Science topic

Nietzsche - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Nietzsche, and find Nietzsche experts.
Questions related to Nietzsche
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
5 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe there's a Russellian Platonic Form -- the Form of not having a Form.... 🤣
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
8 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Demeter gets my vote. De-meter. The mother. She is goddess of earth's fertility, distinct from Athena, goddess of "wisdom" as practiced by warrior Athenians. (Athena's also goddess of war, as is evident from the helmet she wears, and her spear). Athena is no sweetie pie. She's a virgin (anti-fertility?) obedient to her father-mother Zeus, from whose "mind" she was born, via another godly act of parthenogenesis. Demeter is a much more "measured" goddess, as are the seasons she is linked to "naturally."
Apollo also does not get my vote, despite his priestly philosophical posturing. He's a killer of the feminine in nature (Python, symbol of primitive female), and one thing he doesn't really want to discuss (or perhaps know about himself) is his 19 episodes with lover boys. Yes, boys. Not men.
It's all very...complex....
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe you can find some Objectivists willing to engage with you at this site: https://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/portal/
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
1 answer
Relevant answer
Answer
Is it a free, or is it pay to play?
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
5 answers
Either history does NOT EXACTLY repeat or the future is too unpredictable to risk such rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation
Relevant answer
Answer
The statement aligns with Michel Talagrand's work on probability and randomness, which won him the 2024 Abel Prize.
Key Points:
  • Non-repeating History: Unique conditions and randomness prevent exact repetition.
  • Unpredictable Future: Talagrand's research shows precise predictions are difficult, highlighting the limits of deterministic models.
Talagrand’s Contributions:
  • Concentration Inequalities: Measure deviations in random variables, useful in finance and machine learning.
  • Stochastic Processes: Understand systems influenced by randomness over time.
Implications:
  • Risk Management: Must account for unpredictability.
  • Decision Making: Use probabilistic models.
  • Scientific Approach: Focus on likelihoods, not certainties.
Talagrand’s work shows the need to complement rationalism with probabilistic methods to handle real-world complexities.
2024 Abel prize: Michel Talagrand wins maths award for making sense of randomness | New Scientist
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
2 answers
Quantum mechanics focuses more on probability and specific units which seems more empirical. Whereas relativity is more theoretical and thus rationalist.
Relevant answer
Answer
In my opinion, there is a degree of mysticism in quantum mechanics because it is not properly formulated. It is generally recognized that ψ.ψ* represents the probability of finding the particle at a specified set of coordinates (the Born rule) but this has to be wrong. Consider a particle moving from A to B in accord with the Schrödinger equation. According to the Born rule, the most probable place to find the particle is at the wave antinode, but that cann0ot be correct because if you do the mathematics, the wave travels at half the velocity of the particle. The particle is at a pace where the wave has yet to catch up.
Now you can wave your arms and say the wave doesn't exist an dit is just a calculating aid, but even if that were true, if the most obvious simple calculation gives the wrong answer, how can it be a calculating aid?
There is a lot more wrong with current quantum mechanics, in my opinion. As an example, besides the Born rule two other Nobel prizes have been awarded with, in my opinion, incorrect physics. The award to Pople for his calculation of chemical bond energies uses the wrong orbitals and misses a quantum effect. The difference between what he uses and what I believe should be used is not large and is compensated for by assigned constants, i.e an empirical correction. The orbitals he should use are given by the relationship in I. J. Miller 1987. The quantization of the screening constant. Aust. J. Phys. 40 : 329 -346. As it happens, the carbon p orbitals do not have radial nodes, and the 2s orbital has only a minor effect so all is not lost
Similarly, the 2022mprize for showing violations of Bell's inequality is wrong. All they did was in calculating the results, they violated the conditions of deriving the inequality. If you do not believe me, show where the error is in Miller, I. J. (2023). Non-Violations in Bell's Inequality. J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2(6), 209-210.
I concede to being biased since I have published papers contradicting standard QM and In have also written two ebooks, one is "Guidance Waves", which outlines my answer to what I think is more correct, and "The Covalent Bond from Guidance Waves", which accounts for chemical bonds. The sim0lifications are clear. As an example, the calculations of bond dissociation energies for then triply bonded P2, As2 and Sb2 are within about 2 kJ/mol with no assigned constants, and a computer is not needed for what is one analytic function that inserts different quantum numbers.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
1 answer
"And, of course, there is syphilis. Nietzsche's letters from 1867 until his breakdown provide a vivid account of the suffering of secondary syphilis. He complains of the pain, skin sores, weakness, and loss of vision that typify the repertoire of the disease. In his last year, his letters give evidence of euphoria"(Margulis 2024). https://www.amacad.org/publication/syphilis-nature-nietzsches-madness
Relevant answer
Answer
While Nietzsche's struggles with syphilis are well-documented, it's important to approach discussions about his reproductive choices with sensitivity and respect for historical context. While there isn't definitive evidence linking his reproductive decisions directly to his contraction of the disease, it's essential to consider the multifaceted nature of his health struggles and the various factors that may have influenced his choices.
Rather than speculating on personal matters, it's more productive to focus on Nietzsche's enduring intellectual legacy and contributions to philosophy. His ideas continue to provoke thought and inspire discourse in philosophical circles, demonstrating the lasting impact of his work.
In discussions about Nietzsche's life and legacy, it's crucial to prioritise evidence-based reasoning, acknowledge the complexities involved, and maintain respect for historical figures' privacy. By emphasising Nietzsche's philosophical contributions, we can engage in a more meaningful and constructive dialogue about his enduring relevance in the field of philosophy.
Regards,
Sandeep
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Are all interesting people missing in heaven? Mark Twain thought that many of them would be: "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
3 answers
How often is introspection conflated with self pity? Elaborations welcome.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would say rarely. Introspection covers so much more ground than self-pity.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
2 answers
How does one gauge sincerity to a cause against mere self-righteousness? Why? My answer: One gauges sincerity to a cause against mere self-righteousness by discerning the observed‘s adherence to reciprocity, harm avoidance, the golden rule(treating others as the treater wants to be treated), the silver rule(NOT treating others as the treater does NOT want to be treated), tradition(what led previous generations to survive and to be anti-fragile), risk analysis(everyone analyzes risks because NO human has complete information to act on), symmetry, empathy, common sense(evolutionary set instincts), human dignity and skin in the game(those paying a more immediate price for the consequence have the greater right to opine as goes with reciprocity and harm avoidance). Plus admitting all humans have the impulses to commit unethical acts and anyone claiming otherwise is disingenuous because no act is completely selfless nor completely selfish. Which consistently leads to an open society with negative utilitarianism(reduce suffering as much as possible without violating before mentioned risk analysis, reciprocity and skin in the game due to desired societal anti fragility).
Relevant answer
Answer
Your question is difficult to understand. Let me contextualize it with a historical example, that of indoctrinated and brainwashed German boys who were initiated into Jungvolk, were promoted to Hitler Youth, attended the special schools run by the SS, and were subsequently selected to be SS officers.
Those men presumably regarded themselves as indubitably correct in their ideological convictions and morally superior to their subordinates, as well as all of those outside the Nazi fold, Germans as well as non-Germans. I take it that that would epitomize both self-righteousness and sincerity in adherence to the Nazi cause and its Führerprinzip.
You seem to be suggesting that mere self-righteousness is differentiated from sincere adherence to a cause, in that sincerity requires adherence to a host of moral principles. However, it seems to me that for such indoctrinated men such principles were adhered to mostly in regard to their Nazi superiors and equals, less so to their Nazi subsordinates, even less to (non-Jewish) Germans, and entirely optional as regards Jews and non-Germans.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
2 answers
How plausibly was Nietzsche pro-ethics but anti-morals? My answer is that Nietzsche was plausibly for ethics but against morals.
"Drawing on a distinction suggested by Bernard Williams, we might usefully characterize Nietzsche’s positive project as broadly “ethical” rather than “moral,” in that it is concerned more generally with questions about how to live and what counts as a good, flourishing, or healthy form of life for an individual, rather than with more narrowly “moral” questions about right and wrong, how one ought to treat others, what one’s obligations are, or when an action deserves punishment or reward. As a result of this focus on health and flourishing, some scholars have characterized Nietzsche’s positive ethical project as a form of virtue ethics"(https://iep.utm.edu/nietzsches-ethics/#:~:text=Drawing%20on%20a%20distinction%20suggested,life%20for%20an%20individual%2C%20rather ).
Relevant answer
Answer
Nietzsche,
Was against Monotheistic morals, which he rightly saw were not morals at all.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
1 answer
How do both the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics support Nietzsche's Eternal Return? My answer: both relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that time is an illusion and thus that death is an illusion. Parsimoniously, the Eternal Return seems more likely with that backing from theoretical physics.
Relevant answer
Answer
They don’t have anything to do with whatever Nietzsche was thinking about.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
3 answers
Do both the theoretical physics of relativity and quantum mechanics find that time is circular and thus no one ever dies without being reborn in the exact same point in history as the same individual? Thus is every life form reborn with the same how, who, where and when? If so, then the Eternal Return(presented by the Ancient Greek Stoics, Ralph Waldo Emerson and maybe Nietzsche) is maybe correct.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Alexander Ohnemus,
No, neither the theoretical physics of relativity nor quantum mechanics suggest that time is circular or that individuals are reborn in the exact same point in history. These theories provide different frameworks for understanding the nature of reality, but they do not propose a cyclical nature of time in the way you describe.
Special relativity, developed by Albert Einstein, describes how time, space, and gravity are interrelated. It introduces the concept that time can be experienced differently depending on one's relative motion and gravitational field, but it doesn't imply a circular or cyclical nature of time.
Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is a theory that describes the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It introduces concepts like superposition and uncertainty, which are very different from our everyday experiences of reality. However, it does not suggest that time is circular or that individuals are reborn.
The idea of time being circular or individuals being reborn in the same point in history is more often associated with philosophical or religious beliefs, rather than with scientific theories. It's important to differentiate between scientific theories and philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of reality.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
1 answer
Why was and is Dionysus so appealing?
Dionysus may have been so appealing because "he was the only half human of the Olympian Gods"(paraphrased from Ducksters ). He was the only Olympian God to be half mortal. In his cult people would "do psychedelics to attempt to become gods"(paraphrased from Muraresku 2021). As everyone knows, life is not fair and full of underserved suffering. "According to Nietzsche, Dionysus's religion offered a great cope to suffering"( paraphrased from Weaver Santaniello 2007). Thus , both Apollo(Brittanica 2023) and Dionysus(Brittanica 2023). are needed and generally the former is better for civilization yet the latter offers cope to suffering.
Work Cited
Muraresku, Brian . " The Best-Kept Secret in History ." YouTube.com, uploaded by afterskool.net, 16 Feb. 2021, youtu.be/iC6DDvzM6Nc?si=ajavhxC-GLlmVlQ1.
Weaver Santaniello (2007) Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Religion, Ars
Disputandi, 7:1, 136-138, DOI: 10.1080/15665399.2007.10819958
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Apollo". Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Sep. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apollo-Greek-mythology. Accessed 20 September 2023.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Dionysus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dionysus. Accessed 20 September 2023.
Relevant answer
Answer
WARNING: PSYCHEDELICS ARE DANGEROUS.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
28 answers
What is your opinion about the possibility of your own immortality?
How do you perceive space-time?
"All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. " - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
"I don't care if I'm remembered or not when I'm dead." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
For our immortality the most important is time of our life. Nothing else will be so for sure given to us like this time events and friends. Still experienced a new.
According to Nietzsche and modern physics. And what is your opinion about such possibility of your own immortality?
This question is continuation of my older one:
(27) Would you really like to live forever_.pdf - see attached file:
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Zbigniew,
I find this question as outrages. You may ask why?
Every question must specify in what context we are asking the question. Such a question without context is pure nonsense. Let's try to bring some order in this chaos. First let's ask the question about the intention. Are you asking it in a context of empirical science or in the context of our inner space we call "a mind". Even if we assume the objective existence of the "real world", which is a serious ontological choice, a lot of fundamental problems need to be resolve before we can even ask the question about our personal existence. Why? Because there is no consensus what every single notion you mentioned in your question mean. There is no universal understanding what space-time really mean. This is a rather convenient mental/mathematical model, the physicist use for interpretations of some of the experimental results. Modern physics mightily struggles with going beyond this stiff model and lack of in depth understanding of it stalls the progress in brings about esoteric ideas like multiverse, holographic universe, or wave collapse. All these popular notions testify in deep misunderstanding of consequences the strict belief in them would bring. Why? Let me give you only a few examples. If we believe in strict interpretation then an object that is travelling with speed of light, undergoes time-space dilation, which means that for such an object a direction of travel conveniently called x would be having x=0 and its time would be stretched to infinity. It means that there would be a dimensionality problem at such a speed. That looks like a paradox because we experience photons hitting us all the time. This is the absurd of literally applying some physical modeling of math in our heads. Additional consequence would be that the space-time would have to be continuous which means infinitely divisible. Defining a lower dimensionality objects, like point on the line, is difficult. After all Heisenberg uncertainty requires infinite energy to reach a size of x=0. SO before we ever reach the dimension of a point w would start creating infinity of infinities of new worlds. We however, know from direct experimentation that any matter or space cannot be infinitely divisible. Therefore all our modern physical laws describe mental models of reality that eventually have to break down. The same difficult suffer all modern theory of physics whether STR or GTR, QFT. There cannot be any singularities or event horizons because our dimensionality would have to be defined differently from our low-speed intuitions. There is many, many more internal incongruities of our modern set of beliefs we call physics.
But let us attack more seriously your angle of asking this question. In order to assign any sense to it, you would have to define meanings of life, consciousness, or existence. These words do not have any universal meanings. Think about life. If you think that you are alive than imagine yourself in any extreme situation like living without air, water, nutrients, or clothes in the cosmic space. Imagine yourself, being alive in absence of Earth or physical laws, like gravitation or electromagnetism. Even thinking about reality like this is beyond nonsense. Life is always relational and depends on context. Therefore, we do not have, because we cannot have any comprehensive definition of life. This is very much in line with Godels math incompleteness theorem. In order for something to be true you must have certain set of conditions fulfilled. In other words some questions cannot have answers in absolute sense. Therefore, questions about life and existence in general are only conditional.
Existence of the Universe is conditional, life is conditional and to make things even more tragic there is no universal understanding what space, and time really means. Every answer would depend on the mental framing we assume. Physical time would be different from biological time from geologic time etc. If a grain of wheat can be germinated after thousands of years the time was inherent to the grain or to the world. If one counts a length of life by allometric laws and use heart beats as a measure such a count would be in direct contradiction with a commonly agreed time. If one takes a tardigrade, dehydrates it, and takes it to cosmic space, time stops entirely. Tardigrade can be revitalized in the environment by simple dehydration. (If you do not believe this statement, such an experiment was performed on the space station, so search and discover). Things are even worse than these simple examples. There is almost no stable elementary particle with infinite life-time. Everything decays and stability is only conditional stability.
In such a context, and as I stated, everything needs a context. A question about immortality is a nice poetry metaphor without any well defined sense. I am afraid that you are travelling to some highly religious mental spaces that require only esoteric faith and nothing that has any sense or reason in our material world.
To avoid the charge that I am a staunch materialist, I have to admit that I am a religious person, and every single specific field of human inquiry to succeed requires initial faith, an article of belief. Physicists need a belief in external objective world, biologist must have a belief that there is a unified pattern that they can study with a physical experimentation, geologists must believe that the knowledge is transferable from place to place, and geographers must believe that maps correspond to the real world topography, poets must believe that there is a certain degree of universality in metaphor and mood transference etc. etc. etc. So we cannot exist without beliefs but let's be realistic in our political and science beliefs. Unfortunately, every 100 years a hiccup of unreasonability wins and people go amok.
Keep asking question.
Bog
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
3 answers
I submitted one book manuscript and am starting another. This time on Nietzsche's critique of ideology. Work title: Beyond Priest and Slave: Nietzsche's Psychological Critique of Ideology. I ask if anybody is aware of strong recent works in that area. Key terms would be Nietzsche-psychology, Nietzsche-subject, Nietzsche-Priest/Slave, Nietzsche-criticism of Ideology, Nietzsche-Political Criticism. I probably know the classics, but don't pretend to know the entire Nietzsche library. Pointing me towards relevant works would be much appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
If you could read in Russian, I would advise you:
Мочкин А.Н. Фридрих Ницше (интеллектуальная биография). — М., 2005. — 246 с. ("Friedrich Nietzsche: The Intellectual biography") published by the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
15 answers
The unachieved desire for modernity: visions of Baudelaire, Freud, Nietzsche and Woolf.
I would like to direct my research on the use of memory or history to the development of the vision of modernity in these authors. And one way of doing this, from my perspective, is found in the aesthetics of the work of art. Modern art is the constant representation of an unfinished and unachieved desire for the making and practice of modernity. From the literary and philosophical-scientific work, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, Freud, and Woolf build knowledge about the modern, while in parallel, modern art is being developed. My question is: Is this possible? Is there an aesthetic of modernity, from the ideas of these thinkers, represented in the modern work of art?
Relevant answer
Answer
All the above challenged traditional views or simply the accepted views of their day and against institutional views of personality (Freud), the nature of writing (Joyce, Woolf), morality and vocabulary (Rimbaud) , Eliots reconstruction of classics posed the individual as the authority and seer. Picasso's intense individuality and his assumption that he knew better and that he lived his life according to subjective rules, his use of colour referencing subjective values of palatte and perspective.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
32 answers
"What is life?" question answered such;
Dostoevsky: "Hell"
Socrates: "Agony"
Nietzsche: "The Power"
Picasso: "Art"
Gandhi: "The War".
What is "Life" for you?
Relevant answer
Answer
Life is happiness, confusion, upliftment, sadness, thankfulness and surprises
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
249 answers
(1) Public (media) discourse is mostly an industry of manipulation, in which facts and valid arguments are ignored.
(2) Academic philosophy is a scholastic play with concepts, which is mostly not interesting and which is mostly useless.
(3) Poetry can be enlightening and inspiring, but it is difficult to tell what is poetry, and what is an arbitrary play with words, without a clear meaning.
(4) I tried to join philosophical reflection and poetry into a sort of "reflective poetry". I wrote some "poems in prose" (in my/Croatian language) but I am not quite happy with what I have produced.
Can you give me some advice in this regard? - Suggest me some book of "reflective poetry". The authors I love the most are Nietzsche (in "Zarathustra") and Tagore (in "Gitanjali).
Relevant answer
Answer
Maybe I'm wrong, Mario, but I sense in your question more than a request for a reading list. You seem to be questioning not only the gabble-babble of social media, which it takes great discernment to navigate, but the very value of continuing to read and write. Am I correct? I too am tired of mediocre writing: novels that encase you in a word-construct so mundane it stifles you, academic articles beaten out of stale conceptions that don't enlighten you, philosophy of merely technical importance - and so on. What to do? I would be the last person to want to shut down broad public participation, but I no longer feel obliged to wallow in writing I find uncongenial. Perhaps the way forward for folk in this position, rather than tackling a reading list of vast length and unknown quality, would be to return to texts that have really moved one in the past: not necessarily only the classics of different cultures, but those texts which have shaped our own thinking. Are we clear in our own minds about what it is in those texts that we found (and find?) important? I had such an experience recently re-reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which I first read as a kid. (I'm not suggesting you should read it, merely offering an example.) The book has been reissued with a new introduction which sketches what happened to the real-world protagonists (the author and his son) in the intervening years. I found it very valuable to revisit the impressions I had then with what I feel now. They are very different. I also think your instinct to search for satisfying poetry is sensible. Poetry at its best pushes the boundaries of conventional thought and feeling. So do the best novels, which have the impact of extended poems. This kind of reflection and recollection often moves one forward. Best wishes for your continuing quest.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
12 answers
Nietzsche wrote Beyond Good and Evil in 1886 calling for a review of concepts of good and evil. These he claims are moral based, looking back to Judaism, Christianity and even Socrates. I contend likewise that morals camouflage 'badness and bad deeds.'
Relevant answer
Answer
Canon Law dictates that priests are to look good, be able-bodied men, and be cleared of any accusations. I studied Canon Law and Church Mission for two years at the Jesuits' Pontifical Gregorian University (Vatican, Rome) to understand the Vatican's role in femminicide and illegal human trafficking. Thus everything is done to cover-up scandal in these religious cults, and is why Marx was against religious personality cults. Hitler, instead, took the opposite strategy, after reading Nietzsche, and made himself the supreme leader of his own personality cult/religion, imitating the pope, and had the all black or grey and collared uniforms of the Schutz-Shtaffel (SS) based on the uniform ranks of the Jesuits, with grey being the highest ranking. Thus, as with Canon Law, all nazi laws were constructed to protect the 'moral' image of their 'priests''. Thus if you wish to undo the cover-ups, a kind of soviet style military approach to patriotism is needed, which advanced war wounded amputees and women, otherwise society is trained for cults of personality/religious cover-ups and able-bodied men on a crucifix or at a mosque as 'morality'.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
2 answers
It seems to be little important in the Brazilian tradition, but more important for the English speakers. How do you see this in the different traditions in Germany, France, etc?
Relevant answer
Answer
In der Tat forsche ich gerade ein anderes Buch (bzw. "Schopenhauer als Erzieher"). Der Satz "sei du selbst!" ist mir sehr wichtig, so wie der Begriff "Charakter", der im Nachlaß erscheint. Das ist aber nicht genau, was ich herausfinden mag. Das von mir verfolgte Problem ruht darauf: Welche Traditionen von Lesern und Forschern sahen den Begriff "Selbst" als wesentlich an? In welchen Traditionen gibt's eine Übereinstimmung davon, dass es einen solchen strengen Begriff gibt. Und auch, in welchen Traditionen existiert diese Diskussion gar nicht?
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
6 answers
I send you my article ("What is a fiction?") as soon as possible. I am also interested in the links between philosophy and psychoanalysis. See you soon, Gilles Bourlot
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, exactly! This force could be thought as refered to the freudian concept of drive. We are following it in Ecce Homo and Zarathoustra. Thank you.  
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
4 answers
I currently work on MA thesis which discusses the influence of European existential thought (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre) on American literature. As an example I provide the novels of Ernest Hemingway where I will depict existential themes.
Relevant answer
Answer
Check out the online article on
EXISTENTIALISM IN AMERICAN NOVELS
Also
Existentialism and the American Novel
Jean Bruneau
Yale French Studies
No. 1, Existentialism (1948), pp. 66-72 
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
26 answers
In the modern philosophical culture the concept of duty plays a dominant role in the ethics of Kant. Hence duty becomes specifically not only a lawful action of reason, but also an act undertaken in view and in accordance with that law. Thus there is a clear distinction between action compliant with the law and moral action or duty, i.e. action taken by the law, that is, apart from the natural inclinations and often in opposition with them. The ability to act for duty becomes the witness and expression of human freedom as "autonomy" or obedience to the inner law of reason.
Kant defines, in fact, a moral duty as independent (since it does not come from external sources) and categorical (valid in itself and not to the achievement of other purposes): any motivation or utilitarian purpose corrupts the moral act in its purity. He understands duty as freedom of a rational being who questions and obliges himself, thereby linking closely duty to the essence of morality.
At the end of the nineteenth century the concept of duty was subjected to harsh criticism. First, as part of a utilitarian morality, from Bentham, it has replaced the concept of duty with that of interest, and as a result the duties towards themselves or others have become acts in the name of an individual or social interest.
But the main attack came from Nietzsche, in whose pages the criticism of the idea of duty coincides with the exaltation of the superman, who imposes its morality of an hero and does not accept a preconceived ethical and universal order. To the morality of duty, Nietzsche replaces that of the will (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1892): the superman denies traditional and universal values and asserts his own freedom and the will of power, thus re-establishing a new state of innocence which initiates a New era.
In the Critique of Practical Reason Kant deals with duty and argues that morality must be based on something absolutely certain and firm: duty. Everyone perceives morality, safely and aware, as a duty. Man, endowed with reason, the one with reason, feels in front of certain situations of having to make a choice, to be followed by the moral behavior. Even the most wicked men, who still retain at least part of rationality, will feel having to pose the problem of moral choice, or how to behave. This is the moment that precedes any real moral action.
 
Morality is thus a matter of reason. Every rational being has morality, because he feels the duty and the need to choose. The duty has nothing to do with causality and determinism of the material world: it concerns only the sphere of morality.
But if morality is duty, then how will compulsion be reconciled with the absolute formal freedom of choice? The answer lies in the concept of autonomy. The morality of the rational being is such that he must obey a command (mandatory) that he has freely given (freedom), in accordance with his rational nature.
Man who performs a certain action according to the moral duty knows that, in so far as his decision can be explained naturally (also with psychological motivations), the real substance of his morality does not lie in this causal chain but in a free will that corresponds to the rational essence of his being.
Man, in short, is a 'being' belonging to two worlds: inasmuch is gifted with sensory capabilities, he belongs to the natural one, and therefore is subject to the phenomenal laws; as a rational creature, however, he belongs to what Kant calls the "intelligible" world or noumenon, that is, the world as it is in itself independently of our feelings or our cognitive ties, and therefore in it he is absolutely free (autonomous) , a freedom manifested in obedience to the moral law, to the  '’categorical imperative".
The analytical philosopher Anscombe recognizes as empty and meaningless the various 'boxes' in which to enter her concepts of" obligation " " duty, " " right, " " wrong "(in a moral sense). According to her theory, in fact, the concepts of obligation and duty exist only as psychological survival, because they are based on a conception of ethics, grounded on the belief in a divine lawmaker, no longer existing. The concept of "moral duty" was intrinsically tied to a certain ethical conception that, by virtue of the beliefs and practices that characterized it, meant that it took on a special meaning, regulatory, and clearly intelligible.
The issue is that the "pseudo notion” of moral obligation, on the one hand, shares its characteristics with the correct concept which appears in legalistic conception of ethics, but at the same time does not qualify for the background, intended as a set of practices and thought, necessary for the intelligibility of a concept with these features. That of the concept of moral duty is a case where we transfer an expression from one context to another without affecting the use completely but at most some meaning, which is however insufficient to the intelligibility of the concept.
Relevant answer
Answer
I am not upset. I am concentrated. From time to time I get frustrated. Especially whenever I feel disillusioned.
"The first basic law prevents me from attributing a specific numerical value to the fraction of stupid people within the total population"
Did you watch the 'Leeroy Jenkins'-video? That is how it really works. I had an intention when I linked it here. You need to watch it carefully to see what is happening there. Because that is how people are: They group up and they follow. No matter how stupid it gets... So what we think of when thinking about leadership is that we assume people are always following a leader. But there is another aspect why people follow: In order to help and (like incidentally) reach a certain interest. If those guys in that video did not share the same interest: Why should they help their Leeroy?
This is called 'smart-pull'. A leader would push his people. But if you want to make it the smart way you are creating a need and you 'pull' people to search for information how to overcome this need. And that makes them 'intelligent' (or whatever they think is intelligent; at least they are 'informed'). Now this person has some knowledge he wants to share and implement. And there is all in all nothing bad about that IF the information he found was not directed only to lead him to a certain view that leads on to a certain behavior.
So obviously our Leeroy found some information that fits his need. And there are other people with the same need in the same group like our Leeroy sharing knowledge. And that is what this group consists of: Of people who got the same information and the same need.
Now let's assume there is our group of Leeroys and other people with the same need but different or no information and a third group. Let's call them 'the outlanders'. They do have needs too. But their needs are not seen and of no interest. Indeed they are comparable with NPC-Players. Not humans. More annoying insects.
Let's furthermore assume the Leeroys are attacking the outlanders. And now ask yourself how many of those who share the same need and but not the same information will follow.
This could easily lead to a civil war with genozide. And this time it won't be like in WW II were it was somehow clear who were the bad guys. No. This time noone will be responsible. It will look like some stupid people fought for ressources.
"Command in the Information Age is ultimately not the sole responsibility of any single individual. It is a shared and distributed responsibility. Does this mean that no one is in charge? This question is at the heart of the matter. The simple
truth is that there are in fact many instances where no one is in charge of an enterprise or endeavor today. Who, for example, is in charge of the U.N. Security Council? Who is in charge of a coalition of the willing? Is the leader of the government of a nation in charge of that nation? What, in fact, does in charge
mean?... Some would say that being in charge pertains to the degree of
influence that one has. That is, if you are in control, then you are in charge... In a coalition environment, the maintenance ofthe coalition (shared intent)
is a very important element of command." (Alberts & Hayes, Power to the Edge)
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
6 answers
The categories are the attribution of a predicate to a subject. They are specifically supreme classes of every possible predicate, with which it is possible to order the whole reality.
For Aristotle, the categories are groups or primary genres which collect all the properties that may be the explanation of ‘being’. They are the predicaments of ‘being’, which refer to primary qualities (the immutable essences of objects), or secondary (the mishaps that may change).
The categories of Aristotle have an objective value, because they refer to concrete entities. Our judgments use them not only according to a relationship purely logical, typical of syllogism, but assembling them owing to the intuitive capacity to effectively grasp the relationship between the real objects. But beyond that, to each of the categories it relates a part of those semantic constructs of the discourse that have to do with the real world: for example, a name or a noun refers to the category of substance; the adjectives to quality, those indefinite to quantity, or to the relationship etc. It is therefore assumed that for Aristotle categories are a classification of the components which make a discourse.
Starting from the distinction between the objective level and the semantic one, that was not missed in Aristotle, who, however, would not know what to attribute to one and what to the other, Immanuel Kant admits that to judge, source of all objective discourse, is a 'multifaceted activity, which arises from the application of different categories or pure concepts, through which the intellect unifies multiple data from sensitive intuition.
These concepts, however, are transcendental, namely that they need starting data in order to activate, without which they would be empty: it's because of the sense organs that an object is "given,"  to us becoming a phenomenon; with categories then it is "thought".
Then, unlike Aristotle, for whom categories belonged to the ontological reality of ‘being’, the Kantian categories fit in to the intellect; that is, they become the ‘a priori’ functions, or  means of working of our thought that frame reality according to its own preconceived scheme. They do not apply to reality in itself, but only to the phenomenon.
As in Aristotle the categories needed judgment to be used, then in Kant they require a supreme activity, of a thought in the process of being created, to exercise their unifying function of the manifold. The categories are the multiple facets of a prism which is called thought; they are unifying acts, but not yet active, only potentially activated.
This opens the question of the deduction of the categories, that is, how to justify the use we make of them: for example, is it legitimate to assign different categories to the same object?
This is the problem faced by Kant in the Transcendental Deduction of Critique of Pure Reason, to unify categories, finding a principle from which they can all derive. This principle will be found in the ‘I think’ or transcendental apperception.
Kant will be accused of having locked himself up in a subjectivism with no way out, given that his categories do not serve to know the reality as it is in itself, but only as it appears to us.
With Fichte they assume a different role: while Kant had intended to unify the multiple, for Fichte they assume the inverse aim of multiplying the uniqueness of the ‘I’, bringing it to divide and produce unconsciously the ‘non-I’. Thus the categories of the intellect have also a real or ontological value, albeit unconscious. The ‘thinking’ is to create, but only at the level of intellectual intuition.
In Hegel, instead, it is the same logic that becomes creative. The cognitive categories of Kant, which were merely "formal", become together "form and content": they are logical-ontological categories, determinations of the Idea as it proceeds dialectically. An object exists to the extent that it is rational, that is, only if it falls within a logical category.
For Nietzsche, finally, categories become the result of the evolution of the breed: their effectiveness would be given not by the ability to reflect what is true, but by the utility in aiding survival. Concepts taken and endorsed by ethological-philosophical studies of Konrad Lorenz, who defined the categories the 'apparatus image of the world. "
Relevant answer
Principles of justice and fairness are also central to procedural, retributive, and restorative justice. Such principles are supposed to ensure procedures that generate unbiased, consistent, and reliable decisions. Here the focus is on carrying out set rules in a fair manner so that a just outcome might be reached. Fair procedures are central to the legitimacy of decisions reached and individuals' acceptance of those decisions.
To ensure fair procedures, both in the context of legal proceedings, as well as in negotiation and mediation, the third party carrying out those procedures must be impartial. This means they must make an honest, unbiased decision based on appropriate information. For example, judges should be impartial, and facilitators should not exhibit any prejudice that gives one party unfair advantages. The rules themselves should also be impartial so that they do not favor some people over others from the outset. 
An unbiased, universally applied procedure, whether it serves to distribute wealth or deliver decisions, can ensure impartiality as well as consistency. The principle of consistency proposes that "the distinction of some versus others should reflect genuine aspects of personal identity rather than extraneous features of the differentiating mechanism itself." In other words, the institutional mechanism in question should treat like cases alike and ensure a level playing field for all parties.
The principle of standing suggests that people value their membership in a group and that societal institutions and decision-making procedures should affirm their status as members. For example, it might follow from this principle that all stakeholders should have a voice in the decision-making process. In particular, disadvantaged members of a group or society should be empowered and given an opportunity to be heard. When decision-making procedures treat people with respect and dignity, they feel affirmed. A central premise of restorative justice, for example, is that those directly affected by the offense should have a voice and representation in the decision-making process regarding the aftermath of the offense--be it punishment and/or restitution.
Related to issues of respect and dignity is the principle of trust. One measure of fairness is whether society members believe that authorities are concerned with their well being and needs. People's judgments of procedural fairness result from perceptions that they have been treated "honestly, openly, and with consideration." If they believe that the authority took their viewpoints into account and tried to treat them fairly, they are more likely to support and engage in the broader social system.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
25 answers
Nihilism theme is fundamental for understanding the works of Nietzsche and Heidegger. At the same time , the influence of nihilistic concepts in contemporary thought has become an undeniable aspect in the West in its cultural and political aspects . What is the extent of the influence of such works on aspects of the political history of the West in the first half of the twentieth century , especially in the distorted ownership of perspective works in the training of the Nazi - fascist thought. What the cultural phenomena that have , in their  foundations influences of the seminal thoughts of Nietzsche and Heidegger ?
Relevant answer
Answer
'Nihilism' seems to me a rather fluid and rhetorical term, that changes meaning in different contexts.  Bit like, say, 'liberal'.  Dangerous, I think, in 'serious' political and philosophical debate.
Nietzsche as the father of 'nihilism'?  Really? Nietzsche the 'Yea-Sayer', the Affirmer of Life, rather than of negative, reactive forces that stifle life in the interests of some hidden group interest (Capital, Nationalism, Religion, whatever)?
I think those who called him a nihilist a century ago were complaining that he didn't pay pious obedience to their great historical scams.  ...And trying to tarnish him by association with the Nihilists or political terrorists in late Tsarist Russia, portrayed for example in Dostoyevsky's Demons - which is itself, I guess, a pretty good guide to the cultural context which gave birth to Nihilism as a term and 'movement' (insofar as a nihilistic movement is not self-contradictory).
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
20 answers
Nietzsche's Zaratustra  introduced moral nihilism in Western Europe. His arguments were recuperated by ideologies that denied the achievements of the Enlightenment such as freedom and equality for all citizens. These virtues are symbols of human dignity for every man and woman. However advertisement reduces these human values to slogans urging citizens to consume and to put on their identity a normative set of substitute consumption goods. Is this after all the victory of Zaratustra's nihilism? (see attachment)
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Guido,
 Nietzsche, to my understanding, was not nihilistic in the sense of denying all cultural values, but only those cultural values that say "No!" to life.  The expression, the "death of God" used so often in Also sprach Zarathustra refers to the destruction only of religious and cultural values hypostasized in the word "God."  It refers to the imposition of monotheism and to its fall only insofar as they  devalue what Nietzsche sees as truly divine. Hence Nietzsche leaves open the possibility of God insofar as He affirms life.
Nietzsche is a vitalist vis-à-vis Schopenhauer, who did deny the value of life. So I do not believe for one moment that Niezsche "introduced moral nihilism" into Western Europe.  Nor could Nietzsche be considered a materialist in any sense.  He rejects matter insofar as it does not service life and favors the spirit of lightness over gravity. 
In conclusion, consumerism is NOT the victory of Zarathustra's nihilism because (1.) Zarathustra does not favor total nihilism and (2.) Nietzsche disfavors materialism.
See the treatment of nihilism in Luis Jiménez Moreno, El pensamiento de Nietzsche (Madrid: Cincel, 1986), pp. 154-68.
  • asked a question related to Nietzsche
Question
5 answers
I'm seeking interpretations (hermeneutics, etc.) and insights into how we go about to understand and decipher the "meanings" of this sentence? Who are these "rope dancers"?
Relevant answer
Answer
Nietzsche got his idea from the popular work of Petronius Arbiter: The Satyricon (The Dinner of Trimalchio) Volume 2. The work was published during the time of Nero. The rope dancers were entertainers who Trimalchio believed to give him the needed happiness in life. He often invited the rope dancers for his pleasure and entertainment. But unfortunately, one day while the rope dancer were dancing one of the dancers fell from the robe and caused injury to king Trimalchio. This particular section is found in chapter 53-55. Here you can see that what the king thought to be one of those things that offered pleasure had also contributed to the pain of the king and that of the rope dancer.
The understanding of the context of the rope dancers and Trimalchio in the work of Petronius Arbiter will give you insight into Nietzsche's philosophy of "rope dancers".