Nietzsche

[Black Winter Day]

nietzsche's basic principles ARE valid, you doofs! while i don't agree with him, how can you arguie with these assumptions:

given: god is dead. in society. in people's minds. this is an age of science and reason.
...then there is no use for humanistic, "weak" morality. none. no basis whatsoever. no god = no morals. why have morality when there is no basis (i.e. god) behind it?

no god = no morality = the rise of the powerful. the strong. the fittest. nature is not peaceful, serene and harmonious. it is violent, oppressive, where only the strong survive.

the laws of jew-based religion (judaism, christianity, islam) are to protect the weak from the strong. it is like lambs warning the feasting hawks not to slaughter them and eat them because it is "wrong" to do so. it is senseless. the strong should step up and take over. the age of the ubermensch. no invisible, pointless morality. no championing of all that is weak about the human animal.


basically...

if nietzsche IS right in his assumption (that god is intellectually dead to the world), then his points ARE valid.



i could go on and on about this. and while nietzsche comes across as crazy, even frightening, it is quite disturbing just how relevant he is to the world today.

 

[NAD]

That's the biggest load of shit I've ever read man, sorry. Besides the fact that everything you just explained, Hobbes already stated several centuries before Nietzsche was even born.

Before I go off on anything in detail, let me just remind everyone that philosophy is the search for truth. Anyone who thinks they have found indisputable proof of some philosophic principle is off their rocker. This is not math. Also, entirely related, Nietzsche spent his dying days talking to his horse.

 

[Black Winter Day]

dude... you're not getting it...

in all forms of logic/philosophy: assertion -----> truth


no god ------> no "real" use for morality




what is so disputable about that?




note: or this?


When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?

 

[Krilons Resa]

That's what I'm talking about! Shit, you pretty much summed up anything I had to say, LOL. I own his library. When first reading his writings, I not only could indetify with him but most of my thoughts he expressed. I've read many, many other philosophers and none even touch him. This is all just my opinion though. For the only way to deem philosophers viewpoints valid, is to somehow relate to the ideas, creating an opinion of the person in question.

Worst part is Nietzsche is highly, HIGHLY misunderstood. A lot has to do with his generous use of sarcasm and irony.

 

[NAD]

given: god is dead. in society. in people's minds. this is an age of science and reason.

Debateable, yes. Proven, absolutely not. Organized religions still rely on some form of higher power. The shift has moved away form polytheism to monotheism in great numbers, but atheism is not running rampant in society (perhaps in practice, but not in actual thought).

no god = no morals. why have morality when there is no basis (i.e. god) behind it?

Ironically, this argument is used by theists to counter atheistic beliefs, one I have fought tooth and nail over many times before. Morality is not always a direct extension from some deity, much can come from inside a person, or at the very least through the laws of the land.

no god = no morality = the rise of the powerful. the strong. the fittest. nature is not peaceful, serene and harmonious. it is violent, oppressive, where only the strong survive.

State of Nature (sort of). See Hobbes.

the laws of jew-based religion (judaism, christianity, islam) are to protect the weak from the strong. it is like lambs warning the feasting hawks not to slaughter them and eat them because it is "wrong" to do so. it is senseless. the strong should step up and take over. the age of the ubermensch. no invisible, pointless morality. no championing of all that is weak about the human animal.

Okay HITLER.

 

[NAD]

Worst part is Nietzsche is highly, HIGHLY misunderstood. A lot has to do with his generous use of sarcasm and irony.

This is very true, and I'm not going to pretend I understand every bit of what he said, or that I catch every moment of sarcasm. This is what makes his work highly entertaining though, both to refute and to enjoy by itself.

 

[NAD]

in all forms of logic/philosophy: assertion -----> truth

I'll say it one more time, and that's it: this is not math. If you think you can assert truths about the human psyche, you're far more bold than I'll ever be.

Note that I'm separating logic and philosophy, logic only goes so far with the human mind, it's for basic arguments using easy to digest modifiers such as if, then, else, etc.

 

[Black Winter Day]

Debateable, yes. Proven, absolutely not. Organized religions still rely on some form of higher power. The shift has moved away form polytheism to monotheism in great numbers, but atheism is not running rampant in society (perhaps in practice, but not in actual thought).

first of all: it is an ASSERTION. second of all: it is a VALID assertion, especially for the time. nietzsche, when he said "god is dead" was referring to the intellectuals of the time who had reverted to atheism. his point was "you don't believe in god... but you still hold on to judeo-christion morals. it makes no sense!" this just in: no one knows if god exists or not. ALL WE CAN DO is theorize BASED ON assumptions. all epistimological knowledge, after all, is based on faith.

Ironically, this argument is used by theists to counter atheistic beliefs, one I have fought tooth and nail over many times before. Morality is not always a direct extension from some deity, much can come from inside a person, or at the very least through the laws of the land.

NO ONE knows where morality comes from, but it has always been debated by sociologists and philosophers. we don't know if it is the lingering effects of religion, convention or if it is inherent in humanity. but remember... humanity, for the most part is NOT moral. look at the nazis. look at stalin. look at the thousands of massacres, murderers, rapists, sacrifices, wars of history. ironically... many of these were caused by the religion nietzsche wants to eradicate from society!

Okay HITLER.

hye, i'm not defending nietzsche's IDEALS, just his IDEAS!

 

[Black Winter Day]

I'll say it one more time, and that's it: this is not math. If you think you can assert truths about the human psyche, you're far more bold than I'll ever be.

Note that I'm separating logic and philosophy, logic only goes so far with the human mind, it's for basic arguments using easy to digest modifiers such as if, then, else, etc.

admittedly, it is not as simple as nietsche says, but how he goes from POINT A to POINT B can hardly be opposed! it is nietzsche's argument that leads from the assertion, not the assertion itself. see what i'm saying? not many nietzsche-opposers can deny, once again, that "no judeo-christian god" = "no judeo-christian morals". simple as that. matters of the univers, i agree, are not cut and dry like this. but the facts of society and relatively simple man-made ideas can be understood much more concretely.

 

[NAD]

Okay I see your point about validity, I misread that the first time.

NO ONE knows where morality comes from, but it has always been debated by sociologists and philosophers. we don't know if it is the lingering effects of religion, convention or if it is inherent in humanity.

I tend to say inherent in humans, but yes, nobody will ever really know. I do know that my morality comes from within, or at least I've convinced myself of such.

but remember... humanity, for the most part is NOT moral.

Even given the horrific atrocities in this world, I disagree. Generally speaking, people will feel guilt, or at least the notion of guilt, when they do something that appears wrong. Is the level of guilt insanely low in a lot of people? Absolutely. But it is still there.

I was joking about the Hitler comment, survival of the fittest has been argued by many more than just homicidal maniacs.

 

[lurch70]

shouldn't all this be in the "wow I am drunk" thread?

 

[lurch70]

Generally speaking, people will feel guilt, or at least the notion of guilt, when they do something that appears wrong. Is the level of guilt insanely low in a lot of people? Absolutely. But it is still there.

But doesn't guilt also arise from something that is learned ... right and wrong is taught to us as children.

 

[NAD]

Socrates would tell us all to get drunk right now. Alcohol helps in lowering the inhibitions, but too much leads to ridiculous reasoning. Still fun though.

 

[Black Winter Day]

BWD and NAD... the two incorrigible drunk posters actually trying to talk intelligently!

i agree with you; i alse believe that morality is inherent. in fact, i reccomend you read MORAL, BELIEVIING ANIMALS by Christian Smith (who also happens to be my soci prof!). it is the best study of the human animal that i have ever read (morals, beliefs, "storylines" that guide our lives, etc). **note: morality as not-in-the-traditional-sense, but morality as a cultural entity**

going back to the main focus... is it any surprise that the ideals of germany at the turn of the century led to the atrocities of the 40's? or that hitler was a huge nietzsche fan?

 

[NAD]

BWD and NAD... the two incorrigible drunk posters actually trying to talk intelligently!

I used to spend every Friday and / or Saturday night on my back porch in college, getting ripped and debating philosophy until about 4am. Well, two or three times a month for the last 2 years of it anyhow. Good times.

Sounds like a good book, remind me of it some other time because I'll surely forget.

going back to the main focus... is it any surprise that the ideals of germany at the turn of the century led to the atrocities of the 40's? or that hitler was a huge nietzsche fan?

Nope, not at all. Let the wisdom of South Park once again guide us: "Dude what is wrong with fucking German people!?" --Stan

 

[Hell Mike]

Hitler was a huge Nietzsce fan, true, but he interpreted his ideas in his own way; Nietzsce himself never claims that the übermensch are one particular race or other and so on.

Everyone has moral values, religious or not, it's just that the ones of people following a certain religion are more or less standardized.

 

[Black Winter Day]

you gotta remember though... nietzsche HATED the jews and basically all non-whites (well, he mainly thought the other races were inferior). however, this is historically debatable because his sister supposedly tinkered with his writings after he died, making him more rascist than he really was.

 

[JayKeeley]

5 Stars.

No time to chat right now, but just reaffirming why this is probably one of the best forums on UM. Zombies, beer, metal, and philosophy. Not that I'm biased or anything.

 

[JayKeeley]

But doesn't guilt also arise from something that is learned ... right and wrong is taught to us as children.

Difficult to say since I think guilt is an emotion. Children aren't taught to feel happy or sad either, it's all instinctual. There are obviously other instincts, such as fear, that do not need to be taught in order to comprehend. I think that is all a part of our genetic makeup. Anyway, attributes like discrimination and intolerance are indeed pretty much taught - or you learn them yourself since we're all a product of our environments. There is no such thing as a racist infant, for example.

Thing is, I really don't know because what about love? Is that an instinct or a learning process? And if it is an instinct (which I think it is), then what about hate? It can also be instinctual therefore, and would contradict everything I've said. There are studies that show that some children might just be born evil. You know, sick fucks like serial rapist killers who would have turned into these murderers regardless of what their upbringing was like. The screw was loose at birth, in other words.

Generally speaking, people will feel guilt, or at least the notion of guilt, when they do something that appears wrong. Is the level of guilt insanely low in a lot of people? Absolutely. But it is still there.

I wonder. I mean, some of the things that humans have done to one another would make me believe that the emotion of guilt was supressed to the point of complete erasure. When the Nazi's gassed the Jews, they truly believed that they were eradicating nothing but a cockroach. Many of them would mourn the loss of their infantry horse or dog, and yet feel nothing about slitting a Jewish baby's throat with a knife. When one million people in Rwanda were hacked to death with machetes, the genocide was thought of as necessary ethnic cleansing (and fuck, people in Africa die like flies anyway so all they're doing is accelerating the inevitable - the value for human life in Africa is practically non-existent). And of course, even Pol Pot leveraged children in his campaign to wipe out an entire generation and leave to rot in the Killing Fields. Those children were taught to kill, but this didn't necessarily remove their emotion of guilt. They just felt guilty about other things instead.

 

[Hell Mike]

Is morality inherent in humans? I think not. Morals are not needed for a man living alone in the woods but a certain sense of morality helps if you want to live in a society. Noone is going to like you very much if you run around raping, looting and pillaging... If you do "wrong" things, you will feel guilty because the things you did (might potentially) make your own situation worse. Morality is basically an extension of man's will to survive.

Or not.

A man living alone in the woods (who had always lived alone in the woods) would probably not kill bunnies for the sake of killing cuddly animals or slaughter moose to see the blood flow, either. Moral values is something that everyone has, but in different forms, I think.