Nietzsche and the meaning of life

[Fake Boris]

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.

I agree that Imran and GePap aren't very Nietzschean IMO. I don't know why though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac

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

Why? They might just copy me. If they say he's a relativist, then I'd dispute that as my reading is that Nietzsche's perspectivism is not the same as relativism.

[Maniac]

Agathon:
"How come the Nietzscheans on Poly aren't Nietzschean?"

A Nietzschean:
"Perhaps your definition of Nietzschean is wrong?"

Agathon:
"Please correct my definition."

Me:
"To be able to correct your definition, you should first state your definition."

Agathon:
"Why? They might just copy me. If they say he's a relativist, then I'd dispute that as my reading is that Nietzsche's perspectivism is not the same as relativism."


They might just copy you?

Anyway, personally I don't give a **** about precise definitions. Relativism? Perspectivism? Subjectivism? *Yawn*...
You should state your definitions for your post to have any meaning.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac
Agathon:
"How come the Nietzscheans on Poly aren't Nietzschean?"

A Nietzschean:
"Perhaps your definition of Nietzschean is wrong?"

Agathon:
"Please correct my definition."

Me:
"To be able to correct your definition, you should first state your definition."

That doesn't necessarily follow. They could state their definition without knowing mine, and it might change my mind and thus correct my definition.

Agathon:
"Why? They might just copy me. If they say he's a relativist, then I'd dispute that as my reading is that Nietzsche's perspectivism is not the same as relativism."


They might just copy you?

?

If I said what I believed, they might just say the same as that. I don't want that to happen, so I'm not going to say much until they explain their beliefs.

You can make the same claim as someone else without knowing what they claim. For example, someone might make the same prediction as I do about the Presidential election without knowing what my prediction is.

I'm not a Nietzsche expert, although I have read pretty much everything he ever wrote (but that was a long time ago). Imran and GePap don't strike me as being Nietzscheans. I always thought GePap's avatar was there for some other reason (I thought he admired Nietzsche, but wasn't a Nietzschean himself). Perhaps they have an alternative reading of Nietzsche than mine. If so, that's cool. I just want them to say what they mean uncontaminated by any view I might express.

Is that clearer?

[McCrea]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

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

Yep. Whether or not you deserved it is subjective.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by McCrea


Yep. Whether or not you deserved it is subjective.

sure, when someone breaks in your house and rapes you, it's good, because rape is OK in 2008 .

Good is objective and "it is" regardless of the "state of mind" of the "doer" or the public, it is only crooked perception which cannot recognize it - that is subjective.

Sum result of the two = this world, where on one hand millions of countless morons benefit from the few people who have seen what is "good" and have implemented it, for all to benefit. While on the other hand, despite of many actions being pretty clearly "bad" people still do it as they cannot help it, due to their bad temper, habits, peer pressure, and other countless "reasons" but most frequently due to their own ignorance.

[McCrea]

I appreciate your idea, and hope this is constructive.

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
sure, when someone breaks in your house and rapes you, it's good, because rape is OK in 2008 .

Putting the year at the end makes it appear subjective.

Good is objective and "it is" regardless of the "state of mind" of the "doer" or the public, it is only crooked perception which cannot recognize it - that is subjective.

I hold that if the mind did not exist, neither would good.

millions of countless morons benefit from the few people who have seen what is "good" and have implemented it, for all to benefit.

I also presume that millions of countless morons suffer from the few people who have seen what is "evil" and have implemented it, for all to suffer? (just noting, pondering -- I have no point here.)

While on the other hand, despite of many actions being pretty clearly "bad" people still do it... " "...frequently due to their own ignorance.

I think if it [good/evil] were not subjective, it would not require a great need of knowledge.

?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by McCrea
I appreciate your idea, and hope this is constructive.

Putting the year at the end makes it appear subjective.

well it might appear to be OK to a group in _insert the blank_ year, place, war... but it will never be the case no matter what the perpetrators/public think

I hold that if the mind did not exist, neither would good.

In my opinion, ultimately good is not linked to either mind, or life... it simply is - but if life did not exist (I'd link good with life in particular for it to have practical meaning), there is no observer or active participant... it however still IS.

I also presume that millions of countless morons suffer from the few people who have seen what is "evil" and have implemented it, for all to suffer? (just noting, pondering -- I have no point here.)

off course , but I wanted to be positive in the previous post... while many Nazis were happy to oblige in filling the gas chambers, Schindler was smuggling Jews for no "good" reason... good IS.

I think if it [good/evil] were not subjective, it would not require a great need of knowledge.

"great need of knowledge" - in this case we have the mind which from many of it's abilities also enables us to perceive "reality" in which we exist - and we live and learn about it, we also learn what is "good" and "bad"... we gather knowledge about certain "truths" which are objective...

I'd say that finding what is "good", and subsequently doing it should be the primary motive in life... and that gives life meaning. In any case good IS, regardless whether we see it or not. Our finite abilities do not allow us always to see all that well, but the subjectivity is a matter of our ability to perceive, and not whether "good" exists or not.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
"great need of knowledge" - in this case we have the mind which from many of it's abilities also enables us to perceive "reality" in which we exist - and we live and learn about it, we also learn what is "good" and "bad"... we gather knowledge about certain "truths" which are objective...

What we learn as 'good' can differ heavily depending on when and where we live. Why would it just 'be'? 'Good' is a man made concept like any other.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by BeBro


What we learn as 'good' can differ heavily depending on when and where we live. Why would it just 'be'? 'Good' is a man made concept like any other.

What you see as subjective is human perception, thus different people see "good" differently... but if they both continued to look for what is "good" they would all ultimately come to the "same" conclusion. For example the principle that stealing is "bad", and countless other principles which no matter your cultural background you/ a society will come to as they find out more about the "reality" around them. The same way they find and agree about material realities like that the sea is salty. If you ignore that reality and drink seawater, you will die sooner or later. Same with "good" if you continue to steal... well dependable on the others ability to detect your action - you will pay for your deeds sooner or later, regardless of culture or any other human phenomenon.

Human perception even differs on material events, but it does not change the fact that they happened, nor that there was a precise sequence/reason why they happened. "Good" is the same, but it being an idea is sometimes hard to quantify with our limited abilities.

The applicable difference of that fact cannot be more striking. If you see "good" as just another man made concept, than you will ultimately do like Eichmann did, sign the paper

[Agathon]

I wish I knew what "subjective" meant.

[Elok]

I'd tell you, but its meaning is too subjective to pin down. Oh, I are a witty person.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
What you see as subjective is human perception, thus different people see "good" differently... but if they both continued to look for what is "good" they would all ultimately come to the "same" conclusion. For example the principle that stealing is "bad", and countless other principles which no matter your cultural background you/ a society will come to as they find out more about the "reality" around them.

and...

Human perception even differs on material events, but it does not change the fact that they happened, nor that there was a precise sequence/reason why they happened. "Good" is the same, but it being an idea is sometimes hard to quantify with our limited abilities.

But people don't always come to the same conclusion on good and bad. Not throughout history, not today. While most people certainly share some general wishes there can be a lot of difference in concrete questions. Stealing wasn't always bad. As a Viking you would be a hero telling stories how you killed guys and took their stuff. I'd agree that certain behaviour isn't tolerable if you have a certain idea in mind how societies should work (and probably do indeed work better), but then we're not speaking of a 'good' that just 'is' anymore.

The applicable difference of that fact cannot be more striking. If you see "good" as just another man made concept, than you will ultimately do like Eichmann did, sign the paper

All Eichmanns aside, if it isn't man made, where does it come from? You could go religious and tell it comes from God, then it would work, but that makes it a question of belief. It's not really argument that supports your point that good just 'is'.