>“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.”
Well /lit/ what do you think ?
I think I would do neither of those things.
Well sure that would be ideal to live with the love of life and all that it comes with pain and all.
one must imagine Nietzsche happy
I'd be alright with it. Not as big a drama queen as le fruit eating syphillus man
well it's true actually, i took DMT and it was revealed to me in a very disturbing trip. i was very depressed for several days. but i came to terms with it, stopped using drugs, went back to school, picked up Christian Love etc.
not so bad
I guess I would shrug or maybe sigh in annoyance. It wouldn't be a big deal. Bit boring, though.
I'd be going all "HOLY SHIT, A DEMON!"
The former, and then I would eventually just become indifferent and accept one more burden of existence.
>>7897661
>“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine. Or maybe you'd just shrug or maybe sigh in annoyance. It wouldn't be a big deal. Bit boring, though. Pleb.” ~ Freddy the 'Stache, The Gay Science and Other BDSM Guides
"Universal literacy was a mistake"
t. Nietzsche
Did the message go over your heads or something?
>>7897599
Interestingly enough when I was growing up, under 10 years old or so, I more or less had this same thought process. And this was basically the reaction:
>You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.
I had a relatively Christian upbringing, but I was always taught that God was within me and not separate. I'm uncertain if this developed a God complex in me but I think it did.
>>7897599
If the demon is telling the truth, then only from that moment onwards i'm aware of it, so every time that i have to revive my life it would be like the first time.
I could do wathever i want from there, i could kill myself knowing that i'm going to be a child again and play link's awakening all day. Maybe every life would be exactly the same decisions, but i'm only aware of this life, so it would be always new to ME.
If i have to retain my memories every new life it would be even more awesome.
I don't see from what point this would be a problem.
>>7898217
I think it did Anon.
>>7898249
>I don't see from what point this would be a problem.
Maybe if your whole life was full of physical misery / illness, or you were born into slavery during a rough period of history, or you suffered some horrible tragedy in your life. You'd experience it all over again, exactly as it was, for eternity under these conditions.
>>7898266
There are people than endure hard shit that happens to them, if they want they can continue living knowing that after meeting the devil. OR they can end their lives right after that moment, they will live the exact life again, but they will be able to get to that point suffering exactly the same and no more.
The other day i was thinking how unfair is that i have lived 28 years while other people die living just minutes. Imagine if we are going to repeat our lives forever. 28 years, 100 years or 10 minutes would end up being an eternity in the end. It would be fair, because everyone has and eternity of life, even if is a second that repeat forever.
The problem is moral or dignity. I feel sad for the people that jumped the twin towers to escape the heat. But before that momet, they lived average lives like everyone.
Is worse for the people born into slavery.
But let's be honest, life is suffering sometimes, but maybe there are worst things out there that we all ignore. If that is true, then we are all blessed in the end.
>>7897599
So the ultimate moral action to inject babies with heroin as soon as they develop significant consciousness so they die and get stuck in a euphoria loop?
>inb4 nah maaaan you have to feel the struggle in life for it to be meaningful
then almost everyone is living a meaningful existence and Eternal Recurrence is trivial.
>>7898315
>sometimes
Always
The older and more compromised you get the scarier this becomes.
Didn't give a fuck at 18, at 26 now I'm less afraid of torture than recurrence.
Good luck anons
This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more
What did this demon ment by this?
>>7898249
>>I don't see from what point this would be a problem.
the problem is that you know what will happen and you know that it will happen over and over
>>7899999
we pretend that I get the quints
>>7898338
It's not meant to be taken literally you dipshit, it's a metaphor
>>7899895
Cyclical universe, big bang is followed by big crunch is followed by big bang ad infinitum, meaning you've lived this particular life infinite times before and will live it infinitely many times again.
Time is a flat circle lmao
>>7897599
Demon is bro, anyone who is scared of what he says is a pleb faggot
>>7899958
Naïve pleb detected.
This literally makes no sense and is, I think, a self-defeating idea. If you can remember your previous life, you're different and will act differently and it will be a different life. If you can't remember then it doesn't fucking matter.
>>7897653
He starts the thought off by stating it is a demon speaking to you. So no, I would imagine he was unhappy and this reflects his self awareness.
>>7899952
So does this makes me immortal
>>7897876
ha ha upvote
>>7897599
i'd be alright with it my life was alot better before i came to lit
>>7900012
>This literally makes no sense
How doesn't it? I mean it's just a theoretical concept, but given that "randomness" as far as human judgment can see does not exist in the universe outside of fantasy, and the present is always the ONLY present that ever could have been given its past... and also the reflective nature of the universe (i.e. a thing feels hot only to a thing which lacks heat, change alone is unchanging, etc.), I would say it's probable that the universe repeats infinitely rather than ever ending or beginning.
You wouldn't remember the past lives. You have INFINITE past lives with this model. And you will have infinite future lives too. You are in a sense immortal, but you are restrained to this life for infinity. Nothing about it is ever different, because all phenomena is bound together by fate, and it will always play out the same.
Like you said, it doesn't really matter then. But what does matter is your reaction to hearing this. This is a psychological test. Upon hearing this, are you happy that you will go through everything all over again? Does it make you depressed? Your reaction determine's how you feel about yourself, your own life. If you feel depressed, and this turns out true, wouldn't you want to make the rest of your life now something special and great that you would want to live through over and over again?
>>7900012
>knowing you're going to go through massive amounts of pain and anguish doesn't matter if you wont see it coming the next time
Sure buddy.
What rustles my jimmies is the nonchalant and comically self-assured way you think your trivial objection has shot down the idea of one of the most profound thinkers in history of mankind.
>>7900432
Also one other thing, with this model it basically means that the concept of nothingness is, as the concept itself suggests, never experienced. At all. Instantly upon death you will be conceived again. There is never a pause, because there is no time within nothingness, therefore the entire universe will exist, fizzle out and return all in an instant. We are forever connected here.
That's pretty fucking heavy stuff if you think about it. It could dictate how you live your whole life, how you deal with other people, etc. It means that life itself is without a doubt the only thing that matters and all notions of the beyond, including the entire psychological branch of nihilism form which these notions stem from (which is very intricate, which Nietzsche touches on in Will to Power) are crippling distractions from life.
I have experienced nothing so transcendent as to vindicate this theater of cruelty.
But maybe someone else has.
And as over an infinite cycle of lives each man is destined to live as every man, then so too have I.
>>7900459
It also means that every action you take you will take for all time. No pressure.
>>7899952
Wat
This is a question of weather you are living your life right. In the final analysis are you happy with your life? Are you living your life in a way that makes you okay with re living this life? Or is your life so shit that you can't wait for it to end? And to have to re live this shitty life would be nothing but torture?
