Creating meaning: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Creating meaning » Creating meaning

Creating meaning
How does Nietzsche expect us to create meaning?

Creating meaning

n0thing
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/17/08 - 05:34 PM: Subject: Creating meaning	#1
Hello, I like philosophy, so I googled "philosophy forum" and found this place. Hopefully this place will allow me to learn. My question is, how does Nietzsche expect us to create value? I seem to side with Sartre's position that we have personal interests, so we therefore give things value. It seems Nietzsche wanted an entire form of value, meaning it would apply to everyone. I just don't see how meaning can be created from nothing. I have yet to read anything by Sartre, so if I'm getting something wrong from his ideals which I've read up on from the internet, please let me know. Thanks.

Professor Riffs
Great Big Huge Jerk-Face

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/17/08 - 05:50 PM:	#2
I really don't think Nietzsche cared about/wanted anything that he said or thought to apply to everyone. He created his own values with meanings which were pertinent to him and him alone, and I feel that he more or less felt that this is all man can and should do. Sartre is a hard guy to understand just by reading a few snippets online. I would suggest diving into each thinker and reading up on them heavily if you want to compare the two, etc. But as for the two you mentioned, so far ya got some good taste!
_____________________ My sorrows number close to a hundred score, but among them a lady is not counted.

n0thing
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/18/08 - 01:24 PM:	#3
Thanks. I've read the Anti-Christ, and I'm reading The Will to Power right now. I plan on reading Being and Nothingness next.

Maldom
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/23/08 - 07:36 PM:	#4
I would personally suggest if you're wanting to learn Nietzsche, to avoid The Will to Power till you have a firm grasp of him. The Will to Power is a note book that has been corrupted by his sister among others. Twilight of the Idols and The Gay Science are my personal favorites, I would suggest reading them in that order. Twilight of the Idols will give you a great understanding of his philosophy in general.

amohmand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/27/08 - 07:11 AM:	#5
Let me take a crack at this! When Nietzsche talks about creating values, he is not suggesting that everyone go out and create values, that it is a free for all. I think he would say instead that values are created by the strongest among us. Think of it this way. In a certain genre of music for example, a musician comes along once in a blue moon who does things in a new way, who radicalizes the genre. Take Louis Armstrong. Before him, nobody thought you could get sounds like that from a trumpet. A trumpet was no more than a marching band instrument really. He revolutionized the sound of a trumpet through sheer creativity, sheer playfulness, through that mysterious thing called genius. In that way he created new values and a whole new genre of music called Jazz. Does that help? It's a mistake to think that Nietzsche thought everyone could just go out and create values for themselves. This is why the subtitle of Zarathustra is "A book for all and none." All because anyone can read it and possibly understand its meaning and none because so few will be able to live by its standards.

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/28/08 - 10:38 AM:	#6
Amohmand did a fine job when he explained; Nietzsche did not intend for his philosophy to apply to everyone (in the sense that those in a position to embrace the "Will to Power" and become the epitome of human acheivement, i.e. the "Superman," were very few and far between.) This is fairly evident from the written works themselves- they are not written to be easily understood. Rather than stating premises, evidence, etc., then stating a conclusion, Nietzsche often holds back on his conclusions. He was in large part concerned with persuasion rather than simply empirical evidence which speaks for himself (fitting, seeing as he disagreed with the Aristotelian idea that humans are rational animals, rather than emotional ones.) All of this ties into his notions of the "master" and "slave" moralities, stemming from the Transvaluation of Values which has taken place since long before the beginning of the common era. In a sense, then, you could say that Nietzsche believed that values have already been created, though our sense of "morality" (which he thought was, for lack of a better term, bullshit) fluctuates temporally. This is evident from his writings on what was known as "good" (masters) and "bad" (slaves), a simple class distinction in ancient Athens and before, and today's "good" (moral) and "evil" (immoral), or simply a moral distinction. Those who create these values, though, are those who are at the peak of intellectual and creative development- those who should be allowed to express themselves fully, whatever that means for the common folk. We see this as immoral (the lay men being used for the benefit of those eminent few,) but from Nietzsche's perspective, there is no "morality," so who cares? Nietzsche's philosophy could be easily contrasted to social darwinism, and (I have heard, though have not read this specifically) that Hitler had Nazi researchers pull segments of Nietzsche's philosophy to support and inspire the antisemitic, greater-race ideals he pushed. To me, this makes perfect sense, though they must have omitted parts of Nietzsche's writing which do not explicitly condone genocide... I hope that this helps you in whatever way possible.

modularsky
Dilettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 59

Posted 04/29/08 - 03:55 PM:	#7
I'm going to have to dissent from Amohmand and Dr. Black on this one-- Though my knowledge of Nietzsche is not yet at the level I want it to be (a problem which I am mending at this very moment), I think Nietzsche would disagree with the sort of 'moral free-for-all' that the way you have characterized his philosophy implies. I recommend all those interested to get an idea of Nietzsche's moral critique by reading "Genealogy of Morals", followed by Zarathustra. It also helps to have an idea of the indirect critique he is making of Hegel and his followers (including Marx and Kierkegaard). That all said however Nietzsche ascribes our current moral values as derivative of Hebrew morals (this is where many people mistake Nietzsche's philosophy as anti-semitic). In essence, he philologically investigates the origins and uses of the words for 'good', 'bad', and 'evil' in different historical epochs, and discovers that the ancient greeks and romans did not have a word for 'evil'--and even more than that, their words for 'good' were derived from POSITIVE ideals--that is, Strength. For example, Bonus (latin for 'good') is derived from 'bellum' (war) and is related to a lot of other words that involve combat. The same is the case with "ethlios" (I may not be spelling that correctly) - the greek equivalent. Romans and Greeks saw "bad" not as "evil" but as simply weak. So the Hebrews created a concept of Evil, specifically to suppress the aristocracy who saw them as weak. Hence our current moral system is not a 'self-affirming' one like that of the Romans but is a 'self-negating' one in the sense that virtues like "humility" are derived from "NOT proud", or patience from the latin 'to suffer'. So you have this massive split between these two moral systems. BUT we as readers still believe these morals to be _good_! Nietzsche is not saying that either of these systems are necessarily better or worse than the other; indeed Zarathustra's Eagle symbolizes the Greco-Roman aristocracy and the snake represents the Hebrew moral system -- a system borne out of their cunning and wisdom - the knowledge of when and how to strike and exact REVENGE. So what Nietzsche's philosophy comes down to is whether or not we can put ourselves PAST this seemingly irreconcilable divide. The 'overman' is someone who can do this; it does not mean discarding either system, it means not seeing them as irreconcilable (which is what the current man does see them as)--this is the most socially darwinian aspect of Nietzsche that I can see; he is implying that man must evolve beyond his current grasp of morals to encompass both systems.
_____________________ "Es ist der geist, der sich den Körper baut!" -Schiller

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/30/08 - 12:54 AM:	#8
You are correct, modularsky, in saying that Nietzsche saw the ultimate human being as one who takes the healthy aspects of both Old and New morality (if you can call it that,) and he would certainly agree that the freedom and justice which is inherent within the two systems (though obviously differed and, in one, perpetuating injustice) is a sentiment of value which must be recognized and embraced. However (and this is certainly a personal interpretation,) I feel that Nietzsche was not the do-gooder that some make him out to be; there are obviously both 'harsh' and 'gentle' interpretations of Nietzsche, and I tend to settle upon the harsh- I find his self-affirming mentality to be immoral, yet I do agree with his discernment regarding the rise of organized religion and the idea of an immoral "soul." Perhaps, though, I see Nietzsche more skeptically than others (doubtful,) yet I cannot seem to get myself on board with a philosophy which rejects all morality and affirms that which tends to emotions which are seemingly unweildy and cumbrous- emotions are simply too inconsistent.

modularsky
Dilettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 59

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/30/08 - 01:55 PM:	#9
I think you are not looking past Nietzsche's philosophy towards what he really wants us to do. Yes, emotions are unstable, but isn't morality? If there is one thing you should take away from Nietzsche it is that the Judeo-Christian morals that we celebrate today were INVENTED. Yes, they are great and we are all beholden to them; but they were INVENTED, for a PURPOSE. Now, that does not damn them, nor does it mean they are not useful; but that is just the point: a truly strong individual can derive his morals from the fabric of life that surrounds him; it is not confined to a pre-existing set in order to understand what to do in situations. Because that is the point of Nietzsche really, isn't it? We cannot be the Archaic Nobleman because 1) it is impossible and 2) they do not think. But similarly we find the cunning 'Jew' to be repulsive because they craft their morals out of hatred and a desire for revenge. So what alternatives are there? Well, if I am an overman, then I do not reference some 'other' in order to derive my morals; I look to myself.
_____________________ "Es ist der geist, der sich den Körper baut!" -Schiller

Dr.Black
Not a doctor.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2008
Location: Michigan
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/01/08 - 11:14 AM:	#10
Yes, and I referenced these exact notions by saying that "I do agree with his discernment regarding the rise of organized religion and the idea of an immoral 'soul.'" I can understand completely where the historical value in Nietzsche's ethics lies, but nevertheless, his ultimate goal of the moral "overman" is that which seems to use those in a lesser position than him to acheive his ultimate goals. Nietzsche explicitly states that those who can intertwine the Old and New morality and utilize them in a way which allows the individual to freely attain the means for expression are very few and far between, being that those exceptionally creative individuals are few and far between themselves. Also, you're right; Nietzsche is saying that the salve morality is self-deprivating and fueled by hatred for the masters. But how can he possibly claim to know this? Then again, I will not get into the psychological conjecture. As I said, I agree with his historical exposition on the rise of modern religion and the Judeo-Christian definition of "morality," but, as you said, I find morality to be beneficial, and not simply due to the idea of an everlasting "soul." If the individual finds a sense of morality within himself and from an analyzation of the events which surround him, wonderful, yet I do not believe that this is what Nietzsche explicitly supported. He puts incessant emphasis upon the idea that the very FEW (the masters) should possess the ability to shirk the common courtesy we believe that humans should show each other, and especially so toward the MANY (those of the slave morality) who do not contribute to the ultimate exaltation of mankind. Of course there is a difference between "common courtesy" and "morality," and it may very well be true that Nietzsche's idea of morality is dramatically different from that which many of the Judeo-Christian persuasion possess, but, as I've said, I tend to agree with the more harsh interpretation of Nietzsche- I honestly do believe that he would prefer the possibly immoral acts which lead to human innovation. If you disagree and can cite certain passages which refute this, then please post them, for I am not claiming to have intimate knowledge of Nietzsche (as I have not read everything that he has written,) but this is my basic understanding and from it, I know that the interpretations differ. I would very much appreciate any passage which may contradict this, for I wish to have the most precise view of Nietzsche that I can attain. Edited by jdrw on 05/01/08 - 12:49 PM. Reason: paragraph spacing for readability

modularsky
Dilettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 59

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:39 AM:	#11
I would point you to the first part of "Thus Spake Zarathustra", the section entitled "On the Gift-Giving Virtue" ...Golden splendor makes peace between moon and sun. Uncommon is the highest virtue and useless; it is gleaming and gentle in its splendor: a gift-giving virtue is the highest virtue. Verily, I have found you out, my disciples: you strive, as I do, for the gift-giving virtue. What would you have in common with cats and wolves? This is your thirst: to become sacrifices and gifts yourselves; and that is why you thirst to pile up all the riches in your soul...Verily, such a gift-giving love must approach all values as a robber; but whole and holy I call this selfishness. The passage continues. In any case one reason Nietzsche is so prone to re-interpretation (and hence misinterpretation) is that in Zarathustra he writes almost entirely in parables: it is inherently difficult to glean a philosophy from something so vague. But I think that is the point that Nietzsche was trying to make: it is easy to see his proofs of why common morality are useless and degenerate but I do not think that his mission was destructive. Now when you say he would prefer the "possibly immoral acts which lead to human innovation", what do you mean? Nietzsche is not a black-and-white philosopher, and as such it's silly to say that he is a utilitarian. He is not. What he is trying to show the reader is that if they have the strength and will they can lead humanity in whichever direction they like; and though I think Nietzsche thanks science for finally killing god, he is full well conscious that science has elevated 'Truth' to the position of God. I'm not going to offer you a conclusion but maybe that quote and these thoughts will help you in some way.
_____________________ "Es ist der geist, der sich den Körper baut!" -Schiller

amohmand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:37 AM:	#12
Interesting discussion but I think you're both overlooking something. Nietzsche was not an ethicist. So, an ethical interpretation of his philosophy is bound to be tenuous at best. There is no answer in his books to the question, "What is the good life?" Nietzsche is an experimental philosopher, a sage, a seer, a renaissance man. His critique of morality is largely motivated by his search for the meaning of truth. He wanted to make an advance in the human search for truth. That is what philosophers do. But he knew from an early age that religion was a false answer to the search for truth. He knew that modern consciousness had already rejected God as a answer to the quest for meaning and he was concerned to hasten that understanding, to help kill what was already in the process of dieing. This is his heroic weltanschauung (worldview) at work. But it is a mistake to believe that he offered us another way of life in place of that which he helped to destroy. For this reason, there is implicit in Dr. Black's interpretation of Nietzsche a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding stems from thinking that N offers us a prescription for what to do next, for how to go about rebuilding or creating a new morality. (For example when Dr. Black writes "Those who should be allowed to express themselves fully...".) N was not concerned with what people ought to do but only with what is the truth of the matter for him, for his own self-inquiry. In a sense, every answer he gave was an answer fit for the kind of organism that he was, they were answers suited to making him feel empowered, making his contribution, his way of being important and significant. But, they are not your answers or answers that any group can adopt and espouse like in a church or a school of philosophy. To try to squeeze an ethos for life out of N is to approach his philosophy in a vein that is antithetical to the way in which it is delivered. N always said, "This is my way, where is yours?" Modularsky--I find your ideas about Zarathustra's animals and the symbolism behind them intriguing. I think you are right to point out that N admires the Jewish morality for its inventiveness but wrong to suggest that he does not prefer one to the other. It seems obvious to me that he idolized the ancient Greeks for their more heroic outlook on life. I find even less convincing your idea that the superman embraces both ideas and seeks to combine them into one ultra morality. Is there any textual evidence for this? Nevertheless, I think you are right to imply that N wants to overcome the intellectual divide between certain mental concepts, like love and hate, which he would say are rooted in the same psychic drive or complex of drives. It is much more accurate to say that Nietzsche is a psychologist than an ethicist. He was rather cold and objective and not entirely concerned with humanity as a whole. He was far too individualistic for that.

modularsky
Dilettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 59

Posted 05/11/08 - 09:07 AM:	#13
amohmand: For a while I debated even responding to your post, because I think it misreads Nietzsche in so many ways. Firstly, read the Genealogy of Morals. That you have not is obvious when you write things like his thought was "largely motivated by his search for the meaning of truth"; I will attempt to tell you way. First of all, Nietzsche saw "Truth" as simply the essence behind the facade of "God". Can't you see the logical necessity for this in Nietzsche's philosophy? He is trying to kill all of the twilight idols, and return man to his proper role as ruler of his own reality and ruler of his own conscience. The idea that he is still another "truth-seeker" (he uses that term derisively throughout his philosophical writings) is preposterous. If Nietzsche were still looking for 'the truth about truth' he would be nothing more than a sophisticated version of the groveling priests who bow down before the janus-head of religious meaning--for is not 'truth', especially now, our own sort of God? Now, I think you do a great deal of violence to deny that his investigation was a moral investigation without qualifying yourself. I will grant you that he is not an ethicist; but he was no 'renaissance man' (which implies, contrary to your last sentence, that he was a humanist). Nietzsche was, I agree, alternately: a psychologist, a historian, and an artist. But most important, more than any of these terms, he was a physiologist. Nietzsche was more concerned with the _health_ of the human will rather than whether or not it existed or what the 'truth' concerning it was, and in that sense he was an ethicist: he was trying to find out how to restore man's WILL to health. Additionally, I think you continue to misunderstand Nietzsche by saying he envied the ancient Greeks and Romans. His philosophical account of them is purely meant to expose how different and 'self-affirming' their morality is. Nietzsche only admired them insofar as they were more healthy than those who were caught up within the judeo-christian morals of modernity. Why do you think that Zarathustra's animals are a snake and an eagle? Who do you think they symbolize? Why is it so important that (I believe this is in 'the convalescent') we BITE OFF the head of the snake (implying that we swallow it) before we can spit it out?
_____________________ "Es ist der geist, der sich den Körper baut!" -Schiller

