This is basically Nietzsche, right?

how come cultural relativists never realize that
>values are relative
contradicts
>every system of belief is equally valid and we need to tolerate diversity
because the latter is a moral absolute which pretends not to be -- but is -- subject to the original relativization thesis

>>values are relative
>contradicts
Why?

nietzsche was loyal to truth

cheating and lying arent

>values are relative
>every system of belief is equally valid

First of all, the phrasing is off. Something more akin to what moral relativists, and I would be hesitant to even call Nietzsche one, truly claim is this:

>Moral values are constructed, and only ever valid in relation to a context, possibly being useful but never true

That is not a moral claim. It's an epistemological claim.

>we need to tolerate diversity

That complicates things, because whether it's contradictory or not depends on whether you make a distinction between ethics and morality or not. Nietzsche implicitly makes that distinction.

Nietzsche's ethical philosophy is amoral, but he certainly esteems some things more than others. He esteems creative, life-affirming and authentic behavior over self-censoring, judging and stern behavior. Moreover, he esteems a dialectical dynamic of every value and its opposite, where neither is held as an absolute. In that way, even truth can be perverted if the will-to-truth is an abstracted principle that transcends the mundane, contextualized plane which all values inherently occupy. So this is an ethical preposition, because it prescribes a kind of behavior, but it's beyond morality because it doesn't even hold ''good'' as an absolute value which is always to be sought out.

To contextualize this back to the OP, I imagine Nietzsche would say that a perverted obsession for honesty and truth (see: Kant) is just as undesirable as a completely dishonest life. Lying and cheating isn't always desirable, but fiction, artifice, manipulation and trickery all have their place, and as far as you can cheat and lie smartly, creatively and in a way that elevates you above the commonplace, and you want to do it for the sake of it and are not simply making yourself do it despite yourself to get something out of it (that's the consciousness problem), you should do it.

Nietzsche didn't even think that far.

Am I misreading this or did Nietzsche argue the essential points Witty brought up in tractatus a century before him?

>because the latter is a moral absolute which pretends not to be -- but is -- subject to the original relativization thesis
That's the classic counter-argument, don't pretend no one considers it

In a vague kind way that suggests language does not grant truths. Nietzsche didn't believe in "facts"

>you'd probably feel shitty about it cuz we've evolved to have empathy for others

lol horseshit, you just push that stuff out

That's a lie to make you feel better.

Everything is.

>Nietzsche didn't believe in "facts"
This is wrong. stop taking everything he said at face value

Why would you want to do something for the sake of it?

There is no "basically Nietzsche amirite xD" because he is not a systematic philosopher, you fucking faggot.
If you at least read the Wikipedia articles about his ideas you would realize that.
And your pic is the ultimate pseud's favorite strawman.
Kys

Wittgenstein is a 20th century philosopher bucko.

If god exists, anything goes.

I remember no istance in which he states that facts exists, and at the same time I can mention many examples of him specifically saying that facts do not exist, without never contraddicting himself afterwards.

You're the one who is taking internet critiques of Nietzsche at face value. People usually have to tell students and philistines that Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist because they always think that nihilism is equal to either egoism or pessimism (which means that they do not see the bigfer picture yet).
Once students understand the contexts and frameworks that Nietzsche use (to see everything from above, as he would have said) the fact that he was a nihilist who believed in absolutely nothing appears evident. That first lie was only used to avoid having the students misread Nietzsche.

So that's it, we know for a fact that you have never read his works.

>if you get judged for your actions beyond this material world then anything goes and you have an incentive to rape, pillage, murder, lie
Yeah, ok buddy, you're real smart

N would be a little more concerned with why you want those things you're cheating and lying to get to begin wjth

I'd say it's a tie between Nietzsche and Stirner

You just have to believe christ came back from the dead and you're fine. You get into heaven based on your belief, not your deeds

>antinomian christianity = representative of all of theism
I'll pray for you