Sociopath Community

TPG said: 

neitschze from what i understand hoped that with the decay of religious institution people would implement their own morals structures instead of having to rely on religion or stuff like communism etc, this was his idea of the ubermensch who would be a self sufficient spirit with no need for external institution

 

the survival of the fittest thing just came after the nazis twisted everything he said to suit their racialist aryan centeted ideology, i dont think nritschze cared for that at all, he also said that all anti semites should be shot and stuff so he was probably against it as well

True, the end goal is for all of humanity to become übermensch, but the concept of it implies that a single individual has the right to act selfishly if they're powerful enough to create their own morality. They're not to be bound by the limitations of others.

MissCommunication said: 

I think truth lies within the right to liberty and self determination. Order can be achieved, at least somewhat, through the construct and evolution of laws that protect one's liberty from infringing on another's. 

What freedom actually is also differs between someone who believes there is a truth and those who do not. Is freedom the right to pursue truth or the freedom to not be limited by others' truths?

"but the concept of it implies that a single individual has the right to act selfishly if they're powerful enough to create their own morality. " 

nothing about coercion or "survival" of the fittest though

Good said: 

I'd like Plato, but fuck it, Hobbes way is proven.

I should add that the difference between Hobbes and Schmitt is that Hobbes want an impartial ruler/state to settle disputes with force while Schmitt wants a proactive ruler/state to keep order and unity by telling people what they should think (with force). Fascism is more of the latter, if you want to revise your pick. :p

TPG said: 

"but the concept of it implies that a single individual has the right to act selfishly if they're powerful enough to create their own morality. " 

 

nothing about coercion or "survival" of the fittest though

 But doesn't it implicitly end up as a coercive society if people go out to impose their own morality on others?

"But doesn't it implicitly end up as a coercive society if people go out to impose their own morality on others?"

neitschze never said that, he said that man himself would rid himself of the decaying religious structures and rituals and formulate his own structure according to his own will and wisdom, not needed by god, there is nothing on imposing it on others or on a society

he hoped that it'd be a natural consequence of people just "progressing" within the realms of science (he's been proven wrong on this account)

not a group of atheists holding a gun forcing irreligion upon others

Inquirer said: 

Good said: 

I'd like Plato, but fuck it, Hobbes way is proven.

I should add that the difference between Hobbes and Schmitt is that Hobbes want an impartial ruler/state to settle disputes with force while Schmitt wants a proactive ruler/state to keep order and unity by telling people what they should think (with force). Fascism is more of the latter, if you want to revise your pick. :p

I'm not familiar in depth with half of the philosophies on the chart, so thanks.

Yes, Schmitt sounds better. Hobbes is ok too tho, when you are lazy.

TPG said: 

he hoped that it'd be a natural consequence of people just "progressing" within the realms of science (he's been proven wrong on this account)

 

not a group of atheists holding a gun forcing irreligion upon others

I've understood him more as glorifying the aristocratic ruthless warrior pride and artistic brilliance that, for example, defined the Italian Renaissance. Even if all people naturally "progress" society will still end up as a harsh struggle where some rise and others fall, no?

If you forbid people from imposing anything on others then you're still stuck in the morality of the past and creativity is limited because it cannot be destructive.

no, rather he glorified the pre socratic greeks who relied wholly on their senses and rationalization rather than letting the unconscious have a free reign at him, he had a big hard on for pre socratic greeks