Philosophy Now Forum

The point is that the acceptance of the eternal recurrence is itself "active", while the will to power is a pathos, a passion. To "accept" the eternal recurrence" means 'willing the whole present and past to recur as will to power and nothing besides.' And this is the creati...

Well stars and galaxies are: Stars and galaxies are the universe? :shock: "The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt"? Don't be silly. You know exactly what I mean. The universe is composed of such things...and a whole lot more. And the universe is both expanding and entropic. The universe, however, ...

Entropy is another "clock," just as the universal expansion rate is a kind of "clock," that we can rewind back to the starting point. We could never rewind it all the way back, just as it will never unwind all the way. You're missing the point. Yes, we can mentally rewind the cl...

I say the Big Bang is the beginning that never began, just as the Big Chill is the ending that will never end. That's the key issue: there's no such thing as "a beginning that never began." You can see the contradiction even in the wording. If something that is contingent -- that is not i...

“If you don’t change direction, you may end up where your heading” - Lao Tzu There’s only one direction, follow your own lead - Fairy Tell that to Age, for it was him I was paraphrasing there. He seems to regard everyone who is not going in his direction—which I doubt is following his own lead, by ...

Why do 'you', the one known here as "self-lightening", believe, absolutely, that this is the only Truth? I didn't say I believed it absolutely. It's just that, as Neumann says there, "[n]othing is easier to perceive". In fact, as he exclaims in the same book, "What is clear...

Well, the Physicalist or Materialist explanation of the universe is that it appeared spontaneously. And matter was generated spontaneously, from energy. And we know that the universe did have a beginning point, even though we can't say precisely when. (We know this from things like universal expans...

No. I'm asking how it could ever come about in the first place. I admit, you did say "how", not "why". But then, I don't owe anyone an explanation of that, since I reject your very premise: that at some point it didn't exist and at some later point it did exist. Well, the Physic...

Well, if no God made anything, then nothing objectively has a meaning at all, of course. The most we could say is that people like to imagine there is meaning where there cannot possibly be any objective reality to that impression at all. In the sense that man was not made intentionally and therefo...

Well, meaning is a mental phenomenon. One cannot say, "What is the meaning of this boulder," or "What is the meaning of snow?" One certainly cannot say, "What is the meaning of wood (or of paper)?" Even the black squiggles on the paper aren't meaning -- a person who do...

"Paper" is not "argument." "Paper" is composed of wood. An argument is composed of meaning, I see... Carry on! :roll: Well, meaning is a mental phenomenon. One cannot say, "What is the meaning of this boulder," or "What is the meaning of snow?" One ...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 12:45 pm"Paper" is not "argument." "Paper" is composed of wood. An argument is composed of meaning,

I see... Carry on!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 2:17 pmmy insistence that I KNOW God exists

Talk about arrogant...

But let me ask you this, instead: if we, to whom you are arguing, have no free will, no volition, then how do you expect us to change our minds? According to your theory, the only reason we think what we think, at any given time, is because "natural law" made us think what we think. So we...

"But there is absolutely nothing contradicting about that" This is true, yes. That's not the word i was lookin for. What i was tryna mean was that the determinist can't become perturbed at the freewillist while at the same time admitting that it's determined that he not believe in determi...