Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I stated that Nietzsche believed we need to create our own values..

Let's see if you're right.

Name one such value.

[Gary Childress]

I stated that Nietzsche believed we need to create our own values..

Let's see if you're right.

Name one such value.

Amor fati.

[Immanuel Can]

I stated that Nietzsche believed we need to create our own values..

Let's see if you're right.

Name one such value.

Amor fati.

Meaningless...even if one has a belief in Fate. If you do, you don't have to "love" it at all, because it's inevitable anyway.

Got anything more plausible?

[Gary Childress]

Let's see if you're right.

Name one such value.

Amor fati.

Meaningless...even if one has a belief in Fate. If you do, you don't have to "love" it at all, because it's inevitable anyway.

Got anything more plausible?

You asked me to name a value that Nietzsche had. I can't think of a more obvious one. I'm not saying it's necessarily good or bad, only that Nietzsche thought highly of the ability to endure suffering and struggle and in the process to refine one's character and say "yes" life (whatever that means). I'm not a "fan" of Nietzsche. As I've said he got a lot wrong. However, he saw that the Bible was losing its applicability in his day and it's moved even farther since then. Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not commit adultery aren't terrible. They could use a little polishing up on specifics. But observing the Sabbath and having no other God before Yhwh are things that it's difficult to imagine anyone believing with a straight face anymore.

[Dubious]

...but you did.

I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

Nietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"

Nietzsche's values were no more "arbitrary" than our own.

In other words, Nietzsche, like all the rest of us, lived a particular life out in a particular world historically, culturally and in regard to his own personal experiences and relationships. This predisposed him existentially to embrace one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another. With Nietzsche, however, the speculations [philosophical or otherwise] revolved around the assumption that God is expunged from the "human condition".

What then, he asked.

And here IC and I conclude that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted".

Then what, I ask.

Then, IC asserts, you go here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- and discover that scientists and historians have "proven" that Nietzsche was indeed a weasel.

Thank you! I was intent to search myself just to prove what a real weasel looks like with my apologies to all weasels who couldn't care less who is or isn't beyond good and evil. I'm certain had Nietzsche been given a choice, he would have preferred being an honest weasel to the kind of lying obnoxious crap only a human can devolve to but expect to get to heaven having believed in Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

Amor fati.

Meaningless...even if one has a belief in Fate. If you do, you don't have to "love" it at all, because it's inevitable anyway.

Got anything more plausible?

You asked me to name a value that Nietzsche had. I can't think of a more obvious one. I'm not saying it's necessarily good or bad, only that Nietzsche thought highly of the ability to endure suffering and struggle and in the process to refine one's character and say "yes" life (whatever that means).

"Whatever that means, indeed." It's utterly uninformative of anything. It could mean giving orphans ice cream or slitting people's throats....or more likely, nothing in particular at all.

You see, Gary, when a person decides that anything at all can be moral, that's effectually the same as saying nothing can be moral. The reason for that is that it turns the honourific "moral" into something that can be applied without any criteria at all, without any difference, without any justification.

It's like if you painted everything in the world red, and then painted all the barriers and membranes between things the same red, and painted the entire environment with the same red, there would no long be any information in calling anything "red." The word "red" would cease to have a referent, precisely because it was being used to refer to everything. It voids the word of all significance, by making it the descriptor of everything, without differentiation.

If anything in this world is going to be a "value," it can only be so if something else is "not valuable" or "not worthy of value," or "deserving of negative evaluation," however you wish to put it. But any such distinction has to be justified in some way: and amor fati won't do it. Amor fati is just one of those "red" terms that could apply to everything, so communicates no information at all.

[Dubious]

I don't recall saying "weasel."

...but you did.

I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

He was an antisemite.

...so you still insist he was antisemitic after all the hoards of data showing otherwise!

Like the "weasel" comment, I doubt the existence of these "hoards of data." So I'm going to ask you to produce that data.

Whether or not he died of syphilis, which was common in those days, has no bearing on his writing, his thinking or character,

Actually, it says powerful things about all three. Syphilis is a brain-eating disease, one usually induced by promiscuity, and certainly would make an impact on his writing...

However, that would be ad hominem, except for Nietzsche's insistence that he was "wise." How "wise" a syphilitic person can be is certainly up for grabs.

The title alone is enough to explain the book...

I have the whole book right here, if you want to debate the content. But it only says exactly what I said it says.

I'm getting the feeling you don't actually know Nietzsche at all...

Hitler without ambiguity rejects Nietzsche having any influence in going his own path.

Let's see that proof, too.

To boot, Nietzsche decidedly did not mow down secular ethics.

Yes, he did exactly that. You really should read him, before you pronounce what he "did" and "didn't" do or say.

I like this quote regarding the relativity of morals...

"If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria."

That's the goofiest thing I've seen in a long time. It makes morals judgeable by the same criteria as paintings.

Nobody who takes Nietzsche seriously will ever be able to believe in subjective morality.

Subjective morality is of a kind which decides for itself what is or isn't moral,

It can't -- for the simple reason that it voids "moral" of any content. When "moral" is the term used to describe absolutely everything a person could ever subjectively want, it describes absolutely everything -- with the consquence that "moral" fails to describe any distinct quality at all.

You really should read him. You'll find out that what I'm saying is true.

You should really read him!

Too late. Done. As I say, I have many of his works right here, on my desk; and if you want to kick some of them around, well, I'm up for that. But you're going to have to read some yourself, if we're going to do that.

If you insist on nothing by lies and subterfuge to uphold your position then facts won't matter. Not a single fact has ever managed it. Nothing can ever penetrate the mind of a perverse, intransigent theist such as thou. You've been proven a liar so many times, why not simply accept THE FACT that you are one!

[Immanuel Can]

You...

Ad hominem. Failure of logic. Failure of argument.

[Dubious]

You...

Ad hominem. Failure of logic. Failure of argument.

Poor baby! Ad hominem being consistently your default response when your loathsome debating habits are challenged.

Better stated, you wish it were ad hominem instead of a true description of what you really are, replete with all the data you've supplied throughout the years to confirm it.

[Immanuel Can]

You...

Ad hominem. Failure of logic. Failure of argument.

Poor baby!

Ah, you've fallen to mere insults, have you? Well, that's a low bar under which I won't join you. What needed to be said has already been said. Have a nice day.

[Dubious]

Ad hominem. Failure of logic. Failure of argument.

Poor baby!

Ah, you've fallen to mere insults, have you? Well, that's a low bar under which I won't join you. What needed to be said has already been said. Have a nice day.

A "low bar", the lowest of the low bars, is precisely what most of your posts amount to. Hardly anything you said throughout your postings needed to be said, consisting of nothing except lies, distortions and an almost insane disregard of facts. Even most theists must operate in accordance with some of the fundamental rules of rationality but there are always the insidious, perverse exceptions who depend on nothing but duplicity and hypocrisy in defense of their views. Unfortunately, the world is full of these brain paralyzed zombies.

Feel free to claim another ad hominem! How many do you think you've collected thus far?

[Gary Childress]

Meaningless...even if one has a belief in Fate. If you do, you don't have to "love" it at all, because it's inevitable anyway.

Got anything more plausible?

You asked me to name a value that Nietzsche had. I can't think of a more obvious one. I'm not saying it's necessarily good or bad, only that Nietzsche thought highly of the ability to endure suffering and struggle and in the process to refine one's character and say "yes" life (whatever that means).

"Whatever that means, indeed." It's utterly uninformative of anything. It could mean giving orphans ice cream or slitting people's throats....or more likely, nothing in particular at all.

You see, Gary, when a person decides that anything at all can be moral, that's effectually the same as saying nothing can be moral. The reason for that is that it turns the honourific "moral" into something that can be applied without any criteria at all, without any difference, without any justification.

It's like if you painted everything in the world red, and then painted all the barriers and membranes between things the same red, and painted the entire environment with the same red, there would no long be any information in calling anything "red." The word "red" would cease to have a referent, precisely because it was being used to refer to everything. It voids the word of all significance, by making it the descriptor of everything, without differentiation.

If anything in this world is going to be a "value," it can only be so if something else is "not valuable" or "not worthy of value," or "deserving of negative evaluation," however you wish to put it. But any such distinction has to be justified in some way: and amor fati won't do it. Amor fati is just one of those "red" terms that could apply to everything, so communicates no information at all.

Fuck off, IC. I've been labeled a mental lepper and I've been fucked over enough in life. I'm not in the mood for someone preaching a bunch of BS that everything is fine. Everything is obviously wonderful for you. That's great. However, we're both going to die and neither of us is going to either heaven or hell. It'll be over. There's no evidence to the contrary. Stop pretending there is. I'm tired of hearing it.

Conversation over.

[iambiguous]

I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

Nietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"

Nietzsche's values were no more "arbitrary" than our own.

In other words, Nietzsche, like all the rest of us, lived a particular life out in a particular world historically, culturally and in regard to his own personal experiences and relationships. This predisposed him existentially to embrace one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another. With Nietzsche, however, the speculations [philosophical or otherwise] revolved around the assumption that God is expunged from the "human condition".

What then, he asked.

And here IC and I conclude that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted".

Then what, I ask.

Then, IC asserts, you go here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- and discover that scientists and historians have "proven" that Nietzsche was indeed a weasel.

Nietzsche said they were ALL arbitrary...well, except that he attempted to endow his own values, such as "life force" and "will to power" with a moral cachet he gave us no reason to believe was real...but as for any conventional values, he said all of them were bunk.

Come on, what Nietzsche thought, felt, said or did was subsumed existentially in the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of the life that he lived. Not unlike in regard to you and I.

It's just that you insist the Christian God is not dead at all. He never was. He never will be. And as long as there is a Judgment Day, we are categorically and imperatively obligated to ask ourselves "what would Jesus do?"

And there's not much that doesn't include, is there?






Now, just out of curiosity, is there the possibility that you...

1] are afflicted with a "condition"?
2] play the Immanuel Can character here in order to mock religious fanatics?
3] are, in turn, in "just entertainment" mode?

[Will Bouwman]

You seem remarkably comfortable with a God who is more offended by people who don't believe in Him, than people who abuse children. I would find that very difficult to reconcile. How do you manage?

I don't think these things "trade off" the way you describe. One who harms children is certainly under the judgment of God. But so too is the one who refused to honour God as God. (Romans 1)

How far can one stray from the way you honour God as God before they are the moral equivalent of a child abuser?

[Will Bouwman]

Ah, I see the conversation has turned to Nietzsche. Yer have to put him in context. Nietzsche was a teenager when Darwin published On the Origin of Species. The theory of evolution by natural selection was, to put it mildly, a challenge to any theory that man was created in the image of a divine being. Hence God is dead. People who don't understand evolution sometimes believe that it implies we will evolve into a superior being, the Ubermensch. We, as common or garden homo sapiens, will be as subservient to them as dogs are to us. There's a logic to it, and all sorts of slobs have persuaded themselves that they are an example of the Ubermensch, but it's a load of bollocks.