1.) That's a belief in itself, bubba gump. Ever heard of Godel's incomplete theorem (apparently not)... no axiom or set of axioms can be established with certainty. For, the validity of an axiom stands only in relation to the system erected upon the axiom itself; which means, every single axiom or set of axioms begs the question from a perspective OUTSIDE of the contingent system, i.e., no axiom or set of axioms can ever be fully proved for certain (and I know how you dogmatists love your tangible "proofs"). 2.) You're an idiot... the only thing that's been shitt*d on is your dogmatically tainted brain. Yea, and that "point" is... to have no closed-off and dogmatic point (conceptual monoliths are not accepted in philosophy). This coming from you... . Believe what you like. What are you even talking about... what does this have to do with anything? When did I say the law or the sciences have no practical use?
Kierkegaard > Nietzsche Nietzsche reeks of Schopenhauer's incomplete and partial metaphysics... ever heard of Will? Nietzsche pretty much stole his whole ideology from good ol' Schop-ee; and yet, Nietzsche thought he was simply emending it (only in the ethical category can one say Nietzsche emended Schopenhauer's philosophy).
That doesn't even makes sense and is absurd. Ofcourse an axiom is not intended to be proved, and sometimes cannot be. Defined: "An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate." You'll have to read about arguments, reasoning and philosophy before engaging in a conversation with that as a context to add anything meaningful, let alone something that makes sense. Philosophy is the foundation for Law & the sciences, so has allot to do with the point that "philosophy is about life, ethic, and action; and not solely about constructing conceptual edifices without any active or practical use." It supported one of your points, but you failed to see it. You seem to have some predisposition to think every post that quotes one of yours is a counter point. Don't be so lame as to resort to name calling 'cause you don't like what I say.
1.) What doesn't make sense? Godel's theorem? Prove it... "You'll have to read about arguments, reasoning and philosophy before engaging in a conversation with that as a context to add anything meaningful, let alone something that makes sense." -- And, still, what sort of philosophy, reasoning, and arguments a given person takes to be "valid" is all a personal belief (a choice)! 2.) Do you know what a metaphysical system is? Such as Hegel's convoluted metaphysics? That was my point when speaking on conceptual edifices without any practical use. 3.) It's not what you said that I didn't like (because you really didn't say anything).. it's how you approached me.
Haha Nietzsche is the first to take historic philosophy's appeal to a priori knowledge and bullshit morality like duty and reason, for which there is no evidence. It merely spawns from fear.
Really... ever heard of Protagoras' perspectivism? He was a contemporary of Plato... "Nietzsche, who was not humble enough to learn very much by study, thought he was propounding a revolutionary doctrine when he put goods and evils above right and wrong." -- Santayana It's crazy, and funny to me, to see how people outside of the world of philosophy love to extol and overrate Nietzsche, like he was some renegade that undermined all philosophical thought. P.S. Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian/German philosopher that's renowned as the greatest philosophical mind of the 20th Century (even by his contemporaries like B Russell, GE Moore, etc), had this to say this about my main man Kierkegaard. Keep in mind that Nietzsche (a native German) and Kierkegaard lived, and philosophized, in the same century.
A) I am not outside the world of philosophy, I am an undergrad philosophy major at a large liberal arts school. B ) Yes, Kierkegaard is a brilliant thinker. C) I think Nietzsche is important in terms of immorality, the thought that there is no right and wrong, and that this is especially relevant to those who fear only their own 'conscience'.
A.) I'm sorry for my assumption, friend. My apologizes. C.) I don't deny Nietzsche's worth as a philosopher... not at all; for, I would be flat out be lying if I said I didn't learn anything from that man. But, I'm just saying, what Nietzsche thought and believed he accomplished in philosophy, he really didn't, because his thought was just as much tainted by prejudices, and if not more than all the other philosophers and philosophies he disparaged in his writings'. Consequentially, Nietzsche DID NOT bring to ruin all of Western philosophy... no matter how bad he desired to out of his resentment for this world of "weak wills". "The thought that there is no right and wrong" -- Yea, Nietzsche would have you think that... for the only wrong in this world would be to deny Nietzsche's philosophy and supposed "transmutation" of values.
The way you have worded this post is difficult to put in perspective. Personally if someone said could you bothered reading something from a "philosopher" that knowone beleives or can understand but he not only understands but beleives in something. It would be interesting unless ofcourse unless hes just standing there thinking nothing. And Is it just this one "philisopher" your talking about or are those other bunch of enlightentened Wise people who chose to walk around .... disturbing your peace of mind? Now you got em all bunched might be worth asking the straight up what there upto. How many more questions they plan to be asking and were are they keeping all the answers? Is there any more space in that empty puzzle box... full of puzzling answers?
Ah, but it is a world of weak wills is it not? You don't know how many people I've read on this forum complaining about 'side effects' from smoking pot when they are only coming to realize their weak wills.
"Ah, but it is a world of weak wills is it not?" -- Depends on how you define strength - as opposed to 'weakness'; and that's exactly my whole problem with Nietzsche, he never states what the hell he means by 'power' (he intentionally equivocated the term). Sometimes he talks of power within the context of brute strength, sometimes intellectually, sometimes in terms of resilience and spirit, and other times, in terms of who the hell knows. And, interestingly enough, if this world is really founded on and runned by the Will to power, then, how come, firstly, there are so many weak wills in the first place, and, secondly, how come the weak wills seem to always be the dominating force in social and political affairs? Apparently because the collective power of mind can hold sway over brute force...
And what sort of 'power' is that? And, how can one achieve a status that they're not free to attain... you don know that Nietzsche didn't believe in freedom of will, right? Nietzsche's philosophy was best dismantled by Santayana... but, here's a few quotes from Russell that will suffice to undermine Nietzsche's egoisitc romanticism. "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." "He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear… It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His 'noble†man–who is himself in day-dreams–is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: 'I will do such things–what they are yet I know not–but they shall be the terror of the earth.' This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell." "It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with which he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them" A powerful lion doesn't constantly strive to flex its power before an ant... only a very insecure lion would such a thing.
One would argue that life itself is redundant. Revel in the ambiguity of our existence. The more you divide and label, classify and segregate, the further you step from the truth. The highest philosophy is realized when the thoughts are cleared and the mind is still.