Though I must say that overall I find Nietchze (not sure if I spelled that right) to be very flawed, I find many of his ideas interesting in other contexts. Lately, something he said has got me thinking, is Truth in itself inherently good, or is real truth beyond concepts of good and evil? Your ideas:
Truth is meaningless without context.
The truth about what exactly?
It is the truth that millions of people have died from AIDS.
Is that inherantly ‘good’?
Since what constitutes ‘good’ is completely relative to the beholder, I supose that depends on who you ask, doesn’t it?
Here is the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth…so help me God.
If I ever heard the ‘truth’ I would have to destroy it.
It would be an affront to my liberty. 
If I ever met a truth believer, I would have to obliterate him or laugh at him. He would be an affront to my intelligence. 
Is that a truth, Satyr? 
First of all, damn it, I put this in the wrong forum. (crap. My whole day is crap.)
Second of all, by truth I mean the end to which our philosophy is a means. Philosophy, by definition (mine anyway, if you want to argue it,) is the search for truth. So perhaps I should have phrased it a differant way. Is philosophy (the search for truth instead of truth itself this time,) an inherent good, or does it go beyond good and evil?
Q:
Keep in mind that the universe, and evolution, was existing long before we showed up. The concepts “good” and “evil” must therefore be fairly recent events in the universe, so I suspect that “truth” is far beyond good and evil, if you mean by truth- “what is the case.” (That’s what I like to call it)
If philosophy was the search for truth I’d say that it was a rather extraneous activity, if even confusing the matter further. I think philosophy is moreso a collective creation of meaning and value, whereas “truth” is an indifferent ‘state’ of things- a correct or incorrect dichotomy.
TheQuestion,
Philosophy is the love and exploration of wisdom.
What makes you think wisdom has a final destination, or an ultimate goal?
Beyond Good and Evil is a really good game.
Beyond Good and Evil is a really good game, but I found it too short.
Anyway, I’m not saying Truth is the ultimate destination (if there is one), but rather the path.
Hi Q, I thought Nietzsche’s work was more about the difference between two views of good: the “bad” (the weak) and the “evil” (the strong).
I opine that truth is evil. It is the evilist thing in the world. It is a complete Tyrant over minds and and results of action, though the weak will accept the badness of a fiction. Have you just seen them all try to escape truth’s provence?
But what the Truth says supports the strong and weak alike.
Just a first opinion.
my real name
There is no good and evil. Those are simply views. In a war both side see themselfs as the righteous. While both side see the other side as evil and wrong. The same goes for truth, it is a view it all depends at what point your viewing it. Now truth is harder to argue than right and wrong because it has less foundation than simple things like good and evil. Nietzsche simply trys to make you realize that truth is fake that it is something used like religion for control of population. Now I’m not saying that there is no such thing as truth for that itself would be foolish. I could tell you that I am a male and that is truth. The point of truth Nietzche argues is the absolute truth the truth that goes hand in hand with religion and god that is the truth of which I speak here. Did you read all of Nietzche’s book Byond Good And Evil or did you just read a bit? I recommend that if you are tuely intrested in his work and what he has to say read his book the Will to Power. Its basicly his complete works even though it was not him that had it published. He is brilliant an excellent read. I look forward to your guys responce.
Nihilistic Beast, welome to the boards. Tell me if i get Nietzsche wrong, but why must all human behaviour be reduced to a single instinct? And the will to power doesn’t seem to explain quite everything about man. It leaves me unsure why people post on the internet, freely and without economic profit; and man’s greatest desre, love, is only found in a chosen vulnerability to another (as I have read some wise men say).
Isn’t that the truth?
my real name,
neo-Scholastic
asking what truth is in front of philosophers is a lost cause. philosophy can’t survive with the truth. truth is somthing philosophy avoids and fears. but if you really want to know, then truth as scientific discoveries should be good enough for you no matter what you manage to do here on earth
Well, I find Nietchze interesting, but wrong at almost every level, so I’d probably just read enough of him to get a gauge on his ideas…
To my real name I’m sorry I’m not sure I follow what your saying?
And to TheQuestion To only partially read someone’s work to get the gauge on it would be like me saying I read part of the bible just to get the jest of it and I didn’t think it had anything I like but I could be wrong I suppose maybe it is just me who thinks to truely understand someone’s work you need to read it all.
Now I don’t think that’s especially true. I could pick up something like The Portable Nietchze and come back and give a very thorough debate. But I must admit, my present knowledge of the man is limited to several webpages and a wikipedia article (and wikipedia by the way is one damn fine rescource.) I intend to read more of his work, but it’s not like I have a great of free time to sit around and read philosophy, (though that would be nice…)
i now have developed a sixth sense that enables me to smell nietzschenonos an ocean away, through the cyber net of course. i’m volunteering to offer help. nietzsche is someone you either feel for, or fail to understand/inconpletely understand. you see friend, nietzsche demands you to HAVE EXPERIENCED WHAT HE HAS, nietzsche needs his reader to be at least on the way of becoming free spirits, nietzsche needs those who can say to themselves that they have lived OUT OF THE HERD MENTALITY… in short, nietzsche wants us to have INTELLECTUAL CONSCIOUSNESS. reading nietzsche like reading other philosophers dooms you to misunderstand him. it helps to bear in mind in the first place that nietzsche is unlike the common philosopher/thinker. by the time you’ve read enough of him to shout out “oh man, what a genius!!”, “oh man, what realisation and insight!!”, “oh man, what a saviour of lost souls!!”- you proundly call yourself nietzschean and look down on all those who follow jesus christ and the platonic delight - because my friend then, you follow a much higher belief: the belief of the joy of the scientific way of life… anyway just keep in mind, that nietzsche is someone the herd doesn’t praise too often, because he offend the herd’s power on the deepest level, also, in the sage’s own word: risen too high a place to be praised - beyond your very sight
Read the Antichrist. It’s short, very good, and give a great general feel for his ideas.
I am basically saying, that if I read Neitzsche as reducing every human instinct to a “Will to Power”, then it seems there are some common and important human behaviours which are hard to explain that way. Therefore, it seems on this point, Neitzsche is either in error, at least incomplete, in his analysis of human behaviour.
The proper response from a Nietzschean to this, I think, would be to show how these exceptions really involve a will to power. For example, how does posting online increase your power?
my real name