0

Is Nietzsche's goal to find an intrinsic good in what he does?

So not "amorality" for its own sake, or rewilling what you've done because of the utility, for yourself, of its consequences.

Those two goals seem to be separate qualities, which is why I'm asking.

1

I would agree that these are goals with very different qualities, and suggest that both are stale.

If you take 'Perspectivist' aspect of the 'Art of the Self' seriously, then both 'good' and 'amorality' seem to be the wrong way to look at things. Acknowledging the equal goodness of multiple perspectives is not dissolving or removing morality, it is making it into something with more dimensions.

The 'transvaluing' person is not 'amoral': 'Beyond' is not just 'without'. It is easier to get rid of morality by moving backward rather than forward. It is a lot more work to move beyond the known and given sets of values into some situation where they all remain, and can be compared, recombined, etc. (It is likely to be impossible. But possible is just a valuation, and is not necessarily good.)

Yet to find a 'good', by folding all of these up into a single metric is doomed. It means ultimately that you have chosen a given set of values and abandoned some future perspectives to form a static standard. Part of the point of looking at the reversal of valuations over time is to show how power is a dynamic. I necessarily remains fluid, and it does not choose for things to be 'good' without eventually spoiling and becoming 'bad'. There is no 'good' or 'bad' outside relation to some aspect of context and personal nature that is not fixed.

I still hold by the notion that for all the political dressing, Nietzsche is all about aesthetics. Very good art, codified and repeated, is eventually 'good' yet ineffective. You can claim there is some definition of effectiveness that rolls up all the previous definitions of good in art, but then you cannot state it before it changes.

  • ok. i agree they're different, i say as much. i suppose nietzsche may not be interested in intrinsic values; i'm still not sure tho – user6917 Jan 4 '17 at 20:59
  • i mean i like some of the answer for the note that what we bring about is, at least for us, a temporary affair. i kinda wish you hadn't framed it as correcting something i didn't say, in my short question, tho – user6917 Jan 4 '17 at 21:11
  • i really have no idea what you're getting at, and i think that's cos you seem to have written it as a refutation of something i didn't say. oh well, just a waste of time and effort, sorry – user6917 Jan 4 '17 at 21:36
  • You are asking whether the second thing I reject is what Nietzsche means, so you didn't say this, but you did ask it and I am giving the answer 'no'. You also contrasted it with the first position, and I am agreeing with you that this contrasting position is also not what Nietzsche means, and that the second one is closer. I am not making up stuff you didn't say. Those positions are in the OP. – user9166 Jan 4 '17 at 22:18
  • 1
    Sorry, the stridency is just my mood. Still, reading it again, it would be annoying to edit, and it says what I meant. – user9166 Jan 13 '17 at 23:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy