Humans May Be Hardwired For Altruism

[jaguar43]

Yes, I am very much aware of this.
Do you understand it completely? I'm not being flippant, I think you just are getting things mixed up.
In that statement, "slavery doesn't exist objectively" is where the confusion lies. The objectivity of something not existing means exactly that:
perspectivism (by the way is the better term) dictates the value of something. A perspective states that "slavery exists." That is what I have been
saying regarding all value judgments. That a term "slavery" then is a loaded one, that is what is meant. Since a value must be established for it, it cannot be
objective. Not by some observable, physical thing that as humans we can't agree on. We aren't splitting hairs on that physical process, I'm speaking strictly in terms of value. I stated this above, that the value of an action cannot be objectively evaluated, only by its effects. Therefore, the sole quality of it must be based on how each individual feels it is "the truth" or good or bad: effects.

You contradict yourself.

You are saying that my story doesn't qualify because it is "physical". How can there be a "physical" without objective truth. Nietzsche wouldn't agree with this. Matter is truth. Again you are contradicting Nietzsche himself. Ideas and conciseness are real,

Your only point seems to be ethical neutrality. I guess it ok for people to think slavery is good.

 

[jaguar43]

There is no evidence regarding Ray's quote. I'm not sure where you are getting the sense of evidence from..?
Ray is asserting something as truth. If he isn't, then is just making something up and his intent is null.
There is no other option there.

You asserted yourself that it is true. I don't see as true, I see it as contradictory to the nature of everything. I see it as an ideal
asserted by his wtp. The effect I'm sure is the same for him as "truth." I've been saying that all along. The drive to arrive at what he believes
and thinks to be true is the inner will: wtp. You can say it isn't will, I'm not calling the "intellect fountain" will. I'm calling the assertion of it as truth
will: wtp.

I meant evidence as in a literal sense. Ray Peat says this in that article. Whether you want to believe or not. He says it. Thats what I meant.

So what you are saying is Ray Peat is wrong ? Because he doesn't agree with the idea that "will" is the drive for human process. In fact he thinks it's the OPPOSITE of human process. The people who believe in "will" are traumatized and cannot develop and progress. That is what he is saying. Objectively.

Blake’s idea of the “intellectual fountain” was very different from the attitude of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (where “Will” or assertion was the fundamental reality). Blake saw it as always flowing into new territory, discovering new things, enlivening the world that’s being discovered-created. When the organism is traumatized, it hardens, and stops developing, and wants to impose its moral hardness everywhere; assertiveness is the antithesis of perceptive life, and devises ways to negate it.

Negation | Vision and Acceptance

 

[Drareg]

There is no evidence regarding Ray's quote. I'm not sure where you are getting the sense of evidence from..?
Ray is asserting something as truth. If he isn't, then is just making something up and his intent is null.
There is no other option there.

You asserted yourself that it is true. I don't see as true, I see it as contradictory to the nature of everything. I see it as an ideal
asserted by his wtp. The effect I'm sure is the same for him as "truth." I've been saying that all along. The drive to arrive at what he believes
and thinks to be true is the inner will: wtp. You can say it isn't will, I'm not calling the "intellect fountain" will. I'm calling the assertion of it as truth
will: wtp.




We know it by effects. The assigning of "will" as the concept is the most basic descriptor.
If we agree on will being an aspect of action, then that drive in all actions must be unified in order to describe the "why" to things.
Since quality judgments (as I've said) cannot be evaluated objectively for every given individual at every given point in time, then there
the unifying will must be explained by its effects. One, by the "outer" effects; the values in consciousness based on how an individual is affected.
Two, the aspect of action as to "why" an action is taken: to elevate that individual; to maximize itself. It remains the sole characteristic since there can
be no universal value assigned to the action otherwise.



It's not my assertion of what it is, it is what remains of the equation of actions and motivations. I'll repeat it again:
Since quality judgments (as I've said) cannot be evaluated objectively for every given individual at every given point in time, then there
the unifying will must be explained by its effects. One, by the "outer" effects; the values in consciousness based on how an individual is affected.
Two, the aspect of action as to "why" an action is taken: to elevate that individual; to maximize itself. It remains the sole characteristic since there can
be no universal value assigned to the action otherwise.

What you are claiming is you know the Unknown, you claim it is the effect that allows you to know the will which is unknown.

You have to clarify why claim you can't know this will? you are claiming you do know it? yet you won't question it further?
Both of you keep repeating that you know it.

The effect you speak of follows the golden mean ,this tells us more.

Your point seems to about assigning value judgments being wrong but only if this will is neutral, you can't know the will you claim then why claim it is neutral ,where it gets stranger is the fact we do know it and it follows a pattern that is not random as you say .

 

[Dopamine]

You don't know it yet you continually speak of it, you then say, "we know it through the interpretation of its effects".
You are saying you know it.

