neitzche is never blatantly clear about the type of morality he would espouse. i am not sure if he is driving at the complete dissolution of morals (this seems to stand too close to nihilism for nietzche) or if he supports the "morality of the strong" (although i definitely think he leans torward this, im not sure if this would be the final word on it.) what do you guys think?
I think he was unable to finish what he started due to his illness and untimely death. Which is a damn shame, really.
Beyond Good and Evil has a section titled "What is Noble?" that covers this pretty well. Nietzsche's view on this, I believe, was tainted by the scientific mis-understandings of his time.
A proper of morality in Nietzshe is never articulated because he did not think that form had yet come to pass. He was laying ground work for emergence of that new form. He was mostly not an amoralist. That form has already existed according to him in the form of the Master. They were not inmoral because no such thing yet existed for them. They merely followed their insiticts. They lacked the big WILL TO POWER. Many people seems to misread Niethezshe as being a fan of a return to the master state. This is wrong.
After the the masters came the Slaves, they lacked the power of the masters but they turn their weakness in to strength. They mere more evolved in terms of will to power than the masters, for they will nothingness. A willing of denial is more powerful that the strength of the masters. For they lived on the whim of their appetites.
So a moral life for N whould be one lived with focus. With will to power. These supermen and women of course could live the long promise. They will have vision and the will to carry it out.
Of course in N's time there was no person, and still is not. The first glances of this new type of person are to be found in the FREE SPIRT, see Beyond Good and evil part two for more info.
Have a good one
good post randmcnally.
There are other interpretations. Than the one I posted but it is the one that makes the most sense for me. It is heavily influanced by my reading of Heidegger. I just wanted to jump on the notion of a morality of the strong; because too many people read nietzche as being a kind of I can do whatever I want philosophy. Most of the time what they want is to return to a life of raw appetites. That is an inferior mode of life for N.
Have a good one
"They mere more evolved in terms of will to power than the masters, for they will nothingness. A willing of denial is more powerful that the strength of the masters. For they lived on the whim of their appetites."
That's a very important point.
Living with focus requires opposing/overcoming ones self before the focus of the will can have sufficient strength to overcome anything/anyone else. The master feeds his appetites when his appetites should be crushed by the will to hold power over the slave. The slave denies himself so that his complete focus is on the denial/destruction of the master.
Dostoevskys Notes From The Underground, with the explanation of the most "advantageous advantage" is a kin to what I think the foundations of Nietzches Free Spirit came from.
Pantypeepunch, Sorry for the delay in response; I have been off-line for few days. Just looking for a point of clarification.
The master feeds his appetites when his appetites should be crushed by the will to hold power over the slave.
Are you saying that this is what the masters should have done to remain in control; or that this is what N proscribes are as the path to the superman? The first would be debatable, the second however I think is incorrect. Just trying to clarify.
Boy, the philosophy ground is not the most happening spot on the underground.
or that this is what N proscribes are as the path to the superman?
I really cannot say that I have any idea what nietzche would suggest the master do.
I recall Nietzche writing something like( it's been a few years), "only a man with a thousand convictions beneath him can begin to judge."
I believe his point was that the path to the superman involves first overcoming ones self.
Notions of right or wrong that stand on long held and unquestioned convictions make one a slave to all of the unexamined reasons behind those convictions. How can a person be skeptical of anything when they have allowed themselves to be driven by all of the unexamined reasons behind their convictions.
My conclusion is that the road to the overman starts with not allowing things to go on "behind ones back" unquestioned, so how can one will nothingness when the will itself is starting from an unquestioned foundation that is "something."
What I was trying to say was that perhaps the master, who might have overcome all of his convictions by simply identifying that different circumstances require different convictions , found comfort in his appetites and lost the clear and focused conviction of skeptisism. He was weighed down by all that was going on behind the "wills" back. His unnquestioned appetites were his new religion(conviction) and he forgot that his slaves were non-believers.
The will to hold power over the slave depends on the will to hold power over all that goes on behind ones back... perhaps that power starts with the identification of the causal nexus leading to ones decisions, but it's fueled by the constant examination of that nexus and the hermeneutical problem of examination itself.
*passes the bong to randmcnally*
Hold that hit in for 135 seconds and we're tied for first!
Sounds good. Awareness as a key concapt in the bringing about of the Overman. Sounds kind of buddhist.
It has been a few years for me as well, since I read Nietzsche. Back then when I was a freethinking anarchist I would have taken a good hit off then bong, now as a card carrying member of the slave/middle class I have to refuse. Drugs are bad, I saw it on TV.
I remember reading somewhere (maybe in The Anti Christ) that Nietzche had more respect for buddhists than he did christians because at least the buddhist starts his inquiry within himself. The christian starts with and ends with a book.
"I believe his point was that the path to the superman involves first overcoming ones self."
This sentence is why most people donºt really look too indepth into nietzsche. Overcoming isnºt something that happens, its a process in life that is always pursued. When you stop doing it, you are no longer leading morality, you are being led by it.
Well put Hekster.