Nietzsche

[Kuroneko]

He seemed like he was trying to construct some sort of virtue out of courage and discipline, but all it comes across for me is 'might makes right.' His ideal person regards himself as the creator of morality, and has the power to enforce it. While not technically ethical nihilism, it is effectively so as far as I'm concerned.

Courage, yeah, but discipline, hell no; the last thing Nietzsche would encourage would be any sort of system of discipline and accountability. Discipline would limit the ability of the nobles to do whatever the hell they wanted with the commoners, and would thus be a bad thing.

You're right. But though unlike Kant, who would hold that discipline should be used to remove passion, I think Nietzsche would hold that passion should be directed by discipline... Hmm... I seem to remember something about this, but can't recollect where in his works exactly. I'll look into it, though what I said about discipline is definetely incorrect as it was stated.

[UltraViolence83]

For all Nietzsche railed against nihilism he was quite the nihilist (in many ways) himself.

He was against it? Fuck, I thought he ws FOR it! Damn, maybe I should read those two Nietzsche books I own more deeply. I don't own it, but Thus Spake Zarathustra is a great book.

[UltraViolence83]

I don't see what's wrong with nihilism anyway.

Sometimes I wonder why humans haven't destroyed themselves yet, it would be so beautifully deserving.

[UltraViolence83]

Another thing I should add: Nihilism is a great way to justify bad moods, which I am engaged in frequently. "Why bother living if we're all gonna die anyway?"

[Queeb Salaron]

I tend to distill your post into a few brief points, then a conclusion:

Point 1: Humans have a socially-oriented "nature".
Point 2: Morality is a set of guidelines necessitated by the social nature of humans.

Conclusion: Morals are derived from the specifically social "nature" of humans. Further, variable conditions within specific human cultures can produce variable guidelines, but some basic guidelines, are universal due to the universal human needs that inspired them.

Therefore, both Kojikun and Durran are correct; the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Shhh.... did you hear that? That was the sound of you hitting the nail on the head.

And here I was thinking that no one ever listened to me when I talked about Rousseau...

[Andrew J.]

Ah, I never liked him anyway. His name is too damn hard to spell right.

Anyway, the only philosophy I ever agreed with is logical empiricism, which basically says that philosophy is crap. Nature of man? Nature of God? Nature of the universe? Leave that to people with too much free time, and just live your life.

[neoolong]

Ah, I never liked him anyway. His name is too damn hard to spell right.

Anyway, the only philosophy I ever agreed with is logical empiricism, which basically says that philosophy is crap. Nature of man? Nature of God? Nature of the universe? Leave that to people with too much free time, and just live your life.

Doesn't that contradict? If LE says philosophy is crap and LE is a philosophy....

Though I think it has many uses it can't explain everything. You can use other methodologies in addition to logical empiricism.

[Kuroneko]

He was against it? Fuck, I thought he ws FOR it! Damn, maybe I should read those two Nietzsche books I own more deeply. I don't own it, but Thus Spake Zarathustra is a great book.

Nietzsche is just plain screwed up. At some points he's explicitly anti-nihilism, but then he turns around and argues things just this side of nihilism, e.g. that the weak should be 'helped to perish', etc.

My personal opinion of him is that he's a nihilist in denial.

[Joe]

He does have some interesting things to say about Christianity, I will give him. He is right when he points out that the perfect Christian ideal is essentially nihilist in it's denial of life.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

He was against it? Fuck, I thought he ws FOR it! Damn, maybe I should read those two Nietzsche books I own more deeply. I don't own it, but Thus Spake Zarathustra is a great book.

Nietzsche is just plain screwed up. At some points he's explicitly anti-nihilism, but then he turns around and argues things just this side of nihilism, e.g. that the weak should be 'helped to perish', etc.

My personal opinion of him is that he's a nihilist in denial.

LOL. That's good. Then again, maybe he was just trying to justify his inclination to behave like an utter prick.

[Joe]

He was against it? Fuck, I thought he ws FOR it! Damn, maybe I should read those two Nietzsche books I own more deeply. I don't own it, but Thus Spake Zarathustra is a great book.

Nietzsche is just plain screwed up. At some points he's explicitly anti-nihilism, but then he turns around and argues things just this side of nihilism, e.g. that the weak should be 'helped to perish', etc.

