RT @curtdoolittle: @RussellJohnston @tristan5600 @WClementeIII Unfortunately, I can’t and don’t use analogies – they produce room for infla…
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-01 04:10:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752907348836819186
It’s not true. He died as is father did from the same brain disease, and we do not know what it was. But the syphilis fiction was invented decades after he died on speculation.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s health issues and the cause of his father’s death have been subjects of speculation and debate among historians and biographers. The diagnosis of syphilis, traditionally cited in relation to Nietzsche, has been contested in recent years, with scholars proposing alternative explanations for their health problems. Here are several diseases and conditions that have been suggested as possible causes or contributing factors to Nietzsche’s and his father’s illnesses, aside from syphilis:
For Nietzsche:
Brain Cancer:Some researchers have speculated that Nietzsche may have suffered from a form of brain cancer, which could account for his severe headaches, vision problems, and eventual mental collapse.
Bipolar Disorder:Nietzsche’s periods of intense productivity followed by profound depression have led some to suggest he may have had bipolar disorder.
Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD):This is a group of brain disorders caused by degeneration of the frontal and/or temporal lobes of the brain, affecting personality, behavior, and language. Symptoms can include erratic behavior, emotional issues, and difficulties with speech, which Nietzsche exhibited in his later years.
Autoimmune Diseases:Conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have been proposed as potential explanations for Nietzsche’s complex array of symptoms, including his neurological and psychological changes.
Cadmium Poisoning:Some biographers have posited that Nietzsche’s symptoms were consistent with heavy metal poisoning, cadmium in particular, which could have come from his habitual use of a water pitcher made from cadmium-contaminated pewter.
For Nietzsche’s Father:
Softening of the Brain:Nietzsche’s father died after a period of illness characterized by symptoms such as headaches, loss of vision, and dementia. At the time, his condition was described as “softening of the brain,” a non-specific term that could correspond to several conditions, including brain tumors, strokes, or neurodegenerative diseases.
Stroke:Some of the symptoms and the sudden onset of illness in Nietzsche’s father could be indicative of a stroke, which can lead to a rapid decline in neurological function.
Neurodegenerative Diseases:Conditions like Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia could potentially explain the symptoms and progression of Nietzsche’s father’s illness, given the descriptions of his declining cognitive abilities.
Reply addressees: @HickRecusant
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-01 02:23:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752880255071625216
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749879531337396722
Of course. Sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, truth before face regardless of cost.
See:
https://naturallawinstitute.com/docs/part-xx-reforms-constitution/part-seven-the-reforms/constitution-laws-of-nature/constitution-the-natural-law/
Source date (UTC): 2024-02-01 00:13:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752847516201025711
Reply addressees: @FlashGorgone @mises @BobMurphyEcon @ThomasEWoods @WalterEBlock @petergklein
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752840410299335033
(Of course you are not. If you were it wouldn’t be instinct and intuition, but rational choice. It’s just that some of us, almost exclusively male, are biased to the truth (‘regardless of face and regardless of cost”) and we can’t find more than single digits of women who can. In fact, we can’t even find women who don’t fall for the Naxalt/Axalt fallacy (which you’ve already done a few times). Female empathizing is extremely useful at small scale. But it doesn’t scale. Male systematizing is exeptional at scale, but such generalizations are not always applicable to the individual case. So men and wome are complimentary. But we are very different. and the degree to which we are different is far more so than we’d assumed, even before the marxist-feminist pseudoscientific attempt to claim otherwise. )
Reply addressees: @Womenrising2023 @AutistocratMS @NoahRevoy
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 23:12:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752832260795944960
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752830974256095609
I LOVE THE LIBERTARIANS – ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT TAUGHT ME.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the @Mises Institute people, especially David Gordon, @BobMurphyEcon, @ThomasEWoods, and @WalterEBlock, as well as Tom DeLorenzo, Jeff Herbener, Guido Hulsmann, @PetergKlein Mark Thornton, Roger Garrison, and of course, Hans Hoppe. I’ve learned so much from all of them.
The fact that it turns out that libertarianism in the Rothbardian model simply is not survivable, and is nothing close in moral and ethical content as well as ‘propertarian’ logic as the common, concurrent, natural law of the european people that’s evolved over the past five thousand years.
