The Antichrist

[Arising_uk]

Again you've gotten instances confused, you don't know what you're talking about of which I refer. As usual you argue with yourself!

Then learn to use the quote function correctly or make yourself clearly understood, as I can only reply to what I see. I can't second-guess what post you thought you were referring too, only the one that you quote.

[Arising_uk]

Now the dumb ploy, you couldn't be real if your life depended on it. You think you're so damned intelligent, yet as to my meaning I see you continually spinning around in circles chasing your tail.

This is exactly what I mean about you. Paranoid and insecure, seeing attacks upon your intellectual prowess all the time. This is a philosophy forum numbnuts and I'm interested in peoples explanations of things as I pretty know what I don't understand so look for discussions to inform my thoughts. You made a claim that I did not understand that scientists, like you, believed in true objects and not invisible ones. I made the claim that Physics has abandoned the concept of Truth for the concept of Probably True, based upon study and meeting physicists, so your claim seemed a bit odd. They also believe in invisible objects and forces like atoms, electrons and gravity so your claim that they don't believe in invisible objects also appeared odd? You then tell me that I'm wrong and its because I don't understand time, and you're right, I have a very hazy grasp of the concept, so I asked you to explain. But once again your emotions affect you and off you go with your psycho-babble.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Again you've gotten instances confused, you don't know what you're talking about of which I refer. As usual you argue with yourself!

Then learn to use the quote function correctly or make yourself clearly understood, as I can only reply to what I see. I can't second-guess what post you thought you were referring too, only the one that you quote.

Again it's you comprehension problem to which I'm referring!

[chaz wyman]

Again you've gotten instances confused, you don't know what you're talking about of which I refer. As usual you argue with yourself!

Then learn to use the quote function correctly or make yourself clearly understood, as I can only reply to what I see. I can't second-guess what post you thought you were referring too, only the one that you quote.

Again it's you comprehension problem to which I'm referring!

Learn to use the quote function correctly!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Now the dumb ploy, you couldn't be real if your life depended on it. You think you're so damned intelligent, yet as to my meaning I see you continually spinning around in circles chasing your tail.

This is exactly what I mean about you. Paranoid and insecure, seeing attacks upon your intellectual prowess all the time. This is a philosophy forum numbnuts and I'm interested in peoples explanations of things as I pretty know what I don't understand so look for discussions to inform my thoughts. You made a claim that I did not understand that scientists, like you, believed in true objects and not invisible ones. I made the claim that Physics has abandoned the concept of Truth for the concept of Probably True, based upon study and meeting physicists, so your claim seemed a bit odd. They also believe in invisible objects and forces like atoms, electrons and gravity so your claim that they don't believe in invisible objects also appeared odd? You then tell me that I'm wrong and its because I don't understand time, and you're right, I have a very hazy grasp of the concept, so I asked you to explain. But once again your emotions affect you and off you go with your psycho-babble.

So am I the only one that has understood from the beginning that we merely don't understand one another most of the time. I said so, remember, that you and I just don't get along? You failed to understand and went off on some tangent about this being a philosophy forum or such.

I believe that it's pretty obvious that neither of us understands the other a lot of the time.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Again you've gotten instances confused, you don't know what you're talking about of which I refer. As usual you argue with yourself!

Then learn to use the quote function correctly or make yourself clearly understood, as I can only reply to what I see. I can't second-guess what post you thought you were referring too, only the one that you quote.

Again it's you comprehension problem to which I'm referring!

Learn to use the quote function correctly!!

I do, are you blind?

[Mike Strand]

Philosophy has been defined as "conceptual engineering". This implies a dispassionate, logical exploration of the consequences of various sets of assumptions about a subject and the meanings of words used to state those assumptions.

Would it be a good idea for people to try to read N's "The Anti-Christ(ian)" with the aim of trying to pin down the assumptions N is making about Christianity and the meanings of his key words, to see if the conclusions he draws are justified? He seems to get carried away with polemics and posturing (as in his saying his book is for the special few), and it may be instructive, though difficult, to wade through his writing and try to pick out the essence of his reasoning.

His conclusions may prove to be ugly to anyone who is for compassion and living the golden rule. But how did he live his life? I get the impression his pen was "louder" than his personal behavior. Ironically, he suffered severe illnesses which might have led to him being euthanized, if any friend of his had taken some of his pronouncements concerning the "weak" seriously.

[chaz wyman]

Philosophy has been defined as "conceptual engineering". This implies a dispassionate, logical exploration of the consequences of various sets of assumptions about a subject and the meanings of words used to state those assumptions.

Would it be a good idea for people to try to read N's "The Anti-Christ(ian)" with the aim of trying to pin down the assumptions N is making about Christianity and the meanings of his key words, to see if the conclusions he draws are justified? He seems to get carried away with polemics and posturing (as in his saying his book is for the special few), and it may be instructive, though difficult, to wade through his writing and try to pick out the essence of his reasoning.

His conclusions may prove to be ugly to anyone who is for compassion and living the golden rule. But how did he live his life? I get the impression his pen was "louder" than his personal behavior. Ironically, he suffered severe illnesses which might have led to him being euthanized, if any friend of his had taken some of his pronouncements concerning the "weak" seriously.

The assumptions reflect a clear understanding of the impact of Christian values as they negatively impact on the individual and his thus subservient role imposed on him. Those assumptions, dispassionate or not were clearly understood then, and have been largely transcended through the 20thC as the church as continued to lose influence and power over its minions. Nietzsche's works remain a warning lest we should allow ourselves to descend into that sort of obedience again.

Sadly we are not all heeding the words and the US for one is turning its back on freethinking whilst more of its citizens succumb to the indoctrination of religion.

[Mike Strand]

Arsenic and Old Lace is a 1944 comedic film directed by Frank Capra based on Joseph Kesselring's play of the same name. It tells the story of a couple of sweet-acting old maids who might have made Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche proud. In the interests of "Christian charity", they invited lonely old men without family and meaningful futures into their home, treated them kindly, gently killed them with poisoned elderberry wine, and buried them in the cellar. In their view, they had sent these sad old men on to a better life in heaven.

In the story, the two old ladies end up happily retired to a rest home for the insane.

Were these ladies doing evil? What do you think? What would Fred Nietzsche have thought?

[chaz wyman]

Arsenic and Old Lace is a 1944 comedic film directed by Frank Capra based on Joseph Kesselring's play of the same name. It tells the story of a couple of sweet-acting old maids who might have made Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche proud. In the interests of "Christian charity", they invited lonely old men without family and meaningful futures into their home, treated them kindly, gently killed them with poisoned elderberry wine, and buried them in the cellar. In their view, they had sent these sad old men on to a better life in heaven.

In the story, the two old ladies end up happily retired to a rest home for the insane.

Were these ladies doing evil? What do you think? What would Fred Nietzsche have thought?

he would have completely rejected their raison d'etre. Nietzsche did not accept that the victims were off to paradise.
Nietzsche would not have been proud of them.

[Mike Strand]

OK, let's change the characters a little. Let's say the two old ladies were atheists and believed merely that the old men whom they poisoned to death were better off in the grave (eternal rest and peace).

[chaz wyman]

OK, let's change the characters a little. Let's say the two old ladies were atheists and believed merely that the old men whom they poisoned to death were better off in the grave (eternal rest and peace).

I still don't think N would condone murder. He might think the women would do well to humiliate the pathetic loafers to make something of their lives, not play god.
N advocated the notion of the eternal recurrence, where each moment of one's life ought to be led as if one had to live it all again. The victims of the little old ladies need a rocket up their arse to get them to do something worthwhile - not for their lives to be terminated.

[artisticsolution]

Man, Lance...I know what you mean about being out of the loop! I was gone for not even a day and this thread is a mile long! I don't think I will be able to catch up...lol.

Hi Mike,

Arsenic and old lace? Never saw it...but do you think N is capable of murder or condoning murder? I mean, yeah...the guy probably didn't win any popularity contests, but murder? I don't think he would have condoned murder.

Although...I doubt if he would have shed any tears if the people he despised died. But that is not the same as murder.....or condoning murder.

[lancek4]

quote="SpheresOfBalancequote="lancek4"]

I'm glad that we have developed a good discussion here but some of the posts are so insanely long, it prohibits me from catching up, being that I dispise reading at length through a computer screen.

Nevertheless, from what I have gleaned -

N reduces existence to an 'unwilled' basis that stems from and reaches 'beyond good and evil ' , beyond morality.
Unwilled is that of stars, planets and asteroids, Man has a computer called a brain and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything he considers to be unwilled, in the considering their is will.

Thus truth, being founded only upon an ethical scheme,
Good and Evil and an ethical scheme are one in the same thing.

his readers should have the fortitude to have made this 'unwilled' move to reàlly understand him.
Incorrect, because it's impossible for any human to do this, everyone brings preconceived ideas to the table, or their will, if you will. he he he!

Thus N is speaking from an unjustified or totally justified position that can only be truely known by one who is not looking for or from the morally informed position that argues the transcending object of truth.
Incorrect, he himself said: "A new conscience for truths that have kept silent until now." as to what his "Anti-Christ" brings to the table.

Such a reader has no 'idols', no illusion of objective truth to be gained, for this possibility has been removed in the unwilled move itself.
I have absolutely no idols either yet I find T A-C 2 to be evil, bad, incorrect, ethically wrong, etc. No such thing as an unwilled move, the move itself would be willed, as would every consideration from that willed perspective. Every perspective is willed. "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

The reason N position is no longer ( if it ever was ) solute is because the object has achieved dominion. The relative equalizing movement of capitalism has eliminated the need for the subject, thus the true object is realized in the common goal of human equality.

