I've been on a mission for the past few months to read the

>>9348524
>Though, I disagree with some of his conclusions, mainly the will to power being our fundamental drive as well as the idea of creating our own values,

Why's that? I know you said you were a Catholic so already the ideas are prima facie incompatible, but why specifically?

skip all them, read The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan, you'll thank me later kiddo

>>9348554
Well, you can't have a will to power, unless you are alive. Nietzsche had mixed feelings about Schopenhauer, and I do as well; however, he was correct about the will to life being the most fundamental drive for humanity. The will to power seems secondary. As for creating one's own values, me being Catholic dictates--as you said so eloquently--that we cannot see eye-eye on this assertion. I don't really have a good argument, if you discount God, as to why this wouldn't be true.

Although, it must be noted that Nietzsche himself concedes their probably is a God, we just cannot know what he thinks and what Thee's morality is, which I appreciate and agree with to a certain extent. I struggle to this day with some of the verses in the Bible, but for me, I believe in God. And since I do it then follows that their is a right and wrong and that it is my duty to find it out and live it. Christianity has built the best society's as its foundation, and I've had a few paranormal experiences where saying Jesus out loud really helped. Anecdotal evidence--I know. Take it as a grain of salt. Anyway's that's why I disagree.

>>9348742
>Well, you can't have a will to power, unless you are alive.

In his later notebooks he flirts with a metaphysical conception of Will to Power that applies to all objects, living or not. That aside, I get where you're coming from, but WtP being the fundamental drive for humanity means not that it's the first motivator for our actions, but the ultimate, final end if that makes sense. So, sure, perhaps we focus on how we're going to eat tomorrow to survive prior to contemplating striving for power via, say, creating art or political activism, but the reason and end for wanting to eat and survive is in order to ultimately fulfill our desire for expression and power; as in, I eat so I can survive so I can express my Will, making WtP the true fundamental end/drive.

>I don't really have a good argument, if you discount God, as to why this wouldn't be true.

That's a good enough argument in itself---there is no purpose to creating new and subjective values if via God there exists an objectively true set of values for life already. I get it. N. would say the fact we don't have epistemic access to God or mind-independent truth means we ought to affirm the life and perspective we do know by creating values we phenomenologically can experience. In other words, short of faith, our own or someone else's Will and passions are useful and real to us in the phenomenological reality we inhabit, as opposed to something otherworldly. Which leads into your next paragraph...

>Although, it must be noted that Nietzsche himself concedes their probably is a God,

Citation? From my understanding, the ontological status of God, the question of his being and existence, is unknowable and thus pointless and useless to N, which, like you said, applies to whatever implications would result from such a being. With that said, the evidence generally supports that Nietzsche was most likely an atheist.

>And since I do it then follows that their is a right and wrong and that it is my duty to find it out and live it.

N. attacks this in what he calls the Will to Truth. Since truth is epistemically inaccessible, the duty you talk about is therefore life-denying and instead, like I said before with regards to the reality we do experience, it is better to focus on whatever interpretation of truth is most useful and vital to us.

>Christianity has built the best society's as its foundation,

Here's something I disagree with Nietzsche on as well. I think Christianity is, with a specific kind, a societal good and necessity. Contrary to popular understanding, N. was actually pro-some kind of religion.

bump for further discussion with OP and others.

op here, bumping while i think. Had to sleep

>>9350367
Feel free.

>>9348857
Im doing this on a tablet and cant find all the punctuation marks, so this is going to be messy.

First Point: wtp applying to all objects? That was not included in Beyond Good and Evil. Out of curiosity, which book did he write that in. Without context Nietzsche is starting to sound like a dark magician lol. To your point about wtp being he ultimate motive and wtl being our first motive, I disagree. I agree Wtl is our initial motive, but it is also in constant anxiety--to varying degrees, to remain alive. Wtl is not a static drive. Throughout ones life one is in constant engagement with his drive. Wtp only gets activated when one has the ability to not only survive, but thrive. Then you might be thinking that you use your wtp to live and survive. However, the foundational drive is wtl. Wtp serves wtl, so that very assertion--if conceded by you--indicates that wtl is the ultimate ends. Though, that then does bring up the question as to why people kill themselves or others. If wtp serves wtl, then why would they use their power to Kill? To that, I can only say they have dispensed with the value of life.

>>9348857
Second point: If one does not believe in God--or any certain religion, then your argument is a good one.

Third point: In Beyond Good and Evil he says so. I forget where. Hopefully my lap top will get fixed tomorrow and I can find an exact page notation for you. He was agnostic.

Fourth point: How is it life denying? I agree wtt is impossible to ever ultimately reach; however, wtt is vital for our continuing survival. To know both ourselves and our environment. That is life affirming. Then you might say those domains have nothing to do with morality, although, if arguing beyond the realm of religion, then learning about our human nature--or lack thereof might give us insights as to moral questions. For example, if the words we use really do have physiological affects on our bodies. If this was true, our morality would change. Of course this is only true for people who believe in God. If one is an atheist their is no reason to value life at all.

>>9348557
>The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan
shit

>>9348524


Haha, funny you should say that.

>>9352718
Which part, and why?