I am a presocraticist in this one, meaning existence is the good.
My ethics is a phrase: thrive, and reason from there.
This is the outcome of six years of asking you all about value by stating my own.
I can’t see how there is any other virtue than that which determines itself.
But it is not relativism, mind you very much. Thriving is even more definitive than an absolute.
Heidegger and Camus weren’t wrong. The rest of the 20th century mostly was, as it followed the analytic school even through poststructuralism, they held on to the symbol as the signifier. It couldn’t produce anything but art as toilets and street violence with literally salivating philosopher to preside and encourage. This is not the Good.
Good is health. Nietzsche “deciphered” this even as he himself had no such health; thusly, he posited the Beyond-man.
but oh how well he understood the ill health, and how fucking nice he is, in his honesty.
Nietzsche is this beyond-man. He didnt know it but the symbol he created refers to himself; as within him lies the contradiction of Baron von Muenchhausen, he is that man that pulls himself out from the swamp by his own bootstraps. There is no more superhuman act. Nietzsche, thus is the Best - Aristos.
health is a result.
=================
THE WILL TO POWER
765 (Jan.-Fall 1888 )
“Redemption from all guilt’’
One speaks of the “profound injustice” of the social pact; as
if the fact that this man is born in favorable circumstances, that
in unfavorable ones, were in itself an injustice; or even that it is
unjust that this man should be born with these qualities, that
man with those. Among the most honest of these opponents of
society it is asserted: “we ourselves, with all our bad, sick, crim-
inal qualities, which we admit tq, are only the inescapable con-
sequences of a long suppression of the weak by the strong”; they
make the ruling classes responsible for their characters. And they
threaten, they rage, they curse; they become virtuous from indig-
nation — they do not want to have become bad men, canaille, for
nothing.
This pose, an invention of the last few decades, is also called
pessimism, as I hear; the pessimism of indignation. Here the claim
is made to judge history, to divest it of its fatality, to discover
responsibility behind it, guilty men in it. For this is the rub: one
needs guilty men. The underprivileged, the decadents of all kinds
are in revolt on account of themselves and need victims so as not
to quench their thirst for destruction by destroying themselves
( — which would perhaps be reasonable). To this end, they heed
ah appearance of justice, i.e., a theory through which they can
shift the responsibility for their existence, for their being thus and
thus, on to some sort of scapegoat. This scapegoat can be God —
in Russia there is no lack of such atheists from ressentiment — or
the social order, or education and training, or the Jews, or the
nobility, or those who have turned out well in any way. “It is a
crime to be born in favorable circumstances; for thus one has
disinherited the others, pushed them aside, condemned them to vice,
even to work — How can I help it that I am wretched! But some-
body must be responsible, otherwise it would be unberablel ”
In short, the pessimism of indignation invents responsibility
in order to create a pleasant feeling for itself — revenge — “Sweeter
than honey” old Homer called it. —
=================