Nietzsche certainly is still quite relevant whether we want to believe it or not. His influence has already had several far reaching consequences that are, and will continue to shape consciousness for some time. However, many people still run foul of not fully realizing and actualizing his works.

The real secret about Thus Spoke Zarathustra is, as Nietzsche details it within Ecce Homo, a dithyramb, under the rubric of music. You see, Nietzsche recreated the Dionsysian Dithyrambs, which is music in literally form that incites a self abnegated (cup not full) reader into a state of heightened creativity and intelligence, by breaking you out of the Apollonian mold...

It readies you for that Dionysian Wisdom that the Apollonian mind finds abhorrent...

That wisdom which is always seemingly a crime to obtain: Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve...

Because the greatest presentment of man is always presented as if gained through a crime... through the crime of wisdom.

And so long as man attempts to shun the Dionsysian Wisdom, man will continue to grow weaker and weaker still through the denial of life.

Crime is a domain that comes after human nature, and thus it could be argued that specific criminals are more complete humans... for accepting a part of themselves that others would shun or attempt to repress.

This is one of the big differences between "Good and Bad" and "Good and Evil" mortalities that N mentions in Genealogy of Morals...

And others view him as the father of postmodernism — Joshs

Yeah, but that's like saying Nietzsche's responsible for Nazi Germany too. Just a poor interpretation of Nietzsche, regardless of N sprouting the idea in someone's mind... thats due to their incipient reification with his ideas making it their own.

Right, the image there is how I see it, and as I've had it explained since God is unknowable Jesus wouldn't have comprehended that he is God, even if he was observed as the son of God by mortals... God never left Jesus cause Jesus is God.

Jesus represented a mortal avatar of gods grace more or less.

Oh, I'll be around to reiterate your fallacies, no doubt you'll be bumping this snake oil in other threads when it falls flat, as you constantly do. And everyone tells you how fallacious it it and you're like.... "nah, I'm just dishonest!"

A bunch of yip yap I see.

People commit suicide all the time Egg. — Philosophim

So necessarily existence shouldn't be...

Ty. I knew you'd say it my way eventually.

Try not moving goalposts.

And the audacity to try to use it logically against me in the beginning of your argument and then say I can't use it logically against you... to show that existence isn't necessarily only a "should be"... cognitive dissonance and fallacies with you mate.

Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim

Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. It simply is, so you're asking meaningless questions that beg questions due to missing leaps in logic that even connect sentence 2 and 3 with "should," let alone how they connect with 1. Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, or for it to even be meaningful. Morality is a subset of the domain of existence not the other way around.

In your argument morality defines existence because it is so easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions that you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve, which we can see because good should be. Saying you don't use the Is-Ought fallacy is like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi, it's literally in your definitions for all to see, as plain as day as Hitler was a Nazi.

I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition for adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. Sorry mate, I'm not that dumb...

I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP.

1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be (line 2 of OP)
5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4) (and the Is-Ought fallacy)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5)
7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round (morality doesn't evaluate existence)
But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence...

Complete utter nonsense.

Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:

"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"

then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence.

You should read Quine, and learn a thing about analytics.

Your argument he been a perpetuated farce of fallacy. And you're purposefully dishonest when you swap the adjectival definition of good for the noun of moral good.

Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over.

I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists.

But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.

That existence should be.

How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists?

Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be...

I cant bridge this...

"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence.

In fact every term in your argument shifts around...

Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be

Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence...
Straight fallacy. That's how you move the goalpost... your definitions are all interchangeable with each other and are ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.

Also good goes from description to prescription in your model. As 180 Proof stated right off the bat... he axed one of the issues but you arrogantly blew him off cause you thought you justified your position via your circular logic.

Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion.

Because it's not hard to continually point to the same fallacies.

"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought.

And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good.

More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies.

You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be"

This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts.

You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though ...

If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. — Philosophim

Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought.

Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce.

Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun.

The following is yip yap red herring talking in circles

But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it. — Philosophim

You say "Good Should Be"

This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, "why good should be?" which always points back to the is-ought fallacy of your initial argument as to why "good should be".

Of course you don't point to it in the OP, the OP is predicated in the fallacy of the argument that leads to "good should be."

"Good should be" EQUATES in language to = Existence is, thus Good should be, and bad shouldn't.

Doesn't matter how you word it... the holophrasticity of language shows it's what you're declaring.

You're saying "cause I only use Ought, I can pretend there is no is"... but to derive at "good should be" you did so by having some argument before begging this question... as to why good should be...

I'm not sure if you know what fallacy fallacy is. Just because I call your continued use of fallacy poor form, doesn't make it any less true.

Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit.

Continued red herring after red herring in an attempt to maintain your fallacious argument.

"Existence is, thus it ought to be good."

We no reason to even move beyond this fallacy to which you use to perpetuate other fallacies and circular reasoning.

You there's a reason you've not put together valid and sound premises that necessarily conclude your point.

Because all you have in an opinion.

You cannot get beyond the fact that "bad should be" because without it, Good is meaningless, and thus saying "Good should be" is meaningless.

You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion.

Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. You post about it in anything else you're in just about trying to funnel traffic here to continually discuss and perpetuate this post.

"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good.

It's perfectly fine to maintain this as an opinion and world view, but you don't have an actual argument. Just opinion.

Hehe, well, to be fair, Nietzsche says reading is a vicious activity for someone in their prime... and I was trying to give the impression of heavy handedness with quotes of Nietzsche detailing the overcoming of something in it's opposite such as:

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist...

...Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth.

I have many other such cases from BoT to Ecce Homo.

And that I have multiple quotes from across every one of his books detailing this very notion, I'd say, that while Monkey has a solid grasp of some of Nietzsche's fundamentals. They're still lacking quite a bit simce they've never even recognized this notion in Nietzsche's writings... and it actually plays into Nietzsche's fundamental objection of Christianity.

Nietzsche would perhaps take a moment to slap the shit out of me for expending so much of my vitality in delving deep into his madness. I do have a certain mastery with his works that I want to make useful towards others here.

It's taken roughly a decade of my life to become overfull with Nietzsche. He was my first true love affair in philosophy because I too am a Dionysian nature. I fell in with Nietzsche because I too am something of an overcoming of myself in my opposite.

Who said anything about Hegel? We're talking of the double orbit of Heraclitus, geesh, the incitation of opposites to higher and higher births. And it's quite apparent from your statement you're not that well read on Nietzsche. Though you do have some pretty decent fundamental knowledge about his works. I can clobber you with his aphorisms if you really require?

I gave you a taste of yourself? I don't see you that way, but I don't really care that you do or don't agree. But now you know how you appear. Appearances aren't always the truth of the matter.

Not really worried about agreeing with a man who resents Nietzsche all because he's no good at understanding Nietzsche's philosophy. Being in agreement would bring us closer. Why would I want such a lowly disease anywhere near me? I'd rather keep you quarantined.

Not much to talk about other than your argument being predicated in fallacy. Especially the Is-Ought. That you've perpetuated the farce of this discussion for over 12 months is poor form and circular reasoning to insanity.

Nietzsche pretty much details Jesus as a master moralist in AC 33 and 39 and the only true Christian :wink:
Nietzsche's fight wasn't against Christianity of the Gospels which is an account of the life of Jesus, but rather that of the Christianity preached by the disciples in the rest of the Bible, which was mostly Judaism, and if one recalls Jesus was an outcast from Judaism for rejecting their traditions to create his own life affirming values. Wait My fault, I thought you responded to my last message with that message. I got confused cause it was edited. My b.

Aye he comes with the dithyrambs instead!

Looking back now, I find that exactly two months before this inspiration I had an omen of its coming in the form of a sudden and decisive change in my tastes—more particularly in music. The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music. At all events, the essential condition of its production was a second birth within me of the art of hearing...

...What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb...

...The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity. Thank Heaven, it is not in honour of "pure foolery"! He who has an eye for colour will call him a diamond. The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

The dithyrambs are literary music, meant to incite a person into a certain creative self abnegated state where you're bound by less of your Apollonian limitations. That is the true magic behind Thus Spoke Zarathustra. To assist the Apollonian moralist in overcoming himself in his opposite.

Amor Fati is Nietzsche's equation that replicates the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ.

And we can see from AC 39 and 33 precisely how highly Nietzsche regards Jesus. He literally pulls many of the traits of the Ubermensch from Jesus. And the only time Nietzsche ever points to the superman becoming reality is in Ecce Homo, when Zarathustra comes down from the Mountain and goes around with compassion suffering with others, but from themselves, in a similar manner as Christ.

From Ecce Homo:

"See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man."

Aye, but we killed that way of life...thats what Nietzsche means ... and the rise in Nihilism from the death of that way of life is what concerned Nietzsche. His philosophy fixes that. Literally by giving the Psychology of Jesus back to the secular world.

the funny bit being really that you were too short sighted to see how your insult fell flat. Nietzsche praises their architecture actually.

The philosophies of the dogmatists were, one hopes, only a promise which lasted for thousands of years, as the astrologers were in even earlier times. In their service, people perhaps expended more work, gold, and astute thinking than for any true scientific knowledge up to that point. We owe to them and their "super-terrestrial" claims the grand style of architecture in Asia and Egypt. It seems that in order for all great things to register their eternal demands on the human heart, they first have to wander over the earth as monstrously and frighteningly distorted faces. Dogmatic philosophy has been such a grimace... — Nietzsche BGE Prologue

...Those are through the lens of your Christian values. Not Nietzsche's values which reflected much from the ancient Grecian culture.

You stole all my other points, and with such legit stylistics! :sweat:

Nietzsche was the first to unmask the Judaeo-Christian morality system. As far as Nietzsche's concerns "even the greatest amongst you is a disharmony and hybrid of phantom (spirit) and plant (body)," a coming together of opposites into a single unity. Just as psuche is understood. I dare say in his century he may have even understood the notion in greater detail than anyone ever before him. It is the "spirit" that informs Nietzsche on his considerable mastery of human psychology.

That's putting it lightly.

In the prologue to Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche declares the most protracted error of Plato was dogmatism and that came through Socrates. In Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche details that objective dogmatism is slave morality. The problem really boils down to this: the greatest presentment of man occurs through a crime against the moral systems of the time... Prometheus, Oedipus, Adam and Eve...

This dogmatism seeks to remove "Evil" from the picture all together and thus deny aspects of our human nature (or in relation "body"). Where as Nietzsche's equation from Aphorism 1 in BoT to Ecce Homo is the overcoming of oneself in their opposite...

The morality system "Good and Bad" keeps this intact, the morality system "Good and Evil" breaks this cycle of overcoming in ones opposite.

Yeah, so, you do use Is-ought fallacy as per post 1. Nothing more to really discuss here.

Ah, see, I knew there was an Is Ought Fallacy in there somewhere... "Existence is, thus it ought to be good."

, so are you by saying "good should be" is more along the lines of maximizing good but minimizing bad? If so then I can see what you're saying.

Cause otherwise if you assume you can axe the bad. It's just never going to happen ever. Bad will always exist, and can never not exist, regardless if ot should not, it can only be minimized.

then you're not really making an argument just making a hypothetical that couldn't happen. If Bad shouldn't exist then niether should Good since they're linked. You can't deny half the equation and expect to exist.

You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other.

Pretty simple to see
1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning
3. If good has no meaning then the statement "good should be" is meaningless and holds no value.

More or less, you've committed the is-ought fallacy...

You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is".

And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist (to you)

You have a fundamental problem because bad exists.

We observe human nature and detail "good" and "bad" by detailing what exists already

Thus bad exists and thus "bad be," regardless of if it shouldn't or not.

It simply cannot not exist without altering human nature fundamentally.

How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's Bad.

You've not presented a counter argument.

Make a p1 and p2 and C that necessarily follows.

My man, I proved it logically in my P1 P2 C statement.

Good and Bad should be. Since you can't have good without bad.

You're trying to sneak around that last bit of the conclusion.

You're like, I agree, but I think afterwards we kill that bad!

Not how logic works. That's ultimately a different conclusion and requires different premises.

It's idealic, you're pretending good should be and thus bad wont be. You're trying to kill off half of human nature by saying it shouldn't exist.

It will exist regardless because bad is intrinsic to human nature as we base it off of human actions (at least in part [nature is bad too]). It doesn't reflect reality.

Its like saying everyone should be white, or everyone should be muscular and fit.

What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative? — Philosophim

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.

For some, what is "good" is literally that which is deemed "bad."

No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad."

It "shouldn't" but it does.

And without that which shouldn't be there would be no Good. Due to a lack of evaluation.

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.

Well scams inherently feel bad but can be aimed at doing great things. A person who donates for x but that donation goes to y. There are historical examples, quite a few.

Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense.

That produces inability in action, often through shame and guilt. Because humans are irrational even at the best of times.

Even if it does workout in logic, logic has its shortcomings in not exactly reflecting reality. Like communism could work... but humans invariably form into Heirarchies where a government is merely an organizing surface.

And since there will certainly be examples of "bad" humans in this "Good should exist" scenerio, and bad should not exist ... well, what then?

I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here. — Philosophim

They exist together or not at all is my point.
And what's good for me may be bad for you.
Can you have a "Good" without defining "Bad" if valuation is done between opposites. Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality? Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions. We can, with the right amount of will power prevent bad impulses. But what's stronger? Sometimes a person's will to survive. Because for them the Good is not starving but taking from someone.

Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good."

It's merely an occasion sentence.
Further morality also measures what is bad too.
And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.

Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows.

Good and Bad are what should be,
The Good and The Bad are intrinsically linked, you cannot have a good example without a bad example.

P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other

C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad.

Again you're dishonest, I allowed for your own room for interpretation to your own perspective. But when you declare that as Nietzsche's own then you're wrong. Especially when Nietzsche's perspective clearly states otherwise. That's when you say "Nietzsche was wrong, I prefer Will to Life and Will to Pleasure" not "Nietzsche meant the complete opposite of what he said!"

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning. — DifferentiatingEgg

It wasn't until after you insulted me, by saying because I detail Nietzsche's perspective for Nietzsche's perspective that I'm not making sensible interpretations, did I decide to bury the axe in you; because it's clear the one who lacked any sensibility was you.