Nietzsche - prophet of Autism?

Post Reply New Topic

Teleology is dead. I mean, I don't think that Nietzsche really even could accept a notion much further than Stirner's only that he examined certain elements more.


A horrible solution? And what, you think that out of all of these Nietzscheans that they will all come up with ethical systems that are perfectly compatible with each other? Honestly, I think that if you just look at the Nietzschean meta-ethic, in that all ethics are rooted in the ordering of personal ethical impulses, you will have to recognize that he doesn't come out dramatically different than Stirner. In both cases we destroy real ethics for individuality.


I think his reasoning is quite clear. All things lack inherent motivational force to accept them. None of these things are objectively rooted but rather rooted in the subjectivity of another being.


Well, the question is always how they called themselves. It shows their perspective on the world. Both desired to destroy the existing beliefs.


I would imagine that Stirner might have actually been skeptical to the notion of truth.

Maybe I was pushing a bit too far here, but Nietzsche cannot talk about a universal ethical principle, and because of this, everything he'll do will reduce to his desires.


It's conceptually relatively correct though.

The desires and actions of the individual are more important. People can place variable value on various instincts over time. In this though, I would have to say that Stirner was likely a more traditional existentialist.


Ok. Dennett is best known as a philosopher of mind. He is one that is very close to reductive materialism, in outlook, and yeah, his writing "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is known to have caused a re-evaluation of reality in some thinkers, such as in philosopher Alex Rosenberg.
http://onthehuman.org/2009/11/the-disen ... o-reality/

Brian Leiter(who I mentioned earlier) actually compared Rosenberg's ideas to Nietzsche and asked if he was willing to be even more Nietzschean in the comments section.


He didn't believe in free will. He outright attacked it in Twilight of the Idols.


I think that both men had a different focus. I mean, Kierkegaard criticizing his church as evil isn't exactly a weak move. Additionally, the notion of a teleological suspension of the ethical is mocked to this very day for being in the same mind as suicide bombers.


Do you think that Nietzsche is the last genius or the only genius? There are enough geniuses out there that it is probably better to synthesize the ideas of multiple people and groups rather than to just build upon one. This isn't to say that building on Nietzsche is terrible. Many people do. Foucault actually built the notion of the death of man on top of Nietzsche's death of God. (death of man to Foucault is the recognition that all men are bound by their perspective and society, and thus there aren't the giants as idealists like to point to).

People are idiots.

That being said, all thinking is done by the emotions, the will to overcome one emotion is ultimately the influence of one or more other emotions.

In any case, people aren't conscious to themselves. The issue is paradigms. People never have the right paradigms, and some paradigms are more helpful, but we shouldn't say we have capital T truths.


To kill for justice makes a few points:
1) It shows that some things shall not be tolerated.
2) It satisfies the desire for justice.

And yet you find Stirner's egoism unfulfilling? You basically say that you live in a manner consistent with it, as you say that you live to pursue a matter that is obviously in your interest.

Ok, but really, the real issue is whether your claims are universal. As it stands, the notion of justice is deeply rooted in our beings, and unless there is some universal that somehow favors your desire to be happy over my desire for justice, there is no reason not to pursue that path.


I merely criticized the language used. Not anything more specific.


Ok, but the issue is that all things will boil down to a basic conversation stopper. The issue is that you are arbitrarily saying that one conversation stopper is better than another. I mean, the issue is that if you question everything, you will eventually come up with a point where there is no answer, it always ends because infinite regresses can never be satisfied.

"I have to do it" is merely a statement like the others, it is just a statement of duty. Society didn't invent duty though, it just found useful ways to use it, but rather duty is a matter of our flesh and blood. I can understand why one would attempt to overthrow duty, as duty is usually a sign of some existing idol, but at the same time it is essentially human and part of our relationship to the world. In any case, I don't think you can make an objective case against this idea, because once again, I'll have to point to the aspects of Nietzsche that emphasize the relativity of ethics.

I don't believe anything I do, but I do it just the same. Whenever I question something I see that it is illusive, I ask one question and I get another answer. I question the answer and I get another one. And how far I get with these answers really only relies on how creative I am, not upon any objective facts. But the issue is that all of these answers rest on something else.


No, they aren't. In fact with a lot of them we would be better off if we went out back and shot them.

First of all, I want people to think for themselves.
I don't think Nietzsche's ethics aren't "real"...


Yes. That's a sentence, not a book...
He didn't see the problem with nihilism, I did, as I lived through it and suffered.


The question is what they meant by calling themselves so.
Stirner dismissed the role of morals, Nietzsche didn't.


Please explain.


Hmm... I'm not sure of the exact definition I'm looking for. Somewhat passive-agressive, perhaps. And his thought is pretty much submissive. If you want I can search for exact quotes to show what I mean.


I think he's the biggest genious I've encountered. I also read other philosophers, of course.


You describe here my exact problem with people.


I don't believe in justice, because I don't believe in free will. So I don't believe in punishement for itself.

I pursue a matter that is my interest - humanity, and other people. You can define it as egoistic if you want...

My claims are that I'm against hurting people - so I don't want you hurt others as well. I want to defend them.


It's of the problem with being human, as I see it. I can easily make an objective case against it - if people do something that's against my morals, and they don't do it because they believe in it, rather then because they were told that they have to.

Well, from that objective standpoint, they weren't real. I mean, I suppose we can say that Nietzsche is aiming for subjectivizing morality, and I can really see how one can make this case from his writings. Maybe we can say that Stirner went too quickly through morality, but his view makes a lot of intuitive sense at the first glance.


I don't see what you are expecting out of me. Unless you are wanting me to go through the entire book to exegete it, I am likely to be relatively simplistic in what I say. As it stands, I've said multiple things about it. The book was very influential among Individualist Anarchists. The book was (apparently, as I heard this elsewhere) written in a structure to reflect Stirner's inverted Hegelian perspective following the structure of one of Hegel's books(I've never bothered reading Hegel and I don't really want to either).

Are there problems with nihilism that Stirner didn't see? Sure, but then again part of that is a matter of emphasis. Some would argue that the Kierkegaardian leap of faith didn't see some problems about it as well.


Alright, fine I will recognize that the two are different here. Then again, I don't think Stirner's lack of emphasis is a problem with him as a thinker. It makes him weaker in some sense, but casting down the old idols is always an important and difficult task, and certainly one that makes Stirner better than most of the ethicists and metaphysicists throughout history.


Which part? Stirner was obviously a skeptic towards all metaphysical abstractions, and to philosophy itself, and took nominalism to a great extreme.

Nietzsche grounded ethics in the ordering of impulses of the individual, even criticizing past ethical claims on their "Cornarism", in that they incorrectly emphasize the specific impulses of some people at the expense of the impulses that others may have. That itself utterly takes down any chance of objective ethical orders.


Quotes and books would be helpful so that way I can see what you are talking about.


Possibly, but I would still not idolize the man. One has a lot they can gain from scholars who are not Nietzsche.


That still doesn't mean that you can't believe in justice. You believe in ethics don't you? If there are ethics, then there can be justice. This doesn't mean that justice is necessarily easy to define or anything like that or even that justice makes sense. Ethics doesn't make sense. But if justice is a component of ethics, then it can exist.


Stirner would define it as egoistic.


And that's a problem with our language. You make claims that are universal, when they are only about you, and that's due to difficulty in talking about these matters.


Well, the issue is that people tell themselves that they "have to do something" all of the time. They might try to ground this on "everything I've ever believed" or "I'll have regrets for the rest of my life if I don't", and so on and so forth, but the core concept is duty no matter what the excuses are, and if ethics can exist, then there seems to be no reason why duty cannot be in that set of ethics.

How do you define "real" ethics?


I'm not expecting anything. I say what I think about Stirner, not about you.


People can be influenced by something, and get to different conclusions.
I accept the fact that people can be influenced by his general idea - but they got to take it further, and continue developing it, in my opinion.
I think that Schoppenhauer was much better in promoting the stage of nihilism, to be developed further.


What are their arguments? I don't see Kierkegaard favouring Stirner's nihilism. He said the solution to the despair was individuality, but also favoured devoutness, and Christian morals, as he interpreted them.


Again, I'm not saying he was an idiot.
I do think that in that sense of casting out old idols, Schoppenhauer did a better job.


Nietzsche criticised listening to every impulse you have. He did pay attention to society as important.


Well, instead of searching quotations (too lazy - but will do it if I'm still not understood), I can say that his solution for despair was commitment to something different. That's pretty passive to me. I hope it explains better, as I'm lazy - but again, if still not understood, I will search for quotations.


Of course - I contradict some of his conclusions, and I think that you can learn from others. I think he said so as well.
For me embracing him is studying him. When I'm impressed with someone, I try to learn as much as I can about them. He's not the only person I'm interested in.


I don't believe in justice in the way described here. I accept that I can believe in justice, I think that I do in some way. My ethics do make sense, and I can explain them. Why doing something that makes no sense, if I see a problem with it? I think this sort of "doing justice" promotes more problem, serves hatred and negative feelings, and is not good for anyone.


So did Engels, as I recall. I agree with it in some way.
However I do think that Stirner would criticise my caring for other people, and sense of being obliged to humanity, not because it serves me right now.


On the other hand, I have a friend who isn't universal, and we each know the other's prinicples of own philosophy, so when we talk we don't have to add "in my opinion..." in the start of each sentence. It's pretty clear to us when it is and when it is not, otherwise we ask.


I don't think that my definition for ethics mean the same as yours.
I also don't accept that people tell me I have to do something "because that's how it is", when they actually just submit to what's being told to them. If I don't want to do something, I don't. There's a large difference between saying you have to something "because you have to", and saying you have to because X.

I said "objective standpoint", didn't I? Most people assume that ethical phenomena are in some sense mind-independent.


I know who you are talking about, but you seem unreasonably harsh about Stirner, seeming to require my own claims to go into unrealistic depth on Stirner's work in every reference I make back to him.


Stirner wasn't just a nihilist and he didn't hold that the will was evil. Stirner was an egoist who abolished all categories as nonsense, that seems very different from Schopenhauer, and more amenable to a number of directions. Stirner's egoism and intense nominalism are revolutionary in and of themselves.


Against Kierkegaard's leap of faith? That it undercuts true morality by no longer seeking external justification, and thus is intrinsically disposed towards violence.

I only compared the two men, I didn't say that Kierkegaard and Stirner were the same or had the same idea. Stirner utterly destroyed the absolute that Kierkegaard individualized.


Stirner was so fundamental in his position that I don't see how Schopenhauer could, but what work of Schopenhauer's are you thinking of. I don't think that I've seen *anybody* destroy these old idols better than Stirner, and most people to this day continue to pretend that Platonism is true.


He also rejected them as a bunch of fools and claimed that they attempt to undermine the men who attempt to create new ideas despite the fact that they are all intellectual descendents of such men..


His solution to despair was more like the utter devotion to something to the point where you would sacrifice your only child and ignore all sense and reason to do so. That's not very passive right there.


I try to be more of a dilettante in a number of areas.


Well, all you are just claiming is the subjectivity of ethics.


He would criticize your notion of duty. He might not criticize caring for other people though. He, in no way, was worse on individualism than Ayn Rand on his individualism, and even Ayn Rand admitted to valuing her relations with others highly at some points in time. In fact, if anything he was better than Ayn Rand as Stirnerite egoism is merely the result of the destruction of objective metaphysics, not an ethical dictum as Rand saw it.


I rarely talk about my own opinions much. I'd rather just destroy an idea than talk about my opinion in most cases.


Well, by your own claims they shouldn't, but I'd argue that this undermines your principles somewhat. In order for your ethics to take into account subjectivity, you must even build subjectivity into your ethics, otherwise there is no difference between things you unequivocally oppose (like murder) and things that you just don't see an interest in (like maybe revenge or status or something).

I don't think there is a large difference at all. Most people don't say "because I have to" as a strict terminus, usually they say "because I have to", with some implicit reasoning behind it. "Because I have to" as a terminal thought is just way too arbitrary and unreflective to stand in most people's minds. (at least people who are worth considering)

Okay.


People tend to think I'm harsh because I tend to criticise things. I don't think it's harsh to ask people to prove me otherwise when I criticise. I think that's the exact opposite - I don't rule out the possibility of me being wrong.


Right. Because they are different, I say I like Schoppenhauer better. They both rejected common beliefs and values, Schoppenhauer did it better, and I think has stronger points.


I don't see how violence is related to this.
Plus, he did say that for him religion is above his own judgement. He favoured external justification, just not of the public.


Okay.


I don't like his fundamentalism, for start.
Schopenhauer preached for anti-natalism, if that's not against common thinking, I don't know what is. He was pessimistic because he was against all beliefs, and claimed there is no points for this life. I do think that Nietzsche answered him correctly, but he displayed great questions and points.

Some quotations:





So basically - he spoke about the problems of not thinking for yourself, and accepting what people tell you without thinking.
That's the basis for critical judgement. It's easy to say "it's all wrong", but much harder to explain...

I would say that Schopenhauer is the greatest, but Nietzsche continued him. Stirner isn't related to this way of thinking. Schopenhauer acknowledged the problem of the world. It led do hatred of life. Nietzsche took it further, and wanted to establish a new world. There is a progression in their works. Stirner perhaps proposed conclusions, but not his way to get there, other than saying "that's not me!". Why is it even a problem? Schopenhauer also showed problems of the world. In his works didn't reject everything, he doubted everything, and criticised human thought, or lack of. In the end he did reject life - that's pretty much rejection of everything...

Nietzsche was influenced the ideas of Schopenhauer, but found some problems, and offered a correction to his philosophy. He didn't spurt out thoughts, he kept progressing towards his goal.


Indeed, a brilliant and brave man Nietzsche was.


I think it's passive because it's blind following of external belief.


Not necessarily. I think there's a biological cause of empathy as a basis for ethics. I think other thoughts are preferences. Matter of definition, I guess. My theory is that if all people with intellectual abilities think for themselves, and be open-minded enough, they will get to similar ethical conclusions. I have several claims for this theory, but that's another topic.


Exactly.


Well, your choice. I do think that people need to show their opinions, otherwise the world would get nowhere. That's not to say they must if they don't want to, or don't feel like it, or think it will things worse, or whatever reason.


I think that they're not subjective, that's the point. They are herd following irrational thoughts. I ask them to explain, they other refuse or fail to make a point, the ones I'm talking about.


Yes, but most people don't think. They tell me I have to work because that's how it is. When I try to search for their reasoning of why I have to if I just don't want to, and why can't I sit at home right now, they just spurt out irrational claims, and I continue to answer those, until they get mad and anxious.

The issue isn't criticizing, the issue is that I am unsure what rational standard you are criticizing by. I am very critical of things myself, but I still couldn't see what exactly your point was, as I had already cited a number of other things than what you made the claim about "He wrote a book just to say a sentence", as this seemed to go to an extreme.


Well, the issue isn't just the rejection but also the philosophical system. I mean, I do like pessimism.


Have you ever thought about suicide bombers? Violence is intrinsically related to disagreements that are irresolvable by nature. Both sides will want its way and because they cannot negotiate, violence will be the only possibility.

Religion isn't an external thing. After all, for Kierkegaard religion was intensely personal, not a communal thing.


The fact that he attacked the fundamentals? I think it is essential. How can you truly reinstate the fundamentals?

Anti-natalism is pointless, and it certainly isn't what I am thinking of. Schopenhauer had to believe some things to be an anti-natalist, so the second statement is a bit of a lie. Also, "point for life" is subjective and thus cannot be destroyed.

I don't think that Schopenhauer really does the same things that Stirner does, and being unconventional is not the same as casting down all of the idols, which Stirner did through casting down the universal.


Ok, but it is important to always strike at the root. Stirner did that, and most thinkers avoid this. Did Stirner have some basic ideas? Yes, but he was really more fundamentally destructive in outlook, and this is very important. Removing errors is positive teaching, as your own Schopenhauer points out.


Rejecting life isn't rejecting everything. *sigh* I am talking about rejecting all of the metaphysical principles and so on. The value of life is one thing, and frankly, rejecting it is a metaphysical principle itself that is also deeply questionable. If coming to bad conclusions is a sign of wisdom, I would rather have fools. That being said, Stirner didn't go to wrong conclusions, he merely made good ones.


Brave? What were they going to do? Not read his books?


The belief is internal. It is an individual Christian's relationship to God. He hated the church, remember, so he wasn't promoting a God->Church->Christian relationship. I don't see it as passive when you go as far as Kierkegaard does. The only way to justify it is to say that religion is by nature passive, and I don't see this, especially in a world with suicide bombers and people who take faith to radical extremes.


That is another topic, and I am going to tend to some disagreement. It's nice if this is so, but ethics has varied between people for so long and so much, that I really do think that our moral impulses are really somewhat different. This isn't to say that there are no similarities, in fact in some times and places, people behave about the same, but on-going differences and the inability to communicate are inescapable, and trying to bring in magic isn't a solution.


Right, but you've essentially attempted to criticize duty yourself.


That's nonsense. Of course the world will get somewhere! There are opinions but there are facts about opinions, they can cite the latter as facts if this is what is needed.


You are less rational than you realize, and probably more herdly than you want to see.


Ok, but most people don't think. There's no point to examining their thoughts. They don't reflect. The issue I see is that the thoughts of a reflective person aren't different in ontology, only different in their depth. The lack of ontological difference though is my way of saying "you really aren't better you stupid animal, you just are good at making yourself look good to yourself". I think there is a quote by William James on the problem of foundations that is relatively relevant but I dont' have time. He said that foundations were in some sense subjective, and that everyone was arbitrary.

Well, I was never the clearest person ever... I mean his book can be written much shorter. Just like very long tiring posts
And it's left with a question unanswered - what's now? Why listening to yourself? Aren't there potential problems with it?


I'm not a pessimist. I think Schoppenhauer was a right man with unanswered questions, until Nietzsche came.


I accept that. Yet, when everyone believes in the same religious ideas exactly - isn't it external?


That was a reference of your quote about him being very fundamental.


During times where I wished I hadn't been born, I thought it would be unfair to give lives to other person, in case they also hate it.


Agreed.


I accept your corrections. Admitting there's no point in anything, could be vital - as you have strike at the roots, as you said. He didn't find a solution, so preferred stopping instead of making more babies who'll suffer. Fair play to him.


Most people don't have the tendency to risk being looked at as a lunatic.
Well, not in WP.


Of course I see it in a different way. Still he held the bible ahead of his moral, if I remember it correctly.


It's a different topic indeed, but I see that much more people than I had ever guessed are nice to me because I'm nice to them, and I mean helping when in need, etc., just because I remember I always helped them when needed and never judged them. So I believe it can spread, even if I'm naive.


I got lost here, I admit. What?


Correction: I don't think it will fast enough in the direction I want it to.


We spoke about rationality enough (and keep) - why do you think I'm herdy?


Of course there is a point - to know how they could to their conclusions. If people in the same surrounding think the same, there must be a cause. We act differently, there's a reason for that. I'm interested in it.

I don't really see the issues you seem to see.


I'll accept that, but not in the case of Kierkegaard.


Umm.... it's been a few weeks. I've practically forgotten about what has been said.


I've tended to anti-natalism as well. That still doesn't mean I regard it as a very deep outlook or being as fundamental as the matter at hand.


I don't have an issue with anti-natalism, I just don't consider it a matter of depth.


Hmm... I've been considered a lunatic too many times to be healthy.


I think it is more correct that he held that God is above his morals. The notion of child sacrifice found in Abraham sacrificing Isaac isn't something instated by earlier Biblical facts, but possibly even in contradiction to them, but it was still right.


And I've seen that even people who claim to love you are still willing to strike you down if the situation is right.


Umm... you criticized the notion of duty.


Like I care what you want. I might even consider it stupid.


I said this:
"You are less rational than you realize, and probably more herdly than you want to see. "

This isn't to say that you are completely irrational. This isn't to say that you perfectly fit in or seek to. The issue is that human processes of acquiring and using knowledge are never really based upon reason. This means that any perception you have of yourself is likely false in some sense. As it stands though, your thoughts tend to fit somewhere in the conventional ideas of society, and in some sense, I think your methods are rough rather than showing signs of rational perfection.


They do it in a similar way you get to yours. You likely just cover up your methods with formalisms, like most smart people tend to. So, they get their conclusions because of their genes, their background culture, their experiences, what others have taught them, what they've kinda thought about(not saying it is clear logical thinking), etc.

That being said, you just end up with a multitude of reasons.

Fair enough. I'm not always the clearest person, as said, and it's less important to the discussion than other topics, so I'll leave it.


So basically we agree. I just think that the idea of submitting to religion forces external herd mentality. Kierkegaard did fight that. However he did believe concepts in Christology that I don't accept, if I remember correctly, meaning - he wasn't "herdy", but he did believe concepts that the herd dictated, without seeing the other way.

For his defence, he did see a lot of other ways different from the normal ones. It's impossible to fight so much topics, I guess. I appreciate him a lot, just to point that out.


Accept that, and familiar with it


I accept that. That's why I kept searching for answers, as Nietzsche did. In the meanwhile, refusing to carrying on as if nothing happened, is brave to me.


I consider it a matter of having the courage to think against the norm, and not fighting your own true thoughts. You have to acknowledge in order to fix them, don't you?


So have I. But we're autistic, we don't count


You see? That's why I like discussions. You tackled me here. I have to read him more carefully now. Thanks for that!


I thought so as well. Until I saw that people who found comfort in me, just because of my good will, weren't able to betray me or ignore my sufferings, as their instinct to help me was stronger than other ones. But that's for a different topic, perhaps personal.


Really? For itself? Where?
(I don't find it, perhaps I wasn't clear I guess. If you show me where I'll try to explain. I criticise some notions of duty, that's right, but I don't think I've ever criticised the whole notion...)


You have the right to think so.


I accept that - that's exactly why I want to keep discussing, and being corrected and shown different ways!


Well, I live in a place where there's a consensus that's never been questioned, at least not by young people, and I always did. As said, perhaps that's for a different discussion. But I do think differently, perhaps because of my autism.

Well, I think you take a very odd theological position on Christology, and one that you and I disagree on.


I am cynical to the concept of answers. I look for them, but it is an impulse, not a quest with meaning.


I don't see why one has to accept one's own thoughts to fix what one is thinking. Why couldn't one find a supposedly true thing and just reiterate it until it is believed?

That being said, most philosophers think odd things, the question is whether they think deep things.


Well, I thought that was just central to his belief in the teleological suspension of the ethical. He claims that God can suspend the ordinary rules.


This is a personal topic, yes. I just don't think the rule is very solid.


I probably interpreted this as larger than you did then.


Of course I do. Perhaps I was moving a bit off the topic though.


Well, at least that is good.


I live in America. America has enough loons that many loons don't seem special to me. I am also from the internet. Insanity is the norm here. So is being left-wing and atheist on the internet (but being conservative and religious is the norm off of the internet) so really, in order to defy the norm from my perspective people have to try very hard!