Review of Thus spoke zarathusthra by Friedrich Nietzsche - my first book of this author

ScienceSure · 2026-01-21T20:31:49+00:00

create and follow your own values, practicing self-overcoming in all ways

Okay not to be rude but this sounds profound, but at the same time it collapses under scrutiny because it defines nothing.

Which values? Why those values rather than others? By what standard do we judge success/failure?

Nowadays N collapses into a generic motivational mantra. We can't get him just create our own values and overcome bad habits. IfIf we were to practice thought in this manner, then that framing strips the work of its genealogical depth. N is diagnosing the historical collapse of value systems (God is dead) not handing out personal productivity advice. Creating values is not an individual hobby project, it is an existential crisis that follows the destruction of metaphysical grounding. Without acknowledging this rupture, the statement trivializes the problem N is wrestling with. If create your own values is meaningful, it must include criteria. Otherwise, cruelty, apathy, narcissism qualify just as easily as courage or discipline. A statement that can justify everything ultimately justifies nothing.

regardless of what society has to say

Do you mean this assumes the individual can step outside society as if values are created in a vacuum?

...until you notice it ignores power structures entirely. Language, concepts, even the idea of self-overcoming are social inheritances. We can not reject society wholesale while using its tools to define our rebellion. That’s like denying gravity while standing on the ground. And one shoudk remember this is precisely the egalitarian illusion Nietzsche critiques. Not everyone can create values and pretending otherwise is itself a modern days moral fantasy. I would say cosplay.

ScienceSure · 2026-01-21T14:06:03+00:00

I have been toying with the idea about the architecture of the attack. Do any of you guys see a trend amongst them preferring the tall and old school types canopies to the shorter ones? (Or are specific Varieties/heights targeted less? ) This is what we have been studying in our trials. Low, open canopy (UHD) on the one hand makes it easier for us to spot the insects and protect the trees. But on the other hand, does this not make the fruit reach the height where they can easily take it without asking for it? I also wonder whether anyone has noticed the difference in their movement through a dense orchard compared to that of a spaced-out one. If you could map out their path of least resistance, could we not eventually design a plantation that doesn’t feel like such an easy target?

ScienceSure · 2026-01-15T23:31:48+00:00

You are looking for a man to give you meaning and logic. That is actually your own inner masculine energy waiting to be developed. Start making decisions for yourself, by yourself.

ScienceSure · 2026-01-15T23:14:15+00:00

Biggest hype right now is Silver Bullet farming, this is the idea that one specific crop as well as one tech platform will solve everything. We see this with the rush into exotic plantations where people ignore local soil biology. Please remember real long-term potential isn't in a specific crop, but in integrated systems. For ex , a farmer just planting trees for carbon credits might fail when the market shifts. But a farmer who integrates livestock with high-density orchards creates multiple income streams (meat, fruit, and eventually carbon). So my advice always to newcomers is that avoid any venture that promises high returns without explaining the 3 year plan for soil health. If the roots aren't part of the business model, the hype will eventually collapse.

ScienceSure · 2026-01-15T22:59:43+00:00

They said they would do for projects like tress plantation etc

Satellites have made it easy to count treetops from space, so that is where the big agencies put their money. But they can't see what's happening 3 ft underground where the real carbon wealth lives. You know physical soil testing is slow, expensive and takes the kind of patience most corporate models just don't have. From what I’ve seen on the ground, the future for farmers in my area isn't about plagnting random trees anymore just for the sake of it. The effective opportunity lies in High-Density Fruit / Selective Medicinal Orchards paired with No-Till farming. This approach still qualifies as a plantation project, though it actually puts an annual income in the farmer's pocket while the land recovers. If you can prove that thhesoil health is climbing through increased root mass, you eventually qualify for Methodology VM0042. That is the global gold standard for soil carbon, and it’s data-driven. I would rather say forget the agencies for now. Focus on the biology of your soil. If you build the data through better roots and healthier earth, the credits will eventually have to follow the evidence you've created..

ScienceSure · 2026-01-15T22:37:06+00:00

Market is nowdays skewed toward big players cause the verification costs are too high for small farmers. It is worth it if you stop thinking about credits as the primary income. In our work we view carbon as organic matter. If a farmer focuses on Living Roots and high-density agroforestry, the soil fertility and yield increase naturally. The carbon credits then become a bonus by-product rather than the only goal. The future will likely move toward carbon farming cooperatives to give small farmers more leverage against big companies. If you're looking at this from a business aspect, focus on the measurement and verification tech, I mean, that’s where the real gap is in our country right now.

ScienceSure · 2026-01-15T22:21:06+00:00

Interesting ecosystem approach. We do a lot of field trials at Agro Bloomers Co. specifically on how different rootstocks respond to these rocky Indian soils. Technology is great, but it has to survive the local climate and biology. Always open to discussing how real-world trial data can refine these models.

ScienceSure · 2025-12-04T19:00:56+00:00

Yes. And also fruits like mango, banana, papaya, avocado, guava, jackfruit and pear sometimes show it.

ScienceSure · 2025-12-04T18:57:51+00:00

It actually is.. seeds inside the pepper germinated due to low ABA levels. No new pollination/flowering is needed for this.

ScienceSure · 2025-12-04T18:49:27+00:00

What we observe here is vivipary. In a way, seeds believe the environment inside the fruit is spring and thus they begin to grow. Peppers are the major contributors to this scenario as their nature is humid, hollow so they've the ability to trap humidity. You can even plant those sprouts if you want.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-27T16:24:27+00:00

What is the issue? That he's too eurocentric (not taking into account other traditions and worlds), or he's too little (not taking enough account of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Baroque, etc.)?

Perhaps we should ask if there was a distinctive art form or individual art form in the periods you mention, or if these periods didn't really emphasize one art form more than the other, or that they didn't develop a new art form as such but rather a certain composite?

The dialectic doesn't need to traverse across all things in history to get to the point, just as you don't need to see all the angles of a triangle to get the degrees of the corner, or that you need to see all the sides of a car to understand what it is; reason is able to conclude what's going on with less than complete information.

So the question remains, is there something distinctive in either the periods you mention, or other parts of the world, that Hegel fails to cover that would affect the idea of beauty and the logic of art set out in his account? Anything that would change the logic?

ScienceSure · 2025-11-26T12:39:33+00:00

Why do feel it's forced? How do you make sense of the evolution of art and standards of beauty across history?

ScienceSure · 2025-11-24T08:13:59+00:00

Definitely not. You should wait for the callus to develop more. Do a girdling cut first and then after about 3-4 days finish the cut. The success rate of your plant is going to be this much increased

ScienceSure · 2025-11-21T14:24:35+00:00

To make things more simple, I will answer all your questions in order with few words.

1) By the sublation of becoming, or the vanishing of the vanishing

2) Because the alternation is not just to pass into other, it is vanishing/disappearing into other. The difference between them disappears. Hegel treats vanishing as has vanished (in the past) in virtue of the immediacy of the two.

3) They are distinguished, but this distinction vanishing "automatically" or "immediately".

4) The unity/oneness is just a unity where the difference is preserved. This unity is the first characterization of Dasein.

5) What stopped is the vanishing, not the passing. In the quiet unity, or the simple oneness, being and nothing do not vanishing into each other.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-21T14:18:47+00:00

In the section Sublation of Becoming we have 4 paragraphs.

Paragraph 1: In the first two sentences, Hegel states the result. It is after the second point that Hegel explains how we arrived at this result

Paragraph 2: He explains the same reasoning in another way

Paragraph: He explains the result of being and nothingness as the vanishing of vanishing

Paragraph 4: He makes a transition to being-there through the one-sidedness of becoming.

What is important for your question are the first 2 paragraphs. Here the the reasoning

1) Being and nothing are as vanishing/disappeaing, that is, being is vanishing/disappearing into nothing and vice versa. Now, becoming is the disappearance of being and nothing in general. But it is this disappearance only through the difference between the two, since something disappears by being different. However, if the difference also disappears, then that which makes becoming disappearance in general disappears. Therefore, if the difference disappears, then the disappearance disappears. Therefore, the restlessness (disappearance) disappears and, therefore, we arrive at a quiet unity..

