I realised if I'm being authentic

[The Doctor]

It means I'm actually being liar and faker. Since my default is heavily outcome oriented , i should be ready to do anything to meet those ends including lies and theft. It's unnatural to feel bad about being scum , if I was an honest person i would lie and steal without shame ( Nietzsche talks about this in pale criminal)

 

[『 』]

It means I'm actually being liar and faker. Since my default is heavily outcome oriented , i should be ready to do anything to meet those ends including lies and theft. It's unnatural to feel bad about being scum , if I was an honest person i would lie and steal without shame ( Nietzsche talks about this in pale criminal)

Being authentic is living in accordance with your self-imposed values.

Acting deceptively for the goal of an outcome is not authentic, your outcome oriented desire is not a reflection of your true self, it has nothing to do with who you are as an individual.

It depends mainly on what outcomes you desire, for in the sense of hedonism, it is pre moral and has no values, one is commanded by their instincts, their animalistic nature.

To live authenticity means to craft your character into the strongest and most capable self that you are, that uses suffering as a catalyst for power, power aimed at bringing balance to your instincts.

Ironically, in the context of the pale criminal, the criminal is one who is struck with terror at what he has done after he gave into the impulse, he is weak and sick because of the neurosis that restricts his clear thought.

With this, the criminal is essentially ill, his passions have several aims that corrupt his reason, he is a passive observer of his actions.

His inauthenticity can be paralleled with that of the herd, who's actions are guided by the popular morality, who becomes an observer of his self as a reflection of the masses.

 

[The Doctor]

Being authentic is living in accordance with your self-imposed values.

Acting deceptively for the goal of an outcome is not authentic, your outcome oriented desire is not a reflection of your true self, it has nothing to do with who you are as an individual.

It depends mainly on what outcomes you desire, for in the sense of hedonism, it is pre moral and has no values, one is commanded by their instincts, their animalistic nature.

To live authenticity means to craft your character into the strongest and most capable self that you are, that uses suffering as a catalyst for power, power aimed at bringing balance to your instincts.

Ironically, in the context of the pale criminal, the criminal is one who is struck with terror at what he has done after he gave into the impulse, he is weak and sick because of the neurosis that restricts his clear thought.

With this, the criminal is essentially ill, his passions have several aims that corrupt his reason, he is a passive observer of his actions.

His inauthenticity can be paralleled with that of the herd, who's actions are guided by the popular morality, who becomes an observer of his self as a reflection of the masses.

The entire point of the pale criminal chapter is not authenticity in the vein of french absurdist philosophy but the criminal's guilt over his actions. His instincts are not in his control and for Nietzsche guilt is nothing but a residue of the memory of punishment imposed on those who break arbitrary moral laws. He doesn't condemn the criminal's actions but feels for his terror at himself when he realises he is capable of murder ( hence pale)

And my self- imposed values are outcome-oriented. For my greater values to be realised certain conditions have to be met and these are outcome- based ( say money, phyzeek and p*ssy for example). I know my greater values won't be possible to realise( and so for me to be virtuous) unless certain lesser albeit important conditions are met. This means authenticity for me is knowing when to lie and when to cheat and I'm actually being inauthentic by not lying when lying is warranted.

 

[『 』]

The entire point of the pale criminal chapter is not authenticity in the vein of french absurdist philosophy but the criminal's guilt over his actions. His instincts are not in his control and for Nietzsche guilt is nothing but a residue of the memory of punishment imposed on those who break arbitrary moral laws. He doesn't condemn the criminal's actions but feels for his terror at himself when he realises he is capable of murder ( hence pale)

And my self- imposed values are outcome-oriented. For my greater values to be realised certain conditions have to be met and these are outcome- based ( say money, phyzeek and p*ssy for example). I know my greater values won't be possible to realise( and so for me to be virtuous) unless certain lesser albeit important conditions are met. This means authenticity for me is knowing when to lie and when to cheat and I'm actually being inauthentic by not lying when lying is warranted.

His instincts rise out of the unconscious, man is a bundle of drives that fight against one another.
He feels terror not because he realizes he is capable, but because he only realizes this deed after the matter, not before, not realizing that he is not a rational animal as the Western philosophers and Socratics posited, but deeply irrational and chaotic.

The moral laws that were dictated upon people were not arbitrary either, they arose from the Master and Slave moralities.

