Top Ten List

[barbarianhorde]

Livia.

Anyway in this very thread he praises his most valued projects, with an exact hit number for the biggest. He says he is most proud of his movie thread.
That is all perfectly normal, if a bit.. well, shallow, given that this is a philosophy site.
But the problem is where he inserts this desire for any hit or bit of attention he can get into a real philosophical discussion, with the little means he has crafted or chosen to perpetuate any impasse indefinitely. That is obscene, rancid, slimy rot dripping from meat one shouldnt have had in the first place, etc etc etc.

Let him stick to his movie thread and the other ones where he just copies stuff other people wrote and adds uninspired comments to no one in particular.

[barbarianhorde]

As if I have any power over that. And I don't want to see him banned, I basically only want antisemites banned. Because they're cockroaches without distinct identities. See how that works? Hate breeds hate. Thats not what this is.
I guess Im just repeating my warning that one should be wary of taking this guy at his word.

Look, it is all one therapy session too.
Requiem for an aborted life and a severed friendship.

He is vengeancing his human losses onto us by means of an inane technique. He is no doubt having some fun. But it is a dusty attic on a lonesome Sunday kind of fun, not healthy.


on the other hand (edit) if I put it like this, it is really quite touching that y'all are so involved.
And this site has a very handy "foe" option so Ill just stick to that.

[Karpel Tunnel]

This is why I began to look at whether or not he was actually reading posts before responding to them. I now am fairly sure he glances over them, looks for a few keywords, and then has a little "note to others" and simply begins to type up some quasi philosophical stuff he know will aggravate people that he pretends is a response to the post.

If he is a conscious troll, that would be irritating. That's less interesting.

I really doubt that you will find a human answer. I think the answer is simply that he likes the attention and knows that if he would pronounce an honest thought, people would be less interested in him than when he pronounces the most bizarre stupidities masquerading as honest interpretations.

You may be right, but I think actually he can't face himself. That it's not hiding it from us that motivates him, but hiding it from himself. He's pissed, he has blame. If he is doing something wrong, and regularly, this would undermine the rage he doesnt want to notice driving him. That's my take.

Ok, its possible that in real life you have such behaviour as well. Though the internet is really its natural environment.

Sure, I have probably done it online. I would guess most have pulled similar shit on some issue in some relationship.

It is a trick that comes with not seeing the persons face and not having to pay for what he says. A newspaper can't do this, because then you stop buying it. But a free product can do it.

Yes, I think face to face it would fall apart. I think a lot of people would no longer be able to put up strong fronts.

Do you have an experience where dealing with this guy over here helped you understand a real life situation?

Nothing in a one to one pattern where I can say, oh, calling Iamb on his shit, writing out what it was helped me. But I think it...hm...is part of me getting that people can be really quite idiotic while also making intelligent noises and, yes, can really not know themselves. There is a naive part of me that thinks everyone is like me. And despite piles of counterevidence, this naive part still hangs on. Seeing that he, over and over, cannot notice what he is doing, is making me less surprised. I mean, it's hard to say what is the cause of me getting less naive, even in my deepest parts, since there are a number of things I do to try to convince that part it is confused. And if he is a conscious troll, this is part of the same pattern on my part. That people would really hit themselves in the face with a hammer to get one over on people. My naive part has trouble believing it, even though I have seen it time and again.

I guess up to a certain point it helps to sharpen some of ones own faculties. But that shouldnt take too long, Id say.

Perhaps.

It also stands as a warning. There may be places where I act out in similar ways, despite my own evaluation that I am an adult communicating intelligently.

Hmmm. That could apply to any misdeed. Im not sure I accept this proposal.

I have that within me that is capable of any misdeed.

So I suppose it is also kind of a pity-party for him. But he is the one who holds the strings. Quite familiar sort of structure. He is like Tony Sopranos mom.

LOL, perfect. Though she took to action, and while it was horrible, she had the courage of her rage. So she gets the nod.

[iambiguous]

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist.

This part is really funny, because you did make the claim that he was an objectivist....

Let's focus first on this part.

Note this claim I am supposed to have made that Nietzsche is an objectivist.

[Karpel Tunnel]

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist.

This part is really funny, because you did make the claim that he was an objectivist....

Let's focus first on this part.

Note this claim I am supposed to have made that Nietzsche is an objectivist.

You're correct. I was wrong here. I missed the exact grammar of that sentence.

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

It's a subjunctive sentence.
And presumably you do not think he insisted this. Correct?

[iambiguous]

"I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the 'will to power.'"

It's a subjunctive sentence.
And presumably you do not think he insisted this. Correct?

First person subjunctive is always a tricky point of view. Why? Because there are those parts of the brain that are in fact able to clearly distinguish between things that are true [reasonable to believe] and things that are not.

But a subjunctive frame of mind revolves more around the deep-seated reaction that we have to things. Our emotional and psychological and instinctive reactions in turn.

Wiki: The subjunctive is a grammatical mood (that is, a way of speaking that allows people to express their attitude toward what they are saying) found in many languages. Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgement, opinion, obligation, or action that have not yet occurred; the precise situations in which they are used vary from language to language.

Our brain seems able to establish that Nietzsche did in fact exist. And that he did speculate about that which is construed by him and others to be a "will to power".

But then different folks react to that in different ways. For example, someone like Satyr over at KT tends to link it to has own assumptions regarding so-called natural behavior. For him and his clique/claque there, it's all about our place in nature. And understanding that solely as he does. With regards to such things as gender roles, race, and sexuality. Then there are those like Ayn Rand. For her both the will and power are obligated to revolve around her own "metaphysical" assumptions about human interactions rooted objectively in Reason.

Her own only.

Then those folks who seem to link it to one or another rendition [their own] of the masters and the slaves. They truly understand a superior set of values and are ever and always ready to heap scorn on those who refuse to toe [and then tow] their line.

Here [for better or for worse] most of them are Kids.

But then how is this assumption not but my own rendition of it all? Indeed, the assumptions I make here are no less construed by me to be an existential contraption.

As for Nietzsche's own reaction to this "general description" of mine, others are either able to cite passages of his one way or the other or they're not.

My point though is that however one reacts to the "will to power", it must eventually be brought down to earth and implicated contextually in the lives that we actually live.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If some part of that was an answer to my question, I can't tell what the answer is.

[iambiguous]

If some part of that was an answer to my question, I can't tell what the answer is.

How is this...

As for Nietzsche's own reaction to this "general description" of mine, others are either able to cite passages of his one way or the other or they're not.

My point though is that however one reacts to the "will to power", it must eventually be brought down to earth and implicated contextually in the lives that we actually live.

...not an answer?

If not the one that you are looking for.

I would need those who deem themselves to be authorities on Nietzsche, to cite passages from him that examine the extent to which he believed that his and only his understanding of the "will to power" reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of it.

Meanwhile, why don't you make the attempt to respond to the others points that I raised above.

Also, given your own understanding of "will to power", how is it applicable to you as a pragmatist when confronting those who do argue that it is a noble reflection of the argument that right makes might.

That, in other words, the ubermen don't exercise their own will to power merely because they have the brute strength to, but because they construe this power to be a worthy adjunct of those they deem to be of the master class and not of the herd.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If some part of that was an answer to my question, I can't tell what the answer is.

How is this...

As for Nietzsche's own reaction to this "general description" of mine, others are either able to cite passages of his one way or the other or they're not.

My point though is that however one reacts to the "will to power", it must eventually be brought down to earth and implicated contextually in the lives that we actually live.

...not an answer?

If not the one that you are looking for.

I would need those who deem themselves to be authorities on Nietzsche, to cite passages from him that examine the extent to which he believed that his and only his understanding of the "will to power" reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of it.

It sounds like you are saying you don't know. That's fine. You could just say that.

Other possible clear answers would have been 'yes' and 'no'.

[iambiguous]

If some part of that was an answer to my question, I can't tell what the answer is.

How is this...

As for Nietzsche's own reaction to this "general description" of mine, others are either able to cite passages of his one way or the other or they're not.

My point though is that however one reacts to the "will to power", it must eventually be brought down to earth and implicated contextually in the lives that we actually live.

...not an answer?

If not the one that you are looking for.

I would need those who deem themselves to be authorities on Nietzsche, to cite passages from him that examine the extent to which he believed that his and only his understanding of the "will to power" reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of it.

