"beyond good and evil"

[FilmSnob]

Hear me out boys and girls, I've had an epiphany:

This is the true meaning of the phrase "beyond good and evil"(which, I think even haters will agree, is a cooler phrase than even the philosopher himself):

Objectivism. In this confused scientific age, or proto-scientific age, objectivism has been misinterpreted by non-scientists as "true." To a scientist, this would amount to blasphemy. Objectivism is not a quality of a phenomena, it is a filter of the observer.

They use it only to say "it is true, because it precludes my opinion," when a scientist would say "it is a practical theory, because my opinion is objective."

So let us be objective now, and let us recognize the objective nature of good and evil. They preclude your opinion, because they are objective. You can be a 7-year-old fat girl or a highly disciplined army officer, but you are just as evil for indulging in gluttony. Gluttony, a mark of evil, is an objective fact.

It is here that the proper, scientific use of the word "objective" is important. Gluttony is not a true fact because it is evil. It is an evil act because the concepts of gluttony and evil are objective. They always stay the same.

Let us now look at good and evil more closely. When someone says, in the search of philosophy, "womankind is weaker than mankind," you can call it evil and be objective, but you would lose sight of the fact that what that person said is also objective. One could almost say: a valid philosophical hypothesis.

One thing that very few people are ready to accept is the slight of hand the church has been playing us for more than a thousand years now: when the conflict between the objective potentiality of evil in an act comes into conflict with the objective potentiality of truth in an act, they have attached the righteousness of the single, all-powerful creator of existence to the rejection of evil.

So, not in defense of objectivity but in defense of fairness, or at least in pursuit of truth, or at the very least pursuit of independence, let us be more objective. Let us be objective on all counts and, I dare you, make a value judgement on what deserves further pursuit and in what matter without taking into consideration the binary preferences of some supposed "all powerful creator and administrator of existence," or "descent rules of society."

Try it out first, do it on something non-controversial like human shitting on crops. That is non-negotiable for some reason, but could it not work? "But it is indecent" to put it in literary terms.

From now on, if anybody answers to anything I say with "but this or that is good/better/wore/not-as-bad/not-as-good/bad/evil/etc." I will respond with beyond good and evil. Just to skip through this whole thing.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

How about you just skip Nietzsche all together and jump into Satanism and have Piglet from Winnie the Pooh tattooed on your back? Why waste time, just go for the inevitable end goal now.

[FilmSnob]

How about you just skip Nietzsche all together and jump into Satanism and have Piglet from Winnie the Pooh tattooed on your back? Why waste time, just go for the inevitable end goal now.

Tell us about god.

[without-music]

So let us be objective now, and let us recognize the objective nature of good and evil. They preclude your opinion, because they are objective. You can be a 7-year-old fat girl or a highly disciplined army officer, but you are just as evil for indulging in gluttony. Gluttony, a mark of evil, is an objective fact.

It is here that the proper, scientific use of the word "objective" is important. Gluttony is not a true fact because it is evil. It is an evil act because the concepts of gluttony and evil are objective. They always stay the same.

I have to disagree, Pezer. It is precisely this (i.e., the quoted excerpt) that the phrase moves beyond. Remember: one standard for all (that is: the claim that gluttony is evil no matter the indulger) is herd-mentality, for Nietzsche. Remember: not everyone ought to pursue self-interest, only those whose self-interest is of worth ought to pursue it -- this is Nietzsche's objection to Randism. Objectivity reads the sign over the gateway to nihilism. Surely, you couldn't have missed this, which is why I suspect I may be reading you superficially. Correct me.

[jam2001]

I think you misunderstand the phrase beyond good and evil if you think there is any a priori or objective meaning to evil. Neitche was trying to point out the subjective meaninglessness of a thing that others assume to be objective or a priori.

[FilmSnob]

So let us be objective now, and let us recognize the objective nature of good and evil. They preclude your opinion, because they are objective. You can be a 7-year-old fat girl or a highly disciplined army officer, but you are just as evil for indulging in gluttony. Gluttony, a mark of evil, is an objective fact.

It is here that the proper, scientific use of the word "objective" is important. Gluttony is not a true fact because it is evil. It is an evil act because the concepts of gluttony and evil are objective. They always stay the same.

I have to disagree, Pezer. It is precisely this (i.e., the quoted excerpt) that the phrase moves beyond. Remember: one standard for all (that is: the claim that gluttony is evil no matter the indulger) is herd-mentality, for Nietzsche. Remember: not everyone ought to pursue self-interest, only those whose self-interest is of worth ought to pursue it -- this is Nietzsche's objection to Randism. Objectivity reads the sign over the gateway to nihilism. Surely, you couldn't have missed this, which is why I suspect I may be reading you superficially. Correct me.

In all seriousness, you did read superficially.

[jam2001]

i think you misunderstand the phrase beyond good and evil. I think it means that there is no a priori of knowledge of evil or good and that they are both subjective evaluations of causality.

[FilmSnob]

i think you misunderstand the phrase beyond good and evil. I think it means that there is no a priori of knowledge of evil or good and that they are both subjective evaluations of causality.

Objective does not = a priori.

[jam2001]

The phrase "beyond good and evil" is not intended to be cool. Far from it, the author posits it as a challlenge for any who dare to seek it. As he states, if you do dare you better hang on to your sense to follow him in that path. The path took him to see a person that is justified in the cruelty he does as the will to power. Where does it take you? Personnally I think becoming one his free spirits is my heartfelt aspiration. But it is not a path for the faint of heart it is a "brave new world".

[without-music]

In all seriousness, you did read superficially.

As I suspected I may have. I did concede such a suspicion in hopes that you might take the chance to correct me. This is your thread, after all -- and mine was not the first response to mistake your epiphany. But, suit yourself, of course...

[FilmSnob]

In all seriousness, you did read superficially.

As I suspected I may have. I did concede such a suspicion in hopes that you might take the chance to correct me. This is your thread, after all -- and mine was not the first response to mistake your epiphany. But, suit yourself, of course...

Maybe I seem evasive...

Let me give it a shot.

Maybe the main point of my analysis is the missuse of the word "objectivism" by, of course, nihilists. "Objectively true" only means "coherently within the concept of truth" within whatever objective framework you are working.

When I write that Gluttony is objectively evil, I don't mean that evil exists in the way that a priest does. I mean that priests have an objective framework in which gluttony is always evil.

I call for objectivism, yes, but not as an end goal. Read the part where I say "not in defense of objectivism, but . . ." I am simply calling for the use of objectivity in this specific fork in the road towards philosophical hypotheses.

[jam2001]

I am not trying to sound cool or be superficial. I would like however to deal with the premise of this thread which is finding the true meaning of beyond good and evil. The philosopher who coined it cared not whether a person was objective or subjective. He was prophesying his dream of a new age of "free spirits" who would lead the world to this place. If all you want is to critique its feasability you are not a free spirit. As I stated he was not afraid of seeing where he thought this might lead even though he admitted that he would never venture to this place himself. Since you have stated that you know the true meaning of the phrase I humbly ask where the will to power leads you?

[without-music]

I call for objectivism, yes, but not as an end goal. Read the part where I say "not in defense of objectivism, but . . ." I am simply calling for the use of objectivity in this specific fork in the road towards philosophical hypotheses.

Ah, understood. In that case: yes, I believe you are correct. However, the question is: have you added anything to Nietzsche's statement, or have you merely drawn out what was already there. I contend the latter. But, regardless, perhaps this discussion will prove fruitful with people who aren't me; which is to say, people who aren't already familiar with Nietzsche's work, or at least this interpretation of such work. Carry on, and godspeed.

[FilmSnob]

I call for objectivism, yes, but not as an end goal. Read the part where I say "not in defense of objectivism, but . . ." I am simply calling for the use of objectivity in this specific fork in the road towards philosophical hypotheses.

Ah, understood. In that case: yes, I believe you are correct. However, the question is: have you added anything to Nietzsche's statement, or have you merely drawn out what was already there. I contend the latter. But, regardless, perhaps this discussion will prove fruitful with people who aren't me; which is to say, people who aren't already familiar with Nietzsche's work, or at least this interpretation of such work. Carry on, and godspeed.

Sure, this is a relatively basic idea in Nietzscheanism, but this is how it was formulated in my head when I was thinking about objectivism and beyond good and evil. The church has done a falsification here that supposed "modern thinkers" (amazing how Nietzsche got that one so right) are unwilling to even consider. What I am prescribing here is a vaccine for religious bias in philosophy and, like all vaccines, it contains a little of the virus itself.

[jam2001]

Pezer I think that Neitzche would agree that the church has only done what it was intended to do. Without a historical pespective his philosophy as were "has no clothes". He would be the first to point out that every birth is accompanied by a period of labor and that beyond good and evil is a "love not given lightly". I think if it did not exclude modern thinkers he would have no intrest in it. Or as Grouch Marx said ' I would never join a club that would accept someone like me".

[WL]

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Barack Obama... an endless list of famous men who "behind the mask" are in our Nietzschean sense beyond good and evil. They are also notoriously difficult to religiously weigh & quantify.

Remember, "Beyond good and evil does not mean beyond good and bad" - those are our author's own repeatedly stated positions. In other words, not all valuation is here outright rejected; only the humanistic-moral kind is. This immoralist Beyond-Good-Evilism is the keystone odour in the seductive perfume of Satan service cliques and clubs worldwide. Or would you like to shield your eyes and ears, and never realize fully, that one may do ONLY ATROCIOUS EVIL and bring into being the greater good, or vice versa, do ONLY THE BLESSEDLY GOOD and cause the greatest of ill?

Very well, then! But what now? The mistake is constantly made by hasty people, who would feign place themselves automatically "on the side of the good", without in actual fact having any right calling to do so. Why are you imagining yourself necessarily on the side of the good, you beyonders?

In Zarathustra it is stated very plainly, in a populist way: a victory of the good spells the greatest of ill for all mankind. But it's left "as an exercise to the reader" to comprehend just what would be the consequence (in F.Nietzsche's esoteric worldview) if evil was to triumph. Do you understand this now? You are dealing with the most cunning, demonic apologist of evil, with professorly bad eyes and, let us admit it too, without sarcasm- a heart of gold.

-WL

[jam2001]

Wl I think you have absolutely no idea of what Neitzche was writing about. There is no place in beyond good and evil for apolpgists of the good. In your quote when he says caonsider the opposite it was not a warning to run and hide your head. It is an urging to utilize you mind and see beyond the rigid structure you live by. I think you had better stay with the sheep and stop pretending you are a free spirit.

[FilmSnob]

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Barack Obama... an endless list of famous men who "behind the mask" are in our Nietzschean sense beyond good and evil. They are also notoriously difficult to religiously weigh & quantify.

Remember, "Beyond good and evil does not mean beyond good and bad" - those are our author's own repeatedly stated positions. In other words, not all valuation is here outright rejected; only the humanistic-moral kind is. This immoralist Beyond-Good-Evilism is the keystone odour in the seductive perfume of Satan service cliques and clubs worldwide. Or would you like to shield your eyes and ears, and never realize fully, that one may do ONLY ATROCIOUS EVIL and bring into being the greater good, or vice versa, do ONLY THE BLESSEDLY GOOD and cause the greatest of ill?

Very well, then! But what now? The mistake is constantly made by hasty people, who would feign place themselves automatically "on the side of the good", without in actual fact having any right calling to do so. Why are you imagining yourself necessarily on the side of the good, you beyonders?

In Zarathustra it is stated very plainly, in a populist way: a victory of the good spells the greatest of ill for all mankind. But it's left "as an exercise to the reader" to comprehend just what would be the consequence (in F.Nietzsche's esoteric worldview) if evil was to triumph. Do you understand this now? You are dealing with the most cunning, demonic apologist of evil, with professorly bad eyes and, let us admit it too, without sarcasm- a heart of gold.

-WL

This side of good?! But you underestimate me so... Let's see what you can write beyond that.

[statiktech]

They always stay the same.

By what measure?

[FilmSnob]

They always stay the same.

By what measure?

Wow, now that is a question. Do you mind a longer answer than it becons?

