I have a problem with nietzsche.
It's this idea of the self-made person or individual.
I'm familiar with all of the nuances of consciousness and I understand how it is that reality is endowed with a certain objectivity by being perceived or inferred upwards to conscience, but what is this grounded in?
Really, you can't just go "cause I said so," if reality is to have meaning then it must arise from a subsistent principle of being in which all existent things partake in and thereby exist.
We all perceive reality in an objective way by means of the senses, so clearly we have to give credit where credit is due, this must come from something, if we perceive it then it must be exactly what it is and no less, so then why is it that we fail to take this into account in our intellectual formulations about the nature of reality?
The way I see it, nietzsche was only partly right regarding the ubermensch, in a confused sort of way.
What do you think?
let you in on a strange secretWe are all self-made, but only the successful will admit it.
>>7709938
Can you explain to me the mechanism?
>>7709963
ethos anthropos daimon
>>7709979
This is precisely the thing that I take issue with as explained above.
Where is the grounding for this?
To endow something with meaning in the nietzschean sense is merely to assent to the meaning endowed unto reality as it is perceived by the senses.
It is a rediscovery of meaning, perhaps transfigured (though maybe not yet, not at this stage), but not an invention of meaning.
>>7709924
>We all perceive reality in an objective way by means of the senses
Good one. Read "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense". If you still can't see how what you're saying is wrong, come back
>>7710020
it's not ungrounded. unless you're going full material nihilism, in which case there is no possible process because there is nothing, the question resides in whether you think anything exists outside the present. if it does, then the conglomeration of decisions in relation to the self forms the self. The potentials for selfhood and the process arriving at it are of course subjective, because subjectively speaking something more than nothing makes sense because we appear to be presented with an idea of things with the added potential for things called "selves". well, some of us maybe.
that objectively speaking nothing makes a lot of sense, and fallor ergo sum might be underlain by the more objective fallor ergo nihil est, which can't even be a mistake because things such as mistakes would fall sway to it, doesn't satisfy our perception of process. if we accept process, and therefore something more than presentism, and accept the idea of a self which may or may not under go a or many processes, the processes and decisions of the self being called the processes and decisions of the self isfucking tautological. you're asking for a grounding in "why is x called x" other than "well, when you hear an x sound, it often seems to sound rather like an x sound".you write like you like pretentious sounding shit and think if meaning is destroyed you won't be a hipster :^)
>>7710658
Isn't full material nihilism the logical conclusion to atheism?
For all you know the universe could be totally uniform and nothing can be said to have existed at all.
And if, materialistically speaking, this is the case, then aren't you just engaging in willful self-deception by saying that there can be any significance whatsoever in the act of existing?
I honestly cannot discern anything relevant from your post, I think maybe you are on the wrong track here.
Why is the ubermensch somehow significant when nothing else is?
>>7710781
no, full material nihilism is not a conclusion to anything. no beginning, no middle, no ending, no nada, niet.
> then aren't you just engaging in willful self-deception by saying that there can be any significance whatsoever in the act of existing
there isn't. your self isn't independent of anything and neither are socks or the milky way or purple. it's all just one big something. it's probably not though and such a deterministic view is just us comforting our selves that something, anything exists, even we technically don't exist except as an indiscriminate mass, which is obvious self delusion to avoid the probability it's all not even delusion, it's nothing.
>I honestly cannot discern anything relevant from your post
it's a big joke about how you should take phil101 so you realise you don't understand your own questions.
>Why is the ubermensch somehow significant when nothing else is?
it's significant of the ubermensch. like flowers are significant of flowers. like faggots are significant of you and, self of self, and ethos of the soul of man.
>>7710529
I've read all of it, but I don't understand where you're going with this.
My point was that what we perceive, be it real or fictitious, is perceived by us and that this in itself has an undeniable objectivity in as far as it constitutes some or all of the experience of existing apprehended in things.
>>7710820
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/5
you're welcome
>>7710820
it has an undeniable subjectivity since experience is subjective.
lrn3 english, m7
>>7710834
>experience is subjective
Read Nietzsche again.
>>7710854
anon meant if it can be fictitious, as was said by OP, it is clearly subjective -- yet the OP wrote this as a defense of it being objective, makes no sense
and one could easily argue that Nietzsche thought experience subjective considering his valuations of the individual, the will to power, etc...
>>7710854
>nietzsche believes in fact or the objective
assume the position.
>>7709924
The only meaning in life is the meaning you give it.
That's what it means to be "the self-made man".
If you find meaning in materialism, go nuts.
If you find meaning in existential despair, go nuts.
If you find meaning in jerking off to traps, go nuts.
If you find meaning in nothing, go nuts.
Create your own values, it's what you do anyway, even if you take them from religious dogma.
This quote makes it pretty clear to me:
"Surpass, ye higher men, the petty virtues, the petty policy, the sand-grain
considerateness, the ant-hill trumpery, the pitiable comfortableness, the
"happiness of the greatest number"--!
And rather despair than submit yourselves. And verily, I love you, because
ye know not to-day how to live, ye higher men! For thus do YE live--best!
Have ye courage, O my brethren? Are ye stout-hearted? NOT the courage
before witnesses, but anchorite and eagle courage, which not even a God any
longer beholdeth?
Cold souls, mules, the blind and the drunken, I do not call stout-hearted.
He hath heart who knoweth fear, but VANQUISHETH it; who seeth the abyss,
but with PRIDE.
He who seeth the abyss, but with eagle's eyes,--he who with eagle's talons
GRASPETH the abyss: he hath courage.--"
Consider the abyss is the absence of meaning.
>Embrace it.
>Overcome it.
>>7710811
For something to be significant of itself is wholly inconsequential; no thing is or can be or can be said to be different from any other thing, except by virtue of some thing which is, by metaphysical necessity, different from everything and thereby the ground for everything.
>>7710957
there is no consequence; there's eternal return. you haven't read nietzsche or, you read him on opposite day for metafiction points
>>7710020
m8 your problem basically is that you take skepticism too far
if you think too much about this shit then yes indeed we can't "prove" that anything we know isn't an illusion
ignore it. let's say everything is undoubtedly & 100% proven to be illusion. you've got no way to dispel it, you've still got to play by its rules, no matter how enlightened you are by your intelligence
>>7710957
>For something to be significant of itself is wholly inconsequential
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read and I've read Descartes.
