Is Nietzsche the only thinker who offers a secular morality with the same depth, symbolism, aesthetics and grandeur as Christian morality?
He's probably talking about a few of them: ASZ is especially notable for its aesthetics and symbolism, but Beyond Good and Evil is still heavy in allegory; Twilight of the Idols, The Antichirst and most his work is secularism against various gods, which are also referenced in ASZ.
Go ask someone to specify which GRRM they're referencing while you're hall monitor.
In the West? Lucretius has beautiful phrasing which simultaneously recognises gods as aesthetic symbolic language of great value and dismisses their relevance as gods.
Thus Spake Zarathustra
Anyway, I think of Nietzsche as more of a door opener than real theorist of morals. His true value lies in ripping open the flaws of Christian and especially Kantian ethics and leading ways to which morals can evolve on their own.
His influence really is underrated. The wake he left in 20th century ethics is profound, only surpassed perhaps by Hegel.
To be fair Kantian ethics are secular. He proposes God as being perfectly divinely moral, as well as have perfect infinite reason ala Aquinas, but this is only an afterthought and not a part of his argument.
... i th-thought we w-were all qt grills today, anon-sama. my bad.
w-we could d-dogcouple if you're into cynicism?
>What does this even mean? That because Kant is difficult to study its not worth listening to? Grounding is powerful and deeply moving, albeit not poetic.
uh, because he called marriage "a contract for mutual use of the sexual organs". that's dry as hell in two ways i can think of.
platonism for "people" [sic] can never be secular, because it's connected with parmenides' eternal and unchanging being aka The One[tm]
i meant that it wasnt a secular concept to begin with. plato and aristotle need a self-subsisting eternal order for their forms or essences. parmenides' being is the only static meta-basis where their stuff can be "pinned". this thing later reappeared as "god" in christianity, making the god of old testament look like a lower level admin.
He identified two types of morality (master and slave), proclaimed slave morality to have permeated society, and regretted that. The implication is doubtless that he espoused master morality
I think ALOT of what Nietzsche said is accurate, especially on thoughts relation to form.
And Christian morality is pretty interesting, but i feel as if Nietzsche' strong personality got in the way of his writing.
Lots of what he said is implied negatively in terms of the other party, despite its accuracy.
fuck off fag. Philosophy is literature m8
Rlly what im trying to say is that I don't think it was without objective, and objective is ok if it relates to your period or an unfolding event, Christianity was already extremely well established, which causes him to take on an extremely angsty tone
He started with the greeks
Christian Morality is on par with Christianity.
Its all one big circle jerk, I wished he got to the real issues and stopped being so concerned with other people, he failed to question himself and instead questioned everybody else.
His insecurity is at the forefront of his writings lol
I have studied Nietzsche extensively and if you drop the philosophy and look at it as a timeline, It essentially a man losing himself to his insecurities, and unfortunately it lead to his death.
like the Übermensch concept. He enjoyed his suffering but chased it a little too far when he realized it was effecting him more deeply than he had intended.
I'll end the thread by saying - If you stop looking at Nietzsche as being objectively good; You might understand him a little better and realize that his life was horrible and his writings are merely a reflection of his existence, while they are structurally good, they are pretty negative, more so than realistic.
Obviously because I'm not leo strauss and i'm not giving a seminar but I did study Old mate Fred for 12 months and Why learn how to ride a bike if u aint got one? Just wish ppl were more sympathetic and unbiased towared le tash rather than flattering him with some sort of eternal grungy glory.
He was literally physically ill.
Stop posting retarded shit like "hurr he realizd shoppy wuz roite" or I'm going to put my thumb through your amygdala and shitpost made-up psychology about you on the internet when you're a vegetable
I didn't deny that did I? and If i did i think it was in the context of writing about life objectively... If you don't you cease to be a philosopher and are essentially writing edgy memoirs
Master morality isn't exactly a model of morality like OP suggests though. Having a master morality is basically having any values as long as they are your creation/decision: you can't really talk about the "depth, symbolism, aesthetics and grandeur" of all master moralities alltogether.
oh, I did not know that you were still at the stage of faith in objectivity, truth and rationality.
>writing about life objectively
somebody hasnt read beyond good and evil chapter 1
or maybe somebody hasnt read nietzsche at all
a philosophy of the future isnt supposed to be objective
>everything except deontological ethics is nonsense
>2015 there are still people on /lit/ who believe this
>Nietzsche tells people to stop assigning blame, yet he constantly assigns blame
>Nietzsche thinks people "should" not do anything, yet he keeps telling them what they should do.
Nietzsche has some interesting ideas, but don't try to act like his philosophy even approaches coherence.