Values, are not desires.
Values are not dependant on outcomes, but on the intention of your actions, whereas desire seeks an outcome.

Solely pursuing pleasure is not reflective of being authentic, you are giving yourself up to your drives, which is a sign of being uncultured and weak-willed.

Being authentic consists of bringing order and mastering the drives.

 

[The Doctor]

His instincts rise out of the unconscious, man is a bundle of drives that fight against one another.
He feels terror not because he realizes he is capable, but because he only realizes this deed after the matter, not before, not realizing that he is not a rational animal as the Western philosophers and Socratics posited, but deeply irrational and chaotic.

? Realisation is still realisation, obviously hell know he's capable only after the act, it's always a post hoc realisation. Just because something is unconscious doesn't mean it has not had an origin in history.

The moral laws that were dictated upon people were not arbitrary either, they arose from the Master and Slave moralities.

This is what arbitrary means in reference to morality with the eagle's eye of philology aka relative wrt culture and happenstance.

Values, are not desires.
Values are not dependant on outcomes, but on the intention of your actions, whereas desire seeks an outcome.

A Value can be a desire, or incorporated into one as seen in the case of the Epicureans. Ataraxia is both a value and a desire although cloaked by the veneer of rationality

Solely pursuing pleasure is not reflective of being authentic, you are giving yourself up to your drives, which is a sign of being uncultured and weak-willed.

Being authentic consists of bringing order and mastering the drives.

No this is conservicuck take. Drives differ among people and there is no guarantee there will be harmony akin to how Nietzsche talks about celibacy not being a virtue for some as their drives are more powerful.

 

[『 』]

? Realisation is still realisation, obviously hell know he's capable only after the act, it's always a post hoc realisation. Just because something is unconscious doesn't mean it has not had an origin in history.

You're missing the point, it's not about his capacity to murder, but about the irrational tendencies which are suppressed in each variation of morality, the criminal here is supposed to represent someone who wishes to overcome himself, but remains bound to the morality of his age because he cannot unify his drives.

This is what arbitrary means in reference to morality with the eagle's eye of philology aka relative wrt culture and happenstance.

The moralities were never arbitrary, they were created as a culture's attempt to overcome itself.

A Value can be a desire, or incorporated into one as seen in the case of the Epicureans. Ataraxia is both a value and a desire although cloaked by the veneer of rationality

Epicurus's valuation of life was freedom from suffering, that one should be selective in ones desires and that they should be few.

His valuation goes beyond pleasure and pain and strives to bring peace and freedom to the mind.

No this is conservicuck take. Drives differ among people and there is no guarantee there will be harmony akin to how Nietzsche talks about celibacy not being a virtue for some as their drives are more powerful.

Nietzsche says that if not for the ascetic ideal, that life would not have attained meaning, he would have not risen above the other animals.
Without this spiritualization of the overcoming of the impulses, we wouldn't have developed reason.
The community relies on an individual to suppress this thoughts, to think out his actions before he does them, which came into being through the enforcement of punishment and consequences, though an invention of good and evil.

In turn, that morality acted as a catalyst for the development of self-knowledge.

Morality has served as a resistance to evolve society and individuals.
At times its values have changed, but it's motivation has been consistent.
In turn, all of our higher traits were born out of the spiritualization of cruelty.

 

[based liberal guy]

Liberal assaults the Nietzsche fag when he barks

 

[The Doctor]

You're missing the point, it's not about his capacity to murder, but about the irrational tendencies which are suppressed in each variation of morality, the criminal here is supposed to represent someone who wishes to overcome himself, but remains bound to the morality of his age because he cannot unify his drives.

No that's a very blighted reading of Nietzsche. The criminal instinct is actually lauded in certain sections because in most cases it has in tandem a virility that has been bred out of modern Europe due to Christianity ( which he abhors). The unification/ sublimation of drives is an almost Hermetic concept which Nietzsche didn't really talk about except as criticisms against the clergy. His interpretation of organ differentiation in organisms means he actually saw the drives as individual warring factions that eventually draw up a compromise between each other with one or two drives predominating ( common for European thought at the time with chronotypes of sanguine, melancholic etc)

The moralities were never arbitrary, they were created as a culture's attempt to overcome itself.

Epicurus's valuation of life was freedom from suffering, that one should be selective in ones desires and that they should be few.

