ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, WTP)

[Sauwelios]

I understand perfectly well that the source of all metaphysics is weakness!

"Metaphysics" in the popular sense of the word, or in the true, Aristotelian sense?

[Cezar]

Aristotle was not so true. They both, Aristotle and Plato were offering things that didn't belong to them. Copy-cats. I didn't even read anything from them about metaphysics. One must save his eyes for better things.

[Sauwelios]

Aristotle was not so true. They both, Aristotle and Plato were offering things that didn't belong to them. Copy-cats. I didn't even read anything from them about metaphysics. One must save his eyes for better things.

I wasn't talking about the content of Aristotelian metaphysics. I was talking about the meaning of the term "metaphysics" in Aristotelianism. Nietzsche's doctrine of the will to power is metaphysical in that sense: it's a teaching about existence as a whole.

[Cezar]

Nietzsche's WTP is not a teaching as a whole!

Nietzsche in the teaching of the ER clearly says there are centers of energy and combinations of those centers, and he clearly denies anything "whole".

There is a stupid chaos from which fckn stars are born!

Perpetuum mobile!

[Sauwelios]

Nietzsche in the teaching of the ER clearly says there are centers of energy and combinations of those centers,

Yes: that there are only such centers and combinations of those centers.

[Cezar]

So what? You can specify what they are so you can distinguish what is impossible, or what?

Again that sht "thing in itself"?

Is that Nietzschean? Is it you idiot?

Sauwelios ist die Sau which will rather believe in Nothing than not to believe. Ende Gelände.

[Pezerocles]

To the question of "What is Cezar contributing to this thread?" the answer is "Opposing it in a simmilar way as Nietzsche might have opposed it.".

The accusation that you are using metaphysics and thus continuing christianity is a Nietzshean one. What is your answer?

[Dan~]

Nietzche wasn't perfect. He had some points though, which some people can find useful.
We shouldn't look at only a man when we are dreaming and forming ideas.
I don't think Nietzche's goal was to guide the world or provide a system like that.
Religious figures would like everyone on the planet to follow their ideology word for word,
in hopes that that would cause some sort of eutopia. But N didn't do that. So when someone
tries to get that out of Nietzche, an 'ontology', they will have to make most of it up themselves.

[Sauwelios]

So what?

"One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole,---there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole... But there is nothing besides the whole!" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "The Four Great Errors", section 8.)

"This world is the will to power---and nothing besides! And your yourselves are also this will to power---and nothing besides!" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 1067.)

This world is the whole is will to power and nothing besides.

[Dan~]

So what?

"One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole,---there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole... But there is nothing besides the whole!" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "The Four Great Errors", section 8.)

"This world is the will to power---and nothing besides! And your yourselves are also this will to power---and nothing besides!" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 1067.)

This world is the whole is will to power and nothing besides.

We experience life in fragments, and to save time, we take that fragmentation literally.
Humans aren't the smartest creatures in the universe, depsite what christianity says about earthly life.
So we are going to get it wrong.

Although separation isn't a reality, it is a very common idea.
It has some value... untrue things can have value still.

[Cezar]

So what?

"One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole,---there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole... But there is nothing besides the whole!" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "The Four Great Errors", section 8.)

"This world is the will to power---and nothing besides! And your yourselves are also this will to power---and nothing besides!" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 1067.)

This world is the whole is will to power and nothing besides.

The world is a whole without unity, without spirit, without a Being, that has been said too. There is nothing but physics of the will to power in this world!

No metaphysical unity, no "holy spirit" and a trash like that!

Is that clear?

Man ist nothwendig, man ist ein Stück Verhängniss, man gehört zum Ganzen, man ist im Ganzen, - es giebt Nichts, was unser Sein richten, messen, vergleichen, verurtheilen könnte, denn das hiesse das Ganze richten, messen, vergleichen, verurtheilen ... Aber es giebt Nichts ausser dem Ganzen! - Dass Niemand mehr verantwortlich gemacht wird, dass die Art des Seins nicht auf eine causa prima zurückgeführt werden darf, dass die Welt weder als Sensorium, noch als "Geist" eine Einheit ist, dies erst ist die grosse Befreiung,

[Cezar]

To the question of "What is Cezar contributing to this thread?" the answer is "Opposing it in a simmilar way as Nietzsche might have opposed it.".

The accusation that you are using metaphysics and thus continuing christianity is a Nietzshean one. What is your answer?

You got the point for the second time.

[Sauwelios]

So what?

"One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole,---there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole... But there is nothing besides the whole!" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "The Four Great Errors", section 8.)

"This world is the will to power---and nothing besides! And your yourselves are also this will to power---and nothing besides!" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 1067.)

This world is the whole is will to power and nothing besides.

The world is a whole

Exactly: a metaphysical whole. But neither as sensorium nor as "spirit" a unity, no...

[Fixed Cross]

What kind of circus is this?

Obviously the will to power theory is also an ontology... this is all too silly.

Sauwelios -- Self-valuing makes possibile and necessary the dynamic of pleasure and displeasure. Pleasure and displeasure can only be understood in terms of self-valuing. I must interpret N's proposition that (unaccompanied by explanation how ) they should be fundamental (to a universe of force) as an attempt to mask the fact that he did not know how the will to power could logically be interpreted as fundamental.

The will to power only explains interaction. It is the passive principle, conditional to the active principle of self-valuing.

If you wish to give to the mechanism of self-valuing the name God you are welcome to do so, but I won't accompany you there. I take God as a term for the inconceivable. Now that the worlds past/origin has been made conceivable, God can only exist as the future.

[Cezar]

So, the metaphysical will as whole wants the perpetuum mobile although it is a nonsense?

Therefore you too want nonsense although it produces you a lot of suffering, like hanging on the cross etc.?

You have fallen in love (amor fati) with suffering as such and you are ready to deny the world for that reason. That is quite nihilistic.

I suppose fc is moody lawless or commander or whatever and he doesn't need to prove anything, he is English.

However, Nietzsche was not for nonsense as the goal of life but for the ability to endure the nonsense through the creation of the overman.

One can "not only concede but love a fair amount of accidents and nonsense", but one does not chose nonsense as the goal, like you do.

A decadent is forced to believe in nonsense, therefore he can't take control over his existence. He suffers from that, but he is too weak to take his life in his own hands.

Now children, go play in the sand or on your computer...

[Sauwelios]

Sauwelios -- Self-valuing makes possibile and necessary the dynamic of pleasure and displeasure. Pleasure and displeasure can only be understood in terms of self-valuing. I must interpret N's proposition that (unaccompanied by explanation how ) they should be fundamental (to a universe of force) as an attempt to mask the fact that he did not know how the will to power could logically be interpreted as fundamental.

The will to power only explains interaction. It is the passive principle, conditional to the active principle of self-valuing.

If you wish to give to the mechanism of self-valuing the name God you are welcome to do so, but I won't accompany you there. I take God as a term for the inconceivable. Now that the worlds past/origin has been made conceivable, God can only exist as the future.

Thus far at least, your "self-valuing" is just a word. As such, it is inconceivable; your saying that it's conceivable does not make it so.

How can anything "logically" be interpreted as fundamental? Only by having always existed or having come from nothing---which, as I've said, are technically the same thing.

What's the difference between self-valuing and the will to power (note: not willing to power), if any?

How can someone (e.g., "something") possibly be valuable to himself? How can anything do anything to itself (e.g., a hand clutch itself)?

Is valuation not interpretation of something as valuable? If not, what's the difference?

I contend that your "self-valuing" is simply another name for the will to power, which means that it's a pathos, i.e., a "passive principle". A self cannot value itself; and a self that values is the same as a subject that wills, that experiences certain things as pleasurable ("valuable") and others as displeasurable ("not valuable"---cf. WP 580). And in WP 1066, Nietzsche suggests that such selves or subjects have always existed: "a certain definite number of centers of force".

[Cezar]

You can not say the will to power has existed from eternity and it comes from nothing.

It is essential for all matter and energy to have a will, for example the magnet: he knows where he wants and where he doesn't want to go!
For example, N in one of his early letters says that the storm he had to experience has an "unfettered will". The will is always in something material and it is matter!

And magnetism could be the smallest form of matter/energy.

The will to power is your "thing in itself". But Nietzsche clearly says that the term force is the basic term about energy (matter, because today there is no difference between energy and matter) and that it is impossible to imagine an infinitely big or small force, which means there is no infinitely small or big center of energy. And there is no metaphysical energy!

Thus, the matter changes it's form, when for example, two smallest centers of energy, say two smallest, equally small centers of magnetism unite.

There is no metaphysics. Everything is physical. Your thing in itself is deprived of force and thus it doesn't exist for Nietzsche.

"An Stelle der Religion und Metaphysik die Lehre der Ewigen Wiederkehr (dies als Mittel der Auswahl und Züchtung" - Nietzsche (unfortunately I don't have the original source for this quote but it can be found in few minutes)

Nietzsche clearly says that Religion and metaphysics are to be REPLACED with the ER as an utility for selection and upbringing - obviously Sauwelios and his commander have done a negative selection of them selves, and have taken an anti-Nietzschean position! Also in GM or EH N calls for the "victor over god and nothingness", but Pigelios knows all this, he can quote everything N published!

[Sauwelios]

You can not say the will to power has existed from eternity and it comes from nothing.

Yes you can: it has come from nothing, i.e., it has not come from anything, i.e., it has not come at all, i.e., it has always been there.

The will to power is your "thing in itself". But Nietzsche clearly says that the term force is the basic term about energy (matter, because today there is no difference between energy and matter) and that it is impossible to imagine an infinitely big or small force, which means there is no infinitely small or big center of energy.

And where did I contradict him in that regard?

And there is no metaphysical energy!

Not in the popular sense of the word "metaphysical", no...

There is no metaphysics. Everything is physical.

That is a popular distinction. In the true sense, however, the difference between physics and metaphysics is that the former studies specific physical phenomena, whereas the latter studies physical phenomena in general or (in other words) the totality of physical phenomena.

[Cezar]

You can not say the will to power has existed from eternity and it comes from nothing.

Yes you can: it has come from nothing, i.e., it has not come from anything, i.e., it has not come at all, i.e., it has always been there.

Yes, it has always been in everything material! And you have the need to deny that, you nay-sayer!
You say it has always been in nothing! LOL LOL LOL
You can not say it has always been in everything, because you must say NAY-EVERYTHING!

NAY SAYER!!!!!!!!

Nietzsche has blown all metaphysics away! And you are the only physical phenomenon that is worth nothing! - The parasite!

[Sauwelios]

You can not say the will to power has existed from eternity and it comes from nothing.

Yes you can: it has come from nothing, i.e., it has not come from anything, i.e., it has not come at all, i.e., it has always been there.

Yes, it has always been in everything material! And you have the need to deny that, you nay-sayer!

Wrong.

You say it has always been in nothing!

Wrong.

LOL LOL LOL

...

Nietzsche has blown all metaphysics away!

Only in the popular sense of the word "metaphysics". How often must I repeat that? Was Commander Merlin right when he called you a complete ignorant moron?

[Cezar]

The WTP IS POPULAR! IDIOT!

[Pezerocles]

The ladder FC...

Remember it has many rungs.

I want you to respond to Cezar's accusation, which is at a level that is below the surface.

I only keep coming back because I admire the fact that you and yours are coming up with what seems to be an original piece of philosophy.

I want to see how strong it is...

[Sauwelios]

The ladder FC...

Remember it has many rungs.

I want you to respond to Cezar's accusation, which is at a level that is below the surface.

I only keep coming back because I admire the fact that you and yours are coming up with what seems to be an original piece of philosophy.

I want to see how strong it is...

I'm still waiting for aletheia to formulate it without rambling. In the meantime, will you try?

[Cezar]

What you call "original philosophy" is nothing but the ascetic ideal!
The belief in nothing just to buy time for recovery.

Honesty choses death rather than audience when it is not possible to act!

With pigs I am talking pigly(one must struggle against the enemy which is apparently huge in numbers)! All utilitarians believe in nothingness. That is why they are so modest. They are going to sell the entire "original philosophy" to the Chinese. They are already making requests to the "lazy Europeans" and wont give money "until their pockets are empty" - so one can make demands to the beggars.

That is called "to live at any costs".

Anybody still waiting for junkies from Holland to rephrase the term of nothingness?

[Pezerocles]

Cezar, you are a Nietzschean purist, and that is the reason i respect you.

However, it keeps you from seeing certain angles (that as a Nietzschean purist, you are better off without). I am hoping FC will adress those angles. If he would only respond...

Agreed on the Aletheia comment.

Ok Sawelios, I'll take a crack at it.

Value onthology, as I have come to understand it, states that every existing thing exists only becuase of the act of valuing and self-valuing.

If an apple exists, it exists because it is being valued as an apple by a self-valueing entity, and that entity values it in reference to the apple's own self-valuing, eg. having the collection of elements that provokes an identification on the part of the valuer.

I personally attach a person's, say my, valuing needs as being determined by survaval needs and evolutionary pressures. I value the apple, because it has nutrients that are beneficial to my survival, as well as other reasons.

Without me to value it, an apple wouldn't be an apple, because it wouldn't be valued as such. But the self-valuing elements in it that provoked my valuing would still exist, and perhaps others that didn't provoke that exist too.

Am I on the right track?