Are you maybe in between where you life is kind of meh? Are you lost?
Well then ask your self what a life that you could re live would be like and try to realize that.
>>7900471
Borges is that you?
>>7900519
wew lad.
>>7900509
It really isn't hard to grasp.
>>7900519
Fuck i am sorry about my spelling. *whether *relive
>>7899952
>implying energy isn't lost via heat
>implying perpetuity is physically possible
>>7900566
>implying energy can be "lost"
>implying the cyclical universe doesn't transcend classical mechanics
>>7900483
No pressure, for every action you will take, for every action you will take, you have already taken infinite time
When life calls, one responds, I think.
>>7898266
literal slavemind
>>7900566
>What, if some day or night Maxwell's demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This is how to eliminate entropy'
>>7900871
>What, if some day or night the cartesian demon were to steal after you into your lonliest loneliness and made you belive that a demon stole after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you that you would recur eternally?
>>7897599
I think it reads like a subtle homage to Stirner.
>>7897599
Right now, I´d hate to. but it´ll get better eventually, I´m neither too fat nor completely retarded/autistic. I assume I´d be fine with it at the end of my life.
>>7900459
I don't quite understand that last part, can you point me to the relevant notes in WtP?
>>7900432
>Nothing about it is ever different, because all phenomena is bound together by fate, and it will always play out the same.
>wouldn't you want to make the rest of your life now something special and great that you would want to live through over and over again?
don't these 2 things contradict each other?
if my fate is determined and all the actions i take predetermined then what good does effort do?
>>7900260
>He doesn't get it
>>7900566
Energy isn't lost within the universe, and in the higher dimensions the universe does some crazy shit to ensure the increase of entropy for eternity.
>>7901016
You should really read as much of it as possible. It's hard to narrow it down to just certain areas.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/25/items/TheWillToPower-Nietzsche/will_to_power-nietzsche.pdf
>>7901018
>if my fate is determined and all the actions i take predetermined then what good does effort do?
This is a mental trap you have to be weary of. It boils down to whether you're strong enough to take action for the sake of your own life or not. Just because the present rests on past causes and the past, present and future will be infinitely experienced again and again, doesn't mean you ought to give up and not bother trying — unless you want it to. If you want it to, you're weak, not up to the task to take responsibility for your life and make it better.
Because, ultimately, what you do today is a part of that infinity. What you do today will have consequences tomorrow, tomorrow being part of that infinity as well. If you do shit today, you will do shit tomorrow, infinitely. Tomorrow hasn't happened yet; that's the key here.
>>7901356
>Tomorrow hasn't happened yet
If my life has repeated since negative infinity, then it has already happened.
>>7901362
No it hasn't. It happened before, but the future didn't happen yet. You are responsible for it happening again.
>>7901365
>and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more
>and have lived it
No matter what I do it would have already happened in my past life.
You can't just break the laws of causality like that.
>>7901369
>You can't just break the laws of causality like that.
I'm not though. The laws of causality are traced in the past and present. The future has literally not happened yet, hence it's the future, hence it cannot be traced there yet.
Again, this is a mental trap. You are, right now, choosing your future. The weaker you are, the less it feels like it's YOUR choice.
>>7901378
>The laws of causality are traced in the past and present.
And be extended to the future, that's the reason why they're so important to us.
If I threw a ball into a trash can on April 10, 2016 1300 CST then that means in my past lives, and in my future ones too, I would have done the same.
>>7900271
Eternal recurrence does not make you immortal as your body will still die, but your conscious experience emanating from said body between the moment of your birth and death is infinite. However, if the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, and there are an infinite number of universes in which every conceivable possibility is realized, then you are indeed immortal, as your consciousness will continue seamlessly in the infinite number of parallel universes where events come together so that you don't die whenever you do die in one particular universe. So say you are dying of cancer, your consciousness will continue in the universes where they discover the cure for cancer the day before you die or it just goes away. If you blow your brains out with a shotgun, your consciousness will continue in the universes where the gun jams up and you change your mind, or your dad kicks in your door and takes the gun away right before you pull the trigger.
>>7901388
>If I threw a ball into a trash can on April 10, 2016 1300 CST then that means in my past lives, and in my future ones too, I would have done the same.
Yes. And in all of those lives, it was/is/will be your choice to do so, to the extent of your power.
>>7901396
>it was/is/will be your choice to do so
My "choice" was decided by the laws of causalities before I even made it. Certain electrical impulses led up to that "choice", empirical free will does not exist, and we know nothing of transcendental will.
Look guys, I'm posting about Nietzsche to make myself seem educated~
>>7897657
Lol DMT had the same effect on me
>>7901400
>My "choice" was decided by the laws of causalities before I even made it.
You are one of those laws, anon. We all are, as a force, a law in the universe ourselves. Your ability to realize this is in alignment with the extent of your power. A low quantum of power as a force will continuously talk about those "other laws" influencing your life as though you are not one yourself, because you are one, but you are a weak one, thus you cannot man up and take the responsibility, you will instead speak of the other laws that are stronger than the law that is you.
>>7901417
I had a similar experience~
except not at all. It was just a lightshow until I met the entity then I decided to stop just DMT because clearly I was losing the plot.
>>7901454
I can relate to that, more or less.
>>7897599
I would have asked him if there was any way to break this cycle, be it a lonely path or not. For a man desires nothing more than to be free from the shackles of the universe.
If not, then I would say "It is what it is."
>>7901438
>You are one of those laws
Except that is false, we are individuals who must abide by those laws, mere objects. No amount of sophistry can change that, empirically we are bound by the laws of physics and there is nothing we can do about that.
>>7901462
>Except that is false, we are individuals who must abide by those laws, mere objects
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>7901477
You're deluded, you're like a person who thinks that because he says so the law of gravity does not apply to him so he can jump off a cliff and float.
If anything you're the one who can't come to terms with reality and has to lie to himself to sleep peacefully.
>>7901480
I never denied any law. You're the one in denial. You're denying the law that is yourself.
We have the power to make changes in our lives, and influence others, and alter our futures. If you do not have much power in the way of doing any of this, you are weak. Some people have more power that allows them to make more changes. Like choosing where and what to eat — a poor bastard living in a shithole has little choice, but a rich man living in the city has hundreds of choices.
>>7901515
>I never denied any law. You're the one in denial. You're denying the law that is yourself.
>
>We have the power to make changes in our lives, and influence others, and alter our futures.
We aren't laws, we are objects, are you seriously this clueless about metaphysics and physics?
The universe is indifferent to what we believe, the physical laws will empirically apply no matter what.
>>7901524
>We aren't laws, we are objects, are you seriously this clueless about metaphysics and physics?
Do you seriously not get what I am trying to convey with the word "law" here?
Law as in authority. Do you have authority over anything or anyone at all in your life? Then you are technically a "law" in practice within the universe.
>>7901544
>Do you have authority over anything or anyone at all in your life?
Nobody does, empirically, again, you have no grasp of physics and/or metaphysics.
Please leave your metaphorical sophistry out of philosophy, it's all well and good for fantasy, but reality does not work that way.
>>7901579
>Nobody does
If five giant niggers broke into your house with guns and got the jump on you and whoever you live with, guess what, they're gonna have authority over you the rest of that night, until other authority figures step in and put a stop to it. Those dig bigger nicks in your anus would be the "laws" of your world up until then.
People get mugged, raped, killed all the time, jobs and mates stolen from them, etc. People are at others' will all over the place. We have authority over many, most animals by being smarter and more organized than them. New scientific discoveries and developed technology puts us in a position of authority over various aspects of nature which previously had authority over us. And those aspects of nature we still cannot control, diseases we cannot prevent from spreading, etc. have authority over us, they are "laws" in practice which we must still obey, until we have the power to overcome them and become the authority over them. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
By the way, the "laws" of physics / metaphysics are just ideas which have authority over us at a particular time. None of them are "facts." When a scientist or mathematician or another finally uncovers evidence or formulates a new law which overcomes and disproves the old law, it is the same as toppling over a mental authority figure.
>>7901309
Okay. I don't. You're right.
Care to elaborate on what I'm missing?
>>7901617
I mean seriously. We actively study the event horizon of collapsed stars: the area in which the number one unbreakable physical law breaks down.
The only universal law (to a high degree of confidence) is the energy constant.
There's a special place in hell for Nietzsche.
>>7897599
I think you have a retarded translation of Nietzsche. But, I believe the purpose of his rhetoric is to suggest we reflect upon the intentions of our actions and strive for a more glorifying and personally fulfilling lifestyle.
This is why he phrases the question as having only one of two responses; E.g. Life being to anguish or relish.
>>7901652
The demon is arbitrary to the purpose of the question and merely intended to be an iconoclast of the Christian values in his time.
>>7901679
Wow. And just think: You knew that I didn't know that because I said he chose to start the question with a demon because of his unhappiness.
I'm so glad you just stated the very underlying fact that was in my statement just because you didn't understand me.
But I get it. You got to use words and phrases like: arbitrary, merely intended, and iconoclast.
>>7901617
>By the way, the "laws" of physics / metaphysics are just ideas which have authority over us at a particular time. None of them are "facts." When a scientist or mathematician or another finally uncovers evidence or formulates a new law which overcomes and disproves the old law, it is the same as toppling over a mental authority figure.
Way to have almost no grasping of physics or metaphysics, the laws apply even if you know them or not.
Your very thoughts, your "choices" are nothing more than just reactions from the movement of particles governed by those laws. How fucking dense can you be?
>>7901662
Just because we don't know all of them doesn't mean they don't apply.
Just because we didn't know that the Earth didn't revolve around the Sun doesn't mean it didn't from the very beginning.
>>7901656
Uneven breasts and the form of a sack of potatoes.
Disgusting.
>>7901899
>the laws apply even if you know them or not
Thanks for unconsciously admitting that you are philosophically unread.
>>7901918
>Thanks for unconsciously admitting that you are philosophically unread.
Wrong, but keep being deluded.
>>7900012
War is peace.
>>7901920
"Wrong," and yet you demonstrate an understanding of what we're talking about here that one would have if they hadn't even grasped 19th century philosophy yet.
>>7901943
You're the one that can't grasp metaphysics so he spouts metaphorical nonsense from someone who couldn't come to terms with reality.
Don't try to bring Nietzsche into metaphysics.
>>7901960
>>7901975
Retard, Nietzsche is only passable as a foundation for social commentary.
>>7901960
Metaphysics is impossible after Auschwitz. Or was it poetry?
>>7901983
I feel like you don't see the same string of words in the opening post as I do. So... you're saying that the question isn't in the realm of metaphysics? Or are you saying that Nietzsche's metaphysical ponderings don't count he's not accepted by them?
>>7902081
>So... you're saying that the question isn't in the realm of metaphysics?
Yes, if taken as a metaphor on how happy you are with your life it's fine, but taking it literally in the sense that your life will and has repeated itself for infinity but that you can somehow change it is wrong.
>>7902092
Disregarding the fact the question wasloaded, I've got to say that your answer is really bad. I mean, multiverse theory is pretty basic and more than covers an "ascension" where you could shift from an infinitely repeating time line to a new time line entirely unexpierenced as a 4th dimensional being, establishing a "self-aware existence" in what appears to be the same time line and enabling a sort of demigod, or even god complex.
>>7902092
Well yeah. I don't think Nietzsche intended for it to be taken literally.
But at the same time, it holds no value as a metaphor if you don't suspend your disbelief momentarily and take it as being literal, so that you can properly address how happy you are with your own life.
And can you prove that the idea is completely impossible in a real sense, anyway?
>>7902115
1. Nietzsche didn't have a multiverse theory in mind when he wrote that
2. Not all multiverse theories state that there's a universe for every possible outcome
>>7902127
>But at the same time, it holds no value as a metaphor if you don't suspend your disbelief momentarily
You can do that without taking it literally.
>And can you prove that the idea is completely impossible in a real sense, anyway?
If my life is and was on repeat for infinity, then all the vents up to this point must have occurred in exactly the same way in my past lives, so what they cause in this life will be exactly the same as what they've caused in my past lives.
>>7902144
>You can do that without taking it literally.
Yeah but then your reaction isn't very genuine and it's a pointless exercise. You have to really believe in it, if even for just a few minutes.
Also, I'm not following on how the other part of your post proves its impossible.
>>7902151
>Also, I'm not following on how the other part of your post proves its impossible.
The same causes will cause the same effects.
>>7902177
How does that prove its impossible?
>>7902188
Since the same causes have the same effects your life will be exactly the same in every instance if you had to relive it infinitely.
>>7902194
Right, that's what the concept is all about. And that makes it impossible because............
Nietzsche and Metaphysics do not belong in the same sentence unless connected by a negative term. Nietzsche was not a metaphysical thinker. ER is, in Nietzsche's eyes, a replacement for Heaven as a metaphysical behavior governing idea.
Nietzsche disliked Christianity but he was terrified of nihilism, most people cannot handle living in a vacuum of morals and as such nihilism would destroy western, and then all civilizations. Christianity is undergirded by the idea of heaven, that there is punishment for sin and reward for a life lived in the correct way. So long as heaven remains true to people it has a behavior modifying effect.
ER, much like heaven and hell, provides this effect in its own way. the H/H model tells you that there are certain things you ought not to do and others that you ought to. ER is the same way. ER is a burden not just because you must relive suffering alongside pleasure, but because you may pass having accomplished nothing with that which was given to you, and forevermore you are a nothing. Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche's ER takes a look into this and goes as far as to say that the 'bad' fails to recur entirely.
ER above all motivates you to live virtuously and do great things. The masses will avoid the great suffering one must endure and the great evils one must partake in to accomplish true greatness, but Nietzsche is not writing for them. He is not writing for most of the people on this board, he's writing for the kind of man who comes once in a generation.
>>7902199
Read the reply chain.
>>7902206
I've been, but nowhere do I see proof that this could not be the case.
Where is the evidence that the universe does not simply repeat, rather than begin or end? Right now there is more evidence that this IS the case, since all beginnings and ends in the universe can be boiled down as shallow interpretations of the continuous event of energy's transformation.
>>7902235
>Where is the evidence that the universe does not simply repeat, rather than begin or end?
Are you the same guy I was originally responding too?
Whether that actually happens or not wasn't the problem presented in the chain, rather that the original guy thought that even though your life will repeat itself, you can somehow not be affected by the laws of causality simply by not believing them.
>>7902245
He was snaffu'd into believing a German man's story about willpower overriding universal laws applied to our own biology, likely because the German was a much better writer than the people who wrote about physics
>>7902245
>Whether that actually happens or not wasn't the problem presented in the chain, rather that the original guy thought that even though your life will repeat itself, you can somehow not be affected by the laws of causality simply by not believing them.
That was never said in the chain. What was said was that you have influence over things, too, because you are a part of the flow of causality. The laws of causality are not separate from yourself.
>>7898315
I really feel that suffering because people don't have the life/time that you've had is ridiculous.
Are you really so altruistic? So morally and ethical virtuous that you'll sacrifice the opportunity of a happy existence because someone else has got it bad? Who does that help? We /are/ blessed to be ignorant so be selfish in that way. Appreciate what you have. It is not undignified to enjoy yourself.
>>7898338
I like this, eternal recurrence is trivial. Why get bumfucked into depression by a hypothetical of the infinite when we can't even comprehend the infinite? What a wasteful philosophy.
>>7903266
>Why get bumfucked into depression by a hypothetical of the infinite when we can't even comprehend the infinite?
Well you could only get depressed by it if you yourself were a miserable person. And that's kind of the point of the exercise, to determine if you are or not.
If I had to plod through this turd of an existence again for all of eternity it would be hellish. There better be a fucking way to opt out.
>>7903266
>Appreciate what you have.
I really do, and that's why i feel that is unfair that other people don't have the oportunity to be happy. And if I could do something to share my happiness with others i would do it.
I have suffered a lot as a child, and that helped me to apreciate the simple things that life give you. And sharing happines is just one of the best things that you can do for yourself and for others.
I see myself reflected in others, not above or below, just the same. The only difference is "luck".
Please don't get me wrong, i'm not altruistic or morally ethical. I'm just a regular person.
>>7902339
>The laws of causality are not separate from yourself.
They are, you are nothing but an object.
>>7903842
Reminded me of this:
>What do subhumans mean when they speak of "nature"? The subhuman is incapable of grasping that he himself is a part of nature and thus everything he does will also be natural; that to transform one part of nature to something else will only be a transformation of one kind of nature to another. Technology they view as something anti-natural, yet bird's nests they see as natural. Man's home is anti-natural but the bird's is natural. One will find countless such little stupidities if one examines closely the subhuman's conception of nature. In the end, what the subhuman calls nature is something like a national park, a park in which all animals have been sedated, are constrained from preying on each other while being kept alive by concerned groups who are doing all their killing for them (or at any rate buying the food from other people who are doing their killing for them), have lost their instincts, and every last bit of dangerous behavior they might indulge in has been labeled with warning signs, whilst the entire thing has been hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe and is being constantly scanned over by satellites and laser sensors, with giants robots ready to intervene at the whiff of the slightest anomaly in this extremely natural order of things. If the subhuman were to be left alone even for a few moments in a more natural nature — such as a pristine piece of African bush, for instance — he'd give himself a heart attack from nothing more than pure fear — and this kind of nature the subhuman would never want! What good is nature if one can't conduct regularly scheduled tours in it? Thus reasons the subhuman. What good is nature that is not exploitable? That is not picturesque? That is dangerous? — to the subhuman himself as well as to anything that dwells in it. — Nature is a concept as inaccessible to the subhuman as power.
I think he forgot the hashtag
>>7903698
maybe u should live in a way that isnt hella wack then bro
>>7897599
I would unsheathe my katana and teleport behind the demon, cutting him in half, and while he's agonizing on the floor I'd whisper this to him:
>"psssh... nothin personnel... kid"
>>7901719
I understood it as a bad translation of daemon, as in greek daemon. Knowing the fetish this guy had for peplum and the German form of demon, which is Dämon, I think it's reasonable. If we take this as true, then this is simply a messenger from the Gods. I still don't know what the hell that means, but it kinda fits his worldview. I guess.
>>7904553
Sounds completely spot on to me. That would fit his worldview.
>>7904588
I'm half drunk and not really fluent in English so this will fill my ego for the rest of the week, thx bro see ya
>>7899952
I'm glad you liked True Detective, but this is a literature board, so try to post your own thoughts next time, m'kay?
>>7897599
This quote is basically:
>Look, if you had one shot or one opportunity
>To seize everything you ever wanted in one moment
>Would you capture it or just let it slip?
Nietzsche was truly a terrible thinker.
>>7904607
that quote is not incompatible with a heaven
the eternal return only values life in itself
you're a truly terrible poster
>>7904292
>he himself is a part of nature and thus everything he does will also be natural
We are, as objects, now stop being a borderline-illiterate retard and pick up a physics textbook and fuck off with this metaphorical nonsense.
>>7904292
Sounds like Evola, mind sharing the source?
>>7904972
You're a special kind of idiot.
Isn't it just YOLO. But more like you only recur eternally.
>>7904980
Uh huh. By the way, did you get to the part in your physics textbook where it discusses the concept of force?
We are talking about the will here. The will is not a thing-in-itself or being (object) but an interdependent quantum power or becoming (force). Of course, object and force as defined in science cannot really be applied in this way, because they are far narrower concepts than being and becoming as defined in philosophy, since science is a narrower study of life than philosophy is. And the former interpretation (being) is the less developed one in philosophy.
>>7905014
>We are talking about the will here. The will is not a thing-in-itself or being (object) but an interdependent quantum power or becoming
That doesn't mean that it's not subject to the laws of causality.
If I shoot a gun and bullet cuts through a string which drops a weight onto a scale, then the force of the weight on the scale wouldn't have appeared had I not fired the gun. So if life repeats and I always fire the gun, the string will always be cut, and the weight will always fall, every time.