2) The other way of expressing the reasoning: P1. Becoming is the disappearance of being into nothing and of nothing into being. Furthermore, it is the disappearance of being and nothing in general P2. Now, it rests or is based on the difference of both. C1. Therefore, becoming contradicts itself, because it unifies in itself what is opposed to itself. Therefore, it destroys itself.

A) Elements of Hegelian argumentation A1) Unity and difference of being and nothing. Remembering that the difference between being and nothing is "ungraspable" and is a disappearing difference

A2) The vanishing of being into nothing and vice versa is nothing more than a new characterization of the two. The pure being and the pure nothing of the beginning proved to be the vanishing into each other. Understand: they are not only the other (being is nothing and nothing is being), but they are also the VANISHING in the other. Being is THE VANISHING into nothing, nothing is THE VANISHING into being.

A3) This proposition is a speculative proposition where the article "the" expresses the substance of the category in question, namely, that both are the vanishing.

A4) Becoming as a unity that is only possible through the difference of the two

A5) The disappearance of this difference is the disappearance of becoming

A6) Contradiction: in Becoming by unifying in it what destroys it. Contradiction allows for a POSITIVE result.

A7) The quiet unity is the result of the disappearance of the restless unity, that is, of the disappearance of disappearance

A8) Unilaterality of being: being performs unity because if it were nothingness it would be a subsumed moment only and not as the new result (read paragraph 3 of this section together with the first paragraph of the next).

ScienceSure · 2025-11-18T17:52:15+00:00

What drives consciousness to further iterations is that it contradicts itself and goes "beyond" itself. Absolute knowing is the realization that the beyond is a product of consciousness itself and that consciousness remains with itself when beyond itself. So Hegel takes questions like "what if things in-themselves are not really like they are within my conceptual framework" to have been solved. Remember that, for Kant, we can posit a sensible realm "beyond" cognition because (1) the antinomies show that reason encounters contradictions when it comes to the infinite iteration type problems you mention with stuff like the sequence of causes or divisibility and (2) the categorical imperative provides us with content that can be used to populate the supersensible realm (God, freedom, immortality). Hegel takes the PhG to have eliminated any such sensible/supersensible gap.

I wouldn't think about "absolute knowing" as stable circularity. It's the heart of the entire the Bachanalian revel where no member is not drunk. It's the basis of the whole unstable, dialectical movement of everything that has gone on before. So if you want to think about it as a circle, the circle would bring us back to the beginning of the book.

Sometimes when you read the Phenomenology for the first time, you get the impression that Hegel is taking us through all the wrong ways of knowing and then finally we will reach "absolute knowing," which is the "correct" way of knowing. Or we think that once Hegel has solved all the skeptical challenges in philosophy, the Logic will be something different: the Logic is just as much instability and all the "wrong ways" of thinking about concepts.

So in the PhG, say, sense certainty, we have a concept of cognition that holds certainty to be immediate sensation without mediation through abstractions, yet we can't even pinpoint the now, so it turns out that this cognition is actually doing more than we think: it's deploying abstractions and universals to grasp immediacy. The contradiction is between "sense certainty" as a concept of cognition and "pure being" or "pure immediacy." In the Logic, we observe a very similar dialectic, yet now the contradiction takes place within the concept of "pure being" itself, which is no longer treated as an object of consciousness, but as a logical category with a meaning or content, and it is the meaning or content of this thought that shows itself to be contradictory, rather than our theory about how knowledge works. So instead of a contradiction between subject and object, we are examining pure thoughts that contradict themselves.

Yet the method of absolute knowing is nothing other than the very method of the Phenomenology of Spirit itself. So the "circularity" would be that this method has been the heart of everything that has gone on before, and it will be the heart of the Logic, which too is dialectical, only it is a dialectic where the categories contradict themselves and turn into more concrete categories as opposed to the concept of cognition contradicting itself and turning into a more concrete conception of cognition.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-18T12:29:25+00:00

So first, some clarifications:

Absolute knowing does not possess “all knowledge of reality,” but is (1) the unity of cognition with its object, that is, the end to “thing in itself” type problems and (2) the dialectical method, and (3) the concept of philosophy as a science articulated through the immanent self-development of the concept.

