Nietzsche's moral skepticism always seemed very questionable to me. While we're unfortunately capable and often subject to a great deal of social conditioning away from our instincts, we're still subject to biological constants. Those constants constrain the possible degree of conditioning and especially constrain the practical degree. I think morality is hopelessly subjective in a sense but not so arbitrary that anything we deem as evil is merely something new; nothing in the realm of subjectivity is absent patterns and constraints. Musical taste is subjective as an example, but there's a limit to which it can be stretched through conditioning. In spite of the wide variety of musical ideas developed throughout history, it is nevertheless subject to rules of functional harmony, deliberate dissonance, timbre, structured rhythms, cadences, humanly-discernible sound frequencies, etc (i.e., it is nevertheless subject to the constants of our biological reality). Short of the most extreme attempts at brainwashing, I doubt we could ever make human beings accept an arbitrary combination of sounds completely absent of any conformity to any of these notions as musical and pleasing in nature. The music we all like, throughout the world and throughout history, and no matter how bizarre it may sound to foreign ears, is still subject to at least a subset of the same fundamental rules. A common mistake I see is to conflate "subjective" with "anything goes" absent discernible patterns and standards. All realms of subjectivity in human nature exhibit rather strong patterns throughout history whether it's food taste or musical taste or ideas of beauty or linguistic patterns. There's a discernible rhythm and trend underlying all of it even if it might sometimes lead to results we find very odd.
This point you make about "subjective" not necessarily meaning "infinitely variable" is important. I don't know if you've ever read Erich Fromm, but he's a wonderful resource on this topic. I find his approach to humanism is more grounded in reality and practicality than many philosophers'. Check out the book "Man for Himself" if you can, I think you'd really like it!
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great work, Helped a lot.
Glad it helped!
Thank you so much ❤️
This really enlightened my mind
I'm so glad you liked it! Are there any other topics you'd like to see a video on?
Nietzsche's moral skepticism always seemed very questionable to me. While we're unfortunately capable and often subject to a great deal of social conditioning away from our instincts, we're still subject to biological constants. Those constants constrain the possible degree of conditioning and especially constrain the practical degree.
I think morality is hopelessly subjective in a sense but not so arbitrary that anything we deem as evil is merely something new; nothing in the realm of subjectivity is absent patterns and constraints. Musical taste is subjective as an example, but there's a limit to which it can be stretched through conditioning.
In spite of the wide variety of musical ideas developed throughout history, it is nevertheless subject to rules of functional harmony, deliberate dissonance, timbre, structured rhythms, cadences, humanly-discernible sound frequencies, etc (i.e., it is nevertheless subject to the constants of our biological reality). Short of the most extreme attempts at brainwashing, I doubt we could ever make human beings accept an arbitrary combination of sounds completely absent of any conformity to any of these notions as musical and pleasing in nature. The music we all like, throughout the world and throughout history, and no matter how bizarre it may sound to foreign ears, is still subject to at least a subset of the same fundamental rules.
A common mistake I see is to conflate "subjective" with "anything goes" absent discernible patterns and standards. All realms of subjectivity in human nature exhibit rather strong patterns throughout history whether it's food taste or musical taste or ideas of beauty or linguistic patterns. There's a discernible rhythm and trend underlying all of it even if it might sometimes lead to results we find very odd.
This point you make about "subjective" not necessarily meaning "infinitely variable" is important. I don't know if you've ever read Erich Fromm, but he's a wonderful resource on this topic. I find his approach to humanism is more grounded in reality and practicality than many philosophers'. Check out the book "Man for Himself" if you can, I think you'd really like it!