Giftedness Exists

Yes, I read the depths.

If you fail to kill many enemies? Would that not cost you your pride?

The depths of the soul!

But there is a greater number of answers than there is any number of things to the question why not to rape women.
One of them is: Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.

Among humans, rape is almost always a symptom of inadequacy. The monotheism of the black stone is institutionalized inadequacy.
Philosophy is nothing less or more than the most necessary and most comprehensive human war.

Sure. I liked however his third person plural responses, sometimes blending group reactions, sometimes role playing the group reacting. Not arguing it is better than coming as oneself, as the individual philosopher. But I think that kind of play offers something. Like encountering a Deleuzian pack instead of one person. The process this leads to, not the conclusions in a specific post. I also like that sometimes it is clearly his own personal cranky reaction and sometimes seems to be trying to channel soumething more collective. But implict condescension in his use of this tactic and his reluctance to actually deal with life in anything but at a very abstract level make it repulsive over time.

Yes, I think Dionisus is very comfortable with Zeus and leaving him in power. The bovi also does not really want what is of Iovi.

Doesn’t have the time. But will certainly not stand by for rape.

Which God is philosophy of? Zeus doesn’t care about philosophy. What is allowed to the Ox is not allowed to Jupiter.

Zeus chases tail. Tail chases Dionisus.

Unless of course it is in chains.

Who is liberty of? Zeus doesn’t mind one way or another.

Dionisus gives it.

That’s obviously what is terrifying about Diunisus.

To those who have been chained, the unpredictability of freedom makes them think of an unpredictable master. Which is horrifying. When master is predictable, one can at least establish an economy of suffering.

But after a while, it becomes difficult to talk about Gods.

Better to talk about humans and figure it out on our own. Even if it is about humans talking about Gods.

Suffice it to know that they are there.

Or how do I put this? In a world ruled by Zeus, tail chases Dionisus.

Btw it just hit me that you said this: any man that needs the question answered why not to rape women needs to be put down.

The only real question is why they were raped in the first place? Like I said, fear got the best of them.

From this quarter, or neighborhood, as it were, of the group a wrestler comes forward, demanding to know what point is supposed to be streng verbotten, strictly disallowed, by reason of “abstraction”? A general outcry “abstraction”, is so abstract as to be unanswerable, or, at least, to fall under suspicion of disingenuous conduct of polemic kind.

However, the group does not, perhaps, adequately consider Nietzsche’s radical undermining of the “I”, even though, and moreso because, he often spoke of the ipsissimosity, the-most-being-like, expression of the characteristic of “himself”, of his dear early work: “Morgenröte,” however, the only book he himself published, was “Beyond Good and Evil,” a book which resembled the style of Plato, and also denounced Plato more than his other works.

I guess this is true. But to me this only speaks for Dionysos. I have always been horrified by the idea of predictables from above.

What should come from above is rain and lightening, and no weather man will ever be able to accurately predict these.

Ok - the Sun, moon and other celestials are predictable in their movements above. But they don’t come down to us like some intrusive bookkeeper-god.

Also Zeus is even less predictable than Dionysos. No god could ever predict what he would do next, except that probably it would result in another demigod birth. That is his autarky with respect to his father, Kronos.

BGE is monological, intensely concentrated, aphoristic.
Plato speaks in drawn out, purely contextual dialogues.

N questioned the “I” as a fixed entity, not as agent.
In other words: we don’t exist, except in our agency.
In yet other words: this world is will power.

Das right. Das right. These two are eminently compatible Gods. That’s why out of the plethore, of the twelve, the Romans still decided to have both in their final most developped stages. Baccus is in the Bible as much as Jupiter. Will Baccus always want more? Sure. How could he be terrifying otherwise? Does this shake Jupiter? No.

Fine words on Nietzsche as well. Like Dionisus doesn’t mind Zeus’s reign, Nietzsche seems not to mind your categorization. This one time, so far.

You get angry at that I dislike your banal phenomenology of will to power. But clarity is very, wery wery important in philosophy. This is the first instance of it. And I like it. Prolly cause it is a writing that seems never to have touched such a foul thing as “instead of nothing.”

Why can’t clear categorical thinking be for its own sake, in the sense of the “I,” instead of the oh so fake and deluded “out of nothing?” Even out of Nyx is not out of nothinh!

Anyway, thank you for those words. Philosophy suits you!

Im pleased to notice we still have our solid common ground.

What Id ask you to stop doing is insinuating, like here:

“You get angry at that I dislike your banal phenomenology of will to power.”

This insinuates that it is an agreed upon fact that my phenomenology of the wtp is banal, but that I find that you should like the banal.
Any one worth is his salt here has been endlessly trolled with such insinuations, very tiresome to correct them, very painful to let them slide.

This all aside from the fact that I have always been absolutely clear that nothing can come out of nothing, that existence has always existed – but that you think I said such nonsense is less insulting than that you insinuate that I think of my own thoughts as banal. That I don’t even have these thoughts you find banal is less of an issue.

To be clear: it is first of all accuracy and honesty that I demand of anyone I talk to about philosophy. The exact same principle as looking for hard ground when you plan to build a temple.