amohmand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/11/08 - 11:41 AM:	#14
Modularsky, I have read the Genealogy of Morals and I understand your concern about my statement that Nietzsche was "largely motivated by his search for the meaning of truth." It may not be a popular notion and I know that the Nietzsche of the third period (there being only three in his philosophical career as noted by several authorities) deconstructed the idea/concept of truth in many ways, especially in the complex third essay of the Genealogy. I've read it and know it. Nevertheless, I contend that these very investigations into the meaning of truth and their conclusions were all motivated by a desire to know the truth. To deny that that is what motivates all philosophy is to misunderstand philosophy itself. If it's motivated by something else, it can probably be called by another name, maybe history, sociology, psychology, etc. But if it's known by the name "philosophy" then it is my contention that truth has something to do with it, even if ultimately the belief or faith or hope in the foundation for that truth is unfounded or deconstructed. You say that Nietzsche uses the term "truth-seeker" "derisively throughout his philosophical writings." I would have to ask you to read anything he wrote in his first and second periods to divest you of that illusion. From a very early age, Nietzsche was very much concerned with the truth about existence, human existence. In his second period he took truth, especially scientific truths, very seriously. It was not until after he had written Zarathustra that he came to see his ideas about truth as naive and simplistic. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that Nietzsche remains essentially a truth seeker, a philosopher. He flirts with the notion of being an "artist" (of life, I would add), a term he uses often as a substitute for "free spirit" or "philosopher" during his third period. I agree that in the third period, his search for truth becomes more a method than an object. Truth is an animating force in his philosophy, it becomes in part the genealogical method itself. As a small proof of this theory, just look at how he rages against the "mendaciousness" of everything modern, in The Antichrist, for example. "Mendaciousness," an interesting choice of words for someone who is, as you say, dismissive of the whole clap trap that is "the search for truth." As for your contention that I do violence to Nietzsche by denying that his investigations were moral investigations, I say maybe. I think you do as much violence to Nietzsche if you call him a "moral philosopher," as you seem to want to. This is the man that wrote: "Morality is a stupidity like the bite of a dog into a stone." This is the man who spent most of his adult life and virtually all of his mental reserves on deconstructing and destroying the Judeo/Christian moral tradition. He did not do this to replace it with some other grand theory. That would, as you say, put him on a par with "the groveling priests." So, there is certainly that contradiction in your ideas about Nietzsche. On the one hand, you say he is not a truth seeker and on the other hand he is a moralist. Truth seeking and moralism are two things that, as Nietzsche's philosophy shows, go hand in hand. Lastly, Nietzsche did admire the ancient Greeks and Romans a great deal for their "courageous pessimism," as he called it, in the face of life, which they saw accurately (Nietzsche would say) as governed by forces beyond their control and without any real logic to it (as is so aptly illustrated by the life of their pantheon of erratic gods). This admiration persisted in his writings throughout his life. It came from his training as a classicist, a person who is steeped in ancient Greek and Roman culture. To deny this is just ignorance. You have only to read any biography of the man to see that you're wrong. It was not "purely" as a point of comparison with the Judeo-Christian crowd that he was concerned with ancient Greece and Rome. I welcome any further thoughts you might have on this and I respect your right to defend your positions as you should mine. This is nothing personal. You have NOT satisfied me with an answer to the question of how you think Nietzsche seeks to unify or overcome the morals of the Greeks on the one hand and the Judeo-Christian crowd on the other in a Hegelian synthesis of sorts. Your only reference to this question in your last post is the following: "Why is it so important that (I believe this is in 'the convalescent') we BITE OFF the head of the snake (implying that we swallow it) before we can spit it out?" I don't get it? This is far too cryptic to be an explanation or a defense of your earlier position. peace (or as Nietzsche would say: WAR!)

amohmand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/12/08 - 07:28 AM:	#15
By the way, how do you swallow and spit? Unless you can regurgitate, that's an impossibility. Zarathustra does not swallow!

modularsky
Dilettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 59

Posted 05/12/08 - 09:00 PM:	#16
thank you for the well-thought out reply. I think that as with most posts on this forum, there is very little substantive disagreement between us; however the internet, with all its good aspects, nevertheless encourages people to type out their thoughts and send them to the rest of the world with little reflection as to whether their intentions are accurately reflected on the words they create. Concerning my reply, after reading your clarifications, I think that I have little to say in disagreement, and any previous disagreements were given rise to more out of an inability to understand your previous post (call it incoherence of writing on your part or incoherence of mind on mine, I think it does not matter). In any case, I do not think that any of my posts suggest that I think Nietzsche is a moralist or that I believe him to be so. I think that his singular focus in his philosophical investigations, if any, was centered around morals. I do not think that this opinion constitutes an argument for seeing Nietzsche as a "Moralist" (a term that is far too loaded for any discussion of Nietzsche, much less philosophy as a whole; in much the same vein as utilitarian, realist, humanist, etc.) If you divide Nietzsche's thought into three stages (as you do so astutely) I think it is easy to pick apart my arguments and make them seem false. My statements mentioning Nietzsche's career did not help me on this count. But like other philosophers whose philosophical legacies can be divided into 'stages' (Wittgenstein comes to mind), there is something to be said for the idea that their entire careers are indeed concerned with a certain phenomenon or set of concepts. In Wittgenstein's case, this would be language. That the second stage of his philosophy rejects the earlier period's works and seeks to disprove their conclusions does not change the focus of his philosophy. With Nietzsche, I affirm that he was a moral philosopher, but not that he was a moralist. Now, as to whether you think he holds the Greeks in high accord, I agree wholeheartedly. However Nietzsche himself knew he was a thinker, and could not disavow the idea that the life of contemplation and thought was a good life. So, to say that he admired Greek morality in a way is question-begging, because Nietzsche does not 'admire' _any_ philosophy--your post seems to hint at this. Recall: the second metamorphosis is the lion who says 'no' to the dragon who says 'thou shalt'--but the third and final metamorphosis of man is to the child--who says yes; who is ignorant and forgetful--willfully so--of the older moralities. I think that this coincides perfectly with the account of the convalescent-- you cannot pull the snake out of your mouth because the very act of pulling it out constitutes an act of saying 'no'--which is the very action that a reactive morality is based upon. Anyway thank you for the thoughtful reply; I may try to respond later as to why I think it is better to consider Nietzsche a physiologist than a philosopher but it will have to wait since this is finals week.
_____________________ "Es ist der geist, der sich den Körper baut!" -Schiller

keith24
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 18, 2007
Location: Knoxville, TN
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 31

Posted 05/15/08 - 02:07 PM:	#17
n0thing wrote: Hello, I like philosophy, so I googled "philosophy forum" and found this place. Hopefully this place will allow me to learn. My question is, how does Nietzsche expect us to create value? I seem to side with Sartre's position that we have personal interests, so we therefore give things value. It seems Nietzsche wanted an entire form of value, meaning it would apply to everyone. I just don't see how meaning can be created from nothing. I have yet to read anything by Sartre, so if I'm getting something wrong from his ideals which I've read up on from the internet, please let me know. Thanks. For Sartre, a more manageable first reading might be "The Transcendence of The Ego". It's considerably smaller than "Being and Nothingness". A good basic reference to get one's bearings on the Philosophers is the stanford online encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/ You can also google "squashed philosophers' as well. Although I'm not sure if there is any Sartre there. Here's a link to a paper I have been working on which deals with the notion of created value (in addition to exploring what type of ethics might arise therefrom, if you're interested. http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic....
_____________________ "There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena--" Freidrich Nietzsche

amohmand
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/26/08 - 08:06 AM:	#18
join this discussion: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/platos...

bittersteel
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 14

Posted 06/02/08 - 11:31 AM:	#19
Im not sure I exactly understand your context of "value"...but from what I gather you seem to be referring to "goodness" and a ranking of 'things' in order of their relative goodness for a person, a community or a nation...this quote should clear things up a bit "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.