The Antichrist

[chaz wyman]

Yes, the one thing that informs truth in reality is judgement. Essentially. How ironic.

That would be because we only can have our own versions of reality.
They have to be different from another's - be they another humans or another species.
Reality is an idea.

Can you dismiss this last idea from an ethical presupposition? (and I am not relieving myself from this either:) does not your statement stem from what is correct?

There is nothing here that has to be covered by an ethical question. What is correct is an epistemological question. It does not matter much how I feel about it.

Is not the proposition "reality is an idea" a statement of right? and if I counter with what yoou do not agree with, as we continue in this way, will not this process eventually come to reveal some notion of 'bad' or even 'evil'?

No - it really is an epistemological one. Ethics are about how people feel and act; that is about good and bad; not right and wrong. Only a moralist confuses the two.

And even though we may both agree that our discussion is a civil and sensible way of coming to a commonly good way to proceed or behave, that there is no inherent 'evil' in our polemics, is not this process a 'right' one, as we proceed within it?

thus N does not stop with knowledge, as if knowledge is an (analytical) basis upon which we may propose other (synthetical) knowledge.

Can there be a 'neutral' idea in reality? that is, in so much as an active individual may have it?

Neutral no- but again that does not have to pass an ethical test.

/quote]

[artisticsolution]

No - it really is an epistemological one. Ethics are about how people feel and act; that is about good and bad; not right and wrong. Only a moralist confuses the two.

I think others confuse the 2 as well. It seems to me whether or not people are moralist, they still seem to want to control other people. So instead of using Christianity as their moral compass, they use another reason. This becomes their morality and religion so to speak. Very rare is the person who believes they do wrong or bad or that they are less than the others. Even if they are insecure or depressed...I believe they tend to fantasize about being the best at that....the most glorious victim in all the land....

I wonder what a world full of people who minded their own morality or ethics...would look like? Or do you think I am a moralist for even asking that question?

Side note...personally, I don't understand what Nietzsche thinks is wrong with being the herdsman?

[chaz wyman]

No - it really is an epistemological one. Ethics are about how people feel and act; that is about good and bad; not right and wrong. Only a moralist confuses the two.

I think others confuse the 2 as well. It seems to me whether or not people are moralist, they still seem to want to control other people. So instead of using Christianity as their moral compass, they use another reason. This becomes their morality and religion so to speak. Very rare is the person who believes they do wrong or bad or that they are less than the others. Even if they are insecure or depressed...I believe they tend to fantasize about being the best at that....the most glorious victim in all the land....

I wonder what a world full of people who minded their own morality or ethics...would look like? Or do you think I am a moralist for even asking that question?

Side note...personally, I don't understand what Nietzsche thinks is wrong with being the herdsman?

It seems to me that there are far too many people willing to impose their set of moral onto other people, and pretend that they do so because what they demand is not only for the good but is also right; what they think is bad is wrong. The truth is that latitude always works best and a move towards that position is an historical reality in the last 200 ish years.
I agree that an abortion for a Christian might seem wrong because they think it is bad; I am not in the market to tell them to go and have one, but I do not want them to impose their law on me - with due respect for the potential life, of course - which will always make it a particularly difficult issue.

I don't think you are a moralist for asking that question. I do think that in many western countries what we have looks very close to that position. There are major anomalies; drugs is a major one where there seems no justification for imposing a prohibition as this is not a crime with any victim unless it is onesself. Other 'nannie state" rules ought to be abandoned to allow people to find their own way and make their own mistakes. But the issues of racial and sexual equality, and gay rights are good examples of not imposing moral positions on other people - this has been achieved by flying in the face of religion.

This all leads me back to Hume who pretty much detested religion for this very thing. He noted that moralists tend to move from a position of "is" to move to a position of 'ought' without noticing. An example would be it is true that a gay marriage does not produce progeny therefore there ought to be no gay marriage. In other words what makes them feel a thing is bad must be wrong. I beg to insist that it only be wrong for them and right for those for whom it feels good.

