The inevitable question

[EvangelionZeta]

i haven't actually read 'beyond good and evil', but the argument that nietzsche advances in 'genealogy of morals' is not very compelling at all. he is quite a slippery philosopher...and i think a certain someone agrees...

A certain someone being DMac or my brother? :p And you'll have to explain to me what is disagreeable with Nietzsche - I think he has a weird way of cinceptualising things, but at the same time I think his fundamental principles (or at least, what I think to be the basic ideas behind his philosophy) are quite compelling.

[brightsky]

A certain someone being DMac or my brother? :p And you'll have to explain to me what is disagreeable with Nietzsche - I think he has a weird way of cinceptualising things, but at the same time I think his fundamental principles (or at least, what I think to be the basic ideas behind his philosophy) are quite compelling.

the former...although i'm not quite sure because she refrains from judging other philosophers...

for obvious reasons i've only read sections of genealogy. in his account of the origin of christian morality, nietzsche makes several generalisations, the most unsettling of which is the assertion that humans can be divided into two types. he goes to great lengths to describe the characteristics of each type, but never takes on the task of actually justifying this rather simplistic division. i think most people would agree that every individual is unique, and thinks slightly differently; there are either many more types or no  types at all. furthermore, nietzsche opines that morality stems from ressentiment, a claim which lacks historical justification, and is therefore pure speculation. it doesn't even make sense from a psychological perspective. nietzsche also commits the genetic fallacy when he argues that christian morality is without merit simply because there is a likelihood that it may have originated from something not to be exalted. his theory of the self is also problematic too but to really explain its problems requires too much time and effort...

what do you think are the fundamental principles of nietzsche's moral philosophy?

LOL OFFTOPIC

[EvangelionZeta]

the former...although i'm not quite sure because she refrains from judging other philosophers...

for obvious reasons i've only read sections of genealogy. in his account of the origin of christian morality, nietzsche makes several generalisations, the most unsettling of which is the assertion that humans can be divided into two types. he goes to great lengths to describe the characteristics of each type, but never takes on the task of actually justifying this rather simplistic division. i think most people would agree that every individual is unique, and thinks slightly differently; there are either many more types or no  types at all. furthermore, nietzsche opines that morality stems from ressentiment, a claim which lacks historical justification, and is therefore pure speculation. it doesn't even make sense from a psychological perspective. nietzsche also commits the genetic fallacy when he argues that christian morality is without merit simply because there is a likelihood that it may have originated from something not to be exalted. his theory of the self is also problematic too but to really explain its problems requires too much time and effort...

what do you think are the fundamental principles of nietzsche's moral philosophy?

LOL OFFTOPIC

I'd broadly agree with your objections actually - some I think come down to issues of interpretation perhaps, although others (eg the slave vs master binary) I agree and categories in my "weird way of cinceptualising things" group.

I think the fundamental principle is that everything is will and that beauty in life is attained through embracing said will.  Tbh I think that principle is also expressed in Plato (enlightenment is reached in seeing the good; everything is, in fact, the good), just that their particulars vary and that's where philosophy perhaps gets a bit more technical but also interesting.

And yes, lol #offtopic.

[brightsky]

I'd broadly agree with your objections actually - some I think come down to issues of interpretation perhaps, although others (eg the slave vs master binary) I agree and categories in my "weird way of cinceptualising things" group.

I think the fundamental principle is that everything is will and that beauty in life is attained through embracing said will.  Tbh I think that principle is also expressed in Plato (enlightenment is reached in seeing the good; everything is, in fact, the good), just that their particulars vary and that's where philosophy perhaps gets a bit more technical but also interesting.

And yes, lol #offtopic.

that all sounds good and well, but after reading nietzsche a few times, one cannot help but ask the question: what the hell is he trying to say? nothing much at all. there is merit in his theory of the self, and his argument sounds quite fancy - "there is no agent behind the doing, there is just the doing" - but when you actually think about it, he isn't really saying much at all. is he denying the existence of the subject? no he doesn't appear to be. what is he denying then? he seems to be denying free will, but then again he's refuses to be classed as a determinist. he claims that we must cease from thinking in terms of binary pairs, but how do you go beyond 'free will and non-free will'?

i'm not much of an aesthete so i can really relate to this 'beauty of life' concept, and i fail to grasp its philosophical relevance. nietzsche indeed seems to be suggesting that we embrace the chaotic forces of life. but what the hell does that mean? how are we to embrace a force? essentially, how should we live? he doesn't answer any of these questions explicitly and therefore adequately. he writes eloquently and his works are a joy to read, especially when he bags the slaves, etc. but the thing is, they don't say much at all if you read it with a philosophy cap on.

[EvangelionZeta]

that all sounds good and well, but after reading nietzsche a few times, one cannot help but ask the question: what the hell is he trying to say? nothing much at all. there is merit in his theory of the self, and his argument sounds quite fancy - "there is no agent behind the doing, there is just the doing" - but when you actually think about it, he isn't really saying much at all. is he denying the existence of the subject? no he doesn't appear to be. what is he denying then? he seems to be denying free will, but then again he's refuses to be classed as a determinist. he claims that we must cease from thinking in terms of binary pairs, but how do you go beyond 'free will and non-free will'?

i'm not much of an aesthete so i can really relate to this 'beauty of life' concept, and i fail to grasp its philosophical relevance. nietzsche indeed seems to be suggesting that we embrace the chaotic forces of life. but what the hell does that mean? how are we to embrace a force? essentially, how should we live? he doesn't answer any of these questions explicitly and therefore adequately. he writes eloquently and his works are a joy to read, especially when he bags the slaves, etc. but the thing is, they don't say much at all if you read it with a philosophy cap on.

Depends on what you mean by philosophy cap. I think it's also very easy to look beyond free will/non-free will as a binary as well - if you go back to the question of the self, and frame it in terms of denying the subject, but moreover, denying anything but the will, I think it's easy to do it (essentially you just have to accept free will/volition just doesn't make any sense, because there is no self that is making decisions).

I would also say that embracing life makes sense to me as well. At this point I'd probably quote Cam/Aurelian and also say Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher you rationalize, but rather, somebody you have to "feel". Cam's advice is to listen to some Eminem for a bit - apparently it helps in understanding Nietzsche.

[Russ]

Brightsky, did you just make an argument for moral relativism?

You say this like there's something wrong with it

[brenden]

You say this like there's something wrong with it

Hahahaha, are you a moral relativist, Russ? Like Brightsky, I find it very intuitively unappealing.

[Russ]

Fundamentally yes, but it's not something I spend a lot of time worrying about

[chasej]

Ahhahha. But threre's scientific evidence that on the exact moment a person die they lose weight, which suggests "soul" is leaving the body.

This therefore makes the assumption that someone's "soul" has a weight and therefore is a physical thing that can be found or at least in some way quantified.

And yeh, that sentence needs a citation.

[slothpomba]

For me, the journey is more important than the destination. I don't believe we go anywhere in particular when we die, i have no reason to. The more important thing is how you live your life before you die and make the most of it.

It reminds me of a quote attributed to Epicurus - I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care.

There was a time when you weren't here, you didn't previously exist and you didn't care. You're here now, enjoy it. Death is nothing to fear because (according to him anyway) it's returning to that same state of absolute nothingness like before you were born, you simply did not exist.  Death is nothing to be feared because it is literally nothing. If you have any anxiety about dying, it'll sure as hell go away once it happens, it's the perfect cure.

Another perspective is if you ask a Buddhist, becoming attached to things cause us suffering because nothing is permanent. If you become attached to the idea of a Ferrari, you will be sad because you want one and you don't have it. If you get one, you will become sad because it'll one day stop working and the anxiety of looking after it and maintaining it will likewise cause you grief. You will be then anxious and sad about or upon losing it. There's a similar perspective to life and death. One of the things you must get rid of your attachment to is life itself. We hang onto life with such a tight grip that the thought of death causes the very act of living to cause us pain and anxiety.

Then we wind up with people writing things like this:

“Likewise and during every day of an unillustrious life, time carries us. But a moment always comes when we have to carry it. We live on the future: “tomorrow,” “later on,” “when you have made your way,” “you will understand when you are old enough.” Such irrelevancies are wonderful, for, after all, it’s a matter of dying. Yet a day comes when a man notices or says that he is thirty. Thus he asserts his youth. But simultaneously he situates himself in relation to time. He takes his place in it. He admits that he stands at a certain point on a curve that he acknowledges having to travel to its end. He belongs to time, and by the horror that seizes him, he recognizes his worst enemy. Tomorrow, he was longing for tomorrow, whereas everything in him ought to reject it. That revolt of the flesh is the absurd.”

-----------------------

Hey guys I'm having this weird thoughts lately.
I came across the inevitable question: what happens when we die?
We are basically removed from this whole world and the only thing remains is memory.
Heaven? Hell? Rebirth? Nothingness? But those are all only theory with no solid evidence.
So why are we here at all?
Disturbing question.
Any thoughts?

All depends on what you believe happens when you die since it's not like we can actually tell.

Ahhahha. But threre's scientific evidence that on the exact moment a person die they lose weight, which suggests "soul" is leaving the body.
So if a person dies and fall into "nothingness",  really all the effort and everything you did in your lifetime is....pointless? People tries really hard and earn money etc, but really you can't take any of them with you when you die. It's not like you can spend it in a possible "other" world

The soul is usually thought of as a metaphysical object or substance in all existing religions as far as i know (Christianity and the one's we're familiar with but there is a somewhat similar idea in Hinduism as well). Be kinda weird if it was physical because that means we can find it or it could conceivably be destroyed in a fire or something.