Humans May Be Hardwired For Altruism

[jaguar43]

Rays assertion of the divide between Nietzsches and his own philosophy was an assertion borne out of ignorance. I may say that there is no dog poo on my shoes because I don't see any. This is not conclusive. This is an assertion borne out of ignorance as on closer examination I realize "wow I do have dog poo on my shoes" I just didn't see it before. Weird example I know...

As I have said before: Rays assertion of truth is will to truth. This is predicted by Nietzsches will to power. Rays inability to see this does not change anything.

"Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been - namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir; also that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy constituted the real germ of life from which the whole plant had grown."

I highly recommend that you read "On the Prejudices of Philosophers" by Nietzsche. Here is a link:
Nietzsche: On the Prejudices of Philosophers

Wrong, First that wasn't his term. That term was from William Blake. Second Ray Peat is not asserting anything. He gives the example of asserting in that same page.

Ray Peat understands Nietzsche. Thats why he is able to be critical of it. Those who wish to state what every person does is an assertion are actually going against the Nietzsche because of his idea that there is not truth and everything is subjective.

 

[jaguar43]

To define something is to suggest you "know what it is in itself" ie something metaphysical/absolute behind what is merely apparent in its properties. This is a false assertion.

Definitions merely describe properties ie how something appears.

The properties of a thing are effects on other "things":
if one removes other "things," then a thing has no properties,
i.e., there is no thing without other things,
i.e., there is no "thing-in-itself."

You can't define anything in itself... you can only archive its properties. Properties are appearance. appearance is subjective. If you take away somethings properties there will be nothing left. If there is something left then we could have no knowledge of it because we can't perceive things with no properties.

Will to power is merely appearance. You can't define it in itself. If I claimed I could earlier in the thread then I was wrong.

Again our difference in philosophical views ie the subjectivity/objectivity of knowledge is leading to misunderstandings...

Wrong, Being objective means that things exist in matter. We can understand matter, and therefore understand things in it self.

 

[Dopamine]

Wrong, Being objective means that things exist in matter. We can understand matter, and therefore understand things in it self.

I thought we already discussed atomism and materialism. Both Ray and Nietzsche understand the flaws in its conception. Guess which quote below is Nietzsches' and which is Rays:

"It would be nearly another century before others would see that the crude materialism of Newton and the Natural Philosophers was essentially a life-denying culmination of the worst trends of official religious dogma."

"All the presuppositions of mechanistic theory- matter, atom, gravity, pressure and stress-are not "facts-in themselves" but interpretations with the aid of psychical fictions."

They are both denying a materialistic conception of the universe ie Newtonian ie that all phenomena are constituted by matter. The obvious criticism being: what is matter constituted of? We realize that matter is a psychical fiction and that our "observations of what matter is" are really "observations of the properties of matter."

We do not understand matter. We perceive its properties. Huge difference.
The first view posits perception of matter in itself, the latter view posits perception of the appearance of matter ie its properties.

Ray Peat is not asserting anything. He gives the example of asserting in that same page.

Oh come on! You keep saying that but that doesn't make it true.
Asserting is defined as: stating a fact or belief confidently.

Ray is confident in the validity of the intellectual fountain. This an assertion.

 

[jaguar43]

I thought we already discussed atomism and materialism. Both Ray and Nietzsche understand the flaws in its conception. Guess which quote below is Nietzsches' and which is Rays:

"It would be nearly another century before others would see that the crude materialism of Newton and the Natural Philosophers was essentially a life-denying culmination of the worst trends of official religious dogma."

"All the presuppositions of mechanistic theory- matter, atom, gravity, pressure and stress-are not "facts-in themselves" but interpretations with the aid of psychical fictions."

They are both denying a materialistic conception of the universe ie Newtonian ie that all phenomena are constituted by matter. The obvious criticism being: what is matter constituted of? We realize that matter is a psychical fiction and that our "observations of matter is" are really "observations of the properties of matter."

We do not understand matter. We perceive its properties. Huge difference.
The first view posits perception of matter in itself, the latter view posits perception of the appearance of matter ie its properties.

Crude or mechanical materialism isn't the only type of materialism that is known. I have said this already that ray peat is critical of a crude materialism that is associated with western philosophy. But ray peat isn't an idealist, he was critical of plato and seem to support aristotle. But from his book mind and tissue he uses the term matter as well

In 19th century Russia, materialist thinking had a tendency--probably from the influence of Aristotle--to see matter as being full of possibility, to be intrinsically creative.-Ray Peat mind and tissue page 152

Aristotle held that matter was not passive in this sense, that given the necessary conditions of life it realizes its potential, and takes its form neither from the environment nor from chance variation.-mind and tissue-31

Fortunately, the Russian tradition, a kind of spontaneous materialism, has produced a different and livelier kind of science.-mind and tissue 154

I think this observation is more tautology than perception. The term "materialism" describes the attitude that likes to begin with "the matter at hand," "idealism" describes an approach that emphasizes the importance of established ideas. - mind and tissue page 165

Ever since Heraclitus, materialists have emphasized change, while idealists emphasize stasis. "Pure knowledge" is a source of technology, but technology is also a basis for the development of new formalized knowledge. - mind and tissue page 165


But it doesn't matter how many times we talk about things. You are already committed to an ideology. And yet you don't even respond to any of my other arguments. Calling Ray Peat ignorant for not agreeing with you is dogmatic. It's fine if you disagree with him, but calling names shows you true intentions.

 

[jaguar43]

As I have said before: Rays assertion of truth is will to truth. This is predicted by Nietzsches will to power. Rays inability to see this does not change anything.

This is a manipulation not only of Ray Peat but of Nietzsche. You change the definition of "Will to power" to justify your argument. You and I know that's not what Nietzsche meant. And yet you cannot even be honest about your own ideas so you don't look like you lost the argument.

 

[Drareg]

This is a manipulation not only of Ray Peat but of Nietzsche. You change the definition of "Will to power" to justify your argument. You and I know that's not what Nietzsche meant. And yet you cannot even be honest about your own ideas so you don't look like you lost the argument.

It will take time for doperminergic096 to accept Nietzche is mocking him with the concept will to power. Nietzsche is mocking the very behaviour doperminergic096 has shown throughout the thread, a dogmatic faith in will to power when it is alarming obvious where the flaws are in this concept.
I asked early in the thread and throughout about the glaringly obvious flaws.

 

[Drareg]

You said that Nietzsche claim to think the unthinkable. I don´t see any evidence in his work. He does not care about the unthinkable and metaphysics in general. Of course he had his premises but again Nietzsche had contradicted himself. He even doubt his own central hypothesis of the eternal return. But more important to him was the effect of his thoughts on his state of being. When he claim that language does not reflect objective truth, then why should he insist to be abel to think the unthinkable.

I think his whole work clarifies that this is a kind of thinking experiment. He does not use scientific methods, because he does not believe in it. He is not a philosopher, he is an antiphilosopher. His poetic writing style in thus spoke zarathustra resembled the tone of the sacred texts, which has nothing in common with conventional science. You admit that he is a sharp minded psychologist, but imo he just wants to tell another story of morality in oppostion to cristianity. He offers his own subjective interpreation or in other words Perspectivism. He is very convincing and analytical, but he didn´t claim to achieve an absolute knowledge about anything. His formula transvaluation of values got it straight to the point. Destroying old paradigms in a polemic style. He just explain certain actions or phenomena in a complete different way and derive his conclusions from it. He was proud of "thinking dangerous" and that results in his harsh comments that could easily be misinterpreted. But again he didn`t set himself limitations in terms of thinking and let everything out. But he was also aware that this could be abused when taken to seriously.

He said I am to malicious the believe in myself. I do not want any followers. I am afraid of being considered sacred....!!!!!!!! If Nietzsche is not antiauthoriatarian who else...

Ray and Nietzsche have lots in common when it comes to undogmatic thinking and implementing your own ideas in your life. But Ray was born almost 100 years later and came to different conclusions. he thinks evolution has a purpose of using energy more effeciantly in living organism. He mentioned the possiblity of a growing earth quoting Vernadski. Nietzsche represents his endless and competing willtopower theory that leads and to incompatible dichotomies or the lack of synthesis. BUt I think they both reject the concept of christian morality and the disregard of the bodys needs. You said that coherent energy is necessary for "good" decision making. Decisions reflect our physiological state and Nietzsche described this smilar to Ray. Bad decisions reflect another physiological state. So there is no good/bad in terms of morale just different physiological states that lead to this kind of decision. Agressive or antisocial behaviour is the result of the environmental factors, so there is no guilt in general. Is there something like free will or just intelligent adaptation as seen in animals? Nietzsche did not promote agressive or antisocial behaviour it is just part of the reality and life and christian idols don´t change that. That is why he has this affirmative attitude towards immorale thinking, he could not think of a world without tradegies and pain...

Ray taking concepts from philosophers long before him... What has Ray invented? He is influenced by Selye, Szent-Györgyi, Ling, Blake, Reich etc. and combine these concepts in a meaningful way. But he does not invent anything in particular.

By the way NIetzsche was quite unknown during his lifetime and isolated from the academic establishment (similar to Ray ). He received only a small pension and even broke contact with his few patrons like Wagner. His views were not shaped by his economic state but more by his physiological state.

Nietzsche economic state like many would probably have reflected his physiology therefore his views may have been influenced accordingly.
People's health today is effected far worse by economic state because they can see others lifestyles via Internet.
Ray Peat is trying to help people from lower sociomeconomic status for the above reasons.

Ray Peat shows how consciousness and perception can be effected not just from the outside but inside also, not just from thoughts, how thoughts themselves can be changed and formed via adaptive substance coherent energy. They are both the same really but Nietzche was not aware of adaptive substance, Nietzsche may have seen words and thinking differently as adaptive substance, unfortunetley if somebody is hypothyroid they will not have the brain charge to comprehend complex topics. Did Nietsche not take into account you are what you eat at any point? If he didn't ,this is a poor error which would lead me to conclude he didn't really want to help but wanted authority, how could somebody supposedly so enlightened neglect that?

I still don't get the Nietzsche and Ray Peat comparison, many philosophers can appear similar, I think the real test is what actions do there words cause, this is where we see a clear difference.
I can't see a psychopathic tyrant getting much from generative energy or mind and tissue to manipulate masses of people to carry out atrocious acts.

Nietzsche concepts are not original , this is the elephant in the room for his ,"fans".
You seem to have a more reasonable grasp of his work but I wouldn't agree with the Peat comparison form what I have read so far.

 

[Dopamine]

Crude or mechanical materialism isn't the only type of materialism that is known. I have said this already that ray peat is critical of a crude materialism that is associated with western philosophy. But ray peat isn't an idealist, he was critical of plato and seem to support aristotle. But from his book mind and tissue he uses the term matter as well

In 19th century Russia, materialist thinking had a tendency--probably from the influence of Aristotle--to see matter as being full of possibility, to be intrinsically creative.-Ray Peat mind and tissue page 152

Aristotle held that matter was not passive in this sense, that given the necessary conditions of life it realizes its potential, and takes its form neither from the environment nor from chance variation.-mind and tissue-31

Fortunately, the Russian tradition, a kind of spontaneous materialism, has produced a different and livelier kind of science.-mind and tissue 154

I think this observation is more tautology than perception. The term "materialism" describes the attitude that likes to begin with "the matter at hand," "idealism" describes an approach that emphasizes the importance of established ideas. - mind and tissue page 165

Ever since Heraclitus, materialists have emphasized change, while idealists emphasize stasis. "Pure knowledge" is a source of technology, but technology is also a basis for the development of new formalized knowledge. - mind and tissue page 165


But it doesn't matter how many times we talk about things. You are already committed to an ideology. And yet you don't even respond to any of my other arguments. Calling Ray Peat ignorant for not agreeing with you is dogmatic. It's fine if you disagree with him, but calling names shows you true intentions.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above quotes- especially the emphasis on change and activity. I am a fan of Heraclitus but I have never read Aristotle. I just don't see matter as being objective knowledge... it is subjectively conditioned because what we know as "matter" is really just a sum of its apparent properties.

