God: Yes, No, Maybe So?

[Qrazy]

Continued from the film discussion thread.

[berlin wallflower]

Continued from the film discussion thread.

My question had to do specifically with the provability of God. While you admitted that it was impossible to prove God's existence now, you said that maybe one day that will change, that we might be able to prove his existence. Why?

I don't see that the situation could change, because by his very nature, you cannot prove God's existence. He is beyond the realm of provability...

[ledfloyd]

i'm one of those cliched tortured agnostics. i wish i was capable of wholeheartedly believing in a god but i'm not.

[berlin wallflower]

i'm one of those cliched tortured agnostics. i wish i was capable of wholeheartedly believing in a god but i'm not.
Why do you wish you could believe in God? What benefits do you think you would have?

Well, it is better to know the truth than be fooled. Many theists blindly follow God without questioning his existence... They just believe what they've been told. They don't think for themselves.

[Qrazy]

Heh. I'm just curious why you think that we might be able to prove or disprove God's existence in the future. Don't you understand the nature of God?

Over the course of history human beings have been able to 'prove' or at least take educated guesses at many things we once believed impossible to prove (taking a middle ground version of truth here... not an absolutist or deflationist view). Many of the original pre-socratic cosmology's and cosmogony's have been reformulated and/or dis-proven. I see no reason why God ought to be the only thing beyond proof or question or that anything necessarily has to be in the first place.

Why don't you believe in the possibility of a proof or disproof of God (and please clarify which definition of God you're referring to)?

[Qrazy]

Why do you wish you could believe in God? What benefits do you think you would have?


It's comforting to know/feel there's a force out there in the universe that knows and loves you... you feel safe.

[Qrazy]

I don't see that the situation could change, because by his very nature, you cannot prove God's existence. He is beyond the realm of provability...

Everything that is can be proven to be. If it is not then it does not exist. People that believe in God claim that God is, maybe it does, someday (if we survive long enough) we might find out... I grant you that hundreds of years is likely too short a time for such a big question... but maybe in a few hundreds thousand years.

Still we've already broken down the human genome, we're making vast steps in our understanding of how the human mind works (cognitive psychology) and space/time has taken on an entirely new conceptual framework. Historically speaking paradoxes and other seemingly unsolvable dilemmas are rarely infinite in duration (Zeno, etc), the solutions are usually quite complex but conceivable.

I agree with the modernists and postmodernists that believe it is wrong to place too much faith in rationality for the governance of life... but I also feel it is wrong to deny the immense potential of thought (beyond logic etc). I have confidence in the human mind to eventually solve at least some of the problems which plague it... it may create/discover new problems along the way, but that's another issue entirely.

Belief in the capacity of thought (whether or ordained or not) is where I find my optimism and hope, not in the belief in a higher power.

[berlin wallflower]

Over the course of history human beings have been able to 'prove' or at least take educated guesses at many things we once believed impossible to prove (taking a middle ground version of truth here... not an absolutist or deflationist view). Many of the original pre-socratic cosmology's and cosmogony's have been reformulated and/or dis-proven. I see no reason why God ought to be the only thing beyond proof or question or that anything necessarily has to be in the first place.

Why don't you believe in the possibility of a proof or disproof of God (and please clarify which definition of God you're referring to)?
I guess I'm talking about the understanding of God that I get from the Bible. Many Americans seem to believe in God, and the origin of our cultural understanding of God comes from Christianity. The Christian God, who is supposed to be the creator of the universe. If he is omnipotent, and everything is possible for him, then he can choose whether or not mankind will be able to "discover" him as if a scientific discovery. God seems to essentially be hiding from us, and man is limited in what we can learn from science. What I'm trying to say is that, given the nature of God in the Bible (as being outside of human capability for understanding), there is no way to prove that he exists if he doesn't want us to know that he's "out there" (since he is "in control")...

[berlin wallflower]

I think you assume that God is not unique, you assume that he is part of the universe (instead of being outside of it). God does not exist like other "beings." All we have of God is the universe itself. All we can examine is God's "handiwork."

[berlin wallflower]

Historically speaking paradoxes and other seemingly unsolvable dilemmas are rarely infinite in duration (Zeno, etc), the solutions are usually quite complex but conceivable.I understand what you mean, and if God is something that can be proven to exist, then you would be right, we might find out how to do it. But for me, that would mean that he was not really God anymore. For God, the only way to prove his existence would be to show himself. It's not something that human reason could prove, at least in my opinion.

I think you're right... This might have more to do with the definition of God than anything else.


Belief in the capacity of thought (whether or ordained or not) is where I find my optimism and hope, not in the belief in a higher power.Yeah, but humanity makes mistakes.

It appears that you want to take God out of the realm of philosophy/metaphysics and thrust him into the realm of science. I guess I just disagree with the approach.

[berlin wallflower]

On another note, you appear to like Tarkovsky's films, but you must disagree with Tarkovsky's faith in God... Why do you find his works moving if you reject his "transcendental" art?

[Qrazy]

If he is omnipotent, and everything is possible for him, then he can choose whether or not mankind will be able to "discover" him as if a scientific discovery. God seems to essentially be hiding from us, and man is limited in what we can learn from science. What I'm trying to say is that, given the nature of God in the Bible (as being outside of human capability for understanding), there is no way to prove that he exists if he doesn't want us to know that he's "out there" (since he is "in control")...

Well that's just cyclical reasoning. I posit God's existence, but God does not want me to know if he exists, therefore God does not exist in any real way but he still exists.

First Commandment: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Beyond all else, Christianity and a number of other monotheistic religions are geared towards getting you to belief in their God. Their stories are constructed from the basis that God's existence used to be apparent... spoke through prophets and miracles... but now he's gone into hiding... what a coincidence.

You're arguing from the position that God things like humans think... that he 'wants or does not want' us to believe he's 'out there'. If you actually try to think the way an omnipotent and omniscient entity would, do these 'thoughts' make any sense whatsoever? Of course it's impossible for us to think this way, but that's kind of the point. You're anthropomorphizing your conception of God.

[Qrazy]

I think you assume that God is not unique, you assume that he is part of the universe (instead of being outside of it). God does not exist like other "beings." All we have of God is the universe itself. All we can examine is God's "handiwork."

If that's the case you're only referring to God as prime mover and not as an interacting entity with our current universe... if God is 'still around' so to speak then it's discoverable yes? You accept this much?

The problem is that the argument for prime mover offers little to nothing in the way of explanation... it explains nothing. What created the Universe? God. What created God? Nothing, there was always God. So why not just say there was always the universe? Or why not instead recognizing that perhaps there's something wrong with our causal conception of the universe itself... maybe existence doesn't operate solely causally.

[Qrazy]

It appears that you want to take God out of the realm of philosophy/metaphysics and thrust him into the realm of science. I guess I just disagree with the approach.

No, God can stay in the realm of philosophy but philosophy can also be disproven either with other philosophy or with science... logical fallacies can be demonstrated... Thales belief that everything is composed of water is no longer true. We now know this. Now what we currently believe to be true may not be 'the truth' but it is certainly more true than what was originally believed.

[Qrazy]

On another note, you appear to like Tarkovsky's films, but you must disagree with Tarkovsky's faith in God... Why do you find his works moving if you reject his "transcendental" art?

Because his art is beautiful. I don't need God to believe in beauty or morality.

[rocus]

Well, it is better to know the truth than be fooled. Many theists blindly follow God without questioning his existence... They just believe what they've been told. They don't think for themselves.I can promise you that no one who truly believes does so without having questioned their faith. You are just stereotyping when you say people with faith "don't think for themselves". It's condescending and offensive.