His valuation goes beyond pleasure and pain and strives to bring peace and freedom to the mind.

Nietzsche saw through all this and talks about how Epicurus was simply too late in greek history and had to resort to anaesthesia to make life bearable ( addressed on the section on the Greeks in WTP). Pleasure is simply the absence of pain and ataraxia similar to nirvana is just a glorified cultural artefact when the will to power manifests differently / singular drive acting as a central hub in the network of drives.

Nietzsche says that if not for the ascetic ideal, that life would not have attained meaning, he would have not risen above the other animals.
Without this spiritualization of the overcoming of the impulses, we wouldn't have developed reason.
The community relies on an individual to suppress this thoughts, to think out his actions before he does them, which came into being through the enforcement of punishment and consequences, though an invention of good and evil.

He states the highest species of man are also the most dangerous, since Aryan influence ( especially it's sacerdotal aspect) corrupted the world. The ascetic ideal in india is only admired because of a breeding project aimed at strengthening the will to power in a particular type of man.

I don't disagree with your assessment of how valuations came to be , but they have nothing to do with how things really are.

In turn, that morality acted as a catalyst for the development of self-knowledge.

Morality has served as a resistance to evolve society and individuals.
At times its values have changed, but it's motivation has been consistent.
In turn, all of our higher traits were born out of the spiritualization of cruelty.

Spiritualisation of cruelty is still cruelty, maybe even worse because it is now sanctioned and has no bad conscience behind it meaning higher rates of diffusion among the populace.

 

[『 』]

No that's a very blighted reading of Nietzsche. The criminal instinct is actually lauded in certain sections because in most cases it has in tandem a virility that has been bred out of modern Europe due to Christianity ( which he abhors). The unification/ sublimation of drives is an almost Hermetic concept which Nietzsche didn't really talk about except as criticisms against the clergy. His interpretation of organ differentiation in organisms means he actually saw the drives as individual warring factions that eventually draw up a compromise between each other with one or two drives predominating ( common for European thought at the time with chronotypes of sanguine, melancholic etc)

Nietzsche speaks about the cultivation and number of drives as the defining feature of a greatness, strong conflicting drives.
It is not Hermetic.

Nietzsche saw through all this and talks about how Epicurus was simply too late in greek history and had to resort to anaesthesia to make life bearable ( addressed on the section on the Greeks in WTP). Pleasure is simply the absence of pain and ataraxia similar to nirvana is just a glorified cultural artefact when the will to power manifests differently / singular drive acting as a central hub in the network of drives.

I would take passages from WTP with a grain of salt, because of its posthumous publication that was complied and edited by his sister.
Pleasure is not the absence of pain, both are inexorably linked, he speaks about this in the Gay Science.

He states the highest species of man are also the most dangerous, since Aryan influence ( especially it's sacerdotal aspect) corrupted the world. The ascetic ideal in india is only admired because of a breeding project aimed at strengthening the will to power in a particular type of man.

I don't disagree with your assessment of how valuations came to be , but they have nothing to do with how things really are.

The ascetic ideal isn't limited to India, he speaks about it in reference to priests and Christian monastics as well.

If you don't agree with how valuations came to be, but you say that is not how things are, then you do disagree xD.

Nietzsche is the one whom you're disagreeing with, he writes in detail what I stated within his Genealogy of Morals.

Spiritualisation of cruelty is still cruelty, maybe even worse because it is now sanctioned and has no bad conscience behind it meaning higher rates of diffusion among the populace.

You misunderstand the will to power and how strength and vitality arise out of cruelty and oppression.
Consciousness grew out of the practice of punishment in human society, each stage of morality has birthed
Even the cruelest acts and the evil acts against others function as a healthy struggle for the species, it fuels our evolution.

 

[The Doctor]

Nietzsche speaks about the cultivation and number of drives as the defining feature of a greatness, strong conflicting drives.
It is not Hermetic.

You cannot cultivate a drive it is present from your inception.

I would take passages from WTP with a grain of salt, because of its posthumous publication that was complied and edited by his sister.
Pleasure is not the absence of pain, both are inexorably linked, he speaks about this in the Gay Science.

Yes but you used pleasure as antithetical to pain which for an epicurean/buddhist logic definitely holds. Nietzsche is talking about a specific manifestation of this antinomy when the will to power is at its non plus ultra

The ascetic ideal isn't limited to India, he speaks about it in reference to priests and Christian monastics as well.

If you don't agree with how valuations came to be, but you say that is not how things are, then you do disagree xD.

The Indian ascetic ideal is clearly distinguished from the Christian. The former is the downgoing one , the latter is in his words a "chandala religion ".

I see no reason why arguing for the utility of values in a civilisation should make them true on a strict, platonic level ( which of course n. denies the existence of)

Nietzsche is the one whom you're disagreeing with, he writes in detail what I stated within his Genealogy of Morals.

You misunderstand the will to power and how strength and vitality arise out of cruelty and oppression.

You are confusing him for certain english utilitarians like Spencer who DID argue that our drives are ultimately "good" as it fosters pro-social behaviours. For Nietzsche it is the opposite, precisely because being pro social leads to better outcomes , they are selected for in populations and it feels good to be compassionate or whatnot on average. He doesn't evaluate morals on any basis , all he does is lay the cards on how they probably came to be .

Consciousness grew out of the practice of punishment in human society, each stage of morality has birthed
Even the cruelest acts and the evil acts against others function as a healthy struggle for the species, it fuels our evolution.

This is digressing from my point , but punishment had as much to do with growing our brain as say learning to cook, or learning to systematise sounds or higher fidelity in tool - making through hand eye co-ordination. In short it can be a contributing factor but not a sine qua non

Nietzsche talks about Epicurus here. His sisters writings have been expunged from the WTP , in fact his polemic is often anti-Germanic and pro-semitic in his extant works including the WTP.

 

[『 』]

You cannot cultivate a drive it is present from your inception.

Nietzsche speaks about drives in this way. Drives can evolve, be sublimated, and, as I said before regarding morality, spiritualized.

Yes but you used pleasure as antithetical to pain which for an epicurean/buddhist logic definitely holds. Nietzsche is talking about a specific manifestation of this antinomy when the will to power is at its non plus ultra

I never said that pain was antithetical to pleasure.
The will to power can't be null, it is life. You've incorrectly conceptualized it consistently.

The Indian ascetic ideal is clearly distinguished from the Christian. The former is the downgoing one , the latter is in his words a "chandala religion ".

I see no reason why arguing for the utility of values in a civilisation should make them true on a strict, platonic level ( which of course n. denies the existence of)

When he speaks about the ascetic ideal, he includes all orders of priests and sages. It was the ideal that formed the morality of a certain era, one that aimed at immorality and liberation by subjugating oneself.
He never calls Indian religion a Chandala religion or a down going.
He states in the Twilight of the Idols that the caste system was a breeding morality.

He actually praises the wisdom of the Indians multiple times over the Westerners within Daybreak, the motto for the book is even a Vedic hymn.

You are confusing him for certain english utilitarians like Spencer who DID argue that our drives are ultimately "good" as it fosters pro-social behaviours. For Nietzsche it is the opposite, precisely because being pro social leads to better outcomes , they are selected for in populations and it feels good to be compassionate or whatnot on average. He doesn't evaluate morals on any basis , all he does is lay the cards on how they probably came to be .

Nietzsche doesn't say the drives are "good"; they are amoral.
In some civilizations, values changed so that being cruel or vicious was seen as a virtue; this is one of the fundamental tenants of the Genealogy of Morality.

This is digressing from my point , but punishment had as much to do with growing our brain as say learning to cook, or learning to systematise sounds or higher fidelity in tool - making through hand eye co-ordination. In short it can be a contributing factor but not a sine qua non

Nietzsche talks about Epicurus here. His sisters writings have been expunged from the WTP , in fact his polemic is often anti-Germanic and pro-semitic in his extant works including the WTP.

Within the Gay Science, it is those that divert from the values of the community who are punished; this consequence of punishment is what led humans to develop a fear of the community's power.
Nietzsche states that this is one of the factors that allowed humans to think rationally to begin with: We had to become aware of something that would happen in the future, we had to develop a memory.
We can only feel this fear by imagining the wrath of the community beforehand, the ability to counter a feeling with a thought.

This is, in Nietzsche's view this is the nexus that brought forth the expansion of consciousness and cognition, the ability to conceive of a future self and a self that exists across time, and that it is dependant on our suppression or countering of instinct that enables our survival within the community.