Nietzsche was so based
>>24736155A based retard more like.
>>24736155This quote gave me the ick
>>24736155>Nietzsche was so basedHe was into MLP. So yes. He was based. He sucked. He sucked so good in his cuck 3 way. Which was awesome.
>>24736155>If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmedHello, based department?
>>24736181he can be pseud-y at times. I think it is part of the charm
>>24736181mathscels never recovered lmao
>>24736444Tbqh it reads like wordcel cope t. wordcel
>>24736181I think it's pretty straightforward and true. there isn't a perfectly straight line in the universe, and there are no numbers. it's all human construct like words.
our response?
>>24737072The issue for me isn't whether or not perfectly straight lines exist in nature, it's his statement that math wouldn't have "arisen" had we known they don't. There isn't much context since it's only 2 sentences but he seems to be heavily discounting the usefulness of mathematics which is retarded and makes it hard to take him serious if that's something he actually believes.
>>24737178If Christianity is their religion maybe jews should all convert to "their" religion instead of whatever they are doing now.
>>24737178Where in the New Testament is sacrificing children to Moloch?
>>24736208Fucking hell that is way too much responsibility for me. I'm sorry, universe. I wasted it all.
>>24736208Cringe and cheesy
>>24737178*wailing and gnashing of teeth christcuckedly*
>>24737226I don't think he's discounting the usefulness of mathematics but your criticism towards whether the origin of it is contingent on people believing perfect mathematical objects is fair. it sounds like a speculation than a logical imperative.
>>24737226neetche really didn't like any kind of universal abstraction. everything is particular, everything is becoming, nothing is eternal and unchanging, which includes the laws of mathematics. doesn't help that math was his worst subject.
>>24736155Nietzsche disliked nationalism because it wasn’t hierarchical enough and The Antichrist is one of the most antisemitic books very written. Nietzsche admires the Jews for having had the will to ruin morality for millennia.
>>24736155He was being ironic.
>>24736181based and Heraclitean-pilled
>>247361551 one is true; 2 is misleading; 3 is an outright lie.>>24737324>doesn't help that math was his worst subject.Kind of disingenuous phrasing. By "worst" he got a B in it btw, which isn't exactly a bad score, considering he went to a prestigious school.
>>24737320I talked to ChatGPT about it and at the end of it all came away with this “Nietzsche holds that both mathematics and philosophy are built on fictions — assumptions like identity, equality, and perfect forms that do not exist in nature. Early humans believed such ideals were real, which allowed abstract systems like logic and geometry to develop. In reality, they are false premises, projections of the human condition, but ones that have proven immensely useful. For Nietzsche, there is no “correct” philosophy or final truth; all systems of thought are interpretations shaped by human needs, simplifications, and errors. Their value lies not in correspondence to reality, but in their power — in how they orient us, enable science and culture, and serve life.”
>>24736155Wagner was right about Nietzsche
>>24737072A circle is the set of all points that are a certain distance away from an origin point in a two dimensional space. Our inability to draw one perfectly does not imply that this set doesn't exist for any point in the universe.
>>24737456chatgpt just regurgitated the same premise we agree on. as far as source of it goes, I don't see a way of proving what early humans believed in or that the progress of sciences would halt the moment people have realized it's just a game of symbols.>>24737478your inability to show one in real life definitely points to the fact that it doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except your mind.
Anyone who has read Nietzsche knows this isn't true. He praises Jews sometimes, but he's antisemitic twice as often and he's also a proponent of eugenics. It wasn't just his chud sister messing with his writings, Nietszche would clearly be considered some kind of reactionary even if you ignore The Will to Power.I don't understand why Kaufmann was so obsessed with making Nietzsche palatable to liberal progressives. You don't see people making claims that whenever Evola talks about the metaphysics of rape it's actually irony or metaphorical for the liberation of woman or whatever.
>>24737478Your set of points is purely a mathematical construct. There are no "points" in the physical universe.
>>24736181He's right, btw.t. maths graduate.
>>24737456This can't be right, Nietzsche clearly thinks that some values are better than others, some kinds of people better than others, etc, strongly suggesting he thinks there is some kind of real, true value system; just not the one we use/inherit
the nominalism I see ITT always bothered me, because if math is just a game of symbols with no actual grounding in reality, then there is absolutely no reason why it should be as powerful a tool as it is. if things themselves don't exhibit mathematical patterns and order, then science shouldn't be possible at all. like the discussion above that points in a circle around any given point aren't real. OK, that should mean that nothing in space is continuous. I can't wrap my head around how you see the world like this.
