@Choking okay so, i’ve been trying to solidify my understanding of Nietzsche’s concept of slave/master morality, and i think i finally was able to connect it with Epictetus’ Discourses as an example? i think i was sort of subconsciously struggling against understanding it due to my admiration of asceticism, but anyways

within Epictetus’ Discourses, he teaches Stoic ideals, such as humility, keeping a level head, coming to terms with one’s condition and environment rather than lamenting about it, ya know blah blah etc

i think it’s also worthy to note that Epictetus was actually a slave, although i don’t know his conditions of his slavery or how he was necessarily treated, is the crux of the whole slave morality thing that it’s essentially some sort of “noble suffering” in which people take things like say weakness or the lack of control of their lives, and turn it into some sort of virtue that is worthy of praise?

i always flip the z and the s spelling this nigga’s name dawg

the whole noble suffering can be part of it but i wouldn’t sum that up as slave morality cause N does praise suffering quite a bit as well. Slave morality is more of a reactive force compared to Master Morality is a creative force, the master first says yes to the morality he desires which suffering can be part of, the slave morality is formed as a no to what the master morality proposes.

“masters and “slaves” and however they are translated into real people doesn’t affect if the morality they is one or the other, a “N”ian for one could contend the problem with the modern world is that the bourgeois (todays masters) are too into slave morality and that’s the cause of their weakness for example.

and in the highlighted text is the perfect example of what contrasts the difference between a stoic slave morality and a master morality when in the end result they desire the same thing control over their life. The Stoic tells u to detach from ur passions say no to what causes u suffering, while the master should be greatful for the passions that cause him suffering or obstacles he face for that should drive him forward towards the ends he desires

I like the one / two page aphorisms tbh. But I agree, Gay Science a slog to get through compared to his later work

Someone explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that people have free will

Early Nietzsche gave us on the use and misuse of truth as a metaphor, his most astounding work maybe

What book and paragraph? I’ve only read everything post Zarathustra 🤔 halfway through Gay Science but don’t think his writing style was all that yet

dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/NietzscheTruthLiesInANonmoralSense1873/Nietzsche%20-%20Truth%20%26%20Lies%20in%20a%20Nonmoral%20Sense%20%281873%29.pdf

Introduction alone is a banger

Thank you 😊

Can you rebuke scientific claims or only 'atheism bad'

wasting my time doing the former is what made me slow down on studying this stuff 😏

Do you believe in evolution?

im iffy on evolution as some sort of catch-all explanatory theory for certain aspects of life like causes for some human behaviors (or the reasons for their existence, particularly for religious/mystical experiences) and i don’t think the case for it pertaining to the hard problem of consciousness is worth anything of value at all, (or even makes sense) but generally i don’t give much thought to it to necessarily reject it wholesale. doesn’t really affect my beliefs

i’ve seen you say in previous threads that atheism/theism (at least from a Christian standpoint, yeah?) should primarily be concerned with evolution more than anything else iirc? it was something like that prob butchered it

so i guess what i’d be asking is why do you take umbrage with evolution in particular versus the commonplace polemical attacks on theism from modern day atheism in various flavors of mechanistic reductionism and dogmatic naturalism? are the reasons for rejecting evolution owed to lack of replicability? untestable hypothesis etc?

I don't have a specific problem with evolution, hyper-focusing is not holistic as your lack of stance on evolution is demonstrating. Evolution emerged formally with Hegel and then was rearticulated into scientific language only after the emergence of a vastly altered historical geological timescale. Where do you think 'dogmatic naturalism' came from? People wouldn't believe in a fully anthropomorphic God if the constituent elements that go into that belief didn't eradicate any sense of Godliness in the world.

I could've asked you if you believe in any theories which purport dimensions beyond the fourth, or those which claim multiple infinities, or in the claims of spiritism. As with evolution all of these are not possible as claimed or simply illogical owing to their impossibility.

mind expanding upon Hegel's role in evolution? never read him so i would be interested in what you mean

methodological naturalism and its ideological sisters like scientific rationalism, logical positivism etc. i largely attribute to the Enlightenment era when the supernatural was banished broadly to the corners of the world and individualism/humanism became the newly found measure from which humanity assessed reality from

Descartes' injection of the mind-body dualism within the Western world also played a key role in muddying up the waters epistemically in terms of prioritizing reason and logic to the point that it had to be used to justify one's existence, even though this is putting the cart before the horse since logic and reason require a mind or consciousness for logic and reason to even be useful (..or a thing at all) in the first place

aren't you a Platonist? i would've figured that this would be an issue that you recognized a little bit more than others since (from the tiny bit that i know of Platonism) he posits an ideal world of forms away from the imperfect phenomenal world, from a traditionalistic standpoint it would follow that scientific knowledge is constantly in flux and is quarantined solely to the empirical world. it wouldn't have any bearing on the eternal, which is generally why i don't really take metaphysical positions derived from scientific claims, let alone positing multiple dimensions or multiverse theories and whatever else very seriously

spiritual knowledge is derived from contemplation, self-surrender, mysticism, worship and whatever your preferred method of spiritual practice may be, experience is the centerfold of reality for me, it plugs in the gaps where logic and reason fail

the idea of an anthropomorphic God isn't something that i've exactly seem genuinely supported by any theology that i've read. it's easier to attack some childish notion of a bearded sky man that throws thunderbolts from the clouds, than it is to genuinely engage with the immaterial, eternal and immutable form of God that crops up in basically every single religion.

