4 ms·

>> "It’s common to declare that you are “beyond good and evil,” to adopt ethical nihilism" This may have been in a related article on the site, but, if this is

>> "It’s common to declare that you are “beyond good and evil,” to adopt ethical nihilism" This may have been in a related article on the site, but, if this is a reference to Nietzsche, as it seems to be, he was not a nihilist, ethical or otherwise. The book was called Beyond Good and Evil, and he points out this is not the same as Beyond Good and Bad. He advocated the opposite of nihilism: value creation as the basis for meaning. Just pointing this out as I find Nietzsche is often misunderstood to be a nihilist.

alboaie 5y ago
Basicaly, for rational people this "beyound good and evil" is like preaching sociopathy. Nietszche communication style was adressed somehow to level 4 but using means used by level 3. And as article says, preaching level 5 to level 3 people is basicaly futile or even dangerous...
- errantmind 5y ago
  I think I understand your meaning actually
- errantmind 5y ago
  How is it like sociopathy?
  - alboaie 5y ago
    I think you got it but for clarity: for a mind at level 4, "beyond" rely means "beyond"... and this could be sociopathic. For level 5 minds, beyond means partial beyond while still incorporating the lessons from not being relay beyond... Again and again, I can see that meta-rationality is just a modern name for wisdom, And obviously, the whole idea of wisdom is not cool because too many "wise" people preached "sociopathic ideas" to level 3 or level 4 minds.
    - b3morales 5y ago
      It's funny, because while I was digesting this essay I found myself comparing the hierarchy in a perennial favorite, The Gervais Principle[0] and I was thinking that "Stage 3" seems to correspond to "Clueless" pretty well; "Stage 4" to "Losers"; and therefore "Stage 5" to "Sociopaths"*. The key to that last stage in both seems to be that you have, for lack of a better word, transcended the rules. You understand that they are mostly situational and, if not subjective, at least not pre-existing. And you therefore start to understand how to work with them as material, rather than just within them. *: The choice of naming there is a bit tongue-in-cheek. But not totally off the mark. [0]:https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/05/16/the-gervais-principle-vi-children-of-an-absent-god/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/05/16/the-gervais-principle-...
      - abss 5y ago
        Good stuff ;) An alternarive theory competing meta-rationality. And also complementing it a bit :) I found this part quite insightfull: "Some freely emulate other Sociopaths. Others carve out more imaginative paths. Morality becomes a matter of expressing fundamental dispositions rather than respecting social values. Kindness or cruelty, freely expressed. Those who are amused by suffering use their powers to cause it. Those who enjoy watching happiness theaters, create them through detached benevolence."

alboaie 5y ago

Basicaly, for rational people this "beyound good and evil" is like preaching sociopathy. Nietszche communication style was adressed somehow to level 4 but using means used by level 3. And as article says, preaching level 5 to level 3 people is basicaly futile or even dangerous...

errantmind 5y ago
I think I understand your meaning actually
errantmind 5y ago
How is it like sociopathy?
- alboaie 5y ago
  I think you got it but for clarity: for a mind at level 4, "beyond" rely means "beyond"... and this could be sociopathic. For level 5 minds, beyond means partial beyond while still incorporating the lessons from not being relay beyond... Again and again, I can see that meta-rationality is just a modern name for wisdom, And obviously, the whole idea of wisdom is not cool because too many "wise" people preached "sociopathic ideas" to level 3 or level 4 minds.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    It's funny, because while I was digesting this essay I found myself comparing the hierarchy in a perennial favorite, The Gervais Principle[0] and I was thinking that "Stage 3" seems to correspond to "Clueless" pretty well; "Stage 4" to "Losers"; and therefore "Stage 5" to "Sociopaths"*. The key to that last stage in both seems to be that you have, for lack of a better word, transcended the rules. You understand that they are mostly situational and, if not subjective, at least not pre-existing. And you therefore start to understand how to work with them as material, rather than just within them. *: The choice of naming there is a bit tongue-in-cheek. But not totally off the mark. [0]:https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/05/16/the-gervais-principle-vi-children-of-an-absent-god/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/05/16/the-gervais-principle-...
    - abss 5y ago
      Good stuff ;) An alternarive theory competing meta-rationality. And also complementing it a bit :) I found this part quite insightfull: "Some freely emulate other Sociopaths. Others carve out more imaginative paths. Morality becomes a matter of expressing fundamental dispositions rather than respecting social values. Kindness or cruelty, freely expressed. Those who are amused by suffering use their powers to cause it. Those who enjoy watching happiness theaters, create them through detached benevolence."