Message from @Hagel

Discord ID: 282998408237547520


2017-02-19 22:10:25 UTC  

Nihilism is a faulty foundation

2017-02-19 22:10:31 UTC  

THE PROBLEM WILL BE IF YOU TAKE A COLLECTION OF CONCLUSIONS

2017-02-19 22:10:39 UTC  

WHETHER OR NOT THEY ALL WORK TOGETHER

2017-02-19 22:10:40 UTC  

Why not pose pragmatism as transcendental Idealism

2017-02-19 22:10:40 UTC  

it's more suiting than being a cynic for the sake of being a cynic

2017-02-19 22:10:44 UTC  

cynicism seems like an end

2017-02-19 22:10:44 UTC  

OR BECOME AN INCOHERENT BUNDLE

2017-02-19 22:10:55 UTC  

nihilism being that end in modern terms

2017-02-19 22:11:03 UTC  

YES, CYNICISM IS A METHOD BASED ON MAKING ASSUMPTIONS INTO CONCLUSIONS

2017-02-19 22:11:07 UTC  

CAN BE USEFUL I SUPPOSE

2017-02-19 22:11:24 UTC  

PRAGMATISM WILL DEFAULT TO STANDARD HUMAN MENTALLY CONVENIENT INDIVIDUALISM

2017-02-19 22:11:37 UTC  

i love you papa. i feel like i am home in your arms.

2017-02-19 22:11:49 UTC  

The interpretation of nihilism is that of an invalid world, where solely being human is its epitaph

2017-02-19 22:12:12 UTC  

i think the fault is in the being of nihilism

2017-02-19 22:12:24 UTC  

In a Nietzschean view

2017-02-19 22:12:53 UTC  

you can't help but become nihilist

2017-02-19 22:13:07 UTC  

nobody here surely asked to come to such a conclusion

2017-02-19 22:13:57 UTC  

"Existentialism focuses around the ego"

2017-02-19 22:14:08 UTC  

It doesn't have to, it can just be a starting point

2017-02-19 22:14:29 UTC  

It's still more of that than it is nihilism

2017-02-19 22:14:38 UTC  

But I don't care, I like Wittgenstein. I'll play the language game

2017-02-19 22:14:53 UTC  

When the psyche is in league with the sensible world, there is no free will (this is where I disagree with Schopenhauer)

2017-02-19 22:15:05 UTC  

Schopenhauer believed in free will

2017-02-19 22:15:09 UTC  

Kant did not

2017-02-19 22:15:23 UTC  

Kant held duty as the highest moral good

2017-02-19 22:17:12 UTC  

@spaceplacenta SCHOPENHAUER BELIEVED IN WILL

2017-02-19 22:17:24 UTC  

HE WAS CRITICAL OF "FREE WILL" USING A SPINOZIST ARGUMENT

2017-02-19 22:17:37 UTC  

BUT HIS POINT WAS LIKE NIETZSCHE'S, AND THIS IS THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING:

2017-02-19 22:17:46 UTC  

COMPETENCE, NOT MORAL OBEDIENCE, RULES THE DAY

2017-02-19 22:17:54 UTC  

What does it mean to be free, if not self governing?

2017-02-19 22:18:05 UTC  

HE IS RIGHT IN THAT CHRISTIANS TEND TO VALUE OBEDIENT PEOPLE WHO ARE CLUELESS

2017-02-19 22:18:11 UTC  

Nothing else has been observed to be free, so what even is free will?

2017-02-19 22:18:12 UTC  

SCHOP/NIETZSCHE WANTED PEOPLE WHO COULD THINK

2017-02-19 22:18:17 UTC  

theoretically

2017-02-19 22:18:17 UTC  

AN ARGUMENT FOR NATURAL ARISTOCRACY

2017-02-19 22:18:34 UTC  

@Hagel "FREE WILL" IS A DRIVEL CONCEPT, BUT "CHOICE" IS WHAT MOST MEAN BY IT

2017-02-19 22:18:50 UTC  

THEY MEAN THE ABILITY TO COMPUTE/PROCESS EXTERNAL DATA AND MAKE BRANCHING CHOICES

2017-02-19 22:19:00 UTC  

free will sounds like a scientific term trying to molt out of an ethical/moral term in choice

2017-02-19 22:19:20 UTC  

That's just will, there's nothing really free about it

2017-02-19 22:19:52 UTC  

It's compatible with determinism, and with the sort of probabilistic semi random procedures of quantum level physics