He really hasn’t any entitlement to will any subjective morality, either.
No, nothing! According to moral nihilism, after all, there’s no reason why one should be consistent…
By that sort of thinking there is no reason to be logical, rational, or above reproach on anything.
Still that sort of thinking does not negate what I have said whatsoever.
That still flies in the face of do whatever thou shall will.
The end result is still nonetheless moral nihilism and would even complement moral scepticism rather nicely.
Some thinkers are only seeking a philosophical platform on which to kill themselves in peace.
One must therefore wonder about the kinds of lives these thinkers must lead.
Peace is just one of many illusions and deceptions.
In this world there is no peace but conflict is something that is always abound.
You know I was talking about you, right?
If you were then you have greatly misinterpreted or misunderstood what I was saying. Coming from you I’m not at all surprised.
I’ve never heard anyone say that.
Nietzsche knew that.
This view is to be expected from a thought which moves only in one dimension and along a single plateau. Because you cannot see deeper into how various moral ideas are different from each other, from where morals come, or why they even exist, let alone “what morality is”, you are forced to conclude as you do – simplistically and fallaciously. And also psychologically self-servingly.
Nietzsche was not afraid of moral nihilism. He was afraid of the kind of nihilism which you represent, and because he saw your type coming into power and staying in power.
For one thing, you are eminently moral yourself.
No it isn’t.
Self-value is the natural expression of this existence.
It’s just that you happen to manifest your self-valuing by attempting to cut if off and deny it – “nihilism” is only a philosophy of weakness.
You really don’t understand Nietzsche at all, do you.
Creative destruction is always prevalent in the world.
And “anarchy” is and never will be a valid philosophy, much less politics.
Try Humanarchy instead.
Order and rules are an inherent part of existence, especially of organisms and “life”. Let alone consciousness itself, as we experience it and are manifested thusly.
No wonder you want to kill yourself.
Exactly!
Well, by that sort of thinking–i.e., morally nihilistic thinking–, it’s not true that moral nihilism should be embraced, as there are no shoulds or should-nots.
Ah, but it’s not the end result. You see, you were mistaken when you said:
If there is no reason to be truthful, why should people not start believing in imaginary carrots and sticks again?
All of that is an extrapolation of moral nihilism not against it.
Once the transparency of the fraud is exposed there is no going back to it again. Mental adaptation and such.
We don’t get fooled again.
The collective consciousness begins to take note.
And?
What about the mental adaptation to the notion that there is no reason to be truthful? As Palahniuk wrote, “If you watch close, history does nothing but repeat itself.” (Palahniuk, Survivor.)
History often enough does repeat itself but there is several transformations also to be of note.
If the general population comes to a conclusion that they’ve been conditioned to believe in mass delusion all these thousands of years in what is described as civilization we are looking at a major transformation and not some repeat of business as usual.
I believe this awakened collective consciousness is very much possible.
I’m not suggesting some sort of positive collective consciousness either but one of eternal rebellion and defiance where moral nihilism will become dominantly paramount.
Oh, such a cataclysm is definitely possible. It’s just that, sooner or later, a similar mass delusion will again emerge. The rebellion and defiance will by no means be eternal. Anarchy is only an intermediary stage.
And after the genie his epigones, his copyists, his copycats, his imitators come and get “high” outside the bottle.
Probably - or probably not?
Can you give evidence?
When you first set out in philosophy, did you ever have dreams and hopes, ambitions and desires, a sense of beauty in studying the unknown and coming into a better working knowledge of the universe?
Why has it, after reading some dead Prussian, philosophy has become nothing but one short, meaningless narrow road to murder and suicide, with commentary?
Why is this the sum of philosophy for you? All Nietzscheans are addicted to suicide. Knock it off or get on with it, pick a date when you all want to do it, and leave the living to their own devices.
Impossible to imagine a more dreary and worthless philosophy where everyone either wants to die or enslave and whip one another… just… come on, its clearly a lunatic religion, right up there with the Heaven’s Gate Cult.
Go ride a bicycle, and eat some icecreme in the park, play with a puppy… the puppy knows better than to do this to itself, let it rub off on you a bit.
No more suiciding dammit. If you suicide, we will jail you, and you’ll pay a fine, and do community service after. Playing with a puppy sounds alot better now, doesn’t it?
Why not?
I did.
It hasn’t for me. In fact, I find my life much more meaningful post-studying Nietzsche than pre-studying Nietzsche.
Why is this the sum of philosophy for you?
I’m not sure which Nietzschians you are talking about. I am not that way. Maudmarie Clark is not that way. Brian Leiter is not that way. etc. etc.
You can read the slave stuff somewhat metaphorically as about intellectual sparring. Many American Nietzschains read him this way. Nietzshe is certainly not, however, commanding you to have slaves. He’s playing with possibilities, possibilities that perhaps might be more healthy ways of having a society. I for one, disagree with him if his conclusion is that slavery creates a more flourishing society, as i think many Nietzschians would.
Nietzsche would have no problem with any of this. In fact, insofar as it is life affierming, he’d encourage it for sure.
Suicide isn’t immoral, but it’s also very unhealthy, perhaps the unhealthiest way of dealing with life. To me, the Nietzschian action would be to not take your life, even if you are in extreme suffering. I don’t go with Nietzsche all the way down that path. I think someone with a horrible terminal cancer or a soul crushing depression that’s eaten at them for a decade, suicide can be rational or justified. That doesn’t mean it’s the only or best solution.
Just wanted to try and rebut a bit on the behalf of the Nietzschians, of which I count myself among these days.
Okay, that is a cynical statement, but nevertheless: Nietzscheans are endangered …:
What shall we do with him?
Probably Nietzsche didn’t overcome nihilism, but brought more nihilism than all other nihilists before him, because he spread nihilism all over the world.
Who is really able to overcome nihilism in times of nihilism?
Moral relativism fails as a system, because it cannot arbitrate ethical conflicts. Entitlement literally begs this question.
Well, I think Nietzsche was a great life philosopher, a great scepticist, a great psychologist (and b.t.w.: the real or original founder of the psychoanalyse), a great immunologist, a great writer, a graet aphorist, a graet essayist, a great poet, a great philologist, but that’s all. I don’t know whether he overcame nihilism, but I know that it is nearly impossible to overcome nihilism in nihilistic times because it is impossible to eliminate the thought of nihilism in times of nihilism.(Cp.: Zeitgeist). When you think you do not want to think about nihilism, you think about nihilism.