[artisticsolution]

It seems to me that there are far too many people willing to impose their set of moral onto other people, and pretend that they do so because what they demand is not only for the good but is also right; what they think is bad is wrong. The truth is that latitude always works best and a move towards that position is an historical reality in the last 200 ish years.
I agree that an abortion for a Christian might seem wrong because they think it is bad; I am not in the market to tell them to go and have one, but I do not want them to impose their law on me - with due respect for the potential life, of course - which will always make it a particularly difficult issue.

I don't think you are a moralist for asking that question. I do think that in many western countries what we have looks very close to that position. There are major anomalies; drugs is a major one where there seems no justification for imposing a prohibition as this is not a crime with any victim unless it is onesself. Other 'nannie state" rules ought to be abandoned to allow people to find their own way and make their own mistakes. But the issues of racial and sexual equality, and gay rights are good examples of not imposing moral positions on other people - this has been achieved by flying in the face of religion.

This all leads me back to Hume who pretty much detested religion for this very thing. He noted that moralists tend to move from a position of "is" to move to a position of 'ought' without noticing. An example would be it is true that a gay marriage does not produce progeny therefore there ought to be no gay marriage. In other words what makes them feel a thing is bad must be wrong. I beg to insist that it only be wrong for them and right for those for whom it feels good.

We are in agreement with all of what you say here. I would only expand on what you have said by adding that I don't think that "religion" and "god" are the same thing. True enough...religion stems from the idea "god", but belief in a "god" does not necessarily mean belief in abiding by a "religions" rules.

But the main point I am getting at is that all of us have our own idea of a "nannie state" we would wish to impose on others. All of us can give good reason why we should have it our way. What makes our way the "right/good" way?

What law would you impose on others?

[chaz wyman]

It seems to me that there are far too many people willing to impose their set of moral onto other people, and pretend that they do so because what they demand is not only for the good but is also right; what they think is bad is wrong. The truth is that latitude always works best and a move towards that position is an historical reality in the last 200 ish years.
I agree that an abortion for a Christian might seem wrong because they think it is bad; I am not in the market to tell them to go and have one, but I do not want them to impose their law on me - with due respect for the potential life, of course - which will always make it a particularly difficult issue.

I don't think you are a moralist for asking that question. I do think that in many western countries what we have looks very close to that position. There are major anomalies; drugs is a major one where there seems no justification for imposing a prohibition as this is not a crime with any victim unless it is onesself. Other 'nannie state" rules ought to be abandoned to allow people to find their own way and make their own mistakes. But the issues of racial and sexual equality, and gay rights are good examples of not imposing moral positions on other people - this has been achieved by flying in the face of religion.

This all leads me back to Hume who pretty much detested religion for this very thing. He noted that moralists tend to move from a position of "is" to move to a position of 'ought' without noticing. An example would be it is true that a gay marriage does not produce progeny therefore there ought to be no gay marriage. In other words what makes them feel a thing is bad must be wrong. I beg to insist that it only be wrong for them and right for those for whom it feels good.

We are in agreement with all of what you say here. I would only expand on what you have said by adding that I don't think that "religion" and "god" are the same thing. True enough...religion stems from the idea "god", but belief in a "god" does not necessarily mean belief in abiding by a "religions" rules.

But the main point I am getting at is that all of us have our own idea of a "nannie state" we would wish to impose on others. All of us can give good reason why we should have it our way. What makes our way the "right/good" way?

What law would you impose on others?

I think the harm principle is a good place to start. Law must be designed to protect the weak against the strong and anyone against another that would want to do them harm. Law should not be invoked to protect us against ourselves.

As for god and religion. I'm not confusing them, but as god is meaningless to me and religion claims to speak for god, then the distinction is academic.
Those without religion and who claim to believe in god, in practice, believe in nothing whatever, except what whim they currently are moved by. They do not live their lives by a god, as taking that step is a step into religion (almost by definition).

[lancek4]

I don't know about imposing will, but n is against such willing: it is the category of Christian And I do not necessarily agree his conclusions are tennable. But I understand how he gets there. Good And evil are only a half step away from correct and incorrect. ; the distinction is about as significant as 'is' meaning copula or being; it is discursive slight of hand.

[lancek4]

No - it really is an epistemological one. Ethics are about how people feel and act; that is about good and bad; not right and wrong. Only a moralist confuses the two.

I think others confuse the 2 as well. It seems to me whether or not people are moralist, they still seem to want to control other people. So instead of using Christianity as their moral compass, they use another reason. This becomes their morality and religion so to speak. Very rare is the person who believes they do wrong or bad or that they are less than the others. Even if they are insecure or depressed...I believe they tend to fantasize about being the best at that....the most glorious victim in all the land....

I wonder what a world full of people who minded their own morality or ethics...would look like? Or do you think I am a moralist for even asking that question?

Side note...personally, I don't understand what Nietzsche thinks is wrong with being the herdsman?

Cattle is a better term. But n was definitely a little off in places. Yet my opinion is not do important as understanding another's

[artisticsolution]

Cattle is a better term. But n was definitely a little off in places. Yet my opinion is not do important as understanding another's

Okay, personally, I don't care what N calls it...cattle or herdsman...it all means the same to me. So then I ask what does N think is wrong with being cattle? Also, does he think he is not cattle? I am sure in some ways none of us are entirely separate from the group. I think we just like to believe we are...possibly ego is to blame for this thought? But N went to school like he rest of the cattle...right? He wore clothes like the rest of the "cattle" right? He spent money like the rest of the cattle, right?

What I am getting at, is none of us can know what is inside of another person. That Christian walking down the street might surprise N, if they were able to speak so they could be understood. Just because most Christians who speak, seem to be confused as to what they believe, it doesn't mean that if we were inside them and could understand them...we would still think they were confused. Who really knows what they are thinking? Quite possibly it is nothing like what we perceive?

Language is a talent, not everyone is capable when it comes to communication. N had this talent. It seems to me though that N....much like my mom...who was a Christian and fought against N types as hard as he fought against Christian types, think they are above the herd. I doubt that it it is possible to truly be above the herd. You can have a certain talent that not all possess...but then you don't have another talent that makes someone else stand apart from the herd in one tiny little area.

What I am saying is...that if each of us is unique in our own way, what makes any of us separate from the herd? Popularity? Coolness? underdog type attributes? We could all give our reasons why we think one stand apart and another doesn't...but that doesn't mean we are right. It just means we think we are right....and since we can't know what another is thinking...or hear the arguments of every individual...we can't know if the one we praise as different...truly is.

K talks about this very thing.

[lancek4]

A reduction of k or n to the relative individual is, I assert, a misreading of them. To read them in this way argues their point: that This is the problem. The inability to not segregate oneself from reality. Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality.

But let's back up. I am interested in Chaz explanation of AC now.

[artisticsolution]

L:A reduction of k or n to the relative individual is, I assert, a misreading of them. To read them in this way argues their point: that This is the problem. The inability to not segregate oneself from reality. Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality.

AS: I think that if this is the point N was trying to make then he is making it for reasons that are not honest as it would stop all questioning of his authority based on, "Do as I say not as I do.' It is basically like saying, "If you take one more breath that means you are part of the herd." It would be impossible to not be part of the herd in this instance...even for the one who said it. So if this is basically what N is saying....then he is saying he is the only one to be able to take that breath without becoming part of the herd. It is a dishonest childish argument.

I am trying to have a discussion about AC, but so far all you are doing is deflecting any type of discussion about this book by simply having an "Them against N (and you)" type mentality. That is not honest as it is impossible to have that thought process and at the same time argue :

"Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality."

BY telling people they are part of the herd, you have placed yourself on the side of "good" thereby you are caught up in an "illusion of freedom' yourself. Don't you see what N is arguing (if you are reading him correctly) is impossible? Because if one thinks the others are not like him because they can't help argue "good vs. evil" and makes the argument that he can...then that itself is a "good vs. evil" argument.

So, if you stand on the side of N's...or that you have a "better" understanding of N than me, then you are arguing "good vs. evil" and are just being one of N's followers. So isn't that herd like behavior?

Please don't take my saying so as an insult, I just mean to get you into a discussion of the book instead of simply reiterating what you've been taught without having any questions.

How is questioning N wrong or being part of the herd? Sorry, but I have never been one to just believe what I read and follow blindly.

So again I ask you....what is wrong with being part of the herd? can you answer me that?

[chaz wyman]

A reduction of k or n to the relative individual is, I assert, a misreading of them. To read them in this way argues their point: that This is the problem. The inability to not segregate oneself from reality. Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality.

But let's back up. I am interested in Chaz explanation of AC now.

wot wot wot??? who me??
Wadda I do?

[artisticsolution]

A reduction of k or n to the relative individual is, I assert, a misreading of them. To read them in this way argues their point: that This is the problem. The inability to not segregate oneself from reality. Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality.

But let's back up. I am interested in Chaz explanation of AC now.

wot wot wot??? who me??
Wadda I do?

You mean you don't have an explanation of AC?

[chaz wyman]

A reduction of k or n to the relative individual is, I assert, a misreading of them. To read them in this way argues their point: that This is the problem. The inability to not segregate oneself from reality. Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality.

But let's back up. I am interested in Chaz explanation of AC now.

wot wot wot??? who me??
Wadda I do?

You mean you don't have an explanation of AC?

I'll get back to you on that one.

[artisticsolution]

I'll get back to you on that one.

I hope so...I would hate to think I am the only one who is willing to put their thoughts about AC on the line without fear or prosecution (persecution?) in order to have a deeper discussion about N and his philosophy. I am only here to learn and so far I am way confused. It doesn't seem like anyone wants to answer any of my questions directly.

[lancek4]

L:A reduction of k or n to the relative individual is, I assert, a misreading of them. To read them in this way argues their point: that This is the problem. The inability to not segregate oneself from reality. Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality.

AS: I think that if this is the point N was trying to make then he is making it for reasons that are not honest as it would stop all questioning of his authority based on, "Do as I say not as I do.' It is basically like saying, "If you take one more breath that means you are part of the herd." It would be impossible to not be part of the herd in this instance...even for the one who said it. So if this is basically what N is saying....then he is saying he is the only one to be able to take that breath without becoming part of the herd. It is a dishonest childish argument.
Yes it can be seen as childish, but only when one 'is stopped' there, because he could not miss your observation; you think he is 'equal' to you and so you see him in free equal judgement as being 'less than' your obviously better ability
He is being more honest than you give him credit for .
I am trying to have a discussion about AC, but so far all you are doing is deflecting any type of discussion about this book by simply having an "Them against N (and you)" type mentality. That is not honest as it is impossible to have that thought process and at the same time argue :

"Threre by the individual is caught in an illusion of freedom, all the while arguing what they cannot but help argue: the good and evil, The absolute correct way of coming upon reality."

BY telling people they are part of the herd, you have placed yourself on the side of "good" thereby you are caught up in an "illusion of freedom' yourself. Don't you see what N is arguing (if you are reading him correctly) is impossible? Because if one thinks the others are not like him because they can't help argue "good vs. evil" and makes the argument that he can...then that itself is a "good vs. evil" argument.
yes; how ironic. It is only impossible according to the particular scheme of ethics that informs you of 'good and evil'. That which you say is impossible reveals what offends you: you cannot have a reality that breaches your 'impossible'; it is 'evil'.

So, if you stand on the side of N's...or that you have a "better" understanding of N than me, then you are arguing "good vs. evil" and are just being one of N's followers. So isn't that herd like behavior?

Please don't take my saying so as an insult, I just mean to get you into a discussion of the book instead of simply reiterating what you've been taught without having any questions.
H
How is questioning N wrong or being part of the herd? Sorry, but I have never been one to just believe what I read and follow blindly.

So again I ask you....what is wrong with being part of the herd? can you answer me that?

I don't know if I was taught about N, i just understood him when I read him and there was/is nothing that I read of him that has broken this understanding, nothing that I had to 'fit' into what I was understanding as I read. Thus I am interested in others views.

AS, I meant no offense. I felt I understood your position and was offering for Chaz his positive statement, instead of his rebuttals.

But i agree with much of what you say . Yes it is quite absurd, and ironic; no? That the argument he is making would be so silly yet so foundational that it would still be discussed 140 years later. Hmmm. How rediculous.

I guess I could ask why would someone make such an absurd argument, and then id ask why is it still discussed? Just as an example of wrong reasoning? What do you guys think?