My personal opinion of him is that he's a nihilist in denial.

LOL. That's good. Then again, maybe he was just trying to justify his inclination to behave like an utter prick.

He certainly led by example. It caused him to die of syphilis.

[UltraViolence83]

Odd. I heard that for all he said about the destruction of weakness and all, he was a very nice man in person. That's almost just like me. I'll argue that it is compeletly moral to destroy your enemies, when I treat people who treat me like shit as fellow human beings and am nice to them. Dammit, I want to CRUSH them!

[Joe]

Odd. I heard that for all he said about the destruction of weakness and all, he was a very nice man in person. That's almost just like me. I'll argue that it is compeletly moral to destroy your enemies, when I treat people who treat me like shit as fellow human beings and am nice to them. Dammit, I want to CRUSH them!

I don't doubt that he could have been a nice guy, but most of his ideas are quite frankly reprehensible.

[UltraViolence83]

I like his ideas. Allow the weak to die. I follow that philosophy whenever I hear about drug addicts. If they cannot reform, they are weak, and ultimately, kill themselves. All is right with the world.

[Joe]

His philosophy isn't "let the weak die," it's "let a small minority of people tyrannize, butcher, and rape everyone else."

[UltraViolence83]

Ah, the Ubermensh. Well, if you beleive yourself to be one, go ahead. Though if you fuck with me or my friends/family I'll shoot you dead. Then I shall be the Ubermensh!



Ever see Natural Born Killers? I think it has some of that Ubermensh thought in the case of Mickey Knox.

"I'm a different species." and so on.

[Xisiqomelir]

Anyone familiar with this guy's work? We've been studying his rather perverse code of morality in my ethics class, and I can honestly say I've never read an author as full of shit as this guy.

Hum.

Nieztsche happens to be my favourite philosopher. What exactly was "full of shit", and from which book? Also, did you read him in the original German, and if not, which translation did you use?

[Darth Wong]

[rantmode]
Anyone familiar with this guy's work? We've been studying his rather perverse code of morality in my ethics class, and I can honestly say I've never read an author as full of shit as this guy.

He goes on and on about how justice and good is simply an illusion created by man - there is no true morality - at the same essentially trying to establish acting according to instinct as an a priori good, appealing to some vague bullshit notions of how it is in fact healthy to do so. God, I can't stand it, I'm gonna rip this guy a new one in my in-class essay on him.

[/rantmode]

Morality is indeed a social concept which does not exist outside of Man, so it is correct to say that it was "created by Man". But it is a serious misconception to argue that it is completely arbitrary. A system of morality is generally based on a single premise and a series of logical conclusions from that premise. For example, humanist morality is based on the premise that life/pleasure/freedom are good, death/suffering/oppression are bad. A series of rights are then constructed on that premise, which is reflected in the instinctive behaviour of virtually all living things.

Nietzche's argument that Darwinian selection should be used as the basis for morality is based on the implicit assumption that "if it is true, then it is moral". In other words, since this is how the biosystem basically works, it must be moral. The major flaw of this argument is that it assumes the goal of a system of morality is to allow nature to take its course. This is known as the "naturalistic fallacy", and you will often hear it from people who cite "God's will" or "the laws of nature" as proof of the immorality of homosexuality, for example.

The notion of a system of morality based on allowing nature to take its course is perverse, since it is essentially advocating apathy. A system of morality is generally designed to improve the human condition and the smooth functioning of human society, not a silly leap in logic that if the biosystem works a certain way, we should too. One of the biggest things which separates us from the animals is precisely that which Nietzche thinks we should abandon: our capacity to devise systems of thought which do NOT mindlessly hew to the "intent of nature".

[Xisiqomelir]

This is known as the "naturalistic fallacy", and you will often hear it from people who cite "God's will" or "the laws of nature" as proof of the immorality of homosexuality, for example.

Which is curious in that case, since homosexuality is well-documented in the wild. Which would seem to admit to it being quite natural.

[Slartibartfast]

This is known as the "naturalistic fallacy", and you will often hear it from people who cite "God's will" or "the laws of nature" as proof of the immorality of homosexuality, for example.

Which is curious in that case, since homosexuality is well-documented in the wild. Which would seem to admit to it being quite natural.

Natural selection doesn't favor homosexuals, since they don't reproduce. DUH!

[Joe]

Morality is indeed a social concept which does not exist outside of Man, so it is correct to say that it was "created by Man". But it is a serious misconception to argue that it is completely arbitrary. A system of morality is generally based on a single premise and a series of logical conclusions from that premise. For example, humanist morality is based on the premise that life/pleasure/freedom are good, death/suffering/oppression are bad. A series of rights are then constructed on that premise, which is reflected in the instinctive behaviour of virtually all living things.

It is true that most of morality does come from humans, however, there are certain moral rules that come from our nature and can be found to some extent in every human society. To borrow James Rachels's example, these rules are child-rearing, some sort of prohibition on murder, and some at least minimal requirement of truth-telling. Because these three rules are essential to the existence of human society - man couldn't successful disobey them at will even if he wanted to, because it would lead to the collapse of human coexistence - they are basically imposed upon us by nature. While it is obviously up to humans to put these three rules into words, they still exist regardless of culture or language.

[Joe]

Anyone familiar with this guy's work? We've been studying his rather perverse code of morality in my ethics class, and I can honestly say I've never read an author as full of shit as this guy.

Hum.

Nieztsche happens to be my favourite philosopher. What exactly was "full of shit", and from which book? Also, did you read him in the original German, and if not, which translation did you use?

I read parts of On the Genealogy of Morals, translated by Walter Kaufman.

For my problems with Nietzsche, read over this thread.

[Queeb Salaron]

Which is curious in that case, since homosexuality is well-documented in the wild. Which would seem to admit to it being quite natural.

Natural selection doesn't favor homosexuals, since they don't reproduce. DUH!

Natural selection doesn't favor homosexuals, but nature creates them outside of Homo sapien. So I guess in that sense nature is a bit contradictory, or else a bit sadistic.

But doesn't that kind of hint towards (dare I say "prove") the hypothesis that homosexuality is not genetic? I know I just struck a major cord up in the higher offices of GSAs around the globe, and a bunch of fundies just moved to the edges of their seats, but as long as we're talking science, I might as well explain myself: Darwin says that if a particular species develops a inhibitory adaptation, that special sub-section dies off due to the gradual thinning of the population. So if gays can't reproduce, then how could genetics explain it? Or is homosexuality an inhibitory adaptation that just hasn't cycled out yet? If the latter is true, then why are there more homosexuals now than ever before?

Hmm... I just read that post and realized that it has absolutely nothing to do with Nietzsche. But there were a couple of other people talking about it, so maybe a mod could split it?

[Darth Wong]

It is true that most of morality does come from humans, however, there are certain moral rules that come from our nature and can be found to some extent in every human society.

The fact that they are found to some extent in every human society does not necessarily mean they come from nature, or that nature is an acceptable source of ethical rules. If they simply make sense, in that they are necessary for the smooth operation of human social groups, then they will find their way into every human society.

To borrow James Rachels's example, these rules are child-rearing, some sort of prohibition on murder, and some at least minimal requirement of truth-telling. Because these three rules are essential to the existence of human society - man couldn't successful disobey them at will even if he wanted to, because it would lead to the collapse of human coexistence - they are basically imposed upon us by nature.

They are imposed on us by logic, not nature. Nature is more callous and brutal than human society, and that's saying quite a bit. But watch how a herd of animals leaves an injured child behind for the predators, and try to tell me that we behave naturally.

[Joe]

The fact that they are found to some extent in every human society does not necessarily mean they come from nature, or that nature is an acceptable source of ethical rules. If they simply make sense, in that they are necessary for the smooth operation of human social groups, then they will find their way into every human society.

Perhaps I wasn't exactly correct to say that they come from nature, but they are not just arbitrary laws created by man, either. They are still universally required for humanity to coexist. They are self-evident goods.

They are imposed on us by logic, not nature. Nature is more callous and brutal than human society, and that's saying quite a bit. But watch how a herd of animals leaves an injured child behind for the predators, and try to tell me that we behave naturally.

Actual, abandoning children is not terribly uncommon in primitive human socities.

That children must be reared for every human society to continue to exist does not mean that all children must be raised; although all societies must follow this rule to some extent, that doesn't mean there cannot be deviation from this rule in special circumstances (the Inuit have been known to abandon children for practical reasons, for example, while raising others). That doesn't change the fact that child-rearing is still essential for the continued existence of society.