Unbearable Ambition

[111111]

And part of the ambition is to expand the scope of this method without diluting its criteria.
This can only be done by seeing into the inner logic of logic itself. What makes it possible for two different instances to both relate and still remain different.

All philosophers want power, because philosophy wants to remake the world in the image of its ideal.

However, to attain a two thousand year reach, isn’t difficult if your ideas are fertile enough. Plato, Socrates, Nietzsche, and Christ all started with a very small circle of allies and readers.

This is the problem. You need an end-goal. And your motivations must be noble, like excalibur. A symbiosis, if you give lifeforms what they need they will in turn give you what you need.

One of my goals is to restore sanity to the human species, I am so sick of YOLO font, modern pop music and the incorrigible attitudes of the millenials.

That’s true, but mutual inclusivity in an absolute sense, seems to imply a similar state, and it is This absolute which in my opinion can result in an enlightened psychic.

The powers in an absolute inclusivity come.about, not as a non-reactive, borne in original state, but through a re-integration of prior separates elements. The conclusive state of mind is letting go of any further positioning of the will to power, in specific modalities with specific goals.

The result is the sought after freedom of letting go of ultranpersonal drives to specific desires of thought or action.

Aurelius said.that an untested virtue has no valuable meritorious effect.

This is again on point.
Really like you when you aren’t emotionally violent. I appreciate it, given I know the challenge.

Let me clarify: my power as I felt it then - and as I still feel it - wishes to set goals, but my mind couldn’t yet conceive of a goal great enough to satisfy my will - especially give that the attainment of a goal is always a moment of sadness, as it makes further striving impossible, and true joy for a man is only in striving. But these 6 years a lot has been crystallizing, and there are now goals whose attainment doesn’t dissolve them.

In a rudimentary sense, a philosophers location is tied into such goals. The re-attainment of it (after 2300 years) would only signify a beginning.

Yes, this state however needs to be carved out, by first following many specific wills to their final consequence, or to the point where they begin to run against ones tastes. Which is really a final consequence, a no.

Still, yes.

I kind of hate Aurelius - he was sitting there proclaiming moderation on the millions of skulls gathered by his immensely cruel predecessors.

If attaining a goal is sad, then I say cry beautiful tears. I too have felt this feeling, once the mountain is reached, what then is there to do? Simply relax and enjoy the view. Masculinity is a striving for goals, it exists as a result of some feminine desire.

Ultimately, yes. But there are different types of goals. Imagine a goal that is itself a bringing of a new goal-setting; extreme example, space travel. The first man in space represented both the attainment of a goal, and the opening up of a vast new field aims and desires. That is the type of goal on which I have become focussed.

I agree that this means the inserting or recognizing of a feminine element in the willing, and that this has been underwriting the masculine willing all along - it is when the man has reached a certain weariness with his incessant goal-attaining that he can admit to some enjoyment. It is a matter of worthiness - only when he is tired does a man know for certain that he might have done something.

A simpler way of saying this is that at the end of some real work he is too tired to question himself.

Aristocracies are really a culture of perpetual languidness, endless getting-ready to do the dreadful thing itself, which then becomes a reward of those preparations. I think women are more and more taking over this roll. In Nietzschean tastes, they need to transform from ever-tense tigers to lionesses.

That is,because goals and the objects of these goals have often unrecognizable tie-ins. They effect each other, usually casually traveling toward less and less area of specificity, more and more generality of association, inversely following an upwrd, rather then a downward course.

After a while an automatic nervous system takes over and takes over the compass and the rudder of goal setting In the specific sense. A new pardigmn model forms, until the highest is in sight, whereby slowly, the sadness will ebate.

Wait, back up a little bit there,

what is the object of a goal?

The concept of a goal does not imply that the goal itself is goal-setting.
Im sure Aristotle went over this. Im not sure he was able to make sense out of it.

No, Aristotle’s couldnt, or wouldn’t. His object-ive, or goal were not differentiable , he could not have fathomed the difference between objectives from goals.

Like all forerunners he was defining that of which language structure have not been laid bare.

People set unrealistically high goals when they find it difficult to accept reality as it is.
You can also say when they cannot tolerate what is unpleasant.
I think this is known as overcompensation in psychology.
For example, you’re physically weak, and because physical weakness implies certain negative consequences, many of which are social, you decide to set a goal of becoming strong within an unrealistically short period of time.
The more you feel like a loser the more you want to be the opposite of that.

It’s nice to be something better than what you already are, so it’s a nice thing to set a goal to become something better.
But you have to be realistic.
You have to respect the amount of time that is necessary to attain your goal.
Otherwise, you’re going to procrastinate and very likely even hurt yourself.
If you don’t slow down when it’s necessary to slow down, you’re gonna crash.

I think you’re the type of guy who is exclusively focused on end-goals and who ignores all the work that is necessary to do in order to attain these goals.
Which is why you never achieve anything.
The material you’re made of is nearly one hundred percent hype.
You enjoy imagining yourself being something way better than what you already are.
You enjoy positing ambitious goals but you never do anything to attain them which to me indicates that you do not enjoy the process.
You only enjoy the benefits of the process.

Well put.

However literacy and literally interpreted goals lead to the philosophically oriented man,where the paradigms of goals overshoot the expedient of getting there.

Philosophy is so impractical, that to those that love it, far fling goals of attainment preclude ways of getting there
It is practically a different way of thinking about reality to begin with. It rarely confirms to convention. Even interjection don’t necessarily follow convention.

Magnus, you dont think. Weve been over that. You troll. Me.
Besides that you dont really seem to do much.

No offense but i think that means these people you have in mind dont practice real philosophy.

I and my type, we tend to accomplish what we set out for.
But indeed, were a bit more … accomplished than average, to say it euphemistically.

Still, consider rank. Not everyone is Fixed Cross, to coin a phrase.

Yes, of course, You’re correct,but I have always used caution with views not exactly to correspond to the type in question. When talking about Aristoteles’ efforts to understand the notion of literacy for its own sake, one would have to be able to demonstrate that formal or essential goals are not so far away enough from an idea more than a concept, as the theory of forms, may attempt to be an ntermediary toward it as substantial or material.

That this position can withstand the criticism that Magnus attributes toward prioritizing the objective over the goal is met very nicely by You, insofar as it goes.

You are extremely defensive.
Typical of insecure people.
Which makes it impossible to communicate with you.
You simply do not enjoy anything that does not conform to your beliefs.
So you have no choice but to see everyone disagreeing with you as nothing but trolls.

And exactly what “type” would that be?

The lust to be insanely powerful, is powerfully insane.