Message from @Hagel
Discord ID: 282998236376203264
THE BASIS IS IN NIHILISM
PROBABLY
THERE ARE MULTIPLE PATHS TO MOST CONCLUSIONS
Nihilism is a faulty foundation
THE PROBLEM WILL BE IF YOU TAKE A COLLECTION OF CONCLUSIONS
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ALL WORK TOGETHER
Why not pose pragmatism as transcendental Idealism
it's more suiting than being a cynic for the sake of being a cynic
cynicism seems like an end
OR BECOME AN INCOHERENT BUNDLE
nihilism being that end in modern terms
YES, CYNICISM IS A METHOD BASED ON MAKING ASSUMPTIONS INTO CONCLUSIONS
CAN BE USEFUL I SUPPOSE
PRAGMATISM WILL DEFAULT TO STANDARD HUMAN MENTALLY CONVENIENT INDIVIDUALISM
i love you papa. i feel like i am home in your arms.
The interpretation of nihilism is that of an invalid world, where solely being human is its epitaph
i think the fault is in the being of nihilism
In a Nietzschean view
you can't help but become nihilist
nobody here surely asked to come to such a conclusion
It doesn't have to, it can just be a starting point
It's still more of that than it is nihilism
But I don't care, I like Wittgenstein. I'll play the language game
When the psyche is in league with the sensible world, there is no free will (this is where I disagree with Schopenhauer)
Schopenhauer believed in free will
Kant did not
Kant held duty as the highest moral good
@spaceplacenta SCHOPENHAUER BELIEVED IN WILL
HE WAS CRITICAL OF "FREE WILL" USING A SPINOZIST ARGUMENT
BUT HIS POINT WAS LIKE NIETZSCHE'S, AND THIS IS THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING:
COMPETENCE, NOT MORAL OBEDIENCE, RULES THE DAY
What does it mean to be free, if not self governing?
HE IS RIGHT IN THAT CHRISTIANS TEND TO VALUE OBEDIENT PEOPLE WHO ARE CLUELESS
Nothing else has been observed to be free, so what even is free will?
SCHOP/NIETZSCHE WANTED PEOPLE WHO COULD THINK
theoretically
AN ARGUMENT FOR NATURAL ARISTOCRACY
@Hagel "FREE WILL" IS A DRIVEL CONCEPT, BUT "CHOICE" IS WHAT MOST MEAN BY IT
THEY MEAN THE ABILITY TO COMPUTE/PROCESS EXTERNAL DATA AND MAKE BRANCHING CHOICES