Hello,

More of my philosophy about the logical proof that the philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche thought that morality is not universal..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think i am a smart philosopher, so how can i prove that the
philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche thought that morality is not universal ?

I will say that you can easily notice it by the fact that he has said
the following:

"It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak."

That means in french:

"C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.",

So the above saying of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is a proof
that he recognized that there is different kinds of morals like the
morals of the slaves or the weak and morals of the strong humans or the
strong. Read more my following thoughts about it and about Stoicism and
existentialism and about how i am explaining that the essence of
morality is universal:

More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more..

I have just looked at the following video about:

NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the
philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since
he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It
is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man
that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is
smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it
seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in
the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery
over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply
existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy,
because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you
are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my
below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent
philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsch
is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism:

More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and
Existentialism..

I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy:

Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020

And notice that it says the following:

“The Stoics suggest that what’s most important in order to lead a good
life is internal rather than external. It’s about developing the right
character, the right state of mind,”

I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the
logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that
developing the right character and the right state of the mind in
Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external
reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we
can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop
self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions
and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough
hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and
fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a
failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in
french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of
existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that
this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the
question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural
side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is
"not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a
purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and
like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life
is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not
absurd, and read it below.

My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more..

I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy:

SARTRE - Le regard des autres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI

I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking,
since first you have to understand the following:

Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french:
"L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of
existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that
predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence
that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope"
by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that
humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture
is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i
think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And
Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert
Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here
again i am not in accordand with it, since i say that human existence is
not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy:

How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ?

I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it
relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative
measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that
i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like
absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will
start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd",
and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very
basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive
or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a
human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of
smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like
absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at
all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world
or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy,
since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so
that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as
i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i
can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the
above philosophical question since you have to measure how
to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by
looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today
humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the
basis of my philosophy by reading it below:

I think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy
i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and
human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings
beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit
us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate
much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it
also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't
look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically
understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs

More of my philosophy about the ideas of the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and more..

I invite you to read the following article about the philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

The Ideas Of Friedrich Nietzsche

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ideas-friedrich-nietzsche-dr-marcel-pflug-mba

I think i am a smart philosopher, and i am noticing that the
philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer are inferior
philosophers, and i will explain as following:

Notice in the above article the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has a
problem with morality, and he thought, like the philosopher Spinoza,
that morality is not universal and he also thought that since for
example for the strong human the good becomes the brave, powerful, rich,
and strong, so he thought that the strong human will have the tendency
to discriminate the weak people, so then the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche thought that morality was not working, but i think that the
philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was an inferior philosopher since i
think i am a philosopher that is smart and i am explaining that the
essence of morality is universal and progressive, read my thoughts below
about it to understand, and also i am saying that we have not to be
pessimistic as the philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur
Schopenhauer, since i have just spoken about the value of specialization
that gives a self-esteem to the individuals of a society and i am
explaining in my below thoughts of my new philosophy how we have to be
optimistic about human life, and i invite you to read my below thoughts
so that to understand: