Giftedness Exists

[Pedro I Rengel]

Despite it all, this was Nietzsche's greatest discovery. He grounded Shopenhauer's will to life in war.

Shopenhauer was just depressed. Shit, could happen to anybody.

[Guide]

“Precisely where Nietzsche is multifarious, rich; N doesn't bother with pressing points to inferior people, he opens curtains to superior ones.
He writes above himself, Socrates seeks for those on whom he can look down, to make their folly suggest his wisdom.
It is not a surprise that the political Plato scrapped every piece of Greek culture that shows Socrates for what he is. Ill do you the respect of not making what I mean here explicit.”

The group thinks this word of the group is somewhat overly polemical, or tendentiously aimed at finding anything to disagree with that it can. There is another issue, which is that Dionysus is the god who philosophizes. The whole book is a conversation with Plato, for, in Plato, one must recall, Diotima is given to the view that the Good is what one is deprived of, that it is final, that eros draws towards it. That only the human philosophizes due to the privative state of knowing that is all-too-human.

“tribalism are being re-established by the failure of universalist rationalism”

Tribalism is nothing at all like the ancient situation, where the oracle advised to do as the local custom advised. Tribalism is a knowing and vigorous disagreement with another view. Tribalism is an actively ‘false’ view, as it were. It is a conviction, as it were, that is inconsistent and illogical and known to be so by its most serious protagonists. Since one both says, the judge must hold his view, he can not admit other views are “just as good” or “equally possible”, but at the same time, one knows all views are “subjective”, and others do genuinely judge them true/’false’.

Tribalism (pluralism) implies a deliberate non-universality. Each view, in pre-Roman age, which was local, was universal in the sense that it understood the "outside" as utterly evil. Even the sense of wisdom, likely, was merely this same impulse, but it was a call to see the false consciousness in the current local good, which needed to have the edge of its good sharpened on the sharpening stone of (all-too-Greek, European, Western, then Planetary) philosophy.

[Fixed Cross]

“Precisely where Nietzsche is multifarious, rich; N doesn't bother with pressing points to inferior people, he opens curtains to superior ones.
He writes above himself, Socrates seeks for those on whom he can look down, to make their folly suggest his wisdom.
It is not a surprise that the political Plato scrapped every piece of Greek culture that shows Socrates for what he is. Ill do you the respect of not making what I mean here explicit.”

The group thinks this word of the group is somewhat overly polemical, or tendentiously aimed at finding anything to disagree with that it can. There is another issue, which is that Dionysus is the god who philosophizes. The whole book is a conversation with Plato, for, in Plato, one must recall, Diotima is given to the view that the Good is what one is deprived of, that it is final, that eros draws towards it. That only the human philosophizes due to the privative state of knowing that is all-too-human.

Typical group-think; I was prompted to spit on in distaste, but instead made a great effort to recognize anything of value in your pen-curls.

“tribalism are being re-established by the failure of universalist rationalism”

Tribalism is nothing at all like the ancient situation, where the oracle advised to do as the local custom advised. Tribalism is a knowing and vigorous disagreement with another view. Tribalism is an actively ‘false’ view, as it were. It is a conviction, as it were, that is inconsistent and illogical and known to be so by its most serious protagonists. Since one both says, the judge must hold his view, he can not admit other views are “just as good” or “equally possible”, but at the same time, one knows all views are “subjective”, and others do genuinely judge them true/’false’.

Tribalism (pluralism) implies a deliberate non-universality. Each view, in pre-Roman age, which was local, was universal in the sense that it understood the "outside" as utterly evil. Even the sense of wisdom, likely, was merely this same impulse, but it was a call to see the false consciousness in the current local good, which needed to have the edge of its good sharpened on the sharpening stone of (all-too-Greek, European, Western, then Planetary) philosophy.

Very weak. I can only smile thinking of the surprises awaiting you.

[Fixed Cross]

A good mind would have observed that the tribal totem is precisely the object of eros that confounded the autistic Plato, where your precious "proven truths" about the tribe are all failing to indicate anything but lost fascist dreams.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Do we war so we can rest? Or do we rest so we can war?

If we run away from war, are we not in war?

If we refuse violence and dedicate ourselves to aesthetics and morals, are we not in war?

If we lie or tell the truth, if we wonder about truth and about lie, rejecting one or the other, are we not at war?

If we detest others and wish them not to exist, are we not at war? If they cease to exist and we dedicate ourselves to happy and optimistic endeavors, do obstacles and threats cease? Are we not at war?

[Arcturus Descending]

Truth is less important to a woman. She already knows it.

This being the case, the knowing, does it not make more sense that a woman would continue to value truth more, not less, and continue to seek it out, as she would the holy grail?

But then again, perhaps it all comes down to the individual. But without truth, without that kind of knowledge/knowing, how can there be any freedom, any human evolution?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Lol I don't know. It seems to me one would not seek what one already has.

[Guide]

"Very weak. I can only smile thinking of the surprises awaiting you."

The group has duly read this adolescent answer.

[Fixed Cross]

"Very weak. I can only smile thinking of the surprises awaiting you."

The group has duly read this adolescent answer.

The rest was a bit over your head, eh?


Sorry to overestimate you, did not mean to hurt you.
I could never fathom the sheer fragility of your type.

[MagsJ]

Replies can remain funny, but without the baiting..

[Arcturus Descending]

Lol I don't know. It seems to me one would not seek what one already has.

Seemingly, that is true but truth can be evasive and we can see it with rose-colored glasses or with tunnel vision, et cetera. Is it not a good idea to question what our version of the truth is at times? Have you ever known the Truth of this or that and at some point discovered that you did not have the Truth or truth but a flawed version of reality.

I may be wrong but you make it sound like truth is something which we can possess or wear like some material object.

[Fixed Cross]

I am of the opinion that all we can have is a conscience, meaning we feel pain when we are being less than truthful.
But truthfulness is the attempt at truth. We can't ever give guarantees - except of course VO, but that's literally the only objective truth that will ever be found.

[MagsJ]

Lol I agree on that that is the difference. But um... philosophy is love of wisdom. There are no different variants of love of wisdom. It is itself a variance.

You speak of the definition, I speak of the act.

There does seem to be proponents of it out there.. I have since learned.