I find this incredibly strange. He specifically asks for books that “do not break a person’s spirit” and you recommend possibly the most well-known nihilist?
Samr, if you’re still around and still reading, Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty is standard around here, however it’s a bit more advanced, and most would recommend getting through For a New Liberty first. (See the links section at each of those pages for a download of the full text in different formats…including audiobook)
I’m inclined to believe that the common depiction of Nietschze as a nihilist is simply a smear.
I agree that Ethics of Liberty (haven’t read FaNL) is a good read but I want to say that I don’t think Rothbard actually thought deeply enough about ethics. He certainly applied economic/praxeological insights to ethics but he went astray in adopting basically unmodified scholastic natural law theory.
In one of the most memorable passages from EoL, Rothbard asserts that it would be objectively immoral for a solitary individual to eat a poisonous mushroom (which he knows to be poisonous). I think this is confusing morality and self-development. It would definitely be an act objectively set against one’s self-development (what Rothbard loosely terms “life”). But the primary distinguishing feature of morality is that it concerns the duties and rights we have with respect to other individuals. Crusoe alone on an island simply cannot act morally or immorally. This means that acting (even knowingly acting) against his own self-development (life) is not immoral. It’s really by definition that you cannot derive an ought from an is.
I think this was a pretty big miss on Rothbard’s part. He was a champion of self-ownership (righful possession of the self) but you really don’t own yourself if there are things that you cannot rightfully to do to yourself (e.g. commit suicide).
Conclusion: Read Rothbard on ethics, he has tons of great insights but take it with a grain of salt.
Gumdy, thanks for the personal suggestion. So far I am really confused. Since I think truth must be objective (another point of view seems nihilistic), I see no option but to lean towards fascism, more or less. A totalitarian government. I really don’t like this point of view, and I see it inflicts suffering upon me and others. But that is what seems true to me, right now. So i am not sure. On one hand my personal desires conflict with everything I believe in (maybe with bad reason). On the other hand, I do not want to be a hypocrite.
“I find this incredibly strange. He specifically asks for books that “do not break a person’s spirit” and you recommend possibly the most well-known nihilist?”
Nietzsche wasn’t a nihlist, Nietzsche felt that the goal of life was to fight nihlism at all costs through one’s developement as an individual and by becoming the greatest individual that one could possibly be. Nietzsche was about as radical an individualist as it was possible to be and unless one is looking at it in a certain light, the term “nihlist” is the antithesis of what Nietzsche was
@ Clayton
Rothbard had good points on everything that he talked about, but in EOL he labors entirely under the delusion that an objective morality in any meaningful sense is possible. Something that Rothbard and many Rothbardianesque indidividuals never realized is that the morality proposed by him are a form of morality, one logical structure surrounding a moral code, they are not the only one. I agree with Rothbard in many respects on ethical terms in what I want, the ought. However, I disagree almost entirely with the is. I felt that Mises had a much better grasp of ethics and was much more honest in his views on ethical behavior than Rothbard was.
A totalitarian government. I really don’t like this point of view, and I see it inflicts suffering upon me and others. But that is what seems true to me, right now.
Don’t confuse certainty with truth. A totalitarian society imposes one hard set of rules and so makes life a little more certain: disobey and face harsh punishment, or death. It’s an attempt to make reality, rather than bravely facing it. Truth, on the other hand, is a standard of reality that cannot be determined or imposed, and one whose measure must include the measurer. The truth about the dictator who talks of the inevitability of his totalitarian regime is that he imposes it out of fear and sadistic ambition–a desire to eliminate his competitors and thus escape his feelings of inferiority.
Don’t be so afraid of blame. Life is for learning. Determine the rules of your life for yourself; don’t look to others to decide them for you, so as to share the blame, if they were mistaken. Immoral people are those who leave morality to others; not those who think about morality all the time, like you. What you don’t know, you must learn by mistake.
That’s interesting. He must not have been very good at it…since every mention of him I’ve ever even heard of described him as the exact opposite of what you claim he strived to be.
I think you have conflicting opinions on Nietzsche due to his writing as a ‘proto’-existentialist. And existentialism and nihilism are like two sides of a weird coin.
I have conflicting opinions? I just pointed out the fact that every mention of him I’ve ever heard of talks about him being a nihilist, and Neodoxy contends he was the exact opposite who actually argued against being that very thing…so I drew the conclusion he must not have been very good at communicating his argument.
Or did you just mean you think “there are” conflicting opinions?
Yup. I think its an issue of emphasis. If you look at an existentialist you can focus on their nihilism, i.e. their jumping off point, or on their recipe for ‘overcoming’ nihilishm, that part that makes existentialism distinct from nihilism.
But I’m not expert, this is what I gleaned as an amateur. Correct away !
“That’s interesting. He must not have been very good at it…since every mention of him I’ve ever even heard of described him as the exact opposite of what you claim he strived to be.”
I don’t know who could actually read his work and not come to a similar conclusion. His work in Zarathustara and his emphasis upon the superman, a fundumental part of his work, destroys any possibility that Niezsche was a nihlist rather than a subjectivist, which can be conflated only in their disregard for objective moralities. Nietzsche was a nihlist in that he did not believe in objective moralities, but he felt that the goal of life was to overcome nihlism in favor of one’s own fulfillment. Nietzsche himself lived an antithetical life to what he argued was the proper course for men, but that does not change what he believed.
“Maybe he should have been a fireman.”
Maybe the people who you hear mentioning him should become doctors.
Nietzsche wasn’t a nihlist, Nietzsche felt that the goal of life was to fight nihlism at all costs through one’s developement as an individual and by becoming the greatest individual that one could possibly be. Nietzsche was about as radical an individualist as it was possible to be and unless one is looking at it in a certain light, the term “nihlist” is the antithesis of what Nietzsche was
Right, if someone actually read and understood Nietzsche - this is something that Nietzsche would refer to as “The Last Man” - nihilism is a fantasy and a joke which Nietzsche laughed in the face of.
Also those who say that it is not good to recommend German Continental subjectivists prior to traditional Austrian Economists are probably a bit confused. Chincy political activism and ethical sloganing is fun and all - but the actual work and mechanics of things concerning human economy are in German continental subjectivism which is grounded in Kant, Nietzsche, Weber, Freud and perhaps most importantly Striner.
The metaphysical, methodological, and logical lines that these men went through are probably the lines that divide us from “mainstream” analytic philosophy, and it seems to be negelected.
The gulf between us and “mainstream” sociology could be put in Nietzschean terms as them being Apollonian vs our Dionysean perspective on things.
Also: Ludwig Lachman himself calls Austrian Econ “the world of Nitezsche”
A funny note: a dialectic can prbably be done on Nietzsche and Striner: I think Weber and Austrian Econ thinkers essentially affirm the bourgoise modern capitalistic sociology they were probably trying to rail against
Really? I was always under the impression that Stirner was only influential in radical political circles, I didn’t know that he really had any real affect upon philosophy as a whole. Is it also fair to call Kant a subjectivist? His conjunction of a priori and a posteriori methods of thought were absolutely essential, but I thought that he was more or less an objectivist in the philisophical sense of the word.
In terms of morality, there is no doubt that he was an ardent objectivist, which is why I sort of find it a little odd that Mises never adopted that approach. I suppose that’s why we call him Neo-Kantian.
According to Ayn Rand, subjectivism logically leads to nihilism. I.e. even if nietzche did not think of himself as a nihilist, positing subjectivism only, logically means you have no criteria to choose according to.
I would say that conscription in a country that invades other countries…as the U.S. does…is a bad thing. However, Israel’s foreign policy is based on justifiable self defense. If you do not protect your homeland against invaders…whether they invade by rocket or army…then you are not willing to defend it…but yet it must be defended in order to assure its existence. If it is not defended then you will not have a homeland.
I myself am OK with conscription in countries such as Israel and Switzerland…because their foreign policy with regards to military intervention is solely based on morally justifiable self defense. You must defend your home if you want one. If you don’t then you will always be at risk for having to run. Bullies do not reason kindly with pacifist. But bullies do understand bullets.
I am a U.S. citizen. I would have refused to have gone to Viet Nam…because Viet Nam did not invade America…but America did invade Viet Nam…yet I volunteered for the IDF.
If you are able but not willing to work…and you relay on government assistance…let’s say for a continual period of three years or six years lifetime maximum…that would make you a moocher. I do not view moochers as human…but rather part of the pack of demons that plague humanity.
However, there are some people that need it temporarily. And there are those that truly need it long term because they truly are not able to work…not just because they live in an economic dead zone and refuse to get their ass out of there.
The abuse by the moochers in the welfare system has essentially caused not only a delay in processing of payments to those who truly need it but often not enough to meet subsistence needs on a consistent basis.
Also, those who go on welfare are by definition not self sustainable…so, they should not expect the government to fund their exponential reproduction..and when I say government …I mean by legal plunder.