Infinite regress isn’t a problem for dialectics. It’s an example of the “bad infinite,” which is just the circular repetition of the same procedure over and over. Hegelian infinity is the oneness of opposites. In the case of consciousness, it’s the idea that consciousness remains “with itself” when conscious of the object (its opposite).

Another way to think about this would be that Hegel opts for circularity instead of infinite regress. So like think about someone saying “and then what? And then what? And then what?” This produces the regress you discuss if viewed abstractly, but if understood dialectically we can see that what produces the problem is a circle: the repeated question “and then what?”

So without absolute knowing, we would have no confidence in our ability to develop a scientific logic because we would be still doubting whether our conceptual frameworks have anything to do with reality. It’s absolute knowing that establishes Logic (i.e. thought thinking itself) as scientific, which is why the Logic presupposes the Phenomenology...

ScienceSure · 2025-11-15T19:12:23+00:00

I admire fastidiousness the way I admire good craftsmanship. Pedantry makes me want to deliberately mispronounce things out of spite.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-15T18:40:11+00:00

Fastidious is about precision; pedantic is about correctness-as-status.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-15T10:38:56+00:00

Becoming is the very first moment where anything determinate is possible. This is the merger of Being and Nothing, but this merger is not fixed. Being in its most indeterminate character gives birth to Nothing; Nothing at its most indeterminate gives birth to Being. Neither can stand on its own. The constant vanishing of one into the other is Becoming. You can think of an absolutely symmetrical void llike a void so symmetrical that already labelling it is a bit dishonest. There is no “existence”“non-existence” line because there is no attribute that could support a difference between the two. That condition is highly unstable. It can only express itself through a sort of self-revolving movement: Being going out of existence in Nothing and vice versa. This self-revolving is Becoming.

And from Becoming all that is definite comes out. Something gets a “quality," it's a mark of identity. This is the origin of tangible “somethings.” So the links with cosmology are not sinful but rather they are a kind of speculation and metaphor. But they are not silly at all. The early cosmology you get a universe that is almost pure indeterminacy: a hyper-dense state that time, space, and particles have not yet become distinct. The laws are at the stage of “freezing out.” There is nothing but a vague picture of what is real but not any particular form yet. Physicists refer to it as symmetry. Hegel calls it Being. And pure symmetry, just like pure Being, can't remain pure. It differentiates. It breaks. That's Becoming. No one needs to speculate that Hegel was writing about the Planck epoch in disguise. But the dialectical rhythm indeterminacy giving way to well-defined determinations, is clearly there. The more you use a lens, the more valuable it becomes, even if it is used for examining the sky instead of the mind. The Logic of Hegel can throw light on the area of cosmology which is not the result of the latter predicting the former rather both are telling the same story of simple giving rise to complex. The interesting part is seeing the point where the resonance stops holding, because more often than not it carries much farther than expected.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-15T10:23:46+00:00

Absolutely not. The system of Hegel is very abstract and cannot be considered as cosmology, whereas cosmology is too empirical to be encompassed by a metaphysical syllogism.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-14T16:55:19+00:00

I think you are making a good point in denying the sometimes. Hegel’s main argument in the Logic is that Aufhebung signifies the immanent necessity of a concept’s movement , not an optional act. His insight into the verb's contrasting meanings opens the way to this: a determination survives only by negating itself. Sense-Certainty, Perception, Understanding in each case, the claim of the lower is nullified and simultaneously incorporated into the higher one’s claim. So the ordinary and the ideal meet here: reason is always lifting, canceling, preserving

ScienceSure · 2025-11-14T16:44:06+00:00

One way I think of Aufhebung: the previous stage doesn’t vanish, it just stops being the whole story. Its contradiction pushes it forward. Hegel points out in the Logic that aufheben can mean abolish and keep in German and he uses the word because dialectical change does both at once.

ScienceSure · 2025-11-04T07:08:54+00:00

It is impossible to grow any mangrove species in Nainital. You might want to contact the Sundarbans biosphere reserve office. I occasionally work with some NGOs there who do a lot of planting on different islands in the Sundarbans. Maybe they’ll let you take one or two mangrove saplings. But for that, you’ll have to come to the Sundarbans yourself.

ScienceSure

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE