just finished reading wondering what anyone thought about where he was going with it.
Exposing and refuting culture and values – I like.
Romantasism and Social Darwinism – these are stupid.
It doesn’t matter where Neitzche was going with anything, just be selective in the acceptance and application of the components of his opinions.
A note - Nietzsche himself said that BGE is a half baked version of the Genealogy of Morals, but really we’d have to go right through his work from beginning to end to make proper sense of Beyond Good and Evil
Maybe you should read it again. You might come up with a better post about it.
what i accept from BGE:strength is the ability to put you’re will into action,will is our decision before action, and only shows our strength during. we should critically examine any philosophical work suspending judgemant until it has run its course, he proposed a de-moralizing of philosophy and a self-moralizing of life, he probably criticized democratic government because and religion for the masses because he associated “striving for the common good” a weakness of charector, the antithesis of his will to power .
Haha…no, I don’t think he knew either.
whatever he said about this is the kind of thing im looking for in any thread where im talking all about how great and necessary it is to strive for the greatest good. i keep asking what is the foundation of the anti-socialist belief, and apparently here it is. maybe someone should describe it.
keep in mind i find nietzchemaniacs somewhat annoying and i will surely disagree.
what does the “greatest good” benefit more, me personally or society as a whole? its a question of quality and quantity, the greates good in a quantitative sense is what benefits society as a whole, while the greatest good in a qualitative sense is what i enjoy most. a politician is superficially concerned with “society as a whole” though his personal aspirations led him to that field. a man is mostly concerned with what benefits him, although what benefits society also benefits him, its just on a less immediately eminent
level.
im not familiar with this use of quality and quantity. i would have thought quantitative means the number of individual values, and qualitative means the degree or level of each of those individual values.
the difference between the selfishness and selflessness is simply the quantity of individual values that are affected by the decision. but a semi-logical reason to go selfless would be that the same amount of quality spent on a larger quantity (to some degree) will actually total up to a larger amount than if all quality were spent on a smaller number of individuals (due to the law of diminishing marginal utility).
what did neitzsche say that disagrees with this? why is what i just said a “weakness of character”?
i guess i should start from the top, what is the greatest good? i might say freedom of will if i look at it from, what i think as nitzsche’s perspective, as i think he considers free will as the perfection of the will, and strength or weakness of the will as our ability to attain results, but to get back on course
the greatest good is essentially happiness, and what makes one happy is not necessarily what makes another happy, so striving for the greatest good is essentially trying to find what makes you happiest. some people enjoy simple
pleasures while others would find that the harder the test is the greater the reward is.what i was trying to get across is that the value of anything starts and ends with you.
freedom in somalia or a ghetto kinda sucks. and i think the poor people would sacrifice their freedom to become billionaires in order to obtain some sort of more shallow happiness. like the smaller amount happiness caused by the freedom to become millionaires.
that simply means that care needs to be taken when the altruistic govt decides how to create happiness with their investments. like perhaps by having more than one happiness creation program. perhaps dozens.
the happiness caused by the freedom to become a billionaire is not so great for all people. it doesnt even affect virtually everyone. what im subtly lambasting is the idea that the freedom to do everything is intrinsically good for some reason besides the happiness that that freedom causes.
happiness is the goal, not freedom. yes, capitalism and a variety of happiness scenarios for a variety of people to freely choose from is the way to accomplish this. the freedom to choose those things isnt intrinsically good, the economy just happens to work better that way, and the differing opinions regarding happiness just so happen to require a variety in order to be satisfied. happiness is still the only goal of freedom, and therefore trumps it in the category of ‘ultimate goal’.
happiness should not be discarded in exchange for freedom because the only purpose of freedom is optimal happiness.
i agree happiness is a goal, but it is the after effect of sucess.
A critique of human morality…if you take anything from this book, please don’t think Nietzsche is advocating a system of any kind. Nor telling that one way of living is better than another.
What great things did he accomplish? Is his opinions and conclusions that strong that we should adopt them as our own, with trying to research and surpass his opinions and delvelop our own.
Is this guy a destination or a stepping stone?
Philosopher’s error- The philosopher supposes that the value of his philosophy lies in the whole, in the structure, but posterity finds its value in the stone which he used for building, and which is used many more times after that for building-- better. Thus it finds the value in the fact that the structure can be destroyed and nevertheless retains value as building material."- Nietzsche
“philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual
Will to Power, the will to “creation of the world,” the will to
the causa prima.”
the destination is the stepping stone.
based on that and other statements, i must ask if you have ever actually read any mietzsche. because you come across as someone who has only heard uneducated and uniformed criticism.
that’s completely meaningless. are you in character?
perhaps you should realize that freedom is the process within one acheives happyness, and the freedom never is and was a goal.
freedom is the starting point, if you had any actual knowledge of nietzsche you would realize how off base your comments are.
and yet here you recognize that which nietzsche actually argued for. he wanted to redefine the man by removing the paradox of moral authority that was denying true happiness as false moral constraints of “good/evil” were enslaving the masses.
do try to recall for a moment that the man was living in germany, which was newly formed from the prussian empire.
anyways, to me, nietzsche was just trying to reframe the classic greek [socratic] concepts of self-actualization and self-examination and was doing so by using the cultural contructions of his time which he argued, convincingly, were false.
he recognized the religion [the morality paradigm] was, for the all that practically mattered, merely a tool of the powerful - a paradox used to control and enslave the mind - and thus the “self.”
so i see it as an anti-establishment moral and political philosophy of the self suggesting that change comes from within.
Is this guy a destination or a stepping stone?
i think every philosopher is a stepping stone. we should treat evrey philosophy with the upmost sublty and self-control. you should start every reading of any philosophy as a skeptic and see if they can win you over.
In just about every thread on this board, someone posts off the topic without regard to the discussion thus far, totally out of the blue.
This time, that’s me.
With regards to the thought so far on answering the original question “Where is Nietzsche going with this,” I’d like to post some thoughts on his ethics which I have already posted elsewhere:
Master and slave morality. Rationality. Take the master morality, add reason as guide as the ancients believed in, and you will get the “virtue ethics” which taught Alexander the Great. This is a possible foundation for Christian morality, viz. neo-Aristotelian ethics, although N. only links Christianity with the “bad” slave morality.
That is where N. should/could have gone with his morality if he were not in the post-rational age.
Thank you.