religion in general is very liberal and generous with their usage of symbolism and metaphors to understand the divine better, to treat God as some sort of supra-natural "entity" as if it has some sort of genus that it stems from is fundamentally a category error that usually reveals the hand of someone who hasn't engaged with religion in a very serious way at all, it's one of the flabbiest of strawmen that persist within these sorts of discussions

and as a sidebar, my agnostic stance on evolution (or somewhat dismissive attitude) is steeped in my jaded attitude towards the origins of life/cosmogony as i've bounced in between dabbling within the Christian-Hindu-Buddhist systems

Hinduism and Buddhism have an eternal cosmology traditionally (albeit, Hinduism at least in the Rig Veda play way more coy about the origins of the world and life itself, but eh) and mainstream Christianity has the whole creatio ex nihilo thing

although it's interesting and i find the various philosophies that are formed to support the varying accounts of the origins of reality, it becomes a little arbitrary and even a little funny when you realize that even in something like the whole Atman v. Anatta thing in between Hindus and Buddhists are somewhat reminiscent of the God brought the world forth v. the universe being a cold product of processes that produce an emergent result

the eternalism and dependent origination dichotomy are very similar to the arguments that i've read about or even engaged with when arguing about how the universe began to exist (or whether it could've possibly always existed blah blah) with atheists and the magic kind of disappeared for me for that sort of stuff, it's just transposed to the existence of a self/soul

i probably lean more towards to a cyclical model of the universe at this stage since i've been struggling to see how causality is necessarily something that is inherent within the physical world versus tethered to the mind, (and as a result that kinda undermines Thomism for me unfortunately, since Aristotle considered causality to be something independent from the mind) but that's something ill probably end up tripping over and ironing out down the line i suppose. i've been focused on actually doing practice versus sitting around studying this stuff all day

not sure if this provides anything additional contextually but i figured it was worth laying out

@mythic_

Religion is deterministic…as is science. To me the logical foundation is the same and people’s differing conclusions are not actually their’s to make.

The true facts are not 'metaphysical positions derived from scientific claims' the true claims are acquired in the inverse, attainable by metaphysics and demonstrated through nature. And attested to universally to the greatest antiquity. It is difficult for me to follow your thoughts or what you're actually trying to say.. if you've actually read and heeded Guenon you would know that to focus on a single symptom of a greater disease only self-diagnoses you with the same syndrome.

Hegel's entire philosophy hinges on evolution and the turning of one thing into another. Much obscurantism is applied to Hegel by scholars and admirers to make it seem very dense and impenetrable but it is a simple and false proposition.

These are all important questions you could answer for yourself with more thoughtful study. Do not be fooled by modern polemics, the 'anatta' in Buddhism is no different than the claims made in the Upanishads and even near the end of Plato's Republic, it is a universal metaphysical truth.

”The true facts are not 'metaphysical positions derived from scientific claims' the true claims are acquired in the inverse, attainable by metaphysics and demonstrated through nature. And attested to universally to the greatest antiquity.”

i agree

”It is difficult for me to follow your thoughts or what you're actually trying to say.. if you've actually read and heeded Guenon you would know that to focus on a single symptom of a greater disease only self-diagnoses you with the same syndrome.”

if i have to sum up what im trying to get at, what im saying is that i find the issue to be primarily with naive realism/materialism that slices metaphysics completely out of the equation of modern day life, which is why i focus on that aspect versus something like evolution in particular. that’s kinda what i identified as the “greater disease” more than anything else from the bit i’ve read of him, the whole inversion of values thing as you mentioned

i find it that half the time claims and their “truth values” for most people are mostly based on their ideological dispositions versus the actual strength of the philosophy itself, materialism in particular is sprang off the assumption that we apprehend things in themselves versus their appearances, that has to be assessed before getting into the weeds of different theories and concepts that people use to explain life/existence itself reductively

for Guenon, i resonate heavily with his critiques on modernity, however i had my reservations with his solution to said problem (the theocratic/spiritual elite), im not sure if that’s what you think im missing out of my understanding for him 🤔

Hierarchy is present both in corporeal reality and intellectual reality. If you believe in God so strongly then you should know that it is something greater by necessity, that is only one hierarchy though. Do you think it is simply a coincidence that organisations such as the Catholic Church and secret societies that have persisted for the greatest duration through time and history are organised hierarchically?

I'm not saying that 'evolution' is the only problem either, but the rise of science and materialism is co-incident with a literal materialisation and hardening of the material world, people think things can be explained materially because to all appearances they can be, any sort of sinister philosophication comes after the fact as a desire to justify it. If you can't get on board with the idea of 'hierarchy' because of your own presuppositions and ideology, then you're doing the exact same things you are chastising others for. If you want to seriously continue this conversation then please DM me because some things that can be mentioned further are not appropriate for public discourse.

”If you can't get on board with the idea of 'hierarchy' because of your own presuppositions and ideology, then you're doing the exact same things you are chastising others for.”

touchè

ill DM

A woman once told me that cuteness didn’t exist and nothing was cute to her at all. Casual brutal thinking?

“some things that can be mentioned further are not appropriate for public discourse.”
mfers getting spooky in here