Yes and no, truth without perspective is nonsense, a vacuous concept, pure fantasy, the concept is nonsensical. Yet, certain perspectives try to posit it. They use a different definition of truth than Nietzsche, one that includes absolute being.
Please guys, quote only the last thing said by the other. It isn’t necessary to run the quote train.
By the time I get done scrolling down the page all the way…I don’t even want to read the goddamn post.
Nihilistic, I think you should put GCT’s quote in quote marks and sign his name after it, rather than using the quote boxes which are not working.
Tighten up.
Is this truth perspectivist?
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Not necessarily, but N is not about hedonistic nihilism. N despised egoism as near as I could tell.
There is no reason to necessarily conclude the selfishness and ego are good, either. The truth is always what it is, not what you want it to be… you need to see with new eyes all the time.
Freeze motherfuckers!
It’d have to be, because “good” is not an absolute value, and is determined by individual perspective.
Otherwise, you’d have to tell me what is the absolute baseline to truth, and/or how that truth method reveals ultimately in an absolute value.
I am not aware that any Ubermensch is or can be necessarily infallible when it comes to “ethical truth,” so I’ve come to conclude that revalued truth can or does necessarily lead into a competition of truth.
I am not sure the truth always wins out in the short term, but that it does in the long term.
Look Saul, all truth is interpretation means the definition of truth includes the perspective that it comes from. Even the interpretation that truth is interpretation is a perspective. Nietzsche’s philosophy does not have a noumenal or unchanging being by which one can establish truth without perspective. Meaning their is only perspective, which implies every “truth” is interpretation. He recontextualizes the word and changes the framework, you are trying to apply a different framework and the original contextualization to show that his is inconsistent. Straw man.
Truth for Nietzsche, means simply interpretation based from a perspective.
Nihilistic and More or Less.
Both of you have failed miserably.
Part of the test included the fact that I knew that you knew that I knew that you wouldn’t follow my recent requests, so in this sense, you didn’t resist my authority but actually supported it. You have to learn how to get a step ahead of they guy who is a step ahead of you.
And don’t try to say you didn’t see my requests or are not paying attention to me.
For once I want to be mistaken about something. Please try to be unpredictable. Thank you.
Not always. In key passages, Nietzsche uses the word “truth” (sometimes with quotation marks) to designate precisely this nihilist truth you’re talking about. Harry Neumann says the following about it:
“Except for realization of life’s nihilism [“the simple realization that whatever is experienced – a self, a world, the law of contradiction, a god, or anything else – is nothing apart from its being experienced”], no scientific proofs or discoveries exist. This simple, unsophisticated realization – and it alone – is science! No other truth is provable or discoverable in a universe where nothing prevents anything from changing into anything else or into the nothingness which everything always is.”
[Politics or Nothing!]
This does not mean that this truth is provable or discoverable:
“Nothing – and only nothing! – can be proven in science’s nihilist reality.”
[ibid.]
You honestly think that you’re the only one that was too disgusted by the quotations to read the shit posted in this thread? Come detrop, you should know how selective I am in my posting by now, I read the OP and maybe a few sentences other than the one’s directed toward me. If you’re not in the middle of the discussion, you cannot expect any of us to go searching for your homeless posts.
Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about, I haven’t said a damn thing about truth being provable, again with your inability to understand the recontextualized definition of truth that Nietzsche is employing. One doesn’t discover truth, one’s perspective fucks itself until it’s impotence is transmuted into continuity. You are chasing straw men.
Nietzsche speaks, for example, of motorics, how they are cultivated. I think he is right that this takes more than one generation. Some habits can be learned in one lifetime, some can’t.
Nietzsche was more about subtle ethics than Pavlovian alterations of instinct. the more delicate a habit, the longer it takes to cultivate.
Nietzsche’s ideal is the man who justifies all of existence with his own life. This is about the experience of that man, not about the effects he has on the world. Therefore, ethics come before function - function serves ethics, and ethics are a means to cultivate delicacy and depth of experience.
.
My request to you was to remove the quote boxes from your sig and just put GCT’s quote in quotation marks and sign his name after it. Just a minor detail, but it looks bad when you use quote tabs that are not working.
I don’t know what “motorics” are, but something tells me that the concept is pseudo-scientific, in the sense that Nietzsche uses it. Much of his “biological” theory is entirely outdated.
Again I don’t understand you. Ethics and habits are two different things. A habit is a physical behavior. An ethic is a program of “morals,” as morals describe habits and behaviors in terms of usefulness and function in a social setting.
This is poetry. I don’t bother with such nonsense.
This is almost poetry because of your use of the term “depth” and “delicacy.” I don’t think ethics and function are different things, since they both are descriptions of social behavior. One does not come before the other but simultaneously.
Nietzsche’s conception of man as reactive gives man a certain type of knowledge, as opposed to the active overman. Man’s becoming reactive of forces as his essential will to power forces him to “know” the world as reactive. Within the universe of discourse called man, certain will to power(relation of forces) are more reactive than others, and these are what Nietzsche is arguing against. He is not arguing against a moral order as such, but he is arguing against good and evil because they are the result of a reactive typology, they are a reactive perspective. This thread misses the point completely because it takes the symptoms of the relation of forces as the most important point of discussion.
The question “why does Nietzsche deny good and evil” elucidates the shortcomings of the OP and the resulting discussion.
There is no natural ethical order as this thread presents it, Nietzsche’s philosophy produces a gradated scale of power based on the relation of forces that each truth/knowledge is “created” from. .
No, you did not, but I felt I had to add that remark because the question follows from the first quote.
The point is that there is a truth, and this truth is the vortex or vulva that you keep talking about. As Peter Berkowitz says,
“if truth is to be stood on her head [cf. BGE, Preface], she must have a head to stand on. The fight against Platonic error, as it requires that truth be set upright, implies that truth has a characteristic look and posture. Thus Nietzsche asserts that perspective is the condition of all life from a vantage point that allows for a correct perspective on the relation between perspective and life.”
[Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist, page 233.]
What is this definition? Where do we find it in Nietzsche’s books?
Please elaborate on this “transmutation” of its impotence “into continuity”.
Nonsense is sorta the point. It’s the difference between a tyrannical will-to-power and a being that seeks to find a balance with the will-to-power and existence.
You cannot fight the void.
Not all of existence is defined in social behavior.
Why do you think a “poetry of terms” qualifies as a criticism?
Yes. I could not agree more strongly.
Sau, it’s like you are saying there is a natural ethical order to the void, that is not a paradox but a blatant contradiction [not a contradistinction].
There may be an ethical order for Overmen, but the terms of the order are meaningless in the sense that this “natural order” rests on the relativism of revalued truth determined from the Overman perspective [will-to-power].
Why is calling this imposed ethical order natural so important? Are you simply overstating and repeating the idea that the new ethical order is necessarily natural to the will-to-power?
Revalued truth would make these terms inherently meaningless.
wtf? THERE IS NO TRUTH, AND THAT IS TRUE.
Dude, it’s just a fricking meta-irony or a tautology. WE HAVE BEATEN THIS TO DEATH ALREADY.
It’s fucking poetry, that’s what it is. 