I am not committed to an ideology- if you gave me a better argument then I have with Nietzsches will to power I would kick him to the curb.

What other arguments do you want me to respond to?

I don't remember calling Ray ignorant... I have great respect for his work on physiology but in the realm of philosophy yes I will call him ignorant now that you mention it. He is ignorant of Nietzsches work through misinterpreting him and he is ignorant of the fact that his ASSERTIONS of truth are carried by an undercurrent of power seeking. He shows disdain for Nietzsche while unconsciously supporting Nietzsches theories ie the prejudice of philosophers: all those who don't recognize the subjectivity of their assertions of truth...

This is a manipulation not only of Ray Peat but of Nietzsche. You change the definition of "Will to power" to justify your argument. You and I know that's not what Nietzsche meant. And yet you cannot even be honest about your own ideas so you don't look like you lost the argument.

I honestly don't get what your trying to say here?... Will to truth is a concept of the will to power that Nietzsche has used many times. It acknowledges that assertions of truth derive from will to power.

 

[Dopamine]

Nietzsche economic state like many would probably have reflected his physiology therefore his views may have been influenced accordingly.
People's health today is effected far worse by economic state because they can see others lifestyles via Internet.
Ray Peat is trying to help people from lower sociomeconomic status for the above reasons.

Ray Peat shows how consciousness and perception can be effected not just from the outside but inside also, not just from thoughts, how thoughts themselves can be changed and formed via adaptive substance coherent energy. They are both the same really but Nietzche was not aware of adaptive substance, Nietzsche may have seen words and thinking differently as adaptive substance, unfortunetley if somebody is hypothyroid they will not have the brain charge to comprehend complex topics. Did Nietsche not take into account you are what you eat at any point? If he didn't ,this is a poor error which would lead me to conclude he didn't really want to help but wanted authority, how could somebody supposedly so enlightened neglect that?

I still don't get the Nietzsche and Ray Peat comparison, many philosophers can appear similar, I think the real test is what actions do there words cause, this is where we see a clear difference.
I can't see a psychopathic tyrant getting much from generative energy or mind and tissue to manipulate masses of people to carry out atrocious acts.

Nietzsche concepts are not original , this is the elephant in the room for his ,"fans".
You seem to have a more reasonable grasp of his work but I wouldn't agree with the Peat comparison form what I have read so far.

I really don't care if Nietzsches concepts are original... this is not an elephant in the room lol.

Nietzsche did take into account "you are what you eat" he talked a lot about nutrition and metabolism. It is obvious he recognized the effect that nutrition had on his mind and body.

"Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body;"

"A little health now and again is the ailing person’s best remedy."

"Another question interests me in a much different way: the
question of nutrition; the 'salvation of humanity' is much more dependent
on this question than on any theological oddity."

"we premature births of an as yet unproved future - for a new end, we also need a new means, namely, a new health that is stronger, craftier, tougher, bolder, and more cheerful than any previous health."

"Genius depends on dry air, on clear skies-that is, on a rapid metabolism, on the possibility of drawing again and again on great, even tremendous quantities of strength."

Nietzsche was aware of cell physiology- regeneration, differentiation, procreation etc... I think his quote below demonstrates an understanding of the physiology of cancer: that when cells become destabilized and lose their energy coherence it results in excessive procreation and uncontrollable growth.
"Procreation," the crumbling that supervenes when the ruling cells are incapable of organizing that which has been appropriated."

Ray Peat shows how consciousness and perception can be effected not just from the outside but inside also

So did Nietzsche:
"The influence of "external circumstances" is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which utilizes and exploits "external circumstances"

This quote demonstrates a perfect understanding of learned helplessness:

"If there are any drawbacks to being sick and weak, it is that these states wear down the true instinct for healing, which is the human instinct for weapons and war. You do not know how to get rid of anything, you do not know how to get over anything, you do not know how to push anything back, - everything hurts. People and things become obtrusive, events cut too deep, memory is a festering wound. Sickness is itself a kind of ressentiment. - The sick person has only one great remedy for this - I call it Russian fatalism, the fatalism without revolt that you find when a military campaign becomes too difficult and the Russian soldier finally lies down in the snow. Not taking anything else on or in, not reacting at all any more."
The excellent reasoning behind this fatalism, which is not always just courage in the face of death, but can preserve life under the most dangerous circumstances, is that it reduces the metabolism, slows it down, a type of will to hibernation.

Come on you've gotta see the comparisons to Rays work... Nietzsches knowledge of biology is more intuitive while Rays knowledge is more comprehensive due to the advances in science and information exchange since Nietzsches time.

 

[Dopamine]

They are both pretty badass in my opinion and would make powerful allies

 

[Dopamine]

He also understood women pretty well...

"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent."

 

[Drareg]

I really don't care if Nietzsches concepts are original... this is not an elephant in the room lol.

Nietzsche did take into account "you are what you eat" he talked a lot about nutrition and metabolism. It is obvious he recognized the effect that nutrition had on his mind and body.

"Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body;"

"A little health now and again is the ailing person’s best remedy."

"Another question interests me in a much different way: the
question of nutrition; the 'salvation of humanity' is much more dependent
on this question than on any theological oddity."

"we premature births of an as yet unproved future - for a new end, we also need a new means, namely, a new health that is stronger, craftier, tougher, bolder, and more cheerful than any previous health."

"Genius depends on dry air, on clear skies-that is, on a rapid metabolism, on the possibility of drawing again and again on great, even tremendous quantities of strength."

Nietzsche was aware of cell physiology- regeneration, differentiation, procreation etc... I think his quote below demonstrates an understanding of the physiology of cancer: that when cells become destabilized and lose their energy coherence it results in excessive procreation and uncontrollable growth.
"Procreation," the crumbling that supervenes when the ruling cells are incapable of organizing that which has been appropriated."


So did Nietzsche:
"The influence of "external circumstances" is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which utilizes and exploits "external circumstances"

This quote demonstrates a perfect understanding of learned helplessness:

"If there are any drawbacks to being sick and weak, it is that these states wear down the true instinct for healing, which is the human instinct for weapons and war. You do not know how to get rid of anything, you do not know how to get over anything, you do not know how to push anything back, - everything hurts. People and things become obtrusive, events cut too deep, memory is a festering wound. Sickness is itself a kind of ressentiment. - The sick person has only one great remedy for this - I call it Russian fatalism, the fatalism without revolt that you find when a military campaign becomes too difficult and the Russian soldier finally lies down in the snow. Not taking anything else on or in, not reacting at all any more."
The excellent reasoning behind this fatalism, which is not always just courage in the face of death, but can preserve life under the most dangerous circumstances, is that it reduces the metabolism, slows it down, a type of will to hibernation.

Come on you've gotta see the comparisons to Rays work... Nietzsches knowledge of biology is more intuitive while Rays knowledge is more comprehensive due to the advances in science and information exchange since Nietzsches time.

Shame he couldn't see the importance of writing more comprehensively on it or putting it to practice, his death was very harsh.
Jesus Christ spoke of nutrition also, that was millennia ago, Jesus offers better nutritional advice than Nietzche.

For his quotes on women just replace the word women with Nietzsche, he is looking in the mirror.

 

[Dopamine]

Shame he couldn't see the importance of writing more comprehensively on it or putting it to practice, his death was very harsh.
Jesus Christ spoke of nutrition also, that was millennia ago, Jesus offers better nutritional advice than Nietzche.

For his quotes on women just replace the word women with Nietzsche, he is looking in the mirror.

Yes it is a shame... but no matter! His nutritional ideals of health, power, creativity, and metabolism will carry on through Rays work

 

[jaguar43]

I don't necessarily disagree with the above quotes- especially the emphasis on change and activity. I am a fan of Heraclitus but I have never read Aristotle. I just don't see matter as being objective knowledge... it is subjectively conditioned because what we know as "matter" is really just a sum of its apparent properties.

I am not committed to an ideology- if you gave me a better argument then I have with Nietzsches will to power I would kick him to the curb.

What other arguments do you want me to respond to?

I don't remember calling Ray ignorant... I have great respect for his work on physiology but in the realm of philosophy yes I will call him ignorant now that you mention it. He is ignorant of Nietzsches work through misinterpreting him and he is ignorant of the fact that his ASSERTIONS of truth are carried by an undercurrent of power seeking. He shows disdain for Nietzsche while unconsciously supporting Nietzsches theories ie the prejudice of philosophers: all those who don't recognize the subjectivity of their assertions of truth...



I honestly don't get what your trying to say here?... Will to truth is a concept of the will to power that Nietzsche has used many times. It acknowledges that assertions of truth derive from will to power.

Ray Peat never asserted his power because he wrote a response to vision and acceptance. Asserting is a demand of imposing a belief system onto people without evidence. They ask him a question, he told them what he thought.

Ray Peat doesn't think "will" is the fundamental reality.

I never told you stop believing in Nietzsche ideas. I told you what Ray Peat wrote regarding him and you insisted that he doesn't know what he is talking or that he is using "will" even if he doesn't know it consciously. Thats where are debate has been center most of the time.

 

[Drareg]

They are both pretty badass in my opinion and would make powerful allies

Take note of the fanboy memes, Nietzsche would approve as he craved disciples.

 

[Dopamine]

Ray Peat never asserted his power because he wrote a response to vision and acceptance. Asserting is a demand of imposing a belief system onto people without evidence. They ask him a question, he told them what he thought.

Ray Peat doesn't think "will" is the fundamental reality.

I never told you stop believing in Nietzsche ideas. I told you what Ray Peat wrote regarding him and you insisted that he doesn't know what he is talking or that he is using "will" even if he doesn't know it consciously. Thats where are debate has been center most of the time.

Asserting is not "a demand of imposing a belief system onto people without evidence" that is dogmatic theology.
dogmatic aspect being the imposition on other people...
theological aspect being the "without evidence" ie faith...

Assertions do not have to impose anything on anyone and they most definitely can be backed by evidence. Assertion definition: "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief." This is what Rays declaration of his belief in the intellectual fountain is. An assertion. Assertion is will to truth which has its motives in will to power. Rays assertion of the intellectual fountain is driven by his will to power.

 

[Dopamine]

Take note of the fanboy memes, Nietzsche would approve as he craved disciples.

Glad you liked them here's another just for you

 

[jaguar43]

Asserting is not "a demand of imposing a belief system onto people without evidence" that is dogmatic theology.
dogmatic aspect being the imposition on other people...
theological aspect being the "without evidence" ie faith...

Assertions do not have to impose anything on anyone and they most definitely can be backed by evidence. Assertion definition: "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief." This is what Rays declaration of his belief in the intellectual fountain is. An assertion. Assertion is will to truth which has its motives in will to power. Rays assertion of the intellectual fountain is driven by his will to power.

Actually if you read the paragraph Ray Peat talks about that more.

A priest is being assertive when he says you have to take it on faith, a physics professor is being assertive when he won’t justify his assumptions–where would physics be if your assumptions had to be plausible beyond a particular culture of physics? Much of their potential imagination has been invested in thinking of ways to keep you from questioning.

-Ray Peat

So that definition is similar to the one I describe.That's why he is critical of being assertive and why he was not assertive in the way he respond.

 

[Dopamine]

Actually if you read the paragraph Ray Peat talks about that more.

A priest is being assertive when he says you have to take it on faith, a physics professor is being assertive when he won’t justify his assumptions–where would physics be if your assumptions had to be plausible beyond a particular culture of physics? Much of their potential imagination has been invested in thinking of ways to keep you from questioning.

-Ray Peat

So that definition is similar to the one I describe.That's why he is critical of being assertive and why he was not assertive in the way he respond.

I think hes talking more about dogmatism ie "don't question what I say" or "just trust me." Assertions don't have to be dogmatic, they can be open ended and responsive to change as more information is evaluated.

I think when you present a dogmatic assertion you turn a blind eye to evidence that contradicts your assertion. Those who present an un-dogmatic assertion will present a fluid argument that changes as more information is evaluated... They take in contrary evidence allowing for better understanding even at the risk of destroying their present assertion in favor of a new one.

I don't know if Ray has ever read Nietzsche because I feel he misunderstands him... maybe if he was better acquainted with Nietzsches work he could assimilate it into his present ideas... The will to power would not destroy Rays present work- it would give it more solidarity. I am not trying to destroy the intellectual fountain concept... I think the intellectual fountain is just a metaphor for the conscious thinking intellect- evolving and becoming more powerful as it assimilates more information ie will to truth... Rays intellectual push into the realm of nutrition and physiology is an example of the intellect being used to gather and assimilate more power. Measuring pulse and oral temperature is an example of this... overcoming depression with tianeptine is an example of this... Adjusting amino acid intake to increase dopamine is an example of this... I'm not sure what I think of the idea of the intellectual fountain and what the implications of it are... regardless it must be seen as a cog in a much larger machine. That machine is will to power. I believe all knowledge seeking derives in power seeking.

It is beautiful when you see the complimentary nature of Nietzsche and Ray Peat... Reading Nietzsche has helped me understand Ray and vice versa.

Again I'm not necessarily trying to say Ray is wrong and Nietzsche is right...

 

[jaguar43]

I think hes talking more about dogmatism ie "don't question what I say" or "just trust me." Assertions don't have to be dogmatic, they can be open ended and responsive to change as more information is evaluated.

I think when you present a dogmatic assertion you turn a blind eye to evidence that contradicts your assertion. Those who present an un-dogmatic assertion will present a fluid argument that changes as more information is evaluated... They take in contrary evidence allowing for better understanding even at the risk of destroying their present assertion in favor of a new one.

I don't know if Ray has ever read Nietzsche because I feel he misunderstands him... maybe if he was better acquainted with Nietzsches work he could assimilate it into his present ideas... The will to power would not destroy Rays present work- it would give it more solidarity. I am not trying to destroy the intellectual fountain concept... I think the intellectual fountain is just a metaphor for the conscious thinking intellect- evolving and becoming more powerful as it assimilates more information ie will to truth... Rays intellectual push into the realm of nutrition and physiology is an example of the intellect being used to gather and assimilate more power. Measuring pulse and oral temperature is an example of this... overcoming depression with tianeptine is an example of this... Adjusting amino acid intake to increase dopamine is an example of this... I'm not sure what I think of the idea of the intellectual fountain and what the implications of it are... regardless it must be seen as a cog in a much larger machine. That machine is will to power. I believe all knowledge seeking derives in power seeking.

It is beautiful when you see the complimentary nature of Nietzsche and Ray Peat... Reading Nietzsche has helped me understand Ray and vice versa.

Again I'm not necessarily trying to say Ray is wrong and Nietzsche is right...

Do you really think Ray Peat would talk about something without understanding it first ?

You are ignoring the reality of the meaning "will to power". Nietzsche spoke directly about war, violence, and immorality in a positive light. And a tone that he expressed like he was proud of his views; even bragging to the point that it was disturbing to continue to read in my opinion. Even you stated that there is no morality and it doesn't exist. Your quotes and the quotes I posted very clearly describe what he meant and he didn't mean it metaphorically, unfortunately. I once read short a biography of him and the author seem to stress that Nietzsche never had any experience in what he preach. He himself never went into the military for health reasons and yet spoke romantically about it. But anyways, the way he spoke and the theories he had were vile and unapologetic. Ray Peat understood completely what he said, and had the argument and evidence to back up his claims. I seriously doubt that he would ever say Nietzsche was in "solidarity" with his views and beliefs. Ray Peat believes in humanism, not in violent rhetoric that destroys humanity.