Posts by coastalwalker

Gerald Hill said:I disagree; I would call it philosophy—a genuine search for answers. A philosopher would approach this from various angles, perhaps even using a bit of satire to poke fun at all the different exceptions.

That's nothing more than eclectic amateurism.

Gerald Hill said:If someone identifies as a communist one week, a fascist the next, then switches to surrealism, hyperrealism, atheism, or becomes a believer just to change things up again, it proves they lack any lasting convictions. In other words, they don't truly belong anywhere because they don't actually subscribe to any specific ideology.

That’s just eclecticism.

A fundraiser has been launched for the forum member (specifically for his kids) pavaogca.

If you aren't on Facebook, you can send donations directly to this JPMorgan Chase account: Br. HR38 2340 0093 2186 04560.

A fundraiser has been started for the family of pavaogca.

If you don't have Facebook, you can send donations directly to this JPMorgan Chase account: Br. HR38 2340 0093 2186 04560.

A fundraiser has been launched for the family of pavaogca.

If you don't have Facebook, you can send donations directly to this JPMorgan Chase account: Br. HR38 2340 0093 2186 04560.

coastalwalker said:Yeah, it’s hard to wrap your head around. He’s an "open system"—someone who looked at the status quo, refused to play by the rules, and risked everything just to forge something new based on pure, internal necessity. He views will as a way to disrupt the very fabric of reality, and if that works, anyone can theoretically follow suit. If one person manages to bend matter to their will, it proves the concept isn't a fluke; it opens the door for everyone else. But here’s where I see the disconnect: there is a massive gap between the "will to power" and actual power. Honestly, the phrase "will to power" itself screams inadequacy. It feels fundamentally dishonest because it focuses on the *desire* for an effect—the craving for control—rather than the possession of power itself. That’s where I think Nietzsche stumbled. Real power, the kind he's actually chasing, should stem from the truth of one's own being.

That moment doesn't make sense from a linguistic or structural standpoint. The form stems directly from perception—it acts as a 'private' language, but once recognition occurs, it ceases to be private.

Yeah, it’s hard to wrap your head around. He’s an "open system"—someone who looked at the status quo, refused to play by the rules, and risked everything just to forge something new based on pure, internal necessity. He views will as a way to disrupt the very fabric of reality, and if that works, anyone can theoretically follow suit. If one person manages to bend matter to their will, it proves the concept isn't a fluke; it opens the door for everyone else. But here’s where I see the disconnect: there is a massive gap between the "will to power" and actual power. Honestly, the phrase "will to power" itself screams inadequacy. It feels fundamentally dishonest because it focuses on the *desire* for an effect—the craving for control—rather than the possession of power itself. That’s where I think Nietzsche stumbled. Real power, the kind he's actually chasing, should stem from the truth of one's own being.

ironmarlin1 said:At first glance, one might mistake these inquiries for mere homework assignments for a high schooler, though I suspect they actually touch upon much more profound, higher-level complexities.
If there are any members here who have spent some time wading through the works of Nietzsche, I would be deeply interested in hearing your perspectives on a few specific points that I am finding quite difficult to resolve on my own.

My first question concerns the very architecture of Nietzschean expression. To be clear, I am not suggesting that he himself ought to think in a tragic mode while writing about tragedy; rather, I wonder if he has any true justification for promising a new way of living—something akin to his concept of the Übermensch. It strikes me, for instance, that Northrop Frye once structured the Bible as a comedy. In this sense, it functions as a comedy because it lacks a truly tragic hero; following the fall from paradise, there is instead a movement back toward unity. Unlike the figures in Greek tragedy, the characters in the Judeo-Christian tradition aren't met with ultimate doom; there is always a glimmer of hope, a joyful resolution. Yet, what is Nietzsche doing? It seems as though he is attempting to herald a new millennium, much like a Jewish prophet might. Could this perhaps be an ironic maneuver—an attempt to dismantle Christianity by using its own rhetorical tools against it?

