This is not an argument against your thesis but something that may be worth considering.

The call to embrace a view of the natural is said to be in conflict with the ways we take that idea to mean something beyond our personal experience. As a philologist, FN knows this problem full well. He appeals to the evidence of personal experience while also marking what is possible for us to a limited set of options.
Are these set of options strictly what can be observed as a person or require something else?

With all this bs in mind, I am looking for some objections. Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? Who addresses the above issues better than Neitzsche? — SatmBopd

I don't think anyone addresses moral questions better than Nietzsche, at least in the West. The one exception may be Aristotle.

But in terms of philosophical questions in general, I would argue his question about morals/values is equalled only by the seinsfrage (especially as analyzed by Heidegger), and perhaps only in terms of "interest." (As far as "important," I don't know -- I think the question of morals is more pragmatic, and perhaps more relevant and pressing.)

- All of metaphysics is more or less inconsequential because irrespective of the constitution of the universe, as human beings we still need to address the question of how to interact with it. — SatmBopd

I think the question of being relates to the question of morals and values, and so to power and politics. Why? Because so much of the moral codes that develop and shape our behavior, and which pervade our cultures, is interconnected with an understanding of what a human being "is."

For example, in the middle ages the pervasive understanding of being was that the world was created, a creation of God. Human beings were thus creatures of God. I wouldn't say that medieval morality "followed" from this, or vice versa, but they certainly co-existed. And out of this view of human being came at least the intellectual grounding and justification for codes of conduct.

So you see how what seems a very abstract, removed, hifalutin question actually permeates every aspect of our lives, although mostly unconsciously (as was true for Christians in the middle ages). Right now we appear stuck in a "technological-nihilistic" understanding of being, according to Heidegger. I think that's right.

I don't think anyone addresses moral questions better than Nietzsche, at least in the West. — Xtrix

Do you know much about outside the west? My first thought would be Confucianism, which I think has some substantial moral insights.

Do you know much about outside the west? My first thought would be Confucianism, which I think has some substantial moral insights. — SatmBopd

I’m familiar mostly with Buddhism. But Hinduism and Taoism also have many interesting things to say about life and morality.

I suspect what you've written here says more about what you find interesting and not so much about Nietzsche. Personally I don't find the issues you raised especially compelling, but we all want different things from life, hey?

Art and Science are both interesting and beautiful pursuits, but it is necessary to articulate the situation of and goals addressed by Art and Science, unless you just want to be aimlessly going after the Art/ Science questions that just happen to interest you (which might be nice for you but useless for philosophy). — SatmBopd

Can you have another go at making this point? I'm not sure what you are saying N is saying.

- All of metaphysics is more or less inconsequential because irrespective of the constitution of the universe, as human beings we still need to address the question of how to interact with it. — SatmBopd

As written this sounds like a draft version of 'existence precedes essence' (Sartre). Personally I don't see how metaphysics becomes inconsequential just because one has to act. One also has to reflect.

- Only post-modernism and the associated questions about epistemology (of which Neitzsche is a grandfather), as well as Feminism (because Neitzsche was pretty sexist) seem remotely relavent to me — SatmBopd

Can you explain why? If you find the PM perspective useful, why is it more relevant than any other perspective? Could it simply be that it resonates because you live in the era where these ideas have currency and are fashionable? Are you tying this to N as a founder of postmodern anti-foundationalism?

All of morality and ethics is subordinate to Neitzsche, because understanding (and shaping) the underlying values which inform morality and ethics is better than asking disconnected questions — SatmBopd

What does this point mean? Just how is one meant to shape the underlying values which inform morality?

with Neitzsche that, in our secular society, we have a chance to take the value structures into our own hands [and so we should, because that’s cool and if we do a good job, more relevant to the human experience]). — SatmBopd

So how would this work in practice if everyone wanted to build their own value system? Can we accept those who think murder is a good way to deal with having to line up for concert tickets. If not, why not?

Can we accept those who think murder is a good way to deal with having to line up for concert tickets. — Tom Storm

Such people don't go to concerts, they are not the audience. They are the performers.

Such people don't go to concerts, they are not the audience. They are the performers. — baker

Why are they standing in the queue, then?

Why are they standing in the queue, then? — Tom Storm

Ah, the wannabes!

I suspect what you've written here says more about what you find interesting and not so much about Nietzsche. — Tom Storm

Yeah so based on what I find interesting, do you know of anyone who is more conducive to that than Nietzsche? But you also seem to think that there are problems with what I find interesting. Which is also what I was looking for, so thank you.

Can you have another go at making this point? I'm not sure what you are saying N is saying. — Tom Storm

Basically I'm taking issue with art for art's sake, and would prefer that attitudes like Nietzsche's life affirming sentiments be propagated by art. Furthermore, isn't much modern science just science for science's sake? I'm, sure some individual scientists have a grander goal in mind, like arriving on Mars or curing aging or something, but if scientists first articulated, then agreed upon values, then their collective projects could be more focused, interconnected and... I would say beautiful. Like if all artists and all scientists went about specifically trying to celebrate human life instead of merely "seeking knowledge" or "personal expression" or other vague and aims that aren't to extensively thought out. I'm probably oversimplifying Nietzsche there, but hopefully that makes more sense.

If you find the PM perspective useful, why is it more relevant than any other perspective? Could it simply be that it resonates because you live in the era where these ideas have currency and are fashionable? — Tom Storm

Okay. So I would need to study this more, but isn't say, Derrida just correct that language forms our understanding of the world, as much if not more than the situation of the world itself does? I think I eventually found that as interested as I am in stuff like morality, I do need an Epistemological basis for my investigation and beliefs, and I think Postmodernism throws a wrench in our understanding of truth-- which I would need to understand and overcome before I had a set Epistemological foundation for my worldview. To be clear, it's not so much that I agree with Postmodernism or even Nietzsche, but that these are the movements/ thinkers that I think I would gain the most from investigating. Hence the purpose of this forum, to see if there is anything/ anyone else I should be investigating instead.

What does this point mean? Just how is one meant to shape the underlying values which inform morality? — Tom Storm

Yeah, so for example. There is this "relevant ethical question" about self driving cars where, in the case of an accident, should the car be programmed to protect the life of the passenger inside the car, or the pedestrians/ other passengers outside the car first? In most ethical discussions you would just address the question directly, giving reasons and arguments about why you should do what you should do. But I would argue, that whatever your answer to the question is, its always a result of your underlying value systems. So it would honestly just be more efficient to refine, address, improve, understand and practice implementing our underlying value systems than it would be to ask/ answer individual ethical/ moral questions. And how do you do this? I think that might be the whole project. The million dollar question that Nietzsche didn't even fully answer to my knowledge. This is the pursuit I am considering trying to undertake, but obviously only if it's worth it.

Can we accept those who think murder is a good way to deal with having to line up for concert tickets — Tom Storm

I can't confirm that this is from Nietzsche, but I don't see it as a case of each person building their own value system, but as a case of building a new (and hopefully better) value system for everyone. Christianity united Europe in late antiquity/ the middle ages, whereas modern secular culture is comparatively divided for a lot of reasons. Now that we have a chance to make something new, why not deliberately try make it cooler than anything we've seen before? Instead of just falling back to the old values, or haphazardly letting our whims take us where they will.

(sorry for the long reply haha, sort of had to mull this over, thanks)

Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? — SatmBopd

Yes.

Who addresses the above issues better than Neitzsche?

The quote below links to an older post which further elaborates:

Spinoza, first and foremost ... — 180 Proof

:fire:

- All of metaphysics is more or less inconsequential because irrespective of the constitution of the universe, as human beings we still need to address the question of how to interact with it — SatmBopd

Whether the universe is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — Buddha (the parable of the poisoned arrow)

- All of morality and ethics is subordinate to Neitzsche, because understanding (and shaping) the underlying values which inform morality and ethics is better than asking disconnected questions about people tied to train tracks or trying to come up with/ understand an arbitrary moral strategy like Kant’s Categorical Imperative or J.S. Mill’s Utilitarianism. — SatmBopd

Neitzsche comes off as distincly anti-ethics (ethics as a stumbling block for humanity and ergo, bad for us), in no small part due to Darwin (re evolution, survival of the fittest), but Neitzsche's forgotten something important - humans evolved from the tiny shrews that lived among colossal reptiles in the age of dinosaurs) - the weak are basically the strong whose time hasn't come (yet). More to the point, survival of the fittest survival of the luckiest defines evolution, and Lady luck isn't known for her consistency. So much for übermensch!

That's all from me (for now).

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have nothing against your impulses, I'm just always curious when people say they have arrived at any clarity in philosophy.

So I would need to study this more, but isn't say, Derrida just correct that language forms our understanding of the world, — SatmBopd

Derrida is way more complex, but I am no authority. D was very engaged with N and there is overlap.

Furthermore, isn't much modern science just science for science's sake? — SatmBopd

I wouldn't have thought so. There's no science funding in this. Do you have examples?

I think Postmodernism throws a wrench in our understanding of truth — SatmBopd

So does N. A lot of PoMo was influenced by N. N says there are no truths, just perspectives and interpretations. Remember N is anti-foundationalist. So is PoMo

but as a case of building a new (and hopefully better) value system for everyone. — SatmBopd

N wasn't interested in building new approaches for everyone. He tended to hold that people were sheep and dimwits. He wanted new values but how this relates to betterment of humans I think is unclear.

The million dollar question that Nietzsche didn't even fully answer to my knowledge. This is the pursuit I am considering trying to undertake, but obviously only if it's worth it. — SatmBopd

I'm not sure how the car example relates to N. N would probably have said that the self-driving car should protect whomever he loved/regarded most.

Morality is created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order. Any debate on what is good or bad generally relates to how we (or others) visualise what the social order its values look like.

Like if all artists and all scientists went about specifically trying to celebrate human life instead of merely "seeking knowledge" or "personal expression" or other vague and aims that aren't to extensively thought out. — SatmBopd

This does not match my understanding of science or what science should be. Science is generally focused on solving problems. It is generally not undertaken merely for kicks or for aesthetic pleasure. Once you start to dictate what art or science should be you're on the fast track to becoming Joseph Stalin.

And there is another problem - who sets the standard for and articulates what 'celebrate human life' looks like? Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler also celebrated human life, they just did it in ways anathema to a lot of other people.

What do you think N tells us about how we can settle disputes about morality between other people?

My investigation has been limited to this point — SatmBopd

:up: Good diagnosis.

aimlessly going after the Art/ Science questions that just happen to interest you.....disconnected questions about people tied to train tracks....
Who addresses the above issues better than Neitzsche? — SatmBopd

What establishes him as a benchmark against which to judge others?

to see if there is anything/ anyone else I should be investigating instead — SatmBopd

... or 'in addition'? I suggest reading more widely, more carefully and with less prejudice.

No philosopher exists in a vacuum. They all build upon the old, reshape and refine while laying the ground for future philosophers.

Philosophy is essentially like science, a process. To see only one philosopher is to see only one study, ignore citations and still define the whole of science.

We can say one of the most influential, one of the most prominent, but without everyone else, their work have no context and becomes essentially meaningless.

No philosopher exists in a vacuum. They all build upon the old, reshape and refine while laying the ground for future philosophers.

Philosophy is essentially like science, a process. To see only one philosopher is to see only one study, ignore citations and still define the whole of science.

We can say one of the most influential, one of the most prominent, but without everyone else, their work have no context and becomes essentially meaningless. — Christoffer

Exactly. Specifically with Nietzsche, I consider him as the most honest philosopher of all. And yeah maybe the greatest also. But it is just a matter of taste.Nothing else.
And in cases like that, words like "only" are forbidden.

Nietzsche would have been nothing without all that came before as well as all that came after who built upon his philosophy. The actual existence of his work today is not from him but from everyone interpreting and refining his work.

It's like saying that every physicist today is just using Einstein's findings. But that is not true. Every one of them does their own work by utilizing Einstein's findings and building on top of it. All while Einstein couldn't have concluded anything without everyone who came before him.

Even downright false ideas in philosophy trigger someone to think in a new way, to look at something from another angle, and in the end arrive at a true conclusion.

Someone being good at consolidating earlier ideas and refining them into a new context is just as good as someone who comes up with an original idea because they're essentially the same concept.

Nietzsche is one of the best consolidators of past ideas, putting them into a context of examination that was rarely done before him. That is his biggest contribution. But almost any era of enlightenment or change has had one or a few people who backed up and looked at the mess of ideas that came before them in order to cut away the fat and examine them without bias.

This is why I always talk about the necessary ability to fight back one's own biases and fallacies because the only way to get rid of what makes us stuck in old ideas that we never fully examine and re-evaluate, is if we are stuck with our biases and cannot create arguments for ourselves to question them. The inability to think beyond ourselves and the inability to create arguments that bypass our lacking capability for internal logic is what makes us slaves to concepts we prefer, not to concepts of truth.

Nietzsche was someone with a tremendous ability to question himself and everything around him. An outsider who wasn't afraid to question the status quo of ideas, because it was who he was to do so. But he also had the intellect to do so without falling into the temptation of biases and fallacies. This combination of being critical as well as dedicated to a method in thought is something almost everyone lacks and therefore such philosophers are rare occations. They would, however, not be able to exist without everyone else's ideas floating around to be examined.

Nietzsche was someone with a tremendous ability to question himself and everything around him. An outsider who wasn't afraid to question the status quo of ideas, because it was who he was to do so. But he also had the intellect to do so without falling into the temptation of biases and fallacies. — Christoffer

That's the exact reason why I find him the most honest one. That ability you refer here. But you see?Even great Nietzsche couldn't handle it at the end. He lost himself into the abyssus he created.

So we have to be lenient with people. It's not an easy task to criticize your beliefs and values. In fact it's the most difficult task of all. To shake your own self to the ground by questioning your beliefs and everything you hold for "sacred" . Causing an internal earthquake to yourself.

It's much easier to stick in your preferable "lie" and not seek for the truth,even if the process of seeking truth is what grow us bigger. I don't find it the right thing to do but I can really fully understand why most people don't dare to do it.

His mental issues were not due to his thinking. It could catalyst, probably due to social alienation, but that his philosophy drove him to it is just myth-making.

But he's not alone, there are plenty who lives by the same method. Nietzsche just got much attention due to his way of dismantling the power of religion and enhancing the power of the human being. Existentialists further explored this and most of how this philosophy has been put into practice today has more to do with the refinement the existentialists made rather than what he concluded.

The thing is that free minds weren't accepted much before the end of the 19th century. You could only have a free mind if you first had freedom in society, meaning, you had the means of putting time into thought and then creating methods out of those thoughts. Before the enlightenment era, it was rare that radical thoughts could live and prosper, but after it, the entire world was built upon such radical thinking. The enlightenment era opened the door and enabled people like Nietzche to put to paper what they were thinking and without him, it would have eventually led someone to similar conclusions as Nietzche. Probably one of the philosophers who built on top of his ideas would have been the one who arrived at those ideas, had he not been first.

Today, the world is almost on life support with "radical thoughts". It's easy to be blind to thinkers in modern times because history has not made them into myth yet, but we live in a world that craves "radical thoughts", so we do not see new ideas very much since they might not be radical enough. We turn to science more, since the methods are calmer, more refined. Philosophy today looks like this forum board, people trying to show how radical they are in thinking, but most do not have much to say at all.

His mental issues were not due to his thinking. — Christoffer

Most probably. But his way of thinking also affected them for sure and played its role, imo. Or maybe these mental issues contributed in his radical way of thinking. One way or another they seem to my eyes somehow connected. In Nietzsche's work sometimes you have the sense that he was "urging" himself to go "mad". To fall into the abyssus.

Philosophy today looks like this forum board, people trying to show how radical they are in thinking, but most do not have much to say at all.
28m — Christoffer

True story. Though it's 2022. Past philosophers had a vast sea to explore . They had a lottt to say. And damn they did.
Of course there is always something new to say, especially in social matters, but I hope you get my point. So I try to be lenient towards nowadays thinkers also. But yeah I agree, some of them who desperately try to sound "radical" are just full of shit.

What establishes him as a benchmark against which to judge others? — Cuthbert

I just don't know of anyone else, or enough of their work that is as enticing to me. I'm sure he's not a good benchmark, I just want to know why and how.

... or 'in addition'? I suggest reading more widely, more carefully and with less prejudice. — Cuthbert

Yes, reading more widely. I guess I'm just looking for specific suggestions. There's only so much time that I'm going to spend reading, so I don't want to just pick some random bs. My first inclination has been to investigate Schopenhauer, Geothe, and more about antiquity. But those are just influences of Nietzsche, so like, my "wider reading" is still just currently going back to the same sentiments and investigations associated with Nietzsche. I guess I'm almost looking for a completely disconnected strain of thought? One that arguably has as much, if not more merit than the one I'm currently on?

better than asking disconnected questions about people tied to train tracks — SatmBopd

Go back to the text you found so irritating and try it again. Ask yourself : "Why is this person - apparently intelligent and articulate - a well-regarded philosopher - a brain of some weight - in good standing amongst other very bright people - talking disconnectedly about people tied to train tracks? What could that possibly have to do with ethics?"

I don't want to just pick some random bs. — SatmBopd

Then use the library. Leave the internet till later.

Refining and furthering Friedrich Neitzsche’s project of creating new values and transcending the limitations of humanity by understanding/ creating the Ubermensch is the only interesting or important philosophical project. — SatmBopd

Well, get to it then.

My first inclination has been to investigate Schopenhauer, Geothe, and more about antiquity. But those are just influences of Nietzsche, so like, my "wider reading" is still just currently going back to the same sentiments and investigations associated with Nietzsche. — SatmBopd

Not necessarily. My reading of your interpretation of Nietzsche is that you see him within the existentialist camp rather as a postmodernist. According to a postmodernist reading Nietzsche isnt searching for the best value system. On the contrary , hei is against this kind of thinking about values. There is no better or worse value system for Nietzsche. What he advocates is the endless movement from one value system
to the next , without ending up at any final
ideal system.
I think you might find Marx , Sartre, Kierkegaard , Schelling and William James beneficial.

Why is this person - apparently intelligent and articulate - a well-regarded philosopher - a brain of some weight - in good standing amongst other very bright people - talking disconnectedly about people tied to train tracks? — Cuthbert

...because they're a product of a stale philosophical tradition? I really am just spit-balling there, don't mean to be snarky or anything, it's a possibility isn't it?

What could that possibly have to do with ethics?" — Cuthbert

It has plenty to do with ethics. And they're interesting thought experiments, it's just that I don't think it's really addressing the root of morality or ethics. It's like brain popcorn at least compared to the conscious addressing of values that a more interesting moral/ ethical would (in my current estimation) entail.

Then use the library. — Cuthbert

Once in the library, what do you think I should read? I'm not gonna read everything there. (Maybe some more Nietzsche? His influences? idk)

. Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? — SatmBopd

I don't think Frantic Freddie was a philosopher. I think he was an insightful, interesting, passionate critic of art and culture, who never had the patience or the inclination to make an argument or analysis. Instead, he issued proclamations; declarations, sometimes vehement, often absolute, accompanied by rhetorical questions and exclamation points. A voice crying in the wilderness, similar in some respects to a religious figure, come to condemn us for our inadequacies. Someone who did not think as much as emote.

I don't think Frantic Freddie was a philosopher… Someone who did not think as much as emote. — Ciceronianus

Guess I’ll have to burn all the papers I wrote about his philosophy. Where were you when I needed you? We’ll have to keep in close touch from now on. Could you draw up a list of all the other non-philosophers I can stop studying?

You might be describing why I like him. There are places I'd still want to critique Nietzsche... but I actually think it's safe to say that most philosophers think too much.

It seems to me that Freddie the Frenzied had a unique style and way of thinking which was declarative rather than reflective, or analytic. He's righteous, he bears witness rather than explains. He floods us with his thoughts. His writing is an avalanche of opinions.

This is unusual in a philosopher (I suppose I should say those I've read), and seems to me to be unphilosophical. That's not to say he's unintelligible, or lacking in insight, but he doesn't explain--he doesn't argue, which is what the philosophers I've read do.

Perhaps philosophers you've read are similar to him.

You might be describing why I like him. There are places I'd still want to critique Nietzsche... but I actually think it's safe to say that most philosophers think too much. — SatmBopd

He certainly isn't tedious or dry, which is to his credit, but neither are poets or prophets, or passionate critics of our lives. I don't think of them as philosophers, though. One doesn't have to be a philosopher to be insightful and profound.

but he doesn't explain--he doesn't argue, which is what the philosophers I've read do. — Ciceronianus

My favorite passages of Nietzsche are not his aphorisms but paragraphs like the one below, which is as complex a philosophical explanation or argument as any I have come across by a philosopher. And there are many, many other passages like this throughout his writings that add up to a consistent philosophical thesis.

“Now another word on the origin and purpose of punishment – two problems which are separate, or ought to be: unfortunately people usually throw them together. How have the moral genealogists reacted so far in this matter? Naively, as is their wont –: they highlight some ‘purpose' in punishment, for example, revenge or deterrence, then innocently place the purpose at the start, as causa fiendi of punishment, and – have finished. But ‘purpose in law' is the last thing we should apply to the history of the emergence of law: on the contrary, there is no more important proposition for every sort of history than that which we arrive at only with great effort but which we really should reach, – namely that the origin of the emergence of a thing and its ultimate usefulness, its practical application and incorporation into a system of ends, are toto coelo separate; that anything in existence, having somehow come about, is continually interpreted anew, requisitioned anew, transformed and redirected to a new purpose by a power superior to it; that everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn
overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning' [Sinn] and ‘purpose' must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated. No matter how perfectly you have understood the usefulness of any physiological organ (or legal institution, social custom, political usage, art form or religious rite), you have not yet thereby grasped how it emerged: uncomfortable and unpleasant as this may sound to more elderly ears,– for people down the ages have believed that the obvious purpose of a thing, its utility, form and shape, are its reason for existence, the eye is made to see, the hand to grasp. So people think punishment has evolved for the purpose of punishing. But every purpose and use is just a sign that the will to power has achieved mastery over something less powerful, and has impressed upon it its own idea [Sinn] of a use function; and the whole history of a ‘thing', an organ, a tradition can to this extent be a continuous chain of signs, continually revealing new interpretations and adaptations, the causes of which need not be connected even amongst themselves, but rather sometimes just follow and replace one another at random. The ‘development' of a thing, a tradition, an organ is therefore certainly not its progressus towards a goal, still less is it a logical progressus, taking the shortest route with least expenditure of energy and cost, – instead it is a succession of more or less profound, more or less mutually independent processes of subjugation exacted on the thing, added to this the resistances encountered every time, the attempted transformations for the purpose of defence and reaction, and the results, too, of successful countermeasures. The form is fluid, the ‘meaning' [Sinn] even more so . . . It is no different inside any individual organism: every time the whole grows appreciably, the ‘meaning' [Sinn] of the individual organs shifts, – sometimes the partial destruction of organs, the reduction in their number (for example, by the destruction of intermediary parts) can be a sign of increasing vigour and perfection. To speak plainly: even the partial reduction in usefulness, decay and degeneration, loss of meaning [Sinn] and functional purpose, in short death, make up the conditions of true progressus: always appearing, as it does, in the form of the will and way to greater power and always emerging victorious at the cost of countless smaller forces. The amount of ‘progress' can actually be measured according to how much has had to be sacrificed to it; man's sacrifice en bloc to the prosperity of one single stronger species of man – that would be progress . . . – I lay stress on this major point of historical method, especially as it runs counter to just that prevailing instinct and fashion which would much rather come to terms with absolute randomness, and even the mechanistic senselessness of all events, than the theory that a power-will is acted out in all that happens.”