[Prepping this post with a stupidity disclaimer]

[Prepping this post with a stupidity disclaimer]

It seems to me, admittedly a novice of philosophy, that the nietzschean and the christian meet at the same crossroad.

Both agree that can be no synthetic judgements a priori which are reasoned by us alone. This is the point at which they diverge.

The nietzschean, at this point, decides that the Will to Power is (or, at least, should be) the guiding principle.

The christian, on the other hand, follows the word of God, or tradition, or Tao, or whatever you wish to call it.

Both seem to arrive at this position knowing that the human mind cannot discover an objective system of morality on its own. One chooses to construct his own, the other chooses to follow that which tradition/God has produced

My question is this: Having arrived at that initial crossroad, how did you personally decide which route to take?

Why was he so a e s t h e t i c

Did you learn philosophy through youtube?

oh do fuck off you pseud

>that the human mind cannot discover an objective system of morality on its own.
A Catholic would never subscribe to such a notion. We can know God and be certain of the Good because we reject ateleological descriptions of reality.

*In favour of Roman slavery

-t. Baptist.

Not only that but Nietzche would say the concept of an objective system of morals is absurd.

The poster essentially failed to grasp the basic tenants of 2 different systems of thoughts and makes this grandeous statement and question.

>this is how autodidacts think about philosophy

>The nietzschean, at this point, decides that the Will to Power is (or, at least, should be) the guiding principle.

The notion of Will to Power is Nietzsche's way to moralize (he was pretty explicit about it). At every point of his path he always points how arbitrary it is, and then explains why of all arbitrary choices he chose this one.

>Both seem to arrive at this position knowing that the human mind cannot discover an objective system of morality on its own.
What you are describing is an inherently modern sentiment for Christians. Technically, having these doubts is a lack of Faith. Christianity is not a quickfix that you use to escape meaninglessness, that would be an extremely degenerated version of the actual Christian doctrines.
Basically, you have described poorly both paths.

Choose? You don't get to choose. Either you innately prefer order and follow the systems already in place, or you innately find chaos more appealing and fall for it, creating your own rules.

I've gotten a lot of shit considering I prefaced this whole post with a disclaimer. Having said that, I think I've been HEAVILY misread by almost everyone

Perhaps I have phrased myself poorly:

I would emphasise that I said "on its own" here.

The Christian (whatever denomination) believes in an objective system of morality which has been passed down by God, yes? And it cannot discover it on its OWN? This is what I meant by:

>the human mind cannot discover an objective system of morality on its own

The nietschian taking this one step further says that man cannot disover an objective system of morality AT ALL and must construct his own

These seem pretty uncontentious points, and they are all I meant (I thought this pretty clear) -
but please let me know if I am wrong

Nowhere did I say that Nietzche believed in an objective morality. That was the intended point of the whole post - that he constructs his own knowing very well that he cannot possibly discover one from a priori reasoning as other philosophers have attempted to. He explains this clearly in the first chapter of BG&E

Again, I'm not sure where I said otherwise.

>The nietzschean, at this point, decides that the Will to Power is (or, at least, should be) the guiding principle

What did you take it that I meant by "guiding principle" other than a system of constructing arbitray morality? I fail to see what else it could mean. Please, do tell me where I got it wrong

>What you are describing is an inherently modern sentiment for Christians

You have gotten me back to front. I am saying that the Christian rejects that the human mind can find truth INDEPENDENT of God. Again, an uncontentious point.


Apparently the only poster who has taken my post for what it is without trying to tear out my throat for arguments I have not, in actuality, made. Thank you

That's not a crossroads, it's a false equivalence that could be used to compare almost any philosopher with any theist with equal inaccuracy.

How on earth is that true?

Let's break this down with actual material instead of listening to posturing from Veeky Forums pricks who willfully misread posts:

On recognising untruth as the general condition and of systems of morality as arbitrary

"To recognise untruth as a condition of life; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil"

"[Philosophers] all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, DIVINELY INDIFFERENT dialectic" (emphasis mine)

"Kant...entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead (more correctly mislead) to his "categorical imperative""

Divinely indifferent dialectic - an objective system of morality, producing the categorical imperative, which is given the pretence of being FIXED. This is a substitute for God. This is the point at which I'm saying the nietzchian and the christian meet. There is no OBJECTIVE substitute for God. There is an objective truth in God, or there there is no objective truth.

I bring up these two positions and put them side by side because they are the only two that seem feasible. Most of Veeky Forums would agree with me. They hate the categorical imperative. They hate people like Sam Harris trying to construct an "objective" system of morality without God. I have said nothing controversial or wrong here

Explain how tf I'm wrong you pseuds

Bumping this thread until I get my apology

bvmping because i want to see Veeky Forums' response to OP.

To get your answer read stirner

I already read Stirner, foo'

Read it again then cause you aren't understanding Nietzsche. You need to understand that their is the self and all affecting the self can only matter to it. Your subjective reasoning is your own and your will to power. There is no inherent answer and your trying to find one. The answer is of your own construct. Your looking for spooks.

I understand. My question is why someone, having decided that there is no objective system which can be devised by humans by synthetic a priori reasoning, would choose either God or the Will to Power

nietzsche didnt realize that the 'priestly' class spreading slave morality throughout history was in reality unrelated to Christianity. The 'Christians' of his era were able to flex coercive force to oppress 'master moralists'. These tarantulas have since shed the mask. If Nietzsche were alive in 2017 he would have no gripes with the true Christian faith.

Don't bother OP, Veeky Forums disregards everything that isn't already accepted by academia as pseud

IT wouldn't matter. Don't worry about it. Just choose what naturally leans towards yourself either way if you believe or not is your own will to power and you will always express it and you should best express it at its maxim. But you can believe in god too but it doesn't work so well. If you believe in god and are happy stay that way. If you don't then don't, will yourself to be your own god in your own universe. Only you are experiencing you and you are your own god

blog:
The Scholastics, particularly Aquinas, are some of the most admirable examples of seekers for truth to me. But can anyone now adopt the Scholastic disposition that man can know truth through natural reason? The modern Catholic apologist, who acts in reaction against the aggression of modernity, becomes pompous in his defence of ancient Catholic thought. G.K. Chesterton's arrogance, bull-headedness and lack of charity - off-putting intellectual excesses of the convert's zeal. Orwell said no Catholic is ever really grown up, both true and untrue, both good and bad.

I appreciate good blog posts