Nietzsche or Rousseau

[TxBrew]

It seems with this election there is more discussion of race and Democracy theory. Curious to know how everyone feels about it on a basic level.

What theology do you agree with more ..

Nietzsche's statement that by nature all men are unequal. Morality is just a product of the weak to limit the strong.

Or ...

Rousseau's statement that by nature all men are equal but become unequal through laws the strong impose to rule the weak.

 

[Judd]

I hate Nietzche.

Rousseau is so beautiful, and so insightful. Reveries of a Solitary Walker was one of those life-changing books for me. Plus, he's still relevant today, which is a real testement to his brilliance.

 

[Jim Karr]

Nietsche is dead

 

[arturo7]

I don't completely agree with either of these statements.

I don't want to sound un-American but it is obvious that we were not all created equal. I don't have the physical abilities of a professional athlete, nor the intellect of a physicist.

As for morality, this is not so easy. Although I often flip-flop, I generally believe that as a social species, we are born with a certain amount of it and develop/learn the rest.

For the record, I went with Nietzsche, although I think he goes waaaay overboard at times.

 

[olllllo]

What about Locke?
















John Locke.

 

[EvilTOJ]

I like the teachings of Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[Yooper]

I had to go with Nietzche, although I don't fully subscribe to his idea of morality being "a product of the weak to limit the strong". I think that in a few people, there is a "morality gene", an inborn trait to try to do the right thing. And I think that in even fewer people there is an "evil gene", an inborn trait to be evil. I think the rest of us just muddle through.

 

[Air Pirate]

neither, ill go with Kant and to some extent, Plato.

 

[beergears]

Not an answer, but...

Hand-written letter from J.J. Rousseau:

http://geneva-city.ch/culture/rousseau/img/38.jpg

 

[TheJadedDog]

I had to go with Nietzsche but for more than just the brief summation you give. I am an existentialist and Nietzsche (along with Kierkegaard) were really the seeds from which existentialism sprang. I know everyone loves to quote the old "God is dead" bit and "there is no truth" but what those thoughts led to is pretty much what I think about things, namely, we cannot know anything outside our own experience.

As for men being created equal or not, I think it's fairly safe to say that, inherently, they are not. Think about it, some people are natural leaders, laws and society didn't make them that way, they just are. Some people excel in math and sciences, others in languages, ect... This is not just a case of education, I was in the exact same classes with people who were light years ahead of me in some subjects and far behind me in others.

I think treating all people equally is different from saying we are all equal and far more challenging because we are not all equal.

 

[mrfocus]

I went with Nietzche because I agree with the statement. I'm in the same boat as TheJadedDog.

Furthermore, his writings on the meaning of words, in "Le Livre du philosophe" (sorry don't know the English version), really showed a whole new world to me.

Also, the existentialist idea "Einmal ist keinmal" really hit me in Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" (L'insoutenable légèreté de l'être).

 

[Klainmeister]

I'm with olllllo on this one. John Locke by far has the best understanding of the relationship between the leaders and the lead.

Locke FTW

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Machiavelli here...


j/k.

In all seriousness though, I drink, therefore I am.


I was always a fan of John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism. It doesn't work, of course, if you listen to others and let them have their say, but I think it's the only philosophy by which a leader can rightly lead... Simply put, always try to do the greater good. JS Mill is often explained as "do the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Of course, that gets into the "can you kill one to satisfy many?" conundrum. So, to avoid that, I just say "Do the greatest good". And with that, a leader may also consider the value of stability and the loyalty of the people being led. With that, it becomes a more tenable philosophy. But, of course, that is just my lesser fraction of a nickel.

 

[RICLARK]

I voted Nietzsche Because I believe you Are what you make of your self.

 

[html034]

Wow, I didn't expect to see a thread like this on HBT, especially not in the drunken ramblings category.

But as a current philosophy major, I thought I would put in my opinion. I have not read Rousseau, but I have read some Nietzsche. I voted Nietzsche, mainly because he's the one of the two that I am familiar with, and because there is a lot of his ideas that I really like. And as to the question at hand, generally I will agree with what TheJadedDog said but add this 'however'.

The reason that I disagree with Locke, dislike Kant, and despise Mill, is because I think that they all offer too easy of an answer to a hard issue that we all have to deal with as humans living in a society. I think that this is one of the issues that humans have been dealing with since the beginning of organized human society, and I don't think that the answer is to be found in a Utilitarian "do the most good for the most people" maxim, in Kant's categorical imperative, or underneath Rawl's veil of ignorance.

With that being said, I don't endorse the simple statement that morality was invented by the weak to control the strong. However, we have to look seriously at the nature of ourselves and of society. If society is a construct that we created for the mutual benefit of all members, that we assume any one of us would have voluntarily joined into given the chance, then how can we justify any injustice against the individual for the sake of the group. If we agree that humanity is something that is intrinsically valuable and ought to be preserved at any cost, then how do we avoid offering help to any person who needs it. If we realize that there are individuals who bring more to the collective than others, how do we treat that person better without compromising our idea of intrinsic human worth. How do we make a society that is designed to provide minimal cost to each person while providing each with a maximum return, without compromising whatever idea of worth we ascribe to humanity?

I don't have the answer to these questions but I have the idea that humanity does have some sort of intrinsic value, but this value exists due to the qualities that make humans different from other animals. So i think it follows that since humans hold these qualites to varying degrees, some are more valuable to society than others. But at the same time I think that each person, regardless of his or her degree of value to society, has a life that has meaning to themself, and we have to remember this when we are designing our social institutions.

So we have to balance our mutually beneficial social order, with a strong sense of human worth. And I don't think that Mill, Kant, or even Nietzsche, fully understand the significance, and complexity of this question (Rawls does to a higher extent than those three). But the answer isn't just that f-ing simple.

okay, went a little long winded there, but yeah, RDWHAHB

 

[iamjonsharp]

Hmm...I disagree with Nietzsche's and Rousseau's statements...they are both completely godless and humanistic.

 

[olllllo]

Wow, I didn't expect to see a thread like this on HBT, especially not in the drunken ramblings category.

Here. I meant this John Locke then...

Does that work?

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

I believe that there is me and the rest of you are just figments of my deranged mind.

In essence, by posting in this forum I am talking to myself.

 

[html034]

Here. I meant this John Locke then...

Does that work?

Wow, don't really know what to make of that.

 

[arturo7]

Looks like the poll is running 2 to 1 in favor of Nietzsche over Rousseau at this point.

I wonder if it would be the opposite in a wine forum?

 

[Brewpastor]

I need to point out that both of these individuals place the source of morality with humanity. Other schools of thinking hold that the source of morality is not human, but divine. So I think this poll is a bit like a two legged milking stool - something is missing. I would also argue that this is not theology, which deal with philosophies of divinity (greek: theos = god, logos = word)) and more so ethics, which is moral philosophy.

Carry on.

 

[uglygoat]

is Rousseau also the painter?

 

[niquejim]

Good question,
I voted Nietzsche , but I believe we are created with (somewhat) equal opportunities(inner city and farm raised are not the same) and it is our choices that define what we become.

I believe in personal responsibility

 

[beergears]

is Rousseau also the painter?

No.

Also, different eras.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

I need to point out that both of these individuals place the source of morality with humanity. Other schools of thinking hold that the source of morality is not human, but divine. So I think this poll is a bit like a two legged milking stool - something is missing. I would also argue that this is not theology, which deal with philosophies of divinity (greek: theos = god, logos = word)) and more so ethics, which is moral philosophy.

Carry on.

OK, This proves that you are NOT Benny Hinn. Benny would just shouted some BS about being the Messiah returned and head butted the screen.

 

[uglygoat]

No.

Also, different eras.

henri rousseau is the painter then.

that's what i thought you guys were talking about. i prefer the painting to any philospical discussion... i think the classics are the crux of thought.

 

[olllllo]

Nitschke would have destroyed that Frenchie

 

[Sean]

Don't like nietzsche. hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism. So hung up on himself was he.

You got to believe in something. Even if you cannot prove it. keeps you sane,

 

[Kai]

Nietzsche was a pathetic, disgusting little man with dangerous but worthless ideas. It makes me sad when I see people who are genuinely good, friendly people become obsessed with him (I'm a college student, it happens around me a lot). I see it as a smug but aggressive expounding of the "look out for number 1" attitude - let the strong do what they want and let the weak go f* themselves. I sort of hold his execrable works responsible for the unfortunate prevalence of that viewpoint. His works are most valuable as an example of the effects of syphilis on the mind.

Rousseau, on the other hand, is a beautiful man, and he led a beautiful life. I voted Rousseau, although my favourite Rousseau works are his personal ones.