good vs. evil dichotomy

[JewishNationalist]

good and evil are completely subjective things
to me good is all that increases power, feeling of power and power itself in man
bad/evil is the opposite of good, that is meek, power-decreasing and just repulsive

 

[i believe in angels]

good and evil are completely subjective things
to me good is all that increases power, feeling of power and power itself in man
bad/evil is the opposite of good, that is meek, power-decreasing and just repulsive

>reads the first paragraph of antichrist

 

[CantStopTheMog]

good and evil are completely subjective things
to me good is all that increases power, feeling of power and power itself in man
bad/evil is the opposite of good, that is meek, power-decreasing and just repulsive

I think it is subjective but there can be things objectively that cause people harm whether they like it or not. Like rape for example, subjectively if you’re a weirdo you may love it and it brings you joy, but if it’s rape then objectively it is bad/evil for at least one party. But then that’s also a paradox

 

[JewishNationalist]

>reads the first paragraph of antichrist

thats in the last paragraph of beyond good and evil
the most mogger book i've ever read

 

[JewishNationalist]

I think it is subjective but there can be things objectively that cause people harm whether they like it or not. Like rape for example, subjectively if you’re a weirdo you may love it and it brings you joy, but if it’s rape then objectively it is bad/evil for at least one party. But then that’s also a paradox

rape isn't objectively bad

 

[i believe in angels]

thats in the last paragraph of beyond good and evil
the most mogger book i've ever read

nietzsche is just vibes based philosophy, read the greeks

 

[JewishNationalist]

nietzsche is just vibes based philosophy, read the greeks

what certain greeks? i'm reading platos dialogues rn

 

[CantStopTheMog]

rape isn't objectively bad

yea I thought I was going somewhere with what I was saying till I realise the juxtaposition

 

[JewishNationalist]

yea I thought I was going somewhere with what I was saying till I realise the juxtaposition

wdym juxtaposition

 

[CantStopTheMog]

wdym juxtaposition

That something can’t be objectively evil if it benefits one party.
did u not know what a juxtaposition is bro? If so you probs aren’t In a position to even ask this. Dont take me the wrong way tho

 

[JewishNationalist]

That something can’t be objectively evil if it benefits one party.
did u not know what a juxtaposition is bro? If so you probs aren’t In a position to even ask this. Dont take me the wrong way tho

i think its not objectively evil even if it is harmful to literally everyone. i don't believe that anything is objective

 

[i believe in angels]

what certain greeks? i'm reading platos dialogues rn

Plato and Aristotle
Read Republic, Phaedo, Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus, Philebus from the former, Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, On the Soul, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics from the latter

Basically the main axiom Nietzsche is basing his philosophy on is that Reason is a tool of the weak and someone naturally strong would have no need to form a coherent and unified systematic worldview. Its an entirely subjective prescription. If you want your philosophy to be internally coherent and thus objective, you need to read more intelligent philosophers. After the greeks go for the moderns - rationalists, empiricists and German idealists.

 

[CantStopTheMog]

i think its not objectively evil even if it is harmful to literally everyone. i don't believe that anything is objective

Logically thinking there is definitely objective things. Like a table being a table. Abstractly no nothing is objective

If something is harmful to everyone then it is bad. evil is purely subjective. But something can be inherently a negative thing

 

[slaviccartfiend]

good and evil are completely subjective things
to me good is all that increases power, feeling of power and power itself in man
bad/evil is the opposite of good, that is meek, power-decreasing and just repulsive

I reject morality as a concept chad does what chad wants.

kill yourself.

 

[JewishNationalist]

Plato and Aristotle
Read Republic, Phaedo, Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus, Philebus from the former, Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, On the Soul, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics from the latter

i've read some of those... and ofc i know about ppl like parmenides and aristotle (i was reading metaphysics and nichomachean ethics)

Basically the main axiom Nietzsche is basing his philosophy on is that Reason is a tool of the weak and someone naturally strong would have no need to form a coherent and unified systematic worldview. Its an entirely subjective prescription. If you want your philosophy to be internally coherent and thus objective, you need to read more intelligent philosophers. After the greeks go for the moderns - rationalists, empiricists and German idealists.

he isn't saying reason is inherently a tool of the weak but yep in many cases it is. but if you are doing retarded shit you will lose your power so not using brain is retarded, nietzsche even liked spinoza who was a rationalist
i didn't read much of philosophy from books but i've read summary and lectures on youtube on ratioanlist vs empiricist debate so as on german idealism

 

[JewishNationalist]

Logically thinking there is definitely objective things. Like a table being a table. Abstractly no nothing is objective

If something is harmful to everyone then it is bad. evil is purely subjective. But something can be inherently a negative thing

who defines what to consider as table and whats not is subjective

 

[JewishNationalist]

I reject morality as a concept chad does what chad wants.

kill yourself.

 

[i believe in angels]

he isn't saying reason is inherently a tool of the weak but yep in many cases it is. but if you are doing retarded shit you will lose your power so not using brain is retarded, nietzsche even liked spinoza who was a rationalist

i meant his more special claim that reason as a virtue and highest principle is a tool of the weak, which is why he rejects systematic philosophy

but if you take your reasoning power to its maximum capability it naturally produces internally coherent systems, where objective morality naturally emerges

his veneration of spinoza as a thinker is a particular example of this - he like's spinoza's inclination in his philosophy, not necessarily his strict argumentation

i didn't read much of philosophy from books but i've read summary and lectures on youtube on ratioanlist vs empiricist debate so as on german idealism

its a good start but you will get way more if you read the original works, youtube-type summaries miss a lot of nuance and complex argumentation for the ideas presented therein

 

[CantStopTheMog]

who defines what to consider as table and whats not is subjective

Ur missing my point. Some things when defined are strictly one thing it doesn’t matter what u personally think, it’s still objectively that thing.
Eg a see through material is transparent as it lets all light through it. That material is then objectively transparent by definition.
Or saying water freezes below 0 degrees at standard atmospheric pressure. That’s a fact

 

[mewzilla]

good and evil are completely subjective things
to me good is all that increases power, feeling of power and power itself in man
bad/evil is the opposite of good, that is meek, power-decreasing and just repulsive

evil: muahahahah
good: hahaha

 

[JewishNationalist]

i meant his more special claim that reason as a virtue and highest principle is a tool of the weak, which is why he rejects systematic philosophy

true and he even liked that socrates got killed cuz socrates was proto-rationalist

but if you take your reasoning power to its maximum capability it naturally produces internally coherent systems, where objective morality naturally emerges

his veneration of spinoza as a thinker is a particular example of this - he like's spinoza's inclination in his philosophy, not necessarily his strict argumentation


its a good start but you will get way more if you read the original works, youtube-type summaries miss a lot of nuance and complex argumentation for the ideas presented therein

yeah i noticed that. also plato is very fun to read

 

[Iblamehades]

good and evil are completely subjective things
to me good is all that increases power, feeling of power and power itself in man
bad/evil is the opposite of good, that is meek, power-decreasing and just repulsive

throwoway acc

 

[JewishNationalist]

Ur missing my point. Some things when defined are strictly one thing it doesn’t matter what u personally think, it’s still objectively that thing.
Eg a see through material is transparent as it lets all light through it. That material is then objectively transparent by definition.
Or saying water freezes below 0 degrees at standard atmospheric pressure. That’s a fact

its just how you interpret the reality, not reality itself

 

[CantStopTheMog]

its just how you interpret the reality, not reality itself

yes I agree but that means the Word objective is also subjective and then it’s js a paradox

 

[pleasevanity]

@Emolifta

 

[i believe in angels]

true and he even liked that socrates got killed cuz socrates was proto-rationalist


yeah i noticed that. also plato is very fun to read

yeah keep reading plato and especially the dialogues i suggested, theyre very enjoyable
Aristotle then systematizes the entirety of the extant philosophical thought of his day - up until German idealism philosophy goes on to pretty much just be modifications of aristotelianism (my own opinion).

 

[JewishNationalist]

yes I agree but that means the Word objective is also subjective and then it’s js a paradox

i like nominalism a lot

 

[JewishNationalist]

yeah keep reading plato and especially the dialogues i suggested, theyre very enjoyable
Aristotle then systematizes the entirety of the extant philosophical thought of his day - up until German idealism philosophy goes on to pretty much just be modifications of aristotelianism (my own opinion).

its very well written but i don't agree with plato on main assumption that the ideal realm exists, i intuitively follow nominalism

 

[CantStopTheMog]

i like nominalism a lot

Same. That’s basically my whole point earlier.
abstract thinking doesn’t make sense

 

[killcry]

Anything self destructive and futile is evil tbh

 

[i believe in angels]

its very well written but i don't agree with plato on main assumption that the ideal realm exists, i intuitively follow nominalism

ideal realm = externalization of our pure concepts of the understanding,it will all make sense if you ever get to Kant

i think conceptualism makes more sense since mere names (nominalism) could never supply us with rules to apply them to objects consistently

 

[JewishNationalist]

ideal realm = externalization of our pure concepts of the understanding,it will all make sense if you ever get to Kant

i think conceptualism makes more sense since mere names (nominalism) could never supply us with rules to apply them to objects consistently

i don't see the difference between conceptualism and nominalism, and concentualism is usually considered as a weak form of nominalism
anyway
both say that ideas don't exist in reality

 

[JewishNationalist]

ideal realm = externalization of our pure concepts of the understanding,it will all make sense if you ever get to Kant

i think conceptualism makes more sense since mere names (nominalism) could never supply us with rules to apply them to objects consistently

i would put like on all of your posts in this thread but sadly i'm restricted from it today

 

[i believe in angels]

i don't see the difference between conceptualism and nominalism, and concentualism is usually considered as a weak form of nominalism
anyway

nominalism concerns names, signs which bare no relation to objects

concepts on the other hand supply is with rules of synthesizing appearances

both say that ideas don't exist in reality

i would say that they exist in reality as ideas

 

[JewishNationalist]

nominalism concerns names, signs which bare no relation to objects

concepts on the other hand supply is with rules of synthesizing appearances

so nominalism=only particulars exist, universals are just mental conscturcts
conceptualism=only particulars objectively exist but universals are based on similarities in looks of objects so particulars have something in common
am i correct?

i would say that they exist in reality as ideas

i mean the objective reality, not the reality that implies your mental conscturcts as well. thing in itself in kantian terms

 

[i believe in angels]

so nominalism=only particulars exist, universals are just mental conscturcts

just names*; a mental construct could be a concept, which is more than just a sign, its something with potential to be read as a guide to construct objects (objects in the kantian sense, appearances)

conceptualism=only particulars objectively exist but universals are based on similarities in looks of objects so particulars have something in common

basically, but the focus is on the existance of a concept that somehow connects particulars and subsumes them under one category
meanwhile nominalism doesnt provide such a framework

i mean the objective reality, not the reality that implies your mental conscturcts as well. thing in itself in kantian terms

yeah but IMO it doesnt even make sense to talk about them as external objects

 

[JewishNationalist]

nominalism concerns names, signs which bare no relation to objects

concepts on the other hand supply is with rules of synthesizing appearances

i would say that they exist in reality as ideas

i found this question on reddit

 

[i believe in angels]

i found this question on reddit

seems like the top comments are right from what i saw and affirm my position

 

[JewishNationalist]

just names*; a mental construct could be a concept, which is more than just a sign, its something with potential to be read as a guide to construct objects (objects in the kantian sense, appearances)

basically, but the focus is on the existance of a concept that somehow connects particulars and subsumes them under one category
meanwhile nominalism doesnt provide such a framework

then conceptualism makes more sense imo because concept is just meaning of something while a name is a linguistic construct that could not refer to anything

yeah but IMO it doesnt even make sense to talk about them as external objects

platonists and other realists do that

 

[JewishNationalist]

then conceptualism makes more sense imo because concept is just meaning of something while a name is a linguistic construct that could not refer to anything

platonists and other realists do that

i mean, meaning matters more than just a word/label so conceptualism makes more sense

 

[i believe in angels]

then conceptualism makes more sense imo because concept is just meaning of something while a name is a linguistic construct that could not refer to anything

i'd say it can refer to something, but only if theres some ruleset that connects it to the referent; the concept contains that

platonists and other realists do that

yeah i believe it stems from the inability to grasp how real world objects can objectively be part of the same category if there isnt anything actual in them to cause it

under Kantianism this problem doesnt exist

 

[JewishNationalist]

i'd say it can refer to something, but only if theres some ruleset that connects it to the referent; the concept contains that

but anyway conceptualism is a form of nominalism, a better one though

yeah i believe it stems from the inability to grasp how real world objects can objectively be part of the same category if there isnt anything actual in them to cause it

under Kantianism this problem doesnt exist

yes and also there's no evidence that they are objectively a part of the same category. such thing as category itself is subjective