Hello,

More of my philosophy about the logical proof that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche thought that morality is not universal..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think i am a smart philosopher, so how can i prove that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche thought that morality is not universal ?

I will say that you can easily notice it by the fact that he has said
the following:

"It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak."

That means in french:
"C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.",

So the above saying of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is a proof
that he recognized that there is different kinds of morals like the morals of the slaves or the weak and morals of the strong humans or the strong. Read more my following thoughts about it and about Stoicism and existentialism and about how i am explaining that the essence of morality is universal:

More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more..

I have just looked at the following video about:

NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the
philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since
he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It
is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man
that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is
smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it
seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in
the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery
over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply
existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy,
because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you
are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my
below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent
philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsch
is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism:

More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and
Existentialism..

I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy:

Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020

And notice that it says the following:

“The Stoics suggest that what’s most important in order to lead a good
life is internal rather than external. It’s about developing the right
character, the right state of mind,”

I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the
logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that
developing the right character and the right state of the mind in
Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external
reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we
can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop
self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions
and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough
hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and
fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a
failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in
french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of
existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that
this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the
question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural
side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is
"not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a
purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and
like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life
is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not
absurd, and read it below.

My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more..

I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy:

SARTRE - Le regard des autres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI

I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking,
since first you have to understand the following:

Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french:
"L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of
existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that
predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence
that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope"
by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that
humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture
is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i
think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And
Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert
Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here
again i am not in accordand with it, since i say that human existence is
not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy:

How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ?

I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it
relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative
measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that
i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like
absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will
start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd",
and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very
basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive
or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a
human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of
smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like
absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at
all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world
or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy,
since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so
that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as
i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i
can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the
above philosophical question since you have to measure how
to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by
looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today
humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the
basis of my philosophy by reading it below:

I think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy
i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and
human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings
beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit
us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate
much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it
also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't
look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically
understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs

More of my philosophy about the ideas of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and more..

I invite you to read the following article about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

The Ideas Of Friedrich Nietzsche

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ideas-friedrich-nietzsche-dr-marcel-pflug-mba

I think i am a smart philosopher, and i am noticing that the philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer are inferior philosophers, and i will explain as following:

Notice in the above article the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has a problem with morality, and he thought, like the philosopher Spinoza, that morality is not universal and he also thought that since for example for the strong human the good becomes the brave, powerful, rich, and strong, so he thought that the strong human will have the tendency to discriminate the weak people, so then the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche thought that morality was not working, but i think that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was an inferior philosopher since i think i am a philosopher that is smart and i am explaining that the essence of morality is universal and progressive, read my thoughts below about it to understand, and also i am saying that we have not to be pessimistic as the philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer, since i have just spoken about the value of specialization that gives a self-esteem to the individuals of a society and i am explaining in my below thoughts of my new philosophy how we have to be optimistic about human life, and i invite you to read my below thoughts so that to understand:

Amine Moulay Ramdane asks if John Baez & Marcela Carena can multiply 9 times 105.

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 5:57:18 PM UTC-5, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> Hello,

Why is UCR John Baez a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.

Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.

Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.

But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.

AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".

AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.

Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am John Baez, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I attacked the man, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, John Baez feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages