What is "evil"?

Isn't that essentially what The Joker did in the The Dark Knight?

With some variations, yes, except this time, someone is definitely going to die.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Then I'm being used to murder someone.

From wikipedia?!!!

your using wikipedia as your source to argue Nietzsche try reading his works and then lets talk!, Zuth. was just one aspect he expanded upon what he meant in various works, you can't understand the ubermensch will out first reading into Nietzche other works.

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

I did. I took philosophy for giggles in college.

And the Wikipedia fallacy? For real? I thought the internet was past "your argument doesn't matter because you quoted a wiki".

King Zeal: From what I have read of our glorious writer, basically Zarathustra book 1 and parts of nr 2, i get the idea that the Übermensch is suppose to succeed humanity, not be a part of it.
The goal is Übermensch because humanity is a really sad and pathetic race.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

We are talking philosphy here you can't get more than a passing knowledge of that from the internet, even a simple college course that just teaches you to view it the way your professor viewed it both are bad for philosphy as a whole.

Unless that course was on Nietzche's philosophy alone and not just the generic college philosophy, cause even I've taken that.

I've taken over a year to study Nietzsche his influences and who he influenced and their connections, and not because I needed to for a course or because of a deadline.

I don't just find Nietzsche interesting I think he was right about the world.

edited 9th Apr '11 2:37:42 PM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

Then educate me instead of belittling me.

Like I said, the Ubermensch pretty much arrives at the close of the old concept and the end of relevance of humanity as we know it. He is superior in pretty much every way, and what was once known as "humanity" will lead to something greater by his creation. It isn't that he's destroying humanity by his own hand, but that human concepts as they were simply cannot continue to exist.

: But what does that have to do with "leading" humanity?

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

See my prior posts.

"Leading" as in "originating", not as in A God Am I.

Nothing it's a misinterpretation.

4xAlso I am not the teaching type(I suck at it), all I can tell you is your wrong, and using Nietzsche as way to justify a world view he would have been against.

edited 9th Apr '11 2:43:56 PM by Vyctorian

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

The only "world view" I've stated is

1) Humanity is inherently flawed and so are our moral concepts.

2) The Ubermensch is better and his "moral" concepts are better.

Where is this mistaken?

Really cause you seemed to insist on a view other things, including that right and wrong undeniably exist and that cannot be denied. that the ubermesnch works off our own moral system, that he/she/it exists to serve humanity and is suppose to lead them even when Zuth. himself said he was no Shepherd and did not want any sheep. the ubermensch better system is better to them, and their view for humanity and nobody elses view .

Please if this is a just a misunderstand we can easily clear this up but the way you define morality as a type of inherent fact which is something Nietzsche strictly opposed I highly doubt that.

You also never said whether or not you know of Nietzsche through actually study or just course requirements.

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

Hypothetical question: I'd probably hit the button out of fear. I'd feel guilty as shit, but I'd push it. I am far too attached to myself. Now if it were my lover...that I do not know. I would like to say I would let myself die, but I cannot be certain of this. With a friend it depends on the friend and how close they are to me I would think. I consider weak acquaintances to be friends for example. So...could go either way. If the world depended on this one person I'd likely push the button anyway out of fear for my own life. Thinking straight in such a situation doesn't seem terribly likely.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Okay, as I've been saying, the only thing I've really been advocating is the idea of "better" and "worse", which in SOME cases (not all—SOME) overlaps with "right" and "wrong". You and I started debating because I was pretty much trying to say to someone else that the Ubermensch isn't without mores. It's just that his/her/its mores are inherently better and are perhaps Blue-and-Orange Morality. But, it's still a form of "optimal choice" and "substandard choice", and the point of the Ubermensch is to move past substandard choice.

Both. However, my retention is not perfect. I'm kind of a "know everything" type of person who studies and reads just about everything, but I think comics and manga start fucking up my ability to think. Too bad I'm addicted to both.

: Why would the Übermensch do that? The Übermensch is not subjected to social coercion, and because of that can commit what is thought of as "evil" by others, but is not evil because the Übermensch knows that such a concept is silly.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

Where are we disagreeing?

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, here are the essential premises of moral realism:

• 1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
• 2. Some such propositions are true.
• 3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.[another word for objective features is inherent]]
  
  e.g. under moral realism, if "rape is evil" is true, it is true regardless of what the rapist thinks. If "rape is good" is true, it is true regardless of what the rape victim, legal system, popular attitudes, etc. think.

Then it appears that when you say "unambiguously positive", you actually mean "unanimously considered positive", or that this is at least one of the criteria according to which an action may be categorized as unambiguously positive.

In the context in which it was stated, the satisfaction of the rapist is the reasoning that the action was positive—which, unless the victim's mutual satisfaction is somehow in indisputable error, is offset by the opposing ideal.

In other words, you can't place a subjective opinion as a positive when there's an equally valid opinion counter to it.

edited 9th Apr '11 7:07:22 PM by KingZeal

Black Humor:Back from my post. Eating fails on the ill intent. Eating because it is a process of life. Now if I am eating them out of malice that would be a different story. My intention is to cause harm for harms sake.

Who watches the watchmen?