Gimme a quote.
-
“We simply lack any organ for knowledge, for ‘truth’: we ‘know’ (or believe or imagine) just as much as may be useful in the interests of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called ‘utility’ is ultimately also a mere belief, something imaginary, and perhaps precisely that most calamitous stupidity of which we shall perish some day”. (Gay Science, Aphorism 354)
-
“The falseness of a judgment is for us not necessarily an objection to a judgment; in this respect our new language may sound strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-promoting, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating”. (Beyond Good and Evil, 4)
-
Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny (Gay Science, 110).
Riv - I could only ask that you familiarize yourself with pragmatic theories of truth.
Pragmatism: ‘truth’ = what works. That’s it in an nutshell.
I just gave you 3 quotes of Nietzsche saying either that we do, or should, consider ‘true’ what works. And I gave them to you off the top of my fucking head, page numbers an all. Recognize it. There is MUCH MUCH more.
Modern moral utilitarianism.
Justified in adopting that system? More like forcing people to adopt a system at gun point.
Basically all of morality and ethics are built upon lousy assumptions or complete contradictions ending in indefinite hypocrisies, however because it is a useful delusion or fiction by those in power to control otherwise managing the entire population that is why governments everywhere demand their obedience anyways.
In the end is it all fictitious absurd bullshit? Absolutely, but for those in positions of power it is useful absurd bullshit in the consolidation of power therefore, it becomes necessary to perpetuate and continue the usual absurd bullshit as long as those in authority can until utter limitations are breached.
That’s how the unenlightened talk. It’s common, in every sense of the word.
I do philosophy here. We do not speak the same language.
Don’t be a jerk.
William James himself defined pragmatism as, “what would be better for us to believe”. That’s a direct quote from his essay “What Pragmatism Means”, which you can google and read online. Please.
Morality in a nutshell: You will do this or else. Where’s your justification to tell us what we can or can’t do, a person might say.
Those in authority will answer that the justification is at the end of a barrel of a gun and that since enforcing this fictitious scheme works regardless that it is complete utter bullshit that nobody should question it or at the very least undermine it otherwise they will be facing the same end of that barrel.
Of course, it becomes necessary to baffle the majority of idiots with bullshit so propaganda comes in with fantasy concepts like equality, fairness, and social utopia paradise on earth in order to stupify the simpletons.
Read a fucking book, my friend.
I read every fucking day. Go pester somebody else.
Of course when the say “us” they don’t mean everybody equally. 
I would call it non-thinking, yeah.
Yes, that too.
Riv -
But I am a jerk. And a dumbass, or so I am told.
Nietzsche has been variously called an Existentialist, a pragmatist (by Rorty, among others), a deconstructionist, a postmodernist, a proto-Nazi, a Transcendentalist, a Romantic - all manner of things. And a superficial reading, a shallow analysis of what he wrote, a misunderstanding of these terms - all will lead to such conclusions as yours, Riv.
So I’ll jump in - he was an “inductionalist”. No worse than any of these other sloppy labels. Nietzsche held that we are capable of ever-closer approximations to the truth - and even this is a sort of “reverse” reasoning. We are not so much right about stuff as we can be progressively “less wrong.” Kinda like science. We construct models, paradigms, some of which give better answers, more practical solutions than others. So, of we use "pragmatic’ for “practical” then yes, we can apply that term to Nietzsche. But we don’t use those words synonymously in philosophy. James would not have. The difference lies in the answer to the question, “better to what end?”
Nietzsche’s ends were very different than James’ and it does both thinkers a disservice to lump them together. If you examine James’ theory of truth, you will see that he has little in common with Nietzsche. It constantly astounds me that people will not analyze philosophers in terms of their various theories of truth. Pragmatism implies certain theories of truth as epistemological devices. Nietzsche’s does not - N’s theory of truth is not pursuant to an epistemic view at all. It is therefore not an aid to understanding to call N a pragmatist - it’s just a way to throw a label around in order to appear intelligent and well-read. In the end, neither goal is accomplished.
Only once you have mastered language can you call yourself a philosopher.
Yes, of course. Well said. Totally justified.
Do you have a single quote?
And recognize that we were talking about what truth is, not whether you can get closer to it or not.
Oh, then you are welcome.
Riv -
I’ll assume that this is just self-deprecating humor.
A quote? This might do -
Our amazement. — It is a profound and fundamental good
fortune that scientific discoveries stand up under examination
and furnish the basis, again and again, for further discoveries.
After all, this could be otherwise. Indeed, we are so convinced
of the uncertainty and fantasies of our judgments and of the
eternal change of all human laws and concepts that we are
really amazed how well the results of science stand up.
Nietzsche has no faith in the necessity that science leads to truth. It does lead to something, though. here, he also notes that our “laws” change - they are not set in stone, as we know - scientific certainties do not exist, strictly speaking. That is, we may take it as settled that the Earth is a spheroid, but we know of no law that requires it. At least, no law that may not be someday refined, amended, even superceded by another Great Discovery about the laws of the Universe.
We are not talking about what truth is, however. As I have tried to point out. James may be talking about what truth is, but N usually talks about why we are so adamant about finding it. We have other things to do - more useful things.
You claimed that Nietzsche thought we are capable of ever-closer approximations to the truth. This quote does not justify that comment. And if anything is clear about Nietzsche, it’s that science doesn’t deal in ‘truths’—errors, perspectival fictions, falsifications, etc, YES, but not truth. Furthermore, whenever you quote, I need references so that I can look at context—not that it matters in this case, because even at a superficial level, the quote is unrelated.
Since we were talking about Nietzsche’s conception of truth, we were talking about what truth is, for Nietzsche. There is a separate issue about what the value of a traditional conception of truth is. But you can’t just change the topic when you stop wanting to talk about the other one.
Riv -
I think my point was of a subtlety beyond your ability to comprehend.
And I think you are a quack.
Well, when you say. “science doesn’t deal in ‘truths’—errors, perspectival fictions, falsifications, etc, YES, but not truth” you are agreeing with me when I say, “We are not so much right about stuff as we can be progressively “less wrong.” Kinda like science. We construct models, paradigms, some of which give better answers, more practical solutions than others.” and “Nietzsche has no faith in the necessity that science leads to truth.”
So I am left to wonder which quack you are arguing with. Not that i haven’t seen you argue with yourself before, of course.