Are all ethical stances besides 'might is right' silly nonsense?

Please don't use strongly opinionated political beliefs as an example, you'll attract the /pol/tards

What else do I think?

individuals must serve themselves first to continue being individuals. (Though they may value things more than their survival, they serve themselves when they sacrifice for those things.). Anything can be deconstructed into might is right (survival of the fittest) but philosophy is more complex than natural law

Political questions are the best example of a person who subscribes to the notion that might is right taking advantage of those who don't though. People who don't subscribe to the idea essentially have a blind spot that allows for exploitation.

Survival of the fittest doesn't juts mean might, look at island dwarfism, the smaller more economically efficient individuals are often fitter in evolutionary terms.

You probably think that Randianism is not retarded since you think 'rational self interest' is a proper guiding mechanism for society at large.

I agree with that, I was responding to the fact that the other user was equating "might is right" with survival of the fittest by talking about Hilary

Doesn't that mean that philosophy is unnecessarily bloated with misleading sophistry?

>thinking any individual philosophy is right or wrong

Objectivism works for people
Existentialism works for people
Marxism (barely) works for people
Religion works for people

Philosophy answers
1. What is real
2. How do I know it is real
3. How should I act in this reality

The answer to these questions are different for individuals in conflicting situations. There may be objective answers to these questions. Pretty much everybody besides Rand and Aristotle thinks there is not.

You act your way, I'll act mine. If you don't mind can you tell me what you find wrong with rands philosophy

>implying you know anything about objectivism and didn't fall for the Rand is evil meme

Can you explain how it would mean that. I don't intend to deceive. It is my belief that through each different lens of existence there is a different philosophy that is "right". All humans must first survive to even have a philosophy of that is what you are referring too

It's all in the name of egalitarianism. Mass ideology

You say that different things 'work for people', thereby employing the notion of 'working for people' as a universal test for the systems you deem subjective, sneaking in objectivity through the backdoor.

All of those be in the name of rational self interest ?

It's in the name of capital

wouldn't*

Yea but not all are long term
To say anything is "right" implies rational self interest

If philosophy is more complex than the world it describes, isn't it adding bullshit?

While I can't say for certain one way or another whether 'might is right' is right, it does seem to be the ultimate conclusion of conflict - any conflict, really.

Fairness, equality, etc. don't exist unless they're constantly and vigilantly upheld. It's the nature of all things to form a hierarchy, Whether said hierarchy is good or bad is subjective, but there will always be a top and a bottom, an oppressor and an oppressed. A slave and a master.

Nietzsche is the most misunderstood philosopher on this entire fucking board.

I haven't deemed it anything
There may be an objectively correct philosophy for all people. I think it is beyond any individuals capacity to figure out but it may not be. "Work for people" was the wrong term I should have said "people apply". It goes back to the notion of "right". We haven't explained what that means. I assumed op was saying "right" as a way of saying "works"

I believe the philosopher is more complex than the world it lives in

Nietzsche is generally the most misunderstood philosopher

Misunderstood by almost everyone, I might add.

That the fascists/righties misunderstood him is easily explained - blame his dumb sister.

Lefties/Liberals, however, who interpret him as some sort of freedom-loving libertine, are just as wrong - if not moreso.

A part can't be complexer than the whole.

>Nobody understands Nietzsche but me!

The lad was deliberately ambiguous to encourage this type of personal/subjective/perspectivist/pluralous interpretation.

Or that's what some of his aphorisms have led me to believe. :^)

how else would you explain the OP quote?

>The lad was deliberately ambiguous to encourage this type of personal/subjective/perspectivist/pluralous interpretation.

Nietzsche does have a hint of Hegel about him.

I do think he liked Hegel's ideas concerning dialectic - specifically, being able to maintain several contradictory opinions at once.

Humans are part of the universe and more complex than the world they currently inhabit. It's why we can go to space

Yes, Virtue Ethics.

There's nothing in Nietzsche that seriously critiques Aristotlelian ethics.

>There's nothing in Nietzsche that seriously critiques Aristotlelian ethics.

Right makes might.

>it's the "let's overcome hierarchy by creating hierarchy" episode

>>single mother
>Marxism
i hate you so much

Hahaha it's just bantz
I think Marxism would work fine in an all white Christian nation

>A part can't be complexer than the whole.
possibly in the discrete realm of matter, but I don't see how this applies to the realm of Ideas.

I recall him slighting the Eudaimonists in AC, but I think you're mostly right, that while he probably had quibbles with Aristotle's treatment of virtue ethics, his treatment of ethics is similar in some ways. While the Ubermensch is not necessarily eudaimonia, it shares some traits I think.

lmAO who caREAs jUst do what U waNT xDDD
desu

Might is an inappropriate word. "Power is right" would be better. And yes any system of ethics/law etc... is only worth the power that can back it up in the face of opposition.

depends how you define the words you use to claim that

In a way, yes the only practical, reasonable stance is "might is right" - for no kind of egalitarian utopia could come into existence without the might to enforce it and its rules. Even if it comes about without direct violence, it needs a threat of violence to happen. This is hardly ethics, maybe, but it is related anyway; might does not always mean individual might and so on. The communist revolution and the following terror are "might is right" maybe even in a more fundamental sense than aristocratic power or riches.

But as a sort of "how should everyone live" ethic? Hardly. Its hard to make it seem that good, unless you think there is something more worthy in the exercise of might (aesthetic appeal of great and strong people or whatever) than alternate forms of ethics. At that point, it is only really another form of nonsense.

There is none, ideas are just metaphors for certain arrangement of matter while also being a literal arrangements of matter in the brain.

might be right

enjoyable post

>Nietzsche is generally the most misunderstood philosopher

He really isn't. He's just the one being white-washed the most to fit everyone's agenda, because he was a good writer.

>state gets weakened by civil war as many neitszvhe clones attempt to acquire power
>is easy sack for nearby retarded as fuck barbarians

Diogenes wins again

Exactly. Nietzsche points us toward Aristotle.

>implying barbarians are not part of the concept

retard

Might isn't right. It decides who's left.

He probably is, for he is also popular and in a way trendy. There are far more "stupid" people interested in Nietzsche than lets say, Hegel. And indeed, Nietzsche was a good writer and incredibly quotable, so there are even people interpreting Nietzsche without much knowledge about him at all.

In addition to this, Nietzsche can be very ambiguous and (seemingly) contradictory. It isn't really wrong to focus on the Nietzsche who talks about how strength isn't really related to power over others at all, but it is also not wrong to focus on the Nietzsche who clearly likes aristocracy and whatnot. Great philosophers haven't argued about Nietzsche for nothing, he really isn't that clear.

>untermench are just the best sometimes
Lol ok.

found the relativist

>I'm from /pol/

Good luck with that m8. If the untermensch cucks you, what does that make you?

>/pol/
>diogenes, anti mustache man
Try again

>might is right
>everything else is nonsense
>Christianity exists

Fuck you're a Mong, have you never seen anything about their early history? The religion survived despite everyone trying to kill it for ~400 years by preaching kindness n' sheet. Not practical or easy or fun, but you'd have to be retarded to say it didn't win without taking a might is right stance.

If you want to continue your nihilist cuck discussion, you'll have better luck here

www.reddit.com

>He declared himself a cosmopolitan and a citizen of the world
>He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man
>After being captured by pirates and sold into slavery

sorry, I meant faggot

>On the indecency of him masturbating in public he would say, "If only it were as easy to banish hunger by rubbing my belly."

he might be based though

Cuckoldry is the most übermensch fetish. It's giving your partner permission to artificially let someone pose a threat to you because the real world no longer satisfy your taste for actual treats since you're so successful in life but you still crave danger and burdens to be overcome since the übermensch will always crave those and never settle for stasis.

Ahh, the Cuck Pill - the hardest pill to swallow.

Fairness only exists when the punishment for not being fair is force. So violence, or the threat of violence, is necessary to ensure fairness.

Since we're on the topic of Nietzsche, I have a question: What exactly is wrong with comfort? We're all going to die anyway so why not just enjoy the time we have in a relaxed, pleasant manner?

He couldn't have it because of his health condition so he would dismiss the concept altogether in favour of pain and struggling, the only things he had access to.

It's a sour grapes thing.

The people he admired most, Goethe, Beethoven and Shakespeare make great art, and this art cannot be made without great feeling of soul and with great skill. Both those things are impossible if one wants to live a comfortable life. Nietzsche wants you to make your life a great work of art, to be the living embodiment of the art of the people previously mentioned.

To be clear when he says comfort he does not mean it like a good foot massage and a warm meal. It means a slovenly, non-reaching spirit. One who is more content to mong out on tv because it's easy than one who wants to challenge ones intellect.

tl/dr he wants you to be like Beethoven, not Homer Simpson.

This, indeed. Nietzsche wants you to sort of embrace life, even if it is dangerous, it hurts and so on. It will - according to him - achieve greater things than just making comfort your primary goal.

The Last Man is a pretty pathetic image, really, and one that doesn't even seem enjoyable to me. It seems like oppressing your, uh, will and "inner spirit" (I'm bad with terminology yes) for the favor of avoiding danger and hurt.

I think the idea is to sort of factor out the common element of all forms of morality

"Might is right" is itself silly nonsense, because it immediately collapses into "might".
You're not grasping the step of "what should be my aim in this reality?".
No shit. Derived.

Take a block of stone. Carve it. Part is more complex than whole.

Honestly it's really not that fucking hard to understand him. inb4 but no 1 no him cuz u cant talk cuz he dead. No, it's not hard to get the general gist of Nietzsche's ideas, a reading of any of Kaufmann's translations with his annotations would give you a sound understanding if you aren't a fucking meathead (given that the vast majority of the first world politically and ethically identify in the left right dichotomy, there's a good chance you are).

How is the carved block of stone simpler than the uncarved stone?

No, since the part is part of the whole you can only increase total complexity.

>"Might is right" is itself silly nonsense, because it immediately collapses into "might".
All truth is tautological.

>I objectively know what Nietzsche is about because an American Jew told me the correct liberal interpretation of him