>>7905021
>That doesn't mean that it's not subject to the laws of causality.
Never said it isn't.
But for some reason you think that it's separate to the flux of causality, it is only subjected to them, it is never a part of them. Why the fuck do you think that? You are essentially saying that the will, which is everything, is outside of itself.
>>7905027
>Never said it isn't.
So you concede >So if life repeats and I always fire the gun, the string will always be cut, and the weight will always fall, every time.
?
>>7905032
>concede
lol, at what point did I ever disagree? You have seriously misunderstood my position here.
>>7905069
I thought you were the anon who thought that it was somehow possible to break the laws of causality.
>>7905175
I'm the anon replying since yesterday, but I never said it was possible to "break" them. We are a part of them, and we are unequal parts, because we are all unequal quantums of power in the universe. Greater quantums of power have greater influence, with lesser quantums of power being influenced by greater ones. Hence the concept of some having authority over others.
>>7905201
>We are a part of them, and we are unequal parts, because we are all unequal quantums of power in the universe. Greater quantums of power have greater influence, with lesser quantums of power being influenced by greater ones. Hence the concept of some having authority over others.
All these "quantums" have already been predecided as soon as the big bang occurred, there is no fighting against fate.
>>7905230
>there is no fighting against fate
Who's fighting against it? We ARE it, at unequal degrees.
>>7905201
The fuck are you talking about?
>>7905233
>We ARE it
No, it is separate from us and has existed longer than we have and acts on us, unless if you want to provide a pantheistic argument.
>>7905245
>No, it is separate from us
Are you a Christfag or something? Do you think we're separate from nature too? See >>7904292
I mean you're not wrong, ultimately, it's just that your position is that of an utter weakling here. You are weak, therefore you are not in-tune with your placement (i.e. your capacity to influence) within the flux, and think it is outside of yourself (since everything is more powerful than you are).
>>7897599
I would say to the demon "you state a very obvious, dull, and boring truth. Begone before you waste any more of your time, or my own."
>>7905262
You can't influence fate, everything has been predecided since the Big Bang, what's so hard to understand here?
>>7905276
But in your example here >>7905021 it is you who shoots the gun, which causes everything after. You do that. You were a part of the flow. HOW MUCH you are a part of it and how well you can recognize how much you are a part of it is based on how powerful you are.
Clearly this is getting us nowhere, because the debate has been at the same stage for hours now. So I'm done with this thread. Enjoy being powerless to yourself.
>>7905303
>it is you who shoots the gun, which causes everything after. You do that. You were a part of the flow.
Not really, though. A truly causal explanation would involve brain events, not any of that vague nonsense.
>>7901652
He's quoting Camus
is ANY of us EVER going to escape samsara
If it upset you, you're a slave by Neetchan's account and being determined to live your life "better" upon hearing this revelation only shows that.
Neetchan is NOT self-help. A kissless, sexless, weeb shut-in who's spend his life watching anime and playing video games can pass this test if he can honestly say "yes" to the life he has lived and is willing to live it the same way again. Not so for you slaving normies and wannabe normies.
>>7905386
There is no Samsara. The universe has a limit, and when it reaches that limit, it will die.
I don't think this is the only universe though, i feel like we are one of many bubbles. If nothing happens when we die it doesn't matter any way.
I think the eternal recurrence thing was a literary metaphor more than anything but as for exploring that concept of the Eastern reincarnation crap, yes the matter that comprises you will be recycled but the idea of your specific consciousness coming into being again is nonsensical, it would by definition not be you. We can accept the inherent determinism and lack of "free will" in the foundations of the universe but there's no reason to believe it's cyclical. I think Nietzsche was trying to motivate people into reaching for the grandiose in living the only life we do have.
>>7904985
I love this
#yore
>>7906009
>There is no Samsara
definitely not gonna make it bro
>>7897653
I have found out that the whole sysyphus meme is true. There's really no other thing to do than embrace the absurd and be happy with it after you have entered the nihilist zone.
For me it was kind of a revelation when I founded out. I was severely depressed at the moment though.
>>7908170
yeah well it's called maturity, that moment when u suddenly realize having a satisfying career, a loving family and comfortable material conditions is actually pretty damn nice, don't be a "hipster of life" trying to lead some "alternative lifestyle" that has a sky high suicide rate because it's really awful. getting an education, a job u like that pays well, and a family is not a "conspiracy" but some capitalist cabal of sneaky juifs somewhere, it's popular because it is good, all those millions of people living happy fulfilling lives weren't tricked into being happy by some conspiracy, everyone is happy to do it because it's what humans like to do
>>7908190
>tfw trans
It's not like I choose to be like this. Shit just went this way and I just can't repress it anymore. I can't be a "normie", sadly.
>>7901652
It's a Camus meme. Read Myth of Sisyphus to understand.
>>7908190
Nice ideology
>>7897653
One must imagine anon homosexual
>>7908210
the thing is if u didn't wack it to so much hardcore porn and shit eventually you would get over it, i don't think anyone is "born" trans, since as we know gender roles are a social construct, i feel bad for confused teens who never even wait for their girly frame to mature into a full male before they chemically castrate themselves with a bunch of hormones and get a bunch of surgery to make normal life impossible, i mean sometimes i like to wack it to sissy hypno shit, or even like to cd on rare occasion, but when i spend time with hot chicks i forget about all that and go full male mode, i'm just glad all this sissy shit like /r/sissyhypno wasn't around when i was a teen or i would have become a tranny and ruined my life...now i can enjoy a satisfying family life and normal career, but i'm adult, if i want to order a bunch of lingerie and wack it to pandorasissy once in a while, that's fine too, but it's not my "identity"
>>7908225
lol don't project your shit onto trans people.
also, just because someone isn't "born trans" (which I agree isn't a thing) doesn't mean that gender dysphoria isn't a real psychic reality for some people, regardless of whether they whack it to 'tranny porn' or not. the implication that just because you had this phase, that means gender dysphoria is a phase for every transgender person is laughably ignorant, but also dangerous
>>7908312
trannyism is like anorexia bro it's not healthy
>>7906009
>The universe has a limit, and when it reaches that limit, it will die.
And then it will return.
>>7908225
>i don't think anyone is "born" trans
transgender =/= transsexual
those that claim that trans are born they mean they are born transsexual, not transgender.
>>7897963
funi
>>7908354
>transsexual not transgender
and how many people get a boob job but stay male gender? you could probably count them on one hand
I'd say.
"You showed up just to say that? I've been through that existential crisis 3 times this life."
>>7908225
I'm not a sissy fetishist though. I have wanted this since I was 5, but I quickly learned that my parents wont accept me so I repressed it until I was 19.
Also there are studies that show a possible biologic origin to transgenderism. Gender might be a social construct, but which gender you choose seems to be not so social.
>>7908439
well i always liked women's clothes and shit, before i knew anything about sex, although the thrill of it was always sexual, even when little, but at the same time i'm just too willfull to be a chick, submission fantasies are cool, but like i could never make it through a day like that, besides now that i'm mature i look way better as a dude than i did as a pretty boy teen, but it's fun to fantasize about what my life would be like if i had gone tranny...
>tfw just finished ecce homo
That was probably the most enjoyable text about philosophy I've ever read. I could just imagine Nietzsche sitting there with smugfrog.jpg on his face as he talks about himself as a satyr and the antichrist.
He kind of copies the style of the trial of Socrates just as Zarathustra copies the Lutheran bible, and ties all of his works together, responds to predicted criticisms and spends some sections doing the 19th century equivalent of shitposting.
>>7908651
>tfw you will never have syphilis in its neural stage and will enjoy writing pieces of well written shitposting
>>7900519
Damn that was a good post anon
>>7901544
Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that no being alive posses free will. Everything is just a reaction to the initial action of the universe being created. Which is to say, all our actions are predetermined because of the actions prior would always arouse the reaction it is given.
Scientist can place two buttons in front of you, and ask you to choose. They will then be able to read, through your brain, what which button you will press, moments before your conscious choice is made. Because all the actions in your life prior to this moment has determined that you would press whatever button you press. Everyone is doing exactly what they're suppose to, and can do nothing else
>>7908764
Regardless of whether strict determinism is true (versus some irreducible randomness), all the events of spacetime - past, present, and future - are equally real and "fixed". That is, we all live on a 4-dimensional manifold in which the future is already written.
Free will is merely a pleasurable illusion, at best. Enjoy the ride.
>>7904322
How is that even possible if he is literally reliving every step of his life. Everything that happens to him, including finding out that life repeats upon death, would have happened before.
Unless you're saying that he could somehow change it THIS time, because it's possible to divert from the life that is being relived.
Of course, being in this very thread would, perhaps, be something that changes his life for the better, and he has actually always changed his life on the basis of this thread, in lives past
Why the fuck am I writing this
>>7908785
We're in agreement, then
>2016
>people still think Nietzsche is self-help philosophy
>>7908785
To add to this, even if we had the theoretical capacity to choose freely, we would still be bound by all things that happened before. So if the universe was to repeat itself, we would always make the same choices, regardless of any free will. So free will is an paradox, of sorts?
I really can't see how free will is even considered a possibility, when I think about it
>>7908808
a paradox*
>>7908808
>I really can't see how free will is even considered a possibility
There's this cool new thing, about 1500 y/o thing, called the catholic church. Perhaps you should read a little about them and their ideology.
For all the cucks saying that free will doesn't exist -- how we can justify locking people up for crimes that were destined to happen anyway? Your conception of what free will is useless.
Saying "because we are destined to lock them up" is not an answer, by the way. That's a tautology.
>>7908808
It's not a possibility, it's a semantic wordgame used as a rationalization:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/you-probably-have-no-free-will-but-dont.html?m=1
>>7908813
I'm not sure I grasp what you're implying here. Mind elaborating, anon?
>>7908829
According to catholics god gave us free will.
>>7908814
>For all the cucks saying that free will doesn't exist -- how we can justify
The very concept of "justification" presupposes free will. Deliberating about anything is kind of a joke, given that the outcome is preordained. It's just another ritual we go through because we can't help it.
>>7908822
That bittersweet thing is, whether the realization of no free-will dawns on you or not, it really doesn't change anything. You will continue to act as you were meant to
>>7897615
I laughed at this comment. xoxo
>>7908814
We were, exactly, destined to lock them up. That is the answer, regardless of your sentiment.
time has hurled forward since it's beginning, all occurrences leading up to you asking this question.
Whatever justification anyone would care to give you, is predetermined, even whatever response you may or may not offer me
>>7908841
This is correct because the same casual events that contributed to you coming across and contemplating the idea of "free will" were still preordained from the beginning of the universe. It's just input -> output.
>>7908856
>a patterns recognition machine is trying to make an argument about the origin of the universe
We're blind for what remains beyond our understanding of things. All this positivism have made the human more sure of his own knowledge, but it also made them blind to what lies beyond his own limits, because it gave him the idea that there's no limits at all.
>>7908856
What a strange existence we perceive. It's an ongoing play where all the actors are following a script without being aware. I can only offer platitudes to this complex feeling, but it seems so sinister to me, in a way
>>7908878
>positivism
The idea of no empirical free will isn't exclusive to positivism.
>>7908878
But there are limits anon, that's my entire argument. Believing in the nonsensical concept of "free will" is to indulge in a view of a universe without limits. Exactly what do you think you're "free" from?
>>7908890
I'm just making the assumption that most of the people of this thread who doesn't believe in free will do it because they're, to some degree, positivists.
>>7908887
Well said.
>>7908894
The universe could perfectly be limitless. The real thing here is, can we understand it to such degree that we could say without a doubt that there isn't such a thing as free will?
>>7908898
I'm the guy who originally told OP to fuck off and I'm a Transcendental Idealist.
>>7898058
What do you think?
>>7908929
"anarchists and christians are one of the same breed"
>>7908898
No, it's really the opposite of positivism.
In positivism, there is no metaphysics - there are only scientific models and their observable predictions. So if the models do not yield 100% accurate predictions (which the don't, when it comes to human action), a construct like 'free will' is not ruled out.
You need to take a metaphysical stance - namely scientific REALISM - in order to rule out free will. That is, you have to believe that electrons exist, that bosons exist, that nothing can travel faster than c, etc. etc. Once you believe that fundamental physics is actually true (not merely a useful predictive structure), there is no place left for free will to hide.
>>7908814
>how we can justify locking people up for crimes that were destined to happen anyway?
Your whole post confuses me. Just what kind of a justification do you seek here?
If determinism is true, then we know that there will always be bad people worth locking up, hence we need prisons and hence we ought to build them.
>>7908934
In the case of scientific realism, how do you approach the fact that quantum events such as the movement of an electron occur randomly and then you declare that there's not such a thing as free will?
>>7908934
You're a little weak on history there, or at least you have an unorthodox idea of what 'metaphysics' is or means; postivism was/is, in fact, yet another metaphysics.
>>7908814
I wrote a few insults, but I deleted them, because they aren't necessary.
Yes, there are philosophical consequences to determinism - which nobody would argue against. First of all, if you had read Hume, you'd know that even if it's not some independently acting 'soul' that is making decisions, there are decisions being made when human action is taken - and the human is the one that takes the action. In other words, a human being is no less of a cause of effects even if those causes are also effects of 'external' causes.
So, what does that mean in daily life? Well, it means that future actions are unknown, so it would be ridiculous to base your actions on a fate you don't know. So one has no choice but to act as if he has free choice, for that is certainly the illusion with which we are stuck. It would be quite foolish to act in a way that hurts you because "fuck it, it's not my fault". The acts still hurt you. And while you can't escape the illusion of freedom, the best you can do is the best you can do.
But, it does have consequences for evaluating past acts. Let's say you lost a game. Well, instead of saying "I could have done this, I should have done this, I can't believe I made this decision" you think only "I have done this". Which is more depressing? Neither, rationally - reality remains whether or not you believe it your action or fate's.
Nietzsche has some aphorism somewhere about losers believing in free will and winners believing in fate.
As for ethics, well, what remains when you remove the independently acting soul? Ethical actions, but without any free soul doing them. Well, remember what I said about determinism as it applies to the future in that it doesn't. But looking back, guilt is an illogical feeling - a feeling,but not one one "ought" to feel. Well, I like that about determinism. Guilt is gay.
Finally, to the question you asked about the law. Nietzsche has a very interesting discussion about punishment in the second essay of the geneology of morals.
There's a number of reasons to lock criminals up that don't align with "just punishment". For one, to scare people away from doing things we, or powerful people, don't want them to do. Second, human beings enjoy cruelty. Much like a repayment of a debt, one person's pain is exchanged for the greater by the state. Let's say someone kills your children. In a world of creditor and debtor, the state exchanges your pain with the pleasure afforded by knowing of the criminals. This is called revenge, but that really just obscures the concept. Even Socrates, a first rate moralist, would say call an harmful action against an harmful person unjust. Even Jesus says to forgive your enemies (of course hell only works if there is free will, but that idea is mostly the love of cruelty I described already.
>>7908947
We also observe that certain models of society have less delinquency than others, resulting in a lower prison population.
Since a low prison population is a desirable thing then we should follow the examples of this models in order to reduce our prison population. It's weird that we don't do such a thing and our political organization sometimes even do things to increase the prison population.
>>7897599
I know this is taken out of its context but how does he legitimize any of this? I would have probably told the demon to fuck off, as I would have no evidence with which to assess his claim.
>>7900566
nigga it's a demon telling you, not a scientist
>>7908957
>We also observe that certain models of society have less delinquency than others, resulting in a lower prison population.
>we should follow this model
the model of having a society that is 95% white? i'd be willing to try that but i don't know how we would implement it without a lot of crying from the jews
>>7908957
Yeah, perhaps, but that's a rather tangential point.
>>7901524
>We aren't laws, we are objects, are you seriously this clueless about metaphysics and physics?
>implying the will to power and matter aren't the same thing
>>7908971
>le crime is non-white's fault meme
>not the fact that, despite ethnicity, you will have high possibility of being in prison if you're poor
This thread is now about social politics to reduce prison population.
>>7908985
>poor people commit crimes
>we should follow the model of countries with low poverty
well the point about being 95% white still stands friend
>>7908948
>quantum events such as the movement of an electron occur randomly
Only in layman terms.
>>7908948
"Random" is just an obfuscatory way of saying "things we don't know the workings of yet". In any case, quantum mechanics is not a hiding place for free will, since random still isn't "free", it's just random. That was addressed above as well:
>Quantum mechanics in the standard interpretation has an indeterministic element that is a popular hiding place for free will. But quantum mechanical indeterminism is fundamentally random (as opposed to random by lack of knowledge). It doesn’t matter how you define “you” (in the simplest case, think of a subsystem of the universe), “you” won’t be able to influence the future because nothing can. Quantum indeterminism is not influenced by anything, and what kind of decision making is that?
>>7908985
They're poor because they're nonwhite.
>>7908985
did u see today a former NFL star was shot to death in a rich section of New Orleans when a college football star, who had recieved a multi million dollar settlement from the city of New Orleans when his father was shot by police during a robbery, got into a fender bender between their luxury SUVs so one guy shot the other guy to death? neither was poor, millionaires in fact, but both were most certainlyblack as night
>>7909008
now another black man is going to be incarcerated by the carceral state instead of going to college, it's the new jim crow all over again, god damn pre-school to prison pipeline strikes again!
>>7909008
I hope you enjoy those cherries, you made quite an effort picking them after all.
>>7909008
Well, when a rich white person commits a crime, apply the same logic.
>>7908948
Whether or not nature contains irreducible, objective randomness will depend on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to.
But let's say it does. Let's say there are tons of future events that are completely unpredictable given all that happens in the past light cone.
None of that really matters when it comes to the argument from physics against free will.
The essential point is, the future history of the world is already written - and always has been. This is the lesson of special and general relativity. Past, present, and future are united with each other and with space to form a 4-dimensional manifold called Spacetime. What we refer to as "the present" has no objective significance - any more than the word "here" has. It's a superficial matter of perspective. Time isn't "flowing", the future isn't "open", nothing is really "happening". There is just a single 4-dimensional unchanging blob of shite that we call the universe.
>>7909012
cherry picked straight off the front page of today's new york times, didn't take any effort at all friend
>>7909012
It's not cherrypicking when on average a significant amount of cherries from a certain group are violent subhumans compared to the average cherries of other groups.
>>7909013
indeed, the next time a white millionaire shoots someone over a traffic infraction i shall do that
>>7909018
It is when you don't quote statistics and refer to an isolated case.
Oh, and before you post any statistic, make sure that they consider the income and average level of education of the people going to jail.
>>7908953
Metaphysics concerns the fundamental ingredients of reality - space, time, causation, modality, laws of nature, etc. None of these things are directly observable.
Positivism is an attempt to jettison the whole enterprise of metaphysics and stick to what can actually be verified or falsified by observation. It died as a philosophical movement before World War II, but helped clear the deck of the more speculative crap that was floating around at the turn of the century, and reboot the field in a more grounded manner.
>>7909024
Just for the sake of argument let's assume you're right about all black issues being reducible to poor environment and poor education and not genetics (you're not, in fact you're not even wrong because you assume these can't be connected), I still don't care about muh social issues because I'm not interested in expending any energy in solving the problems of blacks.
>>7909038
Then I feel deeply offended and triggered by your lack of empathy. There.
>>7909031
Neither are subatomic particles, forces, and so on, directly observable.
But my point was, metaphysics is a superset containing ontology, too. And ontology, broadly construed, is all the 'fundamental ingredients' that you mentioned + PHYSICS aka whatever is directly observable.
Positivism, or rather, its proponents, *thought* that it was a metaphysics-free doctrine; they just didn't, or refused to, realize, that it's just a different kind of metaphysics after all, which later on many of its critics pointed out.
>>7909061
Are you that delusional chucklehead that always argues on /lit/ that culture is the cause of all shitskin woes and not biological heritability of behavioral traits? Because running into your uninformed shitposting is getting boring.
>>7909074
Are you that delusional chucklehead that always argues on /lit/ that genetics is the cause of all shitskin woes and not culture or poverty? Because running into your uninformed shitposting is getting boring.
>>7908764
>Scientist can place two buttons in front of you, and ask you to choose. They will then be able to read, through your brain, what which button you will press, moments before your conscious choice is made. Because all the actions in your life prior to this moment has determined that you would press whatever button you press. Everyone is doing exactly what they're suppose to, and can do nothing else
That's nice, but life is more complex than pressing one of two buttons. And just because we are doing what we are meant to do, doesn't mean that we are not allowed to act with the belief that we have free will. In fact, this illusion is pretty fucking vital to make any decision whatsoever, or you'd sit there idly with your thumb up your ass for eternity because "durrrr it is all predetermined anyway!"
>>7909096
Nobody said you aren't allowed to believe it, I'm saying your believing it or not believing it is causal and deterministic as well, as is sitting idly with your thumb up your ass for eternity.
>>7909105
That's fine, but the only ones who really care about this truth are losers. Everyone else knows this truth, but realize that you need to believe in this illusion to take any action regardless.
>>7908651
i just finished it today, had a thorough reread of most of his work (Kaufman translation)
Ecce homo is a last string of copypasta where he essentially summarizes his books sarcastically
The essential point is to digest and destroy all old moralities, go on a journey of self overcoming, and ultimately create new values that one is then supposed to defend and forget, for the sake of making these values instinct.
He hates liberal thinking (abolishing bad weather and suffering) and sees in liberal, socialist, and Christian thinking a lot of the same tendencies, herd animal, sickly, slave morality.
He would essentially expect the overman to do something great, ie a new renaissance that overcomes christianity and sickness, has a grand project of values and art and politics
I've read him a few times, the first and second times are quite destructive to old values but give you the sandbox of the void to build new values, all reading from the 3rd time on are refinements, and come with the risk of overcoming nietzsche himself and so discarding him
Tl;dr
Carry your ashes up to the mountain, come down with fire
>>7909071
>Neither are subatomic particles, forces, and so on, directly observable.
That's exactly what I said in the post you initially responded to. Scientific realism is a METAPHYSICAL thesis. One that positivism rejects wholeheartedly.
>But my point was, metaphysics is a superset containing ontology, too.
Correct.
>And ontology, broadly construed, is all the 'fundamental ingredients' that you mentioned + PHYSICS aka whatever is directly observable.
Well, physics itself just creates the predictive structure. It does not require us to take a stance on what the ultimate ingredients of reality are. As a physicist, you are free to interpret physical theories in a purely instrumentalist fashion, or alternately to believe in the theoretical entities they posit.
>Positivism, or rather, its proponents, *thought* that it was a metaphysics-free doctrine; they just didn't, or refused to, realize, that it's just a different kind of metaphysics after all, which later on many of its critics pointed out.
Strictly speaking, that's true. But it's a matter of degree. Positivists were certainly minimalists in terms of how much metaphysics they were willing to take on. They rejected causality. They rejected modality. They rejected unobservable entities. They rejected laws of nature (except as summaries of observed regularities). They did accept "analytic truth", and Quine nailed them on that.
>>7908764
This shit right here. Why must every Nietzche thread contain at least one anon staunchly defending the "absolute truth" of determinism and the "lie" of free will?
Nihilism does not, in any form whatsoever, equal determinism.
>>7909188
Oh, anon. I merely posted that as food for thought. I don't frequent Nietzsche threads, and I know what that anon I initially responded to meant. I really just wanted to give life to my thoughts, if you will
>>7908836
Okay, That's what I thought you meant. However, that gives rise to another little conundrum: If we assume that god is all knowing, then would he not know whatever actions you would end up taking, regardless of giving you free will. Whatever action you end up performing, he is what set up the chain of events leading up to that. After all, he has created everything - every emotion, every thought, every scenario. Our free will would really just be an extension of his own, would it not?
So really, the hypothesis of determinism is the same in this case, only god as the centerpiece instead of the creation of the universe, if you get my meaning
>>7909121
We're all losers in this world, anon. Why make such a damning remark. What even constitutes a "loser" in your view?
Also, I highly doubt that most people actively realize this lack of free real, as you would claim.
>>7900277
>upvote
>gets dubs
I'd tell you to go back to raditz, but you got lucky. This time.
I've been listening to the librivox edition of the gay science. Great narration and this has been the most impactful of N's works for me. Sad to say myself and possibly many others avoided this gem simply due to its anachronistic name.
>>7909218
>We're all losers in this world, anon
>this projection
A loser is someone who is weak and would rather bring everyone around him down with him rather than try and get stronger. That's mostly how I feel about everyone in this thread so hard pressed about nailing it into others' heads that free will is a lie. Either you are bitter and just trying to emasculate others, or you are a kid who is just starting to read philosophy and parroting some early stage insights you came across. The more mature are already aware that it is an illusion but see no point in harping on this, in fact the line between illusion and reality is pretty damn blurred when you reach a certain level of insight finally. Overall it is of little consequence whether a thing be true or not, because it can influence the world either way.
And that is what this is all about, really. Siding with the ideas that influence the world in the way you want. So I choose to side with the idea that my "free will" is proportionate to the strength of my will, because this is a challenging, and also empowering thought.
>>7908929
I also like his quotes about how authors should be treated as guilty until proven innocent. He has a unique view on literacy, he says plebs can't help but like garbage books and the fact that these people can engage in reading is degenerative towards the whole affair of literature.
In this light, it is good when the average American doesn't read books, and YA/genreshit authors are heroes for keeping plebs out of good literature since if they were to roam there, their pleb tastes would destroy it.
>>7909201
Humph! Glad to know.
You will love another day, but pray to never cross paths again with me, the amazing...
...Plain, white overweight guy behind a computer screen.
>>7909242
I see. You are making an awful lot of assumptions about me, anon. I find you very hostile, but so is your will, and you must live in accordance with it.
I am not trying to bring anyone down, I was merely enjoying having discourse on the subject of free will. I don't really care for what someone else believes. Why would I have to be bitter or trying to deter others to discuss this subject? I simply find it engaging
>>7909255
Alright, anon. Thanks for the visit
all I want in life is to be happy. I have obsessed myself with history, politics and philosophy but none of these things have had an impact on my life life. I am still the same autistic loser I was in 9th grade. I am jealous of all the "chads" and "roasties" that seem to coast through life. They don't read. They don't follow politics. But they look happy.
Who is the fool here?
>>7909242
Your post was preordained to be gay af.
>>7909294
Have you considered an anabolic steroid + methamphetamine cocktail?
