Something Instead of Nothing

The group advises a read of Plato’s Sophist, with an adequate commentary. It’s simply impossible not to understand what the group writes for anyone who has studied philosophy at all. One has increasingly the view that there is no one with any serious philosophic training on the board, beside from this member of the group.

Almost everything written, on the view of this group member, is of enthusiastic armatures with a bare familiarity of academic, that means recent, subject matter of general discussion. It is wholly shallow, and shows that no serious study has been carried out by any of the commentators. Everything said has the general pattern, I don’t understand this, it must be unaware of what I was told by a undergrad course instructor or a wiki-page. It must be nonsense!

The group should consider: in philosophy no amount of reading matters a bit without adequate knowledge. Everyone learns this by-the-by, at first through sensing the difference between mere reading and serious study of a text. Then one sees how serious study demands method, and familiarity with possible manners of proceeding, only then does such a mater as the abandonment of method have any sense. In the current academy, which is not even a University in the sense of the pre-war University, but rather a mass-marketed situation of the sale of “education”, there is not even knowledge of the distinction between serious study and amateur interpretation: which is ideology.

See what I mean?

Yet another “general description” that addresses none of the specific points I raised above. Only longer this time. Talk about nothing instead of something!

Or do you take him seriously?

If so, why would you encourage me to?

What insight is he making here that continues to elude me?

Again, if he’s not just pulling our legs.

My argument is not circular … nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.

How do you know that “it worked”?

“But why is it necessarily true that something rather than nothing does exist.”

Says the man holding a phone or typing into a keyboard.

Do you not see the sicklyness?

Let me put it to you this way: there’s not something instead of nothing. There’s something instead of China.

I’m not saying we need to obliterate China. I want to fuck many Chinese women and have many half-chinese children. I’m not a Nazi. I am saying that if you keep degenerating China will have no problem taking the stead of something.

By the way, what goes for China goes for any supremacist aspirasionists. There is Islam, there are actual Nazis, there are communists, and who knows what else.

So rephrase the question.

Guys who contradict themselves and cannibalize their own rationality, always get the girl. Part of the reason the structure of the cosmos needs remaking.

IOW, you don’t have any evidence that he did “get the girl”. But you imagine it that way because it confirms your theories about the world.

You have to abuse logic to have a woman consent to sex with a male… it’s not my opinion, it’s a fact of the species. He’s investing in a stock that never falls, only accumulates with time. That’s part of why the cosmos needs to be restructured. I find it funny that people on these boards consider their contradictions profound, I can name a few, when it is simply the display males make to attract females, nothing more, nothing less.

Cosmology has progressed by way of advanced radio astronomy to the point that it can compete with philosophy and logic.

The big bang is no unique event , and multi universes have come into vogue
Awfully large living and dead black holes are coming to be understood as testament to reoccurring universes, where even the Milky Way has had numwrous deaths, the past central black hole consistent maybe with billions of stars, which have no actual trace other then some weird radiation

The nothingness of the past as measurable energy hypothesize s not only recurrence theory, but the convergence and the eternal transformation of matter and energy, being and nothingness.

Guide, you old sweethearr, you haven’t even scratched the surface. Go back and honestly respond to my posts. Not that you would. But do not gossip about me in other threads instead of trying to confront me.

P - the question, asked by Leibniz originally, is obviously just the expression of dissatisfaction at how being has been defined so far.
So the full thing goes, in shorthand:
Why being? Because Beings. (Demonstrable Self valuing logic --》 quanta of WtP rather than hypothetical monocratic big bang cosmology, illogical origins )

I need to put it stronger;
For Nietzschean eyes only- the rest can certainly not appreciate any of this.

In the Platonic and post Platonic philosophies, Being was done grave injustice. It was rendered frugal, fragile, porous in the minds of men and so the minds of men were cultivated to become weaker than could be justified, and “God” came to them as a disease, a symptom of their weakness, their being antithetical to being in its premises; these living dead, whose weakness lives on in the superstitions of ambiguous, Guide, and scores of other fugitives from existence here, produced “philosophy” in the form of the presupposition that being was this Platonic whole defined to them by the pristine absence of such filth as their own experiential reality - i.e. that whatever Being was in essence, it was irreconcilable with actuality. Since Plato, this has been the disease now called “humanity”.

Because edifices built on weak premises eventually unravel, people like myself, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and indeed the disobedient side of Leibniz came around to restore being into mankind; before us, there were two millennia of zombies, of negations of being, with as the …‘ethos’ of the dark ages; - god as torture, plague, pope, life reduced to a reason for death.

What Leibniz commenced as a questioning of Being as a whole, marked a return of health, power to return to Thales, the idea of Being as fundamentally a plurality, thus as at heart godless, and unpredictable. What the rationalist universalists (what came of medieval clergy) had spent a thousand years calling hell was the remnant of observations of being, which I finally restored to mankind.

Before Nietzsche and I committed mankind to the primacy of valuing, philosophy always relied on premises that effectively negated being. The Big Bang theory is a symptom of such negation, the “singularity” “behind” the eruption is the base-premise which effectively negates everything it should produce - the world. The “singularity” is merely an even weaker form of the same fear-inspired premise of the creator-God, a nonetheless very brutish rape of all logical integrity that serves to banish the truth of self-valuing logic, precisely as the left recruits death to serve as the ground to their revolt against the return to existence of man in politics through Trump, who just follows my and Nietzche’s playbook, of setting terms locally only to the end of proper structural integrity.

Just as the trillions flow back into the US since Trump set his terms, so value (health) flows back into philosophy since I set mine.
The weak will always disagree with exacting reality, so a definition of reality that itself works as exacting as reality is in fact cruel to them. But then the weak simply have no merit, they are no standard, they might as well not exist. And this condition applied to the whole of mankind when Leibniz posed his question. “Why all this weakness, how is its existence justified?” Why God was held analytically as negation and morally as justification of being.

At that point, only by his phrasing of that question was anything justified. In this questioning of being as weakness, being as strength (actual being) prevailed.

A member of the group that has read Nietzsche for 25 years says: he gets worse and more insubstantial, less volatile, as one goes along. He lifted a great deal from Schopenhauer, and also simply plagiarized George Berkeley, in some cases verbatim, on the score of 18th century “free thinking”, substantially as a theme which he took over. Nietzsche would be simply boring if it were not form his knowing well the Greeks, the tradition, and constantly speaking to Plato, more than to Kant, as one might think judging by the mentions of Kant (this is Schopenhauer speaking to Kant). and the superficial and silly denouncement of the transcendental thinking, as discovery of a “faculty”.

This group answer should ask: what is the “life-giving lie” in Nietzsche? Why does Nietzsche say the truth is “deadly”. Nietzsche rejects the truth, that there is no truth, and makes a new “law tablet”. Nietzsche calls the philosophy the Geistigste, most spiritual, will-to-Macht. I.e., Nietzsche does not abandon god, but a god, the Christian god, in order to set Dionysus, the “creative”, in his place.

Explication: god was a name for finding out what humans deep down really thought the world was: what is Justice?, what is Good? Now they think it is something still being made.

I’ll write another post on this boring Nietzsche raging on theme, just to be more expressionisticly fulsome.

I am vacation but as soon as back continue to backtrack and try to fill up spaces which I have previously abandoned.

It will not be addressed specifically but general comments thereof, so as to commit or reconnect a thread that seeks to connect so much time space.

That is with regard to squabbles over short termed memories fault line. Since that regard is at heart.

You sound like Avital Ronell, the grosse pig of new-age sexual harassment!

Well, if there is some usefullness in it for me, besides it’s not irreversible.

In 25 years you weren’t able to penetrate beyond the words into the renewed riddle of logic?

Wasted years man. Ouch.

How are you using the term Nothingness? As some perceived and felt aspect of one’s own individual human existence within the psyche or as something which has not as yet been discovered and acknowledged within the Universe?

As I noted on another thread, how fascinating it would be if the technology existed that would allow us to fathom what goes on inside his head and to think these things as he does.

Is it a mental delusion of some sort? Is it entirely an intellectual contraption constructed out of what to others would be a bizarre way of thinking about things? Or is he just putting us on? Mocking the thing that others might actually take seriously? An exercise in irony?

He would have to bring his accusations down to earth. Then we would need to discuss our reactions to human interactions such that he could connect the dots between his “general descriptions” and behaviors we are all familiar with.

Then he could point out the manner in which I “contradict myself” and “cannibalize my own rationality”.

As for this girl that he is seemingly obsessed with, it merely reflects yet again my conclusion that he is five cans short of a six-pack with respect to his communication skills.

He just doesn’t strike me as altogether there at times. Unless, of course, I’m the problem. He is telling us something important that continues to elude me.