>listen to podcast about Nietzche
>describes master and slave moralityj
>it's just some unfalsifiable system
Wow, I'm disappointed, just another unfalsifiable house of cards system for people to mentally masturbate over and try to promote or praise, resulting in more money and / or attention for themselves.
This is so fucking tiresome. Does literally any philosopher have anything non trivial to say?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
plato.stanford.edu
twitter.com
>le falsifiability
Go back to Popper and suck his cock, cuck! He is outdated and will remain so forever.
what podcast?
>Does literally any philosopher have anything non trivial to say?
there are a lot of philosophers...if you feel like you have something they don't then write about it.
Philosphy on the whole is trivial.
Nietzsche is indeed shit but rejecting a philosophical concept just for not being le falsifiable is dumb.
>it's just some unfalsifiable system
The point of Nietzche is exactly to not have a system. So either your podcast was shit or you are stupid. Or both considering.
This desu such an embarrassing field
Master morality is the creation of your own values, based on internal reflection, empirical observation, and your deepest desires in life.
Slave morality is nothing but the reaction to master morality; it's born out of resentment, because the slave doesn't want to be the same as the person he fears, and always seeks the opposite of what the stronger man does.
No. You are responding to Hollywood-Nietzsche and not to his writings.
Also, as I said before, Nietzsche wanted to get past this dichotomy.
>„Im Vordergrunde steht das Gefühl der Fülle, der Macht, die überströmen will, das Glück der hohen Spannung, das Bewusstsein eines Reichthums, der schenken und abgeben möchte: — auch der vornehme Mensch hilft dem Unglücklichen, aber nicht oder fast nicht aus Mitleid, sondern mehr aus einem Drang, den der Überfluss von Macht erzeugt. […] der Glaube an sich selbst, der Stolz auf sich selbst, eine Grundfeindschaft und Ironie gegen »Selbstlosigkeit« gehört eben so bestimmt zur vornehmen Moral wie eine leichte Geringschätzung und Vorsicht vor den Mitgefühlen und dem »warmen Herzen«.“ (JGB 260)
The only people that should be reading nietzsche is creatives.
and yes, Calicles is right, indulging in philosophy beyond your school years is NEET shit and you should be beaten for it.
>M-Maybe if I copy and paste the German, people will give more credence to my argument.
Also that was exactly what master/slave morality is btw.
Why are you pretending philosophy is an empirical science?
Couldn't agree more. Only decent thing that came out of it was the scientific method and even that one is complete shit since it can't be falsified.
No, both morals are the result of the system the were created in. They have nothing to do with individuality, emotions or freedom. They assume a moral dichotomy (good-evil) Nietzsche wanted to overcome. You mixed master-morality with Nietzsche end-game. He specifically said that he tried master-morality but didn't like it (he liked it more than being a slave). That's the whole point. If you don't speak German try reading this and then go to the full-text in the links:
en.wikipedia.org
plato.stanford.edu
>want to falsify things
>say the scientific method is shit
>say philosophy is shit even though falsification is Poppers game
stem fags are so fucking retarded
I never said master/slave morality was his endgame, nor implied such.
This is such a fucking stupid post I feel obligated to ask for your address so I can beat the crap out of you.
Yes, you did by saying
>Master morality is the creation of your own values
stop impoverishing nietzche
That's a pretty generous step to take, you pseud.
If you didn't imply that this was Nietzsches endgame you at least said something that is plain wrong.
OP here. I'm not saying that unfalsifiability is bad. I simply point out the trivial fact that the space for unfalsifiable is infinite and ultimately (after the arbitrary setting of axioms / criteria) everything comes down to marketing
Tell me where I contradicted or impoverished him.
>after the arbitrary setting of axioms
Now, please tell me what science doesn't set arbitrary axioms.
I totally include science in everything I say.
It's just that I'm constantly told I have to give my attention and money and respect towards philosophers (and artists) while being told I am not allowed to use my own judgement or philosophical principles or else I am ridiculed.
"Read that Philisopher and love join the Circle jerk about how incredible he is"
"Read this book and pretend the author is such a genius that their boring as shit allusions are profound and give the work 'depth'"
Then when I make a topic about it, calling it out, suddenly his and lit scream: "What do you mean? Do what you want broski! Do what you want! Ignore the academia-media-publishing industrial complex and its army of pseudo intellectual hangers on completely controlling the educational and societal narrative!"
> Listens to a 3rd hand source on the the thoughts of an anti-science philosopher.
> Selects a meme from a 20th century philosopher of science to judge the scientific merit of something he just learned about from a podcast.
> Discovers that the 19th century continental's idea he barely understands can't be operationalised to the level of rigour demanded by a 20th century epistemologist.
> I just BTFO philosophy.
When's the book coming out?
You didn't really respond to my post.
>It's just that I'm constantly told I have to give my attention and money and respect towards philosophers (and artists) while being told I am not allowed to use my own judgement or philosophical principles or else I am ridiculed.
I really don't care bro. Do what you want but when you say something stupid on a complicated matter of morality people are allowed to that they want too i.e. to ridicule you.
>Ignore the academia-media-publishing industrial complex and its army of pseudo intellectual hangers on completely controlling the educational and societal narrative!"
Nietzsche is literally for free. Also being too lazy to read doesn't make you an intellectual but ignorant. Smart people, very smart people and a lot of them, came before you doing nothing but thinking about stuff. You can disrespect them all you want but you should to that by reasoning and not by whatever it is you are doing ITT.
philosophy is for people too scared of religion
this desu senpai
wow so deep bruh
you know it's true
Here is one for you:
>religion is for people too scared of philosophy
there's nothing in philosophy to be scared of, you are scared of hell
>complicated matter
It doesn't matter how many axioms you set, all my points still hold true. Sorry you're too low IQ to realise that the species of the trees doesn't matter when my analysis is of entire forests.
there's nothing in religion to be scared of, you are scared of responsibility/freedom/individualism/the of individualism/meaninglessness/meaning.
You debate like a 4th grader bruh and I literally don't know anybody afraid of hell - not even the Catholics I worked for take this shit serious.
>I ANALYZE THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT READING
>I ANALYZE THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF FOREST WITHOUT LOOKING AT BOOKS
>YOU'RE TOO LOW IQ HEHE
pathetic. Keep wasting your time on podcast, it's better for the intellectual climate outside your basement.
But I'm right. Popper spewed shit about falsification without being able to falsify his own """"""""theory"""""""""".
What you gonna do bitch boy? Throw your glasses at me?
You are correct, you are also correct about philosophy being trivial.
Nonetheless, you should fuck off as science is equally trivial.
>responsibility/freedom/individualism/theof individualism/meaninglessness/meaning.
Funny how you find this to be scary. Says a lot about you. Nice ad hominem.
>roll into Fritz thread
>see brainlets try to comprehend
Jesus, do we not teach students how to read? All that test prep has done wonders for your literacy.
Just go do some multiple choice tests. This kinda stuff isn't for you.
This thread is retarded.
You're never going to "ground" truth-claims anywhere. Knowledge is always conjectural and based on explanations and internal consistency. No one is perfectly consistent. The search for more knowledge is the attempt to make our conjectures increasingly self-consistent, and thereby universally consistent.
Read David Deutsch's epistemology and then come back everyone.
I see what you did there.
underrated