It's always tea time!
Dec 19, 2023 12:42:17 GMT
via mobile
Eugene V. Debs and Theron of Acragas like this
Post by nikomachos on Dec 19, 2023 12:42:17 GMT
Wow. We wrote some stuff and an almost dead thread gets locked down and i cant even respond (i will be honest it took me 20 min to figure out that nothing is wrong with my phone.)
Theron of Acragas, Eugene V. Debs
Now the question is only whether it was the topics of the conversation or just closing an old thread.
So if devs are about to lock this or me down, please warn me first
Anyway your views on "current events" were refreshing! I will leave it a that bc idk whats going on with random thread.
Eugene V. Debs, there is no place for embaressment in our convo that much is for sure. And yes philosophical weirdness refers to exactly that.
I will have to check out them games, bc didnt know them.
Reading your response to Theron i would honestly say i get it that you find Nietzsche appealing... bc you are more than halfway there, in many respect:
I honestly can hardly find things you said that wouldnt match with Nietzsche in some way. Biology, certain degree of determination by sourrundings and the material, psychology and consciousness, his relativistic perspectivistic stance, what makes my position worse than yours? -questions. All these seem to match with the glimpse i identify (correctly?) in your thinking. inherent value of life: Nietzsche would say there is inherent value to life, but he wouldnt mean it the same way any other person means it: he argues there is meaning in ever-growth and furthering of Life and everything Natural, but exactly does NOT argue that every humans life is valuable, rather in a social darwinistic sense, survival of the (fittest) -> mightiest is what he is about. that Life and acting in harmony with natural "lifeforces" is why life has value. So even in this regard no intrinsic value to life (you probaly reffered to religious or humanist traditions) you guys would match in "no" value. Famously he supports an immoralist stance or everybody makes their own morals. Which is what Theron of Acragas pointed out to you that without an absolute reference to your morals there are HUGE implications that, yes overall are regarded judged to be bad...
What also proves nietzsches point that his ethics is not THEIR ethics so he doesnt care.
But since i am nontheless a noob here would be my takeaway: honestly you would probably very much enjoy reading him, simply bc identifing with sb else worldview is incredible (which i guarantee you would) and than have ideas expanded on your own or see the differnces to your own probably more modern view would be extraordinary.
But me beeing a "fan" of nietzsche, is obviously not the same as me telling you go read him for he is TRUTH. I can only reccomend that if you do read all the commentary and secondary literature bc it truly is essential, and dont shy away from all the more traditional idealisitc responses and critizism even if you lean the other way.
Your Dr Who quote is profound. It is the modern and postmodern response to the questions of why we should give a shoot about anything when nothing is solid. (Malazan has it also 😉) usually coming to themes of Empathy and the Just Because! attitude. I can choose to care, i can Will it! to care and act! Which hoenstly are some of the most tearjerking thoughts i have explored and read in fiction and philosophy.
But though i am rly passionate about the stuff and myself plan to implement it as one of the most important themes in my if-i-ever-get-to-it writing... philosphically there is something that is lacking. Theron might want to chime in here. But most of philo is built around reason. And existenatial philo usually has that "jump" an irrational idea that solves the lack of religion or absolutes or well it usually solves STH.
In this case choosing to care/empathy is "irrational", and only with Will i can direct my actions into sth meaningful where i know it is not without meaning, just as not-caring would have been without meaning.
But what is MY will in the face of absolute/godly will and intent?
-yeah but god doesnt exist though...
Well here usually my train of thought ends bc debate arrived at that infamous point where categorically different arguemnts will be presented.
I will add though yes, i think there is godly intent and one must be careful not to replace absolutes with just anything out of utter desperation.(existentialism stuff)
And also isnt it even more touching to spite gods bc you CARE? (Again Malazan, but gods there arent absolute, rather postmodern)
On all you guys said about interwar: hughe thumps up!
Theron of Acragas, Eugene V. Debs
Now the question is only whether it was the topics of the conversation or just closing an old thread.
So if devs are about to lock this or me down, please warn me first
Anyway your views on "current events" were refreshing! I will leave it a that bc idk whats going on with random thread.
Eugene V. Debs, there is no place for embaressment in our convo that much is for sure. And yes philosophical weirdness refers to exactly that.
I will have to check out them games, bc didnt know them.
Reading your response to Theron i would honestly say i get it that you find Nietzsche appealing... bc you are more than halfway there, in many respect:
I honestly can hardly find things you said that wouldnt match with Nietzsche in some way. Biology, certain degree of determination by sourrundings and the material, psychology and consciousness, his relativistic perspectivistic stance, what makes my position worse than yours? -questions. All these seem to match with the glimpse i identify (correctly?) in your thinking. inherent value of life: Nietzsche would say there is inherent value to life, but he wouldnt mean it the same way any other person means it: he argues there is meaning in ever-growth and furthering of Life and everything Natural, but exactly does NOT argue that every humans life is valuable, rather in a social darwinistic sense, survival of the (fittest) -> mightiest is what he is about. that Life and acting in harmony with natural "lifeforces" is why life has value. So even in this regard no intrinsic value to life (you probaly reffered to religious or humanist traditions) you guys would match in "no" value. Famously he supports an immoralist stance or everybody makes their own morals. Which is what Theron of Acragas pointed out to you that without an absolute reference to your morals there are HUGE implications that, yes overall are regarded judged to be bad...
What also proves nietzsches point that his ethics is not THEIR ethics so he doesnt care.
But since i am nontheless a noob here would be my takeaway: honestly you would probably very much enjoy reading him, simply bc identifing with sb else worldview is incredible (which i guarantee you would) and than have ideas expanded on your own or see the differnces to your own probably more modern view would be extraordinary.
But me beeing a "fan" of nietzsche, is obviously not the same as me telling you go read him for he is TRUTH. I can only reccomend that if you do read all the commentary and secondary literature bc it truly is essential, and dont shy away from all the more traditional idealisitc responses and critizism even if you lean the other way.
Your Dr Who quote is profound. It is the modern and postmodern response to the questions of why we should give a shoot about anything when nothing is solid. (Malazan has it also 😉) usually coming to themes of Empathy and the Just Because! attitude. I can choose to care, i can Will it! to care and act! Which hoenstly are some of the most tearjerking thoughts i have explored and read in fiction and philosophy.
But though i am rly passionate about the stuff and myself plan to implement it as one of the most important themes in my if-i-ever-get-to-it writing... philosphically there is something that is lacking. Theron might want to chime in here. But most of philo is built around reason. And existenatial philo usually has that "jump" an irrational idea that solves the lack of religion or absolutes or well it usually solves STH.
In this case choosing to care/empathy is "irrational", and only with Will i can direct my actions into sth meaningful where i know it is not without meaning, just as not-caring would have been without meaning.
But what is MY will in the face of absolute/godly will and intent?
-yeah but god doesnt exist though...
Well here usually my train of thought ends bc debate arrived at that infamous point where categorically different arguemnts will be presented.
I will add though yes, i think there is godly intent and one must be careful not to replace absolutes with just anything out of utter desperation.(existentialism stuff)
And also isnt it even more touching to spite gods bc you CARE? (Again Malazan, but gods there arent absolute, rather postmodern)
On all you guys said about interwar: hughe thumps up!
