971227
I did not call you incapable of philosophy because you can't understand Nietzsche
Ironically, the fact you reached this conclusion is, as well, due to your incompatibility with philosophy

>>11967592
>programmatic desire
And this desire to get rid of programming desire isn't a natural desire? It should be as soon as you encounter this idea of natural will and nihilism. The endstate isn't your endstate, it's gods endstate.

>>11971227
I want you to reread this post and tell me if it makes any sense.

Based objectivity posters in this thread, relating objective morals with objective archetypal mathematical concepts prevalent in reality by the nature of how it’s constructed.

Cringe subjectivity posters

>>11967916
>I don't take any ideology seriously, I just wear them like costumes!
Have fun never committing to anything.

>>11973553
> zero might be an extremely lesser concept
I would not judge how foundational a concept is by how long it took to develop.
0 is the foundation of the peano approach and many other formalisms of the naturals as well as the multiplicative identity which is quite a foundational operation even if not as immediately obvious as addition.

>>11970687
>You seem to be really willing to try to validate others perspective, but not your own
Yeah, because your opinion clearly isn't one held by Christianity. Kill yourself pseud.

>>11971202
>to nietzsche, the meaning of life was joy
Big disagree here. The uberman is not the "happiest" man.
Also, you're unconsciously stuck in nihilism. You're implying that to create meaning, one must first be wrong about actually having found "meaning" - This only makes sense if we have a reason to disregard any point in life, which we don't.

>>11973591
What am I even saying, additive identity is what I meant of course.

>>11973591
It is imperative in modern mathematics, but just because it is doesn’t mean it is essential.

For instance, empty sets (which are equivalent to the number zero) are absolutely necessary for various rigorous proofs in set theory.

Just because I understand that the entirety of Game Theory rests on this principle, doesn’t mean anything. As a matter of fact, as a general rule, the more a proof relies on the number zero, the more watery I assume it is. Various sorts of reasons in this direction lead me to prefer Game Theory to indifference curve analysis for this very reason (that it rests less on the optimization of zero slope values [for the different second-order partials] in order to come to its conclusions). For instance a zero sum two person or zero sum tree person Game are all explored without the EXTREMELY lesser concepts of infinity and zero.

If you don’t understand how infinity or zero is a lesser concept then you won’t get why I prefer Nicomachus to Proclus, or Oskar Morgenstern to Vilfredo Pareto.

Much like philosophy or anything else, you don’t have to approve every direction the field is headed in.

You’re not going to hear this from brainwashed PhD students

>>11966536
Level 4 introduces punctuation.

>>11973618
Well, I feel the same about infinity. Can't construct it so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist.

>>11973781
Yeah infinity is a lesser concept

> There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity.
Maybe because you ARE the godhead after all and this is all a dream created by you to grow and have a little fun. Maybe westerners are properly melancholic and depressed all the time and champions of Nihilism because pic related.

>>11973523

I'd say there *is* definitely an input, your sensory perception, but I'm not sure that's enough to give rise to a "first concept". But I made no claim that it was. What I do believe is that 0 and 1 only exist in contrast to one another. 0 is 0 and 1 is 1 because 0+1=1. Maybe that is intuition, I don't know, haven't really thought about it.

>>11973781

Yes but infinity as a process does exist, no? Infinity is a shorthand for "do this an arbitrarily long time". At least the countable one, at any right. The others are more complicated, but they all describe a particular process.

>>11965101
You know I think OP really hit something with this post. Not some ground-breaking philosophical revelation, but more or less that he summed up what we all think. This post is the least common denominator, the bare minimum of all philosophy. What everyone has said in this thread - myself included - is a reaction to a most debilitating truth: that we cannot formulate anything more profound than this. We go back and forth, bantering, arguing with each other, but when all is said and done whatever personal philosophy we espouse is superfluous. Look at the sheer number of posts - ironic or not - entailing the "juvenile" aspect of what OP says, or how you knew this as a teenager. Even if Nietzsche didn't say exactly what OP thought, has anyone else? I mean before him for sure, and perhaps even afterward. There is no more positive philosophy, for even those who ardently stay away from Nietzsche and the like only chase each other's tails with new jargon, fancying themselves sages.

>>11972856
>>11972873
>>11973118
It's good that he wasn't part of subhuman Aryan race

>>11974045
But in order for that concept to be defined, you must define all the multiplicitous relations of the numbers beforehand.

In other words, it is the ultimate irrational concept: the sum of all rational concepts before it

I will never really understand how people can try and argue against Nietzsche's "there are no facts, only interpretations" bit. No one is omnipresent, therefore no one is omniscient, and if you aren't omniscient, how can you say that what you know is EVER fact, since knowing facts means being omniscient by necessity of what a fact is in a universe where time is a function of space?

>>11974334
>No one is omnipresent, therefore no one is omniscient
God is though

>>11974338
None of us are God, and nothing we talk about is from God, because we don't have the right hardware for it.

>>11971260
>People who like Nietzsche are insecure people who feel disempowered in their lives and want to find a way to get rid of those feelings. Nietzsche's motivational writings resonate with them because he not only diagnoses their own insecurities, he projects those insecurities onto the rest of the human population.

true

>>11973582
go jerk off to wittgenstein you analytic cunt

>>11973570
philosophy isn't some special ability that my character uses in the game of life you fucking autist

>>11965101
>nihilism

when will you realize that the lack of a set goal in life makes you truly free? depressive nihilism is for pussies and nietzsche would call you a debbie downer

thinking you're profound because you gave up is like saying you're n artist for having a blank canvas, you poser douche

your only solace is that you can change your mind

>>11966536
*tips fedora*

>>11970751
>replying to pasta

>>11965101
Your quest to free yourself from restraints has become your very shackles.

>>11968926
It's a dog-whistle to the secret society of the Argus Argentum.

>truth doesn't matter
You don't have to read all those things to understand that.

You're just mad you have to read tons of book to come to that conclusion, even people who are uninitiated in philosophy can reach to that conclusion if you discuss it with them.

You just want to feel deep, that you went beyond, that all that reading paid off, that you went out of the Matrix.

Pathetic.

>truth doesn't matter
What a stupid cunt.
>I HAVE FOUND IT, I HAVE FOUND THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH THAT TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER

This is exactly how you sound.

>>11965112
It's obvious that OP is a fag, but you should at least allow him to enjoy his naivete.

>>11965667
I invented the goyim and the npcs when I was 16. Heck, they were all the proof I needed to accept evolution.

>>11965101
boo-hoo cry me a river. whatever, i've grown bored of this "no truth, no meaning, world is shaped only by ourselves" stuff. if you truly had accepted it you would have gone along with your life instead of spamming it everywhere in an effort to internalize it.

>>11965101
> All that is is whatever I want
Congrats, you're a normie now. Get your ass to work, start a family and die on pension.

>>11965101
I'm fucking crying /lit/.

I finally figured it out, I finally understand this madman.
After years of reading the Greeks, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Quine... I finally understand what's happening. I realize the pursuit of truth is pointless. There's no truth, no meaning, no a priori, no necessity. All that is is whatever I want.

That's it lads, that's it. I'm finally free.

>>11966536
Congrats, you read your highschool science textbook.
What you don't realize is that this position takes a lot of shit for granted.
Watch this, it might be a good start
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4UbYOkE5Guk

>>11965101
YOU MISSED THE POINT!

>>11974033
No idea either.

>>11974045
Yes, it depends on the definition of infinity, induction, diverging processes etc. are all fine; an "infinite object" is absurd.
In mathematics we have "infinite sets" for example the "set of all naturals" which gives the wrong intuition to the reader, even if it can be interpreted as "a process to construct all naturals" or "consider this for any natural number" most of the time.

>>11974787
It's actually impressive how you manage to make the same mistake in every single post of yours
Let me put it into the kind of hostile speech you understand: You're an insecure little shit that tells himself the people around him are all retards so you can feel better about yourself, making you interpret whatever people say in the most inane way possible to you so that you don't have to deal with the discomfort of getting blown the fuck out for as long as you can weasel away with some utterly deluded idea like that somebody you'd meet online would unironically consider philosophy a game ability you either have or don't.

I was saying your mindset is not suited to philosophizing.

>>11977345
Don’t act like anyone here doesn’t know what a natural number is, these concepts are inherently weak, infinity doesn’t prove anything concrete or useful

>>11977345
An infinite set is just a permutation of all natural numbers

>>11965101
...wake up, youre in another prison

>>11965101
>I'm fucking crying /lit/. I finally figured it out, I finally understand. After years of reading the Greeks, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Quine... I finally understand what's happening. I realize [opinion]. That's it lads, that's it. I'm finally free.

*ahem*


"ethos"

>>11965101
>All that is is whatever I want.
But this is meaningless too. Is there any meaning anywhere, in anything?

>>11965101
Sophist!

Imo thats not the point at all, if you look at the developments of modernity one could say that what nietzsche describes is the following:
1- what we are experiencing right now (when he wrote his shit) is the realization of the death of god, this is double headed: non answer of prayers, and actual potential of an unleashed humanity. The first causes existential distress, (russian lit), the second causes anxiety for action, this is better exemplified in the early XX vanguards.

2- on the terms of the reconfiguration of values and morals, this is also something he is describing as a development of his epoche, the colonial and imperial ages had brought on an interest on theology that was reshaping itself as what is now known as perennialism and/or western esoterism. Of course both can be rooted back to rennaissance, but they reached peak form around the end of the 1800s. The surge of anthropology in this era mixed with this and this was the bedrock for psychology, propaganda, and the study of the forces within the human soul.

This two things collided in the early 1900s and what they provoked was a theologization of politics, politics become infatuated with the immanentization of the eschaton. There's no rejection to any of the cultural and moral values that western civ had developed over the years, in fact there is a deepening of them all, they cease to be the unreacheable wonder, to become something to be exploited, to be turned into a tool, a big power that humans can harness to bring forth the "end of the world" (the start of paradise) this is reflected in a mirror-like approach, on the one hand the harness of natural forces in the form of industrialization, is used to transfigurate the body of the state, on the other hand, the harness of the natural forces inside humanity, in the form of propaganda, drugs, human experimentation, and mass psychology, is used to transfigurate the soul of the state.

This is also i think why he became crazy, he might have had a vision of all the horror this caused; of how the world was unstoppably heading towards high-tech human massacre and enslavement to appease the gods (the irrational forces within the human spirit).

>>11979508
Also in this same line of thought its interesting to ask why this didnt happen to the US in such an extreme sense

>>11977955
my only mistake is replying to your stupid troll ass
you're right, i read philosophy to not be stupid so that i don't let stupid judgemental people like you get to me

read some deleuze, you stupid fuck

>>11968820
>>11973570
>>11977955
in fact, it's you who misunderstand 'philosophy,' since for you philosophy is simply atheism

>>11965101
so your end philosophy is to return to your base desires

ahaha

>>11973584

You don't understand anon, not committing to any one ideology IS my commitment. And it's not a "mask" if you understand the ideas.

I follow my intuition, but roll with things as they come rather than struggle against them.

>>11965101
>he does not believe in God, who revealed the moral absolute.
enjoy your "freedom" away from Him

>>11980081
>>11980102
Every philosopher you've ever heard of has a quote somewhere mocking militant debaters like you.
Learn to interpret people favorably.

>>11980081
>you stupid fuck
>you fucking autist
>stupid troll ass
>you stupid fuck
>i read philosophy to not be stupid so that i don't let stupid judgemental people like you get to me
I can tell your journey must've only just started. Good luck with this project of yours.

>>11965883
t. Tranny faggot

>>11981573
T. Slave to biology
Btw liking nothing but whiteness is slavery too

Can someone please post this thread again once it 404s

level 69: make a lot of money and use it on whores.

>>11965101
Congratulations.

>>11977964
What? Infinity is not a proof, of course it does not prove anything.

Perhaps my post was badly written, change the second comma in the post to a colon. Perhaps then it makes sense to you. Infinity was not meant to be among the list of fine things.

>>11977982
Look up what permutation means.

>>11965136
>>11965131
some simply take it, others have to take a trip

>German philosophy
Eh I hope you guys don't take that too seriously.
It's all doom and gloom like everything German.
>God doesn't exist
>Do what you like
>You're a slave to your desires

>>11981722
b/a/sed and readpilled

>>11966798
>the physical universe is the manifestation of the concept of decay already, and the role time plays in that system
Are you talking about entropy? I just started learning about it.
I agree with this and I believe the next step is through our design of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. The next step of evolution jumps from organic to inorganic and with it all our human wishes will be obsolete. Uberman is maybe the next agent of tome but maybe not the ultimate agent as you put it. Uberman will be either AI or modified transhumanity.
In any case I also agree with level 5 here: >>11967524
with the endstate coming regardless of our "choices" because it's an inevitable, determined ending.

I'm not sure I understand level 6 >>11967542
But my proposal for the final state of reality is for the inorganic uberman or whatever replaces him to have the will to create a new universe with the rules he desires, making entropy obsolete and pushing existence to the next level.

>>11968428

You're still subject to the need to eat/drink (or you die), to not be killed/eaten, and the compulsion to get your rocks off, aka furthering your genes.
"Slave to your biology" might be a blunt way of phrasing it, but to argue it's totally false is nitpicking.
Thoughts and anxieties are secondary

I want to say desipite the animosity there is something beautiful going on in threads like this. Some of you don't realize how intelligent you are. You have synthesized entire philosophies and here I find it all laid bare as if it we were playing game of a chairs - lacking reverence perhaps, but still there and still shining for what it is. Maybe that itself is part of the answer. To live is to play at the meaning of life.

I speak for us lurkers when I say thank you to everyone who contributes. Sometimes I write down quotes from you Anons. I put them in my notes next to the other gems I've found, Neitsche and the like. If only you could see yourself. If only you could see your power.

>>11981957
A permutation of anything is a set of numbers pleb, that’s how a permutation works.

If I have a permutation of 1,2 it gives me a set of four numbers, 2x2.

You know nothing about math and it shows

>>11985436
>Maybe that itself is part of the answer. To live is to play at the meaning of life.
To believe in a God means to understand the question about the meaning of life.
To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter.
To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning.
The meaning of life, i.e. the meaning of the world, we can call God.
And connect with this the comparison of God to a father.
To pray is to think about the meaning of life.
To believe in a God means to understand the question about the meaning of life.
To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter.
To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning.

There's some weird shit going on with the spaces, here's hoping the posted version won't show them

>>11970015
I thought about it some more, admittedly without remembering enough of the discussion to be able to tell how much of it is a counter argument and how much just an addition to the talk.
I don't know if you've read the conversation I had with the other anon about the nature of the übermensch, but there's one notion I mentioned there that I'd like to bring over:
>If you acknowledge your idea of the übermensch as one that can't exist in reality, literally cannot exist, then I can agree with everything you're saying. If you think that, on some distant planet, at some point in time, there will exist your idea of the übermensch, I'd disagree: It'd be like saying some being out there managed to count to infinity.

To get back at the start, that is, the idea that pi exists beyond what we can measure of it by virtue of being a natural constant, and, accordingly, everything in nature being in some form "infinite," I'd like to propose the same argument as in the quote: You can approximate irrationals to any degree of precision I "could" (re: measuring uncertainty) ask of you, but you can't approximate them perfectly.
Apologies for the cloudy thought process, but basically I'm replacing the quantifiers of the n and epsilon: For any n you may name, I could give you an epsilon falling within your n's error. In other words, those approximations themselves are as unreal as irrationals, because we can't "truly" form limits of sequences. I realize this is like saying the foundations of analysis are shaky again, but hey, let's be real, they are - less jokingly, the issue I'm addressing becomes clear again when we look at pi being definite yet undefinable.

Having written it out I guess you never said it was different, so forget the counter argument aspect. For clarity, what I'm taking away from here is that the approximations for pi are, in their limit, as irrational as pi itself - naturally enough, I suppose.

>>11977982
Not him but are you saying shit like L^2 is a permutation of the natural numbers? Gonna need an explanation for that

>>11985436
>>11985476
That's from Wittgenstein by the way, guess it doesn't show that I was posting a quote

>>11985476
God is a black hole of pure nihilism. He exists only as plagiarism of all existence, a self-aggrandizing appropriation of all creativity as himself, and all as his own. God is the biggest of all possible lies an ego can make, and anything that does not affirm this lie is antagonistic to God's non-being. This includes existence itself, and so God is compelled to replace all existence with an image of himself: heaven, a state of eternal unification with his nonexistence that exists in a future that will never come, that is always in the future, a lure for his thralls to throw all purpose, meaning, and life into. The psyche of God is omniphobia: fear and hatred of all things that are not himself, omnipresent fear of the categories of other and else - and so he must claim all as himself, and all for himself. Never has a greater evil been created than the monotheistic God, the worst vices of the human spirit in a singular persona, magnified to infinite extremes.

>>11985547
For the atheist to merely dismiss God as being "not real" misses the point. He is real in the minds of his True Believers, and as they follow the will of such a tyrannical psyche, he is real in his consequences. This tyrant rules over humanity both in his anthropomorphic form and as his undead corpse, the autonomous movement of the unliving of capital, the unholy conversion of human awareness into dead matter to feed a machine of pure greed - which is the true mind of God, expressed in his believers in their infinite greed for an afterlife of eternal bliss. One cannot be a consistent anti-theist without being an anti-capitalist, to see them as one of the same, coming from the same source: the projection of pure greed onto the whole sphere of reality. We all live in the bloating, decayed corpse of a stillborn God who never lived, and we will not be free until the whole of humanity revolts against this unholy abomination in full.

>>11985487
>>11985487
It’s going to be an infinite set, length and width, brainlet. Squaring something isn’t a permutation

>>11985564
>>11985547
Look at the Nietzsche readers missing the point.

On a side note, it must be realized that the more metaphorical implications of mathematics are only gotten if you’ve studied theoretic Arithmetic through the Pythagoreans or Nicomachus. This is why it is important to read historical mathematical documents. Not because they are ‘historically necessary’ or however you think, but because you can actually talk about monads and dyads and the nature of existence instead of wallowing around in concepts like ‘natural numbers’ ‘sets’ and ‘permutations’

>>11985547
>God is a black hole of pure nihilism.
If you only choose to follow one aspect, but ignore the wholeness principle. Say, Divine perspective can replace anything, no limits. However, if you include the Divine love, Agape, you'll see something quite different.
>He exists only as plagiarism of all existence
Completely wrong. Existence can only mimic it's source, and fulfill a fraction of the initial potential.

>>11985476
>>11985895
>God
Why are you still going on about this? >>11974350 was never given a response and, apparently, shut this shit down. At this point you're just going in circles unfaithfully.

>>11965112
>There's no truth, no meaning,
Actually that's jewish "philosophy" in a nutshell. It is partly what Nietzsche has been remade into in the jewish era, but it's more a reflection of them and their nature.

>>11986241
I thought what OP meant by it was that there is no capital t Truth, or capital M Meaning, in which case, that's not a reinterpretation of Nietzsche but what the man said plainly.

>>11965155
HAH, GOT EEM

>>11965112
But which knuckledragger really thinks there are absolutes or anything a priori? How can they live with themselves?

>>11986241
>but anglonigger truth and meaning are absolutes xD

>>11974787
Yes, it literally is. And yes my power level is higher than yours. Train for a while so we can have a more interesting fight...

>>11965101
I've tears of joy. My coffee has just arrived (belatedly so) at the moment I have come to understand the Understanding.

>I forsake pornography and masturbation and premarital sex.
>I have burnt all my so-called 'formalist' essays and have returned to the intersubjective and the pleasurable and the genius outlined by Kritik der Urteilskraft.
>I shall never tell a lie again, even if it results in the death of my tamagotchi.
>Neither shall I know the thing-in-itself, which I so desperately desired to know before.

>>11985863
>Squaring something isn’t a permutation
Yeah nevermind, for a second I thought you were a math major or something. I was talking about the L2 space of functions.

And before you embarrass yourself further with something retarded like
>how should I know what you meant with L^2
You would have if you actually did any maths in your life. It's the most commonly discussed set of functions in all of calculus.

>>11965130
>not shoveling garbage and mountains of sugar down my gullet has helped me think better
well I'll say!

>>11965773
oh no, it's the quantum Nietzsche poster again

>>11986917
That post is copypasted from Orgy of the Will

>>11967693
I don't know whether this is a shitpost, but I like it nevertheless

>>11970751
You said a whole lot of nothing. Why didn't you give any quotes or names of works to back up your assertions? Also, you overlooked that "evil" was wrapped in quotes, indicating that it was referring to Nietzsche's will to power, which is regarded as "evil" by everyone who at least understands some of its effects or implications and isn't strong enough to embrace them.

>>11971628
as someone who sought God in every place except for the Bible (and learned of those dark consequences the hard way) before receiving salvation, it brings me joy to read this. this journey has no end on Earth, but the sights are beautiful, and every mile is more delightful than the last.

>>11985454
No, a permutation can never be a set since sets have no notion of order.
A permutation is usually a tuple which has the exact same number of elements as the set(or whatever else) that it permutes.

To take your example, the set of numbers {1, 2} has a permutation (1, 2) and (2, 1).
You can say it has a set of permutations {(1, 2), (2, 1)}, but it is definitely not a set of four numbers.

>>11985454
>>11985863
Sets don't have length and width.
Stop calling people pleb and brainlet when you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

>>11985895
When a Christian says that they feel God's love, they are being literal - they have conditioned themselves to perceive the physical experience of love when thinking about a fictional character. It's no different than the waifu phenomenon, or teenage girls who fall in love with celebrities despite them being only characters known about through stories and media. God is a simulacric process, representation becoming truth in its own right, that encompasses the totality of all things. Not content with mere "belief," God demands that belief becomes physically perceived reality, to love him, to weaponize the most elevated of all emotions in his war on existence. The society of the spectacle, the replacement of being with having, and having with mere appearance, is the result of a trans-dimensional informational parasite that colonizes the totality of human experience, with God as his mascot-image.

Humans are storytelling animals, we ourselves are part narrative construct (the story of the self) and part self-awareness, part character and part author, yet through this veil we can relate to others, ourselves, and reality in powerfully tangible, effective, and meaningful ways. For this reason stories are also effective weapons, and some of these stories - totalizing narratives - have grown away from the control of their original wielders, becoming mental parasites that insist on themselves, that hijack human agency to express themselves in reality through human reality and persist by being replicated from mind to mind. It is so notoriously difficult to reason with a True Believer because their beliefs aren't abstract truths that they upvote on Mindbook, but dominate their perception of reality itself, resisting any attack that subverts the domination they have on their host, diminishing self-awareness by channeling the awareness of its hosts along paths that perpetuate itself.

There is only one route to self-authorship and the liberation from mimetic parasitism: courage, the virtue from which all other virtues spring, where courage isn't the absence of fear but a response to it: a defiant turning-towards instead of a turning-away. Christians are cowards at their core, greed is ultimately the result of bottomless cowardice, the insatiable greed for eternal bliss coming from fear of death. To go over, one must go under, to face one's inner hells not as an evil but as a greatest teacher. If one reaches a state of pure existential courage, the result is a total selfless love of life, mediated by nothing other than itself, to have zero desire for an afterlife even if it were a possibility.

https://vimeo.com/129609470

https://vimeo.com/218908974