Which is First?

WHAT A NONSENSE !

If you you try to teach a child, as you said, “to think logically by teaching it that it’s bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself”, then you are alraedy arguing logically, because in this case the child alraedy knows what “bad” means, what “not allowed” means, what “punishable” means, what “contradict oneself” means (otherwise you could not use those words in order to teach the child). So you should urgently rethink your example and search for another one. But I can guarantee you: you will never find one. Good luck! :slight_smile:

The ONLY “argument” you have is “Nietzsche”. But Nietzsche was not always right, as you should know.

Also: If you try to teach a child “to think logically by teaching it that it’s bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself”, then the child will always ask “why?” (if not “what does that mean?” [see above]). So without referring to logic you will always (always!) be unsuccessful, because you will not be capable of giving an answer to the child without referring to logic.

We use language in order to teach, and we use just the logical part of language in order to teach. And even more so in the case of ethics, because ethics can only be taught by using logic.

What you are saying is always the same:

That is no argument.

Forget the last German romanticist, leave the 19th century and be welcomed in the 21st century, Sauwelios! :slight_smile:

The child matures when he stops thinking in terms of punishment and reward and begins thinking in terms of need, his own and other’s. When the need is taught, the child matures more quickly.

Logic is about the need to construct thought and communicate. It is not so much about what one “should do or else”.

Something is not “nonsense” just because it’s possible to think deeper, to elaborate on it.

The child will indeed first have to have learned that “bad”, “not allowed” etc. mean that the kind of behaviour of which that is predicated tends to be followed by experiences that are unpleasant for the child.

This does mean ethics is preceded by–aesthetics

The typical dismissal of those who cannot deal with the content of my quotes.

I asked you to consider that passage from “On Truth and Lies”. Did you? And if so, do you not consider it most sensible?

If by “logic” you’re referring to the logos in the sense of a i stick[/i], as I have investigated in my videos…

“Don’t do that!”
–“Why not?”
[Smack]

If ethics can only be taught by using logic, how can logic be taught?

That’s grand, coming from someone who thinks Kant is the greatest philosopher. Or have you come around on that since http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2531041#p2531041?

You said there that you were not a Kantian, but a historian of philosophy. But it’s precisely as a historian that you are lacking. Where’s your solution to the problem posed by historicism?

“[T]he full phenomenon of a cow is for a Hindu constituted much more by the sacredness of the cow than by any other quality or aspect. This implies that one can no longer speak of our ‘natural’ understanding of the world; every understanding of the world is ‘historical.’ Correspondingly, one must go back behind the one human reason to the multiplicity of historical, ‘grown’ not ‘made,’ languages. Accordingly there arises the philosophic task of understanding the universal structure common to all historical worlds. Yet if the insight into the historicity of all thought is to be preserved, the understanding of the universal or essential structure of all historical worlds must be accompanied and in a way guided by that insight. This means that the understanding of the essential structure of all historical worlds must be understood as essentially belonging to a specific historical context, to a specific historical period. The character of the historicist insight must correspond to the character of the period to which it belongs. The historicist insight is the final insight in the sense that it reveals all earlier thought as radically defective in the decisive respect and that there is no possibility of another legitimate change in the future which would render obsolete or as it were mediatise the historicist insight. As the absolute insight it must belong to the absolute moment in history.” (Strauss, “Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy”, with my emphasis.)

Nietzsche solved the difficulty indicated here, by his philosophy of the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power.

A need is something one “should do or else”.

That is right. But you need logic for understanding, explaining, using language in a coherent way etc.; thus: you also need it in order to learn and teach something about that what comes after logic, for example: ethics.

It is, because you have not thought deeper and not elaborated on it.

So you admit that logic comes before ethics. Okay. :slight_smile:

Nobody said that here.

It does not matter whether it is typical or not, because you are in any case more typical than most others here (including me).

And what you are saying here has nothing to do with dealing with the “content” of your posts. It is just that I am not always in the mood to talk about the words of your god.

I did.

:question:

Did you never learn logic?
Are you that ignorant?
Or are you just joking? :stuck_out_tongue:

I was referring to af fact, the fact that you are always using the quotes of your false god and some of his translators (also always the same).
Again. I am not always in the mood to talk about them. Okay?

If you had the tiniest idea of what history is could be, then you would know that history has not much to do with solutions, unless they themselves are historical objects (but this is not the case here).

Sauwelios, I have nothing against Nietzsche. I have something against the fact that it is not you who is talking when you are “talking”. Nietzsche was a human being that lived in the 19th century. He has done many great things and some silly things. He is important for the history of philosophy, of literature, but he is certainly not that god that you obviously see in him.

To the mature, “need” has nearly nothing to do with “should”.

Sauwelios is in a dilemma. If he admits that logic is before ethics, then he also admits that Nietzsche was partly wrong, but he does not want to admit that Nietzsche was partly wrong.

The modernity of philosophy is a philosophy of ethics. Okay. But this does not prove that ethics comes before logic - the reverse is true, because it gives evidence for the developmental fact that logic comes before ethics.

So if Sauwelios admitted this, then he would have to give up his idol (false god) Nietzsche who was justifiably a famous philosopher of the modern times of philosophy. I know that this is an imposition for Sauwelios. But maybe - someday - he will learn just from Nietzsche at last, because Nietzsche at least seemed to give up his idol at last.

The historical development of the philosophical question of our current subject - “logic comes before ethics” - can be called “modern war of philosophy” and has a parallel in science: “modern war of science”. On the one “war front” (“left”) are fighting ethical philosophers and social scientists, and on the other “war front” (“right”) are fighting logical philosophers and natural scientists and spiritual (especially logical, mathematical) scientists. (Note: There are also “spies”, “renegates”, “defectors”, “deserters” in that said “war”.) - If the ethical-social side will “win” that “war”, then the science as we have known it and will have known it till then will be finally “dead”.

Arminius you are such aan amateur man.

Think a bit deeper.

How does one teach logic? Through logic?
You really are capable of thinking that… illogically?

No, logic is obviously informed by the desire to work according to method.
Which is ethics.

(Having a standard)

Back to Sauwelios, who, thankfully, can handle this.

One learns logic through ethics?
I would think that it was the other way around, Jakob, but perhaps I am not grasping your meaning.
Isn’t right reason and cognitive thinking involved in the study of ethics?

If you could have used a different word, rather than ethics and standard, what would it be?

Said by the one who is not even capable of reaching the lowest amateur-league.

Do you (including all your suck puppets) and Sauwelios even know what logic means?

You sillily think believe that you can teach logic through ethics. How silly you are!

Try to think, you ignorant dreamer!

According to those stupid dreamers, everything must be taught through ethics, even mathematics. :laughing:

Ill make it more simple: logic is an ethics.
A standard of operating.

If one didn’t have the ethical standard that compels one to use a method, as well as the ethical standard that compels one to remain consistent with it, one could not very wel practice a method at all.

None of this relates to consciousness.
James is right about this - logic is not something that requires consciousness. Rather, consciousness requires logic.
But logic, and this is where VO and Nietzsche come in, demands standard.

Which is ethics.

We see this in the modern left. The entire intellectual academic class has lost its capacity for the most basic logical deduction. This is not because they’re not technically capable of it, but because they have no standard of being. They have no power to refer anything to a consistent standard, they can not operate their consciousness methodically anymore - they are insane, have lost logical powers, are no longer Homo sapiens - simply because they are too liberal, have been too loose on standards and values for too long.

Their lack of ethics directly translates into an impotence before logic. This is not an exaggeration or a metaphor - it is literally the case. Logic does no longer occur in liberal discourse.

Indeed!

I second this - except I don’t know what VO is and I do not know a great deal about Nietzsche otherwise I agree.

Proud to hear it!

You will have relatively little trouble understanding VO then, if you’d wish to.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … e-ontology

And you may enjoy our Nietzsche board.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/f7 … e-campfire

VO is Vanity Occultism.

I wasn’t going to respond (to Arminius) anymore, but this trolling of his kind of forces my hand:

I promptly acknowledge that Nietzsche was partly wrong. He wasn’t wrong about this issue, though (possibly about some details regarding it, but not about the fundamentals).

So? That only means modernity will be over–and it’s always been highly questionable whether modernity be a good thing.

Calling logicians and mathematicians “spiritual” scientists is pathetic, especially coming from a German(-speaker).

Nietzsche was of course the father of postmodernism (which doesn’t mean he was himself a postmodernist, even as he wasn’t himself an existentialist. Nietzsche overcame postmodernism and existentialism before those terms were coined, but he was misunderstood–especially by Heidegger).

::

The reason that what I said is nonsense just because it’s possible to think deeper, to elaborate on it, is that I haven’t thought deeper or elaborated on it? That makes no logical sense, buddy.

And how do you know I haven’t thought deeper on it, or elaborated on it elsewhere?

Premiss 1: “If I behave like this, that and that will probably happen.”
Premiss 2: “I do not want that and that to happen.”
Conclusion: “I will not behave like this.”

Makes sense. But then you should also believe that dogs think logically when they are conditioned (the so-called “Pavlov response”)…

By the way, premiss 1 rests on what may be a great stupidity:

“The question ‘why’ is always a question after the causa finalis [final cause], after the ‘what for?’ We have no ‘sense for the causa efficiens [efficient cause]’: here Hume was right; habit (but not only that of the individual!) makes us expect that a certain often-observed occurrence will follow another: nothing more! That which gives the extraordinary firmness to our belief in causality is not the great habit of seeing one occurrence following another but our inability to interpret events otherwise than as events caused by intentions. It is belief in the living and thinking as the only effective force–in will, in intention–it is the belief that every event is a deed, that every deed presupposes a doer, it is belief in the ‘subject.’ Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?” (Nietzsche, Will to Power 550, Kaufmann trans.)

Habit, by the way, falls squarely in the domain of ethics. “Habit” is after all a synonym of “custom”, and the morality of custom (Sittlichkeit der Sitte) is the oldest morality.

“The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.” (Charles Sanders Peirce, “The Architecture of Theories”.)

I’m saying it now. “Unpleasant” is an aesthetic judgment.

“In its more technically epistemological perspective, [aesthetics] is defined as the study of subjective and sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics)

“[Axiology] is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics–philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth–or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology)

That answers my first question, but not my second.

You were willing to read that passage, but are unwilling to talk about it?

Yeah, the word I was looking for was “explored”, not “investigated”. And I should probably have written “[whack]” instead of “[smack]”. Or “‘because I say so!’”

The stick is still the “trump card” of the Indian warrior caste. It’s like magic!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU[/youtube] “India Untouched”, 45:43 f.

Logically, logic cannot be taught by using logic… at least not only; at least not the fundamentals.

And how do we learn language? Our first words–“mama”, “papa” and the like–are sounds we utter spontaneously, without referring to anything; it’s only because our parents tend to use them to refer to themselves that they come to refer to anything. Later, our parents/guardians will point to things while saying words, and we’re encouraged to imitate those sounds (not typically with a stick, by the way, but with a carrot: the joy our parents express at us when we get it right, or even when we get it only partially right–wrong in a funny way).

Okay man, whatever you say.

I wasn’t referring to history “proper”, but to philosophy of history–this is ILovePhilosophy, after all. Strauss immediately continues:

“In a word, the difficulty indicated compels Heidegger to elaborate, sketch or suggest what in the case of any other man would be called his philosophy of history.”

Nietzsche was not Heidegger, and his philosophy should indeed be called a philosophy of history:

“In contradiction to Pascal, whom he unwaveringly read and loved, Nietzsche equates the God of the philosophers with the God of the Christian faith, because theology and the Church have fused Christian faith and metaphysics into an undissolvable unity since Clement of Alexandria at the latest. With the death of God and the end of metaphysics, however, very much more begins to totter than one should think on superficial consideration. Nietzsche teaches–and in this he is a student of Hegel’s–that the whole of European culture, its religion, but also its morality and, last but not least, European science rest on the foundation of that metaphysics from which they have sprung. If God is dead, a priori knowledge loses its basis and the categories lose their validity. Logic is then no longer true but a system for the production of fictions, and all the principles of morality are put into question and shaken, indeed, turned over into their opposite. Nietzsche is far removed from wanting to bring about this process of the great catastrophe of European culture with his philosophy. Already in ‘Things Human, All Too Human’ does he refer to his philosophy as ‘historical philosophy’. History is the essential content of his philosophy, and therefore he can characterize his prediction of European nihilism and its terrible consequences by the paradoxical concept of a historiography that does not recount the past, but anticipates the future.” (Georg Picht, Nietzsche, “By way of an introduction: the philosopher as (at)tempter”, my translation.)

“Like Heidegger, I too depart from a fundamental thesis […, namely] that, through Nietzsche, history has become the sole content of philosophy.” (op.cit., page 15.)

He’s not just important for the history of philosophy, but also and especially for the present and future of philosophy. That is, not just for philosophy’s–and mankind’s–past history, but also for their present and future history.

“Whereas in Kant the apriority of reason is condition of the possibility of designing, through the change carried out by Nietzsche the design becomes the condition of the possibility of reason. The model from which the essence of the design can be read, however, is still the experiment. Hence philosophy as a whole must now emerge as an attempt, for the attempt is the design of the open horizons for the future forms of thinking and acting. The attempt is the design of the possibilities of the future history of mankind. […]
If the attempt is understood as the design of the future possibilities of historic existence [Dasein–Picht had just mentioned Heidegger], the experiment carried out here can no longer be interpreted as if the experimenter stood toward the experiment he conducts as an impartial observer. In this design he designs his own possibility. The carrying-out of his own life [or living–Leben] is the attempt. […]
This Erkenntnis)] is the total sublation [Aufhebung] of the traditional distinction between theory and practice. Since Nietzsche, every thinking is reactionary which does not venture to accomplish the entire life of him who thinks as an experiment of the knower, as a designing [Entwerfen, lit. “unthrowing oneself”] into the future possibilities of human history.” (Picht, Nietzsche, page 72.)

No, it means Value Ontology.
It’ll be a bit tricky to discern proper sources from fake ones - all the trolls on these boards have attached themselves to VO and are incessantly working to invent their own meanings.

For a lot of them it is frustrating that a great degree of capacity for protracted reasoning is required, hence they call it “vanity”, after the Vanir - he highest Nordic Gods, and “Occultism” in the sense that it is hidden to most, since it involves reason.

Anyway, just playing.
VO gets a lot of attention, mostly it is people who are frustrated that its not as simple as they would like life to be, but sometimes someone capable of handling it will turn up. Were at about 8/10 people now that have cultivated methods with it.

Sauwelios - a great bear can be moved my a swarm of mosquitos -
I should thank the mosquitos. That is a beautiful post.

There is no chance that the troll you responded to will be able to read it, and so much the better - our writing is here for the occasional thinker that stumbles on it. We may have more friends than Nietzsche did, but the vast majority of people still absolutely hate the fact that their cranium contains so inconveniently much brain matter. They mostly use that matter to have it obstruct its own function - another thing explained by VO; A drab, dumb person can simply not value intelligence.

N’s ideas about the ER as a selective mechanism, a fitness determinator, apply to VO as well, it has been apparent since 2011 - all the most ostensibly unwholesome types rush on stage to do their little desecration dance with it, unwittingly making the most preposterous and unsalvageable messes of themselves - where the most ostensibly intelligent types have all adopted it in one way or another.
Some of the latter have been producing their own parallel theories, none of which however is as dynamic as VO - and reality.

I dont counteract all the attempts at obscuring the doctrine for simple reasons of utility. It will be beneficial for me in the long run if there are a lot of inferior versions of the theory around; the actual logic will cut through them all like a hot knife through butter. This is why I expect of people that want to actually learn the logic to seek it out on their own strength. It is in terms of this strength that they will learn the meaning. I killed intellectual neutrality.

Actually, it is merely that you have a perverted sense of “spiritual” … pathetically un-philosophical.

Oh gyahd … give it a break. “Postmodern” refers to after 1980. Nietzsche died 3-4 generations before then, even before actual modernism (circa 1900).

What are we going to do with this obscene degree of ignorance?
Lets just let these guys troll on a bit, Sauwelios. Dit is echt te dom om los te lopen.