dac4a5 No.5125
Why did Nietzsche want a research on the value of truth? Would it not be a contradiction to use the "Truth about Truth" to say that Truth is useless? Would such information not include the information on truth that has been researched?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5128
>>5125
>to say that Truth is useless?
What do you mean?
>Would such information not include the information on truth that has been researched?
Sure?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
3d3fb6 No.5137
>>5125
Nietzsche said a lot of things which are stupid in retrospect, and this is one of them. Questioning the basic possibility of truth is pointless, because if any statement on the nature of truth is made, it either has to portray itself as "true", or admit that itself is unverifiable and thus make the investigation and conclusion worthless. Therefore the only correct conclusion to an investigation of truth is that it is true that it is possible for something to be true.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
385797 No.5138
>>5137
Well this is quite the short conclusion to this thread, I expected someone to have more info on that but I guess the question is not even shallow
I haven't read everything else form him so my question would be, what else did he say that you think is stupid? You do mention he said a lot of things that are stupid in retrospect.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
db688c No.5139
>>5138
His focus on might makes right was dull and stupid. If I understand him right, then so too were his reductive racism and justification of a double standard of morality. He felr the strong and smart rule over the weak and weak-minded rather than striving for egalitarnism and lifting the bottom up to higher standsrds. His ideas were manifested in Nazi Germany.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea4562 No.5143
>>5139
>a double standard of morality
It wasn't so much a double standard but more the dismissal of certain types of moral teachings.
He had the rather interesting idea that the virtues of peacefulness, charity, hope, etc. were simply the result of the weak attempting to turn their weakness into a strength (and then holding the power of the strong against them as a 'vice' to make them submit).
So, though he wasn't much of a philanthrope, he held this percieved perversion of power and glorification - even sanctification - of weakness in contempt, not necessarily the weak themselves.
>His ideas were manifested in Nazi Germany.
Calling Nazi Germany a manifestation of Nietzsche's thinking is going too far.
But he did consider the Jews and their religion as the beginning point of this deification of weakness, which certainly didn't hold back the anti-semitism that was later made so tangible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
385797 No.5144
>>5143
>He had the rather interesting idea that the virtues of peacefulness, charity, hope, etc. were simply the result of the weak attempting to turn their weakness into a strength (and then holding the power of the strong against them as a 'vice' to make them submit).
Funny that his argument is basically the same as Ayn Rand's when it comes to Virtue. I sometimes wonder if Ayn Rand steal that quote form his book, "The Gay Science".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ea4562 No.5145
>>5144
I, frankly, wouldn't be surprised.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
de8bfb No.5147
>Why did Nietzsche want a research on the value of truth?
His schtick was the "transvaluation of all values" and writing about just anything that came across his mind. Why wouldn't he attempt to do the same about truth? Plus, being a philosopher might have something to do with it.
>Would it not be a contradiction to use the "Truth about Truth" to say that Truth is useless?
If Nietzsche ever thought of an inquiry into "truth", it would most likely be something along the lines of a genealogy and comparison of different philosophical systems with regards to how they served their holder's ability to act on his own Will to Power rather than an exposition on of the concept of "truth". Which is to say it that he would approach from his own particular biologistic/materialist/evolutionary perspective (and he does this to some extent on "Beyond Good and Evil") rather than from the standpoint of the philosophy of logic. But because "truth" is used in two different senses between these two different approaches, an argument made within one doesn't necessarily imply anything within the other. A contradiction regarding the value of general propositions within the philosophy of logic wouldn't immediately imply anything within a history of philosophy, except as to whether or not that history or any of it's parts have some definite truth value in so far as they have some logical representation. So no, it wouldn't necessarily be a contradiction.
Also, Nietzsche never thought that "truth" used in whatever of the two above senses was "useless". On the contrary, in so far as it serves their Will to Power, the scholar's Will to Truth is "useful" in the sense of serving it's purpose (as opposed to being "useful" in the utilitarian sense of "leading to a comfortable and carefree life", the kind of "useful" of which Nietzsche was disdainful). See Chapter I, Aphorism 4 of Beyond Good and Evil.
>Would such information not include the information on truth that has been researched?
I'm not sure what you mean. What "such information"? And what is "the information on truth that has been researched"?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
699c76 No.5148
>>5147
>What "such information"?
The results of the research on truth he proposed.
For example, if I were to say that:
1.Truth is subjective
2.The information above is true
I would be making a contradictory statement.
>If Nietzsche ever thought of an inquiry into "truth", it would most likely be something along the lines of a genealogy and comparison of different philosophical systems with regards to how they served their holder's ability to act on his own Will to Power rather than an exposition on of the concept of "truth"
I'll consider that, but I have a feeling that this is not what he meant considering what I read. Then again you're referencing the same book I did, "Above good and evil".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5154
>>5148
Why is that contradictory, other than the predefined notion of truth being objective?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
699c76 No.5163
>>5154
How is "1.There are no universal rules" not contradictory?
I suppose I should have worded rule 2 as "2.The information above is ALWAYS true"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5164
>>5163
How can you prove that there are universal rules? Give me evidence of any objective truth. You will fail unless you are aware of the one single only substantial objective phenomena
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9f6ef2 No.5167
>>5164
Well pass me the hot one single only substantial objective phenomena.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a26aae No.5168
>>5148
That particular set of statements isn't necessarily contradictory, but you've probably already worked that out. If by "truth is subjective" I understand that the truth-value for each proposition P be a function of that proposition and of some particular individual A e.g. "P appears true to A", then it's only necessary that everyone agrees on P being true for it to be true in an unrestricted sense. If it appears to everyone that truth is subjective, it is subjective.
Furthermore, I don't think there's any reason to conceive "truth is subjective" as a self-contradictory statement, since one might draw up a distinction between languages and metalanguages, with "truth is subjective" being a statement in the metalanguage about the target language. It might sound lame, because in this particular case it pretty much amounts to the trivial refusal to accept the statements as contradictory, but it can be useful in other cases.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5170
>>5167
maybe I'll make a new thread about it. maybe I should actually read this thread. maybe I should sleep I've been up 30 hours lol
before I blow my load, why not make a guess?
>>5168
>If it appears to everyone that truth is subjective, it is subjective.
I don't think that's how subjectivity works. it's objective 'facts' that are true for everyone. subjective 'facts' are only true based on the perceiver, a frame of reference.
But that's just my understanding of it. Care to share your understanding?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5175
Oh I already posted this in another thread, so chances are you already read it. Was gonna make it look real nice for later but whatever.
>>5167
LOL it's not very hot sorry to say
The one single only substantial objective phenomena
There is nothing truly objective, except
one single only substantial objective phenomena
It is simply that phenomena exists. Nothing else can be proven. This comes from cogito ergo sum being further broken down by it's critiques
It's not I think therefore I am, It's I think therefore SOMETHING IS, and that is all I can ever be sure of. one cannot be sure of anything else in the substantial objective sense.
If you want something hot, it's realizing that within the all encompassing substantially objective single phenomena, all that remains is subjective phenomena. Fortunately, subjective phenomena has objective mechanisms. The idea of objective mechanisms, at least for science, stems from the axiom of causality. This is the assumption of cause and effect. All of science is subjective to this assumption.
But consciousness, morality, and other subjective phenomena, also have their own objective mechanisms
I basically (think I) know everything, I should probably make a new thread l8r
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a26aae No.5176
>>5170
I had no particular understanding of the term in mind, I merely assumed pretty much what you've just said, that the proposition would be true depending on the individual. But notice that, in so far as the word "objective" is commonly used to describe something thought of as real, there being a consensus that something is true doesn't make it actually so. There might be a consensus among the patients in the lounge of some mental hospital that there's a literal elephant in the lounge with them, but that doesn't make it actually so, unless there be no other defined set of states of the world other than the set of the states of their own minds.
Also, although common language conflates the opposition between subjective and objective statements with the opposition between personal and impersonal statements e.g. between 'I think this is pretty' and 'This is a flower', that wasn't the original meaning of these words at all. They were originally pieces of philosophical jargon that got lost in common language.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5180
>>5176
I perceived a slight ambiguity from your first paragraph, but I think it is legit
Yes that may be true, but a full understanding of the concepts means you can reconcile all the meanings and usages of these two terms. They definitely are very important. Along with the term logic (something that appears to be more objective than objectivity itself) these two terms may be the most important terms in philosophy, or at least in metaphysics.
Objective as an adjective is not necessarily the same as the noun objectivity. To say this is a flower, this claim is considered to be (more) objective. The more is implied, as in colloquial usage of these terms, they aren't used in the objective binary sense, but in the contextual sense.
I feel like I have more to say, maybe l8r
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
bda196 No.5186
I think substantial and related words like substantive and substance are my new favorite words
essence is a buzzword though.
I have not yet considered the nuanced differences between essential and fundamental, possibly along with other similar terms
it probably doesn't matter tho LOL
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
487659 No.5291
If you've found truth is useless, then redefine it until it's useful again.
You want truth for something. Your desire for that thing is not negotiable. Define truth as the thing which gets you to that desire.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.