Is there an ideology of knowledge?

[vicdan]

Do you see your place in that story? Discouraging the untamed man -- "ohs noes, disease and suffering are bad we must eliminate them!! peace for all, long lives and science!!"

That's your problem, kiddo -- you see the 'untamed man' as foisting it upon others!

You can be untamed all you want. You can choose your own hardships, like in that Brave New World quote. Go into alaskan wilderness with a magnifying glass and a good knife, and experience hardship! Go live in Africa, and experience poverty and privation! But that's not what you want, is it? You want to foist hardship upon others so as to reap benefit.

You want to take instead of creating. Instead of transcending man, you do your best to regress to tribal gang warfare, to glorified banditry. That's not the way of the strong-and-free -- that's the way of the weak-but-cruel, the way of the bully.

You are a wanna-be bully, kiddo, and too weak to actually take the world head-on.

You are weak.

[Imadrongo]

That's your problem, kiddo -- you see the 'untamed man' as foisting it upon others!

You can be untamed all you want. You can choose your own hardships, like in that Brave New World quote. Go into alaskan wilderness with a magnifying glass and a good knife, and experience hardship! Go live in Africa, and experience poverty and privation! But that's not what you want, is it? You want to foist hardship upon others so as to reap benefit.

You want to take instead of creating. Instead of transcending man, you do your best to regress to tribal gang warfare, to glorified banditry. That's not the way of the strong -- that's the way of the weak-but-cruel, the way of the bully.

Your obsession with not foisting anything upon others is precisely what makes you tamed.

From GM: "It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who is as far removed from being a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—is he not good?" then there is nothing to cavil at in the setting up of this ideal, though it may also be that the birds of prey will regard it a little sneeringly, and perchance say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even like them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb." To require of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a wish to overpower, a wish to overthrow, a wish to become master, a thirst for enemies and antagonisms and triumphs, is just as absurd as to require of weakness that it should express itself as strength."

[vicdan]

Haha. OK, go out and conquer!

Some bird of prey. You are weak, kid. Not evil (you aren't strong enough to be evil) -- just weak. You are playing pretend.

Which helpless lambs have you killed lately? What hardships have you overcome? What have you achieved, kid?

P.S. Nietzsche is like a bible -- you can find his quotes to support many different things. He is nothing of not inconsistent. However, you are still missing the point, you see Ubermensch as nothing but a re-branded gangster, and Nietzsche as an ideologist of banditry.

[Imadrongo]

Some bird of prey. You are weak, kid. Not evil (you aren't strong enough to be evil) -- just weak. You are playing pretend.

This really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

P.S. Nietzsche is like a bible -- you can find his quotes to support many different things. He is nothing of not inconsistent.

So you must have quotes that counter or improve upon the one I posted?

However, you are still missing the point, you see Ubermensch as nothing but a re-branded gangster.

What point am I missing? How do you see the Ubermensch? I don't actually necessarily see it as a "re-branded gangster", but I definitely see it as someone who is not bound by Christian-morality. Do you think this interpretation could be wrong, despite Nietzsche writing about 10 books attacking morality? Was it all one giant metaphor or something?

[vicdan]

So you must have quotes that counter or improve upon the one I posted?

Erm, how about a broader point: Nietzsche is obsessed with creation as well as destruction, but you speak only of suppressing, subjugating, taking. Do you really want me to quote Nietzsche on creation? it's everywherein Nietzsche's writings, but nowhere in your whining about the stupid masses.

What point am I missing?

That Ubermensch is free, and thus creates (and is free because he creates). As I said, you try to fit Ubermensch into the zero-sum worldview.

How do you see the Ubermensch? I don't actually necessarily see it as a "re-branded gangster",

yet this is all you speak about -- glorified gangsterism.

but I definitely see it as someone who is not bound by Christian-morality. Do you think this interpretation could be wrong, despite Nietzsche writing about 10 books attacking morality? Was it all one giant metaphor or something?

No, kiddo. Did you see me ascribe to Nietzsche any belief in xian morality, or to Ubermensch? No? Didn't think so.

You, on the other hand, paint Ubermensch as a bandit, nothing more. You latch on to force and taking and destruction, and miss out on creation; and that is because you are a weak child paying pretend, you cannot conceive of freedom that does not consist of lording it out over others. You seem to think that will-to-power is the desire to control others, which is nowhere near being the case.

Philo got you pegged (hehe). You are like those kids who dive into satanism to show their mommies and daddies what free rebellious spirits they are.

[skipair]

What I like about Neil's posts is that it can remind us we are still, and always will be, animals. It doesn't matter how conscious or ego-free we become - in the sense that we will simply be conscious and ego-free animals.

I'm not convinced, for example, that it is not the fight or flight instinct that makes a sage run away from an attacking bear, as supposed to his wish for truth to propagate. Nor am I convinced that lust doesn't appear from time to time, or that a clever hypnotist or NLP practitioner couldn't be psychologically influential in one way or another.

In other words, it's impossible to fully transcend the body of animal instinct. So to a degree, we have to work with them.

[Imadrongo]

That Ubermensch is free, and thus creates (and is free because he creates). As I said, you try to fit Ubermensch into the zero-sum worldview.

We cannot assess the sum of life or the world. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean here.

You, on the other hand, paint Ubermensch as a bandit, nothing more. You latch on to force and taking and destruction, and miss out on creation

OK, so what is creation? Obviously we cannot magically create new things, all we can do is rearrange existing things. In my view creation is destruction. Destroying the system = creating anarchy. Destroying religion = creating atheism. Creating a city = destroying a landscape. Creating values = destroying previous valuations or devaluations.

I don't intend to come across as missing out on creating. As I said earlier, this isn't about staging disasters and destruction. Hitler didn't gas millions of Jews for no reason, he had some goal, he was creating something in Europe. By destruction there is no obligation to think about massive killings or wars either, however you cannot create without destroying.

Nietzsche talked about the sublimated and unsublimated will to power. Napoleon was an example of the unsublimated will to power, Goethe as sublimated. Both exerted great influence (power), but through different means. Is it better to be sublimated or not? I guess this comes down to your own abilities and values. The point is that both created and destroyed in accordance to their values. ("You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause."-Zarathustra) One through war, one without [physical] war. Both had a great will to power. Nietzsche respected both (to different degrees).

If you want to keep this to an "internal" level you are doing little more than the QRS "perfecting their minds and consciousness".

you cannot conceive of freedom that does not consist of lording it out over others.

What else is "freedom"?

You seem to think that will-to-power is the desire to control others, which is nowhere near being the case.

What else is "power"?

I think you are suffering from some Christian-moralistic notions here. If you do nothing are you free to do anything? If you exert no power do you have any power? The Christians and Christian moralists want to answer yes to each, to rename weakness as strength and strength as weakness, freedom as lack of power and power as confinement.

These are romantic notions: "Freedom" as the ability to do anything as long as one does nothing. "Strength" as not requiring any... strength. Changing from active to passive to suit the audience -- ie: a new freedom for those who lack any, a new strength for those who have none. Freedom and strength as things you now possess only when you are passive, previously earned. Basically Jesus coming to make the weak strong and the poor rich. If he stopped here, which he might very well have, he would be closer to Buddhism. The Christians wanted to make the strong weak and rich poor as well (resentiment).

(Trying to bring the concepts together.)

Philo got you pegged (hehe). You are like those kids who dive into satanism to show their mommies and daddies what free rebellious spirits they are.

Not at all pal. My parents are Christians and I am a good son who keeps his opinions largely to himself (until he moves out, at least). I am in university, so obviously doing your little bush games isn't an option right now, but I will try in the future. Didn't you say bullies are weak a few posts up? Isn't that all you do, bully?

[Imadrongo]

In other words, it's impossible to fully transcend the body of animal instinct. So to a degree, we have to work with them.

Indeed, and there is no reason to try and transcend the body of animal instinct unless your animal instincts really suck and you want to rationalize your superiority.

Edit -- OK, not true but I think skipair will point that out. :)

[vicdan]

We cannot assess the sum of life or the world. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean here.

Erm, dude, 'zero-sum' doesn't refer to the sum of life in the world. it's a game-theoretic term denoting the situation where for one participant to win, others must lose the equal amount; i.e. where no creation is possible, and your gain is always and necessarily someone else's loss.

This is opposed to non-zero-sum games, where it's possible, though some actions, to actually increase the total utility in question.

OK, so what is creation? Obviously we cannot magically create new things, all we can do is rearrange existing things.

See? This is exactly what i meant, you foolish little child. Can I peg 'em, or can I peg 'em? You believe that the world is a zero-sum game, and that predation is the only way to grow and advance and express will-to-power.

If you want to keep this to an "internal" level you are doing little more than the QRS "perfecting their minds and consciousness".

I am doing nothing of the sort. in fact, I am not a believer in niezsche's ideas -- he was too irrational -- though i find many of his insights very revealing and powerful.

I am simply pointing out that you are a juvenile asshole, a weakling loser with pretensions.

you cannot conceive of freedom that does not consist of lording it out over others.

What else is "freedom"?

Why don't you think about it a little, child, and get back to me? [Damn, can i call 'em or can i call 'em? I am impressed with myself!]

You seem to think that will-to-power is the desire to control others, which is nowhere near being the case.

What else is "power"?

This zero-sumness idiocy bursts out of your every pore.

Power to control other is but a small facet of what power can be. There is power in achievement, power in knowledge, power in controlling the material world (via science for example); there is power in creation. There are many ways to express one's will and strength upon the world, and controlling other people is but one of them, and frankly, the easiest one -- it takes no sophistication, no achievement, no greatness to be a bandit leader. Your view of power is as silly a delusion as the belief that money is the ultimate way to keep score in the game of life, and that he who dies with the most stuff, wins.

Try creating.

Philo got you pegged (hehe). You are like those kids who dive into satanism to show their mommies and daddies what free rebellious spirits they are.

Not at all pal. My parents are Christians and I am a good son who keeps his opinions largely to himself (until he moves out, at least).

hahaha! So you still live in your parents' house, huh, kid?..

if you ever encounter someone anything like what you pretend to be, you will die from shit-stained terror.

I am in university, so obviously doing your little bush games isn't an option right now, but I will try in the future. Didn't you say bullies are weak a few posts up? Isn't that all you do, bully?

hehe. Not at all. I could probably twist you into a pretzel physically and intellectually, but you calling what I do 'bullying' is just a plaintive cry of a slave who resents not having the strength of be free.

Stop whining, little bitch. The fact that you wish to be a gangster, but lack the strength even for that, does not mean that everyone else is a bully.

[Alex Jacob]

In his 1900 book on Nietzsche, HL Mencken cited Teddy Roosevelt's crafty feat of taking Machievellian advantage of a civil war in Colombia to conspire with some landed elites in the isthmus province of Panama and to have them break away from Colombia and establish an independent country where the US intended to build the Panama Canal, as being an example of a desirable application of Nietzsche's 'ubermench' philosophy. The Colombians were powerless to do anything about it, since (stupidly) they were fighting among themselves (and have not yet stopped), and the Panama Canal was a major achievement for the American empire, setting the stage for so much development. A real coup.

On one hand, it is exactly the sort of 'creativity' that Victor refers to---an astounding stroke of creativity that opened so many new doors, not the least of which was economic---and yet is on the other exactly the sort of activity that 'the lambs' get upset about, since they are the brute material that is manipulated by molding hands. The idea, or fact, that there is a very powerful entity that can and will do such things, composed of men who exult in their power, are self-conscious of it, is often reacted against (said 'no!' to) by people who don't have that power and resent it.

It seems to me that here is an example that illustrated very nicely the problematic nature of power, in anything but a 'zero-sum' context.

[Imadrongo]

Erm, dude, 'zero-sum' doesn't refer to the sum of life in the world. it's a game-theoretic term denoting the situation where for one participant to win, others must lose the equal amount; i.e. where no creation is possible, and your gain is always and necessarily someone else's loss.

This is opposed to non-zero-sum games, where it's possible, though some actions, to actually increase the total utility in question.

The problem here is that these theories only take into account a few factors. The utility of two participants may be increased through some outcome, but that doesn't mean utility is being created from nowhere. There is still some other factor (ie. the environment) that is taking the loss. If you include all factors it is zero-sum.

We all have our own values, so we don't include the factors we don't care about. If I don't care about homeless people (I don't value them or care about their values) I won't include their utility in my solution.

See? This is exactly what i meant, you foolish little child. Can I peg 'em, or can I peg 'em? You believe that the world is a zero-sum game, and that predation is the only way to grow and advance and express will-to-power.

Yes I do.

I am doing nothing of the sort [what QRS does]. in fact, I am not a believer in niezsche's ideas -- he was too irrational -- though i find many of his insights very revealing and powerful.

QRS aren't believers in Nietzsche's actual ideas either, they just enlist him as a supporter on their Genius list.

Too irrational?! What's wrong with that? Why is rationality so great? Life is irrational -- even "absurd".

Power to control other is but a small facet of what power can be. There is power in achievement, power in knowledge, power in controlling the material world (via science for example); there is power in creation. There are many ways to express one's will and strength upon the world, and controlling other people is but one of them, and frankly, the easiest one...

Achievement -- Recognition and status, influence over others. There is power in knowledge insofar as it can be used towards some greater action. If someone is the most knowledgeable person ever but does nothing and dies he was hardly powerful. Controlling the material world -- yes, this is basically in line with my point. When I said controlling others I didn't mean only other humans.

it takes no sophistication, no achievement, no greatness to be a bandit leader.

It may not. It definitely requires no sophistication, achievement, or greatness to be an average person or a moralist in today's society.

Your view of power is as silly a delusion as the belief that money is the ultimate way to keep score in the game of life, and that he who dies with the most stuff, wins.

This is ironic because all beliefs in how to "keep score in the game of life" are equally arbitrary and deluded, even irrational. Yet life is: holding these solutions nonetheless.

Try creating.

Can you give some examples? In Alex's example of the Panama Canal something was created that definitely increased utility for humans, but it should be fairly obvious that an equal loss of utility was taken by the environment in many many factors that couldn't all be listed. So it was a gain in utility if you value humans over all other organisms and the abiotic environment. This cannot really be used as any sort of argument against me though, as you could just as easily divide humans into classes and value only the high class (or the low class), or value them at different levels. That you don't (you desire equality) is what fits you in with the "herd", it comes from Christian-morality.

if you ever encounter someone anything like what you pretend to be, you will die from shit-stained terror.

What am I pretending to be other than a student interested in philosophy? Yes I still live at home... I figure it is a rational decision to do so until I graduate.

I could probably twist you into a pretzel physically and intellectually, but you calling what I do 'bullying' is just a plaintive cry of a slave who resents not having the strength of be free.

Haha. I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out the irony of you saying bullies are weak while all your posts on here are basically bullying. For the record I don't agree that bullies are necessarily weak. Some are for sure, but that generalization (if it can be called such) is just something the passive moralist weak use to comfort themselves when they get bullied and to convince themselves that they are really the "strong" ones, etc.

[David Quinn]

Victor has been pretty impressive in this thread, I have to say. He and I may have had our clashes in the past, but credit where credit is due. He has exposed Neil's delusions far more powerfully and clearly than I was able to do. Good work.

-

[vicdan]

The problem here is that these theories only take into account a few factors. The utility of two participants may be increased through some outcome, but that doesn't mean utility is being created from nowhere. There is still some other factor (ie. the environment) that is taking the loss. If you include all factors it is zero-sum.

No, idiot, it's not. In fact, economics exists because non-zero-sumness is possible -- because by specializing and trading, for example, the overall utility can be increased. The only thing that is fixed is the amount of stuff (matter/energy to be precise). utility is a very complex function of that, and people -- that is, people who, unlike you, can think -- realize that, by manipulating this utility function and by better deploying our resources, the actual utility increases.

A philosopher creates value. A trader creates value. An artist creates value. A scientist creates value.

it takes a very special kind of idiocy to not realize that the person who discovered fire, the person who invented crop rotation, the person who created a cart, all created value without creating any new stuff, just by re-arranging existing stuff.

Think about this way. You can use 100 yards of fence to fence off 225 sq. yards, 400 sq. yards, or 625 sq. yards -- all depending on how you arrange the fence... and unlike you, the rest of humanity is very clever about extracting additional value from what we got.

You are an idiot, kiddo. Go read on up non-zero-sum games. our whole civilization is fucking built on the fact that non-zero-sumness is possible.

See? This is exactly what i meant, you foolish little child. Can I peg 'em, or can I peg 'em? You believe that the world is a zero-sum game, and that predation is the only way to grow and advance and express will-to-power.

Yes I do.

And this makes you a weakling bully -- because you cannot conceive of any other form of greatness but that built by trodding upon the backs of others.

Too irrational?! What's wrong with that? Why is rationality so great? Life is irrational -- even "absurd".

Carl Sagan told an anecdote of a bomb shelter warden in WWII London who advised people to enhance the blackouts by wearing dark glasses; but unlike you, that guy was being ridiculous on purpose.

Kid, you have such a long, long way to go... you understand nothing.

Power to control other is but a small facet of what power can be. There is power in achievement, power in knowledge, power in controlling the material world (via science for example); there is power in creation. There are many ways to express one's will and strength upon the world, and controlling other people is but one of them, and frankly, the easiest one...

Achievement -- Recognition and status, influence over others. There is power in knowledge insofar as it can be used towards some greater action. If someone is the most knowledgeable person ever but does nothing and dies he was hardly powerful. Controlling the material world -- yes, this is basically in line with my point. When I said controlling others I didn't mean only other humans.

In short, even when I told you of creation, you still cannot conceive of it in any way but as a form of control.

Control-freakiness is another title we can add to the long train of such titles trailing behind you.

it takes no sophistication, no achievement, no greatness to be a bandit leader.

It may not. It definitely requires no sophistication, achievement, or greatness to be an average person or a moralist in today's society.

Ah, so is this your yardstick? That you are not as mediocre as an average consumer?!.

Impressive. Truly impressive. I rarely see people sink to such pathetic depths.

Try creating.

Can you give some examples?

Oh, let's see. in addition to what I had listed above:

Archimedes' screw
Proving the globularity of Earth
Calendar
Indoor plumbing
Beethoven's 5th symphony
Newtonian mechanics
Quantum mechanics
Computation theory

etc.

In non-zero-sum games, there are often (not necessarily, but often) parties which lose. The point is that the loss can be much less than the gain elsewhere, hence non-zero-sumness. The environmental loss from panama Canal was minuscule (if you can even meaningfully talk about environmental loss in itself); the gain was huge. I don't like Alex's example because it resulted in a lot of needless suffering for people, not because of any ostensible environmental damage. However, it was indeed a positive-sum outcome, as are the examples I listed.

I could probably twist you into a pretzel physically and intellectually, but you calling what I do 'bullying' is just a plaintive cry of a slave who resents not having the strength of be free.

Haha. I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out the irony of you saying bullies are weak while all your posts on here are basically bullying.

Cry, little bitch, cry me a river!

For the record I don't agree that bullies are necessarily weak. Some are for sure, but that generalization (if it can be called such) is just something the passive moralist weak use to comfort themselves when they get bullied and to convince themselves that they are really the "strong" ones, etc.

Who said that the victims of bullying are strong? Saying that bullies are weak (they are) is not the same as saying that their victims are strong, or good, or virtuous. In addition to not having a clue about logic, you are projecting your own demons onto me. You ascribe to me what you are so hard running from -- this supposed 'slave morality'. You fear it, don't you? You fear not being special. You are desperate to be a unique individual -- just like everyone else... and you are controlled by your fear.

You are pathetic.

[vicdan]

Victor has been pretty impressive in this thread, I have to say. He and I may have had our clashes in the past, but credit where credit is due. He has exposed Neil's delusions far more powerfully and clearly than I was able to do. Good work.

Everyone is quick to recognize when I eviscerate others' delusions, but never when I do the same to their own.

[Alex Jacob]

Victor wrote:

"The environmental loss from Panama Canal was minuscule (if you can even meaningfully talk about environmental loss in itself); the gain was huge. I don't like Alex's example because it resulted in a lot of needless suffering for people, not because of any ostensible environmental damage. However, it was indeed a positive-sum outcome, as are the examples I listed."

But that is exactly why I mentioned it, because even though it was 'positive-sum' for many obvious reasons, and generated value, it came about through basically a form of robbery, of deviousness. I was not even taking into consideration the ecological impact, not at all.

In audacious projects like these, there is always a cost in human life, such a throwing around of one's weight, of taking decisions that have effects that others just have to learn to accept and to live with, they don't necessarily get to choose or decide. In that sense they are like the 'lambs' who resent the 'eagles' in the citation from Genealogy. Our world is filled to the brim with 'eagles' making these sorts of decisions. And I think this is a pretty important point in a realistic conversation about what Nietzsche *really meant* (which I am not sure I get since he speaks in allusions and aphorisms, more often than not), but in the real world, when powerful interests take 'creative' action, when they roll up their sleeves and start to manipulate people and things, it is not always clear cut if it is indeed 'sum-positive', certainly not in the eyes of those who are the 'raw material'. And anyway, who ultimately decides? The US spent a great deal of money and energy in Central America in the post-war era combatting communism (or 'communism') and often resisting genuine nationalism, the cost in human life and pain was pretty extraordinary (thinking of Guatemala). Maybe the result was 'sum positive'---one could make that argument and justify so many decisions---but it is an intensely problematic issue. There are many people who make very good arguments to the contrary.

The Panama Canal came about through a very audacious use of national will, brought about by small, powerful factions willing to take extraordinary risks to achieve a goal. This is exactly the sort of risk-taking that Nietzsche refers to and admires, or so it seems. While it might not be characterized as 'gangsterism', permission to take actions to audaciously mold the world was not politely asked...it certainly wasn't voted upon...it was seized...it was imposed.

So, I think that the problems that Nietzsche speaks of in so many of his works has not been addressed or solved here. Those problems are still very real, and stand out (and very much so in our present).

[David Quinn]

Victor has been pretty impressive in this thread, I have to say. He and I may have had our clashes in the past, but credit where credit is due. He has exposed Neil's delusions far more powerfully and clearly than I was able to do. Good work.

Everyone is quick to recognize when I eviscerate others' delusions, but never when I do the same to their own.

I could say the same of you, Victor. You're good at howling down the obvious targets, not so good when it comes to the more subtle ones.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Victor has been pretty impressive in this thread

Personally I think Victor's delusions are the equal, if not worse than Neil's.

Victor is unable to think in terms of context, such that things have different meanings in different contexts, and he therefore mistakenly tries to apply his own narrow context to everything.

When you are locked within one small context, such as Victor, everyone else seems stupid. And to those locked in a different context, Victor seems stupid.

And of course, to those who have the loftiest vantage point of all, such as ourselves, they all seem stupid.

[Imadrongo]

No, idiot, it's not. In fact, economics exists because non-zero-sumness is possible -- because by specializing and trading, for example, the overall utility can be increased.

The only thing that is fixed is the amount of stuff (matter/energy to be precise). utility is a very complex function of that, and people -- that is, people who, unlike you, can think -- realize that, by manipulating this utility function and by better deploying our resources, the actual utility increases.

Overall utility for human beings can be increased, but only by "stealing" utility from somewhere else. For example, roads greatly increase our utility, right? So do cars. However they come at the cost of polluting the environment, forest fragmentation, killing animals, noise pollution, fuel cost, etc. Roads and cars have negative utility for deer and other mammals, positive utility for humans. Life on earth is an equilibrium. We push it one side increasing the utility of a large number of human beings, we can "create" utility for humans at the cost of non-humans, but we aren't just adding utility, we are taking it.

In theory if we could push our own utility to the limits by doing something like enslaving all other humans to give us whatever we want. Or we could maximize the utility of deer by killing wolves, planting extra shrubs and removing human disturbance from their land. Maybe this is the kind of utility the Ubermensch should be creating?

A philosopher creates value. A trader creates value. An artist creates value. A scientist creates value.

I really don't believe this is what Nietzsche was talking about -- at all.

Think about this way. You can use 100 yards of fence to fence off 225 sq. yards, 400 sq. yards, or 625 sq. yards -- all depending on how you arrange the fence... and unlike you, the rest of humanity is very clever about extracting additional value from what we got.

So the Ubermensch is supposed to create things that the rest of society value? Yea....

In short, even when I told you of creation, you still cannot conceive of it in any way but as a form of control.

Your "creation" is simply greater human control over nature. Travel, farming, predicting, etc.

I don't like Alex's example because it resulted in a lot of needless suffering for people, not because of any ostensible environmental damage.

Because you value the contentment of as many people as possible, in other words you are a Christian moralistic herd member.

[vicdan]

Roads and cars have negative utility for deer and other mammals, positive utility for humans.

Since when are deers and other mammals moral agents?..

Besides, you ignored all my other examples. At whose expense was the water screw invented?.. computation theory?..

You are an idiot. What the fuck as you majoring in -- underwater basket weaving? i can't believe you truly have never heard of non-zero-sum games. You are an intellectual asswipe.

Life on earth is an equilibrium.

Nope. Complexity increases at the expense of the sun -- from inanimate matter through bacteria and onto our ecosphere. That's not equilibrium.

We push it one side increasing the utility of a large number of human beings, we can "create" utility for humans at the cost of non-humans, but we aren't just adding utility, we are taking it.

Whose utility did Beethoven take when he wrote the 5th symphony?

You are being astonishingly dishonest in trying to defend your indefensible point, idiot. What's more, it's not even relevant -- you started out speaking about the utility exchange being zero-sum among humans, i.e. that one's greatness must be another's misery, one's freedom another's oppression.

A philosopher creates value. A trader creates value. An artist creates value. A scientist creates value.

I really don't believe this is what Nietzsche was talking about -- at all.

Why should anyone care? You clearly are off the reservation about what Nietzsche was discussing.

So the Ubermensch is supposed to create things that the rest of society value? Yea....

No, moron, he is not supposed to do anything, but he will create what he values. You simply can't bring yourself to accept the fact that such creation does not have to be achieved at others' expense.

hell, here is a simple point. Let's take Nietzsche's own writings. You believe them to have great value, right?.. But according to your idiotic and mindless view, this means that they could have only been created if equal misery was inflicted elsewhere. So tell me, what misery, equal in magnitude to the value of Nietzsche's works, was created by his writing them?

In short, even when I told you of creation, you still cannot conceive of it in any way but as a form of control.

Your "creation" is simply greater human control over nature. Travel, farming, predicting, etc.

You truly don't get it, do you?.. you poor stunted sod.

Rocks don't care. Water doesn't have values. Air feels no pain. So what equal harm was inflicted by the invention of the water screw? the writing of Beethoven's 5th?..

Because you value the contentment of as many people as possible, in other words you are a Christian moralistic herd member.

Your fear truly drives you, huh? Oh, how terrible will it be for you when you realize that your fantasies are just fantasies!

[David Quinn]

Victor has been pretty impressive in this thread

Personally I think Victor's delusions are the equal, if not worse than Neil's.

Victor is unable to think in terms of context, such that things have different meanings in different contexts, and he therefore mistakenly tries to apply his own narrow context to everything.

When you are locked within one small context, such as Victor, everyone else seems stupid. And to those locked in a different context, Victor seems stupid.

And of course, to those who have the loftiest vantage point of all, such as ourselves, they all seem stupid.

That is definitely one of his biggest faults. The blind application of a single, narrow, specialized mode of thought to every subject, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. It is why I think of him as a fundamentalist, and extremely unintelligent in many ways.

Still, I think he did a good job on Neil. But then again, Neil is an easy target.

At least Neil has the advantage of being younger and therefore has more potential to escape his delusions. He is still somewhat unformed, as it were.

-

[Imadrongo]

Since when are deers and other mammals moral agents?..

This all comes down to your arbitrary definition of a "moral agent" now, things who matter.

Nope. Complexity increases at the expense of the sun -- from inanimate matter through bacteria and onto our ecosphere. That's not equilibrium.

You are correct.

You are being astonishingly dishonest in trying to defend your indefensible point, idiot. What's more, it's not even relevant -- you started out speaking about the utility exchange being zero-sum among humans, i.e. that one's greatness must be another's misery, one's freedom another's oppression.

You inferred that. My perspective is not limited to human beings and doesn't treat them as special (ie. "moral agents").

hell, here is a simple point. Let's take Nietzsche's own writings. You believe them to have great value, right?.. But according to your idiotic and mindless view, this means that they could have only been created if equal misery was inflicted elsewhere. So tell me, what misery, equal in magnitude to the value of Nietzsche's works, was created by his writing them?

The power of Nietzsche's work is its influence over a vast number of people and change in their way of thinking and acting. He didn't directly influence people, he did indirectly though. If he didn't influence people he would have no value.

[vicdan]

That is definitely one of his biggest faults. The blind application of a single, narrow, specialized mode of thought to every subject, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not.

Hehe. Project much, dude?

[vicdan]

This all comes down to your arbitrary definition of a "moral agent" now, things who matter.

Oh my. You aren't really very familiar with philosophy at all, are you, kiddo?

You are being astonishingly dishonest in trying to defend your indefensible point, idiot. What's more, it's not even relevant -- you started out speaking about the utility exchange being zero-sum among humans, i.e. that one's greatness must be another's misery, one's freedom another's oppression.

You inferred that.

Oh? So when you wrote the following passages, you were thinking of bunnies and trees too?..

victor: you cannot conceive of freedom that does not consist of lording it out over others.
neil: What else is "freedom"?

victor: You seem to think that will-to-power is the desire to control others, which is nowhere near being the case.
neil: What else is "power"?

So your moronic response now is that you think lording it over bunnies, and the desire to control the trees, constitutes reasonable expressions of will to power?..

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we are spiked by someone who can actually think!

My perspective is not limited to human beings and doesn't treat them as special (ie. "moral agents").

indeed not. One lording it over the birds and the bees is a expression of strength and will. Got it! :D

And then you have the sheer unbridled foolishness to try to turn this blatant idiocy into a virtue -- you are more broad-minded, in considering the birds and the bees, and the flowers and the trees, moral agents!

Someday you will be a real boy, kiddo.

hell, here is a simple point. Let's take Nietzsche's own writings. You believe them to have great value, right?.. But according to your idiotic and mindless view, this means that they could have only been created if equal misery was inflicted elsewhere. So tell me, what misery, equal in magnitude to the value of Nietzsche's works, was created by his writing them?

The power of Nietzsche's work is its influence over a vast number of people and change in their way of thinking and acting. He didn't directly influence people, he did indirectly though. If he didn't influence people he would have no value.

In short, you cannot point to the equivalent amount of harm created by Nietzsche writing his books (unless you are trying to say that simply writing something which others find convincing, in itself constitutes harm; come on, I dare ya!)

Dude, you have backed yourself into a corner. Give it the fuck up. Your flopping around is pathetic.

[Katy]

Seems like regardless of his intent, Nietzsche's been used to justify some pretty awful stuff.

[Imadrongo]

victor,

I still don't see how the world isn't zero sum. You get your roads, the deer suffer. A virus acquires a valuable new protein that the immune system isn't prepared for, you suffer. Perhaps utility is not zero sum, but utility is just a value judgment cast upon something by an individual with values. If we ascribed personal values to the deer, rocks, sun, etc, it may zero out again, but you are hesitant to do so. You want to separate humans as "moral agents". OK. Do these "moral agents" really matter? According to your value of human equality and persistence they do. According to someone else's values they wouldn't. Perhaps someone values deer more than they value humans -- from this perspective roads and cars actually have negative value. Perhaps someone gets great utility out of elephant dung. In fact some thing must get value out of animal dung or the carbon cycle would become the carbon chain, ending with the earth as one giant heap of animal dung. Good thing certain bacteria have value for animal dung, whether they are self-conscious or not. It is all relative.

The point of the Ubermensch is not to invent things that people value and hence raise the utility of human beings. The point is to be a creator as in to create the future -- to take control and exert your power/influence in the world so that it reflects your values. To fight the good war towards your goals and ends, whether other humans like them or not. The Ubermensch embraces life. Everything taught by Christian-morality is denial of life: disinterest, freedom as doing nothing, strength as remaining passive, love as dispassionate and non-sensual, equality as ideal, etc. Nietzsche basically excludes his idea of the Ubermensch from Christian-morality. Does this mean he is a bully? I guess if little people get in the way of his goals/values and need to be bullied it would.

The will to power is not necessarily a desire to directly control people. Power is control or influence though. The will to power is the will to influence the world, the will to greatness as opposed to sitting around disinterested and lacking desires, values, or goals in life. As I said earlier, Nietzsche talks about the unsublimated and sublimated will to power, the former expressing itself through direct control over others, the latter through indirect influence over others, such as Nietzsche himself.

Nietzsche is against morality and recognizes humans as just another animal. Helping others vs. harming them -- both are creation to him. When you create in a manner that reflects your values, you are destroying something that reflects conflicting values. I don't think you could give me an example where this isn't true. Life is: the struggle between different values. Beethoven had a large influence over people. I'm sure it came at some costs though I can't pin them down at the moment. Nietzsche's influence comes at the cost of harming Christianity and Christian morality by exposing it. This was his goal and thanks to his struggles there has been much advance in philosophy and downfall of Christianity and morality.