Nilsi

What you miss is that > 99% of people are not even interested in that much responsibility and freedom - they just want an easy comfortable life in the herd; that we can supply.

Thats why you peasants can keep following your categorical imperative.

I already told you what my ethics are. I believe exceptional men should assert their will on the world. There are really only two choices you have: Either you believe in exceptional men, or you believe everyone should follow the golden rule. In other words, either you believe in the Übermensch or you believe in some egalitarian utopia - or you are just not thinking about this very much.

Before you say, "oh that's terrible, you should not detach yourself from such acts as murder - you should have a bad conscience" -- oh yeah? Out society has the same control mechanisms that are in place in the mob. We pay money to have a subset of people take care of all the ugly problematic people that make us feel bad about ourselves. We put those people in prisons and mental institutions, where we don't have to look at them any longer. Is this entire system not designed so as to salve our conscience and have us be as distanced from this as possible? Out of sight out of mind. We do this for good reason, of course - and so does the Don.

There is no conflict if I don't believe in the ethics. If I secretly thought everyone should act according to the CI and then break it, there would be conflict. But if I don't believe in it in the first place, why would there be conflict? You can push this philosophy to it's limits and at some point everyone will break. I'm sure Tate would have a bad conscience if he choked one of his girls to death or murdered one with an axe or whatever. It's arguable whether such acts would ever be necessary in the first place to assert your creative vision though, so I'm not sure this is a sensible question. The Don doesn't shoot his adversaries himself of course; he might not even have to tell his minions to do so, or ever even find out about it - so there is no bad conscience for him.

I was once asking it about book recommendations -- anyways, one grabbed my interest. After unsuccessfully searching every corner of the internet for this book I asked it again "When was this book published?" --- turns out the book doesn't even exist.

That's fair. In many instances I've realized that it gave me a wrong answer and when I confronted it just went "whoops, yeah that was wrong, my bad." I wonder how many times this has happened already without me noticing

Develop a skill (aka mastery). You want to be a writer, no? Practice deliberately every day Get a copywriting gig (just cold email as many people as it takes for you to get hired) Build a personal brand on Twitter Become the authority in some niche (maybe it's spiritual practice for you) Position yourself well; who are you talking to? (e.g. successful entrepreneurs -- they have the money) Create an offer (e.g. "I will get you a beautiful girl in 3 months - one that loves you, is loyal, gives great blowjob's and cooks dinner for you - by teaching you how to reach a state of no mind through meditation; - you will be able to approach and pick up girls effortlessly and you will have the necessary clarity of mind to make out the good girls from the bad") Do consulting calls (you can charge 1000s of $s) Something like that would be a rather straight forward path to financial independence. The key is that you consistently perform the procedures that are necessary to get there.

I feel that way about Ken Wilber nowadays. He's more of a magician than a philosopher to me. He bombards you with 1000s of references, strings them all together in a somewhat sensible way and all of a sudden he presents you with a theory that explains the entire universe. Not that I disagree with anything he says, it's just hard to follow what's going on. With someone like Nietzsche you can at least understand why he came to the conclusions he did, but Wilber's mind is a giant black box to me.

Who's saying you should neglect aspects of yourself? I'm not a Nietzsche puritan; this was before psychoanalysis and developmental psychology - of course you should be as integrated as possible. I don't see how some universal ethics are necessary for my wholeness though. In any case, there will be tradeoffs and individual differences, depending on what role you want to play, your personality, genetics etc. - nothing new.

That's fantastic, but then again, the body is not everything - and you can't afford all the bio hacking you would need to maxx your physique out anyways. You're essentially arguing that no one should have it all and I'm saying I'd rather some people have it all.

Universal ethics makes satisfying aesthetic needs difficult.

Nietzsches conception of power is more akin to Freuds Libido or Platos Eros - kinda. Its fundamentally about asserting your vision of the world and doing so increasingly effective - he would have no problem with you asserting your version of "autonomy, competence and belonging;" he would however have a problem with you hesitating to do so, because of ethical quandries. Its important to get that he wrote his philosophy for kings and emperors, not for peasants; and did so mainly as a reaction to moral universalism. He was not interested in creating a philosopy that could work for everyone; thats the whole idea behind the Übermensch - the exceptional man whose ends justify all means. The peasants have to follow the categorical imperative, of course, or all hell breaks loose.

If he's just faking it, yeah. Maybe you're right. But it would be a better story if he couldn't handle the pressure anymore, gave up his divine claim to power and then got sacked by the "matrix" for it.

What value does a work of art provide? Or a novel? Or philosophy? Or a movie? It inspires you, makes you dream and makes you feel emotions you didnt feel before. This is why exceptional people are an end in themselves; precisely because they are so unusual and rarefied.

The point is that he wants to offload his conscience to some other - God - instead of keeping his eyes on the price; more power. So which is it now? God is dead, or no? You cant have it both ways.

Beauty is a higher goal. An artist actualizes "their vision" - do you call that selfish and degenerate? Or could it be that this is actually a noble pursuit? We can discuss how much should be sacrificed in the name of beauty, but if we can not agree that art is not limited to a canvas, this conversation will go nowhere. You think Im joking, but Im not. Everyone is quick to surrender beauty in the name of ethics, but consider the opposite and everyone loses their shit. Of course the ideal is to find a synthesis between both beauty and goodness and Im open to that possibility, but you will always face crossroads in life where you have to make triage decisions - but you dont want to contemplate that of course.

He might not have been conscious of his Nietzschean metaphysics, but with his conversion he certainly surrendered them. Im sure he did this to appeal to the Muslims and position himself as their posterboy, but this was ultimately a self-destructive move; hes now in a moral schism and doesnt really know whats up and down anymore. He could have died happy without ever bowing to anyone, but this ship has now sailed. I dont think hes faking it btw - he might have had a vested interest in his conversion, but his faith seems to be genuine.

Much like TOOL, Radiohead is really in a league of their own and operates outside the confines of any predefined genre. This song is the epitome of beauty in simplicity; almost Bachian in it's ever evolving iterations on one theme.

Saying that Andrew Tate doesn't care about his followers is like saying Elon Musk doesn't care about the minions that build his rockets - it's obvious they are not philanthropists and just need manpower to actualize their vision; whether that vision is compelling to you or not is a different matter. As far as exploitation goes, I wouldn't be so quick to throw this word around. The only people that got exploited in Tate's scheme were the guys that got seduced by the camgirls - a rather negligible sacrifice, if you ask me.

The guy never showed up again

Not all ancient structures like the Pyramids of Giza, the Parthenon, and cathedrals were built by slaves. Some were built by skilled workers and craftsmen who were paid for their labor. However, it's true that in some cases, forced labor was used, particularly during times of war or as a form of punishment. For example, it's believed that some of the workers who built the Pyramids of Giza were conscripted laborers. However, the exact nature of their labor and status is still the subject of much debate among historians. From ChatGPT. Regardless of which structure was built by whom, you get my point, no? - in any case it were the peasants that built this as monuments to the king/emperor/ruler's power.

Are the Pyramids of Gizeh not stunning? Or the Cologne Cathedral? What about the Parthenon? All built by slaves and peasants with hundreds and thousands of poor people dying - yet we can look at these historical sites in awe and reverie; while still acknowledging that we wouldn't want to trade positions with the poor bastards that had to be sacrificed.

I don't understand his conversion either. That's when he broke character and surrendered his will to power - which is a shame. Maybe his jail sentence is God's punishment for him chickening out?

He's an exceptional man, but he doesn't give a fuck about you - hate to break it to you. Also, when exactly did the "devil get hold of him?" If you want to call him the devil, then you have to acknowledge that this was always in him. He's more akin to the Nietzschean Übermensch than the devil, but there is also a lot about him that's petty.