What is The Good?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:35 pm

In your own words, provide a detailed explanation and analysis, what is a "Cause"?

What does it mean for anything "to be caused" or to cause? Explain.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:40 pm

While I wait I'll add a quick clarification to my last long reply to Fixed. I should have been more clear in my explanation that I believe all life, indeed all being, seeks to minimize contradiction, to become as consistent with itself as possible. I think these contradictions are experienced ontologically, biologically and psychologically as burdens and energy drains, and being always seeks to either resolve the contradiction or to incorporate it into a higher synthesis thus encompassing it and rendering it "frozen" and less problematic (and even useful).

When being encounters a contradiction it is logically driven to either resolve it (make it go away) of to expand and encompass the contradiction, thus making it usefully part of that being itself for which the contradiction is able to be encountered and experienced qua contradiction.

This relates directly to my views on morality being derived from a higher tectonic of the rational-logical. What we call morality is an attempt, made possible and necessary for certain kinds of beings capable of doing so, to resolve certain logical contradictions that said being is capable of encountering and experiencing by virtue of being that such and such kind of being which it is. For an extreme example, raping babies implies a logical contradiction because we know unconsciously at least that the baby does not want that to happen, and that we ourselves would not want that to happen to us, and that the baby is logically similar to ourselves (back when we know thy we ourselves were also a baby once), and that the act of doing something like that, even if to the rapist it appears as valuable for some reason, implies a deep contradiction with that which oneself is.

This contradiction is a problem because as I noted above we are logically driven to either resolve away or overcome and freeze contradictions, because of the added energy waste that the contradiction implies and because of how we psychologically feel the contradiction as problematic, like an itch (as in cognitive dissonance for instance). Therefore there are a huge number of possible things and actions and desires and goals and outcomes that produce some degree of contradiction in us and produce in us the awareness of that contradiction; these sort of things are what I am calling aspects of the moral sphere.

The golden rule is so because to violate it implies a contradiction, and we feel that contradiction in our very being. If we do not feel it then that means we are not able to encounter and experience that said contradiction, which means that in that particular we are not morally capable, which means we are not rationally and perceptibly developed enough to feel and recognize the contradiction as contradiction.

Hope that offers some clarification.
Last edited by UrGod on Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:41 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:In your own words, provide a detailed explanation and analysis, what is a "Cause"?

What does it mean for anything "to be caused" or to cause? Explain.


Cause means that one thing bumped up into another thing and made an impact upon it such that the thing which was bumped into was affected and changed somehow.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Right, everything has a cause, even when it cannot be inferred from past observations.
Because Void and the supposedly irrefutable princinple of sufficient reason say so.


Not because I said so, because it is true. If you disagree, please offer your refutation of the principle of sufficient reason. I'll wait.

I'm particularly interested in how you'll demonstrate or explain how it is possible for something to exist or occur for which no reasons are the case. And be careful how you use any reasoning in your demonstration, so as not to beg the question.

See the problem yet? It is absolutely impossible to explain how something has literally no explanation. The very idea that something could have no explanation for what it is and why/how it is the case is simply the destruction of reason and thinking as such. But again, I'll wait for your argument backing up your claim that the principle of sufficient reason isn't irrefutable.


It's not up to me to refute it.
It's up to you to prove it.

The principle of sufficient reason states that for every event B there must be an event A that caused it.
You have to prove this.

I wrote earlier:

viewtopic.php?p=2669666#p2669666
Magnus Anderson wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:It isn't possible to be free from causality. What would that even look like? It's impossible to even imagine. For anything to exist or to happen it must have reasons for that, period. You can reference the principle of sufficient reason if you like, and unless you've come up with a refutation of it (go ahead and try) then you're forced to acknowledge that nothing exists or happens without having reasons (causes) that necessitated it. This is what "cause" means.

What would an uncaused event look like? It is literally the antithesis of reason and logic to even try and imagine such a thing, because it would have absolutely no reason or logic to it whatsoever. Go ahead and explain the structure of even one "uncaused event". You can't do it.


That's a backward way of thinking.
Existence requires no causal relations.
In other words, the universe is not obliged to unfold according to some predetermined set of rules (i.e. someone's expectations.)

Causal relations are interpretations.
Causality is a form of correlation.
It's a form of conditional probability: probability that some event B (which we call "effect") will appear given some event A (which we call "cause".)
An uncaused event is simply an event for which we see no cause.

Why do we bother with causal relations?
Because we want to predict the future.
That's all.

What you're doing here is you are projecting your model of reality onto the universe itself.

Suppose you have a sequence of events such as {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}.
We can easily conclude that the next event in the sequence will be {7}.
Why is this so?
It's because we can see a mechanism by which every event is derived from the prior event.
This mechanism being nothing but a sum of the number associated with the previous event and number 1.
It's tempting to say that this mechanism lies in between these events and that it calculates (i.e. determines) these events according to its rules.
And that this mechanism is necessary to exist in order for these events to occur.
But that is not true.
This mechanism is merely an interpretation and so it only requires a brain capable of interpretation in order for it to come into existence.
There is nothing behind these events.
There is no mechanism operating according to some mathematical formula.
There is also no "duration" no "continuity" no "thing-in-itself" no "motion" as Bergson would suggest.
There are only events, there is only appearance.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:02 pm

It's not up to me to refute it.


Yes it is. You made a claim, so back it up.

It's up to you to prove it.


I did. I already pointed out that it is necessarily, absolutely impossible to ever explain an uncaused event. You literally cannot even conceive such a thing in your mind, because to even conceive it means to conceive the "why" of it. Let's assume an uncaused event just happens for no reason, let's call it X. So you say "X happened". What does that mean? Well what is X? You might try to tell me what X is, but it won't make any sense without reasons why X is X rather than Y or Z or anything else.

A random unicorn pops into existence. Why? No reason, it just did. Well, why a unicorn rather than a giraffe? Um, no reason, according to you. Just because. Because why? Because nothing.

Yeah, that is the sort of "reasoning" you are advocating here. It is notable that despite advocating the total death of your mind, you aren't actually willing to trace out the supposed logic of that, even after you make the claim. You dodge it with "I don't need to defend what I say" nonsense. Which is good to see, because it means that you actually know what you are saying is bullshit.

To speak about what something is, is already necessarily to speak about why it is that rather than something else. Which is, again, necessarily, able to speak about the reasons why it is that. The reason for something is the thing itself, and nothing besides. That is what it means to "be something".
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:00 am

Void wrote:I already pointed out that it is necessarily, absolutely impossible to ever explain an uncaused event.


An uncaused event is simply an event for which we see no cause.
That's all it is.

You literally cannot even conceive such a thing in your mind


Not true.

because to even conceive it means to conceive the "why" of it


No. An uncaused event is an event for which we see no "why".

Let's assume an uncaused event just happens for no reason, let's call it X. So you say "X happened". What does that mean? Well what is X? You might try to tell me what X is, but it won't make any sense without reasons why X is X rather than Y or Z or anything else.


That's a very strange way of thinking.
Suppose I observed a red apple.
According to you, it would make no sense for me to tell you that I observed a red apple (instead of a green one) without explaining to you what caused this observation.

A random unicorn pops into existence. Why? No reason, it just did. Well, why a unicorn rather than a giraffe? Um, no reason, according to you. Just because. Because why? Because nothing.


And what exactly is the problem?
You keep asking "why?" when there is no "why".
I am not saying an uncaused event is caused by "nothing".
I am saying that an uncaused event has no cause -- it is not caused at all.
You have a problem accepting that reality does not function according to our expectations.
When there is no pattern in information, there is simply no pattern in information.
You cam try to acquire more information with the hope that a pattern will emerge.
But how long will you keep doing this?
How much information do you have to collect before you can say "it's enough, let's see what we've got"?
You must stop collecting evidence at some point.

Yeah, that is the sort of "reasoning" you are advocating here. It is notable that despite advocating the total death of your mind, you aren't actually willing to trace out the supposed logic of that, even after you make the claim. You dodge it with "I don't need to defend what I say" nonsense. Which is good to see, because it means that you actually know what you are saying is bullshit.


You appear to think that it's impossible to recognize patterns in data (this impossibility is what you call "the death of mind") unless this data has been generated by some hidden mechanism according to some predetermined set of rules.
Which is non-sense.

I can see causal relations on my computer monitor.
And my computer monitor is just a bunch of pixels -- basically, tiny lightbulbs that emit light of certain color.
These are immovable -- they are fixed in place -- and yet I can perceive causal relations.
They are independent from each other -- they have no effect on each other -- and yet I can perceive causal relations.
A bunch of pixels of uniform color on my monitor is interpreted as a ball that is moving in certain direction at certain speed.
When it hits one of the edges of my monitor, the ball changes its direction of movement.
In other words, "the edge" causes "the ball" to change the direction of movement.
That's an example of causal relation that is interpreted by a brain.
Even if I didn't know that my computer has been programmed to function in this manner, I'd still perceive causal relations.
You see . . . no need for hidden mechanisms to perceive causal relations.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:42 am

You really confuse reality itself with what you're able to see of reality?

Damn man. I got nothin for you.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:16 am

I am simply telling you that we can perceive causal relations even when there is no evidence of hidden mechanism underlying our observations.
It is your stance that in the absence of this hidden mechanism (the so-called "absolute truth" or simply God) there can be no perception of causal relations.
That reason cannot exist (or function) without it.
I am simply telling you that it can.

Our judgment of what is real is based entirely on what we are able to see.
However, I am pretty sure that in your case your judgments are based on more than what you're able to see.
I am, of course, speaking of imaginations.
Imaginations such as the idea that every event has a cause (which really amounts to saying that events in the universe unfold according to a predetermined set of rules that we refer to as "absolute truth".)

You are taking things too literally.
The way parrots do.
Since parrots only understand conclusions and not what stands behind conclusions.
They have no choice but to interpret things too literally.

You think that your model of reality is reality itself.
You think that the requirements of your model of reality are the requirements of reality itself.
Not to mention the fact that causality is not a requirement for a model of reality.
Certain scientific fields have no notion of causality whatsoever.
And yet they work.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:55 am

There may be events that happen in nature for which there is no rational explanation and it may be that there is none or that the explanation is not yet know
But our perception and understanding of the natural world is limited so satisfactory explanations cannot always be provided. Reality does not always conform
to our expectation of it and so it is a mistake upon our part in expecting that it must. Therefore when it occurs we should just acknowledge it rather than try
to fill the gap in our knowledge. Our natural tendency to wish to know everything cannot be satisfied sometimes ignorance has to be accepted unsatisfying as
this may be. Though not knowing is actually more interesting than knowing even if it does not necessarily seem so. For if we knew everything it would be less
so and so we should be grateful there is a limitation to our knowledge
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:47 am

They are attached to certain ways we model reality.
Indeed, they are so attached they are unwilling to model reality unless it can be modelled precisely that way.
The above cretin is attached to the idea of causality.
He wants to model reality in such a way such that every event has a cause.
He cannot accept that some events simply have no cause.
No, every event must have a cause.
Simply because Void (of Reason) likes it that way.
Because he finds it more aesthetically pleasant that way.

They choose the form of their models in advance.
Long before they take a look at the evidence.
They do not start with the evidence.
They start with the way they want to model reality and then they try to make evidence fit into it.
Like JSS and his attachment to locality.
Can't accept action at a distance. All action must be local.
Not because that's what evidence suggests -- there's more to reality than evidence.
But because of "logic" i.e. because he likes it that way.
It's more organized that way.

An interesting read:
Bertrand Russell - On the Notion of Cause

But he's an analytic philosopher.
What does he know?

Look what he says:

The law makes no difference between past and future: the future "determines" the past in exactly the same sense in which the past "determines" the future. The word "determine," here, has a purely logical significance: a certain number of variables "determine" another variable if that other variable is a function of them.


Did he just say that determinism, interaction and affectance are all purely logical?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:15 am

Any reliable model has to be built upon evidence and nothing else. Philosophical interpretations are not necessarily evidence based so should be avoided
Even ones that are evidence based such as materialism for example should be avoided because they could be wrong as philosophy is not science. Science
is only interested in the study of observable phenomena. It has nothing to say about it beyond its physical properties. Materialism is ontology not science
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: What is The Good?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:25 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:They choose the form of their models in advance.
Long before they take a look at the evidence.
They do not start with the evidence.
They start with the way they want to model reality and then they try to make evidence fit into it.
Like JSS and his attachment to locality.
Can't accept action at a distance. All action must be local.
Not because that's what evidence suggests -- there's more to reality than evidence.
But because of "logic" i.e. because he likes it that way.
It's more organized that way.

A rather blanket presumption and accusation. Where is your evidence?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25428
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:42 pm

Void_X_Zero

The reason for something is the thing itself, and nothing besides. That is what it means to "be something".


Wouldn't that be like saying that the reason for the crash which was caused by the drunk which killed the little boy in the other car was the crash itself?

There was nothing which caused that crash? Nothing, which by reaching back in time and seeing a number of dynamics at play like an ad continuum could be seen as bringing that crash into existence?

The crash was the cause of the crash?
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14852
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:54 pm

Add up every single thing that led to the crash, including the drinking and the two drivers and their decision trees and the road and the cars and the speed limits, and you will get the event itself (the crash).

It doesn't reduce to one thing, like the drinking. The causality is everything that had to come together in just the right way to cause the event. If the other driver had made different decisions and hadn't been driving at that place and time, then he wouldn't have been hit by the drunk, for example.

The sum total of all reasons for the event is the event itself. Ontologically speaking.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:42 pm

You are a mystic.
Not a rational person.

Causal relations do not precede events.
Rather, they succeed them.

That's basically saying that models of reality do not precede sensations.
Rather, they succeed them.

Sensations are precedant.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Some Guy in History » Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:32 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Therefore any "Good" realized would quickly be replaced and made irrelevant. Humanity would always chase a higher Good.

And this striving for a higher good, this, per my definition of the good as existence-proper, is the good itself!

Good is self-overcoming. Whatever is good needs to get better to remain the good, and not become the sick, and beyond that, dead, or worse, slave.


We can only get so high. Ask anybody who takes drugs. It plateaus after a while.
Image

A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time. A man does not die of love or his liver or even of old age; he dies of being a man. Death is a distant rumor to the young. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:45 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:In your own words, provide a detailed explanation and analysis, what is a "Cause"?

What does it mean for anything "to be caused" or to cause? Explain.


Cause means that one thing bumped up into another thing and made an impact upon it such that the thing which was bumped into was affected and changed somehow.


Certain objects can cause other objects to move (i.e. change their position in space) without there being a contact between them (i.e. there is no bumping.)
For example, when magnets interact with metal, either attracting or repelling it, they do so from a distance.
There is no contact between them.

Of course, what you're going to say is that this is merely an appearance and that what's going on behind the scenes is that the magnet is indirectly bumping into the metal.
For example, you might say that the magnet only has an effect -- a direct effect -- on the adjacent particles that are invisible to the naked eye. When affected, these particles propagate the affect to the adjacent particles which then propagate the affect to particles that are adjacent to them and so on. Eventually, the metal becomes affected, moving either towards or away from the magnet.

Which would miss the point.
My point being that we can perceive causality even when there is no evidence for, and even so much as assumption of, the existence of particles that propagate the effect from the magnet to the metal.

In order to perceive causality it's enough to observe that every time we place a magnet at a certain distance from a piece of metal, the piece of metal changes its position.
No bumping whatsoever.
The magnet does not bump into the piece of metal, and yet, it changes one of its properties, namely, its position in space.

When your desire is too strong it has no choice but to overpower your perception. This is because perception poses a risk to satiating your desire. What if it turns out that you cannot satiate your desire? What if it turns out that your goal is unrealistic? Well, you would have to give up on it then. But when your desire is too strong, you don't want to allow that. You don't want to so much as permit that possibility. So the effort to perceive reality as it is is sidelined and a blind conviction is put in its place.

You guys crave power so much that you'd rather pretend you have it or that you will have it rather than admit that you don't have it and that you will never have it.

In your case -- and by you I mean you and Jakoff and Sauwelios and the rest of the VO crew -- this manifests as a quest for an all-encompassing model of reality that will allow you to predict pretty much all of reality.

You are not interested in genuine power.
You are interested in the feeling of power.

Genuine power is acquired over a long period of time spanning multiple generations. It's a very slow and meticulous process. In other words, it's acquired bit by bit. You have no patience for this -- you don't want to wait for so long -- so you simply end up deluding yourself because there is no other option.

Here's a challenge for you I am sure you will find boring.
Answer these questions:

1. What exactly is a thing?
2. Is it perhaps a three-dimensional object? If so, what exactly is a three-dimensional object?
3. Is it possible for it to be something simpler? such as two- or even one-dimensional object? If so, what exactly is a two- or one-dimensional object?
4. What does it mean for a thing to bump into another thing?
5. Does it involve the concept of motion? If so, what exactly is motion?

These are questions that require some effort.
And they are modest.
You won't become a philosopher-king by answering them.
So perhaps, for you, there isn't much incentive in answering them.
But I do think they are interesting.
And relevant, since they resolve a lot of confusions.

You may as well ask what a being, or even existence, is.
Just to make sure you know what you're talking about.
But I am pretty sure you won't.
Too analytical, too boring, too dry, too exhausting . . .

You are no Dionysian.
You are empty inside, you are hollow.
No real feelings.
No sensations.
Only words.
Empty meaningless words.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:33 am

Magnetic lines of force do exist. Sorry to spoil your fun.

There is no "spooky action at a distance", ever. For influence to occur, contact of some sort must occur. This is logic 101.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:00 pm

You are missing the point. Again.
And you will miss it. Again and again.

The point is that we can perceive one thing causing some kind of change in another thing even when we do not perceive a direct or indirect contact between the two of them.
You keep ignoring this point over and over again.

The causal relation between magnets and metals exists regardless of whether there are magnetic lines of force or not.

Reality does not function according to our expectations.
If there is no contact between a cause and an effect then there simply is no contact between them.
You don't get to decide how reality works.

That's not logic.
That's you expecting the world to function according to your expectations.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:48 pm

Fixed sent me this message titled "fragment of traces of intelligence suspected".

Fixed Cross wrote:What was correct in your post, that people value reality in terms of their selfvaluing, is all Satur correctly took from VO, and you then took it from him.

You, my little garden gnome, are awesome.
Can you deal with that?
Fixed.


And yet, noone knows what "people value reality in terms of their selfvaluing" means.
What does it mean for someone to "value reality"?

We do not value reality.
We describe it.
To describe reality is to predict that if we do X at some point in time that Y will happen.

We also do not describe reality in terms of our selfvaluing.
Rather, we describe it based on our vantage point (or viewpoint) which is just a name for our personal experience (i.e. our observations from the past) coupled with our way of thinking.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:10 pm

Another PM:

Fixed Cross wrote:Fantastic, you tried to actually address it. That was my hope - you've never done that with a post of mine.
Good luck with further pretending not understanding your double plagiary - everyone with intelligence upwards from yours (granted, perhaps only half of ILP would qualify) now sees what you try to obscure.

You acted in the only way that could be expected of you.


Apparently, I've been plagiarizing Jakoff's phifoolosophy.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Destiny » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:56 pm

The good = love.
Good love = sex
sex = the best.

For people not getting there there is always MagnusJ and his abusecrew who moderate here.

Yech.
User avatar
Destiny
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:53 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Destiny » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:02 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Quickly: of course the good is that which is valuable. I can see grammatically why you supposed i meant the opposite.


Yeah okay, that's what I thought at first ("whereas"). Anyway, the rest of my response to that section assumed you did mean that the good is that which is valuable.


Cognate - i meant consciously experience.


Okay. Yes, though I'd say "pleasure", not "joy": joy is something even a moral slave may approve of (though the "pleasure" of the immoral slave is even worse). Lust.

I think Socrates, too, consciously experienced the highest healthy lust. But he had to mostly hide it, like Spinoza and, indeed, all philosophers until late modern times:

"Nietzsche judges that the genuine philosophers share the fundamental Platonism, erotic attachment to the whole of which they are the rational investigators. Nietzsche too could have said with Lessing, 'there is no other philosophy than that of Spinoza' ([Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing] 182). But as a judge who stands at an unprecedented turning point in the history of philosophy, Nietzsche was forced to add about Spinoza's form of Platonism, his amor intellectualis dei: 'What is amor, what is dei, if there is not a drop of blood in them?' [Note by the way that the genitive dei can mean "of God, God's" both in the possessive and the non-possessive sense...] ([Nietzsche, Gay Science] 372). Nietzsche's history of philosophy is a measurement of Platonic kin from a standpoint beyond the historic necessity to compromise with popular stupidity and feign affinity with priestly asceticism." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche 122.)

But doesn't feigning such affinity itself make one sick, as Nietzsche says in Twilight, "Skirmishes" 45? ("Whoever must do secretly what he is best at, would best like to do, with protracted tension, prudence, slyness, becomes anemic[.]") To be sure, the genuine philosophers have not been unlike women:

""In Strauss's account, Eve was the first lover of knowledge; the first seeker after wisdom; the first philo-sophoi. If man is distinguished from other animals by reason, the desire to know or the love of knowledge, then Eve was the first truly human being. In view of the close alliance between philosophy and eros, Eve is a particularly appropriate symbol of the love of wisdom. But Eve is also the representative of evil, of wickedness, and of the disobedience of God. However, God's prohibition was given to Adam; He had not spoken to Eve directly. She knew of it only through Adam. Strauss curiously comments that she knew of the prohibition only from 'tradition'. This is an important clue. The philosopher, the lover of knowledge must necessarily set herself against tradition, convention or the ancestral.
[...]
The fate of philosophy in the world is the same as the fate God inflicts on Eve. She is to be subject to the authority of Adam, the ancestral, the one who came first (at least in one out of the two accounts of man's creation provided in Genesis). If Eve is to have any freedom in the world, she must retire to the private domain and shun the glory of the public realm. Likewise, philosophy must live eternally in the shadow of the ancestral and avoid offending it for fear of its very life. If it is to enjoy a modest freedom, it must keep itself hidden and shun the glory of power and politics. This is not to say (contrary to the way in which Strauss is generally understood or misunderstood) that philosophy has nothing to do with politics or nothing to offer it. On the contrary, it has a great deal to offer, so much so that any happiness man can attain depends on philosophy's success in secretly influencing the powers that be and ruling vicariously or behind the scenes, as women have always ruled over men." (Shadia Drury, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss 44-45.)

Compare:

"Why the weak conquer. [...] Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant--woman needs strength in order to cleave to it; she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful,' 'the strong,' the men--. Woman brings the children to the cult of piety, pity, love:--the mother represents altruism convincingly." (Nietzsche, Will to Power 864, Kaufmann trans.)

However:

"Health and sickliness: one should be careful! The standard remains of course the efflorescence of the body, the agility, courage, and cheerfulness of the spirit--but also, of course, how much of the sickly it can take and overcome--how much it can make healthy. That of which more delicate men [Menschen] would perish belongs to the stimulants of great health." (op.cit., 1013.)

Men tend to be more delicate than women: consider the fact that women clearly have a longer average lifespan. This may be another respect in which woman's nature is more "natural" than man's, in which man's nature has been more weakened by civilisation. Consider the fact that Nietzsche could claim to have "the great health".

Anyway, I actually didn't come here to reply to your post, but to post an excerpt from my Nietzsche's "The Greek State" Revisited OP:

I wrote:[W]hat gave the Greeks a sense of shame, was unfreedom (or, as the instinct of freedom is the will to power (GM II 18), impotence). The slave was not free not to toil for his survival; the artist was not free not to act on his 'inspiration'. Only freedom confers dignity--or, as Nietzsche implies later, labour in the service of freedom:

'[E]very human being, with his total activity, only has dignity in so far as he is a means of the genius, consciously or unconsciously[.]'
(paragraph 13.)

But how is the genius (i.e., in this context, the Apollinian genius) free? Free from the (semi-)Schopenhauerian 'will'? The answer is: 'Only apparently; not actually':

'What is the beautiful?---a pleasure-experience, which hides from us the actual aims that the will has in an appearance [die der Wille in einer Erscheinung hat]. By what, then, is the pleasure-experience aroused? Objectively: the beautiful is a smiling of Nature, an excess of force and of pleasure-feeling of existence: one should think of plants. It is the damsel's-body of the Sphinx. The aim of the beautiful is Seducing-to-existence. Now, what is actually that smiling, that seductiveness? Negatively: the concealing of need [Not], the smoothing-away of all folds and the cheerful soul-glance of the thing.
"See Helena in every woman" the lust for existence conceals the unbeautiful. Negation of need [Not], either true or seeming negation of need is the beautiful. The sound of one's native tongue in a strange land is beautiful. Even the worst piece of music can be experienced as beautiful in comparison with adverse howling, whereas it is experienced as ugly compared to other pieces of music. So it is with the beauty of plants etc. as well. The need [Bedürfniss] for the negation of need [Not] and the semblance of such a negation must meet halfway.
Of what, then, does this semblance consist? Impetuousness, lust, crowding, and distorted stretching-out are not permitted to be noticeable. The actual question is: how is this possible? Considering the terrifying nature of the will? Only by means of an image [Vorstellung], subjectively: by means of a phantom [Wahngebilde, literally "delusional image"] that is shoved in between, which gives the pretense of the success of the lustful world-will; the beautiful is a blissful dream on the countenance of a being whose features now smile in hope. With this dream, this anticipation in his head does Faust see "Helena" in every woman. Thus we find that the individual will also can dream, can anticipate, has images and fantasies [Vorstellungen und Phantasiebilder]. The aim of Nature in this beautiful smiling of that will's appearances is the seduction of other individuals to existence. The plant is the beautiful world of the animal, the whole world that of man, the genius the beautiful world of the primordial will itself. The creations of art are the highest pleasure-goal of the will.
Every Greek statue can teach us that the beautiful is only negation.--The highest enjoyment does the will have at the Dionysian tragedy, because here even the terrifying face of existence stimulates to living-on---by means of ecstatic excitations." (Nietzsche, Nachlass End 1870-April 1871 7 [27], entire. Cf. WP 799 (1888).)

Note that the word translated as 'lust' above, Gier, does not (necessarily) mean sexual lust, but rather hunger, voraciousness, etc.

The--Apollinian--genius is the beautiful world of the primordial will; his artistic creations are the supreme pleasure-goal of that will. The primordial will, the Primordial One Itself, then, is successfully deluded by such genius. And if even the Primordial One is deluded, what relevant distinction can there then be left between this delusion and the truth? For this reason, the seeming freedom of the Apollinian genius confers actual dignity on all who work in his service.--


Compare:

"The will to semblance, to illusion, to delusion [Täuschung], to Becoming and Changing (to objective delusion) here [i.e., in The Birth of Tragedy] counts as deeper, more original, more metaphysical than the will to truth, to reality, to Being:--the latter is itself only a form of the will to illusion." (Will to Power 853, my translation.)

"Just as in a stormy sea that, unbounded in all directions, raises and drops mountainous waves, howling, a sailor sits in a boat and trusts in his fail bark: so in the midst of a world of torments the individual human being sits quietly, supported by and trusting in the principium individuationis." (Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation I, quoted in Birth of Tragedy 1, Kaufmann trans.)

Compare also Rousseau lying in a rowboat in the middle of a lake in his Reveries. My sixteenth episode was like that for me. Sweet sixteen!


women arent weak.
User avatar
Destiny
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:53 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:22 pm

Yes Magnus (not a sockpuppet of MagsJ that I know)
Your whole spiel about desire trumping truthfulness is an adaption of one of the basic aspect of VO. Satur has taken it in 2012, you can check. Your apparent not understanding the terms is either pure falsehood or real stupidity, meaning you did take it from the downdumber Satur.

Vo holds that a entites interpret reality in terms of what is of value to them.
That you think you dont value means only that you have no convictions to respect, your conscious values are all negative.

Subconsciously you always shirk up to me and take, bit by bit, from me what you become aware of as power, which is absolute value.

For the skeptics, look at Magnus' posting record. He is like Satur a function of his forbidden admiration for me, and literally all his valid logic is stolen from the one he tries to discredit with it - and this too is clarified by said logic.

When i leave here, Magnus will survive only as a proponent of a bastardized VO. He has nothing else to say besides that first bit of vo.

This is how The Good seeps into the Earth and how shit is fertile, I suppose.

In 20 years lets see what they are doing.
I can see that number cause dread in their spine.

How I loathe you thieves and forgers. A type of nonentity that tries to clings to existence only through what i give them.

I tried to avoid vo falling in the wrong hands by keeping it on online forums. Its only a difference in degrees of badness, though.

I have been too generous and yet had no choice in the matter. This is what philosophy is: to be hated by the petty for ones capacity to bear great gifts: to be smeared by the ones that gather around to take ones fruits.



edit - Capable: this is what turned out to be our "Academy" -
a bunch of nay sayers desperately clinging to VO to say yes to themselves by saying no to their source... a lot of pain ahead.
Hence, 20 years. We'll have to see.
Im saying bye bye to forums - though not before having defined their horizons for the coming decades - we took this as far as it goes.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image
see it now?

Thunderbolt steers all things.
- Heraclitus
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6700
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

Re: What is The Good?

Postby surreptitious57 » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:44 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
We do not value reality

Do you value your existence

Is that not part of reality
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users