All about Nietzsche

[Redzeppelin]

have a look for yourself. just look to the east, in non-monotheistic nations. i am not saying the east has it right, but they have another morality. the christian moral code is one system. the east has another, Islam another, tribal nations another, ect...who says your morality is where its at--wait, christian morality does, because christian morality and the christian god are one of the same--clever, useful, pragmatic. . . again, christian morality and other moralities are making this planet inhospitable for other life forms that god created. i think he would be angry about that. also, christian morality has caused a population explosion that cant be dealt with via Christian morality. also,christian morality is full of contradictions. thou shall not kill--but war in the name of the heavenly father is legit. the only thing keeping this out of date system of morals running anymore is fear of death and the tranquility of repetition and habit.

1) The Eastern philosophy is very much a product of the eastern mind; there is a question as to whether westerners are even capable (including the inimitable Mr. Watts) of incorporating the Oriental mindset due to our fundamentally linear thinking modality - oriental philosophy does not embrace our dualistic, linear thinking. I doubt you'd have any success doing a west-to-east switch-over simply for that fact. Either way, Orientalism has some shortcomings in terms of the moral law. Since I don't believe it's possible to exchange western morality for eastern, why don't you scrap western Christian morality and then tell me a reasonable substitute.

2) Your continual contention that morality is "anti-life" and now "anti-nature" is groundless (unless you'd care to give some clear examples). Morality will not be that which contributes to the destruction of nature, reality, or the world; we are the destroyers ("we" as in humanity) - adhering to a moral code does not destroy anything except the human tendency towards selfishness and self-interest (two qualities that communities rarely if ever benefit from).

*The "thou shalt not kill" thing is moot, because the original language says "murder." As well, Ecclesiastes 3 clearly tells us that there is a "time to kill." Care to try again?

[billyjack]

1) The Eastern philosophy is very much a product of the eastern mind; there is a question as to whether westerners are even capable (including the inimitable Mr. Watts) of incorporating the Oriental mindset due to our fundamentally linear thinking modality - oriental philosophy does not embrace our dualistic, linear thinking. I doubt you'd have any success doing a west-to-east switch-over simply for that fact. Either way, Orientalism has some shortcomings in terms of the moral law. Since I don't believe it's possible to exchange western morality for eastern, why don't you scrap western Christian morality and then tell me a reasonable substitute.

2) Your continual contention that morality is "anti-life" and now "anti-nature" is groundless (unless you'd care to give some clear examples). Morality will not be that which contributes to the destruction of nature, reality, or the world; we are the destroyers ("we" as in humanity) - adhering to a moral code does not destroy anything except the human tendency towards selfishness and self-interest (two qualities that communities rarely if ever benefit from).

*The "thou shalt not kill" thing is moot, because the original language says "murder." As well, Ecclesiastes 3 clearly tells us that there is a "time to kill." Care to try again?

i agree. easterners think different. there is a lack of a good substitute to christian morality in western thought and tradition because christianity is everywhere--this doesnt mean its unscrappable though--this argument of yours is an appeal to ignorance, and i dont buy it. Christianity has spread so well that basically humanity has become a cancer. Christianity is everywhere, so we cant see beyond it. unfortunately, telling this to people and asking them to think about it is like a dog chasing its tail or an eye trying to look at itself. it cant happen! in this case, it cant happen for Christians because their eye is Christianity. this christian eye cant look at itself, that isnt what eyes do, they look out at the world, not in at themselves.

christian moral is anti-life-- christianity invented the subject and called that which exist only in language--the subject--something that truly exist in reality. once it did this it made people responsible for their actions, rather than making society or the environment responsible as well. basically Christianity takes a strong man and claims this man has the ability to choose strength or weakness, as if you could take cat and say it has a choice whether or not it hunts. once this false choice was created, you then held people accountable for their actions and called bad actions sins. then you said sins irritated god, so these people would add another stupidity to their first stupidity and feel bad about what they did--even though it was just their nature. feeling bad or the bite of consiousness is anti nature. it tells people that who they are is wrong. it makes people discontent with this life, because who they are naturally is most likely as sin, and therefore and afterlife is created to give these people eternal salvation.


thou shalt not kill is the basic premise. but you still kill and justify it as in the name of justice or god. so hypocritical. you do exactly what the people you despise do, the sinners, but you say your cause is in the name of god or justice. basically, you do the same thing as everybody else and euphemism it.

[Redzeppelin]

i agree. easterners think different. there is a lack of a good substitute to christian morality in western thought and tradition because christianity is everywhere--this doesnt mean its unscrappable though--this argument of yours is an appeal to ignorance, and i dont buy it. Christianity has spread so well that basically humanity has become a cancer. Christianity is everywhere, so we cant see beyond it. unfortunately, telling this to people and asking them to think about it is like a dog chasing its tail or an eye trying to look at itself. it cant happen! in this case, it cant happen for Christians because their eye is Christianity. this christian eye cant look at itself, that isnt what eyes do, they look out at the world, not in at themselves.

Lots of accusation here, but little demonstration as to the truth of the charges being levelled at Christianity. Care to substantiate some of these charges? - because anybody can make the claims you're making.

christian moral is anti-life-- christianity invented the subject and called that which exist only in language--the subject--something that truly exist in reality. once it did this it made people responsible for their actions, rather than making society or the environment responsible as well. basically Christianity takes a strong man and claims this man has the ability to choose strength or weakness, as if you could take cat and say it has a choice whether or not it hunts. once this false choice was created, you then held people accountable for their actions and called bad actions sins. then you said sins irritated god, so these people would add another stupidity to their first stupidity and feel bad about what they did--even though it was just their nature. feeling bad or the bite of consiousness is anti nature. it tells people that who they are is wrong. it makes people discontent with this life, because who they are naturally is most likely as sin, and therefore and afterlife is created to give these people eternal salvation.

People ARE responsible for their actions; society and environment can (to a degree) mitigate those choices, but people make their choices. Christianity was correct in placing responsibility with the person. Sins do not "irritate" God - they are behaviors/attitudes that conflict with His character - and things that conflict with the character of God result in death - not in terms of "God will destroy you" but "you'll destroy yourself." Conscience is proof that God exists - there is no reason to feel bad about anything unless we are aware that we're transgressing a moral law. Your attempt to blame Christianity for the problems in this world are insubstantial. Offer some sort of evidence, but spare us the endless opinions that do not reveal any truth - only bias.

thou shalt not kill is the basic premise. but you still kill and justify it as in the name of justice or god. so hypocritical. you do exactly what the people you despise do, the sinners, but you say your cause is in the name of god or justice. basically, you do the same thing as everybody else and euphemism it.

Wrong - there is a clear difference between the verbs "kill" and "murder." As well, nobody defended killing "in the name of God." I simply contend that God does not prohibit all killing. Pay attention to what I post, please.

[hyperborean]

Your attempt to blame Christianity for the problems in this world are insubstantial. Offer some sort of evidence, but spare us the endless opinions that do not reveal any truth - only bias.

If we were to discuss why Christianity (and even zionism) is producing problems in the world there would be more infractions on my user account. I want to remain a member on this forum, and follow the "no-politics" rules. Let's just say that Christianity is being used as a tool for politicians.

[Redzeppelin]

If we were to discuss why Christianity (and even zionism) are producing problems in the world there would be more infractions on my user account. I want to remain a member on this forum, and follow the "no-politics" rules. Let's just say that Christianity is being used as a tool for politicians.

Same old song and dance. Without some sort of back-up for these claims, this is the equivalent of the many conspiracy theories circulating around. Nice try.

[Scheherazade]

If we were to discuss why Christianity (and even zionism) are producing problems in the world there would be more infractions on my user account. I want to remain a member on this forum, and follow the "no-politics" rules. Let's just say that Christianity is being used as a tool for politicians.

And the topic of this thread is 'All About Nietzsche' so please let's carry on discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies rather than Christianity as a religion.

Any off topic posts will be deleted with or without any further notice.

[billyjack]

things that conflict with the character of God result in death - not in terms of "God will destroy you" but "you'll destroy yourself." Conscience is proof that God exists - Your attempt to blame Christianity for the problems in this world are insubstantial. Offer some sort of evidence, but spare us the endless opinions that do not reveal any truth - only bias.



Wrong - there is a clear difference between the verbs "kill" and "murder." As well, nobody defended killing "in the name of God." I simply contend that God does not prohibit all killing. Pay attention to what I post, please.

1- save the god will destroy you speech for sundays

consciousness is proof that human beings can think and be fooled by thought, not proof of god. NIetzche calls the bite of consiousness the greatest stupidity of man and at the same time the greatest tool of the ascetic priest. the priest calls this bite of consciousness a punishment from god and uses it as a tool. how is this tool used? well, there werent any psycholigist around back when the ascetic ideal was founded. so the people who knew the most about the mind were priest. they used their authority to tell the pious exactly why the had consciousness and remorse, and this in turn made the pious that much more indebted to the priest and god. because the priest not only knew how to createt the remorse, he knew how to end it too. once the social heirarchy was re-established with priest on top, the tool of consciousness came to fruition.

3-define kill and murder however you want. but notice you are just affirming nietzches notion that words are simple pockets that now this or now that meaning have been put into

[Redzeppelin]

1- save the god will destroy you speech for sundays

There was no such speech given. I was responding to a point you were making. Please make sure you're clear on what my posts are doing before you criticize them. Thanks.

3-define kill and murder however you want. but notice you are just affirming nietzches notion that words are simple pockets that now this or now that meaning have been put into

Webster's does the defining - not me. You're deflecting the discussion away from the real issue - the bottom line is that your charge of hypocrisy in terms of the Bible's stance on killing is incorrect.

Either way, the moderator has spoken, and this discussion has drifted away from Nietzsche, so I will discontinue this line of discussion.

[dramasnot6]

Hey guys, just to swing things back on topic-

I was reading some interesting articles and webpages on Nietzsches influence on post-modernism.
A particularly interesting site a found:
http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/madison2.html
Just to cite, this appears to be an article from the "McMaster University". It has some definite bias, but I find his wording very interesting. Like how he says "doing philosophy with a hammer", i thought that was amusing, although I don't quite agree with it or wholly understand it. In a way I think he means that Nietzsches philosophy was very assertive and sometimes a bit harsh on his society. But thats my interpretation from what I have read of his works, what do you think?

We are now in the process of wakening from the nightmare of modernity, with its manipulative reason and fetish of the totality, into the laid-back ["joyful," as Nietzsche would say] pluralism of the postmodern, that heterogeneous range of life-styles and language games which has renounced the nostalgic urge to totalize and legitimate itself....Science and philosophy must jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly as just another set of narratives.

In other words, what as a result of Nietzsche's Fröliche Wissenschaft has been called into question in these postmodern times is that which has served always as the ultimate legitimation of the philosophical enterprise: the search for Truth, for Knowledge, for, that is to say, Science (Wissenschaft, episteme). i.e., the One (Universal), True Account of Things (Reality) (true heirs to Parmenides and Pythagoras, present-day physicists are currently expending a great deal of money and energy in search of what they call the Theory of Everything, "a single equation that describes the entire universe"). What under the inspiration of Nietzsche postmodernism has called into question is the foundational, cultural authority of Science.

The concept of Science is a Platonic invention, but it underwent a new twist at the beginning of modern times with the emergence of mathematical, experimental science of the Galilean sort. Modern philosophy can be said to have begun when, bedazzled by this new development, philosophers took the new science as the supreme model of genuine, foundational knowledge. They were, ever afterwards, to labor in the shadow cast by this great Idol. Even the "free thinking," godless philosophers of late modernity continued to pay a sort of religious hommage to it. As Nietzsche remarked in the Genealogy of Morals, "They are far from being free spirits: for they still have faith in truth." And as he went on to say: "It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science--and we men of knowledge of today, we godless men and anti-metaphysicians, we, too, still derive our flame from the fire ignited by a faith millennia old, the Christian faith, which was also Plato's, that God is truth, that truth is divine." When at long last Nietzsche took to doing philosophy with a hammer, it was precisely this Idol that he sought to demolish.

[dramasnot6]

so no one actually wants to discuss Nietzsche?

[billyjack]

so no one actually wants to discuss Nietzsche?

we were discussing nietzche. someone butted in and called the discussion off topic. i didnt get that, seeing how neitzche attacks christianity and that is exactly what was happening on this thread. i'd love to talk nietzche, but any topic goes.

if i remeember right, the whole philosophy with a hammer thing represents his breaking of stone (idols) that were once thought unbreakable with his hammer (dionysus and the eternal recurrance and perspectivism).

[Scheherazade]

we were discussing nietzche. someone butted in and called the discussion off topic. i didnt get that, seeing how neitzche attacks christianity and that is exactly what was happening on this thread. i'd love to talk nietzche, but any topic goes.

if i remeember right, the whole philosophy with a hammer thing represents his breaking of stone (idols) that were once thought unbreakable with his hammer (dionysus and the eternal recurrance and perspectivism).

The someone will carry on 'butting in' and editing/deleting any off topic posts in future as well.

Please do not turn this thread into yet another 'Let's Bash Christianity (or any other religion) Thread' and limit your discussions to the philosophical arguments of Nietzsche.

[dramasnot6]

if i remeember right, the whole philosophy with a hammer thing represents his breaking of stone (idols) that were once thought unbreakable with his hammer (dionysus and the eternal recurrance and perspectivism).

Interesting. So by introducing more concepts that supposedly let you be more in touch with your primitive,human nature he is "hammering" or breaking down societal barriers of repression of that nature.

[billyjack]

Interesting. So by introducing more concepts that supposedly let you be more in touch with your primitive,human nature he is "hammering" or breaking down societal barriers of repression of that nature.

precisely. his dionysus view of the world is what he calls a YES to life. this means saying, or better yet feeling, that what stigmas call bad are in fact neccessary and therefore worthy of our reverence just as much as the good. he hammers away at traditions, morals, and virtues by showing that in past times, the contraries to these terms were what was virtueos and moral. . . making it clear that good and bad are relative, not absolutes.

i think it important to note that he doesnt call for anarchy. rather, he's a psychologist. people associate themselves with the role society has told them to play. he is saying that we are much more than that role and we should feel accordingly. making life lighter, gayer, more enjoyable, less serious.

[dramasnot6]

precisely. his dionysus view of the world is what he calls a YES to life. this means saying, or better yet feeling, that what stigmas call bad are in fact neccessary and therefore worthy of our reverence just as much as the good. he hammers away at traditions, morals, and virtues by showing that in past times, the contraries to these terms were what was virtueos and moral. . . making it clear that good and bad are relative, not absolutes.

"Howl the eternal Yes"
i think that was Nietzsche. it is the only way to truly live life.

is it possible to relate this to eternal recurrence? in that it is ok to make mistakes because everything is both good and bad at the end?
I don't quite understand your last point. Is he using the ancient greek dionysian lifestyle as an example of how what in his society(and still our society) what is considered immoral can actually be quite good if you take the will to experience it?

i think it important to note that he doesnt call for anarchy. rather, he's a psychologist. people associate themselves with the role society has told them to play. he is saying that we are much more than that role and we should feel accordingly. making life lighter, gayer, more enjoyable, less serious.

I agree with you that he is more playing the psychologist, just because people are in touch with their more primitive, instinctual side does not mean society will fall apart. It is in my opinion more likely that anarchy will be caused by over-repression, people will alienate themselves so far from their humanity that they will eventually crack and chaos will ensue. I'm not sure if that was what he was getting at.