[Scar]

Well, it is better to know the truth than be fooled. Many theists blindly follow God without questioning his existence... They just believe what they've been told. They don't think for themselves.

:|

[Melville]

I'll just jump in to defend the wallflower. Unless I'm misunderstanding him, he's just saying that it's better to be an agnostic than to blindly believe. There's nothing condescending about saying that many (as opposed to all) theists just believe what they've been told, since the same is true of many atheists and agnostics, as well.

[berlin wallflower]

I can promise you that no one who truly believes does so without having questioned their faith. You are just stereotyping when you say people with faith "don't think for themselves". It's condescending and offensive.I'm very sorry if I've offended you. I really did not mean to. I was not necessarily talking about "true believers"... I was talking about people who say they are Christian and believe in a God just because that was the way they were raised. I am a Christian myself, and I was just making an observation about many people I know. I did not mean it to apply to all Christians.

[eternity]

God actually existing: Maybe.
The rules of God as noted by the Bible and the religions that "represent" him: Hell the fuck no.

[monolith94]

God is not a phenomenal force. You can't establish whether something exists or not without it being phenomenal. None of us will ever know the answer; this is why a leap of faith is required. Jump, or not? It isn't for everyone, I suppose…

At least not in their present lifetime. ;)

[berlin wallflower]

Well that's just cyclical reasoning. I posit God's existence, but God does not want me to know if he exists, therefore God does not exist in any real way but he still exists.
What I mean is that he does not exist as other beings exist. He is the exception to the rule. Do you not accept that there are things beyond human understanding, things that reason alone cannot reveal to us?


You're arguing from the position that God things like humans think... that he 'wants or does not want' us to believe he's 'out there'. If you actually try to think the way an omnipotent and omniscient entity would, do these 'thoughts' make any sense whatsoever? Of course it's impossible for us to think this way, but that's kind of the point. You're anthropomorphizing your conception of God.Well, the truth is that the God of the Bible is "anthropomorphized." If you read it, it speaks of God's desires and what he expects from man. In fact, it is said that man was made in "God's own image." I'm only talking about the Christian God, not some abstract substance. The Christian God has attributes, which were "revealed" to us in the Bible.

The problem is the same for miracles. If something is truly a miracle, then you cannot prove it or disprove it, because it goes against the laws of nature. There is always a chance that a "miracle" is simply something that can be explained by science, but we just have not advanced far enough to understand it... but a real miracle would be one that science could not explain because it goes against reason.

I'm not going to argue God's motives, but if God has the attributes the Bible gives him, then we cannot prove his existence because he is outside the realm of human understanding.

[Qrazy]

God is not a phenomenal force. You can't establish whether something exists or not without it being phenomenal.

That seems far too limited a notion of human potential and thought to me. The entire human program is dedicated to deciphering the past and predicting the future. The realm of abstraction is the realm of thought. I can't experience or perceive 2+2=4 but it doesn't make it any less 'true'. I do not perceive strong force and weak force between atoms, but that doesn't make them any less 'true'. We can know many things that we don't perceive. To borrow a term from Heraclitus, a crafting, unveiling, and/or understanding of 'the logos' of things actually tends to reveal more about them than an experience of the thing itself.

You can certainly establish a thing's existence or lack of existence without phenomena directly pertaining to it... it's just that much harder.

[berlin wallflower]

Because his art is beautiful. I don't need God to believe in beauty or morality.Yes, I understand... I didn't mean to imply that you had to be a believer to appreciate Tarkovsky. I was simply curious about your feelings about his faith, which (to me) seems so central to his art...

[Qrazy]

What I mean is that he does not exist as other beings exist. He is the exception to the rule. Do you not accept that there are things beyond human understanding, things that reason alone cannot reveal to us?

I find it far, far more limiting to deny the potential of reason than to question the reality of God.


Well, the truth is that the God of the Bible is "anthropomorphized." If you read it, it speaks of God's desires and what he expects from man. In fact, it is said that man was made in "God's own image." I'm only talking about the Christian God, not some abstract substance. The Christian God has attributes, which were "revealed" to us in the Bible.

No offense but all the God(s) of organized religion seem clearly false to me and I'm not really interested in discussing/debating any of the ones as portrayed in popular texts. The only God I'm willing to have a real conversation about is an abstract one... either prime mover or existent force within the fabric of the universe... or something else of that nature which hasn't been suggested or is not known to me yet... God as angry old man plaguing his populace... No I'm sorry, I can't go there.


The problem is the same for miracles. If something is truly a miracle, then you cannot prove it or disprove it, because it goes against the laws of nature. There is always a chance that a "miracle" is simply something that can be explained by science, but we just have not advanced far enough to understand it... but a real miracle would be one that science could not explain because it goes against reason.

If it was a miracle it would still have to be perceived though. It can go against our understanding of the laws of nature but for it to be a miracle it has to actually happen. Of course that's what's so wonderful about science, it's flexibility. Whatever we experience, science will shift to provide a construct to help explain that. That is what science is... it's not a collection of immutable facts... it's a theoretical framework to explain phenomena.


I'm not going to argue God's motives, but if God has the attributes the Bible gives him, then we cannot prove his existence because he is outside the realm of human understanding.

Cyclical and unfalsifiable... you're not really providing reasons to adopt your beliefs you're just stating that anyone who already has those beliefs couldn't have it any other way. I have more confidence in the potential of the human mind.

[Qrazy]

Yes, I understand... I didn't mean to imply that you had to be a believer to appreciate Tarkovsky. I was simply curious about your feelings about his faith, which (to me) seems so central to his art...

Yeah I know. I wasn't offended, just curt. His belief is central to his art but it's not central to someone's appreciation of his art.

[Melville]

God as angry old man plaguing his populace... No I'm sorry, I can't go there.
Bah. Jealous and vengeful gods are the best kind!

[monolith94]

That seems far too limited a notion of human potential and thought to me. The entire human program is dedicated to deciphering the past and predicting the future. The realm of abstraction is the realm of thought. I can't experience or perceive 2+2=4 but it doesn't make it any less 'true'. I do not perceive strong force and weak force between atoms, but that doesn't make them any less 'true'. We can know many things that we don't perceive. To borrow a term from Heraclitus, a crafting, unveiling, and/or understanding of 'the logos' of things actually tends to reveal more about them than an experience of the thing itself.

You can certainly establish a thing's existence or lack of existence without phenomena directly pertaining to it... it's just that much harder.
The weak and strong forces in physics are very much phenomena in the sense that god is not. The quote from Heraclitus "The nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself" does, I believe hold true in the macro of the human experience. We can understand the minutia of science, but for a single human mind to digest its own experience… we fall under the pressure. We forget so that we do not go mad: concealment.

2 and 2 is an abstract truth, but it is an abstract idea that has phenomenal relevance and support.

[Watashi]

You just lit the Barty signal.

[berlin wallflower]

Okay, Qrazy, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily agree with your "prime mover" and "existent force" because they don't make allowance for an actual God, in my opinion.

I guess what I mean is there is little point is dragging this argument out. As you've said, we have different ideas about the limits of reason.

[origami_mustache]

This quote from the first page of Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn amuses me:

"I had no more need of God than He had of me, and if there were one, I often said to myself, I would meet him calmly and spit in His face."

[Qrazy]

The weak and strong forces in physics are very much phenomena in the sense that god is not. The quote from Heraclitus "The nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself" does, I believe hold true in the macro of the human experience. We can understand the minutia of science, but for a single human mind to digest its own experience… we fall under the pressure. We forget so that we do not go mad: concealment.

2 and 2 is an abstract truth, but it is an abstract idea that has phenomenal relevance and support.

Phenomena are those things known through the senses, not through thought or intuition...

If God exists (particularly if in it's a way other than just prime mover) it must be in a way impacting the world... that's what miracles etc are, no? God making itself known? Do you believe in miracles? If miracles actually happen than they're subject to analysis.

If we're only talking about God as prime mover then I just ask to what end? What does it explain? It certainly makes the universe a more comforting place, but it doesn't make any more sense to say that God did it than to say that the universe did it... except one doesn't possess human traits... traits which by and large only make sense for mortal creatures to possess... why would an immortal entity know jealousy, anger... seek judgment?

[Qrazy]

Okay, Qrazy, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't necessarily agree with your "prime mover" and "existent force" because they don't make allowance for an actual God, in my opinion.

I guess what I mean is there is little point is dragging this argument out. As you've said, we have different ideas about the limits of reason.

Fair... well that was a relatively pleasant conversation... rare for this topic on message boards.

[Sven]

Fair... well that was a relatively pleasant conversation... rare for this topic on message boards.

It was because Barty didn't show up. Trust me.

[Ezee E]

It was because Barty didn't show up. Trust me.
I'm sure he's coming. Whenever GOD is posted on a message board, it wakes him.

[transmogrifier]

The existence of God is such a pointless discussion, because it basically boils down to:

"God exists because something can't come from nothing without a prime mover"
"Then where did God come from?"
"He was just always there."
"Then why can't the universe have the same property"
"Because it isn't God."
"What is God"
"The prime mover"
"Why do we need a prime mover?"
"God exists because something can't come from nothing without a prime mover"
"Then where did God come from?"
"He was just always there."
"Then why can't the universe have the same property"
"Because it isn't God."
"What is God"
"The prime mover"
"Why do we need a prime mover?"
"God exists because something can't come from nothing without a prime mover"
"Then where did God come from?"
"He was just always there."
"Then why can't the universe have the same property"
"Because it isn't God."
"What is God"
"The prime mover"

and so on until eternity.

[MadMan]

I believe in God. But I don't really give a damn if people don't believe in (him? her? it? heh). To me its a matter of faith. Some loose it, some gain it. And just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they share the same set of beliefs or religious affliation as me. That's fine by me as well.

[transmogrifier]

Anyway, my opinion in a nutshell:

- the God as presented in all organized religions doesn't exist
- the existence of any other non-interventionist God is irrelevant to us
- people should have the freedom of religion if they so choose
- most organized relgion is misanthropic
- religion should not be taught in schools, except in the discussion of history - that's what churches are for
- all governments should be secular
- intelligent design is anti-intellectual and a hinderance to true knowledge and awareness

[MadMan]

Anyway, my opinion in a nutshell:

- the God as presented in all organized religions doesn't exist
- the existence of any other non-interventionist God is irrelevant to us
- people should have the freedom of religion if they so choose
- most organized relgion is misanthropic
- religion should not be taught in schools, except in the discussion of history - that's what churches are for
- all governments should be secular
- intelligent design is anti-intellectual and a hinderance to true knowledge and awarenessI agree that there are serious problems with organized religion. I'm all about religious freedom as well, and I do believe in separation of church and state (which swings both ways, protecting the state from the church and the church from the state) and that secular governments are the way to go. And seriously intelligent design is a joke. Its not valid scientific theory at all in the slightest. I can't say I agree with everything you posted however.

[Qrazy]

- most organized religion is misanthropic


This is the only one I don't really agree with.

[monolith94]

Phenomena are those things known through the senses, not through thought or intuition...

If God exists (particularly if in it's a way other than just prime mover) it must be in a way impacting the world... that's what miracles etc are, no? God making itself known? Do you believe in miracles? If miracles actually happen than they're subject to analysis.

If we're only talking about God as prime mover then I just ask to what end? What does it explain? It certainly makes the universe a more comforting place, but it doesn't make any more sense to say that God did it than to say that the universe did it... except one doesn't possess human traits... traits which by and large only make sense for mortal creatures to possess... why would an immortal entity know jealousy, anger... seek judgment?
Sure, god does impact the world, but not through miracles (which I read as having symbolic, rather than literal, value). Rather our conception of him in our minds makes manifest his will. God impacts the world through the hands of men. It is our choice, our responsibility. And that's the value of a conception of god past the whole prime mover thing: as part of a global movement for true justice. Plus, all of the culture associated along with it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I wouldn't rule it out, but I find it an ultimately irrelevant question.

[transmogrifier]

This is the only one I don't really agree with.

I don't know, I guess I'm exaggerating for effect, but the idea is that religion tends to "demote" us to mindless followers who are given our unique essence and humanity randomly by some superbeing, rather than being intrinsically valuable. There seems to be a distinct underlying feeling that humans are worthless, and that nothing really matters until we die. That is a rather sickening attitude.


(It's also bordering on a strawman argument, but I'm referring to my feeling of the subtext, rather than what followers express outright)

[Qrazy]

Sure, god does impact the world, but not through miracles (which I read as having symbolic, rather than literal, value). Rather our conception of him in our minds makes manifest his will. God impacts the world through the hands of men. It is our choice, our responsibility. And that's the value of a conception of god past the whole prime mover thing: as part of a global movement for true justice. Plus, all of the culture associated along with it.

I'm reading your post (correct me if I'm wrong) as basically a God as moral incentive directive, yes? But why not true justice from a consequentialist, duty ethics, Kantian perspective, or some combination of these or another system of ethics? Do you really need to believe in God to believe you ought to treat your fellow man with kindness and dignity? As an end in himself?

Or God as general incentive to persevere and believe in oneself... is this really necessary either? What about the value of doing good work in and of itself or of working towards the creation of a work of beauty... a film or painting?

Yes it is our choice and our responsibility to care about one another. I agree with you there... but why is God a necessary element of that?

[Qrazy]

I don't know, I guess I'm exaggerating for effect, but the idea is that religion tends to "demote" us to mindless followers who are given our unique essence and humanity randomly by some superbeing, rather than being intrinsically valuable. There seems to be a distinct underlying feeling that humans are worthless, and that nothing really matters until we die. That is a rather sickening attitude.


(It's also bordering on a strawman argument, but I'm referring to my feeling of the subtext, rather than what followers express outright)

Yeah I can get on board with your fleshed out argument about the dangers of organized religion, I just don't think it's fair to the many thoughtful and caring theists and followers to label religion itself as misanthropic... particularly when many of it's central tenets are moral imperatives and stories of moral and psychological consequence.

[origami_mustache]

this still makes me laugh...

http://onwhoseauthority.files.wordpre ss.com/2007/10/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

[Barty]

It was because Barty didn't show up. Trust me.

I'm always pleasant in these conversations.

[Qrazy]

this still makes me laugh...

http://onwhoseauthority.files.wordpre ss.com/2007/10/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

Freud would have loved that.

[MadMan]

I'm always pleasant in these conversations.Heh. Your the closet thing we have to a hardcore Christian around these parts. Not that its a bad thing of course, although I think you make me look like an atheist. Or at least an agnostic.


This is the only one I don't really agree with.I also disagree with that as well. I forgot to clarify that in my previous post.

[Sven]

I'm always pleasant in these conversations.

You are, don't get me wrong. It's the way that people respond to you that is often less so.

[rocus]

- intelligent design is anti-intellectual and a hinderance to true knowledge and awarenessI don't think so at all. Just because I believe the universe was created doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to understand it through science. Science and God aren't opposite concepts.

[transmogrifier]

I don't think so at all. Just because I believe the universe was created doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to understand it through science. Science and God aren't opposite concepts.

The movement to get intelligent design taught in schools in opposition to evolution is certainly anti-intellectual, as it simply wipes out all concepts of weighted evidence with a brush of the "god did it" hand. I can't think of anything less intelligent than actively fighting against science armed with nothing but a sincere wish to be right.

[monolith94]

I'm reading your post (correct me if I'm wrong) as basically a God as moral incentive directive, yes? But why not true justice from a consequentialist, duty ethics, Kantian perspective, or some combination of these or another system of ethics? Do you really need to believe in God to believe you ought to treat your fellow man with kindness and dignity? As an end in himself?

Not really, no.


Yes it is our choice and our responsibility to care about one another. I agree with you there... but why is God a necessary element of that?

Not a necessary element, but rather an element that one has a desire to believe in, to create a comforting cosmology of a greater, non-phenomenal justice.

[Dukefrukem]

I like thinking about the fact that humans 500 years ago, thought the Earth was flat. 1000 years ago we thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Now think about 2000 years ago........................... ... what did they really see/believe?

[bac0n]

I think that the hardest thing to do in any religious debate is to find common ground. So, in the spirit of good will, I submit something that we can all agree on.

http://i30.tinypic.com/e96m4g.jpg

[Sycophant]

I don't know, I guess I'm exaggerating for effect, but the idea is that religion tends to "demote" us to mindless followers who are given our unique essence and humanity randomly by some superbeing, rather than being intrinsically valuable. There seems to be a distinct underlying feeling that humans are worthless, and that nothing really matters until we die. That is a rather sickening attitude.


(It's also bordering on a strawman argument, but I'm referring to my feeling of the subtext, rather than what followers express outright)Maybe I wouldn't pull out the word misanthropic to describe organized relgiion, but I do sympathize with your concerns. It's not necessarily doctrine of every religion, but as a humanist and atheist who sees no evidence for a world or existence beyond our brief years here, I find it troubling to see how some people use religion to devalue the lives we lead on Earth because what comes after is supposedly better. Such beliefs allow a lot of people to behave in ways that are reckless because God will sort it all out, and nothing too terrible can happen because everything that does happen fits in with God's plan.

One of the biggest problems with religious discussion is how easy it is to generalize groups of millions. I know many devout people who would disagree with what I wrote there. Also, my religious background, Mormonism, and the idiosyncratic way it was practiced in my household, seems a bit more literalized and tangible than most people conceive of religion.

[berlin wallflower]

Yeah I can get on board with your fleshed out argument about the dangers of organized religion, I just don't think it's fair to the many thoughtful and caring theists and followers to label religion itself as misanthropic... particularly when many of it's central tenets are moral imperatives and stories of moral and psychological consequence.
What do you think about Nietzsche's views about Christianity? He basically thought it was holding back humanity, that we must stop believing that rubbish and seek the truth.

[soitgoes...]

I like thinking about the fact that humans 500 years ago, thought the Earth was flat.
Not to hijack this thread, but this is pretty much considered to be a myth. The learned have believed the Earth to be a sphere since the 3rd or 4th century BC, and contrary to popular belief there wasn't a Middle Age regression. Anyways, on with the theological discussion.

[Benny Profane]

Not to hijack this thread, but this is pretty much considered to be a myth. The learned have believed the Earth to be a sphere since the 3rd or 4th century BC, and contrary to popular belief there wasn't a Middle Age regression. Anyways, on with the theological discussion.

OK, but until Magellan circumnavigated the globe in 1520, the oceans were thought be filled with boiling water, large magnets to suck all the nails out of ships, mermaids, dragons, among other fallacies, all propagated by Marco Polo's tendency to embellish in The Adventures of Marco Polo, which was the major written travel source until that time.

And then there's the legend of Prester John and many other ridiculous notions that existed 500 years ago today.

[soitgoes...]

OK, but until Magellan circumnavigated the globe in 1520, the oceans were thought be filled with boiling water, large magnets to suck all the nails out of ships, mermaids, dragons, among other fallacies, all propagated by Marco Polo's tendency to embellish in The Adventures of Marco Polo, which was the major written travel source until that time.

And then there's the legend of Prester John and many other ridiculous notions that existed 500 years ago today.
I wasn't trying to imply that the people of the past had the same world-view as
we have today.

[Benny Profane]

I wasn't trying to imply that the people of the past had the same world-view as
we have today.

Yes. You were. Admit it.

[berlin wallflower]

In the end, to be sure, to present the debit side of the account to these religions and to bring into the light of day their uncanny perilousness - it costs dear and terribly when religions hold sway, not as means of education and breeding in the hands of the philosopher, but in their own right and as sovereign, when they themselves want to be final ends and not means beside other means. Among men, as among every other species, there is a surplus of failures, of the sick, the degenerate, the fragile, of those who are bound to suffer; the successful cases are, among men too, always the exception, and. considering that man is the animal whose nature has not yet been fixed, the rare exception. But worse still: the higher the type of man a man represents, the greater the improbability he will turn out well: chance, the law of absurdity in the total economy of mankind, shows itself in its most dreadful shape in its destructive effect on higher men, whose conditions of life are subtle, manifold and difficult to compute. Now what is the attitude of the above-named two chief religions towards this surplus of unsuccessful cases? They seek to preserve, to retain in life, whatever can in any way be preserved, indeed they side with it as a matter of principle as religions for sufferers, they maintain that all those who suffer from life as from an illness are in the right, and would like every other feeling of life to be counted false and become impossible. However highly one may rate this kindly preservative solicitude, inasmuch as, together with all the other types of man, it has been and is applied to the highest type, which has hitherto almost always been the type that has suffered most: in the total accounting the hitherto sovereign religions are among the main reasons the type `man' has been kept on a lower level they have preserved too much of that which ought to perish.

We have inestimable benefits to thank them for; and who is sufficiently rich in gratitude not to be impoverished in face of all that the `spiritual men' of Christianity, for example, have hitherto done for Europe! And yet, when they gave comfort to the suffering, courage to the oppressed and despairing, a staff and stay to the irresolute, and lured those who were inwardly shattered and had become savage away from society into monasteries and houses of correction for the soul: what did they have to do in addition so as thus, with a good conscience, as a matter of principle, to work at the preservation of everything sick and suffering, which means in fact and truth at the corruption of the European race? Stand all evaluations on their head - that is what they had to do! And smash the strong, contaminate great hopes, cast suspicion on joy in beauty, break down everything autocratic, manly, conquering, tyrannical, all the instincts proper to the highest and most successful of the type `man', into uncertainty, remorse of conscience, self-destruction, indeed reverse the whole love of the earthly and of dominion over the earth into hatred of the earth and the earthly - that is the task the church set itself and had to set itself, until in its evaluation 'unworldliness', `unsensuality', and `higher man' were finally fused together into one feeling.

