You guys don't actually buy into this relativist non sense do you? I mean, I could see ethics and morality being relative to some extent (though to be honest, I'm still on the fence as far as absolute vs relative morality), but "theres no facts"? That's fucking ridiculous and sounds like a potentially dangerous line of thinking
>in b4 you can't actually prove anything lol David Hume XD XD
Im aware from a philosophical stand point that theres no basis for really believing anything, but philosophy aside, the universe is clearly consistent to some extent and objectivity clearly exists
Have you even actually read Nietzsche? or only this image? If the former, then go read Gadamer or Heidegger, and you'll get a better understanding of what that statement in particular is getting at.
Nietzsche is a faggot but he's basically right (although probably for the wrong reasons). The senses and "reason" are both equally imprecise, so there's no way to be 100% sure of something. However, we'd all just sit around twiddling our thumbs if we acted on this, so for pragmatic purposes we have to at least pretend that certainty is possible.
>>7843787
>but philosophy aside
You done goofed. I agree that philosophical Skepticism is a sham, but you can't get beyond philosophy as a whole, the idea doesn't even make sense.
>>7843789
Ill read it, but is it essentially
>theres no foundation to build your beliefs on
>everyone is a coherentist
>nothing is certain
>>7843797
>but you can't get beyond philosophy as a whole
Sure you can. Science basically defies logic from a philosophical perspective
>>7843794
simply pragmatism like this is so stupid.
Pragmatism has some degree of sense, but the only reason Philosophical Skepticism is allowed to continue is because you've bought into the subjective/objective dualism.
The best way I can put it is that all objective statements still have to come to the subject, you need a lens of interpretation to render any object that comes to you coherent, thus it's all dependent on interpretation. But it's not all JUST dependent on interpretation. Interpretation does give a sort of knowledge, and the only kind we have access to, this has to be good enough.
>>7843801
There is not solid archimedean point, no. But there are objects out there, and there are subjects perceiving (and thus interpreting) them.
>>7843810
high quality bait. Scientism is a sham. You need a metaphysics before you can have a physics.
>>7843817
So if I'm understanding you correctly
>there is an objective reality
>but our interpretation of it is only rough at best
Doesn't that contradict Nietzsche though? In this quote he definitely seems to be stating no objective truth actually exists
>>7843847
if no objective truth actually exists, then the statement 'no objective truth actually exists' would itself be an objective claim about what exists and what doesn't, which is silly. I think with Nietzsche there's this sense that true objectivity is impossible to the point of almost non-existence, and because of this we are incapable of forming objective statements about reality - the significance is not found in the question of whether or not objectivity exists, but rather in the interminable futility of our attempts to represent it with an 'objective' statement, resulting only in interpretation.
>>7843775
>You guys don't actually buy into this relativist non sense do you?
Buy into it? No, I agree with what I can perceive myself. And what Nietzsche is saying there is very perceivable, given that you are capable of thinking on the level of an enlightened sage, like Thales or Heraclitus or the Boddhidharma.
>>7843847
there is a reality that is not arbitrarily defined, but any perception of it has to be mediated through the understanding which is an interpretation. There is a reality which is not arbitrary but it can only be described from a point of view.
>>7843926
anon solved it
>>7843817
>you need a lens
correct
>people think nietzschean relativism means u cant know nuffin
Nietzsche wouldn't give two shits about the problem of induction btw interpretations aren't what you use to convince people everyone is equally right, interpretations are what you use to pursue will to power and make yourself stronger
>>7844068
>convince people everyone is equally right
why would you do that?
>>7844068
>btw interpretations aren't what you use to convince people everyone is equally right, interpretations are what you use to pursue will to power and make yourself stronger
This, although the thing is, Nietzsche also did prove everyone right.
>>7844095
>This, although the thing is, Nietzsche also did prove everyone right.
no, he proved everyone wrong. interpretations are errors, as he continually says. the only thing an error is good for is to make you powerful. to say everyone is right in their interpretations is to suggest either: everyone can be compared to some metaphysical beyond (absolute or relative) and can be confirmed, or every interpretation is equally powerful. both are false.
>>7843775
>That's fucking ridiculous and sounds like a potentially dangerous line of thinking
Think about the last person who adamantly told you they had all the facts. Those people are trouble.
This guy on the other hand is harmless:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
>>7843775
Morality is a human concept, animals follows instincts not morality, there is also a bunch of other arguments to be made but whats the point, morality is fucking relative. The reason why its relative is because everything you perceive is subjective, you can never be objective about anything because if you perceive something from your individual perspective, regardless if you attach any meaning or thoughts to it, it already has become subjective therefore objectivity doesnt exist and is just another theoretical concept like perfection. Now as to why there are no facts, well look above, same reason.
Given Nietzsche's intellectual milieu, and other statements he's made (in context of course), I surmise he was not adverse to using a little hyperbole to make a significant point.
tl;Dr: y'all are autistic as hell.
>>7844113
He proved everyone both right and wrong simultaneously. Except, he wasn't a pessimist like Schopenhauer, so he focused on the right. If he had been, amor fati would not have been his love henceforth, and he wouldn't have made such a big deal out of the Dionysian ideal and "Becoming hard!"
>>7844117
>Think about the last person who adamantly told you they had all the facts. Those people are trouble.
Unless they possessed Nietzsche's understanding of the situation. Then there would be nothing wrong with the behavior.
>>7843801
There is no objective truth that is accessible to humans, because as creatures of limited perception and senses, we cannot get our mouths around the whole thing. We can glimpse a truth but it is abstracted through the mere act of observation by a human actor. Human actors all have divergent senses, some see clearer, others hear better, ect. so we all get our own abstraction of truth. This does NOT mean that objective truth does not exist, merely that it does not exist for practical purposes. Objective truth may or may not exist, but Nietzsche's argument is that since we cannot access this truth, it is incredibly stupid to worry about it.
This doesn't actually change much though because Nietzsche argues that both truth and lies have their place. He says it doesn't fucking matter if your perception of the truth is not objectively correct because your perception of the truth is the only one you've got. Nietzsche said yes to his truth, yes to your truth, only when we speak of THE Truth did he say no.
Truth, as we know it, is an ever shifting synthesis of many perspectives, some ancient and some contemporary.
>>7843775
I'm going to go out on a limb here: I believe that what we call "the natural world" is real, but there are some properties that are as of yet unmeasurable or unknowable. That being said, if empirically proven statements can be called facts, then facts exist.
if you think knowledge is objective that just means you don't want to take responsibility for a consequences, for outcomes
weak weak weak
W E A K
E ...... A
A ...... E
K A E W
>>7843787
>the universe is clearly consistent
>objectivity clearly exists
well, you clearly convinced me there
By Nietzsche's Logic, "There are no facts, only interpretations" is only an interpretation, too. If only he had anticipated this, he wouldn't have asserted it in the first place.
If you want witness a good ass-whopping of Nietzsche just read Bernie Williams.
And most important of all, take Nietzsche's writings with a grain of salt; for Christ sake's he wrote in the era of pre-analytic philosophy. All his herps and derps regarding truth and facts especially are vague at best and self-contradictory at worst. There are certainly many insights in reading Nietzsche, but most of it falls outside of the aforementioned derps associated with truth and facts.
>>7846490
Absolutely horrendous post.
>>7846490
>There are no facts, only interpretations
You are quoting a single line, taken out of context. Don't think you can refute Nietzsche with such cheesy logic.
> for Christ sake's he wrote in the era of pre-analytic philosophy
Are you implying that Wittgenstein wasn't heavily influenced by Nietzsche and Kierkegaard?
How old are you to believe that objective, analytical propositions can exist? Or even if they do, that they can have any impact on human lives?
>>7846500
Are you having problems articulating and justifying your emotions towards my post at length? Oh wait, you *can't* justify emotions.
Bait on.
>>7846515
That is a bizarre claim to make. Are you discounting formal languages?
>metaethics 'discussion'
>nothing but Nietzsche
>>7846508
Cheesy logic? It's straightforward logic you ass-wipe. If anything, it is OP who should be blamed for taking it out of context. It's his thread, not mine.
>Are you implying that Wittgenstein wasn't heavily influenced by Nietzsche and Kierkegaard?
What on earth does Wittgenstein have to do with this? By the fact that he wrote in the era of pre-analytic philosophy I meant that his thoughts were limited by the logico-mathematical tools of his day. There is a reason why Nietzsche isn't taken seriously when it comes to truth. Nowadays Nietzsche would be a blogger and wouldn't pass a single peer-reviewed journal of philosophy. That of course doesn't mean that Nietzsche doesn't have his moments. He is certainly insightful in other domains of discourse (politics, ethics).
>>7846490
>If only he had anticipated this, he wouldn't have asserted it in the first place.
What makes you think he didn't? That understanding of phenomena are reducible to interpretations of phenomena doesn't get in the way of there being a hierarchy of better and worse interpretations.
>>7846520
Yes. I meant to say that human languages are inherently relative, though I worded that weirdly.
Nietzsche's thoughts are mostly clear. His inconsistencies come from the fact that he doesn't have a coherent, global theoretical structure (that would be against his method), and as such many contradictory theories sprang from his writings.
Saying it's only gibberish is very bad faith, and pretty much Russell-level retarded.
>>7843775
You haven't read Nietzsche.
You'll most likely never read him.
You most likely haven't read any philosopher in his tradition.
You most likely never will read any.
Why are you posting again?
"Oh my God! I haven't read this philosopher, and I don't understand a quote of his, taken out of context! Quick! Let's make a thread!"
Just fucking kill yourself.
>>7846535
>There is a reason why Nietzsche isn't taken seriously when it comes to truth
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Nietzsche is one of the most influential writers, when it comes to truth, along with Freud and Marx.
>He is certainly insightful in other domains of discourse (politics, ethics).
Are you saying that truth is distinct from politics and ethics? How the fuck do you define truth, what's that thing for you?
>Cheesy logic? It's straightforward logic you ass-wipe. If anything, it is OP who should be blamed for taking it out of context. It's his thread, not mine.
See >>7846538
>>7846538
Nice try, but no.
Asserting that there is a hierarchy of better and worse interpretations implies that it is a fact that there is a hierarchy of better and worse interpretations. But there are no facts according to Nietzsche. Hence it too is an interpretation.
Just drop it. It leads nowhere.
>>7846556
He didn't say it was a fact. Nietzsche doesn't make any absolute claim... Have you ever opened one of his books?
>>7843775
i think forming conclusions about an author without reading him is a much more "dangerous line of thinking"
>>7846551
>I don't think you know what you are talking about. Nietzsche is one of the most influential writers, when it comes to truth, along with Freud and Marx.
>Are you saying that truth is distinct from politics and ethics? How the fuck do you define truth, what's that thing for you?
Jesus Christ I have been baited by a toddler.
Have fun discussing the utterly confused and vague musings of 19th century dialectic.
I'm out.
>>7843775
Why do you take such pride in your lack of culture and education?
You seem to haughtily spout the most retarded garbage about Nietzsche, which only shows you haven't read him, and feel as if your lack of understanding was something valuable, something "good-in-itself".
It's really fucked up.
>>7846571
See ya, phil undergrad
>>7844549
>Nietzsche said yes to his truth, yes to your truth, only when we speak of THE Truth did he say no.
Hmm...
>>7846490
>If only he had anticipated this, he wouldn't have asserted it in the first place.
Being an interpretation doesn't mean one cannot assert it. Nietzsche was well aware of this when he wrote that. You just failed to realize it, probably because you haven't read him enough.
You like many others see the concept of perspectivism and immediately think that we should then silence ourselves as a result. Oh, none of it is the truth, so we can't speak it! We should stop all discourse! —This is wisdom from perspectivism as contrived by the weak willed. What perspectivism meant for Nietzsche, and consequently all other stronger wills, is akin to having the floodgates of our will finally opened—all is an interpretation, including this, therefore there is no God; I am instead God. I am the master of my reality, I experience only myself. Subject and object are codependent, like two polarities on a spectrum rather than opposites.
A hierarchy of interpretation can absolutely be established. Why can't it be? Established by "objective" criteria—well that much would be bogus. But established by my own criteria? I have the power to do this, and I will do this. Nietzsche thought the same, and he did this. The question is, are you up to par on establishing your own criteria, or do you see another individual as being a more formidable person for this task? Are you honest enough to give an answer?
>"There is no truth, and that's the truth kiddo."
We're not all Phil 101 here btw
>>7846490
you must have some sort of deficiency.
>>7843787
Man, how did Hume get meme'd this hard?
>>7843787
philistine detected.
>>7843775
Relativism is the intellectual equivalent of giving up. Of course, there are objective truths. Philosophy, and particularly ethics, have existed primarily to uncover those truths. After hundreds of years of different answers, it becomes easy for someone like Nietzsche to claim that relativism makes most sense. In Beyond Good and Evil, he talks about how things go beyond simply "Right and Wrong," because the idea of "Right and Wrong" imply some kind of universal principle. To me, I think he is putting a little too much trust in Humanity. I side with Aquinas, who seems to understand that there are Universal Truths. However, at the end of the day, he doesn't seem to think humans can ever know them.
>>7843775
If somebody responded to nietzche quote in op's picture with "Is that a fact" what would Nietzche say?
>>7847527
lmao, it is the opposite of giving up. 'giving up' is accepting generations of bullshit as truth simply because it has momentum behind it.
Relativism as Nietzsche understood it meant critically analyzing literally everything around you, to truly be a relativist is an intellectually exhausting way of life. There is a reason that Nietzsche's bastard children, the postmoderns, do this shit ad infinitum. To be a relativist means that absolutely nothing is taken for granted.
And again Nietzsche is not an opponent of objective truth, only that humans can know it because we corrupt all information we receive with our perception of it. It could exist to him or it could not, but he argues it's a moot point since again, even if it did humans could not examine it objectively.
>>7844144
>Imlying morality isn't based on instinct.
>>7847051
The BTFO copypasta
>>7848616
It's not really. Even if it were based on instinct, it would be based, indirectly yet critically, on evolutionary biology.
>>7846907
>that fucking tattoo
holy shit
I don't think Nietzsche was any kind of relativist by contemporary philosophical standards. If you want to understand him read the Classics. His writings are not philosophy but poetry for those few people strong enough to begin again; to suffer through everything in the world, and the odds that they face. This idea is found in the Birth of Tragedy, the Untimely Meditations, and all the way to the end... Nietzsche wasn't writing for literatee and the average joe in the 19th century or future centuries. He wrote his essays and aphorisms because he had to; and his opinions about his works of art were aristocratic and not democratic-relativistic in the slightest. Nietzsche thought of himself as freely giving away his creations, deeming them perfect since they came into being as such and not otherwise.Nietzsche didn't think he had any peers. So much for relativism.
How do you guys define "fact" anyways? I wrote this a couple months ago:
definitional or empirical statement that are made on the basis' of experiences and knowledge of things, their properties and attributes that are potentially verifiable by common sense, experimental proof, or trusted authority.
Or this: a fact is something done or represented for certain and so able to be verified or judged true.
>>7848755
He considered himself a perspectivist and not a relativist. A perspectivist is a relativist who does not hold that all views are equal, and that some are of greater value.
The scale by which value is assigned is also arbitrary and set by the individual, but gives him grounds to say everyone else is a pleb and he is on par with Plato and Jesus.
fact (n.) 1530s, "action, anything done," especially "evil deed," from Latin factum "an event, occurrence, deed, achievement," in Medieval Latin also "state, condition, circumstance," literally "thing done" (source also of Old French fait, Spanish hecho, Italian fatto), noun use of neuter of factus, past participle of facere "to do" (see factitious). Main modern sense of "thing known to be true" is from 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred."
Compare feat, which is an earlier adoption of the same word via French. Facts "real state of things (as distinguished from a statement of belief)" is from 1630s. In fact "in reality" is from 1707. Facts of life "harsh realities" is from 1854; euphemistic sense of "human sexual functions" first recorded 1913. Alliterative pairing of facts and figures is from 1727.
Facts and Figures are the most stubborn Evidences; they neither yield to the most persuasive Eloquence, nor bend to the most imperious Authority. [Abel Boyer, "The Political State of Great Britain," 1727]
>>7848831
>ranking of values
>set by individual
>arbitrary (rules to set)
>grounds (for conduct, claims)
This is not what Nietzsche thought. There's no choice in the matter. What's good is what's necessary and from my perspective in time the necessary things may seem bad. For most people perspectivism is unhealthy or it's an excuse for resignation from the world. What's important is participation besides what you think about it. The question is, can you live through it?whatever your answer or perspective may be.
>>7848831
>arbitrary values
>not relativism
>>7843775
>a potentially dangerous line of thinking
Every line of thinking is potentially dangerous. This is a retarded meme-phrase that doesn't mean anything.
>>7848562
"Only an interpretation."
Fucking duh
>>7848633
Evolutionary biology engenders the instinct numb nut
>>7843775
Reality exists because consciousness perceives it.
If there is no consciousness, then there is no meaning, even the thought "fact" becomes inconsequential and irrelevant.
The consciousness is a tool that interprets, there are no universal facts, because the idea of a fact only exists when there is consciousness to interpret.
In this way there are no facts, only interpretations.
>>7843775
>I'm still on the fence as far as absolute vs relative morality
How so?
>>7850428
This. Remove the subjective human element and what's so moral about space rocks bumping into each other?
>>7846490
This is genius. i applaud you.
