Possible Nietzschean moral duality:

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This is a very embrionic idea, it might yet require abortion:

One one side, the morality of will to power: whatever leads to a hightened sense of power, whatever leads to feeling more power is good.

On the other, we have the morality of the Etarnal Recurrence: whatever already is, was, and will be was always going be anyways, and it is good to love it.

The first allows for greater freedom for the world itself, the external is respected as unpredictable, yet the individual is constrained to act in a limited set of directions (those that lead to feeling more power). The second allows freedom to the individual: the individual can literaly do whatever pops into his mind with the condition that he love the end result upon the world. The world and the individual become one, or rather the individual becomes part of the external world, and so the morality of the situation depends on the “luck of the draw,” since there is only one outcome that was ever going to happen, and the concept of “freedom” becomes inconscecuencial.

Obviously, one of these theories cannot be moraly superior to the other because you would need a morality of morality, and that is the kind of logical escalator that tends to implode or lead to nihil.

(Sawelios, as I am hoping to get your input, I would like to ask that you don’t include professional or academic analysts of Nietzsche; if you decide to use their ideas, present them as your own.)

2

Pezer, you’ve been neglecting paying me proper respect. But I will overlook your insensitivity and callousness on this occasion to supply you with the answers you need.

The liberals on this forum, and this is contaminated with liberalism, see morality as a dichotomy between pleasure and pain. They still operate from the “pleasure principle” dynamic of morality. What is painful or hurtful is evil and bad. What is pleasurable and orgasmic is automatically good, holy, and noble. Having sex with gays and queers is good. Having sex with family members, or small children, as long as you have a condom or birth control, is good. Having sex with animals? Hey, we can accept that too. The scum of this forum actually believe this. They are willing to allow these things. Because this is their underlying, sick, decaying form of liberal morality.

Nietzsche was not using this paradigm for morality. In fact, western, united states, liberal morality is the product of judaism and the rise of judaism over the western world after the fall and conquering of the nazis. With Hitler removed, out of the way of Jews, Jews had nobody stopping them. Nobody could prevent the rise of an inflated, unstable, monstrous, expansive, aggressive form of our newest slave morality. And this is what we have, today. This is what you and I are operating from within, by civilization, right now as I type and you read. It is a mutated form, a stronger form, the strongest form yet, of slave morality. This is the exact opposite end of what Nietzsche was all about. Nietzsche is inherently “anti-semitic”. Because BGE is inherently anti-christian, anti-jew, because N is all about anti-slave morality, which is what judaism and christianity IS. That’s what liberal morality IS!!! Don’t you see?!

No, you don’t, that’s why you require me to tell you, to remove your blinders and expose to you the divine light of holy truth!

So listen well, I mean, pay fucking attention to what I’m about to write. Because it’s important. This “moral duality” you symbolize here, yes, does include the ER. A morality based on ER and circular time will not be meaningful in almost EVERY POSSIBLE WAY to a moral paradigm setup by linear time. The difference is “modality”. We can call this a moral modality, a separation of two dimensions, two types of morality which intersect each other. Navigating this morality is very difficult. But we can simplify this, make it easier, by rejecting the Pleasure Principle completely. The PP is a lingering remnant of Faggy French Failosophy FFF. The faggy frenchmen were complete hedonists. And French culture, degenerate as it is, and about to fall apart by muslims and islam, deserves its painful, bloated death. French fags only care about pleasure. But this is not to compare with Nietzsche’s germanic idealism. The germans and the french run opposed against each other, in philosophy. So you cannot compare the french and german moralities together as if they are, or were ever, the same paradigm. They weren’t. And they’re not.

Nietzsche’s view of morality, and the general consensus of european and natural philosophy, outside the faggy french, still retain an older form of morality that is more “conservative”. Morality, to the old hearted europeans, is NOT about pain and pleasure. Pain and pleasure are for women and children. Men don’t think about pain and pleasure as the extent of our lives. Only pussies weigh whether “pain and pleasure” is a MORAL insight into how people ought to live their lives. Utilitarians are PUSSIES!!1 Do you hear me? Fucking quote me on this. Utilitarians are PUSSIES. It’s like “equal2u” who tries to pander his sick, decadent, “sexocracy” off as anything more than an orgy, with farm animals, and maybe some children for the pedophiles too. All these losers think, is about sex and pleasure. They don’t look BEYOND that. And that is why these creeps and cretins cannot go “beyond good and evil”.

Because, to them, evil = pain, good = pleasure. This is the FFF. It’s “liberal morality”. It’s how liberals think. They can’t “think beyond” this.

The conservative mentality, the true european and pagan conservative morality, is about responsibility and irresponsibility, who should lead societies and who should remain slaves. Responsibility is not about pain or pleasure. This paradigm is about WTP, POWER…or weakness. It is about STRONG WILL…or weak will. It is about being a pussy, compared to having a set of balls settled inside your ballsack. Do I need to spell this out any clearer?? I can try, if you aren’t getting it. By the way pezer, it’s spelled “inconsequential”. I’ll add this into here to see if you’re paying attention.

You’re right about one thing, you made a very astute observation. When you impose liberal morality versus conservative morality, you are right to consider a difference that TIME can make. Because if people believe and see that time is linear, opposed to cyclical or ciruclar, then this is going to change their insights. I will just say right now, that liberal morality will tend towards linear perception of time, while conservative morality will tend towards cyclical percpetion of time.

Nietzsche may not have taken liberal morality into account, due to his time setting, atmosphere, and environment. You also need to take into account, history. Hitler’s defeat was a potential world success in terms of utilitarianism, faggy frenchmen, and liberal morality. The entire world was facing a dichotomy. What will the “New World Order” look like? The masses spoke out. They wanted liberal morality, pleasure principle. Sex has no shame, no right or wrong. Have sex with dead animals. It doesn’t matter anymore. This is the inevitable outcome of liberal morality. This is a SIDE EFFECT of christian and jewish slave morality. It’s not like christians and jews knew this was going to happen. It is simply a matter of what their slave moralities CONCLUDE. This liberal morality, this NWO utilitarianism, is the absolute conclusion of the dogmas of christianity and judaism, combined.

You can see the retaliation of this, by the still morally conservative towelheads. The towel heads hate liberal morality. And this is WHY they hate it. Many westerners and people throughout the west, also hate liberal morality, but are stifled and censored by it. Liberal morality defends itself with the accusation of “hate speech”. If you speak against liberal morality, then you are a “hater”, should be gagged, and maybe marked a terrorist and put away for “reassessment” in a FEMA camp somewhere in the deserts of arizona. If you are pro conservative morality, then shut your mouth. You don’t have right to an opinion. I’m not saying this PERSONALLY to you, pezer, but systematically. This is a social stance, not my personal opinion. What I represent is the culmination of liberal morality at its very end.

I exist as its complete logical conclusion. I exist as the end to both christianity and judaism, as a whole. This is Postchristianity, going beyond humanism. I represent the completion of the no longer relevant slave moralities. I come to demonstrate to you what any possible “master morality” MUST look like. And we begin this project, by first understanding the difference between liberal and conservative slave morality, their histories, and their logical conclusions.

But you have been a very bad boy, by refusing to pay attention to my other threads. And so, I ought o punish you. For now, you can just suck on this candy I offer you. It’s “free of charge”. For now. Think of this information as a loan. I’m going to expect interest in the long run. And I WILL come and collect on it, maybe when you least expect it…

:eusa-pray:

3

The will to power is to Nietzsche what causality to Newton: necessity. The subject has no choice (no “free will”) to move toward anything but a greater feeling of power any more than an apple has a choice of falling up instead of down. So, according to Nietzsche, whatever it is that one affirms as eternally recurring, it will be some configuration of will to power. And then the Nietzschean occultist will have you affirm this necessity.

4

Well trajicomic, once again you prove me right when I said that this forum needs you. Still, your spiel is too coarce for them, your distaste too obvious (and your signature too long and annoying).

Anyway, thanks for the comment. I wasn’t talking about slave morality, but you introduced it well. I of course agree with everything you said.