The difference is apparent knowing and absolute knowing. I meant we could not know it in itself. Only as it appears to us through interpretation of its effects.

 

[jaguar43]

What you are claiming is you know the Unknown, you claim it is the effect that allows you to know the will which is unknown.

You have to clarify why claim you can't know this will? you are claiming you do know it? yet you won't question it further?
Both of you keep repeating that you know it.

The effect you speak of follows the golden mean ,this tells us more.

Your point seems to about assigning value judgments being wrong but only if this will is neutral, you can't know the will you claim then why claim it is neutral ,where it gets stranger is the fact we do know it and it follows a pattern that is not random as you say .

brilliant analysis !!

 

[jb116]

You contradict yourself.

You are saying that my story doesn't qualify because it is "physical". How can there be a "physical" without objective truth. Nietzsche wouldn't agree with this. Matter is truth. Again you are contradicting Nietzsche himself. Ideas and conciseness are real,

Your only point seems to be ethical neutrality. I guess it ok for people to think slavery is good.

Firstly, yes absolutely I'm actually trying to stress the ethical/value/judgment quality of this, since that is what I was focused on from the get-go. From the lack of universal value, we then derive a unifying concept of will, so on and so forth [insert here the totality of my posts in this thread].

Secondly, Nietzsche's intent on this aspect of objective truth is not for a definitive purpose and did not apply to my making of this point on will. His intent was to evaluate and reevaluate values. Any Nietzschean historian would agree with that. But even in that evaluation, what he is actually saying is there is no epistemological absolutes. That means outside the scope of human perception, there is "nothing" since we only know human perception. The nothing is used loosely, it denotes the unknowable in and of itself. Hence my comment nothing is not. So, back to that slavery example, it is not the intent to speak of absolute ontology, that's for another discussion. Within the human scope of perception, we take note of an event i.e. Slavery in this case and we ask the question: does it exist based on an individual denying reality? And I answered that above.

 

[jaguar43]

Firstly, yes absolutely I'm actually trying to stress the ethical/value/judgment quality of this, since that is what I was focused on from the get-go. From the lack of universal value, we then derive a unifying concept of will, so on and so forth [insert here the totality of my posts in this thread].

Secondly, Nietzsche's intent on this aspect of objective truth is not for a definitive purpose and did not apply to my making of this point on will. His intent was to evaluate and reevaluate values. Any Nietzschean historian would agree with that. But even in that evaluation, what he is actually saying is there is no epistemological absolutes. That means outside the scope of human perception, there is "nothing" since we only know human perception. The nothing is used loosely, it denotes the unknowable in and of itself. Hence my comment nothing is not. So, back to that slavery example, it is not the intent to speak of absolute ontology, that's for another discussion. Within the human scope of perception, we take note of an event i.e. Slavery in this case and we ask the question: does it exist based on an individual denying reality? And I answered that above.

Just because it wasn't his intent doesn't mean it's not important. When someone drinks and drive and then crashes into another car. The driver can say, it wasn't my intent to hit him. Even if he drank and drove. Thats the difference, by giving way to individual "perspectivism" you give way to removing liability and fault. And in essence, objectivity reality. You cannot remove truth from reality.

But then you say that it doesn't regard to physical processes. As if there are no consequences to our beliefs. Ideas can shape the world, the ideas of slavery resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives during the civil war. But I guess that "those People" who though slavery was good should get a free ride since there are no "absolutes". Ideas are material and they can effect matter. By denying matter by using "perspectivism" you ignore fundamental reality.

To be honest, morals are universal. History shows us that, those who deny history are bound to repeat it or worst.

 

[jb116]

I meant evidence as in a literal sense. Ray Peat says this in that article. Whether you want to believe or not. He says it. Thats what I meant.

So what you are saying is Ray Peat is wrong ? Because he doesn't agree with the idea that "will" is the drive for human process. In fact he thinks it's the OPPOSITE of human process. The people who believe in "will" are traumatized and cannot develop and progress. That is what he is saying. Objectively.

Blake’s idea of the “intellectual fountain” was very different from the attitude of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (where “Will” or assertion was the fundamental reality). Blake saw it as always flowing into new territory, discovering new things, enlivening the world that’s being discovered-created. When the organism is traumatized, it hardens, and stops developing, and wants to impose its moral hardness everywhere; assertiveness is the antithesis of perceptive life, and devises ways to negate it.

Negation | Vision and Acceptance

That's very silly. That's not evidence of what we are debating about. It's merely evidence he said it. Who denies that!?

And no I don't think that is what he saying :) Ray is establishing a kind of self-ordering, intelligent universe. For him, the mention of will is through a misinterpretation: as in intention. Ray is not understanding the will as the drive that is the action itself. Therefore it makes no difference what the effectual, pragmatic philosophy is, the drive is the same. We know it as the "why" since nothing else can be attributle to it. Other attributes are mere value judgments since they will differ for a given individual for a given circumstance.

Ray's idea of will here is overt, tyranny or authoritarianism or dogma: all key words he has mentioned before. The wtp is not about these things ALTHOUGH they can be included in evaluating psychological will regarding wtp. But that is not the crux of wtp. I feel as though we have went over this already.

What you are claiming is you know the Unknown, you claim it is the effect that allows you to know the will which is unknown.

You have to clarify why claim you can't know this will? you are claiming you do know it? yet you won't question it further?
Both of you keep repeating that you know it.

The effect you speak of follows the golden mean ,this tells us more.

Your point seems to about assigning value judgments being wrong but only if this will is neutral, you can't know the will you claim then why claim it is neutral ,where it gets stranger is the fact we do know it and it follows a pattern that is not random as you say .

My claim - actually a kind of deduction based on the equation if you will of effects - knows an aspect of it because of its effects. To be fair, I never said "I know the will to power." I've stated multiple times I know of it as the totality of effects. Which is quite consistent with the idea of us only knowing reality based on effects. Hmm, you are misreading things! I never ever said value judgments are wrong. I said there is no universal value based on all individuals for all circumstances to establish an anchored value. To each individual however, their action seems to be most valued as being good for them, elevating them: the wtp. Only value judgments there are based on the conscious effects for another.

I can't know this will first-hand, as in a sense experience, because I am it. Not only am I it, but so is every system and organ that comprises the body. The senses of course, being it, convey the perspective of things not the thing in and of itself as a function of it. The order of business so to speak of the senses and the wtp is the building of a vantage point. Nevertheless it is a perspective; a part of a whole flux that conveys an interpretation of reality. The intellect further compounding this process. I therefore cannot get out of my way to experience that which is in the way which is a kind of emergent, awareness of some aspect if it because the of the nature of its totality in relation to constiuents. Ha "constiuents" even as part of that interpretation!

But the effects I know well as the force that underlines all action. I decipher then one underlying quality for lack of a better word unifies the concept to include all actions: wtp. Reverting back to the 2 effects above, leaves us with this answer.

Just because it wasn't his intent doesn't mean it's not important. When someone drinks and drive and then crashes into another car. The driver can say, it wasn't my intent to hit him. Even if he drank and drove. Thats the difference, by giving way to individual "perspectivism" you give way to removing liability and fault. And in essence, objectivity reality. You cannot remove truth from reality.

But then you say that it doesn't regard to physical processes. As if there are no consequences to our beliefs. Ideas can shape the world, the ideas of slavery resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives during the civil war. But I guess that "those People" who though slavery was good should get a free ride since there are no "absolutes". Ideas are material and they can effect matter. By denying matter by using "perspectivism" you ignore fundamental reality.

To be honest, morals are universal. History shows us that, those who deny history are bound to repeat it or worst.

wooo. When I say that isn't his intent, I don't mean he absent-mindlessly made an inadvertent point. Please follow: I mean he was establishing absolute epistemological falsehood, that it does not exist – outside the scope of human perspective. Based on that you realize he is trying to say that whatever follows is based on human perspective! In other words the intent – when read correctly and holistically throughout all his works – is to evaluate and reevaluate values, since that is access to understanding will: by contradictions or lack of common denominator. Wtp is left by assessment of effects. The fundamental reality is not being denied, it is unknown as a direct experience.

History repeats itself because morals are not universal.

 

[Drareg]

The difference is apparent knowing and absolute knowing. I meant we could not know it in itself. Only as it appears to us through interpretation of its effects.

Your still saying the same thing, you can't speak about absolute knowing without knowing it. You have repeatedly said you know it in itself ,to call it the will or absolute knowing you do this by default.

How do you know the effects are from the will if you don't know the will,you claim the will is the absolute knowledge , to speak of effects from the absolute then claim you can't know an absolute ,how do you know where the effects have come from or are related to the will you don't know?

 

[jaguar43]

That's very silly. That's not evidence of what we are debating about. It's merely evidence he said it. Who denies that!?

And no I don't think that is what he saying :) Ray is establishing a kind of self-ordering, intelligent universe. For him, the mention of will is through a misinterpretation: as in intention. Ray is not understanding the will as the drive that is the action itself. Therefore it makes no difference what the effectual, pragmatic philosophy is, the drive is the same. We know it as the "why" since nothing else can be attributle to it. Other attributes are mere value judgments since they will differ for a given individual for a given circumstance.

Ray's idea of will here is overt, tyranny or authoritarianism or dogma: all key words he has mentioned before. The wtp is not about these things ALTHOUGH they can be included in evaluating psychological will regarding wtp. But that is not the crux of wtp. I feel as though we have went over this already.

