Neechee's On The Genealogy Of Morality

Grotocult · Post by **Grotocult** » 19 Mar 2007, 22:40

Read this today. A good read, apart from the bit where he contends that Jews invented Christianity to get revenge on the rest of the world, which is a bit dumb.

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 20 Mar 2007, 04:18

Beyond good and evil is simply brilliant. I'm reading Ecce Homo myself now, but I haven't really got the time. Too much time wasted on Kant, Hume and the other boring ones.

Grotocult · Post by **Grotocult** » 20 Mar 2007, 10:28

I have a lot of time for Kant. I agree with him on the existence of the categorical imperative. I do not think it's incompatible with a Freudian superego.

Eviltoastman · Post by **Eviltoastman** » 20 Mar 2007, 15:55

The categorical imperative is said to be inconsistent.

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 20 Mar 2007, 16:37

I think the categorical imperative is flawed. It's consequences can be insane. I'm not saying utalitarism is a better option, but there are some problems here.

First, Kant states that one shall not lie, and one shall not break promises.

So, what happens if:

1) A fugitive asks you to hide him in your basement, and you promise to do so.
2) The pursuers turn up on your door and ask if you're hiding the man?

Some argues that one shall not hide the man in the first place, or promise to do so, but then again, almost anyone could want this as a universal law (hiding a refugee). So, what's the solution here?

Oh, and I like Kant, by all means, but I'd rather read Nietzsche or Schopenhauer. Unfortunatly my classes in Epistemology and Ethics doesn't cover neither of them.

judasmuppet · Post by **judasmuppet** » 20 Mar 2007, 16:43

I'm still not sure how any of this study is useful. It's obviously poor as a form of entertainment.

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 20 Mar 2007, 16:47

Ethics is pretty dull. I mean, it shouldn't be, but the curriculum is really traditional.

Epistemology is great though.

Don Eduardo · Post by **Don Eduardo** » 21 Mar 2007, 01:48

I get drunk at pubs too.

Eviltoastman · Post by **Eviltoastman** » 21 Mar 2007, 02:08

judasmuppet";p="856693 wrote:I'm still not sure how any of this study is useful. It's obviously poor as a form of entertainment.

It's extremely useful since the moral philosophy and applied ethics are the cornerstone of the most prominant field in medicine at the moment, which is of course bioethics. I love Peter Singer and would love to learn more. Kant's work is largely self defeating and nietzsche is like reading a college newspaper written by a teenage atheist with a hard on and a thesaurus.

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 21 Mar 2007, 04:23

You haven't read N. very well I think. It's not just "ranting".

Singer, isn't that the ecological philosopher? Or am I mixing him up with Sylvan.

judasmuppet · Post by **judasmuppet** » 21 Mar 2007, 07:44

Nam Tsao";p="856796 wrote:
judasmuppet";p="856693 wrote:I'm still not sure how any of this study is useful. It's obviously poor as a form of entertainment.
It's extremely useful since the moral philosophy and applied ethics are the cornerstone of the most prominant field in medicine at the moment, which is of course bioethics.

You mean as opposed to just letting the Christian Right run things?

Eviltoastman · Post by **Eviltoastman** » 21 Mar 2007, 08:11

I guess, since some notable bioethicists seem to challenge Christian morality more than anything else. That said most problems arose when Christian's modified the Hippocratic oath and moulded into the shape it is in today basically to fit their agenda.

judasmuppet · Post by **judasmuppet** » 21 Mar 2007, 10:01

Someone should do something about this.

Eviltoastman · Post by **Eviltoastman** » 21 Mar 2007, 13:03

Don't worry. Uncle Peter has already started his work.

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 21 Mar 2007, 13:08

Many have, thank God.

See what I did there? Ha! Did you see that!? Fuck, I´m wicked funny!

Eviltoastman · Post by **Eviltoastman** » 21 Mar 2007, 13:32

uRaq therefore uR. See what I did there?

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 21 Mar 2007, 14:49

Damn, we're cool.

But, let's talk about Nietzsche baby. Aggro, what do you think so far about Genealogy of Morals. I mean, an extended version of your first post would be appreciated.

Thunder Beer · Post by **Thunder Beer** » 21 Mar 2007, 20:13

*leaves books&film for ever*

Redundant Retard · Post by **Redundant Retard** » 22 Mar 2007, 03:24