He performs sexual favors to Only Humean.
Before the gods I proclaim that such is my experience, and that this is why I am so in love with the world.
It is my pride and joy to awaken sparks in men and women and children and even animals, and my gratitude to those that spark storms in me is infinite.
Ah, beautifully said.
I was about to put it in my signature, for its sheer brutality. It certainly speaks directly to the Thucydidean heart.
I wished to make a thread for this but saw that there is no better place for a definition of valuing types, than this one.
The Wretch pur-sang;
the phrase itself is a painful contradiction.
But what such a wretch will never fail to do, is to take anothers blessing, botch it by his own measure & ratio and spit it back at the nobleman, from whom it was issued as a blessing, in the form and quality of the cursed but harmless bad breath of a one-too-many.
To us, who regardless of whatever bask in the glory of the world because we are able to value it in our own terms, wretchedness is pervasive as vapor but equally harmless; health is precisely that which withstands wretchedness, and great health withstands it joyfully.
VO dictates that it is noble to give unto Ceasar what is rightfully his… and to this end, I say, fools deserve just as much.
And more,
So praise be with those who seek to make dresses, for soft caresses, starting a fashion trend,
Because an artist who thinks of posterity, and prosperity, before his art, is truly a one-eyed cyclops among the blind
Who only wish to be treated kind
And what a revolution, to the philosophical continuity, this idea of goodness, pre-existence
for the cowards an insistence
For what lies not out there, must certainly be placed in there, for the needy, and the greedy
In all, a share, Marxist equality, to do away with nature’s “depravity”.
Finally a new term for humanity
Let us dance to love creating world
And we not fooled
surrendering to its glee
everywhere we look a deity
spirit in a stone, hugging itself into one-ness
such tender self value-ness, value selfishness.
inject Jesus back into the Pagan soul
Modernize the scripture
for a cynical crowd of youthful knaves high on chemical joy
how is there no value in itself
lost souls, sold on detaching the past from souls
glory to the one who beholds
Weakness has always been exploited by weaker shamelessness
history unfolds.
repeating its-self
Dawn to dusk and dusk to dawn
What joy is there, in being ill?
But still, better than none at all.
for the strong, to stand tall, the world is a blessing
not requiring a mind numbing parsing
Wretchedness is that which lies to itself, and selectively sees, and collectively admirers
to be one, in other, it aspires.
How wonderful to live, and watch manimals live and die, run and hide,
feel such happiness in their wretchedness.
Madman feels solace in the madhouse, by reinventing lucidity to mean insanity
What powerful magic words hold, when they require no standard beyond the self, except the dictionary.
aiding in the spread of the dis-ease
When words are felt, what limit is left, but emotion…exploding in devotion
for all that make it feel good.
would not a bug feel superior to a man?
Because more radiation it can withstand?
scripture cleanses the spirit of such sins.
repeat the prayer, and cast your fears aside, let love take over
let pleasure be our guide.
How many of the wretched have been sold
to the lies of the shameless bold?
What more is needed but a pleasant word?
a certainty
hope
to cope
What value does love have when all deserve it?
What pride does a man gain, being pleasured by a whore?
How precious is she if all can find her, and have her, if they work and earn the right?
peitho banned. I should have held out for those sexual favours, though.
It is distressing to see someone so utterly helpless. Especially since the helplessness has increased as he labored harder for years on end. Some years ago it was still possible to now and and then traces of a functioning mind.
VO is an ontology. “Value Ontology” is an ontology. I know this is difficult to understand if you have braindamage.
But regardless of some peoples braindamage, ontology does not ‘dictate what is noble’. I mean it does this in the damaged brain, but that isn’t really our concern.
An ontology describes what is.
Not what should be. Or what should be done.
Even if one is not as severely disabled as to be thinking that ontology prescribes what is noble, one may still find it difficult to understand how value is an ontic substance.
This difficulty is because of the resistance of the Christian idea that value is a god-given thing. This is not the case; in fact, there is no god, and value is only that toward which an entity moves. An entity is always in motion, and always to its values, or away from its negative values.
And since physics declares that all is motion, all is determined by values.
Let this sink in.
Questions will be answered if they are somewhat sane.
Satyr and Jakob have each adopted a philosophical world view which is diametrically opposite to that of the other
one. But some times they leave their ivory towers and start discussing more mundane matters. Such as each others
cock size and sexual history. Now they are old sparring partners and so there is no need to be alarmed and so watch
from the gallery like everyone else. To see what [ if any ] wisdom they may be imparting to us mere mortals this time
What is wrong with analytical philosophy ? What is wrong with critical thinking ? What is wrong with
favouring logic over emotion or science over philosophy as a means of understanding the universe ?
Are you a negative or positive nihilist ? What is your worldview compressed into a single sentence ?
Precisely. Analytical philosophy does not provide means to rationally think. In fact, it demands that we abandon all reason before we enter its ‘logics’, which are hallucinatory contraptions of very silly, very silly men.
Science over philosophy? How would that work?
But again, analytic philosophy has no relation to logic. It plays with the terms, and juggles them around like it’s carnival, but it’s for show only.
Interesting. I have no idea how Satyrs philosophy is in contradiction to mine, I have no idea what the dude is thinking at this moment, I can not detect any consistency really, because there isn’t really any logic to discern. Isolated remarks, usually of a comical and personal nature, completely unrelated to abstract thought, which obviously is the backbone of philosophy, as it is of science.
Now I have seen that Satyrs view of this week about my philosophy is diametrically opposed to my philosophy.
I don’t know what people find so fascinating about him. It’s probably the same thing as Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian. It’s just not clear what the merit is, but they’re famous for being famous.
If you want to discuss philosophy, it really would be the best thing to come forward with a thought.
I fucking hate categories. But I suppose you mean it honestly. Even though you appear not to have read through the ‘entire’ thread.
If I have to choose, obviously I am a positive nihilist. This means that I affirm the absence of universal standards, and embrace the fact that we create and uphold and advance our own values simply by being born, growing up and being alive.
I can not compress my world view in a single sentence, that would go against my worldview really, which is the opposite of monolithic.
“Holy fuck, this is too awesome to process.” is probably the closest to a unification. Note that this closeness implies the affirmation of the impossibility, because of the excess value.
Any philosophy that does not rest on and root in pure affirmation is obviously stunted and a-priori incapable of attaining a single consistent term.
I asked about analytical philosophy after reading the Capable thread at your site. I found it interesting since it is the opposite to my own position
My views have not changed since reading it. But the important thing is to consider alternative interpretations which may invalidate mine. Nobody
has a monopoly on wisdom so logic dictates one is always going to be wrong about something. But nowadays I am less interested in developing my
own world view and more in simply processing relevant knowledge without making a value judgement about it. Am interested in how others think
without feeling compelled to agree with it. And so the sense of detachment makes me more open minded with regard to acknowledging positions
significantly different to my own. Such as yours and Satyrs for example. Although this is only partially true. For all three of us identify as positive
nihilists. I regularly lurk at Know Thyself since in all other respects Satyr and I are complete opposites. But as I said I am interested in processing
knowledge rather than making value judgements about it. I have seen your site too but it appears to be quite inactive so I do not visit that much
The reason why I asked you to compress your world view into a single sentence is because I can. Well actually three words : Atheism / Nihilism /
Egalitarianism. And if you want something slightly more concrete than that : Apatheism / Positive Nihilism / Universal Egalitarianism. For reasons
of simplicity the former is the one I normally use. Not set in stone but as of this point in time the most logically and philosophically rigorous one I
know of. But even if it were set in stone it would only be so for a relatively infinitesimal period of time. Since upon point of death it would cease
to have any significance to me. Which is why I try not to hold on to my world view too rigidly as it only matters in the here and now. And if death
really is an eternity of pain free non consciousness then that is where we are going to be forever once we cease to function. Now overcoming this
irrational fear can make one as philosophically free as it is possible to be whilst still being alive. And I have overcome it and so am now as free as
I have ever been. So death can therefore take me any time it wants
I noticed that Jakob asked people to bring thoughts. This is the problem with labels, they excoriate thinking and substitute in the place of thought a simulation of thought, a kind of image-machine that inputs a status quo regularity of terminology and outputs petty emotionalism and narcissistic cynicism. Not to mention a general baseline level of self-dishonesty that, eventually, over-writes any even pretenses to serious attempts at thinking through anything. The image-thought of the given becomes all.
I suggest you read Deleuze’s Difference & Repetition, also Kitaro’s The Logic of the Place of Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. Each of these works does a good job building on what Kant was working on. And in general you need to overcome or at least make questionable the fact that you’ve been made to believe that analytic philosophy is the given standard and only “real” or “really certain” or “precise” or “reputable” philosophy out there. The drive for certainty is what threatens to destroy certainty, since real certainties can be arrived at only by “uncertain” means.
Otherwise, again, I’d like you to actually explain your position on Jakob’s Value Ontology in order to defend you claim as to boiling it down to three terms, as well as explain the difference between your views and those you found on BTL forum, when it comes to “what is philosophy?”.
I agree with you about certainty. Which is why my own world view is not set in stone and can be modified or revised any time. I find dogmatism to
be both intellectually and psychologically restricting. And as far as Value Ontology is concerned I have no problem with it per se other than nature
is not aware of its supposed purpose. That is merely a human projection. Ontology [ and teleology ] are means by which humans try to understand
it all. Though it begs the question by assuming there is some meaning or purpose in the grand scheme of things as opposed to none at all. And so I
think the universe simply is. It has no nature or purpose. It just exists
This is already far more than I would dare to proclaim.
I do not know if there is a The Universe, first of all, and second, obviously I can not know if, if it exists, it has meaning or not.
An ontology, as seems to be unknown here, is the study of what is (“ontos” means “being”). Not of what should be or of what anything means.
Many modern guys think that they can know that the universe has no meaning. This means that they think that they are powerful beyond the universe that contains them. Obviously, anything in this universe could never make a judgment about what this universe is in totality.
For a mere human to say ‘the universe has no meaning’, would make this humans a radical ideologue, who makes a value judgment about the universe, without having any ground to do so. ‘No meaning’ is, as an Analytic philosopher can not understand, an expression of meaning.
Of course I do not know for absolute certain if the universe has any meaning or not. My position is not a dogmatic one. But I know that the human
desire to ascribe meaning to it is done for ulterior motive rather than a genuine quest for truth with regard to that question. Because that motive
is usually the justification for particular belief systems then I am naturally sceptical. So until I find a convincing non religious argument supporting
the universe having a meaning I shall carry on thinking the opposite
My point was more that to believe that the universe is meaningless, is to believe on a much deeper level, that it has meaning.
This may sound strange. But consider that ‘the’ ‘universe’ ‘has’ ‘no’ and ‘meaning’ are all meanings.
In short, you are already a very radical idealistic positivist compared to my, very humble, skeptical position.
What I investigate is words and concepts. Concepts such as ‘the universe’. It’s a pure superstition. No one has ever proven that there is a whole of which we are part.
In this same invisible way, hidden deep beyond what humans are trained to think about, are a number of other radical and blind assumptions in the phrase ‘the universe has/does not have property x/y/z’.
What an Ontology studies is Being. I.e. our own existence. That of which we can be logically sure that it exists. Not “the universe”. This may be just a figment of our imagination. Or not. We can’t know. We can only know what whatever does exist, must exist. So we study what it means to ‘exist’.
It’s far more deep and complex that Aristotle or Hume, or any one in between. Thales is still relevant. In fact no one has understood him yet.
The observable universe exists. To deny this one would instead have to accept it does not and is therefore a mental projection rather than a physical
phenomenon. But I do not think idealism or solipsism are valid philosophies as I think the universe is mind independent not mind dependent. You may
say how do I actually know this given that the brain processes everything we experience. My answer would be that on the balance of probabilities it is
more likely the universe exists independent of our perception of it. And for no other reason than we have not always existed where as it obviously has
[ using the standard definition of universe ] But of course I could be wrong and it is all an illusion but it would be rather academic as the illusion would
be so convincing we would not be any the wiser. First principles or axioms do not have to be absolute truths simply self evident ones and one of them is
that the observable universe exists. A logical refutation of it would make zero difference assuming the universe did not exist. Because the illusion is too
convincing like I said. So this particular first principle or axiom shall for all practical purposes I think remain unchallenged for long as we exist regardless
of what any non physicalists or non materialists may otherwise think
You missed my point, more or less.
I am tired of making it so I made it quickly and not well.
There is zero reason to think that all of existence is coherent. Zero.
What you call “the observable universe” is not a thing abyone has established by observation. It is rather a collection of observations that cohere.
The Seen Universe coherses, because we can only comprehemd (see) that which coheres with us.
95 percent of the known universe (not observed) is known to be unobservable; dark energy and matter.
My point has nothing to do with solipsism. I understand most philosophy is savagely primitive and you are used to reading that as is everyone.
But VO is infinitely harder to tackle.
interesting