>>24737072>They're aren't distinct numbers of people. When I am in a room with one other person there is only arbitrarily two people here. You can also mate a pig to itself because units are an invention.
>>24738062>fit-nominalists in this thread bother me>if a shirt is not tailor-made exactly to a person's specific dimensions, it is clearly not possible for them to wear it>and we see people wearing shirts >so each shirt must have been tailor-made to their specific dimensions
>>24738062Nominalism is peak midwit.
>>24738062>the nominalism I see ITT always bothered me, because if math is just a game of symbols with no actual grounding in reality, then there is absolutely no reason why it should be as powerful a tool as it isSo you don't know what nominalism is but you're highly opinionated about it because you heard it's the cause of le downfall of the west somewhere, probably a blog. What a stupid cunt.
>>24738080What makes something "useful?" Is there such a thing as usefulness or goodness? In virtue of what are things similar? What are the causes of people deciding that things are similar if there is really no such thing as similarity?At least the original nominalists realized that you cannot have nominalism without volantarism, but volantarism without God starts to look even more ridiculous. "Usefulness" becomes a sort of metaphysical primitive that makes everything what it is, through the God-like powers of the language community or whatever. As if ants wouldn't be ants if it wasn't "useful" to call them such (in which case, what causes this to seem useful?)
>>24738085no I'm a math grad and mathematical nominalism never made sense to me. most in pure math are unspoken platonists that don't think too deeply about philosophy, and the nominalists were always in some non-pure field like CS
Lots of mathcel cop itt
Nationalism for zionists yet literally no one else, as zionism depends on denying self-determination to every Western nation to serve a criminal imperialist genocide.Forget building schools, taking care of your basic infrastructure, let alone going to outer space. Let alone basic rights to speech and protest. Blowing up Muslim children for atheist zionists on the other side of the planet is apparently more important than actually governing effectively let alone having an optimistic future full of goals and progress.Nationalism in its moral form, meaning love and care for your nation and its people, is a threat to international zionist imperialism. Because actually taking care of your nation and serving its people, including the poor, refutes the goal of global zionist domination and a secular world order of international billionaires and their war profiteering political puppets.Nationalist revolution is how the West can break its shackles of zionist oppression. Yes, it is oppression. Yes, you are oppressed. The lockdowns, protest crackdowns, this is oppression in the USA. It is wrong and evil, and it is righteous to resist.I don't want to be some sort of dictator, and I doubt Americans want some sort of Muslim leader anyways. I genuinely care about my country and want to help Christians reclaim it. It is a struggle against both international zionism and its genocide as well as for the rights and freedoms of the American people.For truth, justice, and liberty. It requires the involvement of good Christian people who love the USA and Old Glory. Who love the Constitution and what it stands for. In other words: Nationalists.It is such a strong contrast to this depressing, suicidal, atheist secularism and its international order. It is hope against despair, freedom against tyranny, faith against faithlessness, truth against lies.Christians, Muslim, Jews can all rally under a national banner as Americans and have the freedom to chose nationalism over internationalist secular rule. American nationalism includes every race and religion.
I'll just repost this Anon's good comment:>There is an undeniable thread of invariance running through any coherent process, a thread that linear algebra, with its basis-independent operators and change-of-basis theorems, captures beautifully. It is precisely this invariance under transformation that endows deep learning and other ML models with their robustness and generalization: the same underlying relations persist even as their representations shift. Were there no stable, ordered links binding successive “time-slices” of reality, no consistent symmetries or conserved structures, our experience of a lawful world would collapse into chaos. To deny such universals, as nominalism does, is to cast aside the very framework through which proofs remain valid regardless of one’s choice of symbols and to mistake arbitrary labels for the bedrock of intelligibility.I would add the the basic preconditions for anything to mean anything at all in information theory seem relevant here too, and you can see something similar in semiotics (the tripartite version that comes down through the Scholastics and CSP and gets used in the sciences, not the POMO stuff from Sausser).Also, the "scientific" world view often used to justify nominalism historically came out of theology, as an explicit reaction against prior Western metaphysics. If you don't think speculation about God based on the Bible and a desire to buck the papacy is likely to give practices good epistemic warrant than the genealogy of the view that makes nominalism seem so obvious starts to look rather suspect. Originally, nominalism was introduced, and then dogmatically defended, because the idea is that stable natures would somehow restrain divine freedom since God couldn't arbitrarily chane final causality. The theology/philosophy underpinning the move is itself questionable DESU.
