Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:21 JST ≠
@h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper

That seems to me a separate issue.

Nietzsche was talking about humanity breeding out self-pity, individualism, ressentiment, and other defects caused by the individual rejecting realism.

Sometimes his Emerson influence comes out in surprising ways.

I think he makes a good point: if the people who are able to accept reality including "inequality" can start their own society, and reject those who do not think the same way over the generations, they will produce an intellectual, mental health, and attitude based superhuman.

In conversation about 5 months ago from annihilation.social permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:11 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  Nietzsche did not like the State or socialism, but I think he would have absolutely hated AnCap, libertarianism, and anarchy as well.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:11 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  I'm not so sure. A society where the individual is king, and free to live his life to the utmost. I think Nietzsche would have endorsed that. But all of democracy is definitely out of the question.
  Monarcy/aristocracy I think also would be compatible with Nietzsche due to his strong focus on individual flourishing.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:11 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  Did you read "On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral State"? Nietzsche states a very clear opinion about what he thinks of human reasoning versus what is needed there.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
  
  Forest of Enchantment likes this.
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:12 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  Definitely, mostly because he is deliberately inscrutable to most people.
  
  Any time the Nazi links come up, I have to laugh, since we have zero evidence that Hitler ever read Nietzsche despite 80 years of searching fervently for it.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:12 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  You can go the other way as well. Nietzsche both complains and praises the jew in his texts, and nothing in his texts resembles national socialism. If anything at all, I find that he makes strong arguments against it.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:13 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper dictionary of swedish, I find...
  förmåga; (ngns) möjligheter (att göra l. åstadkomma l. prestera ngt);
  translated into...
  ability; (someones) possibility (to do, to achieve, perform).
  I think this is a _much_ better way to read power, than thinking of someones power over others, when reading Nietzsche.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:13 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  He never meant it as "power over others" (Golden Delicious) but "power generally" (apples) and would agree with your definition or something like it: possibility, capacity, ability, potential.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:13 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  Yes! But note how often when you talk Nietzsche, most people only think of "power over others", the next thought they have, is that he was a nazi, and then they drop him.
  I think Nietzsche is _still_ very much misunderstood by a lot of people.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:14 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  Maybe. What I do not like about Nietzsches thinking there is that:
  1. Power is istrumental, pleasure is the result. You seek power to _do_ something, that is why it cannot be the ultimate foundation.
  2. It is not so well defined. It can be twisted to mean or indicate various things.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:14 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  The definition of power is relative to the individual, most likely. I suppose he does not mean electricity.
  
  Power is capacity and the ability to do things. Without it, or at least a belief that one has it, paralysis results.
  
  He was addressing semi-religious theories (Kant-Plato-Schopenhauer) as well as the new consciousness of Darwinism or something like it.
  
  Why do organisms live? To act; this requires power. All life seeks not merely to survive, but to have capacity in that role.
  
  I think it would probably be easier to understand in the original German, if anyone spoke the German of that era.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:14 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  I agree, and that is why I think power is such a bad translation.
  I prefer to think of it as potential. Instead of saying that power is the fundamental, I think potential a striving after increased potential sounds better and less prone to misinterpretation.
  Let me have a look at the german and see how I would translate it...
  Ok, macht... that is very close to the makt in swedish... now looking in the _old_
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:15 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  I'd say survival does bring pleasure. I think there's a concept called survivors euphoria. I think, maybe we feel a much, much milder version of that, when we relax after a good day at work?
  As for power... it is confusing. Because there is power over others, and power over myself (potential).
  Sick people often dream of power over others, sane people dream of power over themselves and their lives.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:15 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  In my view, Nietzsche had it right: all seek power.
  
  This reduces risk and increases pleasure, but even more, reduces existential stress and enhances the thymotic need to feel relevant.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:16 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  Does survival bring pleasure, or power, which incorporates both fear of pain (risk) and desire for the ability to have pleasure with its own inherent attraction?
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:17 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  Could you please expand? What do you mean with saying that function is independent of pleasure and pain?
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:17 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  People need survival first of all. Once that is stable, they can worry about their pleasure-pain ratio, but generally speaking, most people endure a fair amount of pain and suffering in life anyway so it is less relevant.
  
  Then there is the old human favorite, "is pleasure merely the absence of pain or something else," which seems silly to me as well. Without something to reach out for, an affirmative good that one enjoys, pleasure is misunderstood as complacency.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:17 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  Here it gets tricky. One could argue that survival brings pleasure. If survival meant eternal pain, I think few would be willing to survive. Pleasure and pain are also multidimensional. In order to survive, some activities are engaged it which produce pleasure.
  As for the old human favourite, I think science has proven that pain and pleasure are distinct and not defined in terms of each other.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:18 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  Agreed! As per my nominalist streak, I believe there are no "rights". All we have is actual behaviours in the physical world, and if they hinder us or help us. Do they bring us pain or pleasure. That's about it.
  See how simple life can be if you just avoid making it complicated on purpose! ;)
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:18 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  "All we have is actual behaviours in the physical world, and if they hinder us or help us."
  
  Yes, totally agreed, in a consequentialist context, which means:
  
  "Do they bring us pain or pleasure."
  
  Not quite. I am not sure these are opposites; most people appear to be masochists at least. But even more, function is independent of pleasure and pain, good and evil, happy and sad, etc.
  
  It just is.
  
  Total nihilism :)
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:19 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper everyone just speaks of equality, and that is when it starts to swallow all.
  The term "equality" should really be outlawed.
  A final argument against equality of opportunity is that it makes slaves out of service providers. It is a positive right, which makes people able to _demand_ of others that they should get access.
  That means that you are no longer in control of your business, school, or institution.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:19 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  It is essential for private property rights, to abolish equal opportunity. The ones who want to hire an all black, or all white teams, thus rejecting qualified applicants, will be punished by the market in the long run anyway.
  So ultimately, e.opp. is self-correcting, and there is no need to artificially enforce it.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:19 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  I agree here.
  
  "It is essential for private property rights, to abolish equal opportunity."
  
  Even more, to recognize it as a fiction. Equality and inequality are human emotional categories, not parts of reality.
  
  "So ultimately, e.opp. is self-correcting, and there is no need to artificially enforce it."
  
  However, once you declare equality exists or should exist, it will be enforced until equality of outcome is reached.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:20 JST ≠
  in reply to
  @korsier @h4890 @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84 @toiletpaper
  
  "I'm all for equality of opportunity"
  
  The glitch here is that the existence of equality-of-opportunity is only proven by equality-of-outcome to those who desire equality.
  
  Better to get rid of the concept altogether; it is simply another poisonous delusion like "I can just eat one chip."
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:20 JST h4890
  in reply to
  @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper
  Exactly! There is another glitch. Equality of opportunity is impossible, since we are all unequal. That means, as amerika says, that once men start overperforming in stem, dueto biological differences, it will be seen as a badly function equality of opportunity.
  Another problem is semantic. The "equality" tends to shift and swallow more and more. Equality of opportunity is so cumbersome to say, that after a while
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Korsier (korsier@libertarian.communitynetwork.space)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:03:21 JST Korsier
  in reply to
  @amerika @h4890 @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84 @toiletpaper Our current civil conflict is mostly the clash between freedom vs equality. And by current I mean roughly since we got rid of feudalism.
  
  I'm on the side of personal freedom. Individuals should be able to pursue their interests, to the extent of their talents, without interference from the mob. That will naturally lead to unequal outcomes but people are not inherently equal in interests and abilities anyway.
  
  Much suffering has come from the idea of equality, especially in the 20th century where we piled up the corpses by the millions in the name of equality.
  
  I'm all for equality of opportunity, which is another way of saying, get the state out of the way and end discrimination based on innate features (race, gender, etc). But equality of outcome is a deathtrap.
  
  In conversation about 5 months ago permalink

Public

Conversation

Notices

Feeds