>1. It's tempting to read this as Nietzche disproving the naturalist fallacy, but if you read this carefully, that's not what Nietzche says. On the contrary, Nietzche is using the naturalist fallacy to claim stoics are wrong because stoicism isn't natural. This completely misses the fact that "natural" does not imply "right" and "unnatural" does not imply "wrong".
For Nietzche it does. And one could argue (well Nietzche sure did, elsewhere) that it's also universally true.
Besides even without that, his showing that what's natural could be seen in another different way is enough to deprive the stoics of their claim to naturalness. It is not naturalness the preach, he points, it's "how nature should be according to stoics".
But the even more important insight is this: "And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?"
> Besides even without that, his showing that what's natural could be seen in another different way is enough to deprive the stoics of their claim to naturalness. It is not naturalness the preach, he points, it's "how nature should be according to stoics".
Why bother depriving the stoics of their claim to naturalness if the claim to naturalness has no value?
And why should we care about depriving the stoics of their claim to naturalness when no one is claiming naturalness in the contemporary conversation?
> But the even more important insight is this: "And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?"
Granted that "living according to nature" means whatever Nietzche wants it to mean, Nietzche can argue anything, but even a cursory reading of the stoics shows that the stoics weren't speaking tautologically when they said "life according to nature". "Life according to nature" in stoic terms is more like "life that acknowledges the limitations placed on one by reality". Stated in English as quoted, Nietzche's argument sounds like Nietzche didn't even read the stoics. However, I suspect that Nietzche's intent may have been lost in translation, as such semantic arguments translate poorly.
Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world. While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing. Thus when people talk about natural as good they are simply they are using it as a fallacy to support their argument not some guiding life principle.
Also, saying everything must live according to nature is a tautology that disproves nothing.
>While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing.
Well, we're talking about the natural way of living -- and death is a corner case, as it's not about living, but about the end to life.
Still, even with that, and even with all the grievance about the death of those we know and ourselves, death is seen as an essential part of the cycle of life in almost all cultures (and most, if not all, religions).
But that's orthogonal, as we aren't talking about what cultures view as good or bad, but about what is inherently good or bad. And we haven't established that death is bad anyway. Just that it is sad and painful. But the alternative could be even worse (e.g. for the species at large, or for society, or for the planet's ecology, etc). Death for example is a primary factor in evolution -- we don't know of another way to get to intelligent life and eventually, us. Except, you know, God creating an all-perfect human pair...
Besides, you (in the US) think Baby Boomers are a problem? Imagine having Babylonian-era Baby Boomers in charge still. (Rather, new people wouldn't even been born. The generation beating death will say: ok, we're good as we are. Fuck future generations, and let's keep it to us).
The unborn don't complain about not being concived.
However, while you tied yourself in a not trying to justify some death I already said some deaths are viewed as a good thing. But, for death to be good then all death including preteen cancer patients must be good, or your not saying death is good your saying something related to death is good.
>The unborn don't complain about not being concived
No, but any concept of good or bad presupposes existence.
>However, while you tied yourself in a not trying to justify some death I already said some deaths are viewed as a good thing. But, for death to be good then all death including preteen cancer patients must be good, or your not saying death is good your saying something related to death is good.
For evolution, all kinds of deaths are a driving factor. And without evolution, we wouldn't be here. So?
> Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world.
How is it more natural than anything else? What does that mean?
> While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing.
Without death there would be no biological evolution, so human beings would not exist. It is very easy to argue that death is universally a good thing (from a human perspective).
For Nietzche it does. And one could argue (well Nietzche sure did, elsewhere) that it's also universally true.
Besides even without that, his showing that what's natural could be seen in another different way is enough to deprive the stoics of their claim to naturalness. It is not naturalness the preach, he points, it's "how nature should be according to stoics".
But the even more important insight is this: "And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?"