Nietzsche and Nihilism, Metaphysics

[BillHopkins]

While this site gains its modern footing from Nietzsche, its fundamental viewpoint is Platonic monism. That negates nothing in Nietzsche and in fact enhances it. Traditionalism is the next logical step after Nietzsche; Traditionalism as influenced by Germanic Idealism (Kant, Schopenhauer) and Plato is the next step after that.

How is harking back to the past the next logical step after Nietzsche, who, like you say:

said that god is dead, and that we have killed him; that we are in a time of reevaluation of all values; that we have outgrown our old myths, and needed to invent new ones.

I would argue that people in a scientific world of the 21st century cannot go back to traditionalism, which is essentially a universalisation and abstraction of the common tenents of the worlds' old myths. It will be a sociological impossibility. Like trying to roll a boulder up a hill. If this is possibile traditionalism will have to incorporate more concepts from the physical sciences which is the 'metaphysics' of the 21st century.

Does this site exclude a viewpoint which is, essentially modern, in looking beyond traditional ways of viewing the world?

[Time Curator 23]

I don't mean to be obtuse here but how do you reconcile Nietzsche and nihilism with having any kind of spiritual or moral belief? I just don't understand this.

If you read the will to power, nietzsche's ideas on belief, and the positive connection with culture, are rampant in the first section. He never criticises belief, per say (simply the consequences of bad belefes). NIETzSCHE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH OR FALISTY OF A BELIEF! Our scientist society is, though (ironically a product of chritianity's insitance on the logos/word), and this has led to nihilism. Nietzsche wants to OVERCOME nihilism. If this is dones with spiritual or moral beliefs, so be it.

This quote says it all:

"The "predominance of suffering over pleasure" or the opposite (hedonism): these two doctrines are already signposts to nihilism. For in both of these cases no ultimate meaning is posited except the appearance of pleasure or displeasure. But that is how a kind of man speaks that no longer dares to posit a will, a purpose, a meaning: for any healthier kind of man the value of life is certainly not measured by the standard of these trifles. And suffering might predominate, and in spite of that a powerful will might exist, a Yes to life, a need for this predominance."

Hmm, I just don't see how he was ever advocating blind ideology/morality/belief. To my mind, in that quote, he's simply saying that a life spent chasing pleasure in hedonistic fashion is as equally deluded and non-developmental as a life spent avoiding pleasure in ascetic fashion.

He's saying that we need to stop worrying about silly moral question like "do I have enough pleasure in my life? am I being good to my self?" or "do I have too much pleasure in my life? am I being a good person?"

He's saying that these questions are actually just selfish and egotistical and immoral either way, that if we want to live a pleasurable and moral life, we should see things from a perspective totally above and beyond them, and that we should live higher, more feral, more direct, more real, more meaningful, more willful lives.

But, yeah, I would definitely say that Nietzsche WAS concerned with discernment between true and false beliefs. Why? Well, because merely reverting back to false beliefs is only a temporary fix, and will eventually lead to nihilism yet again...

[Time Curator 23]

While this site gains its modern footing from Nietzsche, its fundamental viewpoint is Platonic monism. That negates nothing in Nietzsche and in fact enhances it. Traditionalism is the next logical step after Nietzsche; Traditionalism as influenced by Germanic Idealism (Kant, Schopenhauer) and Plato is the next step after that.

How is harking back to the past the next logical step after Nietzsche, who, like you say:

said that god is dead, and that we have killed him; that we are in a time of reevaluation of all values; that we have outgrown our old myths, and needed to invent new ones.

I would argue that people in a scientific world of the 21st century cannot go back to traditionalism, which is essentially a universalisation and abstraction of the common tenents of the worlds' old myths. It will be a sociological impossibility. Like trying to roll a boulder up a hill. If this is possibile traditionalism will have to incorporate more concepts from the physical sciences which is the 'metaphysics' of the 21st century.

Does this site exclude a viewpoint which is, essentially modern, in looking beyond traditional ways of viewing the world?

Hey man. You seem genuinely interested in this stuff, and in its social impacts.

So, please, don't take this the wrong way:

Spend more time studying Tradition.

There is nothing in it that is against natural philosophy / modern science / the empirical method.

There is plenty of room in Tradition for it, and, in fact, Tradition supports and enhances it.

It was actually the teachers within the Tradition and the thinkers inspired by said teachers that gave birth to modern science!

[BillHopkins]

Hmm, I just don't see how he was ever advocating blind ideology/morality/belief. To my mind, in that quote, he's simply saying that a life spent chasing pleasure in hedonistic fashion is as equally deluded and non-developmental as a life spent avoiding pleasure in ascetic fashion.

He's saying that we need to stop worrying about silly moral question like "do I have enough pleasure in my life? am I being good to my self?" or "do I have too much pleasure in my life? am I being a good person?"

He's saying that these questions are actually just selfish and egotistical and immoral either way, that if we want to live a pleasurable and moral life, we should see things from a perspective totally above and beyond them, and that we should live higher, more feral, more direct, more real, more meaningful, more willful lives.

But, yeah, I would definitely say that Nietzsche WAS concerned with discernment between true and false beliefs. Why? Well, because merely reverting back to false beliefs is only a temporary fix, and will eventually lead to nihilism yet again...

In the quote he's making the point about cultures which cannot give suffering (i.e. life) a meaninig. They reverts to the futile (ultimately) quest of trying to minimise suffering. You're right when you say:

if we want to live a pleasurable and moral life, we should see things from a perspective totally above and beyond them, and that we should live higher, more feral, more direct, more real, more meaningful lives.

But by giving death a meaninig, by being artists and creating meaninig, a culture IS living a more feral, direct, real life.

having said that, I don't believe a culture can simply create their naratives and myths from thin air. They have to be congruent with the best 'metaphysical' views of the day or they will be filtered out before they can gain any significant and long lasting level of transmission and retention in human minds.