What is everyone’s problem with Nietzsche?
honestly , he is a good figure if you can understand him (like myself).
Yes, faust I’ll try to explain what I mean
I speak in relation to the concept of an ideal society because that is where I think the ‘internal’ morality of the individual can mutually coexist.
For me THAT is the goal. External morality as it stands within a social contract simply manifests as it does because many people in society havent reached the stage of surpassing ego-attachment and ego orientated goals
I would content that the internal eudaimistic morality is universal but onlygrasped by the developed human. I havent truly grasped yet but theoretically I think I am aware of what it is. I think it is this which makes us human
Maybe I differ from Nietzsche in that I have more faith in the concept of society.
What do you think?
society brainwashes you to think you have “free will” then explain what happens to the misunderstood kids that have grown up to waste their life as predators , instead of being the very prey they wish they were , it happens because of jealousy and believing in something that doesn’t believe in you back.
i can place myself under many categories of beliefs on a full list , from zero to 10 counting down every belief i can name , i can alos provide reason why i support some and not others , i can also give you links to websites that have driven me to this point (count out the immature exposure sites).
I can give you plenty resources as to why i’m not for society , and alot of it doesnt even have to do with me , when comes down to it , the world matters more than myself , it just disrespects me.
what is the point of existing and seeing yourself more superior then others , and knowing it , instead of looking down upon yourself , bring down the pain you deserve , actually have feelings and give a damn.
society only influences the very thing it tries to stop , it’s blind faith with a bible as your guide , you can be happy because you think about yourself and are careless for others , thats all religion does , makes you selfish and evil.
ignore this all you want , i dont care if i made mistakes , at least i dont attempt “perfection” and lust , im proud im a looser but im not proud you symbolize me , i cant make friends with an opposite race because of you , and that is the power of your “free will” its only pain for others.
i’m going to step outside…
society brainwashes you to think you have “free will” then explain what happens to the misunderstood kids that have grown up to waste their life as predators , instead of being the very prey they wish they were , it happens because of jealousy and believing in something that doesn’t believe in you back.
i can place myself under many categories of beliefs on a full list , from zero to 10 counting down every belief i can name , i can alos provide reason why i support some and not others , i can also give you links to websites that have driven me to this point (count out the immature exposure sites).
I can give you plenty resources as to why i’m not for society , and alot of it doesnt even have to do with me , when comes down to it , the world matters more than myself , it just disrespects me.
what is the point of existing and seeing yourself more superior then others , and knowing it , instead of looking down upon yourself , bring down the pain you deserve , actually have feelings and give a damn.
society only influences the very thing it tries to stop , it’s blind faith with a bible as your guide , you can be happy because you think about yourself and are careless for others , thats all religion does , makes you selfish and evil.
ignore this all you want , i dont care if i made mistakes , at least i dont attempt “perfection” and lust , im proud im a looser but im not proud you symbolize me , i cant make friends with an opposite race because of you , and that is the power of your “free will” its only pain for others.
i’m going to step outside…
Hey DonnieDarkoFan,
Yeah I think you misunderstand me and I think that was because I wasnt very clear
Society as it stands is pretty fucked up with dubious value systems and is something to be surpassed by the individual.
However my contention is that the internal eudaimonistic morality which surpasses the morality of the masses leads naturally to the idea of the IDEAL society. Why? Because it is not for one individual but is innate within all of us, simply more developed in others than some
Does that make my thoughts any clearer?
Donnie Darko Fan
I dunno I’ve been reading him for five years and Kaufman and keith Ansel Pearson and De Leuze and the pihilisophical biography and it ain’t easy!!!
Imp - rocking!
Krossie
So, danchoo - you touch here upon Nietzsche as Transcendentalist. I’m not sure I ever eally bought that version. Beyond that, I’m not sure how Nietzschean it is to surpass ego-driven goals. So let’s put Nietzsche aside. You now sound like this, if I may take a liberty with your statement - we possess virtue by virtue of a virtue. There is something inside us, or some of us, that if we all realised it, would make the world a better place. I flatly disagree with that. I will agree that we may possess something, which I call will, that if properly directed, will make the world a better place - for us.
Hmmmm. The plural isn’t really working for me. An individual, by practising this thing we call philosophy in a properly directed way, can improve his own life, which can be stated as improving life itself. But this is not, strictly speaking, prescriptive in a general sense. The prescription is for him only. Your version is subjectivist, at bottom. Nietzsche (couldn’t stay away) is beyond subjectivism - to perspectivism. The perspectivist cannot translate his philosophy for the masses - it is specific to his perspective. By definition.
There is no one principle - this is a sympton of the philosopher’s disease. The principles are determined by the perspective, or as I prefer, the context - the context being an idividual life, with a unique perspective. This is not transcendental, but merely conceived of as a process. It is not Nietzsche the mystic, or Nietzsche the metaphysic. I reject these analyses - just don’t see the evidence.
I am not so much here attempting an exegesis of Nietzsche, I only refer to him as a context for my oen thought, for it is that I am spouting here.
f
Hi Fausty,
That’s sort of my point- I don’t consider there to be any good reason for moral logic to be any different to regular rational thought processes. In this sense, I don’t think there is any normative system, or system of morality, above and beyond what we already use to function as rational beings. There is no separate whole to how I feel morality works- the individual building blocks that form the makeup of a moral situation in themselves have ‘variable relevance’. Trying to control such situations with either rules, or principles, seems entirely illogical to me.
obw - how can you formulate a rational argument without a couple or three premises?
Hi everybody,
I just trray to make some conversation - repaying to initial question,
- First problem: of course there is big diference between theoretical moral philosophy or if you want theoretocal moral philosophy and everyday praxis or morality.
The hardest philosophical problem is how can someone apply higly general or universal ethical principles in everyday life. In that point almost every moral philosophy have troubles.
- If you an Aristotelic in that case you will expect that what is good for society is also good for individual an vice versa
But unfortunately in such comunitaristic society strange tings can hapen.
First od all here society is an organism and every individual is just part of greater society. there is as Aristotel said such thing as individual independent of society or human id zoom pliticon (social being)
In such society our values are derivced from our practices and all members share the same values and same religion and customs
Society (or better city) is a project of all citizens in a common goal of all citizens.
Anyway you could face quite a problem in such society governed by coustoms and common good if you are a child or a women or a stranger and you not percieved as citizen.
Greg 
Hi and huh,
About Nietzsche- I agree that will to power in some exstent describes society of individualsitic egoists who sees and followe only her personal goals. That’s in reality picture of some kind of wild egoism.
But - I thing that some act are bad an evil by themselves (not only with respect to consequneces as conseqencialists claims). That is whay I don’t agree with will to power: to fulfill your own desires and interests on behalf of all others whith all means no matter on consequneces of your acts. Than you are realy beyond good and evil.
Greg
Hey faust!
Just to say, Im not trying to interpret Nietzsche but give my own ideas albeit influenced by him. The only Nietzsche text I have read is Thus Spake Zarathustra and I remember a great passage where he belittles the ‘small sagacity’ (which I interpreted as the ego) compared to the ‘big sagacity’. So on my understanding it is Nietzschean to overcome the ego, but Im open to having my mind changed.
However when you say my point leads to the conclusion we possess virtue by virtue of a virtue, I dont agree. I think we may agree with the concept of a internal ‘eudamonistic’ morality as you put it but my contention is that THAT is human nature and how shall I put it, its a virtue because we define it as such. Its a virtue because it fulfils our interests.
Perhaps the assumption I make is that we are social beings and this morality, the primary morality is inextricably linked with the concept of society. But to me that is a fair assumption as humankind has (generally)equal potential to rational thought and I think where I may disagree with you is that the telos of morality is IDEAL society rather than merely the individual.
Does that make sense?
Danchoo - I think there are two separate kinds of morality, with two different sources. The philosopher, notably, seeks a good life, according to standards that are higher than the nonphilosophical. Maybe not better, but higher. The external, societal ethics we employ are not designed to lift men higher, but to maintain a mean. Attempts to go past that invariably fail.
Internal morality is designed to reach loftier goals.
Not everyone is equipped to pursue this. Some people are just too busy surviving. Some just have better things to do. They are the herd.
It is always tempting to take some personal ideal and try to lift everyone to that standard. It’s not realistic. Pearls before swine. But philosophers have been doing it at least since Plato.
Socrates is a model for internal, nonuniversalised ethics. So is Nietzsche.
I think these are two different activites that use the same vocabulary. I think eudaemonistic philosophy is by definition a personal, nongeneralisable activity. That’s where we disagree - one cannot lead to the other. We can only negotioate with each other.
Ok faust, I think we understand each other. I am idealistic rather than ‘realistic’ which I am happy to accept and don’t apologise for. And yes to be honest I’m not sure how to apply my ideas within the current framework of society as it stands but I do believe in theory my argument stands. Yeah I think we know where we agree(the idea of two moralities) and disagree(eudaimonistic philosophy being generalisable). Interesting discussion!
Yes, danchoo, and for that I thank you.
As I have been busy, the last couple of days, I have not
had time to participate in the last few post. but I did have time
late last night to look up Euaemonistic philosophy.
I had forgotten this stuff. It is about ancient ethics.
From Socrates down to the stoics of the roman
empire, each followed the idea of Eudaimonia.
What the ancients did was connect happiness to
virtue. that connection was called Eudaimonia.
By being virtuous, one is lead to happiness.
or said another way, the virtuous man is the happiest man.
Happiness is found when a person is carrying out certain activities
or functioning in a certain way.
Ancient moral theory is agent-centered, What is the just man?
Modern moral theory is action-centered, what acts are moral,
or really what acts are immoral? Recall the “Declaration of
Independence” whereas the clause says, " endowed by the
creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit HAPPINESS" The ancients thinkers
would not have left Happiness to go without some explanation.
Today, we have left the idea of Happiness to each individual
person. Whatever floats your boat, is another way of saying it.
And what of modern morals? Actions are separate from intentions,
the ancients would not have made that distinction.
And we are left with a couple of thoughts, does happiness
flow from being virtuous? Is this drive to find happiness,
really the problem with america today? to refer to an earlier
post, have we mistaken the game of life, as a search for
happiness, whereas life is really something else.
Kropotkin
Yeah, Peter. I think the modern notion of morality, which is more informed by the Bible than by the greeks, must focus on acts. The Greek notion, that Nietzsche harkens back to, is sort of a lost art, and of a different zeitgeist than ours. I think that you are correct, in that the usual formulations of happiness was not the object of eudaemonism (is that a word?). Nietzsche tried to reformulate the greek idea for modern man. I would like to examine that very notion. More later, gotta run.
Thanks for your enlightening post, though.
yes , and i need those multi-posts deleted lol.
why is it those who have knowledge , still don’t have a clue…
that’s like sending a nred into a gorrila cage LOL.
You imply such premises would need to be principles…I see no reason to believe that(?)