Very consequencial

5

FC, you caught on to one of the cooler things I was aiming at with the ER theme: the complete inconsequencialism of any human perspective to the ER itself. As a morality, though, as a subjective prescription, it gives freedom. Not freedom in the free will sense, in the “I will choose and determine the outcome” sense, but in the “my thought process is inconsequencial and itself part of the ER, so let whatever be” sense. Let whatever be = let whatever conclusion to my thoughts and actions be = let whatever I think and do themselves be. It is freeing in a psychological sense, most definetly not in a real sense.

6

The other side of the coin is, of course, as Nietzsche pointed out (and at this point theoretically since I have never seen it myself), the one who sees this fact of eternal recurrence and deems it wrong, the antitheses of “let it be.”

I don’t think I can imagine a worse kind of psychological hell.

7

I could be wrong, but I didn’t think Nietzsche claimed that whatever leads to feeling more power is good. For instance, in Beyond Good and Evil, he wrote, “Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals … will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant — not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power.”

Isn’t this a description of amor fati, and not of eternal recurrence? As related as they may be…

8

My fellow postchristian anon…you are not wrong!!!

Rather, you are right! What N ultimately justifies in BGE is that acquisition of power, by the WTP, is never wrong. It cannot be wrong. It cannot be wrong to become “powerful” because “power” is neither good nor evil. But we can switch the paradigm with conservative morality. This is the beginning of nazi germany and hitler. Nazism was the seed that was planted, first, to say…weakness is “evil” or “bad”. Powerful is “good” or “righteous”. This was rejected by the western world, in exchange for a mutated form of liberal morality (a new strain of slave morality).

9

Anon,

Yes, I am injecting morality where Nietzsche never intended it. That is why I am being VERY cautious how I tread in these half-baked ideas.

Regarding the Amor Fati thing, I think I was drawing Amor Fati as a moral conclusion to the reality of the Eternal Recurrence.

10

Trajicomic, I would be way more careful about taking politicians straight up, no chaser.

11

Religion and politics today cannot be understood in the western hemisphere, the americas, without accepting liberal morality as its premise.

This has become the political AND RELIGIOUS paradigm, after world war 2 and the fall of Hitler’s nazism.

But N’s message still stands firm. His deconstruction was slave morality, including christians AND jews. He is not “anti-semitic” specifically, but GENERALLY. His arrows were aimed at the whole mass of judaism and christianity together. Not one or the other was a specific enemy, but a general enemy. This reasoning was taken up by Hitler, obviously. The consequence was unforeseen.

The dominance of judaism over nazism has only delayed the inevitable, that, slave morality will be destroyed, but in a way neither N nor christians nor jews could have foreseen. A master morality must incorporate certain traits within christian and jewish traditions which cannot become absolved without great violence. Otherwise, a world war 3 becomes inevitable, just a matter of time, as ordained by Christ and other prophets.

12

I don’t know Nietzsche well enough - I last read him probably 20 years ago or so. But are you sure about that? Given eternal recurrence, would you really choose to kill someone if you knew you would thereby gain power? You might, given very specific circumstances. But in general, I don’t think you would. “Love of fate” seems to me to have a specific connotation for Nietzsche. There are various forms of power. You can be in charge of millions of people, but feel like your own life is out of control. Your own life may be out of control because you are in charge of millions of people. I think of amor fati and eternal recurrence as distinct concepts that nonetheless always go together in Nietzsche’s thought. Eternal recurrence is a way of putting choices under magnification. There is no correct answer to moral questions. But whatever you choose you must live with, always. He proposes a moral system with a greater burden than most or possibly all religious systems, which propose some final escape from the effects of actions. Amor fati strikes me as more a rejection of abstract answers to abstract questions than some kind of fatalism in the anti-free will sense.

Again, I don’t know much about Nietzsche. These are just some impressions of mine.

13

See my response to Trajicomic. Let me know what you think…

14

This is counterintuitive if your paradigm is liberal morality. If you base your moral reasoning off of the pleasure principle, PP, as a measure between pain and pleasure, then you cannot answer your own question. If you switch to conservative morality, then your question is inconsequential, as pezer demonstrates. It is neither “good nor evil” to murder as a means to power. It becomes inevitable instead.

