Nietzsche and the meaning of life

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Maniac


So do you think then people should be thought for the benefit of society that there is some absolute moral, even though you know it's crap?

I read two books of Leo Strauss (father of Neo Conservatives). His position would have been yes to your question.

[OzzyKP]

Nietzsche sucks, and life has an inherent meaning

[Agathon]

Can someone explain to me why Poly's chief Nietzsche admirers are the least Nietzschean people on the board?

I've been puzzled by this for years.

[Elok]

I prefer the T-shirt with the "star-bellied Nietzsches" Dr. Seuss reference, McCrea. But that's just me.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Agathon
Can someone explain to me why Poly's chief Nietzsche admirers are the least Nietzschean people on the board?

I've been puzzled by this for years.

Gilles Lipovetsky pointed out a while back that you see it more and more often: religious, philosophical or the so-called spiritual beliefs used as another way to distinguish yourself from others, just like a unique piece of clothing, a funky pair of shoes, listening to music that just a select few listens to or wearing grills. Its not about substance, its not about truth, its all about flava. An example would be Madonna and cabala. Why not catholicism? Too common for that snotty *****.

[BeBMan]

I'm neither a great fan nor a hater of Nietzsche. I just think amongst his stuff there's some important ideas which I agree with and others which seem rather weak, sometimes even terribly banal. And personally I don't like his style. I'd rather read some Kant than Nietzsche, though Kant's style is much more heavy, but there I rather have the feeling that he's really something to say most of the time, while with Nietzsche there's often quite some empty phrases or (IMO) overdone polemics between the important points.

[Krill]

Cronos, please change your avartar or I might start refering to you as Asher.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Krill
Cronos, please change your avartar or I might start refering to you as Asher.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178410

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
Can someone explain to me why Poly's chief Nietzsche admirers are the least Nietzschean people on the board?

I've been puzzled by this for years.

Perhaps your expectations of what a Nietzschean should look like are warped and incorrect?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

"A human social artifact"? Based on what? Just because humans are all so good naturally? Well, we're not all good, for one thing.

Based on 5500 years of recorded human history, in which many different social and ethical systems have existed and thrived, sometimes for thousands of years.

And this has nothing to do with being "good," as what is "good" is totally subjective.

[Maniac]

Which mean; there is nothing you can do about it.

With 'it' you mean the decay of society, right?
Well, NW-Europe is a society in which God is effectively dead. Not sure about Canada - you guys aren't religious fundamentalists like the Americans right?
So anyway, in what way is NW-Europe or Canada a society in decay according to you?? Sure, we aren't the most vibrant of societies, when comparing to China for instance, but complacency is the inevitable consequence of any society which has been at the world's economic top for an extended period of time. This is not related to God being dead.

I read two books of Leo Strauss (father of Neo Conservatives). His position would have been yes to your question.

A strong common ideology certainly helps maintain cohesion within a society. But it isn't an absolute requirement, as contemporary European society indicates. Most people here would probably just answer something incoherent or "I don't know/not sure" when asked about the meaning of life. Yet life seems to continue just fine. The average Joe is still guided by the same desires he has always been guided by: food, sex, friends, education, work, marriage, kids... A society seems to function just fine with just rules of public conduct.

Of course that's still talking about a society in which most people aren't clearly of opinion that life has no inherent meaning. Let's assume a society only consisting of "Nietzscheans/perspectivists/relativists/subjectivists or whatever you want to call them. It's often said that since Nietzsche focused so on the individual, a society full of Nietzscheans would be unable to exist. I disagree. Let's consider the political theory of balance of power, which has guided the behaviour of states throughout most of history, despite these states being completely different and having no common ideology. Well, the same idea can be transplanted to a society of individuals. They all strive to maximize their own interests, values and power. Individuals with similar interests form groups, individuals with conflicting interests oppose each other. Adding all these individual interests together you get some (constantly fluctuating) balance/equilibrium. I don't see why the political system of a society of Nietzscheans should or would be any different than today's one: a polyarchy/democracy. (Obviously I disagree with Nietzsche's dislike of democracy - you shouldn't read that guy for any useful political thought)

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Perhaps your expectations of what a Nietzschean should look like are warped and incorrect?

You mean like his...nah, that's too easy, n/m.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

Perhaps your expectations of what a Nietzschean should look like are warped and incorrect?

Correct me then. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya!!!!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by GePap

as what is "good" is totally subjective.

when someone comes and slaps you because fuhrer said so - it is a good thing - totally subjective off course

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Agathon
Correct me then. I dare ya. I double dog dare ya!!!!

You should start by saying what a Nietzschean is according to you.