NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading a lot lately about Nietzchean philosophy As I understand it, Nietzche maintained that life has no meaning, and that to live life fully one must throw all established principles and morals out the window, for there are no absolute truths.

I've come to agree with him as far as the former point is concerned, but I am uncertain about the latter. Is it better to fight the perhaps futile battle of trying to improve the world through altruism( or being a "goody goody" I consider them to be much the same thing) , or to live an utterly chaotic lifestyle?

I'll admit a lot a things labeled wrong are fun. But would you benefit in the long-term( or the very long-term) if you lived a life without scruples, as Nietzche proposed we should?

True, an altruist/goody goody may not get to enjoy as many things as the person without scruples but there are two ways I could see them benefitting in the long term(or possibly very long term)

1. They'd have the respect and love of the people around them

2. If they were an Uber-Mega Goody Goody its possible(albeit VERY unlikely)
that they would become so influential and well known that they would be remembered and thus cheat a little longer than the rest of us. Then again, some goody goodys(eg Jesus) may cheat in that sense forever.

On your mark, get set: POST!

Didn't he die a madman as a result of venereal disease?

He's depressing that's what he is. Also (of course) he's incorrect. Life has a meaning, maybe in the vast scale of the universe I will have no effect but within this tiny tiny world what I do matters.

True, an altruist/goody goody may not get to enjoy as many things as the person without scruples but there are two ways I could see them benefitting in the long term(or possibly very long term)

1. They'd have the respect and love of the people around them

2. If they were an Uber-Mega Goody Goody its possible(albeit VERY unlikely)
that they would become so influential and well known that they would be remembered and thus cheat a little longer than the rest of us. Then again, some goody goodys(eg Jesus) may cheat in that sense forever.


Firstly, i'll start off by saying that I haven't read all of Nietzsche, and my understanding of him may be a little inaccurate. I'm sure some more well-read NSers will pick up on my failings and correct me if need be. :p

Anyhow. Yours is a valid point, however the way I see it, Nietzsche believed (not saying it is necessarily correct, and it is not my point of view, but for argument's sake) that altruism was actually detrimental to those who it is geared to help; by receiving aid they are made to feel powerless and dependent on it, and thus never make the effort to improve their circumstances when they are capable of doing so.

He believed that the only purpose such charity has is to massage the ego of those dispensing it (which can be directly related to what you said). It especially irked him, however, when institutions such as the Catholic church used it as a means to give them a legitimate hold on power.

I don't think he was necessarily completely amoral either; the way I see it, he just disliked institutionalised morality forced upon society. He believed each person should make up their own mind about right and wrong.

I'll admit a lot a things labeled wrong are fun. But would you benefit in the long-term( or the very long-term) if you lived a life without scruples, as Nietzche proposed we should?

This is absolutely not what Nietzsche proposed. You were right when you said that he claimed that life and the world had no meaning, but this does not open the gates to a life without scruples.

Nietzsche recognised that there were no given values, and so it was the task for humanity to create values. The transvaluation of all values is not the rejection of morality, just the slave morality which is typified by Christianity, in favour of the master morality which belonged to the ancient Greeks and Romans, as Nietzsche perceived them.

The master morality is not one without scruples, but instead one which creates its own moral system complete with its own set of particular scruples, even though they are almost completely diametrically opposed to the values with which we in the Western world have traditionally been raised.

1. They'd have the respect and love of the people around them


For Nietzsche respect is not based upon acts of 'Goodness' (ie. altruistic acts), but instead upon acts of 'goodness' (ie. being good at doing things in the world).

I was thinking the same thing, Nidimor. I've tried hard to find a basis for ethics, but I simply can't. On the other hand, I think Nietzsche's idea, while interesting, has a few key problems. For one, real life masters are not necessarily strong and bold and what have you.

Their status as masters depends on people to oppress and if those people get tired of it and overthrow him, the master's power is cut. However, on a theoretical level, I have not been able to figure out how to refute his ideas, which, as an anarchist, I would love to be able to.

I am wrong and you are right. Thank you for enligtening me about Nietzchean philosophy. I guess this thread is . Dammit!

I live by what Nietzche and Ayn Rand's philosophies.

It's a great way to live your life if you don't mind being hated by your fellow humans.

As far as ethical behaviour is concerned, I think Hume did some pretty good work there.
You do what makes you happy. And usually doing the "right" thing makes you happy. Afterwards you sit down and think hard about why you did the "right" thing...

But as far as the purpose of life is concerned...life goes on without me. My purpose is to procreate at some point (am I turning you on? :D ), and to live as long as I am happy living.
So yes, my life has no deeper meaning other than to make me happy.