Comments by "" (@baronvonbeandip) on "Weltgeist" channel.

@moodofasinner Bro, you need to go back and re-read the Greek fundamentals and, like, Toulmin. You stopped giving good argument after the first reply and went on a slander tirade. If you are versed, speak your piece with the accuracy it deserves and let it be argued but don't go using ethos to set up a strawman to declare victory against. Nietzsche's ideas are solid and you haven't given good evidence to the counter. Using postmodernist ideas against Nietzsche is absurdity itself; he gave you the answer before you formulated the question. Attacking him with Kantian categorical imperatives is useless; existentialism is the morality of the self bore out with rationality. If you've read him in earnest, he has rebutted your objections time and time again.
21
You can think of strength and weakness being a scale between 1 and -1. If completely robbed of the ability to make a positive moral influence on the world, yeah, passivity or death is the answer. This is what Socrates was trying to say. Having weighed his options, it was better to leave a strong mark in ending his life prematurely, which was a stronger positive effect on the world than the sum of any further choices he may make into the future. Speaking to autism or neurodivergencies, this 1 to -1 scale is multiplied by the power that you wield (0, +inf). If you lack rationality, then it morally behooves you to increase your rationality, then to increase your power which comes as a differential function of right action. An autistic person doesn't need, necessarily to convey in terms the world can understand because master morality is beyond words and is in right action. The individuate weakness lies in unwillingness to develop rationality, to reject the will to power, and to reject right action as master morality dictates. A person who is a ruthless dictator (ie Hitler or whatever bogeyman) is morally correct in gaining power but is misguided because he lacks the real understanding of the world and sees that into being. A person in a coma who is of no use to himself or others and cannot give something back is morally inclined to die, assuming all hope is truly lost (which is takes a very smart person to make a reasonable assessment of). Every person walks that tightrope and should make decisions under that weighty millstone (ie Sisyphus).
2
"He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged." - Raging Goblin
1
@fideletamo4292 Neither of those solutions are suitable. Appealing to natural law or instinct withour proper scrutiny is a weak conclusion. You are right but for the wrong reasons. One of the problems Nietzsche had with Kant is that there is not impetus toward outward expansion; whoever you are, if your rationality gives a solution you think is a good universal, then it is moral to act on it. So, if you do X, Y, and Z because "it's a dog eat dog world and I'm not going to get eaten...", you are justified by Kant in doing so because that is the rationality you are limited to. That's clearly a lackluster solution and that's what Nietzsche puts forth in BG&E; it behooves, as Kant would say 'as a categorical imperative', to embody master morality, which drives the pursuit of higher rationality as an informant toward your actions. That's also why Nietzsche criticizes Kant's lack of humanity. He wrestles with the problems as they are abstract and ephemeral instead of talking about the real dilemmas normal people face. He acts as though all people are enlightened saints with the ability to comprehend what is universally good.
1
He is saying you have the personal duty unto yourself to apply the categorical imperative and align all your actions to those things that you would want to be universal. Not duty from without but duty from within.
1
Bruh, you gotta kill who you were to become who you want to be. If you want to become moral, you must become less immoral. Factoring in ego at this level is a waste of time and an active impediment to progress.
1