'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:11 am

Morality does a few things, one of which is to create a new plane of significance for things. An easy example is when someone wrongs you somehow (let's say a boss at work) and you take steps to correct it by talking to HR; now your boss makes some changes and tries to be a little better and might even apologize to you, they might even be sincere in the apology. All fine and good, but none of this is morality.

Morality comes in when you elevate the interaction and its resolution to a meaning and lasting significance beyond the bounds of the interaction and its resolution. You do this by, for example, continuing to feel the affront even after it has been resolved or by continuing to focus on the resolution and the rightfulness of how it was handled in a way that was adequate or not adequate; basically you force the situation and its meaning to linger beyond the situation itself. This is one function of morality. Morality activates certain meanings to new regions where they persist longer than otherwise they would.

This is both falsifying and truthful: it is faslfying because to a certain degree you must ignore the bounds of the interaction in the practical sense and you must also ignore to some degree the resolution. Statements or sentiments like "well they were wrong they should have apologized!" after the fact of the apology are examples of moral clinging that must in some way ignore the fact that the resolution took place. This has obvious psychological use but more importantly the truthful aspect of doing this falsifying of the practical dimension of the interaction/resolution is simply that in terms of the meaning of the interaction/resolution that meaning doesn't go away, but lasts for eternity in the pure timeless realm of the meaningful as such, as a Fact of significance. When you falsify something its practical dimensions and its resolution you nonetheless do this in order to pay fidelity to the eternal (outside of time) meaningfulness behind the interaction and its resolution.

This moral extension as fidelity to the Eternal of meaning is therefore a certain kind of remembering: one remembers and continues to hold as significant the meaning and fact of something long after that 'something' has ended, or even concluded satisfactorily.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:39 am

That's an elegant and highly effective definition.
Beyond that it is practical and itself free of moral judgment, I wouldn't say it is extremely Nietzschean, as if there is any place where N gets moral and superfluous in meaning it is in defining morality, which is why he then vomits it out, I think. Not his forte.

However I would like to address what, in this practical definition of what morality is, a Nietzschean morality is.

As is said, a morality stretches out the significant of an event beyond itself.
The significance of that event (to the selfvaluing) we may call its moral value.

So what is a moral value that stretches out beyond its own event, in a Nietzschean?

The answer is very convenient and clear: Pride.

As a Nietzschean, I have upheld this morality. When someone adds to my pride, that is ths philosophical pride I am talking about, that person acquires a value that pertains to a greater Value, namely the great signifier of morality, which is the capacity for pride.
Nietzschean pride is possibly the most comprehensive pride so far, as it extends to areas like factuality. A man like say 'turd ferguson' as boastful as he is, has no pride, in this sense, as he has no joy in addressing things factually.

When someone negatively addresses my (philosophic) Pride, that person becomes, in my psychological-emotional system, a non-entity. I take massive delight in deconstructing that entity in my mind, and seeing the weaknesses by which it hangs together. I can do this with most persons, but with someone who gives to show that he does not uphold Pride, as I do it, and is even ready to compromise it, this is what automatically begins to happen. His soul begins to disintegrate before my minds eye. If I choose to speak out, this then causes ripples of un-pride across the paradigm, ripples that touch the nerve of Nietzschean pride everywhere.

For as such, as defined as you have it, morality spreads through and lives in the world - when the code is challenged, it becomes active.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:53 am

The 'cause' of pride in a practical sense is pleasure, albeit a complex, and non homogenous kind.

The impulse first of all of creating pride, is a pleasure.
I am going by the definition of the OP which is the best Ive ever seen, I realize while using it.

The pleasure is created in exacerbating the sentiment about the event, and magnifying it, shaping it as a full form of consciousness - making the feeling (of in/justice) into an Idea.  This is the will to power, and perhaps in its gravest, most human sense.

To create a morality in this way, by feeling something, and then allowing the feeling to become an objectifying, magnetizing, 'shaping' eternal, this is ruthless.
Most of such power comes as revenge. But it is also a revenge against oneself. As, as one feels very clearly when such a thing is allowed/pushed into being, one surrenders ones own independence to it.

As a child, a boy at least, it is near impossible to not create such morality. I would say that no man grows up without it. Thus, no man is without it. And therefore, it is wise to develop this moral-creating power toward consciousness of nature of the joy behind it;  and that brings us to the sensibility of a Nietzschean morality; a moral attitude toward morality - the attitude toward morality being the same as that very morality; 'recurring affirmation' ; naked pride in value-creating.

I believe this is closely related to the concept of Evil, as it has existed among humans; a morality that has managed to own up to itself and thus separating from the body of society, 'Lucifer' separating from 'god', by drawing his entire moralizing nature into itself. This can never happen in a judgmental-rejecting human; that is not integer but conditional self-valuing, it is always psychotic and self-splitting. But in a drawing-in-affirming morality, if self-reference of the morality-creating pleasure/drive happens, the person becomes free to himself. For this state of "I am the way and the light and the truth" I have reserved the term "free will".

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Archer
Archer


Posts : 1170
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:31 pm

Interesting connection between these two: pride and morality.

Morality: doing the right thing. As the Wicca say: harm none. I always add: without just cause. Of course we would have to define "just cause".

Pride comes in different flavors. Some people take pride in doing the wrong thing or totally selfish things at the cost of others.

I think both are Nietzschean concepts though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:37 pm

Yes pride is connected to the self-valuing structures, so if those structures are deranged, damaged, insane or pathological then it is certainly possible for such a person to take pride in otherwise "immoral" acts.

The pride of the immoralist is probably something Nietzsche wrote about somewhere but I can't recall any specific passages.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:05 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
The 'cause' of pride in a practical sense is pleasure, albeit a complex, and non homogenous kind.

The impulse first of all of creating pride, is a pleasure.
I am going by the definition of the OP which is the best Ive ever seen, I realize while using it.

The pleasure is created in exacerbating the sentiment about the event, and magnifying it, shaping it as a full form of consciousness - making the feeling (of in/justice) into an Idea.  This is the will to power, and perhaps in its gravest, most human sense.

To create a morality in this way, by feeling something, and then allowing the feeling to become an objectifying, magnetizing, 'shaping' eternal, this is ruthless.
Most of such power comes as revenge. But it is also a revenge against oneself. As, as one feels very clearly when such a thing is allowed/pushed into being, one surrenders ones own independence to it.

As a child, a boy at least, it is near impossible to not create such morality. I would say that no man grows up without it. Thus, no man is without it. And therefore, it is wise to develop this moral-creating power toward consciousness of nature of the joy behind it;  and that brings us to the sensibility of a Nietzschean morality; a moral attitude toward morality - the attitude toward morality being the same as that very morality; 'recurring affirmation' ; naked pride in value-creating.

I believe this is closely related to the concept of Evil, as it has existed among humans; a morality that has managed to own up to itself and thus separating from the body of society, 'Lucifer' separating from 'god', by drawing his entire moralizing nature into itself. This can never happen in a judgmental-rejecting human; that is not integer but conditional self-valuing, it is always psychotic and self-splitting. But in a drawing-in-affirming morality, if self-reference of the morality-creating pleasure/drive happens, the person becomes free to himself. For this state of "I am the way and the light and the truth" I have reserved the term "free will".

This is fascinating how you already exploded this idea upward and outward. I agree to your observations in both posts, although I have an issue with associating "Evil" in the way you do. I'm familir with the Lucifer-freedom argument, but I don't agree with it. The reason I don't agree is because of how this argument is self-referential and closed-circular: freedom as "being free" or defining morality or immorality entirely in terms of freedom doesn't add anything new to these ideas, it simply acknowledges that a freeing has taken place. Similarly I see this logical problem with the will to power, an empty definitional circularity of defining will to power simply in terms of (more) will to power.

Philosophy isn't yet at the point of explicating the hard-real depths of meaning from which distinctions like moral/immoral truly come. But we know those depths exist even if we cannot logically specify them, thus it is important to avoid falsely reifying concepts like freedom or will to power in such ways as impose empty circular reasoning that would serve to close us off to those depths.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:13 pm

I agree. The depths must be even though it will be tricky getting there.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:04 pm

The other problem with the Lucifer/freedom thing (or with will to power for its own sake) is that this can be used to justify anything at all so long as you convert something into the terms of either "freedom" or "will". Want to rape puppies or murder babies or cannibalize people or institute a global fascism or become a terrorist or commit genocide or join the KKK or just pick any group or person at all and decide to murder them? Sure Lucifer/freedom and the will to power are nice ready made ideas that can easily support that. Obviously I'm not saying that the idea-constructs Lucifer/freedom or will to power would necessarily move in any ideas those directions-- I am saying that nothing about those two idea-constructs prevents or argue against any of those things, which is that I'm actually making a deeper point about how these idea-constructs, because of their self-closed form, are entirely cut off from the real contents of the individual beings (people, selves, self-valuings, etc.) who would use or make use of those idea-constructs.

Such reified structures of self-closure are simply good when they are good, and bad when they are bad, which is because they are whatever they are depending on the conditions and contents that actually determine any specified instance of them, a specified instance of conditions/contents which incidentally the idea-construct itself cannot even formulate except by blindly converting everything into a term for itself. "Quantum of power" or "quantum of freedom" for example. What is so noble about the idea-construct of Self-Valuing is that it avoids these pitfalls, because self-valuing incorporates references to the depths which outpace a self itself. Converting everything hypothetically into "values" doesn't falsify in the same way as does doing this with freedom or power. Value both indicates directly where and how it applies qua value-instance as well as leaves open space for what is not able to be correctly indicated like that.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Yeah we all know which route through the idea N took. He chose the easy way through "the bog" here, because it's self-contained self-referential and thus easily always defensible in terms of 'hard form logic'. Doesn't mean he was right, and in fact he only made it partly through because he stuck to a certain path. If you want to get closer to the true and deeper subjectivity mechanisms behind "morality" you're going to need to read someone like Hegel. But Nietzsche's essentially ideological approache here seems to be enough for many people, because really all they are looking for is a purely defensibly-"clear" position (I.e. something that requires no further effort and yields "certainty").

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:43 pm

As Fixed states or implies, Nietzsche abandons his own high naturalizing philosophical project precisely at the threshold of "the moral". Likely this is because N was stuck in deeply Christian times.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:51 pm

Capable wrote:
This is fascinating how you already exploded this idea upward and outward. I agree to your observations in both posts, although I have an issue with associating "Evil" in the way you do. I'm familir with the Lucifer-freedom argument, but I don't agree with it. The reason I don't agree is because of how this argument is self-referential and closed-circular: freedom as "being free" or defining morality or immorality entirely in terms of freedom doesn't add anything new to these ideas, it simply acknowledges that a freeing has taken place. Similarly I see this logical problem with the will to power, an empty definitional circularity of defining will to power simply in terms of (more) will to power.

Philosophy isn't yet at the point of explicating the hard-real depths of meaning from which distinctions like moral/immoral truly come. But we know those depths exist even if we cannot logically specify them, thus it is important to avoid falsely reifying concepts like freedom or will to power in such ways as impose empty circular reasoning that would serve to close us off to those depths.

I agree that freedom has yet to be invented. What I gave as "Lucifer" is indeed a hollow vessel, that does not add freedom-content. It's just the affirmative morality vis a vis ones own moral ('lying', 'imagining') powers, that I just realize is pretty natural to connect to the Lucifer image. But I did not mean to make a qualitative statement.

The word "evil" to me is a weird phenomenon, I dont know what to use it for personally.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:07 pm

Capable wrote:
The other problem with the Lucifer/freedom thing (or with will to power for its own sake) is that this can be used to justify anything at all so long as you convert something into the terms of either "freedom" or "will". Want to rape puppies or murder babies or cannibalize people or institute a global fascism or become a terrorist or commit genocide or join the KKK or just pick any group or person at all and decide to murder them? Sure Lucifer/freedom and the will to power are nice ready made ideas that can easily support that. Obviously I'm not saying that the idea-constructs Lucifer/freedom or will to power would necessarily move in any ideas those directions-- I am saying that nothing about those two idea-constructs prevents or argue against any of those things, which is that I'm actually making a deeper point about how these idea-constructs, because of their self-closed form, are entirely cut off from the real contents of the individual beings (people, selves, self-valuings, etc.) who would use or make use of those idea-constructs.

Such reified structures of self-closure are simply good when they are good, and bad when they are bad, which is because they are whatever they are depending on the conditions and contents that actually determine any specified instance of them, a specified instance of conditions/contents which incidentally the idea-construct itself cannot even formulate except by blindly converting everything into a term for itself. "Quantum of power" or "quantum of freedom" for example. What is so noble about the idea-construct of Self-Valuing is that it avoids these pitfalls, because self-valuing incorporates references to the depths which outpace a self itself. Converting everything hypothetically into "values" doesn't falsify in the same way as does doing this with freedom or power. Value both indicates directly where and how it applies qua value-instance as well as leaves open space for what is not able to be correctly indicated like that.

Perhaps as a further analogy, we might speculate that the term/logic "value" as centering/substantiating Power/Freedom into the direct reference to an experiential reality, a perspective, in fact ties "Lucifer", the unconditioned and hollow "freedom for its own sake",  back to "god".... lol.

I dont know.
Just an intuition of a path opening up.


"God" then of course as a kind of Earth. True Value; no doubt related to sickness/bound-ness, and all its 'antitheses' -
"freedom-as-such" is perhaps the ultimate prison. Perhaps with pure freedom, all one can do is break into Value by rape, as one is in fact not tied by/backed by any Value of oneself.

To be valued is obviously not a Luciferian aim; but it is the sole aim of "god", given by how he publishes about himself.... haha... well, all of it has been tossed out and is dirtier than trash - but a way to reappropriate "god" might be simply as a conditioner to freedom/power to concrete and verifiable Value.

I suppose this is the very way in which I address gods, or am addressed by them; as paths into life, from the void created by the modern Ideal Of Freedom (an empty placeholder, around which all effort is regulated and by which 'name'/'key' it is extracted for extraneous purposes) rather toward a center of proper human making, i.e. philosophy, which virtuously regulates effort without then extracting it from the intention that generated the effort.

"God" then is simply what we now will create; a new center of Value, a new recepticle for excess, we first envisioned it as a Totem.
It is a reference to the possibility of Absolute existence within a Relative world.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:36 pm

Evil is the lack of any rational conscience.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:40 pm

FC wrote:
Perhaps with pure freedom, all one can do is break into Value by rape, as one is in fact not tied by/backed by any Value of oneself.

Pure speculation. Who has pure freedom so that we can be clued in?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:46 pm

There is an absolute within the subjectivity relative content-world/s, but the confusion becomes that this absolute is not absolutely inviolable or given. Logic holds that the absolute is to be the most vulnerable thing in existence.

The fact that morality cannot be perfectly-clearly explicated and often falls victim to weird paradoxes of choice and conflicting or seemingly contingent values-needs is misinterpreted to mean that morality is not "objective". Morality itself is perfectly objective. It is humans who aspire to that objectivity because human is a being created by morality, not the other way around.

But we must be clear that objective morality and the fragile absolute which pursues it does not mean that this morality is applicable universally across all values-situations, nor that the/an absolute (closely what we call "the self") should ever be taken as a given. Language matches being, which is problematic since language also helps create that being which then will work to match itself to it.

Nietzsche's mostly honest concept is the revaluation of all values. This revaluation is always taking place and is already the basis of human being; but again, we don't know how to say so. And the human world is still far too inhuman.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:06 pm

Hi-D wrote:
FC wrote:
Perhaps with pure freedom, all one can do is break into Value by rape, as one is in fact not tied by/backed by any Value of oneself.

Pure speculation.  Who has pure freedom so that we can be clued in?

Well, I was of course still using it in terms of the Lucifer metaphor.

It is a purely speculative entity; this was Capable's point. It has no specific quality.
Thence "rape" ; the impersonal partaking in someones (self-)Value.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:09 pm

Myki2 wrote:
Quote :
The fact that morality cannot be perfectly-clearly explicated

In another words you have absolutly no idea what are you talking about !

Morality = Human psychological "chains" , an easy smooth nice and sweet explication that everybody can understand.

Extremely wrong, Myki.

"Explicate" does not mean "explain" like it does in French.


 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:18 pm

Capable wrote:
There is an absolute within the subjectivity relative content-world/s, but the confusion becomes that this absolute is not absolutely inviolable or given. Logic holds that the absolute is to be the most vulnerable thing in existence.

Yes, it needs to be built; life is an approximation, philosophy is a further approximation. Unfragile life like reptilian life is a consolidated distance from the absolute. Warm blood creeps closer to the absolute.

Quote :
The fact that morality cannot be perfectly-clearly explicated and often falls victim to weird paradoxes of choice and conflicting or seemingly contingent values-needs is misinterpreted to mean that morality is not "objective". Morality itself is perfectly objective. It is humans who aspire to that objectivity because human is a being created by morality, not the other way around.

But we must be clear that objective morality and the fragile absolute which pursues it does not mean that this morality is applicable universally across all values-situations, nor that the/an absolute (closely what we call "the self") should ever be taken as a given. Language matches being, which is problematic since language also helps create that being which then will work to match itself to it.

Nietzsche's mostly honest concept is the revaluation of all values. This revaluation is always taking place and is already the basis of human being; but again, we don't know how to say so. And the human world is still far too inhuman.

Do not human nature and morality coincide? It is not that one creates the other, but that one is human in as far as one is consumed in a moral process; a narrative, a Life rather than a life-form, as self-valuing. Time included; this is morality's scheme.
Hence we create objectivity, why boys like science as well as competition; Einstein just won the game that boys play; and he configured the absulute physically as purely fragile, and could not live with this.

"God doesn't play dice"

"Father, don't be such a pussy!"

He could not withstand the pure fragility of the truth; his formula is pure flexibility, and has no way of drawing the marble, or human, or tragic, or subsumed lines between the contexts it takes the center of.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:22 pm

Ah, I seem to like this definition of evil: (relatively great) consolidated distance to the Absolute.

Evil thus operates in greater uncertainty, that is to say, license.....
but also structurally fails to attain control.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:44 pm

To me that definition ("definition of evil: (relatively great) consolidated distance to the Absolute") sounds like a definition of bravery.

Evil is indeed very hard to define clearly. We could go N's route and claim it doesn't exist. This has the benefit of needing no further explication or inquiry; the lazy-man route that soon to be banned trolls like Myki prefer.

But I am not convinced there are not deep, penetrating structural differences between what is called evil and mere ignorance, savage disregard of the content-lattice underneath salient acting self-value, or psychopathological madness (critical breakdown of consciousness/reason). In fact let's work on a hypothesis that taken together these three aspects, individually or together, are what is really meant by the word "evil".

Freedom for its own sake is clearly abandoned for being unable to speak to contents, except as retroactive justification in the form of historical revisionism. Nietzsche may have liked this. But a only one-way relationship to freedom's own contents as being qua value represents a grossly distorted form of humanity. The constellation of values-interests is powered by an emergent quality that cannot be reduced to those "self interests" but attains in emergence something greater, a rational-logical capacity that might even be called the birth of philosophy as such.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:56 pm

Hi-D wrote:
Evil is the lack of any rational conscience.

The idea that evil is fundamentally a lack is interesting and not something I can dispute yet. But I'm working on the assumption that evil has a more positivistic character as well. I'm also open to the possibility that evil is just a name for a certain kind of collection of values-self-distortions that is of course able to cling to a semblance of self-interest, as any lifeform at all does; even non-living things cling to a semblance of self-interest.

Perhaps evil is rock-(un)consciousness transposed somehow into a human mind-emulation.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:02 pm

This was very annoying, having to delete all these posts.  I was just about to warn him to stay in his thread when he had suddenly infested the place.




I am against the insertion of "rational" into the antithesis of "evil" unless most of nature is rational, which would come down to a James S Saintian definition of reason. Namely that which works so as to survive and thrive; being itself would then be reasonable, and evil a kind of exception to it. This is Biblical.

Evil as a lack is something I wont dispute but I fear it only as a positive accumulation of deranged excess.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:03 pm

Obviously we cannot discount N's contribution to properly naturalizing theory here: much of what people call "evil" is just a "bad" with which they happen to not agree, don't feel comfortable to or do not benefit from personally. But philosophers are in the business of seeking truths, not avoiding them.

We build from N and keep going.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2967
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:05 pm

We are in agreement on all points you just raised, Fixed.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3708
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:05 pm

Nietzsche's definition of evil is very simple in fact: that which is too strong.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?    

Back to top Go down
 
What is morality in the practical (Nietzschean) sense?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: