Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche

[Dionysus]

Long-time reader, first-time poster.

I'm curious: are there any Schopenhauerians or Nietzscheans here? I hold affinities with both, particularly the latter, but they rarely ever seem to come up in discussion. I'm also quite interested in the Christian view of these two geniuses of the Nineteenth Century.

[Mark_W]

brilliant yes, but both preached doctrines of immorality, and the lives they led tell the tale. I would say a real 19th century genius was Tolstoy.

[Dionysus]

but both preached doctrines of immorality

That's very much the point: transcendental morality is an enemy of life. The difference between morality and ethics is vast, and the former is a tool to be used in the service of undermining the latter.

[Mark_W]

The difference between morality and ethics is vast, and the former is a tool to be used in the service of undermining the latter.

According to your definition of morality, perhaps. How do you define morality?
Morality is not a bad thing in my understanding of it, I would say its about following your conscience rather than selfish desires. I would also say that this is how I define ethics.

[Dionysus]

The difference between morality and ethics is vast, and the former is a tool to be used in the service of undermining the latter.

According to your definition of morality, perhaps. How do you define morality?
Morality is not a bad thing in my understanding of it, I would say its about following your conscience rather than selfish desires. I would also say that this is how I define ethics.

Morality is transcendental: it wants to ground itself in either the commandments of a deity, or, conversely, 'human nature'. Ethics, however, is volitional - it allows for historicizing the virtues by admitting of their temporality in the coming to and passing away of things. Morality seeks to establish itself once and for all, for all time; ethics, to the contrary, are situational and spatial, finite and conditional. The priest is moral; the doctor is ethical. And, of the two, the doctor is far and away the superior individual. Morality also demands that there exists an in-itself, the ego or soul, which can either be condemned (as in Christianity and other slave moralities) or rarified and made sacrosanct (as in egoism); an 'ethics of the Earth' would deny this an sich entirely.

[Mark_W]

well, I don't subscribe to that definition of morality because all through the literature I do not see morality being defined as "seeking to establish itself once and for all, for all time". I think most philosophers/writers/thinkers have conceded that we are merely making our best guess, and if tomorrow some new evidence were found we should be open-minded. Now church dogma is a different story, and they do preach rules and regulations that are "final" and claim that this is "morality", but this is clearly irrational.
I would say the priest is immoral and unethical. And, to generalize, I would also say the modern day medical professions are immoral and unethical. I would agree though that the priestcraft is more insidiously sinister.

[ShadowRishi]

To a religious person, morality is something mandated by God(s).

I, like other atheists, do not believe in morality. I believe in ethics.


I'm not as familiar with Nietzsche's works, though I know a good deal about him and read a good bit of his Beyond Good and Evil book. However, I'll still say this on ethics and morality:

Morality is something that remains stagnant. It is always wrong to steal, cheat, rape, murder, assault, et cetera. God said it, we must obey it. Maybe we'll interpret it a little bit, but the words are there. Either we're willingly ignoring them, or we're obeying them. No real reason behind them other than what we infer.

Ethics has some absolutes to it, but in general, it allows for rational flexibility. It is wrong to murder, but we are fully free to analyze why it is wrong, and decide if and when it is acceptable. For example, if we can analyze it, we understand our reasoning behind why something is wrong (which is axiomatic, I fully admit, but they are axioms defined by our emotions, which have been evolved for a purpose), and hopefully utilize reason along side of it to achieve the best possible solutions for what is ethically acceptable.

[Mark_W]

Morality is something that remains stagnant. Maybe we'll interpret it a little bit, but the words are there.

Ethics has some absolutes to it, but in general, it allows for rational flexibility.

I think its a great idea to make clear cut distinctions between two words, and to define them in different ways so that we can hopefully simplify language somewhat. Narrowing down the definitions is good. But as the word morality has been used thoughout the centuries in a more general way, I think we should take the positive rather than the negative stance, and thereby do some justice to the great moral philosophers, who did not insist that morality is stagnant, or that it doesn't allow for rational flexibility.
I would say that church doctrine and absolute "rules" is not morality, it is simply irrational. And so I would like to see the definition narrowed down and purified to mean something good, just as many thinkers/writers/philosophers have tried to do thoughout the centuries.

[ShadowRishi]

Morality is something that remains stagnant. Maybe we'll interpret it a little bit, but the words are there.

Ethics has some absolutes to it, but in general, it allows for rational flexibility.

I think its a great idea to make clear cut distinctions between two words, and to define them in different ways so that we can hopefully simplify language somewhat. Narrowing down the definitions is good. But as the word morality has been used thoughout the centuries in a more general way, I think we should take the positive rather than the negative stance, and thereby do some justice to the great moral philosophers, who did not insist that morality is stagnant, or that it doesn't allow for rational flexibility.
I would say that church doctrine and absolute "rules" is not morality, it is simply irrational. And so I would like to see the definition narrowed down and purified to mean something good, just as many thinkers/writers/philosophers have tried to do thoughout the centuries.

Perhaps, but I when I hear the word morality, it conjures a Southern Baptist preacher spreading the "good word."

I prefer re-working terms and defining them myself, at least when I'm working out my own philosophies.

[Mark_W]

I would like to detract what I said about Schopenhauer preaching a doctrine of immorality. He seems to be in a completley different class than Nietzsche.