Eternal recurrence is a pseudo religious belief akin to reincarnation but with a side order of pre-determinism. It strikes at the moral significance of what we choose to do - as if it's what we were always going to do, and what happens over and over anyway. It's immune to rational analysis - so we can just leave that be.kaleido wrote: ↑October 19th, 2022, 5:22 pm He solved nihilism. The solution to nihilism is the Eternal Recurrence and the Overman.
He doesn't reject morality. In fact he even wrote an entire genealogy of a morality and made a book about it. He only rejects "transcendental" moralities (or "transcendental" objects, whatever they may be).
As for Wittgenstein, I'm just merely "proving" that there are no proofs in real life (lol). You can't positively prove with 100% certainty anything in life. Hence objectivity is an illusion. Logicians, however, have a hard time understanding this.
You tell me "Morality has an evolutionary origin"... I tell you everything has an evolutionary origin! And Nietzsche knew that!
But Nietzsche did not solve nihilism. The Overman embodies nihilism. But as previously stated, the overman could never have evolved, because his character would not allow that he survived to breed, to raise young, to perpetuate his existence. Characterised by his will to power - he is what's left when all social and human obligation have been dismissed. So he would not have fought for the tribe, shared food, protected his offspring at risk to himself, and so could not have evolved. By Nietzsche, this is an abdication from the question - what do we owe to eachother? A question posed by evolution, that our survival answers. This is the origin of morality.
Perhaps you have forgotten where you came in on this - it was in response to my assertion that Nietzsche identified - but failed to understand the true nature of the 'transvaluation of values.' For Nietzsche, the Overman was man in a state of nature. Primitive man who's virtues were strength and savagery. Nietzsche goes on to argue that the weak fooled the strong, and inverted moral values. But that's incorrect because human beings evolved; not as rugged individuals, but in tribal groups that necessarily had social and moral obligations toward eachother, or they could not have survived.
These groups then joined together to form multi-tribal social groups; and this was the real transvaluation of values - from values inherent in kinship and social relations, to explicit moral codes justified with reference to God i.e. Moses and the ten commandments. This is religion: an explicit expression of the innate moral sense ingrained into human beings by evolution; expressed as a form of social contract between hunter gatherer tribes. All I'm saying is, Nietzsche was wrong about everything!