1 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 24, 2025
Seeking for enlightenment from Nietzsche enthusiasts on this one.
Origin of knowledge (TGS):
This subtler honesty and skepticism came into being wherever two contradictory sentences appeared to be *applicable* to life because *both* were compatible with the basic errors, and it was therefore possible to argue about the higher or lower degree of *utility* for life; also wherever new propositions, though not useful for life, were also evidently not harmful to life: in such cases there was room for the expression of an intellectual play impulse, and honesty and skepticism were innocent and happy like all play.
Could you kindly help me with some practical examples of two such contradictory maxims that seem to be applicable to life because they are both compatible with primeval cognitive errors?
I was thinking of the following:
Two antithetical sentences: (1) it's fine to kick someone who bashes religious faith out of your group vs (2) it's wrong to do so.
(1) could be valid as religious faith is a life-preserving basic error, knowledge that helped (hence, it keeps helping) us survive, although its raw essence is untrue. So it's morally fine to kick him who works against something that preserves life.
(2) could be valid as we may very well consider that it is objectively wrong to do so, which is another basic error that helped us organize, therefore survive - the objectivization of morals.
This contradiction makes us debate and decide, exercising honesty and skepticism, which one is closer to Nietzsche's Truth.
I feel like I got it wrong, or not getting it at all, please do tell if what I said it's dumb.
There's nothing here!