Jeeez.
The will to power PRESCRIBES.
Itself, to itself, first of all.
And the description of the world as will to power is obviously a prescription - as it is part of the world, which is will to power.
How could will to power describe something without prescribing?
Listen man.
That was re this.
Well thats where it all starts.
Why ontology and epistemology cant be separate.
Naw man Im done being told to listen.
Its time for me to speak.
Its time for me to accept, I mean, that either people take the trouble to think, or they’re trash.
I am not a Trump denier.
That phrase makes no sense.
You got saved by the bell.
See you in a sec.
Don’t be fresh with me young man.
I know that what Ive proposed in this thread is the end-all of political theory.
It is the final merger of Nietzsche and the foundational thought of the USA.
It is what is hinted at in the beginning pages of this thread.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 … as-all-law
It is the completion.
Now the next questions are all practical, physical, organizatorial, thus psychological, sociological.
It all comes down to an idea every peasant can understand. Though college educated masses have been shaped so as to not understand precisely this.
You want something? Then be worthy of it.
This is how nature works, so it is how all parts of nature work. And natural rights, would be part of nature.
Man has been very lazy up to this point. Not natural at all. Metaphysics. Thinks things are just given to him by an automaton.
There is no automaton. There is φύσις.
Look Pedro, you wouldn’t tell Napoleon he was saved because you had to do another thing. Ive never had any match in philosophy. 8 years after I revealed it even my smartest friends are still struggling with the beginnings of VO. Put yourself in my position for a second.
Well, all I can do is hope that some day you will come to see things more clearly.
I just realize that you need to read everything Sauwelios has written. If you understand something of his logics you may be able to approach mine, and Nietzsche.
Honestly you don’t have a clue what the will to power is, if you think it is not prescriptive.
Sauwelios made that part of it his specialty.
A little on the obvious side for me, but then I am what I am.
Yeah, Sauwelios… he isn’t a revolutionary thinker but he is definitely thorough.
To me back then this was always half of a joke, as its just obvious how absurd it seems to other people, but… Ive always loved it too, this honest to god approach of the problem of language. Compared to what one encounters nowadays it is brilliant.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WM-0ZlgDo[/youtube]
What Heidegger does is extend the notion of will to power beyond the obvious and meaningless semantics of it, he pushes the logic of it to amount to actual ontology, that is, to working knowledge, predictive and such.
Not that any of that goes on in this video, this is just… a careful and cheerful archaeologo-philologist at work with his brushes.
A thinker.
People may have their rights revoked when they have themselves infringed on the rights of others. That is written into law, but it is also implicit, one can say. With implicit rights also come implicit obligations.
yup, philosophising the fuck out of a pretty straightforward subject, really.
you take a life, your light may be taken
you take property, your property may be take
you take an eye…
I think someone might have carved that up on a rock at some time
You mean all this is… self evident ?
History is full of literary geniuses who were social retards.
Not even in that is your friend unique.
Tell him to stop by the forums again sometime when you’re done sucking each other off.