5 ms·

> numerous philosophers have argued Friedrich Nietzsche is not "numerous philosophers".

knolax 7y ago
How does one even define "Traditional Christian Morality?". It's in no way a monolithic religion. Even within the same denomination you can go from Jesus to Saint Olga for your definition of "moral". The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy.
- keiferski 7y ago
  > How does one even define "Traditional Christian Morality?" Well, you could try reading the books that philosophers write and see how they define terms. > The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy. Or not. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
  - knolax 7y ago
    > Well, you could try reading the books that philosophers write and see how they define terms. And you'll find definitions that are conveniently constructed to support their thesis exactly, and which fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. The question was rhetorical. > Or not. Ignorance is bliss, after all. Not all information is useful or correct.
    - keiferski 7y ago
      This is such an ignorant, uninformed comment I don’t even know where to begin. Philosophy encompasses the works of tens of thousands of people from hundreds of cultures over millennia. Every single day you live in a world shaped by their thought.
- goto11 7y ago
  > The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy. Your society still values some philosophies, even if you happen to be ignorant about where they come from. It just makes it harder for you to understand and question them. The people who have chosen your philosophy for you probably don't want you to recognize it as a philosophy. They want you to see it as "common sense", "the real world", "the natural order of things", "my guts" or something like that.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Nietzsche was one of the philosophers that believed you could invent your own system of morals, and was opposed to traditional moral frameworks, especially religious frameworks, and especially especially Christian moral frameworks. A concept that today has such a remarkably poor track record, that there’s really no reason for it to be taken seriously anymore. But the way he categorized things is perfectly reasonable given the context of his writing. No religion truly describes a single monolithic belief system or morality. Every religion is made entirely of individuals who each have their own particular set of beliefs and morality. But we invent categories to group things that are similar together, and “traditional Christian morality” makes perfect sense to discuss as an alternative to “Nietzschean morality”.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

How does one even define "Traditional Christian Morality?". It's in no way a monolithic religion. Even within the same denomination you can go from Jesus to Saint Olga for your definition of "moral". The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy.

keiferski 7y ago
> How does one even define "Traditional Christian Morality?" Well, you could try reading the books that philosophers write and see how they define terms. > The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy. Or not. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
- knolax 7y ago
  > Well, you could try reading the books that philosophers write and see how they define terms. And you'll find definitions that are conveniently constructed to support their thesis exactly, and which fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. The question was rhetorical. > Or not. Ignorance is bliss, after all. Not all information is useful or correct.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    This is such an ignorant, uninformed comment I don’t even know where to begin. Philosophy encompasses the works of tens of thousands of people from hundreds of cultures over millennia. Every single day you live in a world shaped by their thought.
goto11 7y ago
> The more I read Nietzsche the more glad I am that I live in a society that does not greatly value philosophy. Your society still values some philosophies, even if you happen to be ignorant about where they come from. It just makes it harder for you to understand and question them. The people who have chosen your philosophy for you probably don't want you to recognize it as a philosophy. They want you to see it as "common sense", "the real world", "the natural order of things", "my guts" or something like that.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
Nietzsche was one of the philosophers that believed you could invent your own system of morals, and was opposed to traditional moral frameworks, especially religious frameworks, and especially especially Christian moral frameworks. A concept that today has such a remarkably poor track record, that there’s really no reason for it to be taken seriously anymore. But the way he categorized things is perfectly reasonable given the context of his writing. No religion truly describes a single monolithic belief system or morality. Every religion is made entirely of individuals who each have their own particular set of beliefs and morality. But we invent categories to group things that are similar together, and “traditional Christian morality” makes perfect sense to discuss as an alternative to “Nietzschean morality”.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]