You say

will as the drive that is the action itself.

Nietzsche says
My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension - Will to power

The stronger becomes master of the weaker, in so far as the latter cannot assert its degree of independence - here there is no mercy, no forbearance, even less a respect for "laws." - will to power

Terribleness is part of greatness: let us not deceive ourselves. -will to power

Morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions... I abhore Christianity with a deadly hatred.
- will to power

See more at: The Will to Power Nietzsche Quotes



I think these quotes clearly states that when nietzsche spoke of "will to power" he literally meant it. He is talking about being a master and having no morality. This is what Ray Peat referred to when he said "will" in that article. You are trying to manipulate the context in which he wrote to prove your argument.

wooo. When I say that isn't his intent, I don't mean he absent-mindlessly made an inadvertent point. Please follow: I mean he was establishing absolute epistemological falsehood, that it does not exist – outside the scope of human perspective. Based on that you realize he is trying to say that whatever follows is based on human perspective! In other words the intent – when read correctly and holistically throughout all his works – is to evaluate and reevaluate values, since that is access to understanding will: by contradictions or lack of common denominator. Wtp is left by assessment of effects. The fundamental reality is not being denied, it is unknown as a direct experience.

History repeats itself because morals are not universal.

How can there be facts without fundamental reality. Contrary to Nietzsche, there is a right way. History shows us. But my point was to prove that those people who deemed as "perspectivism" are wrong, I gave the example of the civil war, was the south "right" because that was "their way". Again you can maneuver all you want but nietzsche wrote in a specific manner. Will to power means just that. Will without morality. And thats what Ray Peat meant in the article.


“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
- Nietzsche

There are no facts, only interpretations.
-Nietzsche

 

[jb116]

You say



Nietzsche says
My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension - Will to power

The stronger becomes master of the weaker, in so far as the latter cannot assert its degree of independence - here there is no mercy, no forbearance, even less a respect for "laws." - will to power

Terribleness is part of greatness: let us not deceive ourselves. -will to power

Morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions... I abhore Christianity with a deadly hatred.
- will to power

See more at: The Will to Power Nietzsche Quotes



I think these quotes clearly states that when nietzsche spoke of "will to power" he literally meant it. He is talking about being a master and having no morality. This is what Ray Peat referred to when he said "will" in that article. You are trying to manipulate the context in which he wrote to prove your argument.

How can there be facts without fundamental reality. Contrary to Nietzsche, there is a right way. History shows us. But my point was to prove that those people who deemed as "perspectivism" are wrong, I gave the example of the civil war, was the south "right" because that was "their way". Again you can maneuver all you want but nietzsche wrote in a specific manner. Will to power means just that. Will without morality. And thats what Ray Peat meant in the article.


“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
- Nietzsche

There are no facts, only interpretations.
-Nietzsche

I think quote fetching has been quite exhausted here. I can post quotes as well turning a perspective into my own agenda. Here's the deal, I have read all of his works, many times.
YOU need to read the wtp in its entirety to understand the thought process. Even with Nietzsche's opinion or proclivity if you will of psychological power sprinkled throughout his books, there is still an ontological take-away. I have no agenda, I immerse myself in the entire body of work to understand what I'm dealing with: Nietzsche as man with his opinions (wtp) and also his perspective to end all perspectives based on the accounting for all action without the reliance on post-effects in consciousness where values cannot be universally established for all individuals for all circumstances. It leaves one quality of drive in all actions.

Stop telling me I am not trying to manipulate this or that. I know about ALL of those quotes and more. Stick to your point, if it has weight it will stand. I'm not hiding anything he said or wrote. It's ALL here on the precious interwebs, I am not going to do anything but state what I take away from his entire body of works. The critical part of that is that I am accounting for all action; removing bias of judgment value. Why don't you state some ontological ideas to refute the wtp in place of fetching quotes and trying to stitch a case together. It is frankly getting tiresome.

You can fetch quotes 'til dawn, it won't change his full perspective. You can hate him for it or love him for it, it doesn't change the perspective. And until you read the entire body of work, you won't grasp the full picture of what is trying to be said.

EVEN if in some hypothetical way, Nietzsche did not realize the full ontological implications of his philosophy, I'm realizing it now, in this present time. It that case, I am presenting an even bigger picture. So analyze these thoughts. Stop trying to dredge up the "bad man"; take a look at the ontology at hand.

 

[jaguar43]

I think quote fetching has been quite exhausted here. I can post quotes as well turning a perspective into my own agenda. Here's the deal, I have read all of his works, many times.
YOU need to read the wtp in its entirety to understand the thought process. Even with Nietzsche's opinion or proclivity if you will of psychological power sprinkled throughout his books, there is still an ontological take-away. I have no agenda, I immerse myself in the entire body of work to understand what I'm dealing with: Nietzsche as man with his opinions (wtp) and also his perspective to end all perspectives based on the accounting for all action without the reliance on post-effects in consciousness where values cannot be universally established for all individuals for all circumstances. It leaves one quality of drive in all actions.

