Depends on what your definition of God is, of course.
If you think God is entirely separate of nature, and that mankind is entirely separate of nature too, then no it cant. But I don’t think that. Nor do I think the FF did.
In fact the case is obviously that whatever rights nature/god grants man, have to be granted by man to man, much like a person is granted life but still has to grant himself that life by doing such things like breathing, drinking plenty of water, not jumping from buildings, and such.
You have to like, exist, i.e. act, in order to… exist… geddit?
Ohh its so difficult this thing called philosophy right. You always have to like, do stuff. With your brain no less.
Fuukuk. Yu know the brain uses up most of the energy? You wonder where that energy goes in most people.
So here’s the deal.
Being equals self-valuing and valuing in terms of that self-valuing. People who don’t get that by now are really very slow and should not be considered sentient.
A right can not exist if it doesn’t… self-value and value in terms of that self-valuing.
So, a right can only exist if it is able to self-value in terms of the people who bestow it its existence!
Yay.
Oh wait I crossed the 180 IQ line again.
Mea goddamn culpa.
It just happens these Fathers had problematically high IQs too.
And thats what we’re going to be getting at, probably; only those people who can understand the necessity of upholding something for it to exist, like, nature upholds itself, will be able to have what we call natural rights.
People have to exist in terms of such rights for these rights to exist to them.
Oh so difficult. So so difficult.
I think style is God.
Have you?
I dont think so man.
Surely is.
No but also, on a more serious note,
And I say this I guess to talk to the wind.
People have this separation in their minds between ideas and the world, calumniously called logic. This state of affairs is so for a reason.
Let’s take it religious now, like Heraclitus did.
When God is proposed, it is not God beside or instead of this world that you see, that we see.
Both God and logic have been used precicely, even in their denial, to deny the world, this world, what you see, what I see.
Obviously God given right is not a prescription of the world, but a description.
Phon - you were the one who was telling a literary genius that he should have learned in school to write short paragraphs so you could read it on your “android, bitch”.
That was classic. And I take no credit for any of that, mind you. None.
And, Fixed, why precicely the only Trump denier with nuance and subtlety do you attack venomously? Wtf? While the real enemies walk unscathed?
What Trump denier?
Stfu
Oh - well I don’t like it when people think that a lack of power (such as: lack of power at reading and thinking) is an argument, much less when they resort to vicious personal insults merely for being presented with a lofty text with lofty ideas.
Just rubs me wrong.
Oh yeah this fucking dude is one to tell that to.
But I wasn’t aware she was a Trump denier.
Also, that bit with the mayo sandwich was a nice bit.
Logic is rather, as I see it at least, the unity of mind and world.
Someone who cant operate logically is just bumbling around without any part in the world.
Someone who has a strong logic to him, is a force to be reckoned with.
“Thunderbolt steers all things”. Yes.
No. Lollers. No, logic has never been used to deny the world.
Because, logic would have to be used in the world, being part of the world, and so it would have to deny its own ground to deny the world. So no man. Stop that silly postmodern shit.
Logic is just: what happens.
Dude.
nooooooooooooooo.com
The world is will to power, there is no efficient description that isn’t also a prescription.
Oy vei
Fuckin calling me postmodern?
Seriously we’re a that level, at that utterly pre-Nietzschean, Platonic bullshit, we have to work through all of that? Don’t do this to me dude.
Anything that exists makes an effort to exist.
If there is a God who gives, then thus, what the gives has to make an effort to be given.
Thats what Heidegger talks about.
You and Parodites both hate Heidegger. But neither of you have there fainted clue what he says.
And also that is just the fucking point.
Will to power
IS NOT
A prescription.
It is not a choice.
It is a description. It is all there is. The choice is seeing it.
Did you acquire knowledge of the reason?
You cant read me as lightly as you read a sculpture in the sand.
What I say has been produced from enormous efforts in the worlds most powerful philosophic forge
I say it concisely too, but this makes me even less understood, most of the time, than Parodites.
I will concede that the seeing of it itself prescribes.