This is not quite the point Nietzsche was going for. He was not a skeptic when it came to the use of reason.I am sure human reason has its limits. But for things where reason is applicable, reason is infallible. — Samuel Lacrampe
This comes closer. Just "being able to do so" is not a sufficient reason to actually do it. Socrates is symbolized by knowing to know nothing. Nietzsche's point being, that, if this was the result of socratic philosophy, then something must be horribly wrong with it. It is of no use to know nothing.Thus if Socrates was able to rationalize against the norms of the day, then he was right to do so. — Samuel Lacrampe
Hello. When Socrates would say "I know that I know nothing", he was saying it as a bit of a joke. His point was that we should use critical thinking, even on common sayings known by tradition. His philosophy starts with doubt, but does not necessarily end with doubt.Socrates is symbolized by knowing to know nothing. Nietzsche's point being, that, if this was the result of socratic philosophy, then something must be horribly wrong with it. It is of no use to know nothing. — Heiko
This sounds more like Marx. Nietzsche stressed that reason has to serve the wellfare of the individual or has lost it's own purpose. In ideals he saw a mirror of the conditions of existence of groups of individuals. He concluded that negative ideals (like that of doubt) could only be made by people that needed to fight against the establishment. Or by people that didn't know where they stood - and this is where decadence, in the sense of not being able to distinguish what is good or bad for yourself, comes into play.Nietzsche was after 'pure reason', abstracted from societal context — ChatteringMonkey
Ethics has traditionally been called "practical reason", and is as such part of reason. The first principle of ethics is justice, or the Golden Rule, which is found in nearly every religion and ethical traditions - sourceI don't think it's that selfevident that reason is all that usefull for determining morality. — ChatteringMonkey
Morality is unchanging. I think you are thinking here of mores or traditions, rather than morals. Mores are judged by moral principles.The way i see it is that a morality of a given society is something that devellops over generations involving many people, trail and error... — ChatteringMonkey
I agree that merely questioning where a thing comes from and criticizing for not knowing is not useful. But Socrates went further because he found flaws in them using reason, and that is a good thing.It easy to question the norms of the day like Socrates did, because no one person really knows anymore how it all came to be. It's a bit like an economy in that way, and emergent property. — ChatteringMonkey
Understood. I thought you were saying Nietzsche was aiming to remove reason as such.And, as for your last comment, reasoning about using reason to determine morality, is not the same as using reason to determine morality. There's no contradiction there. — ChatteringMonkey
There are also balls in tennis: .... i'm sure there is a great comeback arround the word balls, but i haven't found it yet
Point is that reason has it limits. Nietzsche was reevaluating the value philosophers put in reason. It's a way out of the rabbithole Socrates created a few millenia back....
Anyway, i'm a chattering monkey, i'm not supposed to make points. — ChatteringMonkey
Reason is good. It is the necessary pause before all thoughts and actions. Without it we would be jumping to conclusions and that, despite the healthy connotation of bodily exercise, is bad. — TheMadFool
We do and can not pause and reason before all thoughts and action. This is just not the case. There's so much actions and thoughts that happen habitually and instinctually, like for instance setting one foot before the other. We would simply not be able to function if we were to reason about every single thing we do — ChatteringMonkey
What would be examples of "good arguments" to judge the norms, if there is nothing higher than the norms?You can disagree, and argue with the norms of the times, and try to change them with good arguments — ChatteringMonkey
No offense intented: Isn't this nihilistic? You are basically saying that the one is as good as the other. And both are nothing.Samuel, there no one criteria for what would be a good argument, it's contextual. — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.