Prove I don't exist.

[Ataraxia]

As I read it, 17 focuses on the relationships among language, logic (necessity in particular), and reality. This all ties back to the focus of his enterprise: to create a philological view of ethics. A linguistic accident, here agency, is assumed by logicians (like Descartes) to also point to a necessary truth about reality.

Yes,I think you are right about this.

He says as much in the previous stanza:

16. There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words!

TS: Agency was at the heart of most theories of responsibility: if we live in a deterministic world, and did not have free will, many thought that there would be no grounds for ethics (responsibility and punishment). By suggesting that free will is created by an accident of grammar, Nietzsche is not only being the devilish linguist, but he is creating a serious challenge for those who tie ethics to metaphysics.

And also John Locke and David Hume's conception of identity, I suggest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_i ... hilosophy)

[Blair]

Prove it.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that you do.

[xerox]

...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Ataraxia,

And also John Locke and David Hume's conception of identity

Certainy. Nietzsche's belief that "I" is a linguistic accident does undercut the whole idea that personal identity persists over time. If "I" exists only in grammar, then trying to ground it in some non-human external world will always be fruitless. You could probably get around this with some kind of epistemological internalism (ugh, I need to learn how to translate stuff I learn in school into real language). I'm not entirely sure how Nietzsche would react to internalism.

[BGen]

Energy is defined as a “property of objects.”

I thought Energy was the force of "change" or "movement" caused by opposite polarities trying to equalise. eg wind energy comes from the movement of air from high to low pressure zones. So life is the energy force that has us trying to equalise with our opposite. I learned that from Bnei Baruch Learning Center - Free Kabbalah Classes.

[HYPNOSIS]

Prove it.

The time is now 8:38, pacific time...+