Stop telling me I am not trying to manipulate this or that. I know about ALL of those quotes and more. Stick to your point, if it has weight it will stand. I'm not hiding anything he said or wrote. It's ALL here on the precious interwebs, I am not going to do anything but state what I take away from his entire body of works. The critical part of that is that I am accounting for all action; removing bias of judgment value. Why don't you state some ontological ideas to refute the wtp in place of fetching quotes and trying to stitch a case together. It is frankly getting tiresome.

You can fetch quotes 'til dawn, it won't change his full perspective. You can hate him for it or love him for it, it doesn't change the perspective. And until you read the entire body of work, you won't grasp the full picture of what is trying to be said.

EVEN if in some hypothetical way, Nietzsche did not realize the full ontological implications of his philosophy, I'm realizing it now, in this present time. It that case, I am presenting an even bigger picture. So analyze these thoughts. Stop trying to dredge up the "bad man"; take a look at the ontology at hand.

Your the one saying that Ray Peat doesn't understand The "will " in Nietzschean terms in relation to what he said about the "intellectual fountain". It is pretty clear thats what he meant. You could have argue the differences between "will to power" and the "intellectual fountain". Instead, you choose a cop out stating that "Will" is " the drive that is the action itself" and how the intellectual fountain also involves "will". You and I both know what Ray Peat meant and not being fair and just with the argument is manipulating evidence.


Near the end of the article ray peat states

Physics, in the 20th century, has taken on the Nietzchean subjectivism, claiming to quantize/digitize everything. There is no digital nature, but assertive subjectivism has effectively written quantization into the constitution of science, and into the shadow of the humanities that remains in the corporate universities.

Negation | Vision and Acceptance

He describes Nietzchean subjectivism ( perspectivism) in a negative light. Unfortunately, he doesn't go in depth within the subject. But the antithesis to the perspectivism is objective reality. So I think my arguments stands.

 

[Drareg]

That's very silly. That's not evidence of what we are debating about. It's merely evidence he said it. Who denies that!?

And no I don't think that is what he saying :) Ray is establishing a kind of self-ordering, intelligent universe. For him, the mention of will is through a misinterpretation: as in intention. Ray is not understanding the will as the drive that is the action itself. Therefore it makes no difference what the effectual, pragmatic philosophy is, the drive is the same. We know it as the "why" since nothing else can be attributle to it. Other attributes are mere value judgments since they will differ for a given individual for a given circumstance.

Ray's idea of will here is overt, tyranny or authoritarianism or dogma: all key words he has mentioned before. The wtp is not about these things ALTHOUGH they can be included in evaluating psychological will regarding wtp. But that is not the crux of wtp. I feel as though we have went over this already.



My claim - actually a kind of deduction based on the equation if you will of effects - knows an aspect of it because of its effects. To be fair, I never said "I know the will to power." I've stated multiple times I know of it as the totality of effects. Which is quite consistent with the idea of us only knowing reality based on effects. Hmm, you are misreading things! I never ever said value judgments are wrong. I said there is no universal value based on all individuals for all circumstances to establish an anchored value. To each individual however, their action seems to be most valued as being good for them, elevating them: the wtp. Only value judgments there are based on the conscious effects for another.

I can't know this will first-hand, as in a sense experience, because I am it. Not only am I it, but so is every system and organ that comprises the body. The senses of course, being it, convey the perspective of things not the thing in and of itself as a function of it. The order of business so to speak of the senses and the wtp is the building of a vantage point. Nevertheless it is a perspective; a part of a whole flux that conveys an interpretation of reality. The intellect further compounding this process. I therefore cannot get out of my way to experience that which is in the way which is a kind of emergent, awareness of some aspect if it because the of the nature of its totality in relation to constiuents. Ha "constiuents" even as part of that interpretation!

But the effects I know well as the force that underlines all action. I decipher then one underlying quality for lack of a better word unifies the concept to include all actions: wtp. Reverting back to the 2 effects above, leaves us with this answer.



wooo. When I say that isn't his intent, I don't mean he absent-mindlessly made an inadvertent point. Please follow: I mean he was establishing absolute epistemological falsehood, that it does not exist – outside the scope of human perspective. Based on that you realize he is trying to say that whatever follows is based on human perspective! In other words the intent – when read correctly and holistically throughout all his works – is to evaluate and reevaluate values, since that is access to understanding will: by contradictions or lack of common denominator. Wtp is left by assessment of effects. The fundamental reality is not being denied, it is unknown as a direct experience.

