Wants to get rid of values

>wants to get rid of values
>implying this isn't itself a value

What was he thinking?

he doesn't want to get rid of all values

He wants to revaluate all values.

We both know where this is going don't we?

according to what standard?

to form civilization and ascend beyond our mortal coils and superstitions, stemming from christian and muslim morals

>wants to get rid of values

According to his own weird standards. Haven't you read his bibliography? He states multiple times that his goal is to revaluate all the highest values hitherto according to his quasi-gnostic "new world-conception".

The highest one created by history.

so an arbitrary one?

There are no values because there is no good and evil. There are weak wills and there are strong wills.

>Just become yourself
Uh thanks neetch, that's as useful as a facebook post.

he wouldn't share your same definition of arbitrary, and wouldn't consider being arbitrary to be a problem

I can already tell this thread is going to be a disaster

Arbitrary insofar as it contributes to the fulfillment of petty small people interested only in social prestige in the immediate life.

"highest one created by history" just seems to be just an ethnocentric view of a highest value, no? Seems like a table standing with no legs to support it.

So a highest value—so far in history— is the standard. But that highest value came from "petty small people"? I don't see how that is high at all.

Fellas, I'm not convinced as to why the hell I would look to man made values as an immutable standard

Man is something to be overcome

> just seems to be just an ethnocentric view of a highest value, no? Seems like a table standing with no legs to support it.
using your definition of arbitrary sure. but like I said he doesn't share your definition and he doesn't consider being arbitrary to be a problem

This is either bait or you haven't read Nietzsche. Nietzsche's ethical work was all about the 'transvaluation' of values.

he just meant to illustrate the fact that man cannot not have values, so his best option is to give himself his own values instead of accepting the inherited imposed ones

What's his definition? And why is it not a problem?

>if you revaluate your enemies, they win
t. op

It's not a problem because value doesn't exist. He is creating his own values after the death of God and Nihilism wiped the value slate clean.

oh okay, that's what you/ Nietzsche mean

>Christian and Muslim
>All Judaic religions but Judaism
Nice try, Chaim.

A standard beyond the slave morality of Christianity, and anything that he defines as "ressentiment", which is basically envy.

>implying he wasn't implying that values that have carried us this far have been subverted and perverted to the point of not even meaning what they originally meant nor do they serve their original purpose
>implying this wasn't clearly pointed out by dozens of other philosophers on the level of language and symbolism

don't we do this every day?

wat

I suppose, but Nietzsche was really the OG revaluator. Read TGoM, BGaE, TotI, TSZ, and TWtP, they're really surprisingly entertaining.

This is my take: Humans have an innate biology which value is predicated on, everything we do adheres to a 'Will To Power' stemming from that. There is no such thing as a nihilist because no matter what he says he still feels pain etc therefore values, you cannot transcend biology (Superman).

The Will To Power is the driving force behind our every action, when we are not simply surviving (will to survive) we are growing and developing our own power. Power is defined in a very strange way you could say relative to the individual as this all tries to be as it seems to me. Power is overcoming what burdens us/obstacles we have defined. He saw consciousness as a multiplicity, X (hatred, jealousy etc) has it's own perception of the world and conciousness, values etc. We must find our most dominant one of those ("Follow your bliss" essentially) that we feel with our very being, discovered over in-depth analysis over time subtly. He saw ordinary consciousness as just a fraction of us, even leaning to no "free will" per say. We have our archetypal primal side to us. And the beast.

Archetypes are behind almost every belief system you see throughout history, the hero that slays the dragon who guards the gold and damsel in distress (I watch JP).

I'm struggling at the moment as to what my defence to this argument is because something deep down in me does not like it.
There's my take, i've read some of him but mostly lectures from other people online. Blow me to pieces.

>But that highest value came from "petty small people"?
No, maybe I wasn't clear. It's arbitrary only to petty small people, who only care about themselves and the tiny spheres they inhabit in the universe. They don't care about the perspective of the most wise men.

sounds like Peterson's utilization of Nietzsche and notsomuch Nietzsche