Supposing one were able to view the strangely painful and at the same time coarse and subtle comedy of European Christianity with the mocking and unconcerned eye of an Epicurean god, I believe there would be no end to one's laughter and amazement: for does it not seem that one will has dominated Europe for eighteen centuries, the will to make of man a sublime abortion? But he who, with an opposite desire, no longer Epicurean but with some divine hammer in his hand, approached this almost deliberate degeneration and stunting of man such as constitutes the European Christian (Pascal for instance), would he not have to cry out in rage, in pity, in horror: `O you fools, you presumptuous, pitying fools, what have you done! Was this a work for your hands! How you have bungled and botched my beautiful stone! What a thing for you to take upon yourselves!' - What I am saying is: Christianity has been the most fatal kind of self-presumption ever. Men not high or hard enough for the artistic refashioning of mankind; men not strong or farsighted enough for the sublime self-constraint needed to allow the foreground law of thousandfold failure and perishing to prevail; men not noble enough to see the abysmal disparity in order of rank and abysm of rank between men and man - it is such men who, with their `equal before God', have hitherto ruled over the destiny of Europe, until at last a shrunken, almost ludicrous species, a herd animal, something full of good will, sickly and mediocre has been bred, the European of today . . .

Section 62, Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

[soitgoes...]

Yes. You were. Admit it.
But... but, the mermaids!!!

[Qrazy]

Not really, no.



Not a necessary element, but rather an element that one has a desire to believe in, to create a comforting cosmology of a greater, non-phenomenal justice.

So it's an issue of comfort then.

Please stop saying phenomenal... duty ethics, Kantian ethics, consequentialist ethics, etc are based on abstract moral systems which may not appeal to any immortal soul per se but which are grounded in ideas of justice and fairness beyond solely material distribution.

[Qrazy]

I like thinking about the fact that humans 500 years ago, thought the Earth was flat. 1000 years ago we thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Now think about 2000 years ago........................... ... what did they really see/believe?

I agree with the thrust of your statement but our belief that a few centuries ago the majority of people thought the world was flat, is a commonly held popular misconception... much like the misconception that humans only use five to ten percent of their entire brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geography

[Qrazy]

Maybe I wouldn't pull out the word misanthropic to describe organized relgiion, but I do sympathize with your concerns. It's not necessarily doctrine of every religion, but as a humanist and atheist who sees no evidence for a world or existence beyond our brief years here, I find it troubling to see how some people use religion to devalue the lives we lead on Earth because what comes after is supposedly better. Such beliefs allow a lot of people to behave in ways that are reckless because God will sort it all out, and nothing too terrible can happen because everything that does happen fits in with God's plan.

One of the biggest problems with religious discussion is how easy it is to generalize groups of millions. I know many devout people who would disagree with what I wrote there. Also, my religious background, Mormonism, and the idiosyncratic way it was practiced in my household, seems a bit more literalized and tangible than most people conceive of religion.

I think it's also just an issue of the potential of human beings for good or ill under any set system... different people will have the capacity for both... some people will do tremendous harm to their fellow man, others will do tremendous good, both in the name of their social system... the same goes for religion, democracy, communism, etc. Now that is not to say that all social systems are equal... I think the dividing line is what the worst/most-selfish people in any given system are able to get away with... communism is not a bad system in and of itself, but unfortunately it allows for much more flagrant power abuse by it's worst members than democracy does. Whether organized religion or 'organized' atheism allows for more flagrant power abuse is certainly an open question since atheism hasn't really gotten off the ground in a numbers way and when it has it's been coupled with communism and other political ideologies... unfortunately these ideologies can't be experienced in a vaccuum to determine which is potentially more harmful... still based on the potential to abuse the idea of the afterlife and manipulate the flock I would speculate that ultimately organized religion is/has the potential to be the more harmful ideology... a good atheist ought to be guided by concerns for material justice... or at least one would hope... many also use atheism to fall back to egoism.

[Qrazy]

What do you think about Nietzsche's views about Christianity? He basically thought it was holding back humanity, that we must stop believing that rubbish and seek the truth.

Ultimately yes I agree with him that the Christian guilt complex (we're all sinners, he died for our sins) is a dangerous and limiting notion... and imo should be excised in favor of a more spiritually centered and less guilt ridden moral core.

However I'm not sure I agree with his alternative (strength of character perhaps?) or lack thereof... and I'm hesitant to 'tear down' our current social systems in favor of 'something better' where that something remains vague. In my opinion stemming the tide of suffering comes above all... and revolution often tends to incite more misery than it heals... as hard as it is I think social reform tends to be better than total revolution to fix the ills of any given society... although not in all cases... sometimes revolution is necessary.

[Melville]

However I'm not sure I agree with his alternative (strength of character perhaps?) or lack thereof... and I'm hesitant to 'tear down' our current social systems in favor of 'something better' where that something remains vague. In my opinion stemming the tide of suffering comes above all... and revolution often tends to incite more misery than it heals...
The Übermensch will embrace life with all its misery, he will say 'yes' to it infinitely as it eternally returns. And then he'll dance and laugh on your grave.

[Qrazy]

The Übermensch will embrace life with all its misery, he will say 'yes' to it infinitely as it eternally returns. And then he'll dance and laugh on your grave.

But then he'll realize the error of his ways... Raskalnikov himself into prison and weep at the ending of his days as he realizes how hollow his life has truly become.

And if he doesn't realize the error it's because he's too simple a creature to conceive of the wholeness of those around him and to experience the desire to preserve that wholeness... like a Hitler, a Stalin or a General Idi Amin Dada... and then he's not really an Ubermensch at all but the same pitiful creature as the rest of us sheep, who hasn't truly exculpated his guilt but simply turned it outwards upon the world at large.

Guilt can be a good thing in my mind, it keeps us human and civil towards one another... but it can also go too far and become systemic... and then it's harmful because it limits the emotional, intellectual and spiritual transcendence of the individual, burdens him and buries him in despair.

[monolith94]

Oh god, if there's one philosophical idea I detest with the very fiber of my being, it's the idea of "eternal return". *shudder*

[Qrazy]

Oh god, if there's one philosophical idea I detest with the very fiber of my being, it's the idea of "eternal return". *shudder*

Why? It's not a perfect model but it certainly has more going for it than a linear temporal model.

[monolith94]

It just strikes me as a horrifying conception of reality. The idea that a person who has a life full of suffering, due to no fault of their own, should return to that life over and over again fills me with horror.

[Melville]

But then he'll realize the error of his ways... Raskalnikov himself into prison and weep at the ending of his days as he realizes how hollow his life has truly become.
I think Raskolnikov's overwhelming morbidity rules him out as a candidate for Ubermensch, and even his idea of a great man doesn't possess the essential Yes-saying of the Ubermensch.


And if he doesn't realize the error it's because he's too simple a creature to conceive of the wholeness of those around him and to experience the desire to preserve that wholeness... like a Hitler, a Stalin or a General Idi Amin Dada... and then he's not really an Ubermensch at all but the same pitiful creature as the rest of us sheep, who hasn't truly exculpated his guilt but simply turned it outwards upon the world at large.

Do you mean the wholeness of all people as a collection, or the wholeness of each individual? Obviously the Ubermensch would say that the former is an ideal, and hence that it should be smashed with a hammer, but every good Ubermensch recognizes the latter in some form (i.e. in the people who make themselves whole)... his will to overcome other individuals doesn't contradict his respect for them.

[Melville]

It just strikes me as a horrifying conception of reality. The idea that a person who has a life full of suffering, due to no fault of their own, should return to that life over and over again fills me with horror.
The essential idea of the eternal return isn't a literal model of reality, but a metaphor for the fact that life is inescapable, and hence that we must embrace it for exactly what it is, never looking to an ideal above or outside of it. At every moment of suffering, the sufferer must say Yes to life as if that moment were to return eternally. While I don't really agree with the idea, I think it serves as an important limiting notion.

[Qrazy]

I think Raskolnikov's overwhelming morbidity rules him out as a candidate for Ubermensch, and even his idea of a great man doesn't possess the essential Yes-saying of the Ubermensch.

Do you mean the wholeness of all people as a collection, or the wholeness of each individual? Obviously the Ubermensch would say that the former is an ideal, and hence that it should be smashed with a hammer.


That's what I mean. Those who believe themselves to be or desire to be Ubermensch usually aren't... because Ubermensch is the unattainable ideal... and not even an ideal particularly worth desiring.


But every good Ubermensch recognizes the latter in some form (i.e. in the people who make themselves whole)... his will to overcome other individuals doesn't contradict his respect for them.

What respect? His respect for individuals is second to whatever means he needs them for in relation to his 'greater' end.

[Qrazy]

It just strikes me as a horrifying conception of reality. The idea that a person who has a life full of suffering, due to no fault of their own, should return to that life over and over again fills me with horror.

Ah I thought you were referring to the element of the idea that time is infinite... cyclical and recurring.

[berlin wallflower]

The essential idea of the eternal return isn't a literal model of reality, but a metaphor for the fact that life is inescapable, and hence that we must embrace it for exactly what it is, never looking to an ideal above or outside of it. At every moment of suffering, the sufferer must say Yes to life as if that moment were to return eternally. While I don't really agree with the idea, I think it serves as an important limiting notion.
"If one has character one also has one's typical experience which recurs again and again." - Beyond Good and Evil

[Melville]

That's what I mean. Those who believe themselves to be or desire to be Ubermensch usually aren't... because Ubermensch is the unattainable ideal...
Nietzsche seemed to think that Goethe was a pretty good approximation to the Ubermensch.


and not even an ideal particularly worth desiring.
*shrug*

Again, I think it's a very important, though extreme, notion of how to approach life.


What respect? His respect for individuals is second to whatever means he needs them for in relation to his 'greater' end.
He respects others in the way that a warrior respects his enemy. What do you mean by the Ubermensch's 'greater' end? Isn't life in itself the end for Nietzsche?


"If one has character one also has one's typical experience which recurs again and again." - Beyond Good and Evil
Sure. What does that have to do with what I said?

Edit: never mind the question about the Ubermensch's 'greater' ends—I thought you were referring to some specific Ubermenschian end, but now I realize you probably just meant that any end the Ubermensch has in mind is necessarily greater according to Nietzsche.

[monolith94]

Ah I thought you were referring to the element of the idea that time is infinite... cyclical and recurring.

I don't think we have any way of knowing whether time is infinite. I mean, this is our first go-through, right? :frustrated:

[Qrazy]

Nietzsche seemed to think that Goethe was a pretty good approximation to the Ubermensch.

Yeah, but basically an Ubermensch then is just one of if not the most intelligent, capable and talented person in any given era... but in most cases they aren't the ones in power because a) they have no desire for power b) the individuals doing the electing don't favor intelligence, they favor personability and charisma.

A broad (and simplified for our current purposes) reading of Nietzsche's texts I find basically yields... don't get too bogged down in the norms, values and guilt complexes of your society Ubermensch... which I agree with... but sometimes I find he goes too far in the ends justify the means direction and I'm left desiring a little categorical imperative. Even highly intelligent people if they're freed from any moral constraint can decimate entire civilizations... is the freedom worth the price?


Again, I think it's a very important, though extreme, notion of how to approach life.

Agreed... I say it's not an ideal worth desiring because while I think the intelligence and knowledge side of it is worth desiring, the will to power side and the capacity of such a highly intelligent individual to rationalize and justify horrendous acts in the name of 'greatness' seems to me a dangerous way of thinking for anyone who values the happiness of the collective (and the individuals therein).



Edit: never mind the question about the Ubermensch's 'greater' ends—I thought you were referring to some specific Ubermenschian end, but now I realize you probably just meant that any end the Ubermensch has in mind is necessarily greater according to Nietzsche.

Yes.

[Qrazy]

I don't think we have any way of knowing whether time is infinite. I mean, this is our first go-through, right? :frustrated:

We don't know yet but that doesn't mean the question is beyond our reach... a cursory glance at the paradigm shift Einstein brought about in the perception of space/time should provide some hope as to our capacity to unravel these mysteries... or at least to begin to unravel them.

[Melville]

Yeah, but basically an Ubermensch then is just one of if not the most intelligent, capable and talented person in any given era...
Those are probably necessary conditions for Ubermensch status, but they aren't sufficient conditions. The Ubermensch must dance and laugh, embracing life with Dionysian enthusiasm, willing its eternal return; he must be filled with health, strive toward challenges, maintain a consistency of character, and possess boundless self-assuredness. Probably other stuff, too.


but in most cases they aren't the ones in power because a) they have no desire for power b) the individuals doing the electing don't favor intelligence, they favor personability and charisma.
Yeah, I don't think Nietzsche has much of a political philosophy, but neither does Christianity. I don't think Nietzsche's alternative to Christian ethics needs to provide a way of making society function.


A broad (and simplified for our current purposes) reading of Nietzsche's texts I find basically yields... don't get too bogged down in the norms, values and guilt complexes of your society Ubermensch... which I agree with... but sometimes I find he goes too far in the ends justify the means direction and I'm left desiring a little categorical imperative.
Certainly I find the categorical imperative much more compelling than Nietzsche's version of "might makes right" (i.e. "greatness makes right"), but it does provide a coherent alternative to traditional "slave morality".


Agreed... I say it's not an ideal worth desiring because while I think the intelligence and knowledge side of it is worth desiring, the will to power side and the capacity of such a highly intelligent individual to rationalize and justify horrendous acts in the name of 'greatness' seems to me a dangerous way of thinking for anyone who values the happiness of the collective (and the individuals therein).
But that's just slave talk. I don't think there are objectively horrendous acts within a "master morality". And they wouldn't be committed in the name of greatness, as if to propagate greatness, but by virtue of greatness (although "in the name of" has that connotation as well).

Anyway, my original point was that you seemed to be evaluating Nietzschean ethics from within a pre-established ethical system (presumably a mix of utilitarianism and duty ethics) in your appraisal of it as an alternative to Christian ethics. Since your evaluative system would be explicitly cast off by Nietzschean ethics, in favor of a great man dancing on your grave, your appraisal seemed odd to me. It's as if you're criticizing his ethical system for failing to accomplish things that it specifically deems irrelevant.

[Qrazy]

Those are probably necessary conditions for Ubermensch status, but they aren't sufficient conditions. The Ubermensch must dance and laugh, embracing life with Dionysian enthusiasm, willing its eternal return; he must be filled with health, strive toward challenges, maintain a consistency of character, and possess boundless self-assuredness. Probably other stuff, too.

Does Goethe even do this? He did write The Sorrows of Young Werther after all.


Certainly I find the categorical imperative much more compelling than Nietzsche's version of "might makes right" (i.e. "greatness makes right"), but it does provide a coherent alternative to traditional "slave morality".

Well yeah.



But that's just slave talk. I don't think there are objectively horrendous acts within a "master morality". And they wouldn't be committed in the name of greatness, as if to propagate greatness, but by virtue of greatness (although "in the name of" has that connotation as well).

That's the problem. He's as unfalsifiable as Marx or Freud... and what are you left with if you're not allowed to critique someone's theories... a master morality which seems pretty god awful to the vast majority of people to me... intelligence and will to power as more valuable than kindness or duty.


Anyway, my original point was that you seemed to be evaluating Nietzschean ethics from within a pre-established ethical system (presumably a mix of utilitarianism and duty ethics) in your appraisal of it as an alternative to Christian ethics. Since your evaluative system would be explicitly cast off by Nietzschean ethics, in favor of a great man dancing on your grave, your appraisal seemed odd to me. It's as if you're criticizing his ethical system for failing to accomplish things that it specifically deems irrelevant.

That type of beyond the pail argument means nothing to me... I have little value for attitudes and theories that posit their independence and irrefutability from everything else (Freud/Marx/transcendent morality (christian or otherwise)) for the sake of their own 'correctness'. I'm evaluating him and his theories in relation to my own conclusions about morality and life and I find his approach to morality both ultimately dangerous (although interesting and useful) for the species as a whole (survival let alone happiness) and assumptive about the nature and direction of morality. I'm not critiquing him for not laying out a morality which he does not but because I don't find the morality he lays out particularly desirable or even compelling... and we've seen time and time again what happens when lesser men (intellectually) ignore all moral concerns for 'greater' ends... I think he's valuable as a proponent of a certain degree of moral relativity and as a poet and thinker but I don't find myself agreeing with his conclusions and I don't think I need to critique his positions from within the system he posits in order to critique them at all.

Obviously I have neither the time nor inclination right now to lay out an epistemology and/or metaphysics to support my critique of his ethics.

[Duncan]

Couple things to add. It is true that Nietzsche has a very limited political philosophy. However, on the rare occasions that he ventures into the political realm he is always outright anti-fascist. Conflating his ideas with the ideas of people like Hitler and Stalin is unfair and wrong. It is, of course, highly possible that both those men read Nietzsche's work, found things they identified with, then perverted them. But the politics we associate with anyone like Hitler is entirely contrary to Nietzsche's philosophy. For one thing, the Ubermensch cannot be a man who seeks power over others. The "will to power" is a personal overcoming only, not some sort of Machiavellian political scheme. Secondly, the Ubermensch does value kindness. It is, in fact, the crowning aspect of Ubermenschery. A rather good summation of his basic philosophy:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible - such descent I call beauty.
And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest.
Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you.

Note again that the power he is referring to is not a social, political or economic power, but a personal one. This is, I think, one of the great things about Nietzsche's philosophy and also one of the most troubling ones. It is great because I don't believe I have encountered any other philosopher who I find so life affirming and consistently advocative of a single person's potential for joy simply in being. It is troubling because there are inevitable connotations of exclusivity and danger to words like "power" and "Ubermensch." I think Nietzsche is a pretty inspiring writer, and a lot of that is probably because he uses such words. There's an appeal to them. On the other hand, they are the type of words that send up warning signals to people. And rightfully so. But I think taken as a whole Nietzsche's philosophy is most primarily about seeking personal joy. And I don't think any true form of joy could involve subjugating others, even before reaching the ends.

Anyway, you guys are right that his approach to life can be extreme. That alone immediately precludes him from being the "right" answer (or even kinda right answer) for the vast majority of people. I think a lot of his ideas have been altered considerably from their original state or are at least viewed much differently now. Maybe 20th century German history makes that reticence necessary. Or maybe it's his tendency to use metaphors and aphorisms. I don't know. But I do know, if you will forgive the following bit of self-aggrandizing, that for a young, bright, kind, individualist such as myself Nietzsche is a tall pillar, and a strong one too. I identify with his writing very strongly.

Phew. That turned into a bit of a ramble.

[Melville]

Does Goethe even do this? He did write The Sorrows of Young Werther after all.
Here's what he said about Goethe in Twilight of the Idols:

"The tragic artist is not a pessimist—it is precisely he who affirms all that is questionable and terrible in existence, he is Dionysian..." (Which is relevant to Young Werther in particular)

"He did not sever himself from life, he placed himself within it; nothing could discourage him and he took as much as possible upon himself, above himself, within himself. What he aspired to was totality; he strove against the separation of reason, sensuality, feeling, will...; he disciplined himself to a whole, he created himself... Goethe was, in an epoch disposed to the unreal, a convinced realist... Goethe conceived of a strong, highly cultured human being, skilled in all physical accomplishments, who, keeping himself in check and having reverence for himself, dares to allow himself the whole compass and wealth of naturalness, who is strong enough for this freedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness, but out of strength, because he knows how to employ to his advantage what would destroy an average nature; a man to whom nothing is forbidden, except it be weakness... A spirit thus emancipated stands in the midst of the universe with a joyful and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only what is separate and individual may be rejected, that in the totality everything is redeemed and affirmed—he no longer denies... But such a faith is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name Dionysos."

"One misunderstands great human beings if one views them from the paltry perspective of public utility."

I don't know enough about Goethe to know if Nietzsche's description is accurate.


That's the problem. He's as unfalsifiable as Marx or Freud...
What system of ethics is falsifiable? Do you mean his system as a whole is non-falsifiable, or do you mean that a claim of moral correctness for any given action cannot be falsified within his system? The latter I would agree with, but I don't think the former is possible.


I don't think I need to critique his positions from within the system he posits in order to critique them at all.
I agree, but I think a criticism of an ethical system should be founded upon something a bit more independent of your own ethical system (e.g. by criticizing its coherence, relevance, "metaphysical" basis).


For one thing, the Ubermensch cannot be a man who seeks power over others. The "will to power" is a personal overcoming only, not some sort of Machiavellian political scheme.
I agree on the last part, and it's definitely worth contrasting the Ubermensch with the Blond Beast, who is probably more of what people think of when they think of Nietzsche-as-Nazi. But saying that the will to power is a personal overcoming only seems like an over-simplification.


It is troubling because there are inevitable connotations of exclusivity and danger to words like "power" and "Ubermensch."
I don't think those are just connotations. Nietzsche does sometimes make them into denotations.

[Qrazy]

Before I respond to the following two posts I must warn that I'm quite drunk... so please forgive whatever transgressions I may engender...


Couple things to add. It is true that Nietzsche has a very limited political philosophy. However, on the rare occasions that he ventures into the political realm he is always outright anti-fascist. Conflating his ideas with the ideas of people like Hitler and Stalin is unfair and wrong. It is, of course, highly possible that both those men read Nietzsche's work, found things they identified with, then perverted them.

I know. But I find it similar to defending all of Marx theory on similar grounds... for me practical application is tantamount, theory only takes you so far... it's like those who argue Communism hasn't been 'given a fair shake' yet. It is unfortunately the case that human beings are such that those who abuse power tend to rise to power... perhaps others disagree but I feel we've had enough trials to recognize that mankind simply doesn't function on a purely benevolent level.

---

I don't think I'm conflating the two. I recognize the differences between Nietzsche and fascists (I've read the Genealogy and recognize his disgust for anti-semites) but I think it's important to note the correlation between his theory and those who have the power in society to practically apply even a semblance of his theory... they tend to be fascists or at least stalwart individualists.


Note again that the power he is referring to is not a social, political or economic power, but a personal one. This is, I think, one of the great things about Nietzsche's philosophy and also one of the most troubling ones. It is great because I don't believe I have encountered any other philosopher who I find so life affirming and consistently advocative of a single person's potential for joy simply in being. It is troubling because there are inevitable connotations of exclusivity and danger to words like "power" and "Ubermensch." I think Nietzsche is a pretty inspiring writer, and a lot of that is probably because he uses such words. There's an appeal to them. On the other hand, they are the type of words that send up warning signals to people. And rightfully so. But I think taken as a whole Nietzsche's philosophy is most primarily about seeking personal joy. And I don't think any true form of joy could involve subjugating others, even before reaching the ends.

Joy or not he's also interested in will as relates to the 'betterment' of the species and he's willing to sacrifice the happiness of the collective for the supposed brilliance of the individual. I find this worthy of critique though not perhaps of disdain.


Anyway, you guys are right that his approach to life can be extreme. That alone immediately precludes him from being the "right" answer (or even kinda right answer) for the vast majority of people. I think a lot of his ideas have been altered considerably from their original state or are at least viewed much differently now. Maybe 20th century German history makes that reticence necessary. Or maybe it's his tendency to use metaphors and aphorisms. I don't know. But I do know, if you will forgive the following bit of self-aggrandizing, that for a young, bright, kind, individualist such as myself Nietzsche is a tall pillar, and a strong one too. I identify with his writing very strongly.

Phew. That turned into a bit of a ramble.

I identify with his writing as well. I'm also wary of where I find it usually leads on a practical level.

I do not intend any of my complaints to suggest that he is not well worth reading I just don't think we should acknowledge his influence and intelligence and have done with it... his morality and politics are as subject to critique as Plato's forms or Leibniz' transcendentalism.

[Qrazy]

Here's what he said about Goethe in Twilight of the Idols:

"The tragic artist is not a pessimist—it is precisely he who affirms all that is questionable and terrible in existence, he is Dionysian..." (Which is relevant to Young Werther in particular)

An affirmation that leads to suicide... and an affirmation not of things 'necessarily' in existence but in a particular perception of existence that can easily be converted into something less painful and self-destructive... and in my opinion at no loss of self, identity or understanding.


"He did not sever himself from life, he placed himself within it; nothing could discourage him and he took as much as possible upon himself, above himself, within himself. What he aspired to was totality; he strove against the separation of reason, sensuality, feeling, will...; he disciplined himself to a whole, he created himself... Goethe was, in an epoch disposed to the unreal, a convinced realist... Goethe conceived of a strong, highly cultured human being, skilled in all physical accomplishments, who, keeping himself in check and having reverence for himself, dares to allow himself the whole compass and wealth of naturalness, who is strong enough for this freedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness, but out of strength, because he knows how to employ to his advantage what would destroy an average nature; a man to whom nothing is forbidden, except it be weakness... A spirit thus emancipated stands in the midst of the universe with a joyful and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only what is separate and individual may be rejected, that in the totality everything is redeemed and affirmed—he no longer denies... But such a faith is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name Dionysos."

"One misunderstands great human beings if one views them from the paltry perspective of public utility."

I don't know enough about Goethe to know if Nietzsche's description is accurate.


What system of ethics is falsifiable? Do you mean his system as a whole is non-falsifiable, or do you mean that a claim of moral correctness for any given action cannot be falsified within his system? The latter I would agree with, but I don't think the former is possible.

I guess I mean the latter, out of those two choices I'm not sure. What I mean essentially is that one of the fundamental attributes of his system is that he encases it in a protective boundary whereby any attempts at critique from the perspective of another morality are rendered obsolete as 'slave morality'... i.e. any morality that is not his morality must therefor be inherited, thoughtless and ultimately worthless... such 'theoretical self-preservation' I find inherently troublesome.



I agree, but I think a criticism of an ethical system should be founded upon something a bit more independent of your own ethical system (e.g. by criticizing its coherence, relevance, "metaphysical" basis).

Yeah but that would require at least a lengthy essay, probably a book... I think we're allowed to critique things without lengthy addendums, although certainly fewer people will be swayed by 'our' criticisms.

[Melville]

An affirmation that leads to suicide... and an affirmation not of things 'necessarily' in existence but in a particular perception of existence that can easily be converted into something less painful and self-destructive... and in my opinion at no loss of self, identity or understanding.
The affirmation is the artist's, not the hero's, and Nietzsche would have no problem with promulgating a painful perception of existence (though he would obviously have something against a self-destructive perception). However, I agree with you that Young Werther goes pretty far towards glamorizing, not just affirming, the hero's despair.


I guess I mean the latter, out of those two choices I'm not sure. What I mean essentially is that one of the fundamental attributes of his system is that he encases it in a protective boundary whereby any attempts at critique from the perspective of another morality are rendered obsolete as 'slave morality'... i.e. any morality that is not his morality must therefor be inherited, thoughtless and ultimately worthless... such 'theoretical self-preservation' I find inherently troublesome.
I don't think I see how Nietzsche's philosophy is fundamentally different from any other in this respect. If he criticized your ethical system on moral grounds, you could just as easily say that his criticism is irrelevant because it is "master morality"—its basis of valuation is irrelevant to your system. That's why I don't think it's necessarily worthwhile to criticize another ethical system based only on ethical grounds. However, I guess it is rhetorically worthwhile in the sense that it might show others the contradiction between their value system and Nietzsche's (i.e. his system potentially leads to things that people would generally think are unethical).


Yeah but that would require at least a lengthy essay, probably a book... I think we're allowed to critique things without lengthy addendums, although certainly fewer people will be swayed by 'our' criticisms.
Well, if you write a book I'll read it. Or at least put it on my shelf and plan on reading it.

[Qrazy]

I don't think I see how Nietzsche's philosophy is fundamentally different from any other in this respect. If he criticized your ethical system on moral grounds, you could just as easily say that his criticism is irrelevant because it is "master morality"—its basis of valuation is irrelevant to your system. That's why I don't think it's necessarily worthwhile to criticize another ethical system based only on ethical grounds. However, I guess it is rhetorically worthwhile in the sense that it might show others the contradiction between their value system and Nietzsche's (i.e. his system potentially leads to things that people would generally think are unethical).

You're right that making ethical systems falsifiable is problematic if not impossible, but I still find there are degrees of critique-ability to different systems and I'm wary of those systems where a central element of their construction is self-preservation (Freud, Marx, Nietzsche and others). All these thinkers are very important, essential even (some of that may have to do with their self-preserving theoretical systems)... but they all have these theoretical built in safety nets... for Freud it's childhood, sex and the unconcious... if you question his framework the Freudian starts to question you... perhaps you have something in your subconscious you wish to hide? For Marx the Proletarian revolution was inevitable and therefore we ought to hasten it's arrival... question it and you're either bourgeouis or denying the inevitable... same thing with Nietzsche's master/slave morality. If you question 'master' morality it's because you're stuck in slave morality. It strikes me as an unfair position that one must tear down such systems from within when they have been built as theoretical bastions against critique.

On the other hand, other theoreticians such as Carl Rogers, Kelly or trait based theorists offer models (in this case psychological) where the model itself is not of primary importance... so critiques can be made and responded to but there is no immediate defense mechanism to the model whereby critiques are completely dismissed because the model is already accepted as necessary fact... I find my views somewhat line up with Karl Popper's in relation to these kinds of things (although he's certainly more strict than I am when it comes to falsifiability).

Utilitarianism, duty ethics, Kantian ethics, Aristotelean, Epicurean and Platonic ethics, etc... all of these I find keep themselves much more open to critique than Nietzsche's model... even analytic and existential moral philosophers will give more potent responses to critiques rather than a single handed dismissal (some not all of course). Nietzsche is an essential and integral philosopher but the slave/master morality dichotomy is frustratingly constructed... I find it almost as reprehensible as the transcendental morality which he's railing against... he's just replaced God with Power... and anyone who doesn't accept his all of his arguments is relegated to the status of having the wool pulled over their eyes.



Well, if you write a book I'll read it. Or at least put it on my shelf and plan on reading it.

Someday perhaps... I kind of have a compulsion to make films first though and before both... to study more so that when I finally make an artistic statement, I'll have something worthwhile to say.

[Wryan]

My answer is no.

[rocus]

"Where'd you get your information from? You think that you can front when Revelation comes?" - Beastie Boys (Gratitude)

I think we're done here.