The second issue involves his perception of music. Quite early on, in the birth of tragedy, he suggests that modern music possesses superior means for achieving a tragic effect. However, this remains somewhat enigmatic to me. How can we reconcile this with the fact that modern music evolved precisely during an era when musical standards were strictly dictated by external forces, such as the Church or royal courts? Is it even possible for "good" music to exist without being measured against something transcendent or external to itself? Furthermore, weren't both Nietzsche and Wagner operating under a heavy Schopenhauerian influence? Doesn't that imply that, ultimately, Schopenhauer’s philosophy is something fundamentally non-musical?
One could argue that Schopenhauer was the one who finally unlocked the door to musical autonomy. And yet, does Nietzschean philosophy not impose its own set of new criteria upon music? He is famously critical of Wagner, dismissing him as a sort of actor who treats music as a secondary element used merely to underscore his theatrical tics. Perhaps he is right to criticize Wagner for being such a dedicated follower of Schopenhauer, but again, we find ourselves returning to these non-musical metrics.
One might counter that this critique of Wagner—and indeed Nietzsche’s entire body of thought, if we are to label it "philosophy"—actually emerges from the spirit of music itself, rather than from Ideas and so on.

The third point addresses the root of his critique of Christianity. It seems to me that Nietzsche’s opposition to the faith was largely a product of his specific historical context; he viewed Christian moral constraints as obstacles preventing life from adapting to new realities. Specifically, he was reacting to the pressures of the Prussian state, the rise of historicism, and the dominance of science. He saw these developments as symptoms of decadence—typical of an Alexandrian culture filled with hollow rhetoric regarding human dignity or the sanctity of labor. But how did he manage to weave all of this into a singular indictment of Christianity? Isn't the Christian liturgical cycle leading up to Easter exactly the kind of mechanism that should facilitate the renewal he associates with Dionysus (or perhaps he should have linked it to Adonis)? It appears his argument is that what should have been a tragic experience was hijacked to serve the "good news" of a slave morality, creating a closed loop from which there is no escape. But why escape at all? Is it to embrace Nietzsche’s own "good news" of the Übermensch or some new Renaissance? Perhaps it isn't "slave morality" that keeps Alexandrian culture alive, but rather something else entirely—perhaps just the lingering influence of Protestantism?

These are the questions that have been weighing on my mind, and I would dearly love to hear your thoughts or any reflections you might have on these matters.

Nietzsche clings to Christianity because it's his platform. He almost intentionally misinterprets it just so he can use it as a target—a reference point strong enough to actually be worth breaking.
He attacks Christianity from the perspective of a creator. He purposefully misses the mark on what Christian humility, mercy, and meekness actually mean; those things stem from acknowledging sinfulness in a being that exists before and after innocence.
In the act of creation, during that moment of trance, there is only momentum without counterpoint or balance. It seems Nietzsche is unaware that through this exact moment of creative trance, he is experiencing 'God'—the transcendent—perhaps in the most direct way possible. That momentum will either consume him or force him to grab reality and 'rework' it, which is exactly what he does.
So, your thought interests me:

If we classify Nietzsche's thoughts as philosophy

I experience him as a kinesthetic of reality. You can almost feel a physical shaking within his prose.
Since there is no *worthy* opposite to creation (other than destruction, though that's usually just a phase of creating), that's where the idea of 'God' comes from. From the creative impulse, it becomes a sort of 'breakthrough' or window into eternity, or in Nietzschean terms, faith in a better tomorrow.
Because he didn't know—or chose not to know—the healing power of forgiveness (which is too tied to Christianity), or perhaps he knew but didn't write about it (or I missed it), his 'morality' feels almost military. He despised weakness—but for what purpose? What is he leaving to contempt?
And that tendency toward contempt provides the answer to where his 'better tomorrow' idea comes from. (Compare this to the contempt for weakness, which is essentially Christ's 'if your hand tempts you...').
Once something is despised through true understanding, there is no going back. Christian 'weakness' is a quiet strength that he refuses to acknowledge, so he cannot truly despise it through understanding. For what kind of strength does he despise weakness? For a strength that recognizes momentum but ignores endurance. That is why he demands constant momentum, his 'eternal yes.' We can only assume that's what drove him to his mental breakdown.

Furthermore, he assumes Buddhism is 'easy' compared to the weight of Christianity. Personally, it seems to me that Buddhism offers analgesia—a temporary fix for the 'mind'—whereas the cure for the 'soul' is precisely forgiveness.
Then, completely inconsistently, he wonders at the Christian 'lack of resistance,' while in Buddhism, that same lack of resistance is somehow glorified.

lonegardener said:Fair enough, that logic holds up, but you were originally suggesting that I should be the one to start it. 😬

So, go ahead and find someone willing to found a "nihilist" party. Who knows? Maybe one day I’ll feel like joining them—purely by accident, of course.🤷 🤣

Give me a break.😍 I said you’re out here waving the World Program flag, and then you suddenly decide to play the nihilist political party card.

lonegardener said:Look, I even admitted right there that I was "just throwing numbers out there" to make a point. 😬

What I'm getting at is this: anyone who spends that much energy obsessing over something that requires actual conscious effort, planning, and organization—like starting a political party—is clearly disqualified from being considered a true "nihilist." It's like saying the gray color around this text box is too light to be called "black."

I might call something else "black," even if it isn't perfectly pitch black. I don't see why that's confusing. 🤷

You can't set a rule saying a maximum of XX% can join a party. 😍 You could have a handful of people making up maybe 60% who handle the actual organizing—half-nihilists, half-activists 🤣, while everyone else could be 95% nihilists, and it would still comfortably be labeled a "nihilist party." 😍 At the end of the day, the inert mass of any party is just a headcount, whether you call them nihilists, bystanders, or just plain old status-quo enthusiasts.

lonegardener said:"Quote:"

I'm with you on that. 😍 There’s no such thing as a true, 100% nihilist.

Honestly, it doesn’t matter how you look at it. If you view it as a continuum—sort of like a spectrum of gray tones where you might start calling a specific shade "black" even though true black is just an idealized concept—then you could argue something similar applies to nihilism.

For instance, someone might be 90% of a nihilist—though hitting that full 100% mark is basically impossible. 😬If you were actually trying to establish a "Nihilist Party," you’d probably cap the membership at maybe 60% nihilists—though I'm just throwing numbers out there. It might not even make sense, though. It’s like calling a color "black" when it’s really just a very dark charcoal. You could technically get away with it, but does it really make sense to call an obviously grayish shade "black"? Not really, does it? 🤣

Therefore, calling a political party "nihilistic" is a total contradiction in terms. Q.E.D. ☕ 🤣

"Quote:"

I can't quite wrap my head around what you mean by that. Could you clarify? kaže: I have this feeling that if every single person on this planet actually went out and pursued their true calling—doing exactly what they were meant to be best at—the world would just spontaneously combust. 🤔 Don't you have it?

I don't have anything. 🤷 Honestly, we aren't even close to being at a level of technological advancement where we can start fantasizing about a scenario like that. If you lean too hard into those ideas, you run the risk of thinking like the ancient Greeks. It sounds lovely to just stroll around philosophizing while slaves handle all the grueling physical labor, doesn't it? But let's be real—do you actually believe anyone would find "self-fulfillment" working as a sanitation worker? And more importantly, who exactly is going to clean up our cities if there isn't anyone willing to do the dirty work?

If some kind of artificial intelligence actually stepped up and relieved people of those soul-crushing, undignified jobs, then maybe we could finally start fantasizing about a global renaissance and true self-actualization.

