Nietzsche was a philosopher

Not sure how else to put it. The guy wasn't doing philosophy. At best he was doing existentialist psychology with a rationalist bent, like Freud, and at worst he was a religious ideologue. What's funny is that his religion takes the form of a few key "potentially rational" ideas (the super man, the will to power, amor fati, and the death of god, for example) but his system remains religious-ideological through and through. And those ideas are only potentially rational, of course, in the way he uses them; he makes no attempt to actually rationally explain or exhaustively define those ideas because Nietzsche himself knew they were nothing more than images. Images meant to blind thought to itself.

Nietzsche attacks the foundations of the philosophical as such -- reason, freedom, truth, and morality -- in a deliberate attempt to obscure philosophy to itself and turn the love of truth and of wisdom into something childish, grotesque, banal, lowly, confused, self-gratifying, and with sex appeal to angsty teenagers. In fact you can see in the way that Nietzsche writes, he is quite a good writer in so far as being engaging and dramatic, which makes sense considering that what Nietzsche is doing, technically speaking, is writing fiction. And just like the religious before him, he "forgot" that it's fiction and tries to pass it off as nonfiction. That's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that Nietzsche was the first paid troll.

It's why his arguments always stop after one or two iterations. Nietzsche makes a claim, couches it in dramatic flair and poetic imagery, ties that into an attack on philosophy itself, but then just stops there. He doesn't actually explain anything. He is against "systematizers" and so prefers to just fart to himself with no concern for the real work of philosophy which is to link every idea to every other idea to establish absolute and comprehensive, exhaustive grounds of every idea within every other idea. To build something rationally consistent that can clearly explain rather than merely describe or assert. Mere assertion is vanity, and mere description is vanity trying to pass itself off as more profound than it ever could be. Philosophers explain, children and religious kooks assert, and pseudo-philosophers assert while occasionally throwing in a description in order to falsely give the appearance they are explaining something.

I see at ILP that Sauwelios has succumbed to the temptations of religious belief. How unfortunate.

I'll no longer concern myself with pseudo philosophers, religious believers, obscurantist mystics, narcissists, hedonists, feminists, masculists, elitists, or mere psychologists.

As I see it, there are five core concepts or fundaments on which philosophy is based: reason, truth, freedom, morality, and humanity. Each of these is a cornerstone on which and in terms of which philosophical work takes place, with the ultimate goal of absolutely articulating and exhausting these five fundaments and of linking them together into the most complete, comprehensive and systematized manner (Nietzsche hated systematizing, incidentally, which is another sign that he isn't interested in philosophy).

Real philosophy is always about systematizing. Pseudo-philosophy is about farting.

So how does Nietzsche attack these five basic concepts? I'm sure you already know, being experts on what Nietzsche wrote. But a brief outline is perhaps in order.

Reason: Nietzsche is well known for his attacks on rationality and reason, writing that why not preference irrationality, chance or illusion instead? Nietzsche is considered to be the father of postmodernism, and his attacks on the notions of reason and truth demonstrate why this is so. The whole "reason is a tool of oppressive patriarchy" thing going on today can be traced right back to Nietzsche.

Truth: Similar to the above, Nietzsche attacks the idea of truth as such and of the will to truth (love for and desire for truth), belittles truth in personalizing, poetic imagery (truth is a woman, e.g.), and questions if there could ever even be "one truth". The idea of "one" truth is built right into the notion of truth, since truth is the "concept of concepts" as I think Parodites said once, the most basic level that universally links all other levels in so far as truth actually means what it means. Nietzsche confuses not having a particular answer as to why such and such does not immediately link to something else, he confuses this with the claim that no such linkage can be said to exist. The ideas of truth and rational consistency, logic, are things Nietzsche doesn't care much for.

Freedom: Nietzsche claims that freedom does not exist, and that all we have is an illusion of (feeling of) freedom. Thus he fails to ever ask "what does freedom really mean?", and prefers the naive religious cop-out answer, except that for Nietzsche he rejects this cop-out (naive free will) while the Christians embrace it. But of course for Nietzsche even naive free will still has value because it is a feeling (his obsession with feelings was recently made clear to me through one of his modern religious proselytizers, Sauwelios). Similar to the above two of reason and truth, with freedom Nietzsche never asks "what is it, how is it, why is it?", he simply makes prejudicial assumptions and then proceeds to attack and obscure the fact that all he is doing is asserting and not actually explaining anything.

Morality: Nietzsche rejected the idea of morality, of course claiming we must go "beyond good and evil" and he tried to convince people that common or traditional moral sentiments were "slave/herd morality" while the lust to dominate and rule, to enjoy being cruel, is "master morality". Lol. Reading BGE is a good introduction into Nietzsche's obscurantist-mystical and anti-philosophical method.

Humanity: Nietzsche dismisses humanity in order to claim that only "masters" really matter, other people are irrelevant if they are "slaves", that humans are "more ape than ape" and must be "overcome" by something "higher". Nietzsche is also an early transhumanist in addition to being an early postmodernist.

So we have Nietzsche the transhumanist, postmodernist, feminist (as pushing deconstructionist anti-systematizing, "power politics", and as pushing classism (master vs slave, for example)) , and theologist (as his anti-religion religion and his pantheism of god-images (see above)). But for some reason, serious philosophers today actually take him... seriously. Well not all.

I had the opportunity to talk to someone about my ideas here, he defended Nietzsche by claiming that Nietzsche is just being critical of these things to add more questions, furthering the intellectual process. In a way this is true, but only if you read Nietzsche like that. He doesn't really ask, "what is reason? what is truth? what is freedom? what is morality? what is humanity?" He just makes assertions that these things are not as we had thought, and then he uses this skepticism (some of which is of course justified) to dismiss the concepts altogether or attempt to entirely re-write them. Kant attempts a deep and systematic investigation of what is reason, for instance, and Parodites does this also and takes it as far as I have ever seen. This is proper philosophy, and even though Kant didn't go far enough he is still on the right path.

But, to me anyway, Nietzsche just gave up that path and decided to denigrate the basis of philosophy, because of its errors thus far, rather than look to improve upon its errors. Philosophy should be improving upon itself, not giving up, in the presence of errors and insufficiently articulated ideas.

Yeah, a lot of people don't like the way Nietzsche presented his conceptual ideas.

I don't agree with you analysis but that doesn't matter much.

I will agree that he left a lot of work undone.

I consider him to have been an Anarchist. (Not an existentialist.)

Contempt for this or that type of thought is essential to the intellectual constitution. I personally find Socrates and Kant to be absolute disasters of bad conscience and taste.
Socrates is funny, but that is not redeeming, as it is the way in which he got famous. Without his sarcasm he would not have been noticed, after all he never says anything.

Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Descartes, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Bergson, Camus - these are philosophers I can appreciate.

Socrates isn't so much funny to me as he is Nietzschean-- an anti-system builder, a system destroyer, a radical skeptic of the variety that has an agenda behind their attacks. Socrates had the agenda of bringing errors to light and thus (hopefully) provoking thought toward truth; Nietzsche has the agenda of attacking the errors he saw, but with no real concern or plan for what might come of that. It appears that Germans (Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche) have little ability to care for the consequences of what they are doing (notably today with Murkhell).

But in regard to my topic here, I'm far less interested in the psychological observation that it is useful to have strains of thought which we despise for reasons of taste, and far more interested in the specific and philosophical critiques that I have levied against Nietzsche's work here.

Socrates and Nietzsche both stop their probing analyses after just a couple iterations, but at least Socrates attempts to find grounds, that is at least the raison d'etre of his method; for Nietzsche this isn't the case and he just hobbles around from psychological insight to psychological insight. Sure many of his insights are great, but that isn't what philosophy is. Nietzsche succumbed to the (post)modernist temptation to think that a procession of images invoking or associating one another is what "thinking" means.... and that is quite incorrect. This is how sensation works, and how sentimentality works at the rote level, also how the "unconscious" tends to function pre-rationally, but thought and philosopher are so much more than that.

Since value ontology is a result of a (precisely) one decade long study of Nietzsche's critique of science, I am too far in disagreement to begin to address your analysis; I simply see nothing of what I have worked with in there. I've worked almost exclusively off of Nietzsche, and then some Einstein and QM, and some Parmenides and one Greek philosopher whose name I have forgotten. Leibniz did much of the work I did without my knowledge.

Im sure youve read me say many times that I am a posthumous friend of Nietzsche - i consider my philosophership as one great fulfillment of his myriad-faceted goalsetting, which I find majestically noble and far-reaching. The WtP furthermore does build a system; namely, VO.

I'm sure nothing of this is new to you, its been one of the central themes of my writing here from the start, and online since 2001.

It seems to me that you are identifying Nietzsche and Sauwelios with each other, whereas it would be more accurate to identify Nietzsche with me.

The theme Nietzsche upholds is that of two different human types of will to power; the greedy and the generous. The former, he calls slave, the latter, master. Both operate as will to power; the greedy as a form of hunger, the generous as a form of overfullness. From this logic, everything else Nietzsche has to say is a natural extension. It's exceedingly consistent, elegant, profound and clear. The only thing not clear was how two quanta of WtP of the same type do at the same time relate, and contradict each other. I solved that problem specifically. VO is historically a means to resolve that question. Of course the means became an end - but it is still a means in the same tradition, and to the same greater end, which is a thriving species.

In as far as I was dissatisfied with Nietzsche's work, I now resolved what was lacking, and I consider him without any reservations one of the very greatest human beings of all time, and a very personal friend. It's therefore not clear to me why you think so lowly of him. I read his writing as one long argument; each aphorism, each sentence even adds to the logical unfolding of the previously read, no matter the order. But all great philosophers are like this. What they say already is a system; the system is even in their grammar, it bleeds into their choices. Their style is a precursor to the system. They are architects, not engineers.

As to the emotive effect of Nietzsche's writing - that is valuing. He touches directly on values, he doesn't need indirect reflections.
Socrates is perhaps alike in that he destroyed systems of belief, yes. But he makes no positive statements of his own. He is pretending to be a Universal. And people believe his act. Nietzsche said he was dynamite, but I see him more as fusion.

It would be helpful to quote the man if we analyze him further together - interpret a specific passage, see how we read him differently.
Because we clearly do not engage him with the same method.

His literary emotions are clinical. I only ever have one 'emotion' that occurs reading N - a clearing sky. Often it takes a while, I'll read through his notes mostly, but it is a visceral logic that takes hold, a logic of health, thus of happiness, the power to overcome the ill-will...  and if that is not wisdom, then I dont know what is.

Socrates just claimed that life sucks, like Schopenhauer.
nietzsche on the other hand answers the question: why a system, why life, why existence at all? From that answer a ontically fluent system can be built, solid like a Solar system.

Fixed Cross wrote:

nietzsche on the other hand answers the question: why a system, why life, why existence at all? From that answer a ontically fluent system can be built, solid like a Solar system.

In the end Nietzsche said, "Fuck it! Let's dance."

Nietzsche is the ground and roots of my present day philosophy of life. Chuang Tzu is the branches, leaves and fruit.

But yes, I would enjoy speaking, when I can, to specific quotes of Nietzsche.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Since value ontology is a result of a (precisely) one decade long study of Nietzsche's critique of science, I am too far in disagreement to begin to address your analysis; I simply see nothing of what I have worked with in there. I've worked almost exclusively off of Nietzsche, and then some Einstein and QM, and some Parmenides and one Greek philosopher whose name I have forgotten. Leibniz did much of the work I did without my knowledge.

Im sure youve read me say many times that I am a posthumous friend of Nietzsche - i consider my philosophership as one great fulfillment of his myriad-faceted goalsetting, which I find majestically noble and far-reaching. The WtP furthermore does build a system; namely, VO.

I'm sure nothing of this is new to you, its been one of the central themes of my writing here from the start, and online since 2001.

It seems to me that you are identifying Nietzsche and Sauwelios with each other, whereas it would be more accurate to identify Nietzsche with me.

I will endeavor to do so, from now on. After seeing his mind at work most recently, I am completely done engaging with him. He is truly deranged.

Quote :

The theme Nietzsche upholds is that of two different human types of will to power; the greedy and the generous. The former, he calls slave, the latter, master. Both operate as will to power; the greedy as a form of hunger, the generous as a form of overfullness. From this logic, everything else Nietzsche has to say is a natural extension. It's exceedingly consistent, elegant, profound and clear. The only thing not clear was how two quanta of WtP of the same type do at the same time relate, and contradict each other. I solved that problem specifically. VO is historically a means to resolve that question. Of course the means became an end - but it is still a means in the same tradition, and to the same greater end, which is a thriving species.

Yes, but the differential between greed and generosity is far from as black and white as Nietzsche makes it out to be. This is exactly what I was getting at in my OP here, he doesn't take the analyses far enough; what he does, rather than philosophizing to the depths, is he goes one or two iterations in and then reifies everything from there. And this ties into the whole Marxist critical theory thing too: you take two terms and call them opposites, then you reinterpret everything else in terms of that dichotomy you just made. This is what feminists and Marxists of all stripes do, and it is also what Nietzsche does.

Everything becomes hopelessly simplistically dichotomous in such a method; "master or slave", "generous or greedy", strong or weak, etc. But in fact each person has a varying mixture of all of these sort of qualities, and each quality can and must be analyzed more deeply on its own to discover its own ontic-existential nature, which will be what informs the psychology influenced by that quality.

When we take personality traits or qualities like that and reify them as absolutes, then reinterpret everything backward in terms of those reified absolutes, we create images, not ideas. Images are just what that sounds like; little pictures of things, snapshots at best, fantasies at worst. But even a procession of images flowing through your mind isn't what 'thinking' means, not at all. And yet this is what I see with Nietzsche, he flows from image to image (aphorism to aphorism, or psychological insight to psychological insight) in very interesting ways, but that whole process isn't what philosophy is.

Also, Nietzsche is far too contrarian and iconoclastic for my taste, and he would need to be the upmost highest philosopher in his thought and ideas, in the construction of his philosophical systems, (which he does not actually really bother trying to construct), in order for that contrarianism and iconoclasm to be justified, to mean something beyond being a reflection of Nietzsche's own damaged personality. And yet, as I've said, I just don't see that kind of true philosophical digging and building going on with him.

Granted, many of his insights are great, and he is a good writer and a pleasure to read. I consider him an interesting psychologist and aphorist, and a cultural commentator of sorts, and of course a gadfly. But I can no longer consider him a philosopher.

Quote :

In as far as I was dissatisfied with Nietzsche's work, I now resolved what was lacking, and I consider him without any reservations one of the very greatest human beings of all time, and a very personal friend. It's therefore not clear to me why you think so lowly of him.

As I wrote in my OP, I do not think he is engaged with what philosophy really is and means. He is not interested in truth, he is interested in psychological observations and feelings (as Sauwelios so aptly expressed his own definition of what "philosophy" means). Rather than attempt to fix the errors he throws out the entire project because it has some errors; rather than attempt to improve humanity he discards humanity; rather than attempt to add more freedom into the world he vilifies and mocks the very notion of freedom; rather than work to elevate truth in the world he mocks the very concept of a "will to truth". Likewise with morality, he deliberately attempts to destroy the very idea of morality, to turn it against itself and to demean and ridicule any person who actually has a moral sentiment or conscience, as Sauwelios is also doing. And you see with Sauwelios and so many other "Nietzscheans", they know perfectly well what Nietzsche was and what he stood for, and are quite happy to emulate that as best as they can. They become meaninglessly contrarian, iconoclastic, and spend most of their time attacking so-called traditional concepts in philosophy, including the concepts of reason, truth, freedom, and morality.

These "Nietzscheans" actually think that by attacking these foundations they are engaging in philosophy. I mean, they really do believe this. Why do they believe this? Because this is exactly what Nietzsche himself did, and taught others to do. Why bother understanding and improving, when you can just attack and tear down? It is no wonder that Nietzsche fathered postmodernism into the world.

Quote :

I read his writing as one long argument; each aphorism, each sentence even adds to the logical unfolding of the previously read, no matter the order. But all great philosophers are like this. What they say already is a system; the system is even in their grammar, it bleeds into their choices. Their style is a precursor to the system. They are architects, not engineers.

I do not see this in Nietzsche, and I have read almost everything he ever published. If anything, I see the whole logical unfolding of a greater 'system' and ethos behind his work to be nothing more than a fart and a chuckle over it. I mean that not as an insult to Nietzsche, but rather that he had no real ethos or telos to speak of, he didn't build any system or attempt to do so, he didn't construct a philosophical edifice; he wrote from the heat of the moment, in passion, these various psychological insights and stings and barbs as they came to him. He had an incredibly perceptive mind and supreme intellect, so naturally these sort of insights of his are quite penetrating and often accurate in a psychological sense, but that sort of activity, no matter how well done, can never amount to philosophizing.

Quote :

As to the emotive effect of Nietzsche's writing - that is valuing. He touches directly on values, he doesn't need indirect reflections.

Right, he touches directly on valuing, just like any insult does. If you insult another person, or make an acute psychological observation about them and to them, then of course you are going to directly touch upon their valuing. But again, doing that isn't what philosophy means.

Quote :

Socrates is perhaps alike in that he destroyed systems of belief, yes. But he makes no positive statements of his own. He is pretending to be a Universal. And people believe his act. Nietzsche said he was dynamite, but I see him more as fusion.

Nietzsche does make positive statements of his own, yes, rather than merely asking questions as Socrates did. I agree with that. But the positive statements that Nietzsche makes are more like what I explained above as a kind of process of images evoking images in a stream of associations, one after the other. Nietzsche is like a camera, he takes snapshots of the world around him as he sees it; I agree that Socrates did not do that, but even the fact that Nietzsche does do this demonstrates that he was more of a psychological commentator, a chronicler and cultural critique, and a kind of historian really.

Transgenders are Nietzscheans.

Nietzsche said to create your own values. He wanted to demolish existing values categories and have people make values anew. What is transgender except this very exact thing? I can tell a trans person that no they are not actually the opposite gender "in their mind, in their heart", but they will not accept that. Why not? Because for them, identity and gender are merely whatever they want them to be, however they (think they) feel and for no reason. It is a pure revaluation.

Nietzsche would have been quite happy to see the culture Marxist revaluations going on today. These are, in a Nietzschean framework, early attempts at a transhumanist revaluation of all values, which requires or implies at first a rejection of the traditional or given categories (i.e. a Derridian, Foucaultian, Marcusean "deconstruction").

Of course Jung would say, and I agree, that we cannot simply make our own values. We are made by values that pre-exist us, our identity is a little malleable but only within limits. I cannot be a woman simply because I want to be, I am not a woman just because I say so or because I think I feel feminine "on the inside", and the (real) traditional feminists agree, but the new SJW feminists do not agree. They say with Nietzsche, "you are whatever you want to be! Screw reality! Reality is whatever you want it to be!"

Rather, Nietzsche says that we must obey what we are, the we can not escape our physiology.

He foresaw this decay of biological self valuing as a product of declining vigour due to Christian otherworldliness.

Transgenderism is the most literal and aggressive refusal to "Stay true to the Earth", which is Nietzsches only value-commandment.

Transvaluation of values does not mean to create new values.
Nietzsche has never said anything relating to the idea that we could create values out of nothing. He means simply for the healthy to put forth their spontaneously emergent values with courage, and no longer submit to the narrative of Christianity / otherworldliness / death.

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient (i.e. A means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral) is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty  — I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind… And one calculates time from the dies nefastus on which this fatality arose - from the first day of Christianity! Why not rather from its last? From today? Revaluation of all values!"

— Nietzsche, Conclusion, The Antichrist

So Transgenderism is simply a radical extremist resistance against Nietzsche.

But then there are his statements like this, in TSZ,

"MANY lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: thus he discovered the good and bad of many peoples. No greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than good and bad.

No people could live without first valuing; if a people will maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour valueth.

Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn and contempt by another: thus I found it. Much found I here called bad, which was there decked with purple honours.

Never did the one neighbour understand the other: ever did his soul marvel at his neighbour's delusion and wickedness.

A table of excellencies hangeth over every people. Lo! it is the table of their triumphs; lo! it is the voice of their Will to Power.

It is laudable, what they think hard; what is indispensable and hard they call good; and what relieveth in the direst distress, the unique and hardest of all,- they extol as holy.

Whatever maketh them rule and conquer and shine, to the dismay and envy of their neighbours, they regard as the high and foremost thing, the test and the meaning of all else.

Verily, my brother, if thou knewest but a people's need, its land, its sky, and its neighbour, then wouldst thou divine the law of its surmountings, and why it climbeth up that ladder to its hope.

"Always shalt thou be the foremost and prominent above others: no one shall thy jealous soul love, except a friend"- that made the soul of a Greek thrill: thereby went he his way to greatness.

"To speak truth, and be skilful with bow and arrow"- so seemed it alike pleasing and hard to the people from whom cometh my name- the name which is alike pleasing and hard to me.

"To honour father and mother, and from the root of the soul to do their will"- this table of surmounting hung another people over them, and became powerful and permanent thereby.

"To have fidelity, and for the sake of fidelity to risk honour and blood, even in evil and dangerous courses"- teaching itself so, another people mastered itself, and thus mastering itself, became pregnant and heavy with great hopes.

Verily, men have given unto themselves all their good and bad. Verily, they took it not, they found it not, it came not unto them as a voice from heaven.

Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator.

Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones! Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.

Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, ye creating ones!

Change of values- that is, change of the creating ones. Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator."

-Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Thousand and One Goals


He says that man created values, but I believe it is the other way around: values created man. Which values did this? Values like reason, honesty and disclosure of reality, desire, pleasure, ambition, novelty, power-lust, dishonesty and fantasy, community, etc.

All such values exist for any entity capable of perceiving them, of understanding them. Reality doesn't exist because man says it does, nor is reality valuable for living beings simply because man says so. No, man says so precisely because it is of value already. I believe we discover values, because those values exist necessarily based on this such and such kind of being that we are and the requirements of being this said being. Case in point, other animals also have these values too, although they find their highest expression in man.

Quote :

Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones! Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.

Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, ye creating ones!

Change of values- that is, change of the creating ones. Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator."

I think you and he agree. Valuing is creating, but the values one values are already there; the local properties lived by this or that tribe or people, for example.

To value means to change, to create things in the world, to create reality. But it does not mean to create values.

Through valuation is there value, this does not mean that one creates the value by valuing though - it means that valuation and value are two sides of the same coin.

Man is that coin.
And yes, in a lower way, so is all of nature. But in man it becomes meaningful to observe this.

For example, to take it to science through VO,
oxygen already exists as a value for an infant. The organism is shaped according to how well it accesses this value.

To create might mean to learn how to breathe in better ways, which is all that the 10.000+ years of Yoga history is - learning to breathe, learning to value the existing values in more profound and pervasive ways - the most direct way the Indo-Europeans had to enhance self valuing, Being. Probably still the most direct way anyone has.

No one created the value of oxygen, the fact that oxygen was here, coupled with all these other atoms and compounds along with pressures and magnetisms, created life.

Yes I agree, and to me it indicates that we aren't free to create our own values. We are simply free to recognize and understand, or fail to do so, what values already exist for us, and why. That's what I mean when I talk about morality.

Yes, to become honest is simply to "become what you are", which means simply to know ones values, which is to "know oneself".

But this still separates humanity in types. That is the point I disagree with you on, if I understand you correctly. I do not think that the human being is homogenous species. I do not think that there can be one value set for all of us. Nor do I want there to be - I have seen too much of other peoples values, have seen so many people grow towards values, disclose themselves in terms of values (decrypt) into monsters.

I do think that basic physical values are fixed for al humans, such as oxygen and carbon, gravity, electricity and pressures of specific types and degrees - we could not breed on Mars without causing absolute hell, the impossibility of valuing, thus of self-valuing. But moral values, as in for example how to deal with ourselves, each other, and with animals and the rest of nature, I do not think these are the same for all human types.

Thus, I do not believe in an already latently exiting morality that needs only be disclosed. I do believe in my own ethics, which include the command to proliferate these ethics - I do believe they are inevitable - but only for my type, which is the philosopher and his friends.

I also believe this type is best placed as an example to the rest of humanity - quite simply because this type fights hardest for truth, is hardest, is most spine-like.

Lets say I believe in different standards for spine and flesh.

I don't believe in one morality for everyone either, but I do believe there are common rational principles and values that are universally determinable as either good or bad for humans.indeed for all life that is like us, with knowledge and awareness and conception and identity and all that. The animal rights philosopher Peter Singer (who is a utilitarian and thus I don't agree with him on that point) mentions an expanding circle of concern (I don't think it was his idea originally), namely that over time the circle of our ability to know, be conscious of, and be concerned about, is always expanding. To me this is a natural side effect of what "life" and especially "self-aware conscious life" means. We are driven to increase and expand, N's WtP principle which I think applies to living beings only, but it is indeed a core principle of our being that I believe is a logic unlocked by beings such as ourselves, indeee by all life and manifested by way of genetics and evolution at first, the fight for fitness to survive.

But now, that fight is sublimated philosophically as ideation, culture, and moral capacity. I can imagine no rational society of self-aware conscious beings for whom rape and murder of its own children is of value, because such activities in the end prove far more destructive of those beings themselves and of their requirements, individually and socially, for continuing to survive and thrive. Thus such activities have in human history been removed from social acceptance and now only exist hidden in the background. This is natural consequence of the expanding sphere of understanding regarding our own values from which we are made. Prohibitions on rape or slavery are, to use those example because they are easy ones, direct consequences, as implicit understanding built into the structure of society, of the expanding sphere of valuational understanding on our part.

Simply put, such societies as have in the past practices so-called immoral values as slavery and rape did not last, and were replaced by the societies of the west in terms of world dominance. Of course in the west such things as rape and slavery are outlawed.

So for me it isn't so simple as to say there are no common values or no common basis for universally human values, because it isn't about humanity specifically but rather is about that type which humanity is, an ontological psychological and physiological type of being in which category humanity is included and probably many other species out in the universe are also included similarly.

Nietzsche saw that it is possible to buck the common understanding of the implicit values-recognitions embedded to social structures or as religious teachings, and therefore he concluded they are false in their nature, merely constructed. But of course I disagree with that. Just because we can fail to know or act in terms of these doesn't mean they are merely false-constructed, rather that indicates a failure on the part of that human being who personally fails to grasp these things as rational truisms.

N thought there was 'strength' in denying one's moral nature. I think there is strength in learning how to separate that nature itself from superficial and arbitrary or incorrect interpretations/ideas of it, such as occur in many religions.

Thrasymachus wrote:

I don't believe in one morality for everyone either, but I do believe there are common rational principles and values that are universally determinable as either good or bad for humans.indeed for all life that is like us, with knowledge and awareness and conception and identity and all that. The animal rights philosopher Peter Singer (who is a utilitarian and thus I don't agree with him on that point) mentions an expanding circle of concern (I don't think it was his idea originally), namely that over time the circle of our ability to know, be conscious of, and be concerned about, is always expanding. To me this is a natural side effect of what "life" and especially "self-aware conscious life" means.

Yes. This is how Ive come to recognize the souls and psyches of several species of animals. Also why Ive come to disregard a lot of humans as being of another lower species, less empathic, dumber, not capable of essential qualities such as respect for discernment, unlike the animals that I recognize as within my sphere of sympathy and thus part of my self valuing. I become less when they are harmed. In a world without certain types of animals I would definitely not want to live. So there is the political problem for me - we could only become moral as a civilization by entirely revaluing the biosphere.

Trees are also highly sentient. I talk to trees by carving runes into them and listen to them by putting my senses to their roots. I know this makes me a lunatic or a superstitious person in the eyes of those that dont experience these things as real. That is simply not relevant to me, just as little as it is when someone decides that I am what I am not - its just an opinion.

Morality begins with becoming true to the Earth. The entire Earth, and in the last instance, the human.

Interesting note is that it appears that birdlife is older than terrestrial plant life. It appears that fish turned into birds and these birds dropped molecules from the sea onto the earth, which became plant life.

So fish and birds are primordial beings that essentially are gods to us, as immensely powerful self-valuing, we are part of their self-valuing, like the planets are part of the Sun.

A total reverence for what has come before and is around is required to even begin to understand man in a healthy way.

Quote :

We are driven to increase and expand, N's WtP principle which I think applies to living beings only, but it is indeed a core principle of our being that I believe is a logic unlocked by beings such as ourselves, indeee by all life and manifested by way of genetics and evolution at first, the fight for fitness to survive.

For me the WtP is the basic principle of logic, thus of physics. This is how I approached it in the years that lead to cracking it open into a fully logical explication in 2011.

The nature of existence itself is to stand out against its consequences, this is what N called willing to power, because the result of it is always to overpower many tendencies by subsuming them by superior structural integrity (dimensionally down-translating into resistance, power) into a greater whole, of which the strongest will is the signifier. The strongest will is thus the adherence to the strongest value; the strongest valuation prevails. I see the atomic table as a hierarchy of end products of willing to power, as selfvaluings of various sizes and integrities; quantification and qualification, quality through arrangement of quantities in such as way as to be "intelligent", entirely without being conscious.

Life (just as the further stage in unfolding, our reflective consciousness) does not provide the genesis for willing or valuing as I see it, rather, it is the devastatingly awesome consequence of billions of years of superpressure value-hierarchizing, amounting in surplus of dynamic potential which eventually explodes into the known, supra-atomic excessus, the organic plasma that we experience as time and being.

Quote :

But now, that fight is sublimated philosophically as ideation, culture, and moral capacity. I can imagine no rational society of self-aware conscious beings for whom rape and murder of its own children is of value, because such activities in the end prove far more destructive of those beings themselves and of their requirements, individually and socially, for continuing to survive and thrive. Thus such activities have in human history been removed from social acceptance and now only exist hidden in the background. This is natural consequence of the expanding sphere of understanding regarding our own values from which we are made. Prohibitions on rape or slavery are, to use those example because they are easy ones, direct consequences, as implicit understanding built into the structure of society, of the expanding sphere of valuational understanding on our part.

Simply put, such societies as have in the past practices so-called immoral values as slavery and rape did not last, and were replaced by the societies of the west in terms of world dominance. Of course in the west such things as rape and slavery are outlawed.

So for me it isn't so simple as to say there are no common values or no common basis for universally human values, because it isn't about humanity specifically but rather is about that type which humanity is, an ontological psychological and physiological type of being in which category humanity is included and probably many other species out in the universe are also included similarly.

Perhaps I am actually more radical and totalitarian than you where it concerns morality-proper; so much so that I havent been able to afford explicating any aspect of it. People would see me as even madder than they already do. But maybe it is time.

Self-valuing logic prescribes only one possible morality: that every self valuing capable of the attribute respect exercise this versus all other selfvaluings in such a way as to maximize inter-selfvaluing valuations, exactly like the periodic table came into existence from the pure arbitrary fluxing potentials of selfvaluing-as-such, which isn't much, just not nothing. Where the end is enduring sanity on Earth, no species can go unaccounted for.  

Total integration of the biosphere and the mnemosphere is the only way to bring about integration of the collective subconscious with the explicit world, and thus make the atrocities of additive human stupidity impossible.

Become true to the Earth, siblings.

While reading your response I was struck with the mental image of a great battle where people are hacking each other with axes. Lol. Probably because I've been watching Vikings, but still, a kind of pure values war. I realize this is deep in the earth. My thoughts on morality are not meant to lead from Ragnar to Christian priests cowering in church basements.

Also, I'll offer a more proper response to your post when I'm more properly sober.

Hahah.

Thats awesome.


But really I think thats basically what would happen now in Europe, if people stopped cowering in their basements, they'd start hacking each other with axes. There isn't much of a middle ground there.

People will gladly hack off their children heads before they believe in things like the soul of an animal. They will sacrifice all they love just not to have to love too much.

Hey, but that is what morality is about. Love is scary. Strong moralities command that one loves. Weak moralities negate one by demanding we "love everyone the same" except of course ourselves, animals, men, etc.

Feminists must all die. That is my love.

I don't love everybody the same. Nietzsche didn't either. Some people just aren't worthy of loving by anyone.

"Feminist" is a nice label. Most I just label "Bitch".

I think about 90 percent of humanity has to die before we can have morality.

So... lets not push for it, lol.

At this point humans still think that their planet is subservient to them. Clearly that stupidity will be exterminated by evolution. Im kinda curious how it will happen.