This will be an on going post. I have just started reading Beyond Good and Evil and have already annotated more than I have read. My first impression is that like too many people he some how thinks that his or their current situation is not because of the people and institutions that came before. The moral society that he rails against makes it possible for worthless philosophers, like himself, to exist in the first place. In a world without morals foolish people like him would have died of starvation or at the hands of a stronger competitor for the few scarce resources that are not already the property of even stronger individuals.
Just because his words are accepted by the foolish and fool hardy, which there are way too many, and the natural character of the majority of people is to take rather than give doesn't mean that they are justified, appropriate, or even acceptable it only means that the environment they are attempting to disband is somewhat persistent and adhered to by the last by a dwindling number of providers and givers of the world. His amoral society is not really society but the return to chaos long ago abandoned by the a much wiser people whose devolving descendants are perceive themselves to be superior but in reality are much inferior to earliest progenitors.
Eventually even the strongest can be destroyed by the weakest when the strongest can not be replaced by like minded people or institutions. Liberalism works until you run out of other people's money. Charity ends when surplus is no longer available. Conservatives must guard against selfishness and greed. Capitalism consumes itself if there are no limits or a will to conserve and become a good steward of their resources.
Most importantly heretics and revolutionaries are plague upon the status-quo bring little to the effort if their purpose is self serving.
The entire argument about good or bad and truth is nullified by uncertainty. The whole premise of the Socratic method is destroyed by uncertainty. The notion that a witness can be sworn to tell the whole truth is absurd and that any person can be convicted of a crime on the standard of what a reasonable man would consider as sufficient is equally ludicrous. Our justice system is flawed to the point of uselessness and our system of laws have been negated and are meaningless.
Society remains in tack solely on the whim and willingness of the individual to be honest and maintain their personal integrity. We are living on the last gasps of law and order, honesty and integrity, and the willingness of the individual to continue to participate.
Right now the alternatives are limited but as soon as the supply chain breaks down and food riots begin there will be numerous alternatives to staying in a big city and that will mean desperate times for the rural communities of this country.
The police state that will ensue is going to be disastrous for human freedoms.
This is a joke, right? No one could actually believe this crap? As stupid as I am I can see the false premise, the faulty reasoning and contrived arguments he pretends to use. There is no beyond good and evil because that presumes a condition of 'good' generally consider as better. If any thing his argument should be outside of good or evil. Then he could argue that his ideas are not conditionally good or bad but simply nonsensical. Which is what they would have to be. They would have to be to be outside of our instinctive or cognitive reasoning. They would have to be counter intuitive and extra sensory which man is not capable of.