An objective idea is as abstract as ideas get. As such, they are easy to "call out" using language. In this sense, an idea that stays the same is one that can be described with the same words from its inception to eternity (or the duration of the existance of human brains to work them).

[statiktech]

They always stay the same.

By what measure?

Wow, now that is a question. Do you mind a longer answer than it becons?

An objective idea is as abstract as ideas get. As such, they are easy to "call out" using language. In this sense, an idea that stays the same is one that can be described with the same words from its inception to eternity (or the duration of the existance of human brains to work them).

I don't mind at all. In fact, I prefer the long version as I don't think I'm grasping this as easily as without-music seemed to. Plus, this is a pretty interesting topic you've got here.

My first question, I suppose, is what you mean by "objective idea", as that seems like something of an oxymoron to me. Unless, of course, you are suggesting ideas are accessible to us, but do not exist solely in our [subjective/inter-subjective] minds -- in which case I'd feel compelled to ask where they do exist 'objectively.'

My second thought is that ideas are essentially referents. When we "call out" an idea, the referents tend to be at least somewhat dynamic; no? It seems the only aspect that would remain the same from start to finish, so-to-speak, is the term itself. So, are you saying rather that the reference may be dynamic, but the term or name is what remains 'fixed'? Saying "gluttony is evil" is not to define in any precise terms exactly what constitutes "gluttony"[?].

To use one of your examples--

When I write that Gluttony is objectively evil, I don't mean that evil exists in the way that a priest does. I mean that priests have an objective framework in which gluttony is always evil.

[/list]

OK, gluttony is always evil, but is defined in terms of excess. So, who is actually defining the parameters which qualify "gluttony"?

This is admittedly hypothetical and a bit of a reach, but an example: A priest takes a homeless, starving man off of the streets and lays a feast before him. Needless to say, the man chows down and, let's say, he eats three times the amount any adult his size normally would. Is he still a glutton to that priest, given context; or just a hungry guy? Is his act of abandon one of evil or simply desperation?

This is not a criticism, to be sure. I'm just trying to understand a little better before I even attempt to move that far.

[FilmSnob]

Your intentions are well taken.

Regarding my use of objectivism, read and re-read the OP. If any detail seems obscure, read it again. Since I mean this sincerely and do not want to be the asshole that avoids questions, I will try to answer you (what I am trying to say is that I did address those questions in the OP).

So, what is an objective idea?

I understand your discomfort with this concept, I too tend to think of the world and everything in it (including ideas) as in flux. Here, I can only say that all human logic and thinking is imperfect, by virtue of constantly being in flux, and the idea of an objective idea is only an aproximation (words can only get us so far...).

An approximation of what? Why did I even bring it up?

I bring up objectivism because of the ever-so-pervasive error in its usual interpretation (as well as a wider point I try to make): the error of thinking that objective=true or objective=a priori or objective=somehow self evident.

Objectivism, as I strive to point out in the OP, is a lens for thinking. An idea is not true because it is objective, see what I mean? Objective is just a point of view.

[Amorphos]

Why talk about what is talked about? Why not just talk about the thing itself. shouldn’t we always first ask if we are talking about talking about something, before talking about it?

Especially as concerns Nietzsche, as he was probably a far worse philosopher than most of us, its hardly worth trying to understand his reflection upon things.

[statiktech]

Ah, thank you for the clarification, even if it seemed redundant. Perhaps it was the wording of the OP that threw me, but I swear I read it half a dozen times.

I understand you much better now, and can't honestly raise any objections to your point. In fact, I think the apparent misuse, and/or misinterpretation of "objective", is something that has plagued this forum and amateur thinkers/philosophers for a long time.

So, just to make sure I'm on the same page, "beyond good & evil" refers to the very framework in which we operate conceptually when speaking about 'objective' reality? In the priest's case, even "evil" itself is "beyond good & evil"? That is to say, the notion precludes his ideas of what he, or his God, considers specific acts of evil.

[FilmSnob]

Why talk about what is talked about? Why not just talk about the thing itself. shouldn’t we always first ask if we are talking about talking about something, before talking about it?

Especially as concerns Nietzsche, as he was probably a far worse philosopher than most of us, its hardly worth trying to understand his reflection upon things.