I actually only read until Uccisore’s post about his worries regarding the precepts.
I actually associated the ‘real men’ talk to you, and my interpretation regarding your will to power and such.
Somewhere along the line you must have said something that hit that nerve, or stepped on that trap.
I remember…kind of…
The fact is we have a bunch of moderators on there who really aren’t agreeing with each other on a lot of things. They have conflicting values and conflicting approaches. I had NEVER met anyone who could see eye to eye with another one philosophical issues entirely. But VO is changing that.
I am glad you feel that way but - that is not implicit in the text. I do agree with it though. So maybe it’s in there. Do you disagree?
^^^
Is that not basically agreeing to Uccisore’s representation?
Not putting words in your mouth.
Okay, yes that’s fucked up. Suffice it to say that I was very far from sober yesterday, and made a really dumb decision to make this thread. Joke’s on me, everyone. Forget about it, go back to your tents and dreams.
I take that to refer to the philosopher as the most/only complete human being.
Obviously the term Humanarchy presents a problem, in that it means “The Rule of The Human”
First we had “advancing human values” as a slugline. But what are human values? I mean, is Auschwitz not also a human value? There never was any non-human that worked on that project.
I am content not having resolved this problem, as it is the central moral problem of this time. We make claims to “humanity” and “inhumanity” and it seems quite arbitrary what that means. In one country, to be human means to be an obedient drone zapping between porn channels, in another it means to be a rugged bushman guerilla reading Tolstoy while he’s shitting in the woods, and yet another is a human because he drinks wine under a statue of a man nailed to a cross. It’s all pretty arbitrary, so far. And yet we have “human rights”. What does that even mean?
The only thing it really means is that no man shall be granted the ownership of another man.
But then, these laws are commanded by the state, which is an institution that can claim ownership of all men born within its borders.
Humanity is a giant clusterfuck. Humanarchy would mean a certain degree of logical control.
So Uccisore - you can substitute “Real Man” with “Real Human” or even “Real Being”.
I wonder who here has understood value ontology -
who has understood that a being is nothing else besides its capacity to value in the terms that keep him an autonomous entity.
Moreoever, who here is an actual entity. I know I am struggling to manifest my philosophical understanding in this pre-defined world.
I certainly haven’t. You’re much like obe, FC – very deep yet sometimes unintelligible (probably because of your depth).
You seem to have defined value ontology as
So you seem to be defining a being (a conscious agent, I take it) as a set of capacities. Since this is what defines the being, this is where you get “ontology” from. Am I correct? And it is a set of capacities to “value”. To desire? To place importance upon? To dictate a kind of morality? As it is typically the case with organisms, this usually keeps the organism alive, thus he remains an autonomous entity, but I take it this is more than just a happenstance side effect–it seems to figure into your definition in a highly important way. Am I right?
I think these attempts at defining “humanity” only result in the distortion of true humanness. I think true human nature only shines through when we get a glimpse of the individual outside the influence of culture and state rule (and even then, we’d have to control for exceptions and outliers). We band together into clans, and these eventually grow into societies, out of which grows the state. Culture, religion, and art grow along side these. The direction in which these grow are typically a result of the idiosyncrasies of our environments, our unique histories (as a community), the personalities that dominate, the ideas that clever and prominent thinkers amongst the community voice, and so on. These are the variables that cause a community to diverge from that archetypical human being who exudes “true” human nature. What you get in the end is a diversity of different cultures and norms around the world, each mirroring a distorted or fragmented reflection of human nature. True human nature can be found somewhere within this mist, perhaps as an average, perhaps after all the cultural noise has been filtered out, perhaps by pinning down the common denominators among individuals spread throughout this quagmire.
I think modernity is an attempt to undo the distorting effects of several millennia of cultural evolution–perhaps not holy successfully–and I think this very thread is a testament to that.
I realize this doesn’t answer your question, but I hope it points in a direction that could get us started (in particular, in defining “human nature”).
FC’s communication skills fade in and out, at times unintelligible, at times supreme, always “deep”. 
That’s right. For my first (public) expression of this idea, see http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2292083#p2292083.
