The only way to "live in peace" is to get lobotomized and then maintained with a continuous 24/7 morphine drip. I guess "the evil" in that is it's a soul-destroying way to loiter away your days in a waking coma.
Reply to Huh I suppose you could start by saying what you mean by “evil” first of all. How can someone be evil and empathetic at the same time? (Now I see you edited your post and mean amoral, which is a very different thing).
But regardless, you can fantasize all you want about being evil and not caring about good and bad, in reality if you seriously act according to that thought you will simply be put in prison, get hurt or killed by the police or other people, or be involved in other conflicts and situations which are far from peaceful.
And if you don't care about good and evil, how do you justify your own actions?
You can be amoral and empathetic at the same time no?
And when you oppose people's morals your evil no?
When I do something why does it have to be good or evil?
Can I just trust that if I'm a good person I'll be a good person
and if I'm a bad person I'm a bad person?
Reply to Huh If you are amoral, you don't think empathy is good, so why would you choose to be empathetic? It would seem to be a random and baseless choice.
If you are amoral you have no reason to think that it is better to be safe rather than not to be safe, so what is the basis of this claim of yours that I quoted here?
Clearly you implicitly believe that it is good to be safe, which contradicts your supposed amorality.
Reply to Amalac you cant be amoral if your dead?
a·mor·al
/??môr?l/
adjective
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
Reply to Huh This is social psychopathy (i.e. remorseless indifference to the pain or misery of others, which you also feel, even when you are the cause) like e.g. (most) corporate CEOs, political elites, arms dealers, (banal) bureaucrats & clerks, etc. Dostoyevsky believed hell is the inability to love; well, I suspect, damnation begins with the inability to care (i.e. amorality).
When I do something why does it have to be good or evil?
Can I just trust that if I'm a good person I'll be a good person
am a bad person I'm a bad person?
If you believe an action is good you should do it, if you believe it's bad you shouldn't. That is how a sane human being justifies his actions.
What a person thinks is good or bad could be mistaken or contemptible sometimes or often, but that is a different matter.
Let me ask you something: Why are you in this site if not because you believe (for practical purposes) that it is better (or good) to be here posting rather than not? If you don't worry about good and evil, why on earth are you here typing posts? How do you justify your actions?
You may adopt some doctrine like emotivism, where what is good or evil depends upon feelings like empathy and moral indignation, but then you are no longer amoral.
Reply to Amalac seeing what other people see as good or bad,for better understanding of others and my self , i never said I was amoral but striving to be might be beneficial.
i never said I was amoral but striving to be might be beneficial.
To whom? In what way?
Reply to Huh No. You're "good" when you (try to) do good often enough for the conduct to become habitual. Likewise, "pretending not to care" often enough (in effect, not caring via conduct) becomes habitual so that eventually you cannot care.
Reply to Huh What can you "understand" about misery without responding to the misery of others? Certainly not that misery is solicitude, that misery solicits help, and gives you an opportunity to reduce your own (conscious or not) misery by actively (effectively) responding to another's misery. Try pretending to eat or fuck, read or sleep, talk to others or bathe/shower ... and see how far those pretenses gets you.
Reply to Huh Well, if you can trust that you will do the right thing, then you are NOT an immoralist. So what's it going to be?
A-morality is no more likely to lead to peace than immorality or morality. One reason there is strife in the world is that there is not enough of the good stuff to go around. For instance, if everyone wants to be free and autonomous, we will quickly start clashing with each other. I'm not proposing the opposite -- that we be automatons who obey as robots. The solution (may be) limited freedom and limited autonomy. Finding the "just enough but not too much" is a delicate process which everyone has to carry out.
I'm not sure there is ANY guarantee that one will always be at peace. One can make it more likely by limiting one's claims on the good stuff, and learning to live within one's skin.
Reply to Huh You said your goal (or life's goal) is to be "safe" and that you pursue this by "pretending" to care. "Being amoral" does not "dampen emotions", it just habitualizes assholery or cowardice. Study Stoic philosophy (I prefer Epicureanism) instead. Or undergo Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Or smoke / vape pounds of weeds. Or get a prefrontal lobotomy, as recommended in my first post, with a continous 24/7 morphine drip if you can swing it. Lots of ways, Huh, to "dampen emotions" but "pretending to care" – until you cannot care – is (socially as well as psychologically) dysfunctional at best ...
Nietzsche insists that there are no rules for human life, no absolute values, no certainties on which to rely. If truth can be achieved at all, it can come only from an individual who purposefully disregards everything that is traditionally taken to be "important."
The snake which cannot shed its skin, must die. That's according to the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Writing in 1881, Nietzsche wasn't concerned with snakes, but he was making a point about the ability to change. Or rather that those who refuse to adapt are resisting the inevitability of change.
Nietzsche insists that there are no rules for human life, no absolute values, no certainties on which to rely. If truth can be achieved at all, it can come only from an individual who purposefully disregards everything that is traditionally taken to be "important.
Is what Nietzsche says a rule for human life? Is it certain? Is it important? If not, why should I or anybody else believe him?
And it seems that according to Nietzsche himself, I should disregard his very philosophy as well, and create a new philosophy, which could adopt some new ideas of good and evil, and which could be similar to those of other ethical doctrines in some respects and innovative in others.
So that in the end that does not do away with the ideas of good and evil:
[quote=Bertrand Russell]His (Nietzsche's) book, Beyond Good and Evil , really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil[/quote]
Why do you believe what Nietzsche says instead of building your own philosophy then?
I think Nietzsche himself wouldn't like to see that he has dogmatic followers if he rose from his grave, but rather would like to see people who think with their own head.
If truth can be achieved at all, it can come only from an individual who purposefully disregards everything that is traditionally taken to be "important.
Nietzsche
Says create your own
It's just a coincidence we have the same philosophy
Nobody has a monopoly on philosophy
His (Nietzsche's) book, Beyond Good and Evil , really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil
— Bertrand Russell
I guess Nietzsches book was so good that it made him doubt himself?
I wouldn't know since I've never read a book on philosophy in my entire life.
Reply to Amalac I can prove its a coincidence I was just reading a web novel and stumbled across a quote webnovel com witcher of serpents and blood chapter 2 at the very top.
I guess fates on my side
No, you can't--BECAUSE good people are capable of doing bad things, and conversely, bad people are capable of doing good things.
It's not so easy. Bad people are more likely to do more wrongdoing and the worst people may not be able to do any good at all because of their tendency to do what's bad not to say utter evil. Good people on the contrary are more likely to do good and the best people may be unable to do the blatant wrong unless threatened with (more) torture. Isn't it typical that when the child-torturer sees a child and thinks of opportunity to torture more? Do I sense a tendency to do evil in bad people? Integrity is probably more real than people commonly realize. Thanks.
Aryamoy MitraApril 01, 2021 at 08:08#5172830 likes
Nietzsche insists that there are no rules for human life, no absolute values, no certainties on which to rely. If truth can be achieved at all, it can come only from an individual who purposefully disregards everything that is traditionally taken to be "important."
The snake which cannot shed its skin, must die. That's according to the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Writing in 1881, Nietzsche wasn't concerned with snakes, but he was making a point about the ability to change. Or rather that those who refuse to adapt are resisting the inevitability of change.
First and foremost, stating that any philosopher insists upon the truth of a particular stance, without eliciting any caveats or underlying evidence, is a perilous exercise. Nietzsche imparted thousands of aphorisms, each of which was interpretative in nature - and taken to mean a million, oftentimes contrasting realities (a quintessential example - the Kraft vs Macht dichotomy).
Nevertheless, insofar as his renunciation of canonical (and moralistic) 'rules' (especially in Christian, and other monotheistic contexts) is pertained to, I concur.
His (Nietzsche's) book, Beyond Good and Evil , really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil
— Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell, so far as most trustworthy documentation suggests, was a detractor of Nietzsche's - and Beyond Good and Evil, in its title, is likely an oversimplification of what the book entails.
Nietzsche
Says create your own
It's just a coincidence we have the same philosophy
Nobody has a monopoly on philosophy
Nietzsche's teachings are by no means as unequivocal; if he's declaiming to others that they create their own philosophies, is he not simultaneously (and by extension) declaiming to them an abnegation of his own? Under this token, he reaffirms an unshackling of one's ideals, and a consequent usurpation of their cultural constraints - such that one may re-envision their life; but that, in and of itself, is an overarching philosophy.
I'll affix an example; here's a tenet (from Beyond Good and Evil) - the likes of which are often cited, in light of Nietzsche's name being flailed around:
95. To be ashamed of one’s immorality is a step on the ladder at the end of which one is ashamed also of one’s morality
Whilst there will exist an appreciable discordance upon its perception, most individuals will convene that it implies that morality and immorality, in their synthesis and reception, are inextricably bound to one another (that is to say, their fates are not independent, and the lines separating them only blur).
Conversely, here's a far more profound section of Beyond Good and Evil, that illuminates Nietzsche's beliefs on Moral Tyranny:
[i]188. In contrast to laisser-aller, every system of morals is a sort of tyranny against ‘nature’ and also against ‘reason’, that is, however, no objection, unless one should again decree by some system of morals, that all kinds of tyranny and unreasonableness are unlawful. What is essential and
invaluable in every system of morals, is that it is a long constraint. In order to understand Stoicism, or Port Royal, or Puritanism, one should remember the constraint under which every language has attained to strength and freedom—the metrical constraint, the tyranny of rhyme and rhythm. How much trouble have the poets and orators of every nation given themselves!—not excepting some of the prose writers of today, in whose ear dwells an inexorable conscientiousness— ‘for the sake of a folly,’ as utilitarian bunglers say, and thereby deem themselves wise—‘from submission to arbitrary laws,’ as the anarchists say, and thereby fancy themselves ‘free,’ even free-spirited. The singular fact remains, however, that everything of the nature of freedom, elegance, boldness, dance, and masterly certainty, which exists or has existed, whether it be in thought itself, or in administration, or in speaking and persuading, in art just as in conduct, has only developed by means of the tyranny of such arbitrary law, and in all seriousness, it is not at all improbable that precisely this is ‘nature’ and ‘natural’—and not laisser-aller![/i]
Despite lambasting moralistic systems (for being tyrannical and seemingly 'arbitrary'), he actually concedes to the prospect of them being entirely naturalistic; acknowledging herein their creative outcomes under artistic domains, and their underpinnings in Thought itself - before apprehending against Anarchist proclivities. This isn't an aberration of his otherwise fortified stance, either.
His writings need to be discussed in exact contexts (admittedly, a failure of this comment); generalities can succeed, but they shouldn't predominate a philosophical assessment.
I think Nietzsche himself wouldn't like to see that he has dogmatic followers if he rose from his grave, but rather would like to see people who think with their own head.
Precisely. I'm no scholar on his life, but I'm certain that he'd be deplored by the notion of thousands of individuals subordinating themselves to the perpetuation of his ideals, as opposed to enacting them and reconstituting their value structures (perhaps, eventually, at the expense of a few of the ideals themselves).
Aryamoy MitraApril 01, 2021 at 08:54#5172910 likes
Reply to Tom Storm I know, right? At times, his grandiloquence renders his statements indecipherable, with sentences that are paragraphs long (at least in translated variants). If he was perhaps more direct, he'd not have been misappropriated on as many an occassion.
Comments (63)
What is that supposed to mean? Could you write more clearly? Which “things” are you referring to?
Ruined by what? If what happens? Are you saying if I'm not evil my life could be ruined? If so, what is the basis for that claim?
If you don't give me clear answers I'll see that you are not worth talking to.
It's more peaceful to be evil
I suppose amoral is a better word
But regardless, you can fantasize all you want about being evil and not caring about good and bad, in reality if you seriously act according to that thought you will simply be put in prison, get hurt or killed by the police or other people, or be involved in other conflicts and situations which are far from peaceful.
And if you don't care about good and evil, how do you justify your own actions?
And when you oppose people's morals your evil no?
When I do something why does it have to be good or evil?
Can I just trust that if I'm a good person I'll be a good person
and if I'm a bad person I'm a bad person?
Listening to others doesn't keep me safe
Empathy isn't moral
If you are amoral you have no reason to think that it is better to be safe rather than not to be safe, so what is the basis of this claim of yours that I quoted here?
Clearly you implicitly believe that it is good to be safe, which contradicts your supposed amorality.
a·mor·al
/??môr?l/
adjective
lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
Well, that came out of nowhere. What is the point of such a question?
Obviously a corpse doesn't believe that anything is good or bad, what does that have to do with what I said?
But I would still pretend I dont.
Otherwise I would never feel peace
People who pretend to be good are good?
I can't make safe people who don't wish for safety
If you believe an action is good you should do it, if you believe it's bad you shouldn't. That is how a sane human being justifies his actions.
What a person thinks is good or bad could be mistaken or contemptible sometimes or often, but that is a different matter.
Let me ask you something: Why are you in this site if not because you believe (for practical purposes) that it is better (or good) to be here posting rather than not? If you don't worry about good and evil, why on earth are you here typing posts? How do you justify your actions?
You may adopt some doctrine like emotivism, where what is good or evil depends upon feelings like empathy and moral indignation, but then you are no longer amoral.
To whom? In what way?
No. You're "good" when you (try to) do good often enough for the conduct to become habitual. Likewise, "pretending not to care" often enough (in effect, not caring via conduct) becomes habitual so that eventually you cannot care.
No, you can't--BECAUSE good people are capable of doing bad things, and conversely, bad people are capable of doing good things.
Quoting Huh
You will have to label yourself a lazy-assed amoralist. You really aren't working very hard on this.
I'm not denying that that's why I said I can only trust that I'll do the right thing.
I can't help everyone
A-morality is no more likely to lead to peace than immorality or morality. One reason there is strife in the world is that there is not enough of the good stuff to go around. For instance, if everyone wants to be free and autonomous, we will quickly start clashing with each other. I'm not proposing the opposite -- that we be automatons who obey as robots. The solution (may be) limited freedom and limited autonomy. Finding the "just enough but not too much" is a delicate process which everyone has to carry out.
I'm not sure there is ANY guarantee that one will always be at peace. One can make it more likely by limiting one's claims on the good stuff, and learning to live within one's skin.
As for stoic I can never be happy with what I have
It's impossible to give peace to others unless they seek it for themself
The snake which cannot shed its skin, must die. That's according to the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Writing in 1881, Nietzsche wasn't concerned with snakes, but he was making a point about the ability to change. Or rather that those who refuse to adapt are resisting the inevitability of change.
Is what Nietzsche says a rule for human life? Is it certain? Is it important? If not, why should I or anybody else believe him?
And it seems that according to Nietzsche himself, I should disregard his very philosophy as well, and create a new philosophy, which could adopt some new ideas of good and evil, and which could be similar to those of other ethical doctrines in some respects and innovative in others.
So that in the end that does not do away with the ideas of good and evil:
[quote=Bertrand Russell]His (Nietzsche's) book, Beyond Good and Evil , really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil[/quote]
Why do you believe what Nietzsche says instead of building your own philosophy then?
I think Nietzsche himself wouldn't like to see that he has dogmatic followers if he rose from his grave, but rather would like to see people who think with their own head.
Nietzsche
Says create your own
It's just a coincidence we have the same philosophy
Nobody has a monopoly on philosophy
— Bertrand Russell
I guess Nietzsches book was so good that it made him doubt himself?
I wouldn't know since I've never read a book on philosophy in my entire life.
Quoting Huh
Suuure, just a coincidence
Quoting Huh
So you haven't even read Nietzsche then?
You should read about ethics, I would suggest you start with the works of Bertrand Russell and David Hume on that subject, since they are quite clear.
I guess fates on my side
You said it.
Quoting Huh
A quote from Nietzsche and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee.
Is it all a coincidence, is there any truth in what I speak?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/516035 :meh:
:up:
It's not so easy. Bad people are more likely to do more wrongdoing and the worst people may not be able to do any good at all because of their tendency to do what's bad not to say utter evil. Good people on the contrary are more likely to do good and the best people may be unable to do the blatant wrong unless threatened with (more) torture. Isn't it typical that when the child-torturer sees a child and thinks of opportunity to torture more? Do I sense a tendency to do evil in bad people? Integrity is probably more real than people commonly realize. Thanks.
First and foremost, stating that any philosopher insists upon the truth of a particular stance, without eliciting any caveats or underlying evidence, is a perilous exercise. Nietzsche imparted thousands of aphorisms, each of which was interpretative in nature - and taken to mean a million, oftentimes contrasting realities (a quintessential example - the Kraft vs Macht dichotomy).
Nevertheless, insofar as his renunciation of canonical (and moralistic) 'rules' (especially in Christian, and other monotheistic contexts) is pertained to, I concur.
Quoting Huh
Bertrand Russell, so far as most trustworthy documentation suggests, was a detractor of Nietzsche's - and Beyond Good and Evil, in its title, is likely an oversimplification of what the book entails.
Quoting Huh
Nietzsche's teachings are by no means as unequivocal; if he's declaiming to others that they create their own philosophies, is he not simultaneously (and by extension) declaiming to them an abnegation of his own? Under this token, he reaffirms an unshackling of one's ideals, and a consequent usurpation of their cultural constraints - such that one may re-envision their life; but that, in and of itself, is an overarching philosophy.
I'll affix an example; here's a tenet (from Beyond Good and Evil) - the likes of which are often cited, in light of Nietzsche's name being flailed around:
95. To be ashamed of one’s immorality is a step on the ladder at the end of which one is ashamed also of one’s morality
Whilst there will exist an appreciable discordance upon its perception, most individuals will convene that it implies that morality and immorality, in their synthesis and reception, are inextricably bound to one another (that is to say, their fates are not independent, and the lines separating them only blur).
Conversely, here's a far more profound section of Beyond Good and Evil, that illuminates Nietzsche's beliefs on Moral Tyranny:
[i]188. In contrast to laisser-aller, every system of morals is a sort of tyranny against ‘nature’ and also against ‘reason’, that is, however, no objection, unless one should again decree by some system of morals, that all kinds of tyranny and unreasonableness are unlawful. What is essential and
invaluable in every system of morals, is that it is a long constraint. In order to understand Stoicism, or Port Royal, or Puritanism, one should remember the constraint under which every language has attained to strength and freedom—the metrical constraint, the tyranny of rhyme and rhythm. How much trouble have the poets and orators of every nation given themselves!—not excepting some of the prose writers of today, in whose ear dwells an inexorable conscientiousness— ‘for the sake of a folly,’ as utilitarian bunglers say, and thereby deem themselves wise—‘from submission to arbitrary laws,’ as the anarchists say, and thereby fancy themselves ‘free,’ even free-spirited. The singular fact remains, however, that everything of the nature of freedom, elegance, boldness, dance, and masterly certainty, which exists or has existed, whether it be in thought itself, or in administration, or in speaking and persuading, in art just as in conduct, has only developed by means of the tyranny of such arbitrary law, and in all seriousness, it is not at all improbable that precisely this is ‘nature’ and ‘natural’—and not laisser-aller![/i]
Despite lambasting moralistic systems (for being tyrannical and seemingly 'arbitrary'), he actually concedes to the prospect of them being entirely naturalistic; acknowledging herein their creative outcomes under artistic domains, and their underpinnings in Thought itself - before apprehending against Anarchist proclivities. This isn't an aberration of his otherwise fortified stance, either.
His writings need to be discussed in exact contexts (admittedly, a failure of this comment); generalities can succeed, but they shouldn't predominate a philosophical assessment.
Quoting Amalac
Precisely. I'm no scholar on his life, but I'm certain that he'd be deplored by the notion of thousands of individuals subordinating themselves to the perpetuation of his ideals, as opposed to enacting them and reconstituting their value structures (perhaps, eventually, at the expense of a few of the ideals themselves).
Quoting Bitter Crank
Underrated, to be honest.