He is a moral relativist... but why does he insist on self-overcoming? Or am I wrong and actually self-overcoming is not a moral obligation. Just a moral that Nietzsche in particular finds valuable?
Also, somewhere in his work he said that he is not interested to hear what you are "free from," but he wants to know what you are "free for?" Granted that he said this in the chapter saying not everybody had the capacity to be an overman. But what I'm wondering is- to a moral relativist, why does it matter that you are free for anything? Can you not choose the most flimsy of reasons?
2007-01-12 12:38:17 · 3 answers · asked by ragdefender 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Free... I think one must have a pretty good reason. Or their statement is a trashing of the concept
2007-01-20 11:35:42 · answer #1 · answered by tillermantony 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are " getting " Nietzsche. Rather out of favor in this century, don't you think?
2007-01-12 20:43:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
People are different...
2007-01-19 07:52:30 · answer #3 · answered by Lusine 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