[size=95]“All natural beings have a natural end, a natural destiny, which determines what kind of operation is good for them. In the case of man, reason is required for discerning these operations: reason determines what is by nature right with ultimate regard to man’s natural end.” (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, Introduction.)[/size]
The genuine philosopher as man’s end is not natural in that “the Vernatürlichung of man […] is by no means necessary but requires a free, creative act” (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, page 189); it is natural in that the genuine philosopher is the vernatürlicht man—the man who is truly “an image of nature”.
I agree with this, but only in the sense that no genuine philosopher will grant himself the ownership of another genuine philosopher.
[size=95]“Genuine philosophers […] are commanders and lawgivers: they say ‘thus it shall be!’, they determine the Wherefore? and Whither? of man and possess for this task the preliminary work of all the philosophical labourers [e.g., Kant and Hegel], of all those who have subdued the past,—they reach for the future with creative hand, and everything that is or has been becomes for them a means, an instrument, a hammer. Their ‘knowing’ is creating, their creating is a law‑giving, their will to truth is—will to power.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211.)
“Not only is philosophy the supreme undertaking as inquiry into the truth about nature and humanity, that inquiry, carried far enough, invests the inquirer with responsibilities that can only be called imperial. His ambitions and his achievement make Bacon a ‘genuine philosopher’ in Nietzsche’s sense, a ‘commander and legislator’ who has determined ‘the Whither and For What of humanity’ (BGE 211).” (Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times, page 18.)
“Commanders and legislators must be understood here in its full Platonic pedigree as philosophical rulers who legislate for a whole age, the philosophical ruler as understood and embodied by Platonic philosophers of the rank of Alfarabi or Bacon[.]” (Lampert, Nietzsche’s Task, page 199.)[/size]
You know fixed…I like some of the things you’ve said in the OP. I can get along with the whole, “meaning and purpose of life” kind of philosophy thing if that’s what you’re into. The problem that I have with it is that the language you use isn’t exactly precise, and all the terms are totally loaded. When I read it I feel like I’m getting more about your psychology than about some actual information that you’ve stated. I mean you can’t just be so loose with your words and start throwing out new principles with so much ambiguity and room for debate and equivocation. When I see your post I think, “this guy is thinking and coming up with things and that’s nice, but any conversation started with so many loaded terms, worded so loosely is going to end up a shit storm of people talking past one another and in the end nothing will get accomplished.” I dunno man. Meaning and purpose of life kind of philosophy. That’s what I’m gonna start calling this stuff. Sometimes I just call it poetry and ask if there’s anything else to it, but I’m gonna go ahead and start calling it some kind of philosophy for you guys. I mean hell…not everyone is interested in logic and metaphysics and decision theory or game theory or constructing models or trying to understand the synthesis of all the branches of thought and the thinkers that took us there through history. I mean…some people just like to do the poetic stuff about the meaning of life and power and all that. So have at it buddy. I’ll keep looking at your thread and try and post some more advice if I have time.
I was sent to the corner once as a boy, I decided I liked it there. It’s all been a function of that since then.
Anyway- you want to criticize the existence of authority itself, as a concept, on the grounds of what is and is not natural to mankind. But history and anthropology seem to suggest that authority is as natural to mankind as is value-forming. This seems like a problem.
Never.
I don’t know if I completely understand VO, having not read much of what you’ve written on it. But, from reading one of your major essays on VO on BTL, it seemed to make since, in fact it seemed, perhaps, elusively simple.
I understand and agree with that completely, I do consider myself to be an actual entity, and I’m involved in the exact same struggle.
In fact these issues are exactly what I’ve been talking about the last few months. Perhaps it’s just that I use different terminology and the ideas influencing my views have a different background, despite leading to some of the same conclusions.
Now with that said, I’ve read the OP and the quoted essay of Humanarchy. I find what was written to be somewhat obvious; that is it’s obvious due to the limited degree it has pushed the issue. Of course it’s obvious what it’s leading up; actual drafts as to how society can be improved with those ideas as it’s bases (yes, I understand the irony, but then I also realize that your using the term “ideology” as it has been reinterpreted by hundreds of years of actual use, I know it no longer just means “the study of ideas”).
I’ll give all involved credit in that you and them seemed to have created as good a foundation as any, but I’m extremely pessimistic of any ideas to improve society as a whole.
To me it seems you’re moving at a very slow pace, but that may just be so that all involved are on the same page. But, if you can take my word that I understand the bases of VO and the way it’s related to the idea of human rights, then perhaps you can give me some links to the essays that actual go as far forward as any of you have gone. I honestly just can’t be mired in commenting much on the small details of what seems to only be the barest introductory work.
By Pallas Athena, this is encouragement. Everyone seems to understand it except Smears, but he doesn’t need to because he is already being an example of how to effectively self-value. Smears, I will gladly make use of your vital advices. It’s funny to me but I mean that, like with the Capitals. You know what, I am going to write your name in capitals from now on.
I agree. And VO is as elusively simple as Stuart suspects it to be. And this accounts for it’s depth as well as its frequent unintelligibility. It’s simply always referring to what is going on, no matter how you look at it.
A self-valuing, which I have taken as the ontological standard of the observable universe, is simply an “independent something”. It is dependent on the fact of existence, but the fact of existence is also dependent on it. It is how existence exists. It must be ultra-simple, applicable to literally every proper entity == everything that can be said to exist without being created to suit a purpose by another entity. In such a case it would not exist because it values reality (consciously and/or unconsciously selects its responses to reality) in terms of itself, of what perpetuates itself, but because another entity values it in terms of itself.
So one use-value that VO produces is an irrefutable distinction between entity and tool. We can know with absolute certainty that, if man employs himself in the service of a purpose that he has no or negative benefit from (negative self-value), regardless if this brings him money, he is participating in his ontological undoing.
Precisely, we band together based on what we are used to interpreting as “ours” “what we have and they don’t.” Or in case of more reactionary morality, “what they have and we don’t”.
But in every great society there are strong contrasts and contradiction opinions. This is because what has become common is a derivative of relatively similar self-valuings connected and concentrated throughout time. But because of the fact that culture is a pre-existing derivative, a self-valuing born into a culture will always be at odds with it, as it discovers its own physiological being, its drives - its real values become apparent to it, and it must in many cases break free. Whether it can or can’t break free when it wants to determines whether it will be an entity or a sub-entity, a thing that operates purely as a derived function of a family or a culture.
Don’t get so close and then casually say the thing you know is wrong. No. Not an average. That is looking at it the wrong way. You will derive the human nature from that which is the derivative of many human natures.
What VO implicitly proposes (that’s why it is of value to me), is that cultures begin to slightly adapt to their human nature, to their being derivatives, and not active functions. Sometimes, when a culture has become so sweeping and stimulating to be born into, the name of the town or land will take on a mythical sound and people will be happy to value themselves as a Roman or an American. When that is voluntary, it is the greatest thing in the world. But then the sun sets and the state becomes an absolute rather than a freedom… and that’s where we are. There is no way out. There’s just a way deeper in.
But this suggests that the end is already implicit in the beginning. I don’t think that this is the case unless one has the power to calculate with the whole of existence to which the subject is subjugated in his battle to remain self-valuing.
Or, because of the scope of the philosophers valuing, it is necessary for him to act freely of what already exists - to create the conditions in which he honestly and affirm what he sees.
The ultimate environment of man is his ‘a-priori intuitions’ - changing these is the only real revolution, revaluation of values, self-creating.
Yes, this is the case with the honest and discerning man who has the power to remain affirming. Schopenhauer is a strange case, he seemed to still be bound by a remnant of morality and was unable to see the beauty of what he discovered for a higher value than the meaning he had destroyed. But in general a philosopher will revel in opening the skies, it will be his only real resolution to self-valuing.
Undoubtably, the philosophy that comes to rule is the fabric of which kings and countries are made.
My background is largely Nietzsche, oriental martial mediations and the western mystery schools.
I found that stating the obvious among the slightly less obvious was unavoidable. Value ontology points to something that is so obviously true that humans normally don’t think about it at all. They are far more alike to atoms and molecules than they think. Their evaluations are not made because they are conscious beings, they are conscious because they have attained and gotten uses to values that require them to think.
Consciousness is vastly overrated as a decision making agent. It only facilitates the action that is decided upon by the physiology.
Can you give an indication of the direction in which you want to look? VO is itself too simple to make it very complicated - but its implications become complex very quickly - but they also become extremely diverse.
IOW, you have no problem with ‘owning’ people.