oh look another Nietzsche thread

>>9705374
>fucked up formatting
god fucking dammit

It looks like he's doing a reversal and then a reversal of that. First he wants to get rid of the free-will; great, does that mean that our wills are not free, that it's just a matter of cause and effect (chemical reactions in the brain, our upbringing, or genes, whatever?) No, says, Nietzsche, that's not true, either, because it assumes that there "really" is something called a cause and then this acts in the world in such a way as to produce an effect. "Cause" and "effect" are human terms, not descriptions of what really is, but fictions we use to chop up the world into intelligible segments for us. Whatever makes people do what people do cannot be conceived either as "free will" or "determined" because both assume that the human names for things are what "really" is. Cause and effect are interpretations of whatever really moves the world, but we can't get rid of them because all knowledge is interpretation.

We should have a sticky advising all potential Nietzsche-posters to Start with the Greeks so I don't have to stare at multiple copies of this picture in the catalog every single day

>>9705423
I started with Plato faggot

If you fail to believe in free will you'd be inclined to come to believe in the iron authority of all the causes it rejects. I'm sure you've seen court cases where some people wanted the criminal to be let off easy because he had a hard childhood, like the childhood is the reason for the crime done.

>he fell for the nietsche meme

>>9705522
Then go back and try again because you clearly didn't get it if you're reading Nietzsche.

>>9705374 (OP)
>he dismisses the possibility of a free will "in the superlative metaphysical sense" meaning we are not 'completely' in control of our actions
He doesn't, he's talking shit about those that would like
>to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden

>What exactly does Nietzsche mean by "unfree-will"?
>“cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something
What Nietzsche is doing is rejecting strawmen of both libertarian free will and scientistic, reductive, deterministic mechanism because he's a person who has a very high opinion on himself and thinks he's useful.

>>9705522
Not even Heraclitus, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides?

No wonder you struggle so much with understanding a philologist of the Greeks.

File: 1455478541391.jpg (535KB, 950x715px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 950x715px

>>9705374
When he says "in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half-educated)", he is saying that, first of all, to understand things like "freedom of the will", "freedom", "will" etc. in a pure metaphysical sense, as in on a completely conceptual level, as in something abstract from the physical world and not intricately tied to it, not even tied to it — inseparable from it, the same thing — means you are "half-educated" on the subject. You don't have the full picture in your head yet. You're still dividing the world into these abstract layers which is an inaccurate judgment of the world.

Next, he says that this sense of "free will" is boorish (rough) and points out how that is the case here:

>all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by ¨the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence.

You are will. You are will, talking about your own supposed "freedom" or lack thereof. The activity is a cosmic joke, like pulling yourself out of the sinking swamp tar by your own hair.

Next, he criticizes the so-called determinists who argue with the free-will believers because they too are looking at this in an erroneous metaphysical sense. They argue, we are not free, we are UNfree. Nope, that is just the other side of the same coin of inaccurate judgment. Freedom and lack thereof: this scale of measurement does not apply to will. Will is. That is all. Then he goes on to point out how cause and effect, like all things we talk about and see, are interpretations, not facts of the world. To understand that, you must be able to see your will clearly, in the moment of itself, and see the very process of the world being spun out of it — try meditation if you have no idea what I'm saying there.

>>9706730
>Not even Heraclitus, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides?
>No wonder you struggle so much with understanding a philologist of the Greeks.
Hmm I've always thought Plato was what people meant by start with the Greeks, of which I invested a ton of time into. What would you suggest of these works exactly? I've read Antigone but that's about it of what you mentioned.