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.

i dont want to reduce my conscious
I can't help everyone

Apparently, being unconscious ("safe") is your goal.

feeling guilty is the first steps to understanding

why would I be unconscious?

Your goal; you tell me.

using amorality to dampen my emotions enough to feel peaceful?

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.

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 ...

I don't pretend to care, I pretend to not care
As for stoic I can never be happy with what I have

striving to be amoral will make myself have peace
It's impossible to give peace to others unless they seek it for themself

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:

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 didn't try to convince people to change whats good and evil

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.

It's just a coincidence we have the same philosophy — Huh

Suuure, just a coincidence

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. — 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 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

I've never read a book on philosophy in my entire life — Huh

You said it.

Nietzsche insists that there are no rules for human life — Huh

A quote from Nietzsche and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee.

your right, to bad I have had enough coincidences to understand everything that's been discussed so far.

I, for one, do not understand what conclusion you are trying to reach. Say more about your objective, if you would.

where does my knowledge come from if I haven't read any philosophy
Is it all a coincidence, is there any truth in what I speak?

I'm gonna go to sleep good night.

Reread what I wrote
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/516035 :meh:

A quote from Nietzsche and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee. — Bitter Crank

:up:

reread what? You keep editing

No, you can't--BECAUSE good people are capable of doing bad things, and conversely, bad people are capable of doing good things. — Bitter Crank

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.

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. — Huh

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 — 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.

Nietzsche
Says create your own
It's just a coincidence we have the same philosophy
Nobody has a monopoly on philosophy — 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:

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!

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. — 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).

A quote from Nietzsche and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee. — Bitter Crank

Underrated, to be honest.

Peace cannot result from strife.