So they’re just wrong. That doesn’t mean that the WAY that they’re wrong isn’t in some way a want of a higher moral standard we wish man would aspire to. It means that we must built social, economic, and political orders with the people that exist and the incentives that texist, not those we wish existed.
It’s taken me a long time to come to terms with the difference between the aristocratic tradition I was raised in, and the middle class and upper middle class, and sometimes te pseudo-priestly class that many other thinkers have been raised in. And there are precious few of us in that anglo aristocratic tradition remaining. And so we find ourselves even further distanced from the morals of our middle and upper middle class libertarian allies, as the distance from our lower and underclass men and women race to the bottom.
It will be very difficult to reconstruct aristocratic traditions without the force of aristocratic men. Only within that reconstruction are tolerable the follies of the middle and lower classes – especially the talking classes that seek attention and tatus by non-performative means.
So in the end we must take responsibility for the silly and less able people whose traditions prohibit the responsibility necessary to produce the luxury of their follies.
There is no alternative to rule of law by the natural law of sovereignty reciprocity truth duty excellence beauty before face, self, family and clan, by test the natural law, commonality it’s negativa findings of the court, and concurrency in our positiva choices for commons. Its the optimum evolutionary velocity for those who are able.
And for those that are unable, unwilling, and immoral, evolution has no mercy and will have no mercy upon us for our undue tolerance.
Someone must be responsible.
Or no one is.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 22:59:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752829016057225216
(worth repeating)
I don’t do philosophy. I do science and law. In matters of conflict resolution opinions don’t matter. Measurements do. And I work in measurements. If you need mommy’s comforts seek them in her skirts, or a priests cossack, or a therapist’s chair. Hopefully their comforts will assist you into maturing into adulthood and responsibility despite the extended childhood that the masses like yourself failed to mature out of, largely because of the failure of our institutions to assist you in that maturity.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 19:09:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752771059948883968
Nonsensical statement.
Truth is what it is.
Decidability in law is what it is.
the fact that you cannot make the distinction between a system of measurement and the normal biases and beliefs and foibles all of us are victim to is more a matter of ‘groupthink’ than any scientific proposition.
I don’t do philosophy. I do science and law. In matters of conflict resolution opinions don’t matter. Measurements do. And I work in measurements.
If you need mommy’s comforts seek them in her skirts, or a priests cossack, or a therapist’s chair. Hopefully their comforts will assist you into maturing into adulthood and responsibility despite the extended childhood that the masses like yourself failed to mature out of, largely because of the failure of our institutions to assist you in that maturity.
Reply addressees: @leith_harmon @raw_power_play @ScottAdamsSays
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 19:08:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752770938267959296
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752754908904788203
Idiosyncratic experience is no evidence.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 06:28:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752579551559848430
Reply addressees: @Womenrising2023 @AutistocratMS @NoahRevoy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752553914140926241
It’s a bedrock of objective morality.
Instead you’re claiming something that does not have that bedrock, which I am absolutely positive you cannot express as such a bedrock, and where the evidence is that people vary greatly in their practices opinions and beliefs, you are simply stating a falsehood about your claim in order to invalidate the opposing position.
It’s a scientific, objective, universal, rational, illogical, empirical fact that all morality can be expressed in the natural law as a universal in all circumstances. Period.
That people can be taught it like taught anything else is rather obvious. That the manner I would write it so that it was free from undermining and sedition says nothing about how that same morality would be taught to children.
Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC @_Itsmrfoxy_
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 16:50:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752373719668764678
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752370377739678103
The benefit of Deism, is that it avoids the particularism of the competing cults (religions) and instead says that yes, there is a universal ethical and moral law, and that law is not the work of man but the work of nature and nature’s god. Religions are competing opinions. Laws of nature are monopolies. As such any religion that claims opposition to the natural law of cooperation is in fact false. There is no need for supernatural origins other than the fact that you probably do not like, trust, and in fact likely hate your neighbor – which of course, is why and how monopoly religons of abrahamism came into existence: separatism.
Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 15:35:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752354879404752896
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752344953819464029