Apparently you see yourself as a man of logic, therefore you should know that it is a logical fallacy to say that the title of his book, The Genealogy of Morals, reflects the genetic fallacy.
Of course The Genealogy is one big fallacy. Nietzsche accounts the so-called "origins" of Judeo-Christian morality and then concludes the tradition reversed the evaluations of "good and evil" in the past. But where's the logic in that? How do we know what N- said was true? What really IS good and evil anyway? Why are some things good and not evil, evil and not good according to N-? His caricaturization of Judoe-Christian morality is a strawman. Every Chrisitian I know agrees. So who is right? How N- approaches philosophical topics is typically one-dimensional and illogical.
The title itself doesn't necessarily describe the purpose of presenting a genealogy of morality. It could simply mean that the author is being purely descriptive by presenting the genealogy of morality. However, Nietzsche did use the genealogy as a way to justify an alternative to Christian (or slave) morality.
Right. And this is the fallacy. "Slave morality" is a caricature. And using geneology to offer a justified reason for abandoning it in favor of "master morality" is the genetic fallacy itself--as if N- own evaluations were really good and truthful.
He wasn't necessarily saying that Christian (herd/slave) morality and its descedents (utilitarianism and deontology) were false because of their origin. Instead he was saying that we should reject them because they weaken the human spirit by entailing an absolute condemnation of suffering.
And in what sense did they "weaken" the human spirit? In N-'s own private sense? How do you test for that claim? What does "Weaken" mean in N-'s terminology? He just presupposes "Teutonic" contrary opposites of good and evil, master and slave, and then bashes Christianity with it. I wouldn't subscribe to his evaluations in a scientific sense anyway. Just look at the pragmatic argument against it. Christianity is alive and well.
Suffering, as Nietzsche saw it, is an essential part of life and it strengthens those who do not perish under its weight. It is, therefore, irrational for one to shelter themselves in the belief that nature has a moral order or that the "evils" of this world will be abolished in an afterlife or in a future world where reason and science has cured the human condition.
That is invalid! That is exactly what I am talking about. It's also a strawman. Christianity says nothing like that. You are apparently indoctrinated with N-'s ideas because you can't see beyond them.
(1) Suffering is a part of life. (christianity certainly agrees)
(2) Christianity places value on the life to come while disparaging the value of the suffering of this life (no, it doesn't. Suffering has great worth and value in Christianity. Just read Paul's message. This life has just as much value as the next. I don't see all Christians committing suicide.)
(3) Therefore, we ought to abandon christianity
The argument is invalid. (2) is false. And (3) is a result of Neitzsche's own hatred for Christianity because he didn't understand its message since he didn't identify with it.
This argument you offered fallaciously derives an "ought" from an "is" and caricaturizes Christianity as if it were nihilistic about this life, placing value only on the life to come. Then tell me why the Catholic Church, for example, has the best track record to this day assisting the sick, feeding the hungry, and taking care of poor with its countless charities? And did you know that "becoming Christian" is not a condtion for receiving that assistance? Catholic organizations are behind much of the secular and religious charity organizations out there, but very people know about that because the media never reports such a thing.
And if Christians didn't value this life, then why don't they just ignore people's suffering and council everyone to commit suicide, while doing it themselves like that religious cult several years ago whose members committed suicide because they thought that action was the quickest path to landing oneself on an alien ship? Suffering is good, it strengthens you and imparts wisdom and character. But what is wrong with the altruistic act of assisting someone in need? My grandmother is now dying of cancer, and I also have a handicapped sister. Should I follow N- advice and stop taking care of them both because N- thinks all altruistic acts of Love come from the sentiment of "pity"? I don't pity my grandmother; I LOVE my grandmother. I don't pity my sister; I LOVE my sister. THAT is why I help her, not because I "pity" her. N- didn't understand that the message of Love is the primary message of Christianity which he mistakenly called "the Religion of Pity." So he was totally wrong.
Love is friendship, love is community, love is the willing sacrifice of one's time and energy to help someone in need; if you don't act on that love for another person, it is doubtful whether one can call that love at all. Sitting in your study as a recluse writing about fictional characters named "Adriadne"to whom you imagine yourself singing songs of praise is not love--it is fantasy. So I just don't see the logic of Nietzsche's own value system at all. Nor do I see the logic of his "re-valuation of all values."
His own life proves that he misunderstood that message of Love, too. He couldn't Love others, but instead, isolated himself from everyone else by escaping to the Alps to attack everyone he hated with his pen behind closed doors. His relationship with his long time friend Richard Wagner is a perfect example of this. That relationship failed when N- wrote "The Case of Wagner," too.
Once again we encounter hypocrisy. You bash Nietzsche's denial of logic and reason in his arguments and yet now you commit the genetic fallacy with a psychoanalysis.
True, I am psychoanalyzing N. But this isn't hypocracy or a genetic fallacy. I am not bashing N to draw the claim that what he said is false--that would be an ad hominem
--the most predominant style of Nietzsche's own approach to philosophy. On the contrary, I am saying what he says is false because it is
false: so many of his claims are either empirically incorrect, non-historical, or invalid. I am claiming he doesn't offer very good arguments for establishing the truth about anything at all, and this is a necessary consequence
of his psychological condition. I am tired of hearing the stereotypical plasticity of his claims I encounter from amateur philosophers who mouth his doctrines as if they were gospel truth. First learn how to think, then we'll discuss his arguments. I have studied N, I have taken several classes concerning his philosophy in my department, and have written several essays on him. You ought to know that maintstream philosophical academia generally makes fun of him, including other atheists, because everyone is all-too-familiar with what passess as a series of implicit illogical Ideologies by present-day philosophical standards. So I am well within my epistemic rights to discuss the topic of "Nietzsche" since I am well-acquainted with his writings. And there is nothing wrong with evaluating the personality that led to the development of his philosophy. I am confident many psychoanalysts would agree with some kind of evaluation like that, too. His personality is immediately evident in his writings. Do you deny that? After all, N- wrote "in his own blood."
Wow. This is a very personal attack. A 16 year old's caricature of Christianity, really?
Absolutely. Understand Christ's message, first, before you strawman it with N-'s caricaturizations.
What a surprise. More insults to the man. You're starting to sound, dare I say, just like him!
I like to Nietzscheanize Nietzsche. What's wrong with that? If he actually gave me a good rational argument perhaps we could discuss it. But until then, I'm just going to make fun of him.
Nietzsche succeeded in presenting a necessary alternative to the all to popular life negating worldviews of Christianity and Buddhism.
And what exactly was that alternative? N- didn't even have an alternative. Do you mean the ideal of "the free-spirit"? Do you mean N-'s overman? Do you personally know anybody like that? I don't.
Here's another question: was this alternative really "successful" as you claim it is? Or a "necessary" replacement of C and B for that matter? In what sense was it successful? How do we evaluate that "success"? By its being a partial influence on the Columbine Shootings in Colorado several years ago?...By partially influencing Mein Kampf and Nazism Ideologies? Are N-'s writings good for anyone? especially for disgruntled youth who come from shitty homes and find themselves identifying with N-'s own arrogance, anger, and disparagment of logic, sensibility, and truth?
Further, what does "life-negating" even mean? If all the followers of C and B actually committed suicide, I would agree. But believing in a life hereafter doesn't negate the value of this life. Why would it? --Just because I think something has intrinsic value, doesn't mean I think everything else has no value. That's illogical and totally misinformed if you think that.
He succeeded by creating tons of literature while suffering from excruciating pain. Last but not least he succeeded in making hypocrites out of his future enemies (you).
"Tons of literature," eh? I only know of the 8 or 9 books, and the collection of his silly notebooks titled "Will to Power" highly edited and put together by his own anti-semitic sister Elizabeth for the rising Nazi propaganda.
So N- made me a hypocrite? How does that work? Are you saying that anybody who disagrees with N- is a hypocrite? Just for your information, religious cults say stuff like that. This is an instance of confirmation bias, namely, looking for examples to confirm what N- said in spite of all the counter-evidence against his claims. It's also ad hoc. Astrologers do the same thing.
And he most certainly might have been correct about you if you think those arguments you offered are good, well-formed arguments against Christianity, since they are not: "what need do I have for mindless followers? However, I know that someday I will."