Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six

I rarely do this here in the philosophy section, but for once I'm going to step outside my overly formal (and fake) manner and contradict everything I've been trying to put an end to here by stating out right:

YOU ARE A FUCKIN' RETARD!

I highly doubt that you've read much of Nietzsche at all. I think you may have taken a glance at this and that (maybe for your History of Philosophy: 103 course your freshamn year), but you don't know what you read or why you read it. For instance, I was almost impressed when you quoted section 1 and 28 of "What Is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals?" from Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals. Then of course you said something stupid . . .

So pray tell (just so I can get somewhat of an understanding of your philosophical knowledge) . . . what was meant by Nietzsche when he declared "and it [man, the human animal] will rather will nothingness than not will?"

You know what, don't bother trying . . . you don't know. It's evident in your post. Nietzsche wasn't declaring that man was seeking "nothing" as is synonymous with "void." He was declaring that man was seeking "nothing" as is synonymous with an "ascetic ideal." That the very aspects of our "humaness" is often justified by something "inhumaness."

For example: Christians - God. Artists - beauty. Philosophers - Truth (note the capitalization of Truth . . . for their is a difference in truth and Truth . . . but what does it matter, you have no comprehension of this).

The prior halves of these examples are things given a reason and meaning that is justified by the existence of the "nothingness" (or rather, the ascetic ideal).

In the case of morality, it was a mere example to show how society sought out, and found it fit, to cage the animal-man and bring forth man via moral ideals. Morality is only granted by society. Outside of a societal context, it exists not. It is nothing.

And you're right . . . Nietzsche did find disgust in this "will to nothingness," but he granted it it's existence. He granted it a purpose. After all, did he not view himself to be the greatest philosopher, whereby in doing so he understood his own will to nothingness? But then again, perhaps that's just my own OPINION on the matter.