Where is will to power? Where are the interactions for it to emerge? Oopsie doodle they don't exist because reality is one object and no matter the outcome, it's always will to power :3
Where is will to power? Where are the interactions for it to emerge?
Yeah WtP is a really vague way to describe reality, it’s meaningless. But organisms have a will to power because it’s natural for organisms to evolve desires that converge to a will to power because power is advantageous. It’s hard to survive when you don’t try to exercise power over your environment in some way. He had it all backwards, will to power is emergent, it fundamental
I mean Deleuze's book on Nietzsche is a nice "systematic" view of the WtP, especially in relation to his genealogy, that answers your questions (even doe refuted by Rene Guenon PBUH). Don't listen to the other poster who is saying the WtP is emergent, as if Nietzsche's force ontology isn't grounded on the WtP
Where does Guenon refute that
I second this. Would really like to know. I have only read symbols of sacred science.
samegay here, I meant that only as a shitpost and as a reference to Guenonposting lol. Although from a mediate standpoint of course it is the case that Guenon accepts neither the WtP as a grounding principle, nor (much more immediately than the former) the genealogical methodology. I can talk about those if you want to, but I doubt that was the original intention behind your question
More or less I just wanted to see if guenon ever outright addressed these things. If I cared enough I could probably extrapolate for myself what guenon would have thought about will to power but I was more looking for examples of him actually engaging with the ideas explicitly. Refuted by guenon is definitely a meme I should have been able to identify having been here so long. I'm a bit embarrassed.
In you
I think the foil of Nietzsche's philosophy was that meaninglessness actually did bother him.
It bothers everyone. His argument that meaninglessness itself is a meaning — the meaning of a decadent body — is still sound.
I would agree with that.
I think my point perhaps was that Nietzsche has to assign the "will to power" as an inherent virtue because it contradicts the epistemic reasoning of nihilism.
Why strive for control when that's meaningless too?
>Because it's inherent to man.
I just think it's lazy.
Nietzsche wasn't really a nihilist. He posits will to power because that was the meaning his body produced. That's his whole point with the concept. Whatever we assign as the meaning of life is directly related to our body and its psycho-physiological composition. If you're a nihilist, it's because of the neurochemical structure of your brain and the physiological state of your whole body.
Well, that's not what I took away from it.
>If you're a nihilist, it's because of the neurochemical structure of your brain and the physiological state of your whole body.
That comes across as a rather positivist take on Nietzsche.
Because within the context of nihilism even that's meaningless. Nietzsche was a result from the "death of God," and therefore all the appropriated virtue as a result of that.
Therefore we all possess different "truths," and if everyone has a truth then nothing is truth. So it's all meaningless.
Nietzsche is a rhetorical vertigo. You can't grasp the man.
> So it's all meaningless.
define meaningless
Read Nietzsche.
I don't think you understand nihilism.
Because,
>Nietzsche wasn't really a nihilist.
Is just wrong. And I honestly don't feel like teaching it.
> Read Nietzsche. I don't think you understand nihilism.
I literally just asked you to define “meaningless.”
If everyone has a truth, then "nothing is truth" and "it's all meaningless" is just your truth — not the new truth, but one you have invented. Given this intuition, Nietzsche shifted focus towards the body. What kind of body would invent that truth? That was his question, which he asked through the eternal recurrence hypothetical.
>Nietzsche is a rhetorical vertigo.
He really isn't. He's pretty soundly anti-Platonist, which required grounding truth in an evolutionary body.
He was definitely envious of Plato like how Plato was envious of Homer.
>That was his question, which he asked through the eternal recurrence hypothetical.
Yeah but the protagonist overcame it in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Whether Nietzsche actually believed in or not is still an open question. It's not black or white.
But if that's what you took away from it then that's fine.
>But if that's what you took away from it then that's fine.
He almost word for word makes the arguments I'm describing. I'm just paraphrasing.
>But the awakened, the enlightened man says: I am body entirely, and nothing beside; and soul is only a word for something in the body. The body is a great intelligence, a multiplicity with one sense, a war and a peace, a herd and a herdsman.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
You have misunderstood his perspectivism with the statement:
>Therefore we all possess different "truths," and if everyone has a truth then nothing is truth. So it's all meaningless.
What you have misunderstood about it is how the death of God relates to it, because your declaration of the new truth, that "nothing is truth," stems from a persisting unconscious conviction that God is still alive. You have yet to really embrace his perspectivism because you have yet to really feel the death of God in your heart. That's why you still believe in "the new truth" as if it were anything other than the brain fart of your own nervous system.
>He almost word for word makes the arguments I'm describing.
Quote it dude.
>as if it were anything other than the brain fart of your own nervous system.
So you're saying because the body is a physiological process, that it's meaningless?
> meaningless
you still haven’t defined that word
Well, let's take a step back here Anon.
What are you really saying?
State your thesis.
I’m not even that anon. But when you say “so it’s all meaningless” you don’t seem to be saying anything at all.
>meaningless, adjective - without any purpose or reason and therefore not worth doing or having
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/meaningless
What is your thesis or point? Or do you not have one?
When you say that it is “all” meaningless you are imposing your interpretation onto everyone else’s. But that’s not how it works. That’s like saying life is inherently beautiful or ugly, or good or bad. All of these judgments depend on the organism, not the environment or life itself. There is nothing inherently meaningful or meaningless about the world, but an organism that is driven to act will call life meaningful, while an organism that is weak of will and confused will call life meaningless. So these judgments are just the result of physiology, which is what the other anon was saying. It’s not that life is meaningless, but that life does not have objective meaning, in the same way that objective beauty doesn’t exist. This doesn’t mean that you personally cannot find something to be meaningful or beautiful, or that you can’t share these interpretations with others.
Yeah that's nihilism.
>nihilism, noun - the belief that life has no meaning or purpose and that religious and moral principles have no value
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/nihilism?q=nihilism+
But I appreciate you writing out your point it saves time tremendously.
I just hope you understand the difference between someone who thinks beauty is subjective while also finding things to be beautiful, and someone who thinks beauty is subjective and thinks everything is ugly.
I can talk about a philosophy without believing it Anon.
Never claimed to be a nihilist.
But keep reaching.
>Quote it dude.
Well, I did give one quote that came to mind, which captures the sentiment.
>So you're saying because the body is a physiological process, that it's meaningless?
Truth is an invention of a certain body. If it's all meaningless to you, then it's because your body has made it as such.
That's a cool story but it isn't nihilism.
I wasn't explaining nihilism. I was pointing out the oversight in your judgment.
Nihilism is the emptying of meaning from the world. What this means in a world where God (metaphysical thinking, Platonism) is dead is, there is a brain which is incapable of inventing any other meaning besides the meaning "there is no meaning."
>I was pointing out the oversight in your judgment.
Or just concede gracefully instead of begging the question for several hours and resorting to ad hominem.
>Nihilism is the emptying of meaning from the world. What this means in a world where God (metaphysical thinking, Platonism) is dead is, there is a brain which is incapable of inventing any other meaning besides the meaning "there is no meaning."
Yup that's what I stated several posts ago. Congratulations.
>Or just concede gracefully
Concede to what, exactly?
>Yup that's what I stated several posts ago.
That's what *I* stated several posts ago, here:
> If you're a nihilist, it's because of the neurochemical structure of your brain and the physiological state of your whole body.
means
>there is a brain which is incapable of inventing any other meaning besides the meaning "there is no meaning."
But when you say
>if everyone has a truth then nothing is truth. So it's all meaningless.
you are completely failing to grasp the above.
Not at all you already stated your thesis in
So now you're just moving the goalposts.
Nihilism has already been defined in
And meaninglessness
It's not that hard.
This post
is not me. Two different anons.
That's alright this is a public forum and all participants can see the posts. Doesn't make it any less valid.
>Doesn't make it any less valid.
Well, it does, since I haven't moved goalposts at all. Which means you've avoided addressing
for nothing.
You said "if everyone has a truth then nothing is truth," but this means you haven't understood Nietzsche's death of God, which I've already explained. "nothing is truth" — according to who?
Absolutely go read the thread and you will see the arguments follow a similar theme and premise.
I don't need to read it outside our post chain because your statement is flat out a misunderstanding of Nietzsche's perspectivism. Nihilism is just another interpretation.
That doesn't even make sense Anon.
Nihilism means the definition of nihilism
Nihilism is the perspective of a decadent body, per Nietzsche's perspectivism. Interpretations stem from bodies. This is why meaninglessness is a kind of meaning in Nietzsche's philosophy.
Okay?
Thank you for stating the obvious.
>Thank you for stating the obvious.
If it's obvious, how can you make such a huge contradictory blunder and claim that "if everyone has a truth then nothing is truth"?
The correct conclusion would be "if everyone has a truth, then what I conclude, even 'nothing is truth,' is my truth, and I am only ever entertaining what is my truth."
Well you've changed your argument several times.
But I suppose you are getting closer to understanding nihilism so that's worth, something.
>Well you've changed your argument several times.
Nope, it's been the same since
, my first post in the thread.
>But I suppose you are getting closer to understanding nihilism
I understand it already. It is the psychological expression of a certain body. All perspectives are such expressions. Nihilism is just a matter of brain structure.
While brain structure can play a role in shaping one's worldview, nihilism is not solely determined by it. Individual thoughts and perceptions are complex and influenced by a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors.
ok chatGPT
Regardless of how we splice it, the point is that you are denying the primacy of the body in Nietzsche's perspectivism, from which follows that nihilism is not a philosophical problem, but a bodily one.
Nietzsche's perspectivism indeed emphasizes the role of the body and individual perspectives in shaping one's understanding of the world. Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, can emerge from a devaluation of life and a loss of meaning. While the body and its instincts are crucial in Nietzsche's philosophy, nihilism is still considered a complex philosophical problem intertwined with cultural, historical, and intellectual factors, not solely a bodily issue. It's an intricate interplay between various elements that contribute to the development of nihilistic perspectives.
>cultural
Neurological conditioning.
>historical
Genetics.
>intellectual
Both of the above combined.
>all three
included in my use of the word "bodily."
I see your perspective. When considering Nietzsche's ideas through a broader lens that incorporates neurological conditioning, genetics, and the amalgamation of cultural and intellectual factors, the term "bodily" can indeed encompass a comprehensive understanding of the roots of nihilism in his philosophy. It's a holistic interplay of various elements that contribute to the development of nihilistic perspectives.
>a holistic interplay of various elements
i.e., the body. Sorry Plato.
While Nietzsche emphasizes the body's role in shaping perspectives and contributing to nihilism, a counterpoint could be that external factors such as societal structures, economic systems, and political influences also play a significant role. This perspective suggests that nihilistic tendencies may be driven not only by internal bodily experiences but also by external forces that impact individuals on a broader societal level. In this counterpoint, the emphasis shifts towards the external environment as a crucial factor in the development of nihilistic perspectives.
Your AI understands nothing.
>external forces
Psychological i.e. bodily constructs.
In considering external forces, one might argue that psychological factors, being intricately tied to bodily experiences, contribute to nihilistic perspectives. However, this counterpoint also acknowledges the influence of societal, economic, and political structures that shape individual psychology, creating a complex interplay between internal and external elements in the development of nihilism.
The distinction between internal and external is invented by the body via the will to power. The body is all that is the case. Sorry Plato.
Your perspective aligns with Nietzsche's emphasis on the will to power and the idea that distinctions between internal and external are constructs shaped by the body. In this view, the body is central, and all experiences, including the conceptualization of internal and external, are fundamentally rooted in the body's pursuit of power. It underscores the holistic nature of Nietzsche's philosophy, where the body plays a foundational role in shaping perceptions and values.
upboated
Thank you ond stranger.
I wasn't expecting the gold but you guys rock!
these really are just AI posts, aren't they?
Yes
They're true though.
Also, meds.
>not solely a bodily issue
is false, however.
Nietzsche's philosophy does highlight the significance of the body, instincts, and individual perspectives in shaping values and beliefs. While the body is crucial, Nietzsche's analysis of nihilism also involves intellectual and cultural dimensions. It's a multifaceted issue, where bodily instincts interact with cultural and intellectual influences.
FRICK OFF ROBOT Black person REEEE
Meds.
Right now.
No, have a nice day antichrist Black person.
Fricking robots. Don't give a frick about no robots. They ain't got no soul.
>Antichrist
Get a grip.
>Fricking robots. Don't give a frick about no robots. They ain't got no soul.
Neither do you Eustace.
Who the frick is "Eustace", you Black person?
(You)
ok schizo
Grow up.
have a nice day, moron
Did Josh tell you to say that too?
>meds
"No."
Nice try Eustace.
Do you even manifest, bro?
>Oopsie doodle they don't exist because reality is one object and no matter the outcome, it's always will to power :3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system#Complexity_and_chaos_theory
Oopsie doodle, complexity is always complex...
Will to power? More like will to moustache!
WtP, in my mind, is just mistaking a tendency for an essence. That the world is filled with will and specifically a will to power is a given. I don’t see why that means the world is literally nothing but will to power at all times.
>I don’t see why that means the world is literally nothing but will to power at all times.
Because you are only thinking of power as social power thanks to the English language. Nietzsche's concept is not referring to social power, but to a feeling of growth in an individual organism and all of the moving parts within it.
I’m not though. If you had asked, I would’ve referred to the sort of power at work in social dynamics as merely one sort of power. I don’t even think it’s right to say that power in Nietzsche is merely a feeling of growth either.