hey, i didn't declare "God is dead!" nor did i say i disagreed with it.Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Sorry to repeat a cliche but...Don't you know, '"NIETZSCHE IS DEAD" - GOD'?
the words come from Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. i like how you put it though.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
but the analogy doesn't work, really, because the fact is you're comparing a belief in God to a belief in good eating habits. and practicing healthy eating allows the doer to participate in the physical and mental transformation of such. in other words, the results of good eating are verifiable: via weight loss, improved energy, or simply feeling good about not participating in a practice that involves the vile practice of mass slaughtering animals. Such a belief is relevant and realizable in THIS life. and if more people were vegans, say in the millions, then less animals would be mass produced and sent to slaughterhouses. that too is VERIFIABLE. the rationale for believing in god is predicated on an afterlife, in part accessed by pious acts performed in this life to obstruct the demonic and elevate oneself, enticed by biblical passages like,
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.
now that's not to say that people who believe in god have NO reason. while reasons vary, generally the belief is that it "feels" right. Nietzsche's inquiry addresses this feeling.
and as far as psychobabble, there are plenty of case studies involving neurosis to support the babble. psychology, in large measure, "observes" data, tests, and retests, all works performed in THIS world, THIS life.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
I'm not commenting on whether one believes in God or not. I'm commenting on this phrase:
Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up.Nietzsche answered, "No. He that humbleth himself wants to be exalted."
Now to be fair to Nietzsche I'm reading that sentence out of context. He may clarify what he is saying. But as it stands it is psychobabble.
Psychobabble is an attempt to reduce humanity to an equation.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I agree with Virgil - the Nietzsche quotation offered by jon1jt is questionable in terms of its suggestion because Jesus doesn't tell us the person's motivation for humbling him/herself: He simple states what the eventual outcome of that action will result in (an outcome He is qualified to know); Nietzsche, on the other hand, identifies a motive for the action. Virgil's right: Nietzsche assumes that his view is everybody's view - because he (who seemed pretty fascinated with power) desires power, he imputes that desire to all mankind. That does seem a little arrogant (to borrow terminology used elsewhere here).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
i would like also to believe that human beings are so highly complex creatures that discerning patterns of behavior and mechanisms through which they exert such behaviors is impossible. but we know that commercials, by and large, get people to spend money they often haven't yet earned. through empirical observation, medications have been developed to effectively deal with mental illness. according to your thinking people are so dissimiliar that any attempt at deciphering basic determinants is absurd. but the evidence overwhelming disagrees with that claim on the grounds that millions of people - suffering from similar "conditions" - have been accurately and effectively treated. psychology is, above all, empirical---i.e. "this" world, which lends to my remarks above that the "condition"; nay, "affliction" governing the Christian notion of a 'god' and 'afterlife' is not only observable in its practices, but also in the exertion of power its waged and wishes more to wage against non-Christians. and this power is, thus, observable -- from the hierarchy of the church to the strange bedfellows of high ranking church leaders and "public" lawmakers.
that's why nietzsche, marx, and freud, (and others later) are known as the "masters of suspicion" because they strove to deconstruct the human complex inhered in its history and social institutions. to be so dismissive of nietzsche's inquiry is to presuppose no cause other than the biblical sources and other proselytizing devices from which christianity springs. nietzsche asserts that the metaphysical world has no place in THIS world. and such mental objects---i.e. god, heaven, ought be shelved next to unicorns.
Last edited by jon1jt; 01-12-2007 at 02:29 AM. Reason: add sentence
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
But "humbling" oneself is not the equivalent of a mental affliction that a pill can address. To get the pill, one has to have a professional tell him what it is he's suffering from. Humility is an internal response by an individual due to some realization of his position in relation to someone/something else - it is an admittance of one's humanity and limitations inherent in being a human. To decide that what that person really wants is the opposite is pure assumption based on what Nietzsche wants.
I don't know about Nietzsche, but the other two in the rogues gallery you mentioned, well - haven't they both been largely discredited in terms of their theories?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
fun Nietzsche site:
http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/
It's the Nietzsche family circus. Randomly generated Family Circus comics with Nietzsche quotes
Doc awakened very slowly and clumsily like a fat man getting out of a swimming pool. - John Steinbeck
i mentioned in my first post that mischaracterizations of nietzsche are prevalent. yet his view on power must be true because you said so.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
I agree, all these terms around psychology have evidence supporting them. More like observations then babble.
I do not think he is assuming the same motives for "humbling" for everyone. I agree with you in that everyone has their own specific context that influences them, but why should Nietzsche be an exception? Isn't it HIS observations from HIS context that influences him to write that? If one never expressed their own opinion through philosophy or literature, where would be all the great texts?He is using it merely as an example of his point that there are other motives for religion rather then the obvious . The quote would be less effective if he had said "No. Some that humbleth themselves wants to be exalted." His "psychobabble" is merely an attempt to analyze the complexity of motive one may have.Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up.
.
I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
to address your last piece - i think you fail to realize the contribution of marx and freud to the fields of politics, law, and more generally, psychology. and the last i checked history didn't end, unless you're cut from the same cloth as francis fukuyama with his liberal democratic notion of an "End of History."
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
now to deal with your first response, I answer that "humbling" can be symptomatic of a neurotic disorder, which puts your assumption on notice that christian humility is ALWAYS pure and untainted when irrefutably the self is divided and at war with itself. why is it that christians can apply evil to human nature so long as it doesn't include themselves, especially when it comes to acts of good will and piety? the second the claim is waged that christians may be participating in the unseemly, they bat their eyelashes and say, "who, me??" ugh.
as to virgil's point about 'how do we know motives when there are a myriad of possibilities and all inquiries into it's nature are, therefore, impossible" disregards the last 150 years of psychological advancements and application. Nietzsche points to discernible patterns of behavior that denote an exercise of power under the guise of humility, conditioned by a theology that considers the metaphysical to be the "father" of the physical world.
Nietzsche - like freud to an extent - asserted that, for human beings to "see" what lies beneath their own unconcious would be too much for most to bear (not to mention the condition of repression). he goes on to suggest that the will in certain instances exerts itself usurping the psyche's tripartite struggle (a struggle which feeds on self-loathing - particularly the Christian brand). the will that arrives at the highest level of self-mastery becomes, according to Neitzsche, the ubermansch (superman). but the will can never be willed, for the will does as she will.
Last edited by jon1jt; 01-12-2007 at 04:45 AM. Reason: add
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree.
What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?as to virgil's point about 'how do we know motives when there are a myriad of possibilities and all inquiries into it's nature are, therefore, impossible" disregards the last 150 years of psychological advancements and application. Nietzsche points to discernible patterns of behavior that denote an exercise of power under the guise of humility, conditioned by a theology that considers the metaphysical to be the "father" of the physical world.
What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.Nietzsche - like freud to an extent - asserted that, for human beings to "see" what lies beneath their own unconcious
Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.would be too much for most to bear (not to mention the condition of repression). he goes on to suggest that the will in certain instances exerts itself usurping the psyche's tripartite struggle (a struggle which feeds on self-loathing - particularly the Christian brand). the will that arrives at the highest level of self-mastery becomes, according to Neitzsche, the ubermansch (superman). but the will can never be willed, for the will does as she will.
Each era creates myths and legends to understand the world. The 20th century is no different. I've said this before, the two greatest myths of the 20th century are that socialism works and that Freudian psychology understands man. What is fascinating about the 20th century myths are that they tend to cloak themselves in science. Empirical evidence is the final proof, my friend.
Last edited by Virgil; 01-12-2007 at 10:14 AM.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree.
What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?
What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.
Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.
Each era creates myths and legends to understand the world. The 20th century is no different. I've said this before, the two greatest myths of the 20th century are that socialism works and that Freudian psychology understands man. What is fascinating about the 20th century myths are that they tend to cloak themselves in science. Empirical evidence is the final proof, my friend.
that 'psychobabble' argument is just a way to turn off the discussion by putting me on the defense. so i'm not going to be seduced by it. i'll make this last point about psychology and move on. the fact of the matter is the field of psychology is based on case studies and terms like "unconscious" derived from them. the "unconscious" isn't an entitity, it's based on the processes of the human mind. over time theories are made that correspond with and come out of the empiricism. psychology is not like unicorns and god, they're based on patterns of evidence. iimperfect, but the science has been shown to often work. read first about what a theory is, then about carl jung who wrote volumes about the unconscious. i didn't get it from a college class; i'm not a product of the academy, i'm an intellectually curious person. and to add to what i already said in my preface, Niezsche is NOT psychology; there are existing concepts that correspond with psychology, but no "system." there was no freud or jung or unconscious label before nietzsche. i made this "system" notion clear to preempt silly claims like 'psychobabble.'
this idea you're looking for "evidence," are you serious? can i hold you to the same standard for your conception of god and the holy spirit? and that's not psychobabble.
yes, i can: God is dead.
Last edited by jon1jt; 01-12-2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason: add quote
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
and i used the term "unconscious" as a simple device to enlighten those who may not have read nietzsche. but let me stress the point: Nietzsche does not use psychological terms. they weren't even around in his day. he uses metaphor in the same way old Socrates did, when he opens the Republic with, "I went down to Pireaus." intelligent readers know he's talking about something more. similarly, Nietzsche's Zarathustra comes 'down' from the cave. so if you want to discuss specifics and avoid using terms familiar to those non-readers, i can do that too.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
I haven't read much Nietzsche. Does he assert that the metaphysical world has a place and it just isn't in this world? Or does he assert that it has no place at all?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote