The Philosophers

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sat May 06, 2017 2:02 pm

Sauwelios wrote:So which kind of Unity would you propose if you would want to destroy in this age?


Well, I don't think along these lines. I think it goes in steps, so it isn't as if there is the notion of a True World in one moment, and in the next moment, whoosh! it's gone. In Platonism, the four causes discerned by Aristotle were divided in two and absolutised: the eidos/telos was conceived as the True World, and the material/efficient cause was conceived as the Apparent World.

Right. And I have a distinct loathing for Aristotle. It started as a mere boredom, now I properly can't stand the fellow and his systems. It has everything to do with his distinctions tearing up what I have come to see as a subtle unity: I do not see effcient and material causes as separate of Eidos or Telos - I am rather "Japanese" in this.

The sword that wooshes through the air and hacks off a limb is the "beginning of all thing" - if executed properly!

This is how I replace value-neutral metaphysics - I contend that only the Good, i.e. the strong and swift, grace out of strength, is Eidos, True -- only clean action is ground, as it emerges out of certainty: certainty of self-valuing, of power - of possibility of a straight line.

This is my happiness - the straight line, and the certainty that it is the only truth, the only true path - and, since all is in motion, there is no absolute stillness, no 0 degrees Kelvin, no "atom-ness" - there is nothing besides a path. So Machiavelli is a bit closer to my tastes.

Then Machiavellianism conceived the latter cause(s) as the effectual truth and the former as imagination.

And how did he value imagination?
Did he see that the imagination itself is an effectual cause?
This is my problem with the distinction. Men act in the presence of a sense of Eidos and Telos ("God" to the pious) and this effectively governs their material goings-about, and then, it is fed by the results of these material goings-about -- it is thus effectively their standard, i.e. their self-valuing.

Today's nihilism is really the total lack of imagination ("the Nothing" from The Never Ending Story!), man's wretched contentment with being man, his not being spurred on by a superhuman ideal. Yet still he believes in "progress", i.e. the furtherance of his contentment,

Terrible, yes. How can this exist? A "party" nowadays.... have there been duller, drabber things? How does one survive such ... feebleness of spirit?

and taking this away may enable him to be content and more than content, not just with the present but also with the past, when life was brutish and short... This possibility then becomes the new superhuman ideal--the cycle of man's sprouting, flowering, seeding and withering.

Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible... that's a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.

And to me this is the "Ideal" - Greece - and myself. I don't care to return man to brutish and short life - to me that is a thing of Medieval Christianity, of feeble spirit - Health is what I relate to a vigorous and mature Oak or Ash, and to all humans made of "hard and supple wood".

Where are these humans now? They are around, among the weak. And this is all I want. To gather the strong, the oak-like and ash-like to find each other, and to create their own sovereignty, take over this or that state to that end - and let the rest wither perish as they must according to their natures.

The only possible politics for a 'value ontologist' is conquest. As philosophical-shamanic conquest starts with seducing the human spirit to itself, it is a rather slow process. But the results of value-standard-raising are the opposite of transient - this is existence, and as existence is eternal, this Ethos is eternity itself.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sat May 06, 2017 9:48 pm

Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat May 06, 2017 10:50 pm

For the homies

Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby URUZ » Sun May 07, 2017 12:32 am

Fixed Cross wrote:For the homies





Image
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Sun May 07, 2017 2:43 am

Jakob wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:So which kind of Unity would you propose if you would want to destroy in this age?


Well, I don't think along these lines. I think it goes in steps, so it isn't as if there is the notion of a True World in one moment, and in the next moment, whoosh! it's gone. In Platonism, the four causes discerned by Aristotle were divided in two and absolutised: the eidos/telos was conceived as the True World, and the material/efficient cause was conceived as the Apparent World.

Right. And I have a distinct loathing for Aristotle. It started as a mere boredom, now I properly can't stand the fellow and his systems. It has everything to do with his distinctions tearing up what I have come to see as a subtle unity: I do not see effcient and material causes as separate of Eidos or Telos - I am rather "Japanese" in this.


Yeah, I myself have a loathing for everyone who doesn't at least initially loathe Aristotle. But I think he, like Plato (whom Nietzsche calls boring), had to present himself like that. Philosophy did not become Socratic for nothing; Sophism actually endangered philosophy.

I think Aristotle really describes the subtle unity of bhusis, but does so in a way that seems to clinically dissect it. I find it ironic, by the way, that you now speak positively of "a subtle unity" when in your previous post you spoke negatively of Unity. A Socratic subtlety, perhaps?

Nietzsche writes:

"The question 'why?' is always a question after the causa finalis, after the 'what for?' We have no 'sense for the causa efficiens'[.]" (WP 550.)

Modern (Machiavellian) science basically retains only the efficient cause, conceiving matter as a function of force. Nietzsche puts the eidos/telos back in it by conceiving force as on the inside will (WP 618); will is inconceivable without a vision of power, a feeling of value (WP 668).


The sword that wooshes through the air and hacks off a limb is the "beginning of all thing" - if executed properly!

This is how I replace value-neutral metaphysics - I contend that only the Good, i.e. the strong and swift, grace out of strength, is Eidos, True -- only clean action is ground, as it emerges out of certainty: certainty of self-valuing, of power - of possibility of a straight line.

This is my happiness - the straight line, and the certainty that it is the only truth, the only true path - and, since all is in motion, there is no absolute stillness, no 0 degrees Kelvin, no "atom-ness" - there is nothing besides a path. So Machiavelli is a bit closer to my tastes.

Then Machiavellianism conceived the latter cause(s) as the effectual truth and the former as imagination.

And how did he value imagination?
Did he see that the imagination itself is an effectual cause?
This is my problem with the distinction. Men act in the presence of a sense of Eidos and Telos ("God" to the pious) and this effectively governs their material goings-about, and then, it is fed by the results of these material goings-about -- it is thus effectively their standard, i.e. their self-valuing.


Well, there's a difference between how Machiavelli himself saw it and how he says (or seems to say) he saw it; but insofar as his intended audience consisted of people who took Platonism at face value, I don't think he said he saw the imagination itself as an effectual cause. For example, he argued that a prince who tried to be "a good king"--kind, merciful etc.--would probably come to ruin, whereas a prince who was to be successful needed to be "Machiavellian". In other words, the prince's idea of the good should not be what drives him; what drives him should be efficiency (virtù). Yet what Machiavelli wanted was the creation of "Heaven on Earth", at least as a goal striving for which Christianity's tyranny would be broken. His real goal was the furtherance of philosophy.


Today's nihilism is really the total lack of imagination ("the Nothing" from The Never Ending Story!), man's wretched contentment with being man, his not being spurred on by a superhuman ideal. Yet still he believes in "progress", i.e. the furtherance of his contentment,

Terrible, yes. How can this exist? A "party" nowadays.... have there been duller, drabber things? How does one survive such ... feebleness of spirit?

and taking this away may enable him to be content and more than content, not just with the present but also with the past, when life was brutish and short... This possibility then becomes the new superhuman ideal--the cycle of man's sprouting, flowering, seeding and withering.

Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible... that's a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.


Well, those that survived the wars and plagues, at least--like the war and plague which were the direct reason why philosophy needed to become Socratic in Athens. "Brutish and short" was a reference to Hobbes, who indeed wrote with the Middle Ages in mind. I didn't mean that life was brutish and short in all of the past (as I conceive the past as cyclical). And isn't vigour already quite "brutish" from a modern standpoint, anyway?


And to me this is the "Ideal" - Greece - and myself. I don't care to return man to brutish and short life - to me that is a thing of Medieval Christianity, of feeble spirit - Health is what I relate to a vigorous and mature Oak or Ash, and to all humans made of "hard and supple wood".


Sure, but are you willing to return man to brutish and short life if that is a necessary consequence or a prerequisite of your "Ideal"?


Where are these humans now? They are around, among the weak. And this is all I want. To gather the strong, the oak-like and ash-like to find each other, and to create their own sovereignty, take over this or that state to that end - and let the rest wither perish as they must according to their natures.

The only possible politics for a 'value ontologist' is conquest. As philosophical-shamanic conquest starts with seducing the human spirit to itself, it is a rather slow process. But the results of value-standard-raising are the opposite of transient - this is existence, and as existence is eternal, this Ethos is eternity itself.


Yea and amen. The human spirit seducing itself to itself. "Wo Geist herrscht, wird das Seiende als solches immer und jeweils seiender."
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun May 07, 2017 5:54 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Yeah, I myself have a loathing for everyone who doesn't at least initially loathe Aristotle. But I think he, like Plato (whom Nietzsche calls boring), had to present himself like that. Philosophy did not become Socratic for nothing; Sophism actually endangered philosophy.

It occurs to me that in what we might call your grand narrative, it is philosophy itself which represents the primal self-valuing.

That is to say, it is the subject of your identification, perhaps even rather than that you are that subject - you are its subject in so far as you deem yourself up to its standard. Is that correct?

This is not meant as an attack, the contrary, it is a noble thing and useful, valuable - but I say it to be able to say that I do not consider it so - I consider philosophy as having been 'dead to me' from shortly after its very beginning with Thales, to essentially Nietzsche. I do admire various philosophers in between, but more for their characters than the merit of their thoughts. Descartes, for example. As such as I am far more 'arrogant' - I consider my work, which is really our work - a group including even Bill and Weary Locomotive - to be the rebirth of the Ancient world. That is my aim and my eidos, my soul and my taste, the scent in my nostrils whenever I engage myself....it is what seduces me to myself.

I think Aristotle really describes the subtle unity of bhusis, but does so in a way that seems to clinically dissect it. I find it ironic, by the way, that you now speak positively of "a subtle unity" when in your previous post you spoke negatively of Unity. A Socratic subtlety, perhaps?

I speak here of unity of principle. This same unity, as it is a cleaving principle, precludes unity of the world.

The unity of the steel that makes this sword disunites the weaker unities.

Nietzsche writes:

"The question 'why?' is always a question after the causa finalis, after the 'what for?' We have no 'sense for the causa efficiens'[.]" (WP 550.)

Modern (Machiavellian) science basically retains only the efficient cause, conceiving matter as a function of force. Nietzsche puts the eidos/telos back in it by conceiving force as on the inside will (WP 618); will is inconceivable without a vision of power, a feeling of value (WP 668).

Absolutely.

The sword that wooshes through the air and hacks off a limb is the "beginning of all thing" - if executed properly!

This is how I replace value-neutral metaphysics - I contend that only the Good, i.e. the strong and swift, grace out of strength, is Eidos, True -- only clean action is ground, as it emerges out of certainty: certainty of self-valuing, of power - of possibility of a straight line.

This is my happiness - the straight line, and the certainty that it is the only truth, the only true path - and, since all is in motion, there is no absolute stillness, no 0 degrees Kelvin, no "atom-ness" - there is nothing besides a path. So Machiavelli is a bit closer to my tastes.

Then Machiavellianism conceived the latter cause(s) as the effectual truth and the former as imagination.

And how did he value imagination?
Did he see that the imagination itself is an effectual cause?
This is my problem with the distinction. Men act in the presence of a sense of Eidos and Telos ("God" to the pious) and this effectively governs their material goings-about, and then, it is fed by the results of these material goings-about -- it is thus effectively their standard, i.e. their self-valuing.


Well, there's a difference between how Machiavelli himself saw it and how he says (or seems to say) he saw it; but insofar as his intended audience consisted of people who took Platonism at face value, I don't think he said he saw the imagination itself as an effectual cause. For example, he argued that a prince who tried to be "a good king"--kind, merciful etc.--would probably come to ruin, whereas a prince who was to be successful needed to be "Machiavellian". In other words, the prince's idea of the good should not be what drives him; what drives him should be efficiency (virtù). Yet what Machiavelli wanted was the creation of "Heaven on Earth", at least as a goal striving for which Christianity's tyranny would be broken. His real goal was the furtherance of philosophy.

Machiavelli is definitely the most mysterious figure in your chain - I would appreciate much more reading material on this. The way you phrase it, his sword seems to have cleaved the soft wood of Platonism.

Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible... that's a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.


Well, those that survived the wars and plagues, at least--like the war and plague which were the direct reason why philosophy needed to become Socratic in Athens. "Brutish and short" was a reference to Hobbes, who indeed wrote with the Middle Ages in mind. I didn't mean that life was brutish and short in all of the past (as I conceive the past as cyclical). And isn't vigour already quite "brutish" from a modern standpoint, anyway?

Id always make a distinction between raw strength and brutishness. A brute is an ugly, stupid thing - I know, for example, when Ive been brutish - I feel weakened. When Ive relentlessly attacked an enemy unto his downfall, I dont feel brutish, I feel clean.

And to me this is the "Ideal" - Greece - and myself. I don't care to return man to brutish and short life - to me that is a thing of Medieval Christianity, of feeble spirit - Health is what I relate to a vigorous and mature Oak or Ash, and to all humans made of "hard and supple wood".


Sure, but are you willing to return man to brutish and short life if that is a necessary consequence or a prerequisite of your "Ideal"?

I dont understand. Arent you asking me if I want to move to the opposite of my ideal if this is necessary to attain my ideal?

I do not see Man as one thing. I discern distinctly differing types, and I would never return my own type to a brutish life (like Luther actually prescribes - brute, ugly) nor to a short one - but I dont mind if enemy types return to such a life. Like I dont mind if a colony of pestilent bacteria suffers a short and brutish life.

Where are these humans now? They are around, among the weak. And this is all I want. To gather the strong, the oak-like and ash-like to find each other, and to create their own sovereignty, take over this or that state to that end - and let the rest wither perish as they must according to their natures.

The only possible politics for a 'value ontologist' is conquest. As philosophical-shamanic conquest starts with seducing the human spirit to itself, it is a rather slow process. But the results of value-standard-raising are the opposite of transient - this is existence, and as existence is eternal, this Ethos is eternity itself.


Yea and amen. The human spirit seducing itself to itself. "Wo Geist herrscht, wird das Seiende als solches immer und jeweils seiender."

Thanks for this great quote. Yes indeed.
So there is no need to actively contemplate reduction of Man - there is only the necessity of raising our own type - so that the deeply sick masses will recede away from us into the background, where they form just another desert in the distance.

Yes, I would reduce these masses to short life or to immediate death, out of mercy. But then I dont consider them a species of Man, strictly, - I do not consider them as individual entities. I see the postmodernist masses as goo, which in its ultimate capacity for being turns into swarms. It is quasi-being, unable to be alone, to itself - to exist. Its resistance against more healthy types is nothing more or less than a terror facing the ultimate reality of actually being something. Transgenderism is a symptom of the will to deny the specificity of nature, and thereby the friction, resistance - suffering and overcoming - selfvaluing.

Id like to add a note, in reference to a correspondence between you and Wyld, that self-valuing does not refer to a valued self- it is auto-valere, a valuing that feeds its own power to value -
what it values is outside of itself, but it values it in such a way as to sustain itself in that valuing.
Like you value philosophy, and depending on your accomplishments therein, you exist to yourself.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Sun May 07, 2017 11:20 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Yeah, I myself have a loathing for everyone who doesn't at least initially loathe Aristotle. But I think he, like Plato (whom Nietzsche calls boring), had to present himself like that. Philosophy did not become Socratic for nothing; Sophism actually endangered philosophy.

It occurs to me that in what we might call your grand narrative, it is philosophy itself which represents the primal self-valuing.

That is to say, it is the subject of your identification, perhaps even rather than that you are that subject - you are its subject in so far as you deem yourself up to its standard. Is that correct?

This is not meant as an attack, the contrary, it is a noble thing and useful, valuable - but I say it to be able to say that I do not consider it so - I consider philosophy as having been 'dead to me' from shortly after its very beginning with Thales, to essentially Nietzsche. I do admire various philosophers in between, but more for their characters than the merit of their thoughts. Descartes, for example. As such as I am far more 'arrogant' - I consider my work, which is really our work - a group including even Bill and Weary Locomotive - to be the rebirth of the Ancient world. That is my aim and my eidos, my soul and my taste, the scent in my nostrils whenever I engage myself....it is what seduces me to myself.


Yes, but from my perspective, this difference is due to your essentially rejecting my "grand narrative" (even calling it a narrative reeks of postmodernism, in the sense of the rejection of "metanarratives"). Nietzsche, too, only had inklings, relatively speaking, of the exotericism of the philosophers. Thus he said Plato was worth more than his philosophy (Platonism). However, both of you admire such philosophers for their characters. Aren't you then, like Nietzsche, puzzled by the fact that their thought does not seem to match their character? My Straussian metanarrative argues that their thought does match their character--and is thereby as admirable--, but that it might well not even have come down to us if they hadn't obfuscated it. It certainly wouldn't have been able to seduce the human spirit to itself! Thanks to Cartesian exotericism, human life has cut into life, dissected life, and created the machine...




I think Aristotle really describes the subtle unity of bhusis, but does so in a way that seems to clinically dissect it. I find it ironic, by the way, that you now speak positively of "a subtle unity" when in your previous post you spoke negatively of Unity. A Socratic subtlety, perhaps?

I speak here of unity of principle. This same unity, as it is a cleaving principle, precludes unity of the world.

The unity of the steel that makes this sword disunites the weaker unities.


Ironic though that "to cleave" also means "to cling" (kleven as well as klieven).


Nietzsche writes:

"The question 'why?' is always a question after the causa finalis, after the 'what for?' We have no 'sense for the causa efficiens'[.]" (WP 550.)

Modern (Machiavellian) science basically retains only the efficient cause, conceiving matter as a function of force. Nietzsche puts the eidos/telos back in it by conceiving force as on the inside will (WP 618); will is inconceivable without a vision of power, a feeling of value (WP 668).

Absolutely.

The sword that wooshes through the air and hacks off a limb is the "beginning of all thing" - if executed properly!

This is how I replace value-neutral metaphysics - I contend that only the Good, i.e. the strong and swift, grace out of strength, is Eidos, True -- only clean action is ground, as it emerges out of certainty: certainty of self-valuing, of power - of possibility of a straight line.

This is my happiness - the straight line, and the certainty that it is the only truth, the only true path - and, since all is in motion, there is no absolute stillness, no 0 degrees Kelvin, no "atom-ness" - there is nothing besides a path. So Machiavelli is a bit closer to my tastes.

[...]
And how did he value imagination?
Did he see that the imagination itself is an effectual cause?
This is my problem with the distinction. Men act in the presence of a sense of Eidos and Telos ("God" to the pious) and this effectively governs their material goings-about, and then, it is fed by the results of these material goings-about -- it is thus effectively their standard, i.e. their self-valuing.


Well, there's a difference between how Machiavelli himself saw it and how he says (or seems to say) he saw it; but insofar as his intended audience consisted of people who took Platonism at face value, I don't think he said he saw the imagination itself as an effectual cause. For example, he argued that a prince who tried to be "a good king"--kind, merciful etc.--would probably come to ruin, whereas a prince who was to be successful needed to be "Machiavellian". In other words, the prince's idea of the good should not be what drives him; what drives him should be efficiency (virtù). Yet what Machiavelli wanted was the creation of "Heaven on Earth", at least as a goal striving for which Christianity's tyranny would be broken. His real goal was the furtherance of philosophy.

Machiavelli is definitely the most mysterious figure in your chain - I would appreciate much more reading material on this. The way you phrase it, his sword seems to have cleaved the soft wood of Platonism.


Yeah, Machiavelli is definitely the link in the chain Homer--Plato--Machiavelli-Nietzsche that most needs "rounding out". I think my focus on the concept(ion) of nature may finally enable me to do so.


Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible... that's a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.


Well, those that survived the wars and plagues, at least--like the war and plague which were the direct reason why philosophy needed to become Socratic in Athens. "Brutish and short" was a reference to Hobbes, who indeed wrote with the Middle Ages in mind. I didn't mean that life was brutish and short in all of the past (as I conceive the past as cyclical). And isn't vigour already quite "brutish" from a modern standpoint, anyway?

Id always make a distinction between raw strength and brutishness. A brute is an ugly, stupid thing - I know, for example, when Ive been brutish - I feel weakened. When Ive relentlessly attacked an enemy unto his downfall, I dont feel brutish, I feel clean.


Fair enough.

Nietzsche argues that the victors' and the victims' experience of events gave rise to two different ages in Hesiod.


And to me this is the "Ideal" - Greece - and myself. I don't care to return man to brutish and short life - to me that is a thing of Medieval Christianity, of feeble spirit - Health is what I relate to a vigorous and mature Oak or Ash, and to all humans made of "hard and supple wood".


Sure, but are you willing to return man to brutish and short life if that is a necessary consequence or a prerequisite of your "Ideal"?

I dont understand. Arent you asking me if I want to move to the opposite of my ideal if this is necessary to attain my ideal?


Yes! Exactly! Would you rather have both your ideal and its opposite than neither?


I do not see Man as one thing. I discern distinctly differing types, and I would never return my own type to a brutish life (like Luther actually prescribes - brute, ugly) nor to a short one - but I dont mind if enemy types return to such a life. Like I dont mind if a colony of pestilent bacteria suffers a short and brutish life.

Where are these humans now? They are around, among the weak. And this is all I want. To gather the strong, the oak-like and ash-like to find each other, and to create their own sovereignty, take over this or that state to that end - and let the rest wither perish as they must according to their natures.

The only possible politics for a 'value ontologist' is conquest. As philosophical-shamanic conquest starts with seducing the human spirit to itself, it is a rather slow process. But the results of value-standard-raising are the opposite of transient - this is existence, and as existence is eternal, this Ethos is eternity itself.


Yea and amen. The human spirit seducing itself to itself. "Wo Geist herrscht, wird das Seiende als solches immer und jeweils seiender."

Thanks for this great quote. Yes indeed.
So there is no need to actively contemplate reduction of Man - there is only the necessity of raising our own type - so that the deeply sick masses will recede away from us into the background, where they form just another desert in the distance.

Yes, I would reduce these masses to short life or to immediate death, out of mercy. But then I dont consider them a species of Man, strictly, - I do not consider them as individual entities. I see the postmodernist masses as goo, which in its ultimate capacity for being turns into swarms. It is quasi-being, unable to be alone, to itself - to exist. Its resistance against more healthy types is nothing more or less than a terror facing the ultimate reality of actually being something. Transgenderism is a symptom of the will to deny the specificity of nature, and thereby the friction, resistance - suffering and overcoming - selfvaluing.

Id like to add a note, in reference to a correspondence between you and Wyld, that self-valuing does not refer to a valued self- it is auto-valere, a valuing that feeds its own power to value -
what it values is outside of itself, but it values it in such a way as to sustain itself in that valuing.
Like you value philosophy, and depending on your accomplishments therein, you exist to yourself.


I think the valuing must insist on its own value, which is the value of valuing its "higher self" (which is indeed outside of it), though. If it is to persist, that is.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon May 08, 2017 2:56 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:That is to say, it is the subject of your identification, perhaps even rather than that you are that subject - you are its subject in so far as you deem yourself up to its standard. Is that correct?

This is not meant as an attack, the contrary, it is a noble thing and useful, valuable - but I say it to be able to say that I do not consider it so - I consider philosophy as having been 'dead to me' from shortly after its very beginning with Thales, to essentially Nietzsche. I do admire various philosophers in between, but more for their characters than the merit of their thoughts. Descartes, for example. As such as I am far more 'arrogant' - I consider my work, which is really our work - a group including even Bill and Weary Locomotive - to be the rebirth of the Ancient world. That is my aim and my eidos, my soul and my taste, the scent in my nostrils whenever I engage myself....it is what seduces me to myself.

Yes, but from my perspective, this difference is due to your essentially rejecting my "grand narrative" (even calling it a narrative reeks of postmodernism, in the sense of the rejection of "metanarratives").

I don't reject it and never have said that I do.
I simply see our work and where it is leading to as a point in it, an apex that comes to be served by the entire narrative. Else I would not be doing this work. I only do it because I know I can excel, exceed.

Nietzsche, too, only had inklings, relatively speaking, of the exotericism of the philosophers. Thus he said Plato was worth more than his philosophy (Platonism). However, both of you admire such philosophers for their characters. Aren't you then, like Nietzsche, puzzled by the fact that their thought does not seem to match their character? My Straussian metanarrative argues that their thought does match their character--and is thereby as admirable--, but that it might well not even have come down to us if they hadn't obfuscated it. It certainly wouldn't have been able to seduce the human spirit to itself! Thanks to Cartesian exotericism, human life has cut into life, dissected life, and created the machine...


Ill concede that I would be more consistent in giving them a little more credit.

Ironic though that "to cleave" also means "to cling" (kleven as well as klieven).

Not so ironic - indeed by cleaving, it ties - the will to power is a case of separation, and separation is the condition to union.

Well, there's a difference between how Machiavelli himself saw it and how he says (or seems to say) he saw it; but insofar as his intended audience consisted of people who took Platonism at face value, I don't think he said he saw the imagination itself as an effectual cause. For example, he argued that a prince who tried to be "a good king"--kind, merciful etc.--would probably come to ruin, whereas a prince who was to be successful needed to be "Machiavellian". In other words, the prince's idea of the good should not be what drives him; what drives him should be efficiency (virtù). Yet what Machiavelli wanted was the creation of "Heaven on Earth", at least as a goal striving for which Christianity's tyranny would be broken. His real goal was the furtherance of philosophy.

Some more on this: is he then not simply changing 'the good' from a moral to (also) a teleological judgment?
We can liken this to prescribing a balance between mercy and severity.

Machiavelli is definitely the most mysterious figure in your chain - I would appreciate much more reading material on this. The way you phrase it, his sword seems to have cleaved the soft wood of Platonism.


Yeah, Machiavelli is definitely the link in the chain Homer--Plato--Machiavelli-Nietzsche that most needs "rounding out". I think my focus on the concept(ion) of nature may finally enable me to do so.

I look forward to it.

Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible... that's a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.


Well, those that survived the wars and plagues, at least-

Of course - like here, like the recent ones that survived depression and the diseases of our time, the cancer, the aids, what not.
Our times are brutish -much is ugly, banal, sick.

Nietzsche argues that the victors' and the victims' experience of events gave rise to two different ages in Hesiod.

I must read Hesiod.

Sure, but are you willing to return man to brutish and short life if that is a necessary consequence or a prerequisite of your "Ideal"?

I dont understand. Arent you asking me if I want to move to the opposite of my ideal if this is necessary to attain my ideal?


Yes! Exactly! Would you rather have both your ideal and its opposite than neither?

I certainly would. But in this case I do not see a path between the two.

I think the valuing must insist on its own value, which is the value of valuing its "higher self" (which is indeed outside of it), though. If it is to persist, that is.

Per value ontology or selfvaluing logic, that insistence is the indirect result of what we might call a lucky insistence on something outward.

I thusly interpret Nietzsche's ethos of self-overcoming as the mechanics of self-valuing - one must always aim for something higher than oneself to retain ones power.
Aything aiming for preservation will gradually lose out to ascending wills.

According to my logic, Nietzsche's will to bring about the Superman is Nietzsche - his valuing beyond his 'self' (in which I do not believe) was his self-valuing. It is the consistency of his character, his Eidos - as well as the effective cause that he is to the world, to my own work, character, nature, being.

Hence the greatness of Alexander, and Caesar. It is their will which reaches thousands of years beyond their lives that defines these lives, even keeps defining them in retrospect.

This is Honor as Achilles understood it, as Ive long feared even as I understood it, and which with VO I fear no more.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 09, 2017 11:39 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:That is to say, it is the subject of your identification, perhaps even rather than that you are that subject - you are its subject in so far as you deem yourself up to its standard. Is that correct?

This is not meant as an attack, the contrary, it is a noble thing and useful, valuable - but I say it to be able to say that I do not consider it so - I consider philosophy as having been 'dead to me' from shortly after its very beginning with Thales, to essentially Nietzsche. I do admire various philosophers in between, but more for their characters than the merit of their thoughts. Descartes, for example. As such as I am far more 'arrogant' - I consider my work, which is really our work - a group including even Bill and Weary Locomotive - to be the rebirth of the Ancient world. That is my aim and my eidos, my soul and my taste, the scent in my nostrils whenever I engage myself....it is what seduces me to myself.

Yes, but from my perspective, this difference is due to your essentially rejecting my "grand narrative" (even calling it a narrative reeks of postmodernism, in the sense of the rejection of "metanarratives").

I don't reject it and never have said that I do.
I simply see our work and where it is leading to as a point in it, an apex that comes to be served by the entire narrative. Else I would not be doing this work. I only do it because I know I can excel, exceed.


Yes, but I see that apex as the vortex at which the narrative--the unfolding/realization of Spirit, not in the Hegelian but in the Nietzschean sense; the doctrine of the development of the will to power (BGE 23)--is actually willed (to power!) by projecting it into the future, as recurrence.


Nietzsche, too, only had inklings, relatively speaking, of the exotericism of the philosophers. Thus he said Plato was worth more than his philosophy (Platonism). However, both of you admire such philosophers for their characters. Aren't you then, like Nietzsche, puzzled by the fact that their thought does not seem to match their character? My Straussian metanarrative argues that their thought does match their character--and is thereby as admirable--, but that it might well not even have come down to us if they hadn't obfuscated it. It certainly wouldn't have been able to seduce the human spirit to itself! Thanks to Cartesian exotericism, human life has cut into life, dissected life, and created the machine...


Ill concede that I would be more consistent in giving them a little more credit.

Ironic though that "to cleave" also means "to cling" (kleven as well as klieven).

Not so ironic - indeed by cleaving, it ties - the will to power is a case of separation, and separation is the condition to union.


Yes, this is excellent: the Heraclitean logos:

"[W]ar is [in] common[.]"

"[S]ome he [war] shows as gods, others as humans; some he makes slaves, some free." (fr. 80-79, trans. McKirahan, Jr.)

This logos shall be the theme of my next video.


Well, there's a difference between how Machiavelli himself saw it and how he says (or seems to say) he saw it; but insofar as his intended audience consisted of people who took Platonism at face value, I don't think he said he saw the imagination itself as an effectual cause. For example, he argued that a prince who tried to be "a good king"--kind, merciful etc.--would probably come to ruin, whereas a prince who was to be successful needed to be "Machiavellian". In other words, the prince's idea of the good should not be what drives him; what drives him should be efficiency (virtù). Yet what Machiavelli wanted was the creation of "Heaven on Earth", at least as a goal striving for which Christianity's tyranny would be broken. His real goal was the furtherance of philosophy.

Some more on this: is he then not simply changing 'the good' from a moral to (also) a teleological judgment?
We can liken this to prescribing a balance between mercy and severity.

Machiavelli is definitely the most mysterious figure in your chain - I would appreciate much more reading material on this. The way you phrase it, his sword seems to have cleaved the soft wood of Platonism.


Yeah, Machiavelli is definitely the link in the chain Homer--Plato--Machiavelli-Nietzsche that most needs "rounding out". I think my focus on the concept(ion) of nature may finally enable me to do so.

I look forward to it.


I shall force it into my next video, then.


I dont understand. Arent you asking me if I want to move to the opposite of my ideal if this is necessary to attain my ideal?


Yes! Exactly! Would you rather have both your ideal and its opposite than neither?

I certainly would. But in this case I do not see a path between the two.


I shall try and show you the path, which is the same and not the same up and down.


I think the valuing must insist on its own value, which is the value of valuing its "higher self" (which is indeed outside of it), though. If it is to persist, that is.

Per value ontology or selfvaluing logic, that insistence is the indirect result of what we might call a lucky insistence on something outward.

I thusly interpret Nietzsche's ethos of self-overcoming as the mechanics of self-valuing - one must always aim for something higher than oneself to retain ones power.
Aything aiming for preservation will gradually lose out to ascending wills.

According to my logic, Nietzsche's will to bring about the Superman is Nietzsche - his valuing beyond his 'self' (in which I do not believe) was his self-valuing. It is the consistency of his character, his Eidos - as well as the effective cause that he is to the world, to my own work, character, nature, being.

Hence the greatness of Alexander, and Caesar. It is their will which reaches thousands of years beyond their lives that defines these lives, even keeps defining them in retrospect.

This is Honor as Achilles understood it, as Ive long feared even as I understood it, and which with VO I fear no more.


Yes, this all makes perfect sense. But what I shall, must needs, try and show is how Odysseus is superior to Achilles, the Odyssey to the Iliad: "Mere Caesars, however great, will not suffice, for the new philosophers must teach man the future of man as his will, as dependent on a human will in order to put an end to the gruesome rule of nonsense and chance which was hitherto regarded as 'history': the true history--as distinguished from the mere pre-history, to use a Marxian distinction--requires the subjugation of chance, of nature (Genealogy II n. 2) by men of the highest spirituality, of the greatest reason."

Reason, or merely human reason? That is the question. Being, or human being? Nay, human reason or just your reason (each of us)?

"[F]irst the notion that man has a body distinct from his soul, is to be expunged: this I shall do, by printing in the infernal method[.]"
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Thu May 11, 2017 6:55 pm


User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby 1mpious » Sat May 13, 2017 3:34 am

That's you, right? I should do one myself.
'Up and down, round and round, let's get down now upside down' :evilfun:
User avatar
1mpious
decent guy
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:58 am
Location: Sydney Secondus

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Mon May 15, 2017 11:26 pm

1mpious wrote:That's you, right? I should do one myself.


You totally should!
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Wed May 17, 2017 4:31 am








User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu May 18, 2017 4:41 pm

Very nice.

Ive completed another episode of my Tree of Life series.

Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu May 18, 2017 6:02 pm

Which Im able to focus on due to Sauwelios taking responsilility for the baseline of this... clan of Zeus.

Ill be posting the vids / lectures in the designated thread in a more organized fashion.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Thu May 18, 2017 9:51 pm

New version, I think a bit more modest.

https://youtu.be/qfLECTYUbJ8
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Fri May 19, 2017 4:33 pm

Sauwelios wrote:


-- notes the sisters Dagaz - Daybreak. it is significant that the Armanen Runenset 'revealed to' Otto Van List exclude this rune. endless night. Dark sun imploding. Association: the third leg as the pillar of mildness

-- Yes, I have now--through Nepalese shamanism--arrived at the Qabalistic Tree of Life again. "Three unities". And I think ῥαπίζεσθαι is problaby cognate with ῥάβδος, which interestingly is feminine even though it seems to have a masculine ending, and which means "stick", "staff" or "wand", like the magic wands of Circe and Hermes...

-- Reminds me of these lines from the Havamal, where Odin speaks: Runes you will find, and readable staves, Very strong staves, Very stout staves, Staves that Bolthor stained, Made by mighty powers, Graven by the prophetic God.

-- Unnatural wisdom - Chokmah is indeed beyond nature, a violence that rips through nature, forces it to rebirth, reinvent itself. Look at the image youtube suggested as thumbnail to my video about that sephira. /watch?v=em-hmbYgJeo



-- Very nice narrative. ("In the beginning was the story" - FC... narrative is required for even logic to be possible - logic walks from its premises to its conclusion through the primordial logic of the progression by the synthesis of subjects in time, with "power" always as the direction... ) On Blake: You as man must love man - a rigid selfvaluing standard. I dont comply. There has not yet been a man great enough to eclipse tree, bird, or galaxy - no man has yet lived in the right direction. Following up on the dream: the fourth leg as the baby's attribute - the treasure is in the baby's ways? 'babe of the abyss' Weirdly, I already associate Wilhelmina with Daath, with respect to the discovery that lead up to rebranding my film project as "Oranje in Dagen van Strijd" - Victor of Daath: the back Lion. (my symbol) Im listing in fascination now... Oedipus is what you might call a problem child. Mankind is a problem child. Yes - the central pillar. Perhaps also the dual Pisces turning into the monic Aries.

-- I think any man who realises the nature of man thereby rivals--if not eclipses--tree, bird, and galaxy. And I think there have been many such men in the past--though they have at the same time been only few.

-- I dont think that before Nietzsche, any man has truly understood man - at least not since before Socrates, who, to my mind, obscured all understanding by positing as standard his quality-less, substance-empty, unverifiable and invisible 'daemon' which replaced the hard won Reality of Athens -the superstition that leads to nihilism. In our time, we are at the very frontier of human understanding, approaching its disclosure - and this approach is the direction I value most. To rival is a far stretch from eclipsing... even surpassing doesn't mean eclipsing - and there have been men that have surpassed tree, certainly.

-- The Occident
The Occident
8 hours ago
"I dont think that before Nietzsche, any man has truly understood man -
at least not since before Socrates, who, to my mind, obscured all
understanding by positing as standard his quality-less, substance-empty,
unverifiable and invisible 'daemon' which replaced the hard won Reality
of Athens -the superstition that leads to nihilism."

Well,
that's what I meant recently when I said you reject my narrative (not
this part of the narrative, but the part about the ages). Socrates did
not obscure all understanding; he didn't replace the hard won
reality of Athens, but only obscured it, for most understandings. This
was necessary at that point precisely for preserving the Greek
enlightenment. But yes, through Christianity his exotericism led to the
loss of (virtually) all understanding in Europe, until the Renaissance
finally regained it for some (e.g., Machiavelli). But even then the
enlightenment remained esoteric until Nietzsche, to be sure.

::

"In
our time, we are at the very frontier of human understanding,
approaching its disclosure - and this approach is the direction I value
most. To rival is a far stretch from eclipsing... even surpassing
doesn't mean eclipsing - and there have been men that have surpassed
tree, certainly."

But is eclipsing even desirable? Should a shepherd "eclipse" his sheep? I'm reminded:

"I fear that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree."

But
what about a poet lovely as a tree? If not in the narrow sense, every
great man has surely been a poet. Indeed, you basically say there have
been poets that surpassed tree. But wouldn't a poet who eclipsed
tree have to be a poet who surpassed tree so far that tree paled in
comparison?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Fri May 19, 2017 7:29 pm

I think ῥαπίζεσθαι is problaby cognate with ῥάβδος, which interestingly is feminine even though it seems to have a masculine ending, and which means "stick", "staff" or "wand", like the magic wands of Circe and Hermes...


I now seriously suspect Heraclitus meant the following:

Ὅμηρος ἄξιος ἐκ τῶν ἀγώνων ἐκβάλλεσθαι καὶ ῥαπίζεσθαι καὶ Ἀρχίλοχον ὁμοίως.

"Homer is worthy of being ejected from the mass assemblies and being touched with a magic wand, and Archilochus likewise."

In other words, Homer is too precious to (just) be in the hands of the masses, and should rather be read by men who have the third "leg", the complete λόγος.

"Scholium T at 10.305 says that for Odysseus to take the moly means he took the complete logos." (Benardete, The Bow and the Lyre, Note 132.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Sun May 21, 2017 1:55 am

By my own selfvaluing standard, Homer [[whose value to us is matter-wise made out of the type of men in the type of world he describes, thus those that came right before Homer]] is the peak of the circle.
In radical terms: Everything after Homer is a dilution of Homer until Machiavelli, where it turns back toward Homer.
Now, we passed the hour of 9, and things are looking up.

Image

Thanks be to Kronos.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Sun May 21, 2017 2:35 am

Jakob wrote:By my own selfvaluing standard, Homer [[whose value to us is matter-wise made out of the type of men in the type of world he describes, thus those that came right before Homer]] is the peak of the circle.
In radical terms: Everything after Homer is a dilution of Homer until Machiavelli, where it turns back toward Homer.
Now, we passed the hour of 9, and things are looking up.

Image

Thanks be to Kronos.


Of course, to different types of men, different points on the circle will be the peak. And it doesn't turn back toward Homer by itself; nature works through us, through our natures--we are part of nature. I'm saying this not because you need to be told so, but because others may.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Sun May 21, 2017 5:23 am

Sauwelios wrote:Of course, to different types of men, different points on the circle will be the peak. And it doesn't turn back toward Homer by itself; nature works through us, through our natures--we are part of nature. I'm saying this not because you need to be told so, but because others may.


To clarify: wanting to break out of the circle is characteristic of the Machiavellian age. As its polar opposite, then, the Homeric age is incommensurable with such a wish. A Machiavellian becomes pre-Homeric (Nietzschean!) by willing the whole cycle!
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun May 21, 2017 11:59 pm

A picture is dawning on me, Occident -

Image

A picture of a dusk, evidently -
it is fleeting, it was written here, now it is not.
It was merely a vision, it could hold no claim.
A vision of Florentine reason that echos Homers style, and announces the fullness of the world at Nietzsche's cusp.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 23, 2017 9:21 am







User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed May 24, 2017 3:20 pm

barbarianhorde

I think self is what we wanna be.


Self IS what you are. Multitudinous aspects to us capable of change.
The problem is that we have yet to discover those through consciousness.

Maybe ego is the difference between that and reality.

Ego as in self-identity or hubris?
Ego is part of our consciousness, our human awareness.
I wouldn't have worded it the way in which you did.

One might say that "ego" as hubris can "get in the way of" self and reality. True ego doesn't separate self from reality. Self and reality, at least to me, flow in the same waters. True ego gathers them in.

In reality we dont exist, we just remember some events and then some new events happen
.
So then who or what is it which is doing the remembering?
Why would you want to deny self, your self?



The impression it gives on us is worthy nothing only what we do with it, like it doesnt matter how hard the wind blows only how fast you can still walk.

Some people think the wind matters and they drift backwards.
That my philosophy anyway.


Oh but the wind does matter and it matters how hard the wind blows. It can pawn your pace at any moment. But if you allow the wind to take you forward, it will. You just cannot fight it. It's like the seagull which rides the waves to shore.
Why would the seagull fight that?

What really matters is that you just keep on walking and if that gets to be too much, you stop, find a tree and hug it. :evilfun:
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15274
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Sauwelios » Sun May 28, 2017 8:00 am





User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users