This is the same dialectic that K uses to discuss Abraham in 'fear and trembling'. The point is that there Is a teleological suspension, but the move of the transcending true object denies this suspension. So K asks of faith, and asserts that no one had the faith of Abraham; indeed they all have the faith of Issac.

As I have said else where a few times: sob, you and I are like two sides of a coin. The above postings. ( yours and mine) are evidence of this - and are perfect examples of N proposition (ironically). The evidence is consistent with the fact that you do not see this.
Anyone can deny anything by simply issuing a blanket statement, saying that it's not true, so what? It's meaningless! Everything I said above in red is true! If truly not, you'd be capable of addressing each individual statement above any telling me why it's not true, the reason you don't is because you can't.
When you pick up his book that's will, as you train your eyes that's will, as you move your eyes from left to right, top to bottom that's will, when you see any connection at all contained withing the combination of words, that's willed, as you had to first learn each and every word, which was a product of will, with human beings 'everything they do is willed. You cannot detach yourself from will. You simply willed that he is good and that you'd believe, because he is a philosopher, he is considered a part of the curriculum. And I did too, initially, until I saw section 2, I like you had willed that I would read him and that I would certainly learn from him, that I would like him, as he was a great thinker of philosophy, until he said that the 'weak should perish and that we should help them do so.' In other words until he said to kill the weak, the weak being christians, There are absolutely no circumstance where I'd will killing, intellectually speaking, which is what this book is supposed to stimulate, the intellect! Emotionally distraught I may will such things, but intellectually, never. Section 2 is short and nothing contained within it alludes to his meaning as anything other than the exact meaning of the words. If you can find a passage in the book that alludes to any other particular meaning, point it out. I am "WILLING" to reconsider.

"Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action." --Wikipedia--

will 2 /wɪl/ [wil] noun, verb, willed, will·ing.
noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will. --© Random House, Inc. 2012.--

You are object oriented, positioned in a world of true objects. Every statement you make reveals this. And the fact that you deny this, the fact that you see the infinite universe reflected or manifest in our potential for knowing, defacto relegated you to the universal in the kierkegaardian sense.

What you say is mumbo jumbo, you believe in fairy tales, your words are those of the superstitious, you see pink elephants in the sky. All of Science sees the true object as that's all there is, in that all there is are objects, and when you die and no longer exist as at true object that you in fact are, the truth will become apparent, albeit a bit too late!

You fail to understand the issue because you have no problem with the true object. It is your faith; the faith of Issac.
No yours is the faith if Issac, as you believe in invisible things, I, like the men of science believe in the true object, what is real. Einstein, Sagan, Da Vinci, Galileo and Hawking, to name a few, believe in the true object, I'm in good company!

I'll prove it, if objects are not true, in and of them selves, and are merely subjective as to ones mind. Make my car fly! Come on, in your ridiculously small mind, of invisible subjectivity, make my car fly, you can't because the object is true, in and of itself! No matter what any pea brain can subjectively say about that car, it still functions EXACTLY as the true object, that in fact it is, no faith is required. PERIOD!!!!!



[/quote][/quote]
I have attempted to prove or explain it to you elsewhere, but at some point along the line you resort to your faith and assert the Truth. Our discussion ends. And thereby in our (mine and yours) dialectic reveal the substance of N proposition, which is the existential issue, that you cannot, that is, are incapable of seeing because your orientation upon reality is toward the true object. I say nothing of 'objective' or 'subjective' because these terms have been 'commandeered' into the discourse of the true object.

I am not saying there is no actual thing that we call a car, I am saying that you cannot prove to me the car without relying upon an assumption of a common humanity, a faith.

You are conflating issues that have no barring here. Because you don't understand the issue. Faith makes truth. You do not understand the issue of existence. Nor do you seem to want to. You would rather see a hostile world and defend yourself. There is little risk in the true object, only pessimism and faith (and hope).

You do not understand the issue. Thus you and I in discussion about truth always reveal N propisition.


Part of the problem is that you propose to yourself that I exist is a particular way or manner and so you discount what I say in your being offended and say that I am not real or live in some fantasyland. You cannot imagine the considtency of my statements correlating to the same existence as yourself. Instead of attributing me existence as valid you defensively designate me insane or delusional. And this is consistent with one who has faith in the true object: it is a faith in transcendence which grants a mythological privilege for ones self ; that which dehumanizes what is offensive. I explain you as a total human, totally existing somehow the same as all else.

[lancek4]

The question of the world events, such as how can we allow such and such violence to occur , is improperly or imprecisely phrased. The question is what is it of my knowledge that contributes to me understanding or is informing me of that such and such situation of violence is the way it is.