>>236255>It's called setting goals. And when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness. When you don't you feel saddened.
Precisely. Any boost in happiness is fleeting, and when that changes it produces sadness. In this case the cause of sadness is the impermanence of the happy condition. You may have many things from pursuing goals, but you won't have peace.
There's happiness in having goals and happiness in being goalless, but both are fleeting and therefore produce sadness. This is the vicissitude of life, and it's a conceit to knowingly pile up what you know doesn't really make you happy. As long as we remain ignorant of the causes of our condition, knowingly or not, we will continue to be thrown from one thing to the other.>>236274>The study of history is done by multiple individuals who most of the time disagree with each other on almost everything… Aurelius and the Buddha were objectively weak people.
History is certainly open to interpretation. In that case if Roman emperors, pharaohs, sultans, and tsars weren't temporally powerful, who was? If they ruled by the power of their unbreakable wills alone, why were they crowned by priests? Why then appeal to oracles, mystics, augurs, why write laws, treatises, poetry, why commission art, sculpture, buildings? Why does the Byzantine eagle have two heads? One head representing the monarchy, the other the church? Why do kings carry a sword and a scepter? A crook and a flail? Why did Greek and Macedonian generals go to Delphi? Why do knights swear fealty and samurai uphold bushido? Will you carve out exceptions for all these, as examples of weakness, or accept there's a blindspot in your worldview?
>most higher class people, nobles, kings, aristocrats, etc. didn't/don't lose their will to live and their vitality. It takes an extraordinarily weak character to be like Marcus or the Buddha.
Clearly Buddha didn't lose his will to live, he lived until 80. Buddha and his disciples didn't lose their vitality either, they were all described as healthy by king Kosala (Middle Discourses 89), and despite abdicating remained engaged. When Nietzsche said the answer to nihilism was either the return of master morality or the rise of a European Buddhism, you'll note the qualifier European, as Nietzsche inherited this fatalistic view from Schopenhauer.
You keep writing about Stoicism and Buddhism, yet the argument is about neither. The argument is these were powerful historical figures who had the same realization as OP, namely on the predication of value. You claimed only the weak were compelled to ask this question (>>236140
), yet it's a question that has consumed the greatest monarchs, philosophers, and artists. You have no account for why this is the case.>>236274>Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful… you betray your own ancestors who struggled and desired to survive at all costs
Were your ancestors social darwinists? or did they fight for another reason? How will you reconcile this contradiction? Were your ancestors unknowing darwinists?
The view of nature as an open market of individual competition is clearly bourgeois and mercantile, Darwin's thought was a justification for the British India Company as an apex market predator, but in conflating this view with nature itself something becomes apparent that's suspiciously close to the Stoicism you rail against:
>You want to live 'according to nature'? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of a being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative 'live according to nature' meant at bottom the same thing as 'live according to life' - how could you not do that? – Beyond Good and Evil, §9
Like Stoicism, social darwinism it's an imposition on nature to disguise the wills of the participants as the "natural order". It presents itself as democratizing nature according to merit. This isn't an aristocratic view of the world, it's not value-creating, and is partly why Nietzsche despised Stoicism, and would have despised social darwinism, as slave morality. It's no surprise the natural selection of Darwin dovetails with the historical materialism of Marx.>>236392>From a classical moral standpoint, maybe. However, morals are fake and hypocrite. Every ideology that preaches about caring for your neighbor and placing the collective before the individual is evil, wicked and rotten.
You claim your opponents are moral nihilists, morally condemn them as wicked, then claim morality doesn't exist. This is three levels of contradiction. Are you a moral nihilist or not? Do you know?