Quote:
Originally posted by CerebroDragon:
Haha, indeed Hiero! I'm well aware of of das ubermensch and its theory of 'overcoming', but thanks for your nice succinct summary. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I'm just as 'bungled and botched' as most regular poeple - I wouldn't dare blaspheme the ideal of the Superman, for that's what it is, an ideal.
I doubt very much it is attainable, though it is inspiration for man to rise above mediocrity.
Besides, I've too much Schopenhauerian pessimism in my blood to be too far on the path of the ubermensch! 
In my previous post I acknowledged that it is possible to derive values back to the world's religions (Nietzsche wrote extensively on the genealogy fo morals) but countered with the idea that this does not give them 'ownership' of values above the individual.
For example:
Lord British' ideal of Avatarhood could be said to contain elements of Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle said that a virtuous life is one where man lives out his fullest potential in learning, a maxim I'm certain ol' LB would agree to. 
But does this necessarily make the ideal Aristotelian?
I don't think so, but that's not to say the influence isn't there in the ideal's creation.
Conclusion:
That people can make their own interpretations of 'noble' I.E Thinking 'like a christian' doesn't make the thoughts themselves christian, regardless of whether it fits the ideology or not.
Thus, if a value can be said to be a pre-defined order of values (a 'christian' one) that in itself does not make it christian. (Hope that makes sense.)
Aiiiie. I'm prattling on here. But I like discussions like this. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Thoughts anyone?
Cheers,
Cerebrodragon
P.S Hiero: I'm Agnostic, don't think I can make the big jump just yet to full fledged Atheism...
Neat story, Griefmaker! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
|
*Sigh* Of course the ubermensch is a theoretical ideal. Thank you for attempting to patronisingly insult my intelligence again.
Perhaps you're not actively trying to patronise, but keep in mind that I've already read all of Nietsche's published works, along with the preserved manuscripts of Plato, Aristotle etc... so please refrain from the philosophy tutorials, and I'll do the same for you.
Now, as per your conclusion, it isn't particularly clear to me what you mean by defining a value as 'a pre-defined order of values'. So in describing a chair to someone who has never seen a chair before you would simply say 'a chair looks like a chair, y'know?'
Lord British is a fictional character, written by a group of people who developed the ideology of their gameworld based upon historical philosophical thought in this world. Yes, yes Lord British's philosophical discussion of ethics could be considered Aristotelian in nature. As well as Christian (humility and compassion as the mainstays of of society), Buddhist (infinity as the all-embracing force to be reflected upon during meditation)... etc etc. The fictional world created by Garriet and co. is the net result of months upon months poring over philosophical texts and discussing their application to a medieval fantasy game world. There would be no Britannia virtue system without Earth's philosophical movements.
The names of philosophical movements are just identification codes. 'Christian' can just as easily describe 'communal survival ideals for oppressed/enslaved populations'. It's the mindframe that matters, not the name given to it (which, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to have been arguing anyway). Mindframes do not change, there have always been fighters, takers, slaves, pessimists, optimists, guilt-trippers ever since life itself began. You can pick and choose the bits you like from other people's ideas and sew them together into a formulaic structure, but that doesn't mean you've created anything inherently
new. Nietzsche was just reiterating the ideals of much older civilisations to an unreceptive contemporary audience. He didn't necessarily create anything new, he just re-articulated old moral systems and tried to 'remind' his colleagues of the validity and value of ways of life that they had either forgotten, or had written off as archaic, outmoded, and 'evil'.
So, what I'm saying is that all developement of thought is derived from the ingredients that have gone in to it. However you want to label your 'new' thoughts, they are still totally reliant on the thoughts that have gone before.
With regards to moral philosophy, we're not creating anything new in our discussions. We're not creating anything fresh. We're just repeatedly stirring the philosophical pot with each and every successive generation. Reminding ourselves of airy, pretentious crap that already drives our subconscious, but that we find inconvenient to slot into the droll, hum-drum legal processes of our conscious daily lives. Our physiology by and large determines the type of philosopher we are. The more vital and energetic are more likely to embrace a 'master' view of the world, whilst the weaker and less 'able' will likely take a more pessimistic, 'life is hard and painful' view...
So, to bring it back to the topic of the poll... I asked Sir Degrader what he meant by 'noble', because my choice of fictional character depended on the concepts he meant by that oh-so-loaded n-word. Now, AD&D games rely mainly upon the Christian ideal of moral superiority (ie: servitude, kindness and humility = good. Aggression, self-interest, exploitation = evil). And seeing as IW forum is devoted predominantly to AD&D CRPGs, I was interested in knowing whether his definition of nobility was derived from the AD&D alignment system, which in essence is a Christian moral code glossed with an overcoat of polytheistic paint. I certainly did not mean to imply that the morals narrated in the Christian Bible(s) are the 'true' moral code, but rather that that is what the AD&D alignment system seems to suggest (which is unfortunate, because I really enjoy AD&D CRPGs except for this rather major portion of their gameplay structure).
[ 01-31-2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]