War Room OT Discussion v3

[HomerThompson]

When he was at 170 he said he blows up to 220 out of camp and that his camps are primarily about getting his weight back down.
That's really not the way to do it.
Shame, because he has the skills and heart in a fight.

Wow, that's Rumble territory for sure. It really is such a shame too. I thought he beat Woodley, and he's shown great skill and heart like you said. If he had his shit together(hire a cook/nutritionist/whatever) he might be the 170 champ right now, and he would certainly be a much bigger star, and getting more lucrative contract and endorsement opportunities.

 

[Ruprecht]

Wow, that's Rumble territory for sure. It really is such a shame too. I thought he beat Woodley, and he's shown great skill and heart like you said. If he had his shit together(hire a cook/nutritionist/whatever) he might be the 170 champ right now, and he would certainly be a much bigger star, and getting more lucrative contract and endorsement opportunities.

Yeah, at this stage I think hiring someone to completely handle his diet and prepare his food would be the best investment he could make in his career.
Admittedly he doesn't look like the sort of guy for whom staying super lean would come easy, but it's what he needs to do.

 

[JonesBones]

1. Buy Tesla stock
2. ???
3. Profit

 

[Tekk]

Why is there two meme threads?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Why is there two meme threads?

It's an inside joke

 

[Harmonica]

He rejected it later in life (On The Genealogy Of Morality), but in his earlier works he embraced it (Human, All Too Human).

Citations?

I've read everything he ever wrote and nothing suggested he was a hedonist. Unless you guys have some special definition of hedonism.

 

[Ruprecht]

Citations?

I've read everything he ever wrote and nothing suggested he was a hedonist. Unless you guys have some special definition of hedonism.

He defines Vanity as a form of hedonism:

Vanity.—We set store by the good opinion of men, first because it is of use to us and next[110] because we wish to give them pleasure (children their parents, pupils their teacher, and well disposed persons all others generally). Only when the good opinion of men is important to somebody, apart from personal advantage or the desire to give pleasure, do we speak of vanity. In this last case, a man wants to give himself pleasure, but at the expense of his fellow creatures, inasmuch as he inspires them with a false opinion of himself or else inspires "good opinion" in such a way that it is a source of pain to others (by arousing envy). The individual generally seeks, through the opinion of others, to attest and fortify the opinion he has of himself; but the potent influence of authority—an influence as old as man himself—leads many, also, to strengthen their own opinion of themselves by means of authority, that is, to borrow from others the expedient of relying more upon the judgment of their fellow men than upon their own.—Interest in oneself, the wish to please oneself attains, with the vain man, such proportions that he first misleads others into a false, unduly exalted estimate of himself and then relies upon the authority of others for his self estimate; he thus creates the delusion that he pins his faith to.—It must, however, be admitted that the vain man does not desire to please others so much as himself and he will often go so far,[111] on this account, as to overlook his own interests: for he often inspires his fellow creatures with malicious envy and renders them ill disposed in order that he may thus increase his own delight in himself.

..and he commends it:

Vanity Enriches.—How poor the human mind would be without vanity! As it is, it resembles[106] a well stacked and ever renewed ware-emporium that attracts buyers of every class: they can find almost everything, have almost everything, provided they bring with them the right kind of money—admiration.

Justice that Rewards.—Whoever has fully understood the doctrine of absolute irresponsibility can no longer include the so called rewarding and punishing justice in the idea of justice, if the latter be taken to mean that to each be given his due. For he who is punished does not deserve the punishment. He is used simply as a means to intimidate others from certain acts. Equally, he who is rewarded does not merit the reward. He could not act any differently than he did act. Hence the reward has only the significance of an encouragement to him and others as a motive for subsequent acts. The praise is called out only to him who is running in the race and not to him who has arrived at the goal. Something that comes to someone as his own is neither a punishment nor a reward. It is given to him from utiliarian considerations, without his having any claim to it in justice. Hence one must say "the wise man praises not[131] because a good act has been done" precisely as was once said: "the wise man punishes not because a bad act has been done but in order that a bad act may not be done." If punishment and reward ceased, there would cease with them the most powerful incentives to certain acts and away from other acts. The purposes of men demand their continuance [of punishment and reward] and inasmuch as punishment and reward, blame and praise operate most potently upon vanity, these same purposes of men imperatively require the continuance of vanity.

...
If pleasure, egoism, vanity be necessary to attest the moral phenomena and their richest blooms, the instinct for truth and accuracy of knowledge; if delusion[135] and confusion of the imagination were the only means whereby mankind could gradually lift itself up to this degree of self enlightenment and self emancipation—who would venture to disparage the means? Who would have the right to feel sad if made aware of the goal to which those paths lead? Everything in the domain of ethic is evolved, changeable, tottering; all things flow, it is true—but all things are also in the stream: to their goal. Though within us the hereditary habit of erroneous judgment, love, hate, may be ever dominant, yet under the influence of awaking knowledge it will ever become weaker: a new habit, that of understanding, not-loving, not-hating, looking from above, grows up within us gradually and in the same soil, and may, perhaps, in thousands of years be powerful enough to endow mankind with capacity to develop the wise, guiltless man (conscious of guiltlessness) as unfailingly as it now developes the unwise, irrational, guilt-conscious man—that is to say, the necessary higher step, not the opposite of it.

Along with other statements about pleasure:

...
Without pleasure, there is no[130] life; the struggle for pleasure is the struggle for life. Whether the individual shall carry on this struggle in such a way that he be called good or in such a way that he be called bad is something that the standard and the capacity of his own intellect must determine for him.

 

[TeTe]

There are a couple mods id like to call cucks, racists, Nazis, question their moderating capabilities and lead a revolt against

But I wont do that without written consent

Bud?

 

[HomerThompson]

Meanwhile, Hunto had to fly to Vegas for additional testing after actually being cleared to fight because the UFC is concerned for fighter safety.

I'm the only candidate who liked this post, Limbo. I think that's worth a vote.

 

[HomerThompson]

Why is there two meme threads?

*are

 

[JonesBones]

If you want to see the stock of your company soar, immediately announce you are in the blockchain business. Wow. This biotech company decided it wanted to be a blockchain company and their stock went from $8 to $23 in 5 days.

RIOT it is called. another went from 1 to 6 in 5 days. MARA.

 

[Harmonica]

Along with other statements about pleasure:

Appreciating pleasure is not necessarily hedonistic in itself, although it can be. It all depends on said pleasure's origin.

We are outside of the hedonistic sphere as long as we're talking about pleasure as the pleasant feeling which accompanies the growth of power. However, people sometimes either quit their quest for growth due to stumbling across a seemingly insurmountable obstacle and resort to deceiving themselves via simulating the growth of power by invoking pleasure through other means, or simply become conscious of the ingrained reward mechanism and decide to cheat by rewarding themselves unduly.

A hedonist is a person who holds the latter type of pleasure in the highest regard; a person whose life revolves around chasing pleasure of this particular origin. To quote this one guy who put it nicely, "they pin the needle in their car's fuel indicator to 'full' just because it makes them feel better, and end up running out of gas prematurely" or "trick their stomachs to feel full, so that they never experience the emotion of hunger, and end up starving themselves to death."

Having said all that, Nietzsche was not a hedonist by any stretch of the imagination. Neither his writings nor lifestyle suggest anything of the sort. Sure, he did consider pleasure to be important and deeply appreciated it, but only as a telltale of power's growth, not as a thing in itself.

 

[snakedafunky]

@Deffid Did you watch the soccer on the weekend?
I didn't really have time, so I turned the game off after 12 minutes because it was kind of boring.
Did anything interesting happen after that? I didn't have time to check the scores yet.
But I can't imagine this Derby will go down in history or anything.

 

[Ruprecht]

Appreciating pleasure is not necessarily hedonistic in itself, although it can be. It all depends on said pleasure's origin.

We are outside of the hedonistic sphere as long as we're talking about pleasure as the pleasant feeling which accompanies the growth of power. However, people sometimes either quit their quest for growth due to stumbling across a seemingly insurmountable obstacle and resort to deceiving themselves via simulating the growth of power by invoking pleasure through other means, or simply become conscious of the ingrained reward mechanism and decide to cheat by rewarding themselves unduly.

A hedonist is a person who holds the latter type of pleasure in the highest regard; a person whose life revolves around chasing pleasure of this particular origin. To quote this one guy who put it nicely, "they pin the needle in their car's fuel indicator to 'full' just because it makes them feel better, and end up running out of gas prematurely" or "trick their stomachs to feel full, so that they never experience the emotion of hunger, and end up starving themselves to death."

Having said all that, Nietzsche was not a hedonist by any stretch of the imagination. Neither his writings nor lifestyle suggest anything of the sort. Sure, he did consider pleasure to be important and deeply appreciated it, but only as a telltale of power's growth, not as a thing in itself.

That shift to subsuming the pursuit of pleasure under the growth of power is what characterises the evolution of Nietzsche's later philosophy though. Explicitly with On The Genealogy Of Morality and certainly in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Earlier his philosophical framework for understanding human action revolved around the pursuit of pleasure, the avoidance of pain and, as the quotes I posted indicate, he conceived of the pursuit of pleasure as essential to the acts of highest value in human life. All of which is text book hedonism.
The shift happened when his triangle with Lou Andreas-Salome and Paul Ree dissolved, and he started to be overtly critical of Ree's focus on hedonistic motivation and utilitarianism (which is essentially linked to hedonistic motivation) as a philosophy.
I think you're conflating hedonism with the sort of "vulgar hedonism" which would include the retreat from rational behaviour into the comfort of narcotics. Nietzsche was always critical of that, but he nonetheless started out his description of human behaviour under a hedonistic framework.

At the foundation of all beliefs lie sensations of pleasure or pain in relation to the apprehending subject. A third feeling, as the result of two prior, single, separate feelings, is judgment in its crudest form. We organic beings are primordially interested by nothing whatever in any thing (Ding) except its relation to ourselves with reference to pleasure and pain. Between the moments in which we are conscious of this relation, (the[43] states of feeling) lie the moments of rest, of not-feeling: then the world and every thing (Ding) have no interest for us: we observe no change in them (as at present a person absorbed in something does not notice anyone passing by).

All of which only relates tangentially to Ayn Rand (who never credited Nietzsche's influence as far as I know), and not at all to Peterson. So if you want to continue this I say we take it to the OT thread.

 

[Quipling]

@Jack V Savage

I assume you're familiar with burton malkiel. Any thoughts? I just read his big book.

 

[Deffid]

@Deffid Did you watch the soccer on the weekend?
I didn't really have time, so I turned the game off after 12 minutes because it was kind of boring.
Did anything interesting happen after that? I didn't have time to check the scores yet.
But I can't imagine this Derby will go down in history or anything.

I just hope that Bosz will be history.

After all it was just another shitty performance by us and another shitty derby draw worth one point, nothing more.

What is pathetic is that everyone knew that we won't win after the first Schalke goal already, fucking disgraceful.

 

[Harmonica]

Earlier his philosophical framework for understanding human action revolved around the pursuit of pleasure, the avoidance of pain and, as the quotes I posted indicate, he conceived of the pursuit of pleasure as essential to the acts of highest value in human life. All of which is text book hedonism.

Fair enough, you defended your position thoroughly, that's why I liked your post with citations in the first place. It was obvious that you didn't have the crude understanding of hedonism in mind when you attributed it to his philosophy.

My goal was nothing more than to defend him against the accusations of being a hedonist in the sense I described above, being that this isn't a specialized philosophy forum and people therefore tend to associate words with their conventional, mundane meaning.

I wrongly presupposed that's what you had in mind when you labeled him.

 

[Ruprecht]

Fair enough, you defended your position thoroughly, that's why I liked your post with citations in the first place. It was obvious that you didn't have the crude understanding of hedonism in mind when you attributed it to his philosophy.

My goal was nothing more than to defend him against the accusations of being a hedonist in the sense I described above, being that this isn't a specialized philosophy forum and people therefore tend to associate words with their conventional, mundane meaning.

I wrongly presupposed that's what you had in mind when you labeled him.

Well, I can't say that's what @Bullitt68 meant, but that's my undestanding of Nietzsche's hedonism.
I wouldn't personally attribute Ayn Rand's personal failings to it, but then my opinion of Rand isn't very high.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

I assume you're familiar with burton malkiel. Any thoughts? I just read his big book.

He's a legend. Kind of a broad question, though. To some degree, I think he's like Voros McCracken, who's a former amateur baseball analyst who first made and effectively defended the claim that pitchers don't vary in their ability to prevent balls in play from becoming hits. It revolutionized how people analyze pitchers and more importantly pointed people in the direction of effectively analyzing defense statistically. Hugely important discovery, and McCracken is also a legend. But his discovery wasn't, strictly speaking, correct. It's more accurate to say that annual variations in the ability of major league pitchers (pitchers who are particularly bad at this don't last) to prevent balls in play from becoming hits is much smaller than the variations due to luck, park effects, and team defense. I think that pretty much applies to what Malkiel is most famous for (and note that he's done a lot of good work besides that). Like McCracken's DIPS (defense-independent pitching statistics), it's good enough for most people, but it's not the whole story. Cliff Asness is someone you might want to read to get more of it (and I don't endorse everything he says--actually have some big disagreements with him), but for your own purposes, Malkiel is good enough.

 

[Denter]

Appreciating pleasure is not necessarily hedonistic in itself, although it can be. It all depends on said pleasure's origin.

We are outside of the hedonistic sphere as long as we're talking about pleasure as the pleasant feeling which accompanies the growth of power. However, people sometimes either quit their quest for growth due to stumbling across a seemingly insurmountable obstacle and resort to deceiving themselves via simulating the growth of power by invoking pleasure through other means, or simply become conscious of the ingrained reward mechanism and decide to cheat by rewarding themselves unduly.

A hedonist is a person who holds the latter type of pleasure in the highest regard; a person whose life revolves around chasing pleasure of this particular origin. To quote this one guy who put it nicely, "they pin the needle in their car's fuel indicator to 'full' just because it makes them feel better, and end up running out of gas prematurely" or "trick their stomachs to feel full, so that they never experience the emotion of hunger, and end up starving themselves to death."

Having said all that, Nietzsche was not a hedonist by any stretch of the imagination. Neither his writings nor lifestyle suggest anything of the sort. Sure, he did consider pleasure to be important and deeply appreciated it, but only as a telltale of power's growth, not as a thing in itself.

I hope I'm not imposing too much but I believe the source of pleasure was the feeling of "I will"- the (false) perception that one's conscious mind has power or makes decisions.