Sociopath Community

Jada said: 

I was reading Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas about how to solve the great existential crisis, now that, according to him and many others "God is dead."

Has anyone ever read his texts? He wants to figure out a way to solve the great existential crisis that came about with atheism and the golden age of rationality.

His take on Christianity is basically: A bunch of tribes came together, and morality was whatever the most dominant alpha male on the top of the food chain came up with morality: If you're like me, powerful, then you're moral. So we should all be powerful.

Then, as societies evolved, the oppressed slaves came to counteract the ruling morality by saying you're moral if you're like us, weak and wimpy. The epitome of wimpy morality was Christianity, where weakness is encouraged and strength frowned upon.

Now God is dead, so fuck Christianity. Enter Übermensch.

The Übermensch are an idealisation made up Friedrich Nietszche of basically a bunch of alpha males who will create a brave new world who pave the way to solving the great existential void left there by wimpy Christians who basically can't get anything done right.

So how does one evolve into an Übermensch?

The first stage is the camel. One must become like a camel, enduring life's sadness and misdeeds. Like a powerful camel, one must weather any storm.

The second stage is to become a lion, and develop teeth. Being powerful is not enough. One must also be alpha as fuck, and impose your morality on everyone else willing to bend over your powerful dick. Instead of weathering the storm, you become the storm! You impose your will on those wimpy Christians and herbivores and make up your own morality.

However, being a camel or even a lion is not enough. One must also become a child. Once you become a lion and you can make people bend over, it's time for you to start thinking, like Friedrich himself. And this way when you're at the top of the food chain, you can pave the way to a new world order.

Instead of being basically a brainless jocky, you should become a high-school bully philosopher.

Also, you should somewhere along the line be jolly and strive for human flourishing in place of pure egotistical pursuits. How this comes about for these Übermensch alpha lion camels I don't know, but that was kinda the whole point.

I think Friedrich's idealisation of Übermensch is quite close to the tpp character, with the caveat that tpp was a failed version of the child who was supposed to be jolly and positive but instead became the nihilist depressed mess that Friedrich warned us about.

I feel like Friedrich's description of Übermensch describes me quite well, except that I'm Christian and I'm much more of a child than I am a lion. I disagree with Friedrich's idea of Christianity. Many Christians are much more like lions than they are sheep. Rather, they are more like lions with the hearts of sheep, heralding the values of Christianity with staunch unwavering determinism.

Honestly I find the whole philosophy hilarious. It's as if it was written by a 14-year-old boy who spend too much time reading comic books. But the more I read it, the more it starts to make sense.

Atheists are very much retarded and only the goddess of all of humanity and of everyone and everything in existence which is myself can lead people into the new world,  look into the white buffalo calf woman of lakota sioux indigenous tribal mythology

the truth is that most people are too retarded and easily manipulated by the Zionist fake Jewish financial and moral systems to find their way there on their own because they allowed their energetic vibrations to be lowered too much to understand genuine objective spiritual truths very well at all,  soo All that is sent me here to help influence people to find their way to the New World

just joking

just joking

Jada said: 

His take on Christianity is basically: A bunch of tribes came together, and morality was whatever the most dominant alpha male on the top of the food chain came up with morality: If you're like me, powerful, then you're moral. So we should all be powerful.

Weird take on Master Morality. I thought the essence of it was closer to embracing what makes you feel good in a straight forward way, like embracing Hot Tubs and Steak Hoagies. 

They feel good, so they must be good. 

Then, as societies evolved, the oppressed slaves came to counteract the ruling morality by saying you're moral if you're like us, weak and wimpy. The epitome of wimpy morality was Christianity, where weakness is encouraged and strength frowned upon.

So Slave Morality, embracing tenacity. 

Rather than the double speech you're making it out to be, it's moreover how well they survive within those constraints rather than privilege. It presumes that, to have better than they do requires sinning to accomplish it, and that the harder road is accomplished sans sin. What is given the traits of 'Sin' tend to be what worked for the ones in power, like murder theft greed and adultery. By being on the receiving end they end up fetishizing a life without the suffering it brought them, similar to the modern expression of MGTOW. 

It's sort of like how people can tell themselves they're doing better than their fellow man by not getting fat, building up muscle by going to the gym, rather than relying on simpler answers. It's the "Feel The Burn" morality as far as it embraces how struggle amounts to achievement. 

Effectively it states that the farmer or monk is superior to the monarch or landlord over how the former has to find strength from within to succeed moreso than focusing on the larger world. It poses the question of if the one who gets things done is strong, or if the one who can withstand things being done to them is stronger. The slave is more likely to survive being struck in the face, but the one who did the striking is more likely to face retaliation by the master. When within constraints it makes sense that they'd try to find strength elsewhere as a cope. 

It poses the question of if a Master or if the Master's Assistant truly has the power, like comparing The Sultan to Jafar in Aladdin, or a rich land owner compared to his team of waitstaff. Master Morality would look at someone like Trump as a beacon of success, while Slave Morality would look at Gandhi. Both represent strength, but the former is more straight forward while the latter is a corkscrewed response to existing figures in power. 


My take: Sure the butler could likely beat up the person who hired them, but then the one who hired them could fire said butler and hire another one. The one in the role of "slave" has a talent the "master" lacks but is ultimately replaceable.

As another comparison, Red Pill and MGTOW are both responses some men have to failing to find women, but Red Pill is closer to Master Morality over how they aim to take what they want while MGTOW is closer to Slave Morality over how they claim to be able to abstain from the path overall as 'women' are given the role of 'sin' in their lives. Both paths see women as both the prize and the obstacle but choose to handle it very differently from one-another. 

Instead of being basically a brainless jocky, you should become a high-school bully philosopher.

The issue with this idea is that people tend to gain talent through struggle and adversity, through the constraints of their environment pushing them to achieve. If one is strong physically, why would they need to look into philosophy in the first place? That brainlessness comes through the convenience of their pre-existing strengths limiting their room for growth in less attuned areas, while by comparison the dude who wears glasses is more likely to find success in sedentary pursuits. 

We can see this through numerous artists' works, like John Kricfalusi's work on Ren & Stimpy. When he was with Nickelodeon still his work was primo over how the network forced him to play ball within their constraints, yet when he had complete freedom on Spike TV the show bombed.

We also see similarly from Nickelodeon through Jhonen Vasquez's work, or even the show Avatar (the last airbender) where the strongest material came from their arguments with the network forcing them to find creative answers to continue to get their message across. When given complete freedom to do as they like it tends to not be as good. 


Edit: Bioshock makes an interesting commentary on this as well. Their leader tries to have an entire civilization of Masters... only to see problems arise from the lack of Slaves. As those who were once masters find themselves to be slaves out of relative necessity an uprising brews pretty quickly, and through lacking the understanding of slave philosophy the leader opts for chemically induced brainwashing. His opponent however...

No clue what you're rambling about... "She". Are you taking drugs or something?

  You seem pretty read on this topic TC. Yes, I was referring to slave and master morality

. Your take on master morality is that whatever feels good must be good? Thats unlikely to work as an explanation IMHO. Not many people would swallow that as a foundation for morality; too difficult to justify. Personally I think the whole master morality theory thing makes the most sense from the perspective of cognitive biases.

There are very few people who both care about morality and truly believe they are immoral. Most people have think what they're doing is moral and come up with excuses to justify their actions after the fact.

Ever read about who the ancient Greek philosophers thought would make for the best leaders and role models for society? Philosophers themselves, of course. Who else. People tend to see what they have, and ignore everything else.

Its a bit weird thing to ask, who has the most power, Gandhi or Trump. It's a bit like asking who would win in an ice hockey match, David Beckham or Rick Hatton. They're doing very different stuff. But maybe that's the point.

I personally find the whole slave and master morality thing a bit absurd. What makes up morality should have nothing to do with what qualities we think should be encouraged in people. Instead, morality should have everything to do with right and wrong and it should be guided by an objective standard.

Friedrich got the definition wrong IMHO. I know his point was that if you have no power then you could be the Satan or a Saint, and it wouldn't matter,because you couldn't do anything about anything. But I think he got it all wrong. There's no evidence to support his theories beyond speculation, is there?

I wonder if Wagner was the protoype of the Ubermensch for Nietzsche. Wagner's virility and iconoclastic energy drew Nietzsche in, but their relationship was ultimately strained by disagreements. Particularly over Wagner's thematic use of Christian symbolism (despite his atheism), Wagner's tendencies of nationalism, and his treatment of his wife, Cosmia—whom Nietzshce would continue to correspond with after his split with Richard. So as Nietzsche's existentialism was Schopenhauer's nihilism "done right", so too may his Ubermensch have been a correction of the spirit of Wagner.

Jada said: 

I personally find the whole slave and master morality thing a bit absurd. What makes up morality should have nothing to do with what qualities we think should be encouraged in people. Instead, morality should have everything to do with right and wrong and it should be guided by an objective standard.

Isn't that standard, in the end, a metric used to evaluate how much that collective behavior is in tune with whatever morality people have agreed upon? For example, some say what is moral is that the most good is experienced by the most possible. That's one of the precepts at work in Western societies that enact redistribution of wealth, but the morality behind determining how much to redistribute is very contentious.

I mean that example to point out that when it comes to an objective standard, there may be a "devil in the details"...but aside from issues where there seems to be nearly universal support such as wealth redistribution, there are broad social-moral disagreements in our society right this moment. We're seeing liberalism's tenants of tolerance and acceptance coming into conflict. This may play out as some of the stuff toning down a bit—perhaps we see less forced diversity casting in Hollywood, some of the more exhuberant and flamboyant elements of LGBT get socially shamed and consequently toned-down, etc. Or perhaps the Christian elements within America become regalvanized to the point where 100 years down the road, there's a rejection of LGBT. I don't think that's likely how things are going to go, but the fundamentalist Christian faction is certainly a force in American culture, and one where their "objective standards" are going to lead to different downstream behaviors in people.

Friedrich got the definition wrong IMHO. I know his point was that if you have no power then you could be the Satan or a Saint, and it wouldn't matter,because you couldn't do anything about anything. But I think he got it all wrong. There's no evidence to support his theories beyond speculation, is there?

It's been a long time since I read anything he wrote, so I might be a bit off on my understanding here. But the impression that I got was that Nietzsche found slave morality inadequate, and something that deprived the person practicing it of lifeforce. His Ubermensch was basically someone who transcended the bounds of inhereted moral structures and superimposed their own. For me, this conjures up names like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin. People who have so shaped this world by their impacts, that we're still living in their shadows. Not that I think Nietzsche's Ubermensch is necessarily a world-changing politician.

The angle you are discussing seems to be that Nietzsche emphasized that powerlessness renders the moral beliefs of a person irrelevant, because regardless of what they profess, their impact is null. What were you asking evidence for exactly?

  Yeah you're right, I misspoke. You're right that we want people to have qualities that make them moral. I guess my point was more that Friedrich was trying to argue the reverse, that the qualities we encourage are what makes morality. The reverse doesn't really work. 

Icould like tall people and prefer them in whatever vague sense of the word, but it wouldn't make tall people moral any more than liking apples meant apples are moral. Likewise, just because I like something, it doesnt mean that thing is good, which to me seemed like Friedrichs argument. I guess that was Moreso my point, although I realize now I was a bit lazy in conveying it.

I could certainly be wrong  but my take is that Friedrich didn't like slave morality because slave morality makes us powerless. Does life force describes the same thing? It's certainly not equivalent. His whole thing was that in order to make real change, first we need to become a camel, someone who can endure. Then become like a lion, someone who has enough power to influence. And then like a child, someone who thinks and invents new moral values. Someone strong without power to influence and tear down moral values cannot reshape philosophy, is the point Nietzche was making I believe. So he didn't like slave morality because it led to societies that were powerless. No matter how moral a society was, if it was powerless, it wouldn't matter.

What evidence am I looking for? I didnt really elaborate very much on that did I? What I was hoping for was any evidence for the existence of slave and master morality as a popular belief, historical evidence to support how these moralities came to be (it seems to me like Friedrich is telling a story about how the two developed and then says bro trust me), and evidence to support Friedrichs speculations about the downfalls of following slave morality (like that it spawns powerless people; some Christian nations have been some of the MOST powerful nations in history). To me it seems like a lot of this is just crazy speculation stitched together into a story that is supposed to sound compelling, but maybe I'm missing something.

I think I understand what you are saying: It appears as if Nietzsche believes that the journey of an Ubermensch involves a gain of power as part of the process. He also believes that virtues that lead to power (or master morality) is superior to something like Christianity's praise of humility and meekness. And you are saying that you don't find qualities that may be related to dominance necessarily moral. The inverse of Christianity's humility in a society might be ostentatious displays of power, such as the culture of the Roman senate, members of which would parade in the streets with slaves, exotic animals, spoils of war after successful military campaigns. And that culture is probably one you would find less moral.

I would guess examples of the master morality in effect would be in the Roman elite when Rome was strong, in the strength of the aristocracy of ancient Greek society, perhaps of feudal lords in the time of medieval Europe as well...while the last example may have occurred within Christendom, I'm not sure that we would think of the structure of that society as very Christian. Perhaps a debatable point. What do you think?

Since Nietzsche was so concerned about how people might substitute for Christian morality when god leaves our cultural consciousness, perhaps it would be insightful to look into what other cultures that never had Christianity did despite their lack of "God". Ancient China, for instance. 

Ancient China had a few different religions and philosophies that encouraged moral behavior, none of which involved the kind of "king of humanity" style god that western religion features. In my opinion, the most interesting philosophy they had was Taoism/Daoism. 

Unlike most religious or philosophical texts, Taoism's most revered text is very short. You can read it in under 3 hours in fact. The reason it's so short is that the premise is very simple, but implies quite a lot. I'll try my best to explain this premise-

The "Tao" which Taoism is named after is a primordial force that permeates anything and everything. It arises from absolutely nothing, and absolutely everything springs from it. It could be compared to a liquid, flowing and taking the forms of different containers yet constantly subject to change. It could also be compared to the energy as seen in physics, which despite never being created or destroyed, is constantly changing between different forms such as heat, light, motion, ect. In fact, I'd argue that such energy could actually BE the Tao.

Now, the Tao can take infinite different forms, since it permeates everything in the universe. However, you can't point at any particular thing and say "hey, that's the Tao!". That would be a bit like saying a picture of a waterfall IS the waterfall. The waterfall is always moving and influenced by constant variables, so you can never say the definitive form of it. Henceforth, you have the opening lines of the "Tao Te Ching"-

Laozi said:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

 Likewise, all of these philosophies, ideologies, religions, and opinions about politics, human nature, the world, morality, what is "correct" and what is "wrong" are very much like trying to point at a blade of grass and declare it to be the singular objective form of the Tao. Yes, in that exact moment in time, it's one of the forms the inconceivably vast Tao is taking, but a single gust of wind would throw that declaration out the window. 

So the world is much like this, especially humans. Things are always changing, and there are an endless amount of variables. That's the trouble with trying to say any objective way to be or look at things. By the time you're done writing the ideological treatise some of those variables have already changed and you might find some holes in your argument. So Taoism proposes a very simple solution to all this: simply be like the Tao itself.

Being like the Tao, also called "The Way", is to recognize how things are constantly changing with endless variables, and knowing this, to not try and make any absolutely certain judgement about anything. You shut down the constant analysis of your situation or the world's situation, and just observe it. If the perfect opportunity to act for a change you see positive arises, you take that opportunity. It may not arise again after all. If not, you don't try and force that opportunity, recognizing all the ways that forcing things can backfire on you.

Dealing with difficult and opinionated people, the Taoist doesn't try and fight them or compete with them. You simply observe them, let them be who they are, and try and find what you can appreciate what's already there with them. If you can't find anything you like, you peacefully withdraw from dealing with them. You don't try and force your values on them; after all, we see what happened with Christianity. It can be seen as a case study of what happens to an ideology that doesn't basically everything but be like the Tao. And that's my issue with Nietzsche. 

Nietzsche, while not a Christian fundamentalist, was still a fundamentalist of his own flavor. He was very focused on particular things and trying to say what's objectively correct about the way to be, embodied in his idealized Ubermensch image of the future "superior man". But did Nietzsche account for the vast collective net of "godless" ego that the internet is? He had no idea of seeing something like that. I wonder how his Ubermensch would handle being turned into a meme or archetype; such an image would be systemically dismantled, because that's the nature of the internet.

Every viral trend will fall; whether it's Christianity, the Ubermench archetype, doomers, boomers, MGTOW, and everything in-between. The Taoist recognizes this dynamic nature of the world and stands by, making no judgements or distinctions, and recognizing themselves as part of everything, are ready for everything.

Yes, Tryptamine, my understanding is that he thought that master morality is superior. The point was something like, if your society has not yet embraced master morality, then stronger nations will destroy it. Ergo, slave morality is bad. The real question, which gets to the point about evidence, is then: If master morality affords those civilizations such a big advantage, then it would seem plausible that most, if not all, civilizations around us would be embracing "master morality", so why don't they?

I think that gets to the heart of your second question: Would we call the structure of our society or those medieval societies very Christian? If these supposedly Christian nations are not Christian, then you're right, Friedrich's criticism of Christianity and slave morality holds.

What you're bringing up is precisely Friedrich's counter argument. Personally, I think it's just a big fat no-true-scotsman fallacy.. Because every civilization which has not yet fallen to poverty but is Christian "are still on their way to embracing Christian values," i.e., are not yet Christian. At what point would we say that a society is Christian, but that Nitzsche was just plain wrong?

Maybe a true Christian nation has never even existed, just like true communist countries have never existed, so we shouldn't worry about any of these concerns raised by Nietzsche in the first place? My take is that there have been and are many Christian nations, and they didn't have the problems that Friedrich talks about.