The last few days I have been reading 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' by Friedrich Nietszche. I just finished part one, did a bit of writing, and figured why not post it. In one part he makes the point that all value-systems whatsoever are man-made. They were not received or revealed from some higher external power, they were made by man. It is in this way in that man is a creator. The possibilities of evaluation. He says time and time again to be a creator. So, this creative power which he exhorts us to use, is in a way just a use of our mind's potential for giving meaning and value to things. In a way, this appears to be opposite of common spiritual advice. But, I think we need to look into the meaning of this general idea of 'evaluation.' I think there is a distinction which is implied. Evaluate internally. See, think, speak, and act through these internally created lenses. Yet at the same time, don't do it as a means of judging externally. Don't 'judge' people and things in the common use of the word, as some sort of moral or at least good-to-bad scale, but establish an internal view and standard which is arrived at through genuine honesty with one's self, and held with conviction. "...and may the value of all things be fixed anew by you." "There are a thousand paths that have never yet been trodden, a thousand forms of health and hidden islands of life. Man and man's earth are still unexhausted and undiscovered." He says at one point, that we should all find our virtue, but that everyone's virtue is different. I think 'virtue' here implies, in part, living up to your own personal idea of greatness(for lack of a better word). Your own uniqueness, that which you yourself like and admire, you be. The name of this chapter, which goes on about finding your own personal value system, is called 'of the Bestowing Virtue.' Perhaps this alludes to the idea that we should find our own way, and also help others to find their own way. This is all really consistent with the idea of Thelema, for whoever is familiar. So, part of the practical application the idea, I think, is to totally detach from all existing value-systems, and all pre-packaged conceptions or descriptions of the world. And then from there to be totally honest and genuine with oneself, and through this honestly and genuineness getting to know and love yourself, and your own way of giving meaning and value to things. Finding your own Way, unconditioned and uncompromised. And as you uncover this value-system and self-styled idea of 'greatness,' you let it consume your whole being.
This reminds me of how Descartes, when trying best to define and understand the world around him, tosses aside all the unnecessary; leaving behind only that which he can be certain of; the foundations of his perceived reality. I imagine Nietzsche would see the similarity too, and perhaps Descartes actually did inspire some of his own ideas? I agree with what you're saying here. A big part of Zarathustra's enlightenment was his realization that through our values, we are, to some degree, creators of our own reality. By recognizing this, he is then able to form his best conception of reality that is closer to objective reality than the constraints that his values had previously allowed (wordy...).
I read this the other day, you might like it; http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogy1.htm He rails on Christianity pretty ruthlessly, he see's its doctrines (and I'm generalizing probably) as essentially an endorsement of weakness - which slightly relates to what your post said, in that exercising one's power to cultivate oneself in whichever way possible, is exactly the opposite of what Christianity teaches, which is to apparently glorify and condone a meek and submissive life. Obviously there's more dimension to the Essay than what I've laid out above, and to his philosophy at large (I'm assuming), but there you go.
Thanks for the link. I will check it out more. I believe I am familiar with the general concept. That our conceptions of morality are actually 'slave morality.' That 'they' created conceptions of morality which were designed to get the 'common people' to just accept things as they were, to not stir things up and cause problems for 'them.' Definitely an interesting idea that has merit I think.
I think that's the general gist, he begins by positing an opinion (though he says it more like it's a fact), that morality originated through aristocratic values, which included strength, nobility, self-empowerment etc, and that aristocracies had enough power even to assign meanings to words, hence anything that was ''good'' was ''good'' because it was in line with their usual line of acting, and anything which was ''bad'' was ''bad'' because it was common/un-aristocratic. This, according to him, was the origination of morality, it was only after the Rise of Christianity and the eventual triumph of Christianity over aristocratic values, that ''good'' began to be identified with such qualities as meekness, patience, humility etc - Nietzsche see's these qualities as an impediment to man's natural powers, and a restriction of his best traits (the Aristocratically defined traits). I think this ties into his philosophy of the ''Ubermensch'' too, which in simple terms is an individual that possesses all of the requisite Aristocratic traits but to such a degree that has never been seen before. I've probably bastardized/done an injustice to his Essay somewhat, and I've obviously simplified it, so if there's anyone who has a more thorough knowledge over the Essay and/or Nietzsche then they can correct me.
"There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “If you go to see women, forget not thy whip†he would say –but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks."
No, this is actually a very good summary of how he believed that the 'Roman' ethic (the ethic of a "rich will", the "super-will"), [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]through the course of history,[/SIZE] was contaminated and, ultimately, subverted by the 'Jewry' ethic (the ethic of the "decadent will").
So now let me use what you said in this thread to show why Time Wave zero is bullshit So then that means all values of novelty are man made and thus arbitrary, exactly what I said in your time wave zero thread. This means time wave zero is just a bunch of arbitrary bullshit.
Have I given you the impression that I'm a hardcore neitzhian who has devoted my life to his way of thinking/living and swore off all else? I entertain a number of ways of thinking from a detached perspective, and hone into particular ways if its appeal remains high over time.
. It's obvious all value systems are man made. Thus time wave zero is arbitrary BS. Though that is what I expected you to say. Anything to not have to support or explain a statement that you made. And that is your problem: appeal. Appeal doesn't matter facts do
So then you have the 100% factual view of the world then? And anyone who thinks differently than you is wrong? How wonderful.
No here is what I'm saying: You bounce between whatever idea feels good or suits you at a time. Whenever someone presents contradictory information you simply ignore it and continue asserting you initial idea as fact. If your ideas contradict you either say that you don't need to explain for whatever reason or claim that you don't believe that even though you then use that same idea to support other ideas that you obviously agree with.
You speak as though it is a given that one should already be arrived at a particular viewpoint in which they are absolutely subscribed to. I disagree. At this point in time I do not subscribe to any particular belief system. But I am not going to give up my interest in philosophy and spirituality, as it has been my main interest in life for years now. So, I play with ideas, until such a time may come that I feel settled into a viewpoint which I can really say I 'believe.' I feel 'either have a definite ideology which you absolutely stick to or just give up on philosophy/spirituality' is a strange dichotomy. Feigned certainty is a major problem in this world, and especially as it causes one to truly stagnate and dismiss everything besides that which you have proclaimed that you believe.