Philosophy Now Forum

what is the extreme most evil deed that you can think of?

Now (just like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment) you must needs do that very deed!! Do it in order to bury slave (herd) morality and prove your higher self. Because the most 'evil' deed is really always a" Christ-like" act. Morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive and the Superman is, must be, set free.

There is no higher power than the Superman now that both metaphysics and God are dead..

Thus Spoke Zarathustra!!!!!

-

"Sunshine came softly through my
window today..."

God, I love Donovan!

Anyways, there is no way I'd create a new existence.

Dalek Prime wrote:"Sunshine came softly through my
window today..."

God, I love Donovan!

Anyways, there is no way I'd create a new existence.

not without a Hurdy Gurdy at least

-Imp

Enigma3 wrote:what is the extreme most evil deed that you can think of?

Now (just like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment) you must needs do that very deed!! Do it in order to bury slave (herd) morality and prove your higher self. Because the most 'evil' deed is really always a" Christ-like" act. Morality and autonomy are mutually exclusive and the Superman is, must be, set free.

There is no higher power than the Superman now that both metaphysics and God are dead..

Thus Spoke Zarathustra!!!!!

-

The trouble is that it is hard to distinguish evil from stupidity. And yes there is a certain freedom in stupidity.

And no matter whether you think about the possible consequences of your actions or not, there will still be consequences.

And if you commit an antisocial act, it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that you will end up in an institution for the criminally insane; and there is not much freedom in that.

A_Seagull wrote:

And if you commit an antisocial act, it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that you will end up in an institution for the criminally insane; and there is not much freedom in that.

It is antisocial only when the society is run by the herd, who accordingly label the action as that of an insane man. Even after he published Beyond Good and Evil, in the twentieth century, Nietzsche was called insane based upon the text. Slave morality is democratic and is maintained by a mass society. The new society is an aristocracy of Super-philosophers; free spirits.

The evil act is Christ-like because it comes from out of the depths of the autonomous Superman.

-

Yet old Freddy himself didn't really do anything particularly evil in his life, did he? He just pottered around in the Alps, writing books.

So either Nietzsche didn't live up to his own ideals, or else he didn't after all think that it was incumbent upon anyone to think of evil deeds and then perform them. (That would be a fairly bizarre reading of his work anyway, surely?)

Enigma3 wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

And if you commit an antisocial act, it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that you will end up in an institution for the criminally insane; and there is not much freedom in that.

It is antisocial only when the society is run by the herd, who accordingly label the action as that of an insane man. Even after he published Beyond Good and Evil, in the twentieth century, Nietzsche was called insane based upon the text. Slave morality is democratic and is maintained by a mass society. The new society is an aristocracy of Super-philosophers; free spirits.

The evil act is Christ-like because it comes from out of the depths of the autonomous Superman.

-

An act is antisocial when other people don't like it.

Evil acts are only committed by sad people; life's failures.

You miss the larger point.

Man can't help but to act out in this way; his autonomy is forced upon him. There is no other alternative theory. Nietzsche is the founder of modern morality. Metaphysics and religion have abdicated.

To uphold the value of human autonomy one who is a Superman must act; at the very least the Superman will act as his heart dictates and he will face no consequences once the values have been revalued.

Autonomy and morality are incompatible, that is the heart of the issue and that's what matters going into the future when the values are revalued and the new Aristocratic order is in place. What is the alternative to Nietzschean autonomy?

-

A_Seagull wrote: An act is antisocial when other people don't like it.

Evil acts are only committed by sad people; life's failures.

Rubbish. Successful people are the ones committing all the evil. It take power to do real evil. Just as it take power to do good.
Acts of good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, not the perpetrator. Most acts are done with a sense of moral rectitude. Stalin and Hitler thought they were going good works for their country.
And Obama when he violated the territorial integrity of Pakistan to assassinate Osama without trial did so because he considered that a good thing. But he did so without fully considering the reputation of the USA which, that day, acted as a terrorist.

Other people look on and have to deal with consequences that are good or evil to them.

Enigma3 wrote:You miss the larger point.

Man can't help but to act out in this way; his autonomy is forced upon him. There is no other alternative theory. Nietzsche is the founder of modern morality. Metaphysics and religion have abdicated.

To uphold the value of human autonomy one who is a Superman must act; at the very least the Superman will act as his heart dictates and he will face no consequences once the values have been revalued.

Autonomy and morality are incompatible, that is the heart of the issue and that's what matters going into the future when the values are revalued and the new Aristocratic order is in place. What is the alternative to Nietzschean autonomy?

-

You are giving Nietzsche a status his work cannot bear.
He has little or nothing to offer "modern morality:" whatever the hell you think that is, and most of his thinking was not new in any case.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: An act is antisocial when other people don't like it.

Evil acts are only committed by sad people; life's failures.

Rubbish. Successful people are the ones committing all the evil. It take power to do real evil. Just as it take power to do good.
Acts of good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, not the perpetrator. Most acts are done with a sense of moral rectitude. Stalin and Hitler thought they were going good works for their country.
And Obama when he violated the territorial integrity of Pakistan to assassinate Osama without trial did so because he considered that a good thing. But he did so without fully considering the reputation of the USA which, that day, acted as a terrorist.

Other people look on and have to deal with consequences that are good or evil to them.

I would still say that both Stalin and Hitler were sad people; life's failures.

Enigma3 wrote:You miss the larger point.

Man can't help but to act out in this way; his autonomy is forced upon him. There is no other alternative theory. Nietzsche is the founder of modern morality. Metaphysics and religion have abdicated.

To uphold the value of human autonomy one who is a Superman must act; at the very least the Superman will act as his heart dictates and he will face no consequences once the values have been revalued.

Autonomy and morality are incompatible, that is the heart of the issue and that's what matters going into the future when the values are revalued and the new Aristocratic order is in place. What is the alternative to Nietzschean autonomy?

-

I think you are mistakenly associating freedom of will with evil.

Freedom is freedom.

Freedom plus stupidity is evil.

A_Seagull wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

A_Seagull wrote: An act is antisocial when other people don't like it.

Evil acts are only committed by sad people; life's failures.

Rubbish. Successful people are the ones committing all the evil. It take power to do real evil. Just as it take power to do good.
Acts of good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, not the perpetrator. Most acts are done with a sense of moral rectitude. Stalin and Hitler thought they were going good works for their country.
And Obama when he violated the territorial integrity of Pakistan to assassinate Osama without trial did so because he considered that a good thing. But he did so without fully considering the reputation of the USA which, that day, acted as a terrorist.

Other people look on and have to deal with consequences that are good or evil to them.

I would still say that both Stalin and Hitler were sad people; life's failures.

Obviously Hitler's end was not great, but we all have to die. Stalin, though went full term with the love and appreciation of millions of his people. How more wrong could you be?

A_Seagull wrote:

Enigma3 wrote:You miss the larger point.

Man can't help but to act out in this way; his autonomy is forced upon him. There is no other alternative theory. Nietzsche is the founder of modern morality. Metaphysics and religion have abdicated.

To uphold the value of human autonomy one who is a Superman must act; at the very least the Superman will act as his heart dictates and he will face no consequences once the values have been revalued.

Autonomy and morality are incompatible, that is the heart of the issue and that's what matters going into the future when the values are revalued and the new Aristocratic order is in place. What is the alternative to Nietzschean autonomy?

-

I think you are mistakenly associating freedom of will with evil.

Freedom is freedom.

Freedom plus stupidity is evil.

Freedom plus stupidity is bliss.
You are twisted.

It is You, A_Seagull, who say that "societies" produced morality is acceptable..it is YOU who are immoral!!

"He who cannot endure the sentence, "There is no redemption" ought to die out."--Nietzsche

-