Was this guy just completely out of touch with historical reality? Does master morality even exist, objectively speaking?

Was this guy just completely out of touch with historical reality? Does master morality even exist, objectively speaking?
Were the greeks really all these indifferent conquerers who killed and dominated on a whim without any thought like based morons, only to inevitably fizzle out when the first among them started to think their entire mythology wasn't adding up? Or were they perhaps also motivated by this human feeling of ressentiment and bound by autistically strict codes of morality, such as feeding the dead in their tombs because otherwise they will send sickness your way?
Were the Romans being "master moralists" whenever they frothed at the mouth talking about how they should grind Carthage into the earth and then laughing maniacally when they actually did it?
What even is strength and weakness? What even are these objectively good values (and Nietzsche does imply that they are good and objective) of glory, achievement, and power that he talks about? Do you just have to have a "feel" for them? Have fun when people start making fun of you and your anti-social ideas. Don't worry you are just like Zarathustra and everyone else is just sheep. It's definitely not the case that you are human like them, only just a bit more moronic.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can we quit with the Nietzsche threads? Yes, that homie was most definitely an intellectually and socially inept writer, whose poetic ramblings can only be appreciated by juvenile readers.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >historical reality

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >valuing strength is an "anti-social" idea now
    This generation is doomed.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >autistically strict codes of morality
    Christianity has permanently raised the bar on how demanding morality can get, as you can see with something like Matthew 5:21-48
    Any morality not similarly absurdly demanding is not "autistically strict", it's just autistic.

    Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's very funny in this Nietzsche threads I argue with Nietzscheans and they always seem to run away from the arguments

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ime you rarely present any arguments and your grammar and syntax is lacking. I would be inclined to say you are probably not worthwhile, and likely have not read Nietzsche.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >your grammar and syntax is lacking
        *are

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >in this Nietzsche threads
          If you spent the time asking to be spoon fed just reading Nietzsche you wouldn't have to ask to be spoon fed. If you are capable of good grammar and syntax why are you typing without it in the first place?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shut the frick up, You're grammatically horrible

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I see you are still a good b***h aren't you?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're very fricking moronic if you think Grammar matters in this website newbie

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So is this your way of saying you haven't read Nietzsche either?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've read Nietzsche you dumb frick i wouldn't even post here if i didn't, Can't your small mind grasp that ?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then you are certainly welcome to spoon feed the OP.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers you can and should criticise with ad hominems and aesthetics tbqh.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's bold of you to speak in such position if you take Nietzsche as a sort of inspiration to your arguments and your points, Nietzsche's philosophy is entry level philosophy and if you take pride in that I assume you still have got more to learn in philosophy.

        I suggest you read at least Aristotle or Plato to get the hang of philosophy then read other philosopher and stop sucking Nietzsche's dick because underneath his hard and complex words is little to no relevent knowledge and only useless critic against philosophers that are way better than him, So if you take his philosophy as something serious then I think you lack the intelligence to know anything more than his platonic philosophy and i suggest you better quit philosophy while you're at it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >only useless critic against philosophers

          Well by all means present your arguments. I would love for you to suck my dick since it sounds like you probably have nothing to say and no other use for that orifice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for proving my point that Nietzscheans are very incompetent, But since you exceed that level of incompetence I assume you cannot grasp or even understand what I even said in my post. I suggest you use a dictionary or Google translate for hard words and stop humiliating yourself in this thread.

            Give me an essential information from his books other than Ubermensch which i assume you don't even know.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you need to be spoon fed then I suppose you did not read. I thought you were going to dazzle me with Plato and Aristotle in the Nietzsche thread, that is what you said is it not? Or perhaps I misunderstood and you do not even have Platonic or Aristotelian arguments to present either?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Give me an essential information from his books other than Ubermensch which i assume you don't even know

            You're not going to derail the argument into another topic, I asked you this, Answer it.

            I guess you ask people if they read Nietzsche but in reality you haven't even read more than "beyond good and evil" or possibly no book of his, What a waste of time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you had an argument to make then you would have made it. If you have to ask for Nietzsche's ideas then you likely have not read Nietzsche and you are a waste of time. Do you still want to suck my dick since you cannot use it to speak any arguments?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you use your small nimble limited mind you would've noticed that a person will join a thread that they clearly know.

            Do i have to teach you or tell you ? Are you masochistic you like to be humiliated.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Haven't read Plato or Aristotle either?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean most of Nietzsche's philosophy is only a collection of critic against any fricking topic, Nhilism is rarely discussed in his books because it's full of critic against Kant and every poor soul that seems to lean to a Morally correct side.

      Even Nietzsche looks down on anyone who admires him. Let alone this meat riders who haven't read anything by him and still riding him despite lacking the essentials of his philosophy which is cherry picked and posted on tiktok as the highlight of his philosophy, take an example

      Ime you rarely present any arguments and your grammar and syntax is lacking. I would be inclined to say you are probably not worthwhile, and likely have not read Nietzsche.

      , He doesn't know shit yet thinks he know.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >is only a collection of critic against any fricking topic, Nhilism

        Guess I struck a nerve?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche's critique of Master morality is completely incoherent because he knows full well that Kant is right but he tries to refuse it, Slave Morality can be Master morality depending on the context because if a 1person sees a 2person owning him then the 1person is self imposing on himself the slave morality but in the objective eye view, a person can see the opposite thus making it completely objective.

    This is why Nietzsche appeals to young audience because it's Entry level philosophy with "complex words" but a very platonic meaning underneath.
    His critique of the Appolonian society shows the contradiction of his thesis because an Appolonian society's foundation is primarly built on Dionysian values as everything is purely nostalgic, the foundation of Society is primarly built on Ancestral ruling therefore they seek to repeat the same as their ancestors have built. One mustn't look at a society as a collective hive but rather as an Individual society and that's what Nietzsche always avoided, As his precedors Schopenhauer admired Kant because he was right, and primarly his philosophy is the essential drive of this world.
    Nietzsche on the other hand is a contrarian, He stands against anyone who seems to not go with his beliefs, Nietzsche dislikes anything logical therefore he rejects Kant.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If one of your criticisms is that Nietzsche used complex words and that makes him beginner level then you are agreeing that Kant is also beginner lever or your criticism has no merit in the first place. Nietzsche referred to Dionysian as more 'primal' or 'instinctual' than Appolonian, to say Appolonian was built on Dionysian is at prima fascie a seeming misread of some of his conclusions, I am interpreting this to mean you are familiar with his comments that both are needed but not familiar with how he viewed them as competing notions. Making arguments the 2 blend for Nietzsche is also indicative of either a reading too far removed from Nietzsche or trying to impose Hegel, either way you are not providing a criticism which Nietzsche did not already address so I suppose that is mostly just a matter of how you want to view things, in which case there is no objective argument that can be posed to say one or the other had a superior version per se.

      [...]

      When you figure it out come back and let me know kiddo.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You didn't provide a response to my actual thesis which is that Nietzsche contradicts himself many times and yet you also agree with me on a notion because you said
        >Nietzsche did not already address
        Because in a way Nietzsche talks about Moral relativism therefore in the same time he destructs the scheme that he presents his argument with, "Primal" "instinctual" is the foundation of emotions therefore Nostalgia is the same as emotion, An Appolonian society didn't eternally exist since the beginning of time, There was a time where the construction of that society required values and morals to follow such rules, There is a fallacy here right ? Because what i see is that Dionysianism is only a means of escape from the Appolonianist society and if we were to put in practice it'll have the same failure as Communism and itself is a slave morality which means that the meaning is primarly built as a response to the Master morality he was facing unconsciously and also he contradicts himself when he tells us that Individuality is more important than Objective morality, True i agree with him on this notion and Kant's philosophy can be actually very obstruent and full of fallacies and conformism to the Appolonian society but if we need to understand we must go to the core of the problem. Schopenhauer's philosophy is better because it fixes this solution by accepting that the World is in an eternal anguish and that Embracing Individuality and increasing our intellectuality is better than being a "brute", the master morals are brutes. Schopenhauer knows exactly that the Kantian philosophy does not entirely mean to conform but to accept the absurdity of the world and limit it into rules, And the rules can be also a way to be a more intellectual person.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your presentation of what you refer to as Nietzsche's master/slave dichotomy was presented closer to what Hegel argued, so if you feel that I did not address it then perhaps you should make yourself more familiar with Nietzsche's version.

          I have already stated you have misinterpreted the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy from Nietzsche, Nietzsche technically made references to Appolonian being a means of escape as well, so whatever you think is a fallacy is likely just due to not having understood it in the first place.

          You will have to do significantly more explaining if you want to argue Communism is some form of extreme Dionysian escapism so by all means go ahead and get to the core of the problem. You are seemingly oblivious to a number of aphorisms from Nietzsche about slave morality or perhaps are trying to make sense of it and seem to be of the opinion Nietzsche has an answer but also state you believe others to offer superior answers which is a fallacy of sorts in begging the question of why you are so interested in Nietzsche's version?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You have misinterpreted the Apollonian/dionysian dichotomy
            The way i presented it must be a misinterpretation because i didn't present a profound explanation for why I see that Dionysianism is relatable to Nostalgia, Maybe you didn't understand but in this passage
            >"Under the charm of the Dionysian not only is the union between man and man reaffirmed, but nature which had become alienated, hostile, or subjugated, celebrates once more her reconciliation with her lost son, man"
            Now I must present to you in my perspective my real insight in my thesis and i would like for you to also answer and not correct me.
            Appolonianism is the virtue that's been built on the Greek God Appolo which symbolizes Structure, Ethicality, Seriousness... In short a conformist society. While in the other hand a Dionysianistic society is vice versa, A gay society perhaps one that seems to be venturing for the delights of life and maximizing hedonism as God Dionysus is. But what's the problem here ? Maximizing hedonism is the escape from strict rules right ? Escape from Life's hardship and living in a world where you don't have to budge with morality, Therefore Nietzsche soughts to suggest balancing the two worlds, But the Appolonianist society is also a means of escape therefore what we're left with is just an escape from an escape, Therefore this is a fallacy. The problem is his philosophy is very critical and even if you ask him he will agree with you because he is a contrarian in nature and his ideas were just a means of escape from the torment he was living in.
            >Communism is some form of extreme Dionysian escapism
            Of course, It's virtue is to stand against Capitalism which incorporates materialism and maximizing profit therefore leading to the success of the rich people, The Idea of Communism when it was set in practice it did not work because in text it was also only a means of escape, The same as Nietzsche's ideals. A critique of the bourgeoisie, The world back then was different and I can presumably say that these philosophers were spoiled and rich and they wanted to break the societal structure because they were bored.

            Why i see other philosophers as being better is regardless of their fame, They present good solutions for the problems we live in, They present new perspective on life instead of the cynical Hegelian-Marxian view of life or the Critical view by Nietzsche.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I do not believe I was in contention with the notion that both offer a means of 'escape' and if I am wrong on this then by all means correct me, rather you were the one trying to argue one was and the other was not, I was only offering Nietzsche's statements he viewed them both as but for different reasons, he ultimately conjectured in bot that both are needed in order to evolve art, he himself also made a number of extrapolations beyond art on the nature of the 2, so if this is a form of fallacy to you then I am not in contention per se, rather just perplexed at the nature of your argument, on the one hand I am not opposed since neither offers a materialistic option of necessity in life and is rather a highly stylized metaphor based on ancient Greek mythology and literature which can fall under a type of fallacy, but if that is your ultimate criticism of it then why are you presenting your arguments under the guise of this metaphor? On the other hand if you are arguing this is a fallacy then presenting your own argument under this guise falls as a fallacy by your own reasoning. I will readily admit Nietzsche extended his metaphor beyond art, and for the most part I do not argue those positions, I will try to elucidate a bit so I do not come across as being myopic, in ancient Greek mythos an argument could be made that neither were really objects to be desired with full adoration one way or another, so I usually stick to Nietzsche's artistic comments which are more demonstrable and generally more recognized. If we were leaving the artistic part behind I would simply say everyone has elements of both, the aspect of the metaphor that you need both to evolve is still applicable, ime people tend to stick more to one side or the other, which is a judgementless statement, as the regulars here have no doubt noticed I have a poor habit of alternating wildly on either end and in extreme amounts, so I have no grounds to pass judgement on such matters. But back to your point, if you view art as escapism then I am not necessarily in contention with your assertion his metaphor is a fallacy, rather just perplexed at your presentation and I have already elucidated my reason for confusion. I view art as a necessity of sorts, so there is no tangible argument to be made that you should as well simply because I do, is this a suitable answer?

            As to the communism point, you are technically demonstrating an ignorance of Marxism with your statements, I will overlook this in order to answer your question since Nietzsche is frequently used as justification for 'capitalism' but you should also note that the defenses are usually Dionysian, so if you wish to continue with the 'fallacious' metaphor as you refer to it then you are arguing from a position that is generally not favorable. Either way the answer is quite simple, and I will need another post to type it so give me a bit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The answer is quite simple in Nietzschean terms, the slaves won that revolt, and all the old masters gave up rather than continuing their fight, and surrendered their status while leaving their remaining core followers to fend for themselves in ever diminishing numbers as time went on. The history books were rewritten by the victors, I still see the evidence here. You are welcome to make sense of this however you like, and believe whatever you like, if this answer is not sufficient, then perhaps you need to read more about what Nietzsche had to say about slave morality.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See ? This is what i said when everyone just runs away from the argument instead of actually replying

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, Nietzsche has had a quite interesting approach to logic. He seems not to know the modern day mathematical logic, which has been developed during his lifetime (Schulz, Boole, Frege).
      He ranther criticiced the traditional sense of logic. Logic as a law of thinking. He want to exchange Aristotelic scheme with something more psychological. A conclusion is, in his viewpoint, more a kind of a psychological fight between two different impulses.

      His ideas are neither new nor orginal. He is what Frege or Husserl would have called a "Psychologist". A psychologist in the sense of Husserl and Frege is a person who wants to resolve all kinds of thinking into psychology.
      For a psychologist, a logical conclusion is not necessary in the strong sense by more a psychlogical need to take.

      Nietzsche goes even so far to adapt evolutionary biology into his philosophy. In this sense, he is very modern.

      The answer is quite simple in Nietzschean terms, the slaves won that revolt, and all the old masters gave up rather than continuing their fight, and surrendered their status while leaving their remaining core followers to fend for themselves in ever diminishing numbers as time went on. The history books were rewritten by the victors, I still see the evidence here. You are welcome to make sense of this however you like, and believe whatever you like, if this answer is not sufficient, then perhaps you need to read more about what Nietzsche had to say about slave morality.

      The problem with the slave for Nietzsche is not that they are bad or something. Thats a kind of moralical thinking Nietzsche rejects.
      The point is the following:
      Slaves was treaten horrible by their masters for a long time. They do not have the means or the possibility to take revenge for their suffering. Human psychology, nevertheless, awakens the impulses to revenge even in them, and as they can't take any action, the impulse becomes something different. Nietzsche called this different "Resentiment" and he believed that this is psychologically harmful and makes a person worse.

      And this is the bad thing about slave morality.
      And therefor, Nietzsche prefered the master morality.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes this is a very noteworthy point, I usually try to include it on discussions I am involved in where it is applicable, Nietzsche never posited that slaves were without power, and in fact there are aphorisms where he more or less explicitly stated it may be preferable to be a slave in certain instances. In true Nietzsche fashion he is all over the place over the course of his works and also posits that it is preferable to be a master, and even delineated something akin to 'trust' as being something masters had amongst several other derivations which could be extrapolated to something along the lines of being able to determine and actualize your own actions and ideas and assign value. The point about resentment is also notably salient, and Nietzsche made a number of derivations about how a master should conduct themselves, although that does not always mean much in reality, which leads to resentment and efforts by the slaves to 'trick' the masters or subdue them via force. He also makes statements hostile to these efforts and in other works praises herd mentality, but for differing reasons, so I will reiterate when it comes to Nietzsche his assertions are all over the map and tend to be almost a collection of linguistic cues which are responses to or initiations of certain thought patterns in his thinking. This is without taking into account his reconciliation of the dichotomy with the Ubermensch, a figure that would eschew either and both and have the highest order will to power. His later derivations on the dichotomy also reinforce some of his earlier notions about the constant adversarial nature of it, he describes it as a perpetual struggle/competition where one side is never truly able to assert complete dominion over the other, the state of this conflict is in constant 'flux' as he refers to it, which is a suitable term but is also another glaring departure from Hegel, at the logical endpoint of Hegel's version the distinction is no longer applicable at all and the 2 coalesce to speak, Nietzsche sticks to perpetual conflict. It is also worth noting that there are aphorisms in Nietzsche where he mentions logic, and even the use of 'illogical sceptiscism' as a form of slavery, although perhaps self-imposed shackles, and once more refers to this type of linguistic slave function as being in a state of flux as well. There are also passages in Nietzsche which suggest he may have viewed 'master' as being something determined by birthright and other passages where he makes mention of it possibly coming from other derivations. Due to the master classification being one where there is no concrete aspect of morality per se but rather one in which there is more or less unrealized and realized action and idea then it is possible for Marxist masters to exist just as much as it is possible for masters to exist within any other ecosystem, and in Nietzschean form the decision of the conflict was not total, I need another post again.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There are still masters espousing new iterations and versions of capitalism, my statement from earlier should be taken in a literal sense, the old masters were defeated and surrendered their status, this is not say they were not replaced per se, just that the amount of power they command has diminished extensively and the reflective proportion of the populations of the various nations composing the western world reflect this diminished power status in terms of their followers. I also hear plenty of bellyaching from Marxists about how things are not Marxist enough despite having accomplished a feat of transforming various nation-states into pushovers that cater to most of their demands. So the conflict is still on-going, but the slave revolts were still successful and the old masters lost.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It shouldn't be allowed to discuss philosophy without quoting an actual passage on this board.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Morality is neither rational nor absolute nor natural. World has known many moral systems, each of which advances claims universality; all moral systems are therefore particular, serving a specific purpose for their propagators or creators, and enforcing a certain regime that disciplines human beings for social life by narrowing our perspectives and limiting our horizons."

      His only problem is the limitation in this world, He wanted to be free from the shackles of morality and ethics thus why he hated Kant and God, But Reality is that Freedom does not exist in this world.

      There is also this great quote by Camus which undermines Nietzsche as a person who was far gone in his ideals

      "For Nietzsche, the idea that God is dead is the starting point for a leap into the unknown, a declaration of independence from all values. Kirilov, on the other hand, sees it as the ultimate act of freedom: if God is dead, then we are free to become gods ourselves"

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My impression of reading the Iliad and the Odyssey is that they were not.
    They were not the nicest people around, but they were not how Nietzsche said they were.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've never read Nietzsche so I must be modest here, but if he actually thought making your own truth and morality was the mark of a strong personality, as others have told me, then that's a glaring hole in his thought. Today such an impulse is not merely common among plebs, it is the surest sign of one. Just making stuff up to suit yourself is the easiest thing in the world to do now, especially for illiterates and simpletons.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also the whole master vs slave morality thing really just seems like an edgier prototype of Austrian whining about individualism vs collectivism, which as we know turned out to be not as different from Marxism as it claimed in the end.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its not that you should deny historical facts or scientific discoveries.
      Its about interpretation.

      And, I add, the conception of an Übermensch is simply false. He make a error. The greatness of Nietzsche is his turn toward psychology.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s about bodybuilding and getting tan, avoiding canola oil, and exalting life (yea buddy)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *