2

Is transvaluation supposed to be some sort of intuitive aesthetic judgment akin to moral ones, and can someone be mistaken in their judgments of value?

In what sense then is transvaluation not arbitrary ("thinking makes it so")?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    "In considering values, we cannot do better than perspectival truth, but we can certainly do worse. There are still better perspectives and worse perspectives, and these need to be sorted by subjecting them to rational scrutiny." - source
    – Chris Degnen
    Commented Mar 12, 2023 at 10:11
  • yeah I get that better than I did, now, thanks @ChrisDegnen (my question fwiw). i believe i can affirm the intrinsic value of my own flourishing, now, so i'm more concerned - naturally - with balancing other people's moral claims against that. onward hah! ps why are you so into game theory: is that why?
    – user65174
    Commented Mar 12, 2023 at 11:32

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1

Nietzsche may well be an anti-realist about all value. However, that does not mean that some values do not - as a matter of fact, if not universally - promote other valued things. This is obvious in day-to-day life: when I act in a nurturing and loving way, I promote things such as trust. When a moralist is brave, they don't just do brave things, but, usually, noble things.

So while it is only "thinking" that makes it so, it intrinsically valuable for Nietzsche and his idols to be powerful, perhaps we can say it is not nonsense all the way down.

Improve this answer
1
  • while this makes sense as an answer, you don't knoe enough about the subject area to riff on a snippet like that -1
    – user67675
    Commented Nov 7, 2023 at 11:26

You must log in to answer this question.