It sounds like you are saying you don't know. That's fine. You could just say that.

Other possible clear answers would have been 'yes' and 'no'.

Note to others:

Here I have made a number of points in my posts above, which, in my view, might lend themselves to an interesting [and substantive] exchange.

Instead, he is back to examining me here. Why I chose to answer as I did and not how he would have liked me to.

Well, what about the points I raised? Anyone care to actually pursue them?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Note to others:

Here I have made a number of points in my posts above, which, in my view, might lend themselves to an interesting [and substantive] exchange.

Yes, Iamb is quite right. I asked a simple question a few posts back. He wrote a rather long post bringing up a lot of extraneous stuff and as far as I could tell did not answer the question. I mentioned this and he then posted what seemed possibly like and answer, which I paraphrased to see if it was the case. He opted not to confirm here.

He did, however, raise one of his perennial issues, which I was not interested in answering, however odd this may seem to him, me not being just like him.

Instead, he is back to examining me here.

Yes, I know. You personalize people and assess them psychologically. If I am a nihilist but am not as fractured as you I have some ideology that comforts me and you know what it is. You open the door to ad psychological stuff and then complain when you get responses in the same vein. Welcome to concrete reality. A place where even your actions and behavior and psychology may become the focus. Where other people are not just ideas in your head with the task of fixing your hole.

Why I chose to answer as I did and not how he would have liked me to.

To be clear, I wanted to understand the answer to a question that had three possible answers: yes, no and I don't know. The first time it elicited an extremely long answer that could not be interpreted as any of these. The second time, he did seem to make an effort to answer, though, I can't be sure since he did not confirm my interpretation. I wanted no specific answer, but yes, I did sin on the side of wanting an actual direct response about what he thought was the case.

[iambiguous]

.

Note to others:

Here I have made a number of points in my posts above, which, in my view, might lend themselves to an interesting [and substantive] exchange.

Yes, Iamb is quite right. I asked a simple question a few posts back. He wrote a rather long post bringing up a lot of extraneous stuff and as far as I could tell did not answer the question.

Okay, let's assume I failed to answer this simple question of yours. Pease note the question again, so that you can explain to us in more detail why you believe I did not answer it. And then "possibly answered it". What does that mean?

And note just a couple of the points I raised above that in your view are extraneous. What do you mean by this?

You personalize people and assess them psychologically. If I am a nihilist but am not as fractured as you I have some ideology that comforts me and you know what it is. You open the door to ad psychological stuff and then complain when you get responses in the same vein. Welcome to concrete reality. A place where even your actions and behavior and psychology may become the focus. Where other people are not just ideas in your head with the task of fixing your hole.

I don't know how make it any clearer.

Objectivists react to me as they do here because I am clearly confronting them with a frame of mind that, if applicable to them, brings their own understanding of the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to do" crashing down. The last thing they want to believe about their own value judgments is that they are existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But you, like me, are not a moral objectivist. We consider ourselves to be pragmatists...in however differently we have come to understand the meaning of that word.

But it's that difference that most intrigues me.

My own understanding of it [as related to you on another thread] revolves around this:

With me I never feel completely comfortable regarding my own existential leap to a particular political prejudice. Why? Because I recognize [here and now] how my value judgments are just existential contraptions rooted in dasein. And that even to the extent I am able to convince myself that [in my case] the liberals have the better argument, my understanding of conflicting goods then forces me to accept that I accept this only because I have become predisposed existentially to embrace the assumptions made in the liberal arguments. An argument encompassed of late in my exchange with Peter Kropotkin regarding individual reactions to capitalism.

I'm merely grappling to understand how, when confronting contexts in which your own values are challenged, you do not react like this. You seem to just accept it better than I am able to.

So only to the extent that you note actual contexts in which these potential confrontations might crop up, will I come closer to understanding your own frame of mind.

[Ecmandu]

No, objectivists react to you because your entire philosophy abrogates all responsibility, and also like a dominance brainwasher, to get everyone to say that 2+2=5, while all of your actions prove that you believe 2+2=4.

That's some fucking evil ass shit.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise..... shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise..... shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims

Okay, it's settled then. We move on to others.