Where did you get that "maximum XX%" idea from?🤔 Out of thin air? Let's say it's 95%. We'd still call that black—meaning a true nihilist—even though the whole concept of a "true" anything is absurd since everyone's a little bit fake.😍

feralranger said:In a world where we are all just endlessly pushing boulders uphill, any sort of miracle is a welcome distraction. And an unprecedented one, at that. 😍

So when does the miracle happen where you finally stop rolling?

feralranger said:😍

If we were all to simply inhale the "authentic" life of Noam Chomsky, I suppose we could all sit back and happily witness such a miracle—an unprecedented one, naturally.

And what about you? You going to hold the candle?

lonegardener said:If a nihilist actually went out and started a political party, they'd be proving they actually care about something—which means they aren't a pure nihilist anymore. 🤣 Not to mention, building a party requires actual planning and effort, which is the exact opposite of being inert. 🤣

On another note, I'm not quite following your logic on how "the world feeds off that inertia." 🤔

There’s no such thing as a pure nihilist. A pure nihilist is a dead one. Every living nihilist cares about at least something—claiming otherwise is just theater. They perform for themselves, and if they catch an audience, even better.

By the way, I don't follow your logic on how the "world parasitizes on inertia." 🤔

It's simple. If every single person on this planet actually focused on mastering their own specific talent, I have a feeling the world would just blow itself apart. 🤔 You don't see it that way?

lonegardener said:A nihilistic 'political party' would clearly be a massive contradiction... 😬

🤷 Everyone who is breathing... they're obviously living—in their own way. Even I suppose I could be said to be 'living.' 😬 🤣

Not really. A nihilist has zero skin in the game. They know everyone else is just as paralyzed by nothingness, which actually gives them an unexpected cushion of support. It’s easy to lean on. The whole world basically feeds off that collective inertia. Nobody would blink if you formed a political party out of it.

🤷 Everyone who is breathing... is obviously living—in some capacity. Even I can claim to be "living." 😬 🤣

Meh.

lonegardener said:I didn't get the impression that Shaman is "acknowledging the problem but acting despite it." Rather, it feels like he's insisting the problem doesn't even exist—that it's purely imaginary, something he conjured out of thin air.😬

Well, there are different ways to look at that. I personally prefer saying that something "triggers a certain reaction," though I'm not necessarily inclined to take specific action regarding that automatic internal impulse (which someone might label as "moral condemnation," for instance).

To be concrete: I might feel an internal negative reaction toward the way some people act like self-appointed moral police—take Sam Harris or shamantrixx, for example. 🤣 But again, that internal reaction rarely leads to any actual outward behavior... (though, truth be told, I have no way of predicting if that's always the case or if it can change through some outlier event 😬).

Just to add to that... I'm not "entirely convinced" of determinism. I'm simply posing the "problem" to see if anyone can solve it, since I certainly can't.

Look, Apemant, nobody is solving this. Just accept it already.
That doesn't mean you can't live your life.

feralranger said:Well, if it is indeed true—and if you simply find yourself compelled to argue about it until your dying breath😬 —then by all means, continue that endless debate; however, if your disposition is somewhat different, you might find you have no desire to argue at all.

but he is (nearly) certain of its truth specifically because an entire world—one he navigates through pure intuition, a world devoid of certainty and shrouded in absolute mystery—slips right beneath his radar. had it appeared on his radar, he would likely be far more hesitant to claim such certainty. he recognizes the existence of that space, yet he does not traverse it; hence, his conviction in determinism. meanwhile, those who actually move through that space possess an intuition of free will (or, if one prefers, a similar kind of certainty, provided everything is indeed determined).

Are you referring to Apemant? From a purely rational standpoint, the mere fact that something "slips under the radar" doesn't necessarily carry any profound weight; it might simply point to the imperfections of the "radar" itself. Of course, one is always free to believe that the radar is missing something of a mystical nature...

consequently, he isn't even in a position to pass judgment on those who navigate through that space.

Usually, it is "the others"—those staunch believers in "free will"—who do the judging.

The very awareness of potential determinism effectively erodes any meaningful sense of what it means to "judge."

It's a dead end.
And it's rigged, because any counterargument can just be dismissed as being part of your programming.
You could turn this into a whole cult movement.
Apemant is out in the wilderness, holding the flag for world software.
Spinning in circles like this makes me want to shut the system down.
I guess I'm just programmed that way.
if 'shutting down the system' return to 'it's a dead end'.

feralranger said:I find that comparison to be quite poor... for if one accepts those premises as true, people aren't actually making decisions at all, but are merely laboring under the ILLUSION of agency.

Naturally, for any human being, it is profoundly difficult to truly "come to terms" with such a realization, even if it happens to be the absolute truth.

If it's true, there's nothing left to debate.
But he’s (almost) certain it’s true specifically because an entire world—one he navigates via pure intuition, devoid of certainty and shrouded in mystery—remains completely off his radar. If it were on his radar, he might actually believe in determinism. He recognizes the existence of that space, but he doesn't move through it. That's where his conviction in determinism comes from. Meanwhile, those actually moving through that space feel the intuition of free will (or, if you prefer, a similar kind of conviction, assuming everything is indeed determined).
So, he isn't in any position to judge those who are actually navigating that territory.

lonegardener said:Non-sequitur.

Presenting arguments doesn't necessarily mean I'm "accounting" for free will—it could simply be that I'm compelled to present them. In fact, it's quite the opposite: it would suggest I am unfree. That I have no choice but to speak. Even if I *were* accounting for free will, that very calculation could be determined and thus unfree; perhaps I've just been conditioned to think that way.🤣 Compatibilists likely hold a similar view, except that by their definition of "freedom," these two things aren't seen as a contradiction.

I never said they "preclude" them, only that they create difficult conflicts. Personally, those conflicts actually prevent me from making "firm" moral-ethical judgments; all I can really do is philosophize about them. Acting in accordance with such judgments is a whole different story. But sure, other types of psychology don't necessarily have to be "prevented" from making these judgments, regardless of knowing their own cognitive limits—which, if you ask me, definitely include moral assessments.

As for that last part—you're entitled to your preferences... especially if those preferences were conditioned. You didn't choose them yourself; they essentially surfaced because your brain was genetically predisposed to certain memes.😬

It isn’t "hyper-skepticism" so much as exactly what Chomsky is talking about: mystery. I have no problem just *observing* a mystery or marveling at one. But if we have to make potentially life-altering *decisions*—or take actions with massive consequences—based on something mysterious? 🤷 I honestly don't see how anyone can claim there isn't a glaring issue here.

😕 So, our understanding is restricted when it comes to ordinary matter, but regarding our own behavior, moral judgments—and understanding itself—you're claiming there are no limits, no doubts, and no mysteries at all. 🤣

You're the boss. 🤣

It’s quite something when someone decides they are the ultimate authority on what counts as "coherent" and what doesn't.

To me, the question is perfectly coherent: do we have the "moral right" to sentence a killer to death or not? And where does that idea even come from in the first place?

If that question weren't coherent, we wouldn't see how the answer directly dictates the actual treatment of real people. You're more than welcome to keep imagining that "coherence" is just whatever happens to strike you as sensible at first glance.

Though, if I may say so, that probably isn't a result of free will—it's just that you've been conditioned to brag in such an irritatingly foolish way. 😍

Thinking others don't see the problem, rather than realizing they see it just as clearly as you but choose to act anyway, is like flying over the ocean and deciding there's no life beneath the surface simply because you're too afraid to dive into such uncertain waters.

Maneo’s analogy holds water.

When Druid uses the term "Druid," they're being sarcastic, saying:

"Ayn Rand is just the patron saint for Japan's financial hustlers and that shallow business subculture—basically the handbook for wealthy socialites in Beverly Hills looking for their next facelift."

By that same logic, Maneo uses it as a jab when he says:

"Jesus Christ is the guru for corrupt priests and religious zealots who fleece naive people out of their money while abusing children."

Both statements are identical in one way: the core intent is pure mockery.

Besides, I haven't actually read Ayn Rand, so I have no clue what she's really about.