History repeats itself because morals are not universal.

You have repeatedly said you know the will to power. I'm not misreading. You continually speak of a will.
You did it again in the quote below,let me rephrase which is fair I think- "I've stated multiple times I know the will to power as the totality of effects". You claim you know totality of effects = will to power?
That is not consistent with the idea of knowing reality based on effects,what is the reality you speak of here?
The reality we can't question/know beyond the will,the will that causes effect,how do you know that this will causes effect like you just said if you don't know the will?

What you say--"To be fair, I never said "I know the will to power." I've stated multiple times I know of it as the totality of effects. Which is quite consistent with the idea of us only knowing reality based on effects"


If we ignore the above then take on board your new description we then establish the following, you claim it is a deduction based on an equation of effects- you will have to clarify this equation?
You claim to know an aspect of it/will? How do you define aspect here?

If you can't know this will first hand ,sense it ,how do you know you are it(the will) ?

This order of business is what exactly,how do you deduce this?

You said this ----"But the effects I know well as the force that underlines all action. I decipher then one underlying quality for lack of a better word unifies the concept to include all actions: wtp. Reverting back to the 2 effects above, leaves us with this answer".
How do you know this force underlying all action, how does Nietszche describe this force? How does he know it?Is it by looking at effect which can't know cause even though he speaks of cause,is he just saying don't bother with the rest?


Sense originally means ,"feel".
You say --- The senses are telling you,you are it/will that's why you are talking about it/will that's why you feel it/will." The perspective of things not the thing in and of itself but as a function of itself".
How are you aware of a thing in and of itself ?
What makes you think the senses only convey this perspective you speak of? You make huge jumps here?
You will have to understand the working of the senses, standing waves,lenses quite possibly.

History does not have to repeat itself,it may but it doesn't have to. The sun does not have to rise tomorrow for example. We can know this,potential.

 

[tara]

It is not about being a "bully" which is a moral judgment and doesn't exist.

I guess you are using words in your own special ways. 'Knowledge' and 'bullies' are meaningful words in the English language. They refer to things that can be meaningfully said to exist.

The map is not the territory, but some maps provide much more accurate models of the territory than others. If the map in our heads is accurate about the territory in some area, and we have strong enough evidence to support it and to refute alternatives, I think that counts as knowledge.

 

[Dopamine]

Your still saying the same thing, you can't speak about absolute knowing without knowing it. You have repeatedly said you know it in itself ,to call it the will or absolute knowing you do this by default.

How do you know the effects are from the will if you don't know the will,you claim the will is the absolute knowledge , to speak of effects from the absolute then claim you can't know an absolute ,how do you know where the effects have come from or are related to the will you don't know?

No you can't have absolute knowing, I never said you could- I acknowledged the existence of it as an idea and a contrast to apparent knowledge. Apparent knowledge is our only knowledge but again it is still an interpretation and not truth.

You invent where the effects came from... all causes are invented after the effects are interpreted. It is a concept of understanding. We search for things to explain why something has changed and posit a cause.

You are right. I don't know the will. Just like everything else we can have no absolute knowledge of it... only interpretations. Our interpretation is will to power. All the drives of an animal for example can be traced to will to power. We can observe the effects of these drives and interpret their motives as deriving from power seeking and desiring. Rays intellectual fountain idea covers some of the drives of an animal but really only the drive for truth and knowledge.The problem is that intellect settles for understanding, It does not explain why we want to understand. There is no driving force inherent in intellect unless you realize that it contains an underlying motive. The motive behind our wanting to understand is to gain power... power over ourselves, power over others, power over our environment, etc...

 

[Dopamine]

I guess you are using words in your own special ways. 'Knowledge' and 'bullies' are meaningful words in the English language. They refer to things that can be meaningfully said to exist.

The map is not the territory, but some maps provide much more accurate models of the territory than others. If the map in our heads is accurate about the territory in some area, and we have strong enough evidence to support it and to refute alternatives, I think that counts as knowledge.

I meant that bully is an interpretation, an appearance of something and not an "in itself". nothing is inherently a bully just like nothing is inherently evil. Nature does not know evil because who would be the judge of that? Who would be the neutral and fair observer (unless you believe in god)? Bully is a judgment that we project onto things just like evil is a judgment that we project onto things. There are 2 sides to every coin and what one party may see as evil the other will see as good. "Bully" is a reflection on our own ideals not what something is inherently.

 

[Dopamine]

Your the one saying that Ray Peat doesn't understand The "will " in Nietzschean terms in relation to what he said about the "intellectual fountain". It is pretty clear thats what he meant. You could have argue the differences between "will to power" and the "intellectual fountain". Instead, you choose a cop out stating that "Will" is " the drive that is the action itself" and how the intellectual fountain also involves "will". You and I both know what Ray Peat meant and not being fair and just with the argument is manipulating evidence.


