Even Nietzsche falls into the trap of moralizing.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
All philosophers are decadent moralizers
Even Nietzsche falls into the trap of moralizing.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
That's why Wagner will always be greater.
Wagner loved Schopenhauer.
>ESL thread
Wtf are you talking about?
Probably cause you're comparing a philosopher with a composer
Wagner was a philosopher, poet, composer and dramatist all in one.
Both were composers. It's not Wagner's fault Nietzsche's compositions were ghastly.
WILL TO POWER!
>decadent moralizer
OP, define what you mean by this
They're cowards.
atheist can be philosophers
>read moral philosophy
>it moralizes
>tfw when a pure metaphysician who doesn’t care about morality is the greatest philosopher of all time
>metaphysics
Are morality.
No it’s not, metaphysics and morality are distinctly different.
Metaphysics is thoroughly contaminated by morality.
The only true metaphysical statement is the one Nietzsche makes in reference to the pagan assassins - Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
>Metaphysics is thoroughly contaminated by morality.
Not at all, they deal with separate topics, if you want to allege they are the same or that morality invariably infiltrates metaphysics it's on you to demonstrate that, which you haven't.
It's a construct that doesn't exist you fricking moron. Metaphysics was invented.
Thermodynamics are real and even then the laws of physics are not fully understood. Metaphysics have no real application and therefore do not exist. They are in the realm of the fantastical.
Wasn't me.
>Thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics aren't absolutely either. They apply only to certain situations.
Everything is relative, that's why everything is just a frame and only gives a glimpse of a perspective.
All laws can be violated. And nothing that has energy is constant
I hope someone violates your mom
NTA but it’s pretty clear that he’s alluding to the standard Nietzschean argument against metaphysics exemplified by Nietzsche’s attacks against Plato.
Meant for
Why is a trap, why the trap ain't an unmoral reality were learning means nothing, if the guy next to you will take the 20 and suck dick
what a shit thread
Philosophy is only one step removed from religion. It's slavery of the mind.
>the discipline of making abstract value judgments, when talking about morals, has too many people making abstract moral value judgments
>the discipline of making abstract value judgments, when talking about morals, has too many people making abstract moral value judgments
>when talking about morals
When talking about anything. They always slip their poison even when they don't mean to.
The philosopher belongs to the priestly class. And as Nietzsche correctly identified, the priestly class is decadent and anti-life.
Without the sheep the shepherd doesn't exist.
I raped yours last night.
I tip my trilby to you, my le fellow misosopher. Nietzsche was truly a genius, on par with Neil DeGrasse-Tyson.
That's pretty funny.
nietzsche was the ultimate non-moralizer though.
he ditched all rules contained in religions, politics, social contracts, he ditched good and evil.
that's why he never said "live like this or like that", on the contrary, do that which gives you power, or in other words, live in a way that makes YOUR life worth it for YOU
>do that which gives you power, or in other words, live in a way that makes YOUR life worth it for YOU
But this isn't a novel or interesting prescription, this is how every degenerate adherent of "slave morality" lives today.
Nta but you may want to look at some of this without the overture of master/slave dichotomy for a bit, which is not to say it does not apply but rather understanding Nietzsche's particular notion may help first. The evolution of the idea in Nietzsche's works as a whole is probably more described in what the 'will to power' is not rather than direct affirmation of definitional parameters, this is partially becuase Nietzsche either did not want to or could not create a framework for direct affirmation. In his earliest works it is frankly not even a concept he can lay claim to. In Human all too Human and Daybreak he spends time talking about what it isn't. In The Gay Science he specifically mentions the will to dominate others either through benefit or harm. He mentions cruelty as being the inferior since it connotates a lack of power, and seems to indicate forming a system in which others are indebted to you is the ideal method. Strewn about his other works are more descriptions of what it is not along with notions that it is something we do with our own bodies as well as others. He attempted to extend this to other scientific aspects and was rebutted for the most part so I have no further comments on this. My own interpretation is: think it, go do it. It is very no frills and not very captivating and you may even be inclined to say it is not even noteworthy and those would all be fair criticisms. The other anon is correct in the sense that in Nietzsche's philosophy this will is beyond morality, good, and evil and so forth, it is just innate to humans and animals, and depending on the text Nietzsche's more melodramatic statements that the universe itself applies. Insofar as master/slave dichotomy is concerned they both have will to power, the difference is that a master possesses it in a manifestation that allows them to do whatever they want for purposes of demonstration, and a slave possesses it but may be inferior in manifestation and therefore cannot do whatever they want. Hopefully that helps.
>and a slave possesses it but may be inferior in manifestation and therefore cannot do whatever they want.
Yet they want everybody to be like them. And the slave always thinks he is master because he can't see what's outside of himself or himself.
He is one with the master.
You can find aphorisms in Nietzsche that are all over the map on this subject, he mentions what you are referring to as an effort by the slaves to enslave the masters with morality. He also has aphorisms praising either. He offers the Ubermensch as a reconciliation. He creates a gradient of life affirmation. I do not recall a specific aphorism referring to a unification per se, which is not to say there is no aphorism referring to this but rather that I do not recall one. The notion of there being a sort of parity or unity is more Hegelian, even the Ubermensch was purported to be a different species or superior to both. If a master were to rescind their intrinsic capacity to assign value and adopt the slave morality then they may still possess a position of some authority but they have succumbed to the slave mentality either by force or by choice, Nietzsche does not posit that slaves are without power, in fact there are aphorisms which seem to indicate he felt it may actually be preferable to be a slave. He also claimed it was more preferable to be a master and even ascribed the notion of trust as being something masters possessed. Due to the nature of his remarks I attempted to put it in phrasing that is sensible enough to me but does not convey the totality of his dichotomy. If you remove the notion of birthright and view it strictly in terms of 'will to power' the difference in a master and a slave is that the master can do whatever the master wants, the slave cannot. If one were to complete the revaluation of values possess the highest order will to power they can supercede the previous 2.
>do that which gives you power, or in other words, live in a way that makes YOUR life worth it for YOU
>But this isn't a novel or interesting prescription, this is how every degenerate adherent of "slave morality" lives today.
It's subtle but it's not quite it. The slave moralizers have no mastery of themselves, no proper individuation away from the opinions of others. They let mimesis and desire guide them, and have no character, no strength of personality; no psychic strength.
The Christian lacks this also but in
a different way. He let's his selfhood be defined by an outward source, that moreover possesses a definite mandate, and so likewise lacks mastery.
To be able to see you have to be separate from all outside sources.
>He let's his selfhood be defined by an outward source, that moreover possesses a definite mandate, and so likewise lacks mastery.
Yes, the Christian perspective is that we only have the choice between being slaves to one of two masters in this life. The supposition that we should just fulfill our desires for a subjective image of the "best life" doesn't really seem to contradict this. Do you have any Metaphysical justification for why a man isn't defined by an outward source, or is this just rhetoric? Because there's really no Philosophical school that will claim that man is self-generated and self-sustaining.
It's more abstract but there is the concept of the automaton. Lagan uses a different terminology but essentially says the same thing. Another way to describe it is the law of conservation of
energy, the isolated system.
Heidegger talks abut it also when he talks about Plato's cave. And Plato himself of course in the Republic.
Of course it's not absolute. You're not completely closed off because you see and you move things, and yet you don't let others do that to you. That is the definition of a master.