[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 5 KB, 200x175, max stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2834202 No.2834202[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

does nietzsches genealogical method suggest a moral nihilism? it certainly defeats the belief that there are inherent ethical truths but does it reconcile the fact that there is still some sort of abstract ethical framework that we are obligated to abide by?

>> No.2834205

MUH SPOOKS

>> No.2834208

i love wikipedia

-OP

>> No.2834231

"fuck morals fuck everything nothing is right except when i say it"

Max Stirner

>> No.2834238

>>2834202
Moral relativism, not moral nihilism. Nietzsche's doesn't really judge moralities as right or wrong in it's own right, but more as either beneficial or detrimental to life.

Which seems reasonable, because prescriptive statements can't have a truth value. They can only be loosely related to something that is perceived as true.

>> No.2834285

I'd appreciate it if somebody could draw a comic where Beavis and Butthead are discussing something typical of their characters, then Stirner appears (in black and white) and says something typical of his philosophy.

Wud b laff

>> No.2834295

>>2834285
You clearly don't appreciate the fact that Beavis already is Stirner... If I had talent and ambition, I would cut Zizek into a scene with Beavis and have Beavis/Stirner tell him why he is wrong.

>> No.2834308
File: 62 KB, 386x520, stirner20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2834308

>> No.2834312
File: 60 KB, 300x404, stirner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2834312

>>2834308

>> No.2834313

>>2834312
>>2834308
Very good

>> No.2834315

It's thoroughly annoying how /lit/ finds certain "topics of the week" and just dumps thread after thread of the shit.

Notice how there hasn't been a Hunger Games thread in a while, yet there are 14 Stirner threads on page 0.

You're all a bunch of chimps sitting around waiting for someone to tell you what to be interested in this month.

>> No.2834327

>>2834315
this isn't true

i've tried starting original and interesting topics in the past but they get no replies because no one knows what i'm talking about

"topic of the week" makes perfect sense for a board like this, if you think about the nature of 4chan as a discussion forum

>> No.2834330

>>2834327
>this isn't true
>proceeds to describe how it is true

Awesome argument, pinhead.

>> No.2834333

>>2834327
Unfortunately that's not really how it works with regard to Stirner. I'm one of the very few people who make informed contributions, and I have to say that there is not that much of an improvement over Stirner threads 3 months ago. However, I hope that we will be able to clear up some misunderstandings.

>> No.2834335

>it certainly defeats the belief that there are inherent ethical truths
But that's not true. Biology proscribes ethical truths.

>> No.2834341

>>2834335
Well, more like biology determines the behavioral framework that we refer to as "ethics." Be careful with throwing "truth" around. But yes, pretty much.

>> No.2834348
File: 35 KB, 290x374, le spook face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2834348

>>2834312

>> No.2834350

>>2834335
Did you mean "prescribe"? If you did, then the truth you're saying is different from the truth you mean.

>> No.2834358

>>2834335
the biological limits on behaviour have nothing to do with what we call ethics. The entire range of 'unethical' behaviour is within the limits of behavioural biological constraints.

>> No.2834363

>>2834358
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be or is healthy. Nietzsche had chemical imbalances that led him to active nihilism and moral relativity. He tried to justify that rationally but in hindsight we know he didn't.

>> No.2834364

>>2834363
Variation is a part of biology. Your 'should' and 'healthy' are moralistic clichés that have nothing to do with biology.

>> No.2834367

>>2834364
Should is a cliche, yes. But healthy is not. We can look at physical health and achievement to see that the human body does not benefit from harsh individualism.

>> No.2834369

>>2834367
Congratulations for pulling that out of your ass, that is really refreshing on /lit/! Oh wait, it isn't, that's what everyone does. Protip: Even is there is some measurement of health that indicates that individualism is bad, why would the individual care? Unless there are biological mechanisms that actually keep an individual from doing something, that is not a biological implementation of ethics.

>> No.2834371

>>2834369
>Protip: Even is there is some measurement of health that indicates that individualism is bad, why would the individual care?
Well if he wants to avoid things like cancer and shorter lifespan...

>Unless there are biological mechanisms that actually keep an individual from doing something, that is not a biological implementation of ethics.
That's pretty ridiculous.

>> No.2834420

>>2834371
That's pretty ridiculous.

No, it's not. Maybe getting cancer when you are 50 might be worth <it>, depending on what we are talking about an what we mean by worth. The individual has no responsibility towards the species other than that which it is forced to uphold by itself or others. There are biological mechanisms that make certain kinds of behaviour more enjoyable than others, anything beyond that is a social construction that can be worked around in various ways and is in no way a to be considered a biological form of ethics.

>> No.2834440

>>2834202

Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Then read it again.

Then come back.