Please use the word “ethics” here only in my sense, the sense I explained on page 1 of this thread. Stop obfuscating my thread with your prejudices.
My question was, and remains: if the truth is that “there is no truth/untruth outside perspective”, is this also a perspectival truth?
Don’t even bother answering this: it is a rhetorical question. Just get out of my thread.
You did not explain it, you appropriated it in your self-serving manner.
No.
perspectival truth = meaningless bullshit
It’s not even a question actually, it’s more of a rumination about a false concept.
No. If you cannot discuss this without your ego, you will never really gain understanding.
No thank you. I am always weary and suspicious of a smiling white man.
I much prefer the time cube and spaghetti monster over your propaganda, so don’t waste your time.
It’s actually just some black and white pixels.
I don’t believe time can be wasted, so you are welcome.
Yes, Nietzsche recontextualizes truth as being dependent on perspective, truth is defined by being a product of perspective. The above is a tautology.
“Solution” to scientific nihilism?
I do like how “your solution” starts with Harry Neumann. Yay, more ranks!
I guess master/slave was too easy to understand? I am not sure how those are 3 “kinds”? Is it herd / nihilists / supermen?
Cherry-picking is fun, isn’t it?
Alright, let me define it again, then:
Good as opposed to bad is a moral construct, but because this construct has been transvalued - turned around and renamed, so it became “good” as opposed to “evil” -, and because the transvalued values are usually referred to as “moral” values, Berkowitz has, for clarity’s sake, opted to rename morals beyond good and evil as “ethics”:
“Nietzsche’s “antimoral propensity” […] is rooted in a counter-morality, an opposing ethic, an alternative conception of what is good, right, and fitting for a human being. Thus, his criticism of morality is in fact ultimately moral or, to avoid confusion, ethical.”
[Berkowitz, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist, page 48.]
You are not denying the accuracy of my interpretation of your activities here, then.
{Sigh}. Ok. If the truth is that “there is no truth/untruth outside perspective”, does this means this truth is not “outside perspective” either?
“The spurious wise, however, all the priests, the world-weary, and those whose souls are of feminine and servile nature - oh, how hath their game all along abused selfishness!
And precisely that was to be virtue and was to be called virtue, to abuse selfishness! And “selfless” - so did they wish themselves with good reason, all those world-weary cowards and cross-spiders!
But to all those cometh now the day, the change, the sword of judgment, the great noontide: then shall many things be revealed!
And he who proclaimeth the ego wholesome and holy, and selfishness blessed, verily, he, the prognosticator, speaketh also what he knoweth: “Behold, it cometh, it is nigh, the great noontide!””
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of the Three Evil Things, 2.]
Hail Nietzsche!
So truth is only perspectival from a certain perspective…
Herd / donkeys / separate nihilists (these are already relative Supermen) / allied nihilists / Supermankind.
Could someone please remove this crank.
Only if you consider calling relativism the truth; thinking that truth is relative is then still a truth based on the new definition of “true.”
Recontextualizing truth is anti-truth, imho. Which is why I categorize N ethics apart from morality, because truth has been recategorized. I prefer to call the “revalued truth” what it is, relativism.
This is also how I understand the “revaluing of all values.”
This necessarily makes ethical values based on the “new truth,” or the subjective relativism of mankind [Ubermenschen].
HAIL MANKIND!
No, if truth is relative then the relativity of truth is absolute.
The revaluation of all values does include a relativation of all values, but not in the sense you mean. Instead of “good and evil”, which were considered absolute (something was either good or evil), “good and bad” are relative (bad is simply (relatively) less good). It does not mean that good might also be bad - I mean: something is bad in relation to a greater good, but that greater good cannot be bad in relation to this something; the greater good can only be bad in relation to a still greater good (so there are definite directions, ascending and descending in goodness).
How? What (kind of) values? I am interested to hear this - explain yourself, if you can!
No, you misunderstand the point:
good versus evil = morality
good versus bad = ethics [immorality]
Anything else is wrong and confusing
No, I am obfuscating your prejudices with meaningful, accurate statements that make sense to anyone who actually gets N., as oppose to those who use N, to propagandize. Or who have become confused in categories, which I think is all that is really happening here with you.