You want power. Another man wants power. And you BOTH become willing to murder, in order to achieve power. This is the problem of conservative morality. But in general western culture, it’s become reduced to a nonissue. It’s not relevant or even cogent among the more “powerful” religious figures, politicians, or philosophers. It’s completely “out of the question”.

I don’t agree with your conclusion here, “there is no correct answer to moral questions”.

And I think N and the philosophers leading to N, would all disagree with this sentiment. There maybe are, there CAN become…this is the whole point of germanic idealism. There CAN BECOME answers to moral questions. This was the whole point and tradition, from the start. It was an attempt to answer and reanswer moral and ethical questions and philosophical paradigms which the faggy frenchmen failosophers FFF, and the Enlightenment, all failed to address. Germanic idealism was the response, the reaction to, the enlightenment.

Yes, this is because he reasserts conservative morality AGAINST liberal morality. This neutralizes the slave moralities, of christianity and judaism. But it does not even begin to address any sort of “master morality”. This was only the beginning to it, the beginning to “we CAN answer moral and ethical questions”.

What do you mean by “amor fati” here, blank slate theory?

No…your response is very valid.

15

Anon, my answer is trajicomic’s, with the addition that conservatism (not in the usually understood sense but in the sense that trajicomic is using) is but one way.

In short, when faced with the decision of killing someone, the only question from the WTP morality that I am counter-fitting here would be “does it make me feel more powerful?”

And to address your more specific moral concerns, wouldn’t guilt over wastefully killing someone (or even something) make you feel less powerful? Wouldn’t that feeling of guilt be a drag on your power-exuberance?

16

I apologize for skipping most of your post. I did read it and maybe I’ll try to take it in, if I get more time to ponder it.

I mean that amor fati isn’t fatalism, but is just fully accepting life as it is as the working conditions for determining any course of action. As opposed to abstract principles such as “it is wrong to murder”, amor fati is the context within which eternal recurrence can make sense. There is will to power. There is a complex situation at hand, and there are courses of action possible. The best course of action, then, is the one that you could best live with repeating over and over again, forever. In a sense, that course of action is your fate. But it’s a fate that can be chosen. And choosing that fate is to choose life over death - or, concreteness over abstraction.

17

I think the idea that your conscience can be overcome is just as abstract as the idea that it is always wrong to kill someone. The fact of the matter is that every situation is different, yet each demands the best possible action. The particular circumstances that demand our personal attention always transcend spoon-fed abstractions about circumstances in general. I think perhaps Nietzsche goes further than that, claiming that these third-part abstractions are not even useful. I think that is the import of will to power.

Again, I hate to keep apologizing. But I don’t want to pretend that my interpretation of Nietzsche would be taken seriously by scholars. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. But I’m not being very careful or scholarly here.

18

Well, the only thing I would criticize about your interpretations of Nietzsche is that you keep using words like “good” and “better” and “wrong.” I am also using good sometimes, but strictly :tools-wrench:beyound good and evil.

I am not trying to make up abstractions, and in fact the feeling of power is a very real psychological phenomena. It is not that your consciousness will be overcome, it is simply that guilt will become part of your psychological make-up, and that would be a minus on the feeling of power, because it paralizes you. Not guilt as an abstract concept, but as a psychological concept.

19

I keep using words like good, better and wrong? You mean I’ve put those words into Nietzsche’s mouth? Where?

Anyway, Nietzsche thought his philosophy was better than everyone else’s. And some people’s philosophies are so bad, they’re just… wrong.

There’s no getting away from valuing. It’s a question of how we do it, how we explain it, what makes one way of valuing more valuable than another way of valuing. Nietzsche wasn’t anti-moral, he was meta-moral.

20

Nietzsche was I-am-so-over-moral.

Morality is really an outdated concept, I am using it here simply to explore some reprecutions of two of Nietzsche’s themes that seem contradictory to me, yet not by virtue of that not both correct.