N is saying that a lot of the words we use to describe good and evil come from ancient societies. The Roman military was owned and operated by Roman aristocrats. The ancestors of European aristocrats were warlords (at least in the public imagination).

So I disagree that "noble" comes to mean "good" because it refers to anyone who accepts stratification. A slave can accept stratification, but he's never going to be noble.

Look at the clothes of a 16th Century European aristocrat. It's items that evolved from the padding soldiers wore under armor. I'm not trying to talk past you.. I understand what you're saying. An ancient person wouldn't necessarily have to be a military commander to qualify as the origin of speech about good and evil. I'll insist that you can't leave it out, though. He's saying that the most ancient meaning for good is powerful. The ancient meaning of bad is enslaved. We're talking about physical power here.

I agree. I think that people are incapable of thinking of nations or individuals as 'forces of nature' and they inevitably hold attitudes of blame for, and anger and desire for revenge on account of, actions that they think have injured them or their loved ones, their interests or even the interests of their society. — John

Why is that? Does it have something to do with the generation and maintenance of the ego?

Definitely food for thought.. thanks!

Thanks. I'll have to figure out how to square that with what he says in Geneology of Morals. Good reminder that N has a cultural frame which includes Freud and Darwin.

When N talks about aristocrats, he means military. Someday, when the US descends into social breakdown, the military will take over the country and that entity would be the "aristocrat" N is talking about.

Some other thread?

But why couldn't the stomach the alternative? What was so very bad about Clinton, — Marchesk

She just seemed to represent the establishment. Was she selling the State Dept? Probably.. which is just bizarre if she knew she wanted to run for president. Her personality is off-putting. That didn't help.

For years now I've said that the first woman president of the US would have to be a Republican. Female Democrat is just too many vectors in the same direction. It did occur to me when it seemed that Clinton might win that all the people I said that to would remember and think.. oh, she was wrong!

I did play the flute, but I gave it to my cousin.

I agree. He's my favorite philosopher.

Uh.. don't know about that.

But Nietzsche himself seems trapped in ressentiment, shadowed by his own father's convictions, or why would he so have it in for gentle Jesus meek and mild? — mcdoodle

What were his father's convictions? My speculation has been that it was a massive emotional response to Schopenhauer's pessimism. But that can't be all..

Then I agree with N, there is a terrible vacuity to the slave morality, what will it find of value beyond the overthrow of the supposed Master? — mcdoodle

You nailed Nietzsche's view of it... that resentment is reactive. It's not a type of life that arises from within and expresses outward. It only responds to outward stimulation with "NO!"

But then, isn't there in what N says a strange yearning for the irretrievable noble, the knightly, like Raymond Chandler novels? I bring you, the Uber Detective who knows all, but has barely a personal answer. — mcdoodle

Could be. There's something about the way he says "blonde beast" that doesn't seem particularly romantic. I wish I could read it in German.

Oh cool. Thanks for responding!

Yes. And it's something Schopenhauer talked about.. that determinism alleviates anger (he tended to be a fearsomely angry person).

But I would not say I am beyond good and evil at all, — Moliere

What is morality to you? Is it more about ought statements? Or about guilt, sin, and redemption?

So...no subject, no moral responsibility and no valid reason for resentment? — John

I think it's that they all go together. So imagine there's some group that's dominant and in a position to run rough shod over others. Let's say it's Australia. Resentment splits the real Australia from some ideal (I guess) version that is nice and friendly. The ideal Australia never commits atrocities (apparently for the fun of it or to make Australians feel less impotent).

Nietzsche is saying this ideal Australia doesn't exist. The real Australia's hostile actions are completely in line with its nature. It's a predator. It does what predatory creatures do. Think of it as a force of nature and there's nothing to resent (as there's nothing to resent about a volcano or thunderstorm).

So a person who has resentment can't be a self-antirealist without being in contradiction. Does that make sense?

I'm part Czech. I work with a lady who was born in Poland. I have an Italian/Russian friend. Lasagna and cabbage. Mmm. We've got lots of Eastern Europe.

Maybe so. I came out of news blindness last summer because I got pneumonia and ended up with some broken ribs. I was laid up on the couch in a weird state of mind and started watching the news for the first time in years. I've already sort of gone back to the blindness.

Meanwhile people around me are worried about conspiracies and the rise of the Antichrist. Truth? What is truth? :)

Yea.. but the notion that Trump won because of post-truth doesn't square with my experience with the people who voted for him. None of them were interested in superficial info coming from either campaign. They were looking deeper and their distrust of establishment bullshit was just a lot stronger than their distrust of Trump's. IOW, they knew Trump was fishy. They just couldn't stomach the alternative.

I voted for Clinton and I was queasy about it. So I think a lot of us were in the same boat... whomever we voted for.

I think you're saying there comes a time when conservatism is useless. That's true, and it's the point I made in my response to Kazuma.

You kept bringing up Un's point, which is basically that there is no true legitimacy because of the existence of the helpless. So for instance: money is an institution that can be made of pure confidence. Per Un, this confidence is a lie because the average person has no power regarding it. Which is true... it's definitely collective confidence that makes the magic.

The fact that you allied yourself with a viewpoint that is profoundly antagonistic to civilization itself and then talked about situations that couldn't possibly exist without civilization (and its history of conservatism) made it a little difficult to follow you.

OK. I'm done.

So... nobody responded to the OP. Cool.

So in society, anyone is helpless before another or an institution, for it amounts to being subject to the freedom of other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'll take your word for it.

I think the OP is about this question: what principles guide us in making changes to social institutions?

Fundamentally, a liberal is guided by pure, simple morality. A conservative is guided by practicality.

ideally, society partakes of the expertise and wisdom of both. The OP lays out some thoughts that underpin the conservative approach. Some of it is just straight common sense.

I can see how some might be inclined to sniff out the dark side of conservatism and accuse it of amorality that's easily co-opted by the corrupt. It's when the attempt is made to paint all of conservatism with the ugly brush that the bullshit starts flowing.

Liberalism also has a dark side. But that's another story.

So this is where I'm at. I'm frustrated that people don't understand the OP, the essay it draws from, or Un's response. I want to debate it, and I'm open to real debate, but no one seems to understand the ideas they're debating. There's a lot of posturing, mostly machismo, but no one, besides Un, seems to actually grasp the idea and argumentation involved. — csalisbury

Yea.. I wrote out a long essay and then deleted it. I'm also frustrated because this is an interesting topic to me. Repeatedly, though, I find that I can't invest in talking to you.

Peace out FJ.

Read the OP.

5. The evidence that long-lasting institutions have avoided producing normatively intolerable outcomes in many kinds of unknown past circumstances is also evidence that they may avoid producing such outcomes in unknown future circumstances. — Kazuma

Slavery did not avoid producing normatively intolerable outcomes. 600,000 Americans died. What caused the American Civil War? My guess is you have no clue.

Anyway, I don't think Kazuma is coming back. Too bad.

I meant that you didn't appear to understand what I said. But since you seem to be satisfied that you understand all you need to about the topic and just need to get a logic joust in so you can use the suffering of dead slaves to make yourself feel superior... I don't guess I really need to explain it.

I did engage. It's like you're deaf.

You can grab some Tom Brown guides and head out to the wilderness. I know this because I used to be into it. I've spent enough time in the woods that billboards and roads just look weird.

Un thinks he's helpless. He thinks the world needs to be saved. Really not a happy combo for an atheist.

Cool.

I learned statistical quality control from a dude who was involved in the Western Electric Hawthorne studies (ever come across that?)

I also observed how priceless things can be lost because somebody had a great new idea (in my time at AT&T.)

I'm that dot where the x/y axes cross.

So I guess we base legitimacy on tolerance so that we can argue that intolerance should never happen.

God we're so stupid.

So you said your views diverge. What is your viewpoint?

Again, the argument is blisteringly bad. — csalisbury

Probably because you're strawmanning it.

Just read my website: strawdogs.com

OMG. There really is a strawdogs.com

I will single handedly save humanity from itself... one deprogramming at a time.

You see? This is that radicalization I was talking about. You've got to stop reading conservative websites. They're just fishing for suicide voters.

Just tell me.

I know. I'm planning to employ de-programmers for the lot of you.

Slavery ended up being intolerable. Thank you Empty. I lament that you were radicalized, but when you're right, you're right.

Reason skepticism is conservative for my society because of the influence of people like John Locke.

Well what is conservatism to you?

True.

I think your conservatism is a reaction to Amy Schumer.