Moral self and really trying to gain different perspectives

Moral Psychology is the study of the human mind as it relates to morality and moral conduct. A moral psychologist essentially is a person who reflects on the shelf,  provides us with an analysis of such concepts as agency, action, character, selfhood and freedom, amongst others. David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche are both moral psychologists in this matter. David Hume was an Empiricist who rationalized his arguments around the idea of skepticism. Hume’s main take away had to do with obtaining knowledge and what we do with it once we do obtain it. The other philosopher named Friedrich Nietzsche tries to influence people that reason is just a mirage of truth/reality. Nietzsche tends to use parallel logic and he does this by demonstrating his ideas. Having certainty with what is creative and having no verity whatsoever when something is factual or either logical.Nietzsche claims that consciousness is truly trying to obtain your true self and really trying to gain different perspectives about oneself.  This important arguments on consciousness is in his book “The Gay Science.” Nietzsche is believed to have an idea about how we could think, but also how we could feel. It’s interesting enough that he talks about the will to remember, and how we could also act about in every sense of the words we speak. The absurd part is that this doesn’t even lead to the subject matter of consciousness. For example, it would be someone saying something to himself metaphorically. According to Nietzsche, “the whole of life would be possible without, as it were, seeing itself in a mirror”(Katsafanas 2005). And yet, we do have consciousness. Nietzsche asks ‘Why? What is it for?” His answer summarized is that humans developed consciousness alongside language as a communicative tool. Being weak heard animals, early humans needed to express their feelings to each other. To do this, they needed words and other signs to label these states. But they needed to be able to identify the states to be communicated.  Friedrich Nietzsche has been said to describe the seduction of language as something that many people get confused with and don’t truly fully understand. .He argues that many people have multiple misconceptions about the certainty of grammar. Nowadays, people think that the “correct” way to utilize language is with having a subject and a verb to produce a sentence. According to ,” They designate the subject as”the doer” and the verb as “the doing” (25, 20-22). Being able to identify a subject or a verb is classifying the relationship between the two and shows that there is a cause-and-effect that they have on one another. People uphold the aspect of this language and seem to have adopted slave morality. According to Nietzsche, “slave morality is the morality adopted by the people who are weak and oppressed and who do not have the capacity to fulfill their desires”(158). Nietzsche believes that if an individual is frail in every aspect of their life, they will be place dunder language of seduction, which give grounds for how weak that individual is. According to, Nietzsche “people cling to the belief that there is a difference between the subject and the verb. In other words, they think that “the doer” has the freedom to cause “the doing” (25, 37).” Nietzsche argues that we mistake the structure of language for the structure of reality. For Nietzsche, metaphor is going to lie at the very basis of what it is that us human beings do by virtue of our intellect.  Even though we live in a highly rationalized society, the very criterion by which we talk about there irrationality is often hyper-rational in Nietzsche’s perspective. It is done with concepts, expect things to remain the same, we talk about science and laws of nature, we have forgotten the metaphors that we have used to create an entire world. And Nietzsche talks about living in this bubble and prison which is of our own construction. Despite this, this drive for metaphors pushes through. It cannot be eliminated. As long as there are human beings, there is always going to be somebody messing around with this concept. Nietzsche in a certain respect, is there admirer and advocate of the one who subverts and who goes beyond the rules and hierarchies of society. He doesn’t necessarily get rid of them but insead imposes new norms and ideologies. ” we are not restrained by the fact that out of our diminished product, the concepts are regular rigid world built up for him as a prison fortress. It seeks a new province for its activities and a different riverbed”(167). We can say that it finds new outlets. It finds new ways to express itself. Expressing itself in this case and having an outlet means where it can develop itself. Nietzsche says that this can be done through myth and art. When you have a rational set of associations, metaphors that were originally, metaphors vivid that have lost that vivacity and that have now become merely structures or ways in which we share a common language. Friedrich Nietzsche’s on his essay, “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”, tells us a sort of genealogical story about the origins of the distinction between the invention of truth and lying. Nietzsche is interested in where is this desire for truth stem from and how did we arrive at the point where we almost automatically associate the truth with what is most real and we see falsehood or lying as secondary upon the truth. Nietzsche at first talks at first about the individual wanting to preserve himself, a state of primitive nature. In this state, the individual will engage in dissimilation because that is what the human intellect has brought. What nietzsche does to make his point about truth is that he talks about his language is a metaphor. That language is never entirely accurate about the reality it describes. One of instances he portrays this is when he talks about a leaf. He illustrates that you have a leaf and the word leaf that we use describes the concept. This “thing” brings the idea of a leaf but the problem of leaf is that there is more than one way. This is the problem that Nietzsche says, that we always describe and it’s always a metaphor. We get this idea (an image) form the mind which is an impulse pattern, then it comes to a construction from a person’s mouth to produce certain sound. Then that sound goes to your ears and it creates a certain image back in your mind.  So we are going through multiple stages form going from one metaphor to another in order to communicate the idea of a leaf. Nietzsche says that even though seeking this truth in the reality, we actually get farther and farther away from it. The concepts and ideas evolve over time. When it comes to the subject of Existentialism, Nietzsche would say that we don’t have to believe and those rules that are made up. The idea of existentialism is that there are no universal morality that governs all of us. In fact, part of deciding of what is good and what’s bad is part of what Nietzsche called an Ubermensch. The Ubermensch is the supramoral individual, the individual who has evolved beyond the imprisonment of moral values and the prison which man created for himself, guilt. Of course no such man has yet been born, it was merely a hope Nietzsche expressed, that eventually man would shed his weaknesses and evolve thus.According to Hume, constant conjunction is the sequence of two or more regularly conjoined sensory impressions. In other words it is when one event follows another. One event repeatedly follows another (invariable).  Necessary connexion is one event causes another (event A must follow event B). It is one observed events bringing about/causing another observed event. Hume argues that causation does not come from observation. For and maple, suppose you’re looking at a pool table and you see ball A and ball B. Let’s say you see ball A run into ball B. Now if I just asked you “what did you just see?”, you may say that I saw ball A run into ball B and furthermore, I saw ball A cause ball B to move. Here’s where Hume says wait what was that about causation? He argues that you didn’t see a cause, you saw a ball move and the n immediately afterward, you saw ball B move. But you’re inferring that there existence is this extra thing called causation. HUme argues that you’re totally unjustified in believing in that there is such a thing because it did not occur within your experience. He claims that you never experienced cause and effect. We cannot observe causation nor does the mind perceive the working of cause and effect. Hume believes that all knowledge comes to us through our senses. Our perceptions according to Hume, are split into two categories: ideas and impressions. Impressions are present testimony of our experience; they are more vivid and current experiences. All ideas and complex impressions are initially formed by simple impressions which are vivid, simple, and unambiguous. There is no simple impressions that could inform us about necessary connection. Impressions and ideas are distinguished by vivacity. Causal law is created by the different levels of vivacity of our past (decaying scales of impressions). Hume argues that our perception comes from what we experience. Hume believed that ideas are not innate. People can only experience impressions or ideas. Which are essential is their memory of those impressions and nothing else. Those impressions is what we called sensations. Hme believes that ideas can be worked with once they are conceived. Hume argues that spontaneous generation of new ideas is impossible without sensory information. Everything we know comes from our senses. Hume contends that all ideas are derived from impressions. This is possible because Hume says it is a matter of compounding, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing. Hume argues that knowledge is divided into two types: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact. Relations of Ideas consists of Math, Geometry, and Logic. It is demonstratively certain and uses deductive reasoning. For an example, a triangle has three angles. Statements like this are absolutely certain, but tell nothing about reality. While on the other hand, Matters of Fact consists of faith in the past, inductive reasoning, and truth from observations. It is knowledge acquired through experience. For an example, the sun rises in the east. Statements like this describe the real world, but are not certain. Hume claims that It may be highly possible that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is not certain.