At a minimum, we are discussing our prejudices.
No, I agree that truth to the will-to-power must be truth in perspective. But that is then individual truth, not truth to the collective of Ubermenschen or to fellow Ubermenschen.
Relative truth, or truth “outside perspective” would be shared perspective.
This is also known as the coherency theory of truth, or truth in agreement.
If we can agree that agreement upon “external truth” stems first from the perspective of individual truth perceived to the individual will-to-power or “perspective truth” - and that this is the path to divining external ethical truth, we then agree on what revalued ethical truth is.
This is the slippery slope of truth in relativism, truth as it is in the moment.
If we still disagree, then…
More or Less seems to consider selfishness and ego as bad things. Truly the perspective of a herd man.
I knew an ubermensch once who slipped on a banana peel while walking by. It was awkward for him and quite embarrassing. I offered to help him up, but in good samurai fashion, he declined the offer and said he deserved to die because he was weak…
So I kicked him in the head and smashed his skull like a watermelon, left my copy of The Concept of Irony on his chest, sighed, and walked away.
This is the recontextualized meaning of truth, so yes.
If good is the baseline for ethical truth [I agree that is is], dynamic to reality as it is [Dionysian perspective], so necessarily would ethical truth be relative to the good!!!
Greater good is too loaded with utilitarian principals, we would need to limit good to the view of Ubermenschen - so in this sense I can see and concede the notion of “orders” as noted before.
And yes, only philosophers can know and accept this truth, I agree.
I think I have by this post and the one above.
Thusly I conclude that the need to not to be overpowered, without consent giving willingly, defines tyranny. It makes one unhappy, and its then not natural. Thus why I believe utmost in liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the respect for my fellow Ubermensch, whom I otherwise call Americans.
This means that in our Republic, I feel that manipulation of the herd can be ethical, as to lie to them does not deny the truth as it is.
Accordingly, and this is tricky, I feel that while to lie is IMMORAL, it is not UNETHICAL [thusly, becoming an IMMORALIST as it were]. This informs and corresponds with the categorical definition of ethical versus moral.
The “Noble lie” can serve the greater good, and this would then be an ethical truth, or ethical realism as I like to call it.
So why do you keep confusing the two?
Right… Not a hint of presumption here!
You are the one who is confused.
This still comes down to saying that truth is perspectivist. But is the truth that truth is perspectivist a perspectivist truth? If so, then truth is only perspectivist from a certain perspective, which means there are also possible perspectives from which the truth is not perspectivist. So from the point of view of the perspectivist, the perspective that truth is perspectivist and the perspective that truth is “outside perspective” are equally true (or valid), whereas, from the perspective that truth is “outside perspective”, the perspective that truth is perspectivist is simply false, whereas the perspective that truth is “outside perspective” is true.
In any case, let us cut to the chase and ask: if there is no absolute, objective truth, but only relative, perspectivist truth, is this not then absolute, objective truth? No, you will answer, this, too, is relative, perspectivist. But how about the truth that this truth, too, is relative, perspectivist - etc. etc.
Absolute perspectivism is perspectivist perspectivism, and this amounts to nonsense (a regressus in infinitum).
Yes, then?..
Jesus Christ, are you two gonna argue about terms all night or what?
Can’t you just fight and see who’s stronger?
Sauwelios, Fritz is not happy with you in the least.
I agree: I do not mean good on a bigger scale (good for more people), but something that is more good. The higher good, maybe?
I do not regard Americans as Ãœbermenschen. My opinion on Straussian philosophy may interest you:
I do not and I have not.
hmmm
The regress does not apply to the revalued meaning of truth. You do not understand the basis of what Truth is, if you think a regression is a problem.
Infinite regression is the TRUTH. Truth revalued!!!
You have a fundamental flaw in your comprehension of what the truth of the void is, and it is staring you in the face. [IMHO]
Then we don’t know the truth. This says nothing of what the truth actually is.