Near the end of the article ray peat states

Physics, in the 20th century, has taken on the Nietzchean subjectivism, claiming to quantize/digitize everything. There is no digital nature, but assertive subjectivism has effectively written quantization into the constitution of science, and into the shadow of the humanities that remains in the corporate universities.

Negation | Vision and Acceptance

He describes Nietzchean subjectivism ( perspectivism) in a negative light. Unfortunately, he doesn't go in depth within the subject. But the antithesis to the perspectivism is objective reality. So I think my arguments stands.

If the intellectual fountain is the fundamental reality of the universe instead of the will to power (apparent reality) than it would have to explain for everything. Intellect is defined as coming to conclusions in knowing and understanding. Coming to conclusions about what is true is great and all... but why do we want to come to conclusions in the first place? Where is the driving force here? I don't see intellect as being able to effect change in anything. Now you could say "will to intellect" is the fundamental reality of the universe (which I don't agree with). At least now you have something driving change.

It is apparent that things do change so what is this force in the universe driving change forward?

The intellectual fountain has no drive. There is no drive to accumulate knowledge in this theory, only the conclusions from doing so.

We know that people are driven to come to conclusions, but why? You can't talk of why without talking of wanting and willing.

Also if the search for "understanding" is what drives life and keeps it going- (if understanding could drive anything) then what happens when we understand that our lives our meaningless? When we look out into the cold expanse of the universe and realize that our understanding has no purpose or aim but simply ever more understanding. If understanding drives life then what happens when our understanding becomes hostile to life? What makes us cling to life when we understand that we shouldn't cling- life is meaningless anyways and all we can hope to get out of life is knowing how a few more puzzle pieces fit together.

Everyone has equal potential in a universe driven by the will to power because even those individuals with the least power can acquire it- through banding together with other weak individuals and through group moralities and ideologies. Acquisition of power- therefore meaning... is possible for everyone simply through existing.

The intellectual fountain would create a hierarchy as we can assume some people have a higher capacity for intellect than others. In a universe where the fundamental reality is acquisiton of knowledge and intellect- we can assume that those with the least potential for this- aka dimwits, brain damaged, retarded, etc... Would be the least useful and thus lowest on the hierarchy. They would also be incapable of finding meaning assuming that the meaning of life is to acquire more objective knowledge.

Also how can intellect explain for behavior like sex or masturbation? I would assume that when a guy is banging his wife that he isn't searching for truth... masturbation is even more illogical and there is no knowledge seeking involved. Why do people do things for the sole fact that they feel good? Why do things feel good? How does the intellectual fountain explain music?

Why don't people stop smoking despite knowing that they should? People do many things despite knowing they shouldn't.

 

[jb116]

Your the one saying that Ray Peat doesn't understand The "will " in Nietzschean terms in relation to what he said about the "intellectual fountain". It is pretty clear thats what he meant. You could have argue the differences between "will to power" and the "intellectual fountain". Instead, you choose a cop out stating that "Will" is " the drive that is the action itself" and how the intellectual fountain also involves "will". You and I both know what Ray Peat meant and not being fair and just with the argument is manipulating evidence.


Near the end of the article ray peat states

Physics, in the 20th century, has taken on the Nietzchean subjectivism, claiming to quantize/digitize everything. There is no digital nature, but assertive subjectivism has effectively written quantization into the constitution of science, and into the shadow of the humanities that remains in the corporate universities.

Negation | Vision and Acceptance

He describes Nietzchean subjectivism ( perspectivism) in a negative light. Unfortunately, he doesn't go in depth within the subject. But the antithesis to the perspectivism is objective reality. So I think my arguments stands.

As I already stated, if that is solely what he meant, then yes he does not understand the ontological implication of wtp, and neither do you.
I already stated in this psychological aspect of power, it clashes with Ray's view.
Will IS the drive that is the action itself.
I already stated the main difference of intellectual fountain, it arrives at a conclusion without accounting for the prelude or effect; it is an ideal, it does not account for the "why."
I already said the intellectual fountain itself is not about will. His assertion of it is will.

You have repeatedly said you know the will to power. I'm not misreading. You continually speak of a will.
You did it again in the quote below,let me rephrase which is fair I think- "I've stated multiple times I know the will to power as the totality of effects". You claim you know totality of effects = will to power?
That is not consistent with the idea of knowing reality based on effects,what is the reality you speak of here?
The reality we can't question/know beyond the will,the will that causes effect,how do you know that this will causes effect like you just said if you don't know the will?

What you say--"To be fair, I never said "I know the will to power." I've stated multiple times I know of it as the totality of effects. Which is quite consistent with the idea of us only knowing reality based on effects"


If we ignore the above then take on board your new description we then establish the following, you claim it is a deduction based on an equation of effects- you will have to clarify this equation?
You claim to know an aspect of it/will? How do you define aspect here?

If you can't know this will first hand ,sense it ,how do you know you are it(the will) ?

This order of business is what exactly,how do you deduce this?

You said this ----"But the effects I know well as the force that underlines all action. I decipher then one underlying quality for lack of a better word unifies the concept to include all actions: wtp. Reverting back to the 2 effects above, leaves us with this answer".
How do you know this force underlying all action, how does Nietszche describe this force? How does he know it?Is it by looking at effect which can't know cause even though he speaks of cause,is he just saying don't bother with the rest?

Sense originally means ,"feel".
You say --- The senses are telling you,you are it/will that's why you are talking about it/will that's why you feel it/will." The perspective of things not the thing in and of itself but as a function of itself".
How are you aware of a thing in and of itself ?
What makes you think the senses only convey this perspective you speak of? You make huge jumps here?
You will have to understand the working of the senses, standing waves,lenses quite possibly.

History does not have to repeat itself,it may but it doesn't have to. The sun does not have to rise tomorrow for example. We can know this,potential.

There should be a rule of misquoting people on the forum @tara or @charlie

I have never said "I know the will to power," let alone repeatedly.
What you misquoted me saying is this: "I've stated multiple times I know the will to power as the totality of effects."
What I actually said is this: "I've stated multiple times I know of it as the totality of effects."
These carry extremely different meanings.

The equation of effects I have already clarified, numerous times. Go back and read about it.
I have already stated how I know I am of this will, by virtue of the equation of effects leaving this one unifying drive attributed to all things.

Nobody is aware of a thing in and of itself.

It is not a matter of my thinking on what the senses convey, we experience what they convey. Remove the sense and you remove that aspect of experience or change it altogether.
That is what an effect is after all; the perspective of the thing changes. Read Touch and Blindness: Psychology and Neuroscience for example to read about how blindness changes the experience of what is imagined.
Change or remove the sense, change the effect, change the experience.

 

[Drareg]

As I already stated, if that is solely what he meant, then yes he does not understand the ontological implication of wtp, and neither do you.
I already stated in this psychological aspect of power, it clashes with Ray's view.
Will IS the drive that is the action itself.
I already stated the main difference of intellectual fountain, it arrives at a conclusion without accounting for the prelude or effect; it is an ideal, it does not account for the "why."
I already said the intellectual fountain itself is not about will. His assertion of it is will.



There should be a rule of misquoting people on the forum @tara or @charlie

I have never said "I know the will to power," let alone repeatedly.
What you misquoted me saying is this: "I've stated multiple times I know the will to power as the totality of effects."
What I actually said is this: "I've stated multiple times I know of it as the totality of effects."
These carry extremely different meanings.

The equation of effects I have already clarified, numerous times. Go back and read about it.
I have already stated how I know I am of this will, by virtue of the equation of effects leaving this one unifying drive attributed to all things.

Nobody is aware of a thing in and of itself.

It is not a matter of my thinking on what the senses convey, we experience what they convey. Remove the sense and you remove that aspect of experience or change it altogether.
That is what an effect is after all; the perspective of the thing changes. Read Touch and Blindness: Psychology and Neuroscience for example to read about how blindness changes the experience of what is imagined.
Change or remove the sense, change the effect, change the experience.

You seem to be getting frustrated and looking for rules about misquoting .
You did claim I misquoted you and I responded to you within the context of the discussion, a discussion that seemed to be in good spirits except for many of dopamenergic096 contributions which are mainly quotes from Nietszche he associates himself with and rigid contradictory verbosity Imo.

Your hyperbole on being misquoted does not answer what I put to you. Most people will see imo by reading through the thread what I'm putting to you. It's starting to look like you are becoming rigid in your view by this response.

How can I misquote you when you say you know of it ?
Please clarify what you mean by ," you know it", what is the "it "you refer to here.

You have jumped out of addressing core points put to you on the will, Ignoring many points asking if you are contradicting yourself with the language you are using ,you then increase verbosity around what you know is the effect of the will to power,you are ignoring the paradox and the fact you can know a paradox exists.

I hope the mods and everyone else can please keep in mind we are in a discussion which is in,around and possibly outside philosophy.

 

[tara]

There should be a rule of misquoting people on the forum @tara or @charlie

In general, I do think willfully misquoting consitutes disrespect.
However, sometimes people think they are faithfully paraphrasing, but actually have changed the meaning somewhat. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not so. I'd say that in the context of a highly philosophical/metaphysical discussion such as this, it is sometimes not easy to tell. Fair enough to clarify what you meant if you think you were misunderstood/misquoted. But as far as I can tell, there is no deliberate misquoting going on.