Is there any extent to which Nietzsche did not destroy non-theistic morality?
The Christians get a pass because their definition of right and wrong comes from an absolute moral arbiter. If you believe that such an arbiter does not exist, however, what becomes of morality? Aren't we ultimately only left with Thrasymachus' rule of the stronger?
>>491969
>Is there any extent to which Nietzsche did not destroy non-theistic morality?
I thought he only attacked Christianity? At least I know that's all he "attacked" in the gay science.
>>491969
he didn't destroy it
he merely explained it.
the rich kings told you not obeying them was bad
then some sheister came along and said that god rules above all kings and that what the kings do against the poor is evil.
he merely offeres an escape route to those wishing to escape
he didn't destroy it
>>491969
rule of the stronger is barbarism, let nbody fool you otherwise. human beings are not barbarians
>>491985
If there's no rational basis for the system, why expect anyone to follow it?
Nietzsche absolutely destroyed conventional morality in a post-God world. You can even say he did it consciously. He wanted to tear down the old morality and construct a new one in its place. This is his major project.
>>491969
nothing change
>>492025
or they become even worst moral fag
>>492015
>If there's no rational basis for the system, why expect anyone to follow it?
Because humans are generally quite irrational.
Nietzsche's goal was not to demolish secular morality or Christian morality (which he considered one and the same in his time), but to sing of someone who would.
>>492054
Reform has a habit of mistaking the fish for the fly.
>>492063
Raskolnikov said as much in Crime and Punishment.
did Chesterton btfo NEETzsche?
>>492054
What part of God "is" dead didn't you get? It's not "God will be dead"
Or what part of "we must start thinking beyond good and evil" did you misread, it's not "someone will come who will start thinking beyond good and evil and you should wait till than"
For all your attacks on Nietzsche your understanding of him is pathetic.
>>491969
>The Christians get a pass because their definition of right and wrong comes from an absolute moral arbiter.
What? An invisible magic fairy that only talks to old pedophiles?
>>492074
Eh, I'd say Dostoevsky did a better job (and he wasn't consciously confronting Nietzsche). Chesterton did a nice number on Nietzsche, but it was mostly cosmetic.
>>492010
Barbarians aren't some species of ant.
>>492074
No, because he didn't even understand him. When I read his 'criticism' of Nietzsche, I got the impression he based it on nothing but misrepresentations
Bertrand Russell's criticism was better than his, and that's saying something
>>492081
Nietzsche said God is dead, but he also said we hid the body.
Nietzsche didn't believe base people could make themselves not base by reading his philosophy, he considered the base doomed to be base, and that was simply the role they had to play, most people had to play, they were the masses; Nietzsche was not about elevating the masses, he was about elevating extraordinary man above the masses. He wrote for people who already noble in some way.
>>492093
and according to Nietzsche these higher people were the people that ran the society anyway, so addressing them is the same as addressing society itself.
The "us" and "we" he says are the people that can actually understand philosophy. Who killed God? "We did" Who is 'we', the various intellectuals, movers, and shakers.
You don't need to wait for someone to go kill God, it's already happened. One need only look at the big names in philosophy that came before Nietzsche to see this.
>>492116
Nietzsche did not think noble people ran society in his time, he thought the masses did.
There is a difference between killing God, and killing what God represents to Nietzsche (which is "the body"). To Nietzsche, God as a concept might be dead, but the whole legacy of Christianity has so intimately infested society that values can no longer be built on and progressively modified, they must be completely obliterated and replaced by brand new values. The problem isn't just the Christian God, it's his legacy which Nietzsche saw as very much alive in liberalism, socialism, anarchism, and so on. Ideologies such as nationalism and populism and anything else driven by the masses also disgusted him.
>>492155
>Ideologies such as nationalism and populism and anything else driven by the masses also disgusted him
Correct
>The problem isn't just the Christian God, it's his legacy which Nietzsche saw as very much alive in liberalism, socialism, anarchism, and so on
Also correct
Interestingly enough Nietzsche pretty much single-handed created the post-modern movement which was concerned primarly with hacking away all the ideaology of the older ideas of modernity that had it's root in Christian concepts. (if you'd like an explanation read the first 2 paragraphs of part 1 in this http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain9.html ). So yes, the old ideas have started fall apart. Even the rabble are starting to realize that things like equal rights, Unitarianism, etc. do not have a leg to stand on anymore.
There is a massive power gap in philosophy right now. This is the ideal era for a big man to come and completely reshape everything. You can already feel it in the air with everyone being upset with the status que but not having a very good idea about what radical new idea should replace it.
>>492174
Nietzsche's extraordinary man wouldn't be some academic thinker, he'd be a Napoleon or a Mohammed.
Mostly borrow from ideology you 'denounced'.
God isn't dead it just changed to 'Big Other'
why can't I just consider myself the ultimate arbiter?
you want to know whether something is moral or not I'll tell you
>>491969
Because the "soft" forces of group dynamics aren't that weak, morals are "just a social construct" and yet are that much harder to oppose.
