Pedro's Corner

[Pedro I Rengel]

It only made things worse.

[Mr Reasonable]

i dunno if kuhn was a communist. i thought the book was a statement on epistemology in science.

[Pedro I Rengel]

U iz foreign to dialectics?

[Pedro I Rengel]

[iambiguous]

The only way to be understood is to sound like an idiot. And then what can you really say? Catch 22.

In that case, I am back to "particular contexts": to be understood about what? And what does an idiot sound like then?

Catch 22? Cite possible examples of this.

I sympathize with Meno.

Why? My "beef" with meno is that he often comes off like Alan Sokal here. Only Sokal's intellectual gibberish was part of an elaborate hoax. Meno almost never brings his own obscure, ponderous intellectual contraptions down to earth. So, sure, at times, I suspect he is just being ironic. He posts what he does only in order to expose those who do post intellectual gibberish that bears almost no resemblance to actual human interactions.

Nietzsche had the prerogative to write for the future. But there is no indication now that there will be any, in which anybody will ever understand anything remotely like that.

Tomorrow is the future. And next week, next month, next year, next decade, next century. But what in particular do you mean by a future? Only a future worth having? A future where all the liberal scum Commies are exterminated? A future without moral nihilists?

And did or did not Nietzsche live out his his life almost entirely in a world of words? God is dead, will to power, eternal recurrence, the Übermensch.

What on earth is any of that supposed to mean given a particular set of circumstances? And how on earth are individual assessments of them not rooted existentially in dasein? Given a flesh and blood world in which flesh and blood individuals with flesh and blood points of view makes his or her own flesh and blood sojourn from the cradle to the grave.

Are philosophers or ethicists or political scientists able to interject here and encompass the most rational and virtuous assessment of either Nietzsche or the future.

How about abortion: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=196717

What future do all of those dead babies have, right?

So you got two choices. You either dedicate yourself to the task of allowing such a future, or you find something worth giving it up for. In both cases you are likely to fail.

Again, the idea here being to keep the "future" as vague as possible. Someone -- anyone -- can read this and manage to fit it into their own life somehow. Like reading their daily horoscope.

But what else are you gonna do? Write a novel?

Me? It's still, "whatever works". For all practical purposes. You know, being no less fractured and fragmented about the future as I am the past and the present.

[Pedro I Rengel]

[Pedro I Rengel]

[Pedro I Rengel]

I hate weekends.

Who was it? Zizek? That said they are there to remind you how much you hate not working?

May God favour you all and make your endeavours bountiful.

[Pedro I Rengel]

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yes, we all want the superman.

But that will never, ever happen until we can first answer: what makes a man?

Nietzsche's analysis of the code of Manu was as a moral system that is superior to Christianity. But what isn't? Besides that, and I had hoped you already knew, is Nietzsche's wider point to condemn morality?

And, as concerns us, is a man moral?

[Pedro I Rengel]

I love a man who seeks virtue, for he seeks his own destruction.

[iambiguous]

Yes, we all want the superman.

But that will never, ever happen until we can first answer: what makes a man?

Nietzsche's analysis of the code of Manu was as a moral system that is superior to Christianity. But what isn't? Besides that, and I had hoped you already knew, is Nietzsche's wider point to condemn morality?

And, as concerns us, is a man moral?

Yo, Fixed Jacob!

This is the sort of "deep insight" that you might post, isn't it?

Okay, okay:

[Pedro I Rengel]

Firs of all, a man cannot be moral, because that would place an authority above himself.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Further studying Nietzsche's analysis in these matters:

Socrates knew perfectly well that he was lying, and felt that he had every right. But what gave him that feeling? Revenge, ok, but every asshole and his girlfriend wants to get revenge. He must have had some insane revelation. Hm? Nietzsche's genius is largely that he is an unparalleled psychologist. He understood Socrates's thought process. The lie, the will to lie, the feeling of having a right, the revenge triggering action. But let's say that was what allowed him to put forward his agenda. What was it that prompted it?

[Pedro I Rengel]

In that sense Socrates is certainly superior to Manu.

For there is no mystery to Manu, no revelation.

That's why, for all you want to say about Socratic civilization, it is what it is now, and for all you want to claim about Manuan civilization, India is what it is now.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Of course, one could say that Socrates is a spaz, that what he has is what all Greek philosophers, that is, all philosophers had before him: that secret, that cosa nostra.

And whereas all before him tried to work with the thing, do their best from the thing, Socrates put his foot down and said the thing exists.

And by virtue of that, of the revelation of the deepest secret, not of the secret itself but of its existence, he gained power over all of humanity for over 3000 years.

It is very simple: it is simply the will to ask.

The secret itself, of course, can never be revealed, because it is chasing it that gives all of what is philosophy.

"Turn it inwards and let it loose."

Thus earning the contemp of his colleagues, and the obedience of everybody else.

[Pedro I Rengel]

A similar trick is what was pulled with Jesus.

What is it about Jesus that commands?

The Passion.

[Jakob]

Yes, we all want the superman.

But that will never, ever happen until we can first answer: what makes a man?

Nietzsche's analysis of the code of Manu was as a moral system that is superior to Christianity. But what isn't? Besides that, and I had hoped you already knew, is Nietzsche's wider point to condemn morality?

And, as concerns us, is a man moral?

Yo, Fixed Jacob!

This is the sort of "deep insight" that you might post, isn't it?

Okay, okay:

I normally have you on ignore but I happened to see your clingy comment as I was logged out. You lucked out dude. Yes, it is somewhat of a deep point. I take it that you have no idea what it means. Its not something I would say though.


Pedro - I dont know how Nietzsche framed it, I framed it as a matter of health; higher types are discouraged from procreating and generally associating with the lower types. Not for moral reasons but as a matter of hygiene, security.

I do think, recalling conversations with Ollie, that this was what motivated N as well.

Species optimization, somehow because of our morals, mankind is the only species which must be exempt from this. Morals and hygiene are perhaps mutually exclusive? Stepping into a church always does bring that point across on the nostrils.

77!

[iambiguous]

I normally have you on ignore but I happened to see your clingy comment as I was logged out. I feel sorry for you dude. But yes, it is somewhat of a deep point. I take it that you have no idea what it means. Its not something I would say though.

No problem. Lots of people of your ilk normally have me on ignore here. Though I'm sure we have different explanations for that.

Why I react to you as I do is, in some respects, as much a mystery to me. There's just this subjunctive recoil that percolates inside me when confronting those who own and operate one or another TOE here. The James S. Saint Syndrome. They almost never bring it down out of the clouds. Or maybe it revolves more around how I respond to those who are, in many respects, intelligent and articulate but who are actually able to embrace one or another rendition of something as ridiculous as astrology. I'm willing to explore that with you on the astrology thread but, as with value ontology, you almost never bring it down to earth. Or at least not as I understand that.

That just really irks me for some reason. It generally indicates to me someone who approaches philosophy ass backwards. As basically just a world of words.

And then the part where you can come off [to me] as one of the knee-jerk fulminating fanatics. Not as preposterous as Wendy or urwrongx perhaps but, from post to post, more or less in that vicinity.

But, again, try as I might, I'm never really able to pin things like this down.

[Jakob]

No dude, you just dont understand what it means to be gracious when someone offers a gift.

The fact that you have no such gifts to offers is what offends you, what you recoil from.

That is why I closed the lid on you, but why you will always keep asking for my attention.

[iambiguous]

No dude, you just dont understand what it means to be gracious when someone offers a gift.

The fact that you have no such gifts to offers is what offends you, what you recoil from.

That is why I closed the lid on you, but why you will always keep asking for my attention.

Again, whatever that means.

Now, I'd ask him to explore this assessment of me in regard to a context in which we might have conflicting value judgments relating to whatever it is that Pedro is attempting to convey to us on his post above. Only, I have been broaching this with him now for years.

Though, sure, if he wishes to "close the lid", that is certainly one way to avoid having to defend his own value judgments more...substantively.

And the attention he notes here revolves entirely around the attention I would give to those like James and Gib. Curious as to how they could "think up" such intellectually dense [even sophisticated] philosophies of life but refuse to bring their technical arguments down out of the clouds and examine the implications of them "for all practical purposes" given that which is of most interest to me: "how ought one to live" on this side of the grave in order to connect the dots existentially between that and the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Pedro - I dont know how Nietzsche framed it,

Maybe you should, brother.

recalling conversations with Ollie,

Maybe that's your problem right there.

Species optimization, somehow because of our morals, mankind is the only species which must be exempt from this

Is this some kind of joke? Only a human could ever even fret about such an idiocy as "species optimization."

Poor Nazis think that obviously their brains can never improve, maybe their genes somehow will do the work for them.

I am more than a little disappointed J. But to each his own, I ain't the boss of you.

Just a note though: the code of Manu is a moral code.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Maybe that's your problem right there.

Dude thinks he's a Spartan because he goes jogging in first world sidewalks with a jack knife in his pocket. Hm?

[Pedro I Rengel]

That's what I'm saying.

Before you can even begin fretting about what a superman looks like, let alone a people of supermen, you have to know what a man looks like.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Alright, fuck it, I'll spoil the book for you:

All morality is generated, by obviously immoral men for it involves lying, with the aim of "species optimization."

That's how Nietzsche framed it.

Read the book goddamn you.