View Single Post
Old 06.27.2008, 01:26 PM   #32
m1rr0r dash
invito al cielo
 
m1rr0r dash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: atari
Posts: 2,228
m1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's assesm1rr0r dash kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by atari 2600
Santayana felt that Nietzsche was a "constitutional invalid" and "belated romantic" that embraced egotism and subjective truth and whose thought aspired that to commit all manner of crimes and survive is among life's highest virtues.

i think that you are confusing amorality with immorality.

this is the exact mistake that the National Socialists make in appropriating Nietzsche's writings to justify something that Nietzsche COULD NOT HAVE and DID NOT support.

let us take by comparison the actions of Heidegger who DID have a choice, chose to join the National Socialist party, gave lectures supporting their actions and excused himself by claiming to be apolitical. THAT is immoral.

my (limited) understanding of Nietzsche's amorality as described in The Birth of Tragedy is that it seeks to make decisions about right and wrong based on aesthetics rather that a (christian) code of ethics.
__________________
 
m1rr0r dash is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|