However , a lot of Christian fundamentalists would certainly disagree ... the argument really is why do we look to 'outside sources' for moral guidelines ..now we can go deep in the human psyche to find the answer , but for now id like to refrain from doing so ... but I was just wondering if anybody would like to elaborate on Nietzsche's ideals .. without bias and with logical reasoning of course ...



"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life." - Nietzsche

Maybe he was just a frickin nutcase ...who knows

I don't believe he was a complete nutcase. He made some pretty accurate observations in my opinion. Please feel free to go deep in the human psyche for the answer . I'm interested in reading what you have to say.

He said quite a few insightful things, but most of it was just pure horse shit.

Examples of the horseshit please

Fuck, you mean i have to go digging around the internet to prove my opinion? what do you think this is, debate or something?

let me get back to you on that one.

Nietzsche was god....so to say

the man was a genius.....his earlier work is a little easier to understand, his latter years is when he got crazy....but overall, he had the right ideas about philosophy and life, or rather a very justified theory: morals don't exist, or rather shouldn't; man is but a caged animal (said cage being society); BEING/SELF is crucial; the mind can no longer grow since man has grown content; God is dead, or never existed......

anywho, go Nietzsche.....

Two words ..... downward causation ..

explain

Nietzsche and morals: he attacks Christian fundamentalists only, did he not? If morals didn't exist, we would lose our ability to compare and contrast what is right and wrong in our actions. Yes, yes, based on a solid fundamentalist theory which Christianity has been accused of exploiting and etc, etc.. fine.

It's too easy to lay down some wonderful ideology of "we would be such free beings if we had no restrictive morals holding us back, etc, etc"..

I'm no expert on Nietzsche, but I don't think morals should be abolished from our state of mind. I think that's a radicalist statement and ultimately, just another dominant, elitist view.....there are too many factors (and other philosophies from different lands to consider)..

1. God is dead.
2. Woman was God's second mistake.

Yeah, makes sense and it instills a sense of power that otherwise does not exist in us. It inspires a sense of freedom in us. A freedom free from political rhetoric, the churches damnation and gives us a seemingly strong sense of individualism...but like any philosophy or religion or pattern of thought, it's still deseminated in a comparitave view. A "right" and "wrong" method of thinking.

Explain to me our pattern of thought free of these otherwise caged thoughts. Is it possible to even do so since even Nietzsche's philosophy was formulated from a caged perspective? Caged thoughts grappling for "new ideas" can only (by logic) acquire new ideas outside the cage. But, when are we truly free then? Does that mean we are only expanding the size of our cage?

"Free your mind" you might say. Towards Enlightenment..? Bear in mind that there are multiple forms of enlightenment theory and it'd do you well to chuckle that the Political Theories of Enlightenment aimed to secularize even these thoughts.

What I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated than merely the sphere of philosophy can handle. You can break down the arguements but you won't find a real answer. Just another fragment of the Truth...which is relative to your perception in any case.

w3rd...

y'know, i might be mistaken, since it's been awhile since i read up on ole' Nietzsche, but i thought his views on morality (which is perception anyway) wasn't so much a way to tell right from wrong, but a way to seperate man from animal....but all we did was "cage" the animal......we are less natural in this state.....

but anywho, good argument there...

but, what i took from Nietzsche was his more existential views on life.....i am me, i'm what i can prove exists (not 100% of course) and what is me, should be, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....now, if me is the animal, then why should i be caged? why should i allow a sense of "right" and "wrong" limit me.....

but again, it all boils down to perception....and might i add, you're really into "perception" these days......

yeah, i'm all about "perception is all there is"...and we're always in constant change and collision with our perceptions.. old ones and new ones and tra la la...

(and yes, I'm even worse off than you on my up-to-date knowledge on Nietzsche..this is all just from the top of my head)..

I think in a lot of ways, Nietzsche is most useful in the time that he lived and what he stood against. I completely agree with "we should not be caged" but to what extent..? It's almost safe to say (based on the mutual agreement here) that people without morals (not boundaries, but morals) are those that cause pain to themselves and to others at some given point...all for the desire (desire is such a sin! a helpless one at that..) to vainly believe that ideologies can set us free.

On another note, I don't think I could sit through a Philosophy of Ethics class (and get a good grade) because of stuff like this. Arguements about ethics always felt petty and off-topic to me (at least at my university, which I'm assuming is close enough to the talk that gets thrown around everywhere else)...

Anyway, anyone else have a different thought to add?

what, you don't wanna hear my thoughts?

first off, Nietzsche will go down as one of the greatest philosophers/thinkers of all time.....his philosophy wasn't for a set time or what he stood against, they were just his thoughts....and philosophy is indebted to him for it......in many aspects, Nietzsche's philosophy is more popular than classic philosophy....

anywho, people with morals cause pain just the same as people without morals, both with ideological intent....

and ethics....well, ethics is stupid.....is abortion wrong? who cares! what one should be asking is, what is wrong, and why do we recognize it?

that was Nietzsche's quest.....well, one of 'em.....and it was his conclusion (so i believe) that it was just a way to seperate man from animal....it isn't set in stone......hundred years ago, it was okay to "string up" a bad guy (vigilante justice); today, vigilante justice is wrong!......50 yrs ago it was okay to call all black people "niggers" and consider them "worthless nigger shit"; today, not so much....

and so this in a sense is like perception....which, you admit is ever changing.....so, if perception is ever changing (and in a sense, wrong, as it is subject to change and NOT sound and valid), then why even need it in the first place?

the same with morality....if it is subject to change, and brings about change, then how much validity does it truly have when regarding "the truth"?

ooo, this will be fun to discuss. but i'm beat. i'll answer tomorrow..

this one's just funny because you put an exclamation mark instead of a question mark. makes it double funny. hah! cough...

yeah, well....y'know me.....always the comedian

Or maybe he was on a lot of drugs and had an agenda.

ok, my brain is a little dull since i haven't had any coffee, but i'm still going to attempt this...

First, lets break down the parts of this.

1. All perceptions are in constant change and are therefore in a sense, wrong as it is subject to change and NOT sound and valid. (I needed to type this out myself so my brain understands the framework, sorry, )

2. Validity of morals and interlocked with truth. What does this mean.

~~ ...

1.

Alright, in response to number one, why should perceptions not change, not be in constant evolution, be defined and written as a set code?

The word "moderation" springs to mind. I suppose it's an opinion of mine that "everything in moderation is fine" which allows your philosophy of aesthetics that "nothing is good, bad, beautiful, ugly, etc"..

Conversely, the crazy crack head down the street who's annoying the fuck out of everyone is a useless member of society. The end. (I know you understand this already and agree, but I'm writing this for references' sake).

I'm shifting towards behaviorism by talking about moderation and I think it's a key aspect of understanding perception. There are certain universals behind our motives in thought and action in all societies and all cultures. Some cultures (perceptions) value materialism higher than spiritualism. But, that doesn't mean that both aspects aren't, in a sense, equally important to maintain a balance. Rather, view is as: A balance contingent upon the values of that specific perception. In other words, "balance" doesn't mean equal in weight, but the comfortable norm in which we proceed with our lives. (ie: someone who only goes to church on Sundays (spiritualism) but spends every other day of the week accumulating wealth (materialism)).

Now, the economy changes all the time. Political ideologies are constantly being remade. Our cultural reactions to this is a conflict of maintaining our sense of "Self" (as both an individual and as a member of society) and therein lies the constant change.

I'll give a seperate analogy to this: You have a relationship. It's Beautiful. Then you break up. Now, it's Ugly. Which is true? Of course, they're both true. It once was beautiful, but then things were sullied and changed and now it's ugly. If you view time as linear (Western) as opposed to cyclical (Eastern) that might have a great deal of influence on how you'll reflect on this event as well. In a nutshell (a really crappy, quick rundown): a linear perspective demands us to move on and find new paths to pave because the moment is gone and never will be again. A beginning and an end. While a cyclical perspective reminds us that this moment is a reoccuring spiral of action and we may only "move on" by expanding the distance between the cycles so that we may avoid encountering negativity of the same like again...which would eventually deal with ideas of reincarnation and stuff to where you've escaped all negativity and attain Nirvana or whatever Eastern form of heaven.

Behaviorism is what makes situations like this seem so dynamic. "True perception" (true understanding) is what makes us avoid such situations like this. That is truth (at least, that's what I'm stating right now). When you recognize an event/situation/person/whatever before "getting to know the semantic frameworks of the actual thing". Should I dub it cognitive truth? I dunno. There's no map of how to identify Truth and as human beings, we love to classify things. It gives us a sense of control but it's my opinion that it is exactly that desire to classify Truth is what prevents us from knowing Truth. Truth IS relative (unstable) but it is also contingent on our immediate surroundings which can be our every day lives (stable).

That was fucking confusing.

2.

Oh wait, I think I answered both in one.

Have at it...

This is too much for me to read right now (I'm at work) but I just want to say that I think the man was brillant. True, he was insane, and you have to filter though the rubbish - but the solid stuff is pure gold. Plus, I'm a Superman, so...