The morality of God is power

[scorpiomover]

I grew up in a social context of the West and thus many of my values reflect such.

Then you haven't chosen your values yet. You haven't examined your values and decided which ones you value and which you don't, as you ascribe them to the culture you were raised in, and not yourself. As Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living."

Some I don't mind, others I mind very much so I have to work to change them.

There is a saying in my country: "Be careful of what you wish for." You may be able to change values you don't like. But some of those may have consequences that you would mind even more than the original values. So it's advisable to work out the consequences BEFORE you decide to go changing things.

Culture is basically implicit coercion. We live in a house of cards made of each other.

If you couldn't leave your culture, then there would be implicit coercion. But fortunately for you, you CAN leave your culture and go somewhere else. So you implicitly choose your culture, by choosing to remain where you are.

Yet we all live in the same world and we all must ask ourselves the same questions.

How many ask the important questions: what are the consequences of the changes I wish to see, and which system do they prefer?

I have to live in a world where I am not actually free, but instead going from distraction to distraction, dealing with incompetence's of other people, my own incompetence, ect.

In science & maths, we talk about "degrees of freedom". No human is completely un-free. No human is completely free. Only a being with omnipotent power has total freedom, and you can't be human and omnipotent. So really, your choice is between limited freedom and death. If choose to not choose death, then you accept that you'll have to live with some limits on your freedom.

You mean to say that the structure of the world is the way it is because it is the only thing humans could not destroy?

Humans can destroy the structure of the world. The Nazis destroyed a lot of the structure of the world. The point is, why would you want to destroy something? If it helps humanity, then I can see a point. But I don't want to destroy something that can help humanity, just because I can.

The way my throat evolved to me is convenient in most situations. When I eat, there is a non-zero chance, that a human being will have to help me dislodge a chunk of food from my throat, less I die of suffocation.

If you believe that G-d created humans, then that was by design, so humans would live together and thus help each other. If you believe that evolution created humans, then those humans that had that disadvantage ended up living with other humans, and so worked together and became much more successful, and so they had far more children, and so became the dominant form of humans. Either way, it worked to your advantage.

The appendix is a ticking time bomb that goes off in most people.

It's estimated that 250 million humans lived on the Earth for thousands of years. So why don't we hear any scientists or archaeologists claim they all died of burst appendixes?

Teeth require unreal amounts of care throughout your lifetime that only todays society affords you.

Actually, that's a fallacy. Scientists and archaeologists have discovered that the teeth of ancient people were so perfect, they didn't need dentistry at all. They even had "perfect bite". It's our modern lifestyle that has made our teeth decay and even made us need braces.

Evolution doesn't = right. To say that we evolved into this state isn't wrong, but to believe that the why and how would justify it is something that I personally am not interested in doing.

I wasn't suggesting that just because something is, that it always has to remain that way. If I did, then I'd have never learned anything that I didn't know when I was born, including the ability to read and write.

But not everything in the past was bad.

Some ideas we have now, are better than what we had in the past. Then why not change things for the better?

Some ideas we have now, are worse than what we had in the past. Then why change things for the worse?

It's not about having an advantage that people can copy, its about having an advantage that is harder to copy. Do you think that someone should be able to get away with murder if they are smart enough?

Is it going to make things better for everyone? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

If you don't know, then figure out if it will make things better for everyone or not.

We should not exploit these people's kindness, we should facilitate it and if possible make it unnecessary.

I agree. That is one of the things I think should be changed.

It just shows how many of our morals don't really server our interest, which if I recall is not really the point of morals. Rather they fail to do this.

That just means that you didn't think about what was moral, and don't understand what you're doing.

It strikes me that you are coming up with ideas, but not actually testing them. Then you don't really know if your ideas are going to make your life better or worse.

I suggest you play some sims. Better still, play some board games with friends, where you mix up the rules. Sometimes you play that you can't cheat. Sometimes you play that you can cheat. Same for any other moral rules you wish to examine. Watch what happens. You'll see by hard experience which rules make for a happy time for you and your friends, and which cause you to nearly lose all your friends and end up alone.

 

[Old Things]

Not saying that is what logic we should (ought) to operate under.

Then don't call it morality, yes in a state of anarchy the ability to do things is determined by power, that doesn't make it moral, that's just what power is.

Not saying that is necessary moral. Just that seems to be the rule of law imposed by "God".

No that's the absence of God, here let me summon a professional god-bother'er for a second opinion. @Old Things

In the absence of a god there is no inherent morality because God is the arbiter of morality, there's no good deeds, there's no evil because all evil goes unpunished, there is just power, the people who have it and the people who don't. With that being the case why does God matter, your God may be all powerful but if its not going to use that power to arbitrate morality then how is God different to every other asshole with power over others?

God supposedly intervenes after death, in life we have free will and in death we are judged for what we decided to do with that freedom because obviously if we lived in D&D world where gods actually intervene in mortal affairs why wouldn't you be the most rabid god-bother'er you can be? Because that means you get kickass cleric spells. But it doesn't mean you're actually a good person, you're just self-interested and reacting to circumstances that reward you for being good, its only in the absence of God that said god can see who you are in the dark.

Now personally I'm an atheist, my moral arbitration comes from my conscience and my understanding of moral philosophy and my guiding principle is that in general being a good person benefits me, not because I live in a D&D world with interventionist gods, just as a matter of practicality.

The problem is what do you ground morality in? If it is just yourself, then you can be a complete jerk and in the long run, it doesn't matter one iota. We all die. From a naturalistic perspective, it doesn't matter what we do for that reason. The only thing you are left with is Jordan Peterson's perspective of just being pragmatic about everything and basically just listening to what your genes are telling you to have a monogamous relationship, get married have kids, live a decent life, etc. But that doesn't really work because then people will do just as much evil as they can get away with. Pragmatism does not in fact lead to moral ethical lives because either you become nihilistic and say "who cares?" or you deal with the pragmatic reasons to live ethically because you want an easy life and the only way to do that is to follow the rules. Jordan Peterson would say to live a meaningful life, but this too has its flaws (from his perspective). He says you should tell the truth and do that in all situations. He qualifies this by saying the criteria are what is good for you, your family, the world and what is good for the short term, the long term, and forever. But the problem is that if you do this, you are going to sacrifice for the sake of meaning. Why would you do that? I have my suspicions that JP only says that because it makes you important for the now, later, and forever. So you sacrifice so you can be important for as far as you can see in the future. But that is just vanity because if you don't live forever you will never see your full impact on the world. There must be redemption for your sacrifice and there is none of that for Jordan Peterson. So he is not so much a moral guru but a guru based on being as important as you can be. It's devoid of true altruism. After all, what good is Christ's death on the cross if there's nothing to make up for the loss? That's why we need the Resurrection which is something Jordan Peterson doesn't really believe in. All the resurrection is to Jordan Peterson is a useful myth, or worse that Christ was able to be resurrected based on some attainment of self-improvement rather than what it states plainly in the Bible - that Christ was God and he could lay down his life at will and raise it up at will.

But this doesn't really tackle @Cognisant's reason for morality, though worse than JP's as a separate reason.

Cog thinks you should listen to your own conscience and the experts on why you should live morally. But that's a problem since at some point it is very likely your own conscience will conflict with what the experts say. Someone has to be right in that case and there's no telling who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So you are left deferring to your own judgment. The problem then comes in where did your own personal morality come from? It had to come from somewhere. You could say it came from you, but it's more likely you just picked different morality standards you came across and assembled them like a salad bar of morality. In other words, there is no objective morality in Cog's PoV. It's all just based on opinion which is circumspect for obvious reasons like how do you know you are right, for example. No, there has to be some kind of authority to base morality otherwise everything is subjective and relativistic. That's where the "Live your truth" monicker comes in and says, "Yes, morality is subjective and there is nothing wrong with that." Are you seeing the problem yet? Even with this, different people's perspectives are going to conflict. Ah, but what about, "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone"? Well, that's an ethic that maybe not everyone agrees with, or to what extent should we apply this? What if there is a war and you are drafted into the military and you are expected to not only hurt people but actually kill them? Do you just go up to your enemies and say, "Live your truth, man." I'm sure you can see how that is ridiculous.

But from whence does morality come? In naturalism, there's nothing to say that we can actually have morality let alone get everyone on the same page. But Cog says he has a conscience, right? That's got to count for something. Indeed it does, but that's exactly what the Bible says as well when it says,

Romans 2:15–16 ESV
“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

So maybe you want to say your conscience is based on DNA or something like that. But in evolution, there's no reason to say your conscience is really anything significant let alone true. Why? Because in evolution, truth is not really something we are built for. We are built for survival, not finding truth. So that's the problem with morality based on DNA is that there's nothing that says it's based on morality at all. Why not pillage villages and steal all the villager's belongings if it helps you survive?

No, only if God exists does morality exist because our morality, if it exists, has to come from somewhere. So I invite you to read the red letters of the Bible (the words Jesus spoke) and see if that seems like any kind of objective standard to you. I can't convince anyone to believe what I believe but I think Jesus sets the best standard of morality you are going to find in this life. If that is worth pursuing, then it might as well be what we based objective morality around.

Over and out.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Culture is basically implicit coercion. We live in a house of cards made of each other.

If you couldn't leave your culture, then there would be implicit coercion. But fortunately for you, you CAN leave your culture and go somewhere else. So you implicitly choose your culture, by choosing to remain where you are.

We have already established the idea of fairness. That privilege is not available to everyone.

Simply because it is possible for something to happen in one instance, does not mean that we can ignore all the instances where that thing CANNOT happen.

I have to live in a world where I am not actually free, but instead going from distraction to distraction, dealing with incompetence's of other people, my own incompetence, ect.

In science & maths, we talk about "degrees of freedom". No human is completely un-free. No human is completely free. Only a being with omnipotent power has total freedom, and you can't be human and omnipotent. So really, your choice is between limited freedom and death. If choose to not choose death, then you accept that you'll have to live with some limits on your freedom.

Right. Except the fundamental issue being that while I have limits to my freedom, hypothetically, there is little stopping me from being as evil as I can get away with.

Zen seems to resolve this by saying that we are mammals that have some preconfigured disposition towards what we will ultimately be anyways. However you, as many would say believe we to some degree have choice in our values.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain - Harvey Dent | Dark Knight 2008

Mid-life crisis are a common thing. People often say that they have become a monster throughout their lives. People (think they) choose the wrong values all the time is what I mean to say here.

You mean to say that the structure of the world is the way it is because it is the only thing humans could not destroy?

Humans can destroy the structure of the world. The Nazis destroyed a lot of the structure of the world. The point is, why would you want to destroy something? If it helps humanity, then I can see a point. But I don't want to destroy something that can help humanity, just because I can.

You know who else wanted to change the status quo? NAZIS!! [insert basic sensical thinking] - scorpiomover | INTPf thread 2023

Why would you muddy the water with such a lazy deflection?

I'm not saying that EVERYTHING good and bad needs to be changed all at once. There is very clearly a lot of bad that is going on. Read "On Human Intervention" thread to see. I'm pretty sure you would have a hard time disagreeing with what is said there. Reading that you can't possibly assume that I mean something as radical as breaking things that are good.

BUT EVEN THEN: What if we had to? What if this was the path towards something actually better? You can give your moral justifications for why not. But they mean nothing, you can't even tell me if smarter people should be allowed to get away with crimes or not, as you neglected to answer that part of my inquiry.

Some I don't mind, others I mind very much so I have to work to change them.

There is a saying in my country: "Be careful of what you wish for." You may be able to change values you don't like. But some of those may have consequences that you would mind even more than the original values. So it's advisable to work out the consequences BEFORE you decide to go changing things.

Preciously why conversations like this are worth having.

The way my throat evolved to me is convenient in most situations. When I eat, there is a non-zero chance, that a human being will have to help me dislodge a chunk of food from my throat, less I die of suffocation.

If you believe that G-d created humans, then that was by design, so humans would live together and thus help each other. If you believe that evolution created humans, then those humans that had that disadvantage ended up living with other humans, and so worked together and became much more successful, and so they had far more children, and so became the dominant form of humans. Either way, it worked to your advantage.

The appendix is a ticking time bomb that goes off in most people.

It's estimated that 250 million humans lived on the Earth for thousands of years. So why don't we hear any scientists or archaeologists claim they all died of burst appendixes?

I can tell you that the first appendectomy happened in 1735.

I mean, it seems like before then such a case would be a death sentence no? For someone who seems to worship the current affairs, you seem to neglect how much luxury it has afforded to you, however meager that may be.

Teeth require unreal amounts of care throughout your lifetime that only todays society affords you.

Actually, that's a fallacy. Scientists and archaeologists have discovered that the teeth of ancient people were so perfect, they didn't need dentistry at all. They even had "perfect bite". It's our modern lifestyle that has made our teeth decay and even made us need braces.

I guess my whole argument is null then.

Evolution doesn't = right. To say that we evolved into this state isn't wrong, but to believe that the why and how would justify it is something that I personally am not interested in doing.

I wasn't suggesting that just because something is, that it always has to remain that way. If I did, then I'd have never learned anything that I didn't know when I was born, including the ability to read and write.

But not everything in the past was bad.

Some ideas we have now, are better than what we had in the past. Then why not change things for the better?

Some ideas we have now, are worse than what we had in the past. Then why change things for the worse?

Precisely why conversations like these are important.

It's not about having an advantage that people can copy, its about having an advantage that is harder to copy. Do you think that someone should be able to get away with murder if they are smart enough?

Is it going to make things better for everyone? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

If you don't know, then figure out if it will make things better for everyone or not.

We should not exploit these people's kindness, we should facilitate it and if possible make it unnecessary.

I agree. That is one of the things I think should be changed.

It just shows how many of our morals don't really server our interest, which if I recall is not really the point of morals. Rather they fail to do this.

That just means that you didn't think about what was moral, and don't understand what you're doing.

It strikes me that you are coming up with ideas, but not actually testing them. Then you don't really know if your ideas are going to make your life better or worse.

I suggest you play some sims. Better still, play some board games with friends, where you mix up the rules. Sometimes you play that you can't cheat. Sometimes you play that you can cheat. Same for any other moral rules you wish to examine. Watch what happens. You'll see by hard experience which rules make for a happy time for you and your friends, and which cause you to nearly lose all your friends and end up alone.

We both know that is not how things go down.

To some extent slow change is good, but in the case of something like climate change, Governments, corporate interests, and higher class desperately want us to think that they aren't issue to begin with, because otherwise that will motivate change because it exposes the kinks in the failure of the system itself.

Change is scary. Right now change pretty much exclusively goes to the favor of monetary interest. The system itself & what facilitates the systems to run. We should be asking how we can change these things. That is my ultimate take away from this.

People who just shoot things down don't help unless they offer something back up. Or am I wrong about that?

 

[Old Things]

What if this was the path towards something actually better?

That's literally what Hitler was all about.

 

[Old Things]

but in the case of something like climate change, Governments, corporate interests, and higher class desperately want us to think that they aren't issue to begin with, because otherwise that will motivate change because it exposes the kinks in the failure of the system itself.

Funny, that's the opposite of what I think is happening. Politicians use this as an excuse for all sorts of things. Not to mention that the CO2 that humans produce is only about 3% of the total. So I think something like climate change is just a huge money/power grab like Covid was.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What if this was the path towards something actually better?

That's literally what Hitler was all about.

Whas it "literally" what Hitler was about, or are you just using your language to deliver a point with terrible implications.

I think that was literally what Hitler was about.

The question is who will it be better for? Ideally everyone. Certainly not the third Reich. Yikes

 

[Old Things]

What if this was the path towards something actually better?

That's literally what Hitler was all about.

Whas it "literally" what Hitler was about, or are you just using your language to deliver a point with terrible implications.

I think that was literally what Hitler was about.

The question is who will it be better for? Ideally everyone. Certainly not the third Reich. Yikes

You don't see the problem? "Sacrifices must be made [for the common good]." How are you going to say anything is best for everyone? Give me one single example of that.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What if this was the path towards something actually better?

That's literally what Hitler was all about.

Whas it "literally" what Hitler was about, or are you just using your language to deliver a point with terrible implications.

I think that was literally what Hitler was about.

The question is who will it be better for? Ideally everyone. Certainly not the third Reich. Yikes

You don't see the problem? "Sacrifices must be made [for the common good]." How are you going to say anything is best for everyone? Give me one single example of that.

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone? Or are you just going to appeal to the current status quo as proof that people can tolerate the abuse that the current system does?

I don't think you can have one without the other.

 

[Old Things]

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone?

Where? Literally, where in the world?

Hitler wanted to create an Arian race that would lead to better genetics for everyone (years down the road). That's why he killed the Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone?

Where? Literally, where in the world?

Hitler wanted to create an Arian race that would lead to better genetics for everyone (years down the road). That's why he killed the Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc.

Where literally where did I state some* sort of race centered hierarchy? Youre turning this into a shit show. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[Old Things]

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone?

Where? Literally, where in the world?

Hitler wanted to create an Arian race that would lead to better genetics for everyone (years down the road). That's why he killed the Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc.

Where literally where did I state done sort of race centered hierarchy? Youre turning this into a shit show. It was fun while it lasted.

I asked you for one example of what is good for everyone. Can you provide an example of that? I don't know if you are talking about the West, the US, Europe, Africa, China etc. That's kinda important since different nations have different cultures which mean there are different priorities for things. Somalians are very blunt, for example. But is it best for EVERYONE that people are so blunt/rash?

 

[ZenRaiden]

In order to 'become who we are',
then, we must be honest with ourselves not merely as pieces of nature,
as animals in an undesigned world, but as pieces of 'second nature', as
animals whose character and circumstances are significantly constituted
by culture.
There are many ways in which we can misunderstand ourselves. We
can, as it were, be factually wrong about some matter concerning nature or
second nature. Or we can adopt, perhaps unconsciously, a perspective on
such matters that systematically occludes or distorts them. Nietzsche
is particularly interested in misunderstandings of this latter kind - in
habits of thought that have the effect of making whole dimensions of
ourselves and of our worldly circumstances obscure to us. The most
famous example, of course, is the perspective that Nietzsche diagnoses
under the label 'morality' . But that is a diagnosis that advances along
several fronts: here, I will focus on just one of these, and attempt
to indicate how Nietzsche understands the relation - obscured, he
holds, by 'morality' - between our becoming our own 'creators' and
our being the 'discoverers of everything lawful and necessary in the
world' .
Two well-known passages from The Gay Science are helpful here. In
one, Nietzsche speaks of the 'great and rare art' of giving "'style" to one's
character' :
It is practised by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses
of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan . . .H ere a large
mass of second nature has been added; there a piece of original nature
has been removed - both times through long practice and daily work
at it. Here the ugly that could not be removed is concealed; there it
has been reinterpreted and made sublime. (GS 290)
Four points are worth making about this passage. First, what Nietzsche
is here describing is a form of self-creation, that is, a version of becoming
who you are; second, this form of self-creation depends upon selfunderstanding,
upon surveying one's nature and identifying the strengths
and weaknesses in it; third, weaknesses or uglinesses are sometimes removable;
and fourth, irremovable uglinesses are to be concealed if they cannot
be 'reinterpreted' and transformed. The first two points connect this
passage directly to our discussion so far: becoming who you are depends

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone?

Where? Literally, where in the world?

Hitler wanted to create an Arian race that would lead to better genetics for everyone (years down the road). That's why he killed the Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc.

Where literally where did I state done sort of race centered hierarchy? Youre turning this into a shit show. It was fun while it lasted.

I asked you for one example of what is good for everyone. Can you provide an example of that? I don't know if you are talking about the West, the US, Europe, Africa, China etc. That's kinda important since different nations have different cultures which mean there are different priorities for things. Somalians are very blunt, for example. But is it best for EVERYONE that people are so blunt/rash?

I don't have to provide an example to prove the system needs to be changed. You are asking that of me, when I'm saying the government is bad (possibly intentionally) at remedies of these issues.

I already proved that it needs fixing, everyone could just look around and see the inadequacies of the system.

People are dissatisfied when the government does something like close the whole nation down due to a pandemic, but that's the way things have been for literally decades. This was always what we were going to do and people act shocked when we did it.

Anytime someone does come with a solution they compare them to Hitler and a conversation can't take place because people start appealing to rhetoric instead of reason. Case and point this conversation.

 

[Old Things]

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone?

Where? Literally, where in the world?

Hitler wanted to create an Arian race that would lead to better genetics for everyone (years down the road). That's why he killed the Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc.

Where literally where did I state done sort of race centered hierarchy? Youre turning this into a shit show. It was fun while it lasted.

I asked you for one example of what is good for everyone. Can you provide an example of that? I don't know if you are talking about the West, the US, Europe, Africa, China etc. That's kinda important since different nations have different cultures which mean there are different priorities for things. Somalians are very blunt, for example. But is it best for EVERYONE that people are so blunt/rash?

I don't have to provide an example to prove the system needs to be changed. You are asking that of me, when I'm saying the government is bad (possibly intentionally) at remedies of these issues.

I already proved that it needs fixing, everyone could just look around and see the inadequacies of the system.

People are dissatisfied when the government does something like close the whole nation down due to a pandemic, but that's the way things have been for literally decades. This was always what we were going to do and people act shocked when we did it.

Anytime someone does come with a solution they compare them to Hitler and a conversation can't take place because people start appealing to rhetoric instead of reason. Case and point this conversation.

You are very naive. Things have been this way since the beginning of human society. In Christianity, we call that Original Sin. We live in a fallen world and things are NOT getting "better."

 

[ZenRaiden]

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In that case how is the current situation right now best for everyone?

Where? Literally, where in the world?

Hitler wanted to create an Arian race that would lead to better genetics for everyone (years down the road). That's why he killed the Jews, blacks, the disabled, etc.

Where literally where did I state done sort of race centered hierarchy? Youre turning this into a shit show. It was fun while it lasted.

I asked you for one example of what is good for everyone. Can you provide an example of that? I don't know if you are talking about the West, the US, Europe, Africa, China etc. That's kinda important since different nations have different cultures which mean there are different priorities for things. Somalians are very blunt, for example. But is it best for EVERYONE that people are so blunt/rash?

I don't have to provide an example to prove the system needs to be changed. You are asking that of me, when I'm saying the government is bad (possibly intentionally) at remedies of these issues.

I already proved that it needs fixing, everyone could just look around and see the inadequacies of the system.

People are dissatisfied when the government does something like close the whole nation down due to a pandemic, but that's the way things have been for literally decades. This was always what we were going to do and people act shocked when we did it.

Anytime someone does come with a solution they compare them to Hitler and a conversation can't take place because people start appealing to rhetoric instead of reason. Case and point this conversation.

You are very naive. Things have been this way since the beginning of human society. In Christianity, we call that Original Sin. We live in a fallen world and things are NOT getting "better."

Lmao, the morality of God is literally whoever has control over physical reality controls all power. I don't know how I could get more pessimistic than this.

But yes, I suppose things could be worse. That is not a valid admission that they shouldn't be better.

 

[Old Things]

Lmao, the morality of God is literally whoever has control over physical reality controls all power. I don't know how I could get more pessimistic than this.

But yes, I suppose things could be worse. That is not a valid admission that they shouldn't be better.

How do you know what the morality of God is when:
1) You don't even believe in God and
2) You are NOT God.

How do you suppose we make things better? What is your "answer" to it all?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Lmao, the morality of God is literally whoever has control over physical reality controls all power. I don't know how I could get more pessimistic than this.

But yes, I suppose things could be worse. That is not a valid admission that they shouldn't be better.

How do you know what the morality of God is when:
1) You don't even believe in God and
2) You are NOT God.

How do you suppose we make things better? What is your "answer" to it all?

Just stop. If your mental state right now can only look at things in terms of minimum or maximum there's really no point in the clogging up this thread with things that have already been discussed.

Why else have this discussion if it weren't for the fact that we are nothing but the gods play things. - Shakespeare or something.

You just admitted you believe it is futile, unless God wills it. I'm saying that God already created the system which we live in the very fabric of everything and if his creation was so perfect why would he tweak things in the middle of it?

So if God is just testing us then why should we just accept what culture and society has built up and not change things "for the better".

Whatever that means it is up to us to find out. You are the one who believes to know more about what God wills than I do if you ask me

 

[scorpiomover]

We have already established the idea of fairness.

What is fair, seems to be argued about a lot. So it seems to be still in dispute.

That privilege is not available to everyone.

I gather that left-wing people think it's a right, by the way they go on about social justice.

Simply because it is possible for something to happen in one instance, does not mean that we can ignore all the instances where that thing CANNOT happen.

We were talking about your freedom to live in the type of society you want. That freedom doesn't extend to "staying where you are", or then it would extend to you and everyone who has the opposite value to you, simultaneously, and then societies would have to have mutually exclusive values simultaneously, which would be impossible, because they're mutually exclusive by definition.

You demanding that where you live has to dance to your tune would thus become a dictatorship which is unfair to everyone other than you, which would be grossly unfair.

Right. Except the fundamental issue being that while I have limits to my freedom, hypothetically, there is little stopping me from being as evil as I can get away with.

You CAN. But then eventually people get fed up and decide that the situation needs enforcing, and so they vote for a right-wing fascist to stop you, and then he decides to kill everyone like you. So I wouldn't recommend it.

Zen seems to resolve this by saying that we are mammals that have some preconfigured disposition towards what we will ultimately be anyways. However you, as many would say believe we to some degree have choice in our values.

Who is "Zen"? You mean "Zen Buddhism"? Zen Buddhism just preaches you should learn to accept that where you are, is where you are meant to be, that you should be the reed that floats along the stream. So if you were born into a country with the values of your country, those are the values you should live by, and if you don't agree with those values, you should change your values.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain - Harvey Dent | Dark Knight 2008

I don't always agree with the values of writers. Some of them have some really nasty opinions.

Mid-life crisis are a common thing.

It often takes people several decades to see what happens to different people with different values, and to realise that some of their values had negative consequences.

People often say that they have become a monster throughout their lives.

Only those that got to do what they wanted, and then discovered that what they wanted to do, caused them to do monstrous things to other people that they later on regretted. But once someone has ordered 6,000 women and children to be gang-raped and decapitated, they can't un-rape those women and they can't just put those childrens' heads back on their heads and bring them back to life. Not everything has an "undo" function.

Why would you muddy the water with such a lazy deflection?

To make you realise that many people have thought as you did, and ended up getting away with it, and then later on realised that they did monstrous things.

I'd rather you don't become one of those people.

I'm not saying that EVERYTHING good and bad needs to be changed all at once. There is very clearly a lot of bad that is going on. Read "On Human Intervention" thread to see. I'm pretty sure you would have a hard time disagreeing with what is said there. Reading that you can't possibly assume that I mean something as radical as breaking things that are good.

Breeding too many cobras to make a few extra bucks, is probably 0.000001 on my list of bug-bears. The massive sex trafficking of women and children that goes on every year, on an international scale, is of much greater concern to me.

Point is, I've come across lots of people who wanted to change society "for the better", which ended up implying something like bringing back slavery, banning women from any job where they had any level of power, killing the homeless, implementing ethnic cleansing, allowing paedophiles to have sex with any children they wanted, and much more stuff of that nature.

Also from what I understand, practically every mass-murdering dictator claimed to be making the world a better place. So when any of these people actually do get to implement their plans, humanity is usually the loser.

BUT EVEN THEN: What if we had to? What if this was the path towards something actually better?

Then we should be able to come up with a coherent argument that can be examined from every angle.

You can give your moral justifications for why not. But they mean nothing, you can't even tell me if smarter people should be allowed to get away with crimes or not, as you neglected to answer that part of my inquiry.

Well, I already know the answer. Why do we want to live around others in the first place? Because 2 people working together accomplish far more than twice 1 person working alone, and the same principle generally increases with more people. That's why single people formed villages, why villages formed into small kingdoms, like the Kingdom of Wessex, why small kingdoms united into countries like England, and why states became unions like the USA. Thus, each person has value to the group, and also to the individuals of the group by the same principle.

So any smart person would not want to kill people, because that would lessen the per-capita benefits to each member, including himself.

The same goes for any other morals, because if they weren't pro-social rules that generate a per-capita benefit for each member, we wouldn't call them morals

I can tell you that the first appendectomy happened in 1735. I mean, it seems like before then such a case would be a death sentence no?

Rabbits and apes also have an appendix. Why aren't they all dead from a burst appendix? The main difference between modern humans post-1700 and humans pre-1700, apes and humans, that might be affected by a part of the digestive system, is that modern humans eat a tremenous amount of food that has had all sorts of noxious chemicals added to their food, in order to make it taste good, or keep it for longer, that was bound to do serious damage to the body. So I would say that lots of people with a burst appendix, is "a canary in a coal mine" for a human civilisation. You listen, or you'll get lots of people getting cancers of the digestive system, and lots of people developing diabetes. Then your healthcare costs will probably spiral out of control, and your healthcare systems will probably be overwhelmed. Wait. Is that also happening?

For someone who seems to worship the current affairs, you seem to neglect how much luxury it has afforded to you, however meager that may be.

I have had to adopt many things that used to be the norm in the past, but haven't been in the modern age, or I'd have been dead or gone postal long ago. But as science was way behind considering my issues, I had to do my own research 30 years ago.

We both know that is not how things go down.

Mainly because most adults would rather not play educational games, in case they might learn something that forces them to change their lifestyle, like not drinking and driving.

To some extent slow change is good, but in the case of something like climate change, Governments, corporate interests, and higher class desperately want us to think that they aren't issue to begin with, because otherwise that will motivate change because it exposes the kinks in the failure of the system itself.

I was talking to someone about climate change, and pointed out something, that made the other person agree that most Western people knew about human-caused climate change over 150 years ago. I think that's more than long enough to say that combating climate change has been incredibly slow.

I cannot blame that on governments, or corporations, or even the upper classes. The class system was dismantled. Most current major corporations didn't even exist back then. Even governments are totally different.

The problem with climate change is very simple: most people like cars. But not cars that keep their exhaust gases. Most people like takeout. But they want someone else to get rid of their garbage. Modernity and progressiveness is about focussing on the present and the future.

Cleaning up your garbage is about dealing with the sh&t that you caused by the modern things and progressive changes you made 5 to 20 years ago. Cleaning that up, means admitting that your new ideas had seriously unpleasant side-effects, and you were probably better off sticking with the life your parents had.

But then you couldn't be the Big I Am, and proving how much better you are than your parents and the Boomers by coming up with great new ideas. So you avoid facing up to the sh&t you create, by sending it into the atmosphere or landfill, where no-one you know might see it.

You want to get rid of climate change? Then make everyone responsible for cleaning up their sh&t, no matter how much later it is. But that will upset scientists because they'll have to clean up the sh&t caused by their theories that turned out to be wrong. That will upset politicians who will have to clean up the problems caused by their policies 20 years ago. But you'll get a clean society, because no-one will want to do anything that will cause them to have to get out a shovel and clean sh&t 20 years later.

Change is scary. Right now change pretty much exclusively goes to the favor of monetary interest. The system itself & what facilitates the systems to run.

It's not the system. Until the late 80s & early 90s, the left-wing was known as a waste of time. They would double public services, by raising taxes, which would tank the economy, which would screw up the jobs of the poor, which meant they needed 10 times the amount of public services, and so even the poor were worse off.

The main benefit of the left-wing was that the right-wing boosted the economy, which made things better for everyone for a while, until they got too greedy, and then were turning into Mr Burns (from The Simpsons). Then you needed to replace them with their opposite for a while, to stop them from turning into a modern-day Caligula. Once the right-wing lost their arrogance, then they could take the helm again.

But the left-wing politicians wanted power, money and fame. So then the left-wing got into bed with Wall Street. So they got unlimited funding, and Wall Street got to appear like they were moral. Now, when the left-wing were doing something, it was something Wall Street wanted, which meant more profits, a better economy, and thus more jobs & more money for everyone.

But it was a Ponzi Scheme. The right-wing were infiltrating the left-wing, so they would always be in power, no matter which party was in charge. So they went full on Mr Burns. They're even charging people for the use of sunlight now like Mr Burns did when he blotted out the sun and put street lamps everywhere, because even though we're going full solar, it's mainly the utility companies that are getting their energy from solar, and from recent reports, they're charging consumers at the highest rate of energy, such as the cost of burning coal or petroleum.

Black people still get shot. Women still get raped in large numbers. LGBT still get persecuted. But the modern left wing do not stop that. They simply offer them more handouts, and jobs that pay better, i.e. more money, the language of the right wing. So the minorities keep voting for the left wing, because they're "better off", only they're only better off in the ways that only the right wing value, which makes the modern left wing trying to solve left wing problems with right wing methods.

Meanwhile, the right wing deliberately do almost nothing while they are in power, and refuse to address accusations by the left wing, in order to blame the right wing for the problems that the left wing are supposed to address. That way, the system is kept in place, all the while turning things more and more right wing, which helps the capitalists.

Hence, the left wing has the majority of the voters voting for them, while economic inequality is spiralling, when too much economic inequality is what happens when the right wing stay in power for too long.

So it's just an ourobouros, a snake chasing its own tail.

We should be asking how we can change these things. That is my ultimate take away from this.

Yes, we should.

But then we'll all have to admit that we've all become party to the right-wing bribes of the left wing. So then the left wing will have to admit that they were bribed to become servants of the right wing, and so will the minorities that vote for them. Even the right wing will have to admit that they do nothing in order to deflect from the truth.

There's an easy solution: everything in moderation. The right wing have something good to offer, as long as it's kept in moderation. Too much left wing is harmful. Too much right wing is harmful. Too much patriarchy is harmful. Too much feminism is harmful. And so on.

People who just shoot things down don't help unless they offer something back up. Or am I wrong about that?

Jung pointed out that "the question is the answer". When the answers are simple to figure out when you make the right observation, all you need is the right criticism, and the answer is staring you in the face.

It's when the criticism makes things even less clear than before and makes it harder to see any answers, that criticism isn't helpful.

 

[Old Things]

Lmao, the morality of God is literally whoever has control over physical reality controls all power. I don't know how I could get more pessimistic than this.

But yes, I suppose things could be worse. That is not a valid admission that they shouldn't be better.

How do you know what the morality of God is when:
1) You don't even believe in God and
2) You are NOT God.

How do you suppose we make things better? What is your "answer" to it all?

Just stop. If your mental state right now can only look at things in terms of minimum or maximum there's really no point in the clogging up this thread with things that have already been discussed.

Why else have this discussion if it weren't for the fact that we are nothing but the gods play things. - Shakespeare or something.

You just admitted you believe it is futile, unless God wills it. I'm saying that God already created the system which we live in the very fabric of everything and if his creation was so perfect why would he tweak things in the middle of it?

So if God is just testing us then why should we just accept what culture and society has built up and not change things "for the better".

Whatever that means it is up to us to find out. You are the one who believes to know more about what God wills than I do if you ask me

All you are saying is that we should not worship God because God is evil. You are not saying that you do not believe in God even though that is the motivation for what you are saying.

If it is "Theism" that you are attacking, that is one thing. But I don't see you saying the same thing about Christianity. So tell me what is so bad about God sending his Son to die for us? Otherwise, you are arguing against Theism which is not the same argument as arguing against Christianity. Getting so stuck on Theism is short-sighted. If you want to argue against Islam or Judaism, then I'm not going to have much to say. Not because I am against those religions but because I don't hold an identical worldview as them and some things are quite different.

And there are plenty of arguments against the evil nature of God in Christianity. Read "God, Freedom, and Evil" by Alvin Plantinga, for example. And that would satisfy your grief against Theism since it isn't arguing for Christianity explicitly.

And I'm not saying it is hopeless. Far from it. People are still going to be people regardless, but that's not the end of the story. The real story is how you can be forgiven. No one is perfect. So what is your solution to that? Unless you think moral perfection is possible, then you're going to have to deal with the fact you are not morally perfect. Otherwise, you are left with subjective morality, which I already addressed (which you can address if you want).

As far as what God wills, that does not say we are not free. Sometimes God gives us the freedom to do as we will. It says in the Bible that God never temps anyone. He tests those he has called, but that is to draw us closer to Him.

You have not demonstrated that you know what the motives of God are.

1 Corinthians 2:11 ESV
“For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Getting increasingly difficult to not be rude to you guys, especially since I got the "puzzle pieces" I was looking for. I just don't see how your lines of thought are going anywhere interesting. The point of developing a rational philosophy is so that it can get to the questions we want to ask and from there science takes the wheel. I am consistently being characterized negatively because it seems people have a vendetta over what they THINK I mean.

I swear every boomer mentality person I have spoken to has the temperament of a child when it comes to things the believe.

There is INQUIRY. Then there is PRESCRIPTIVISM. If you feel threatened regarding your belief because someone starts poking around with questions, then perhaps you should consider taking on different beliefs.

Same with the economic system. If it would completely fall a part when someone changes a couple dials, perhaps then, the system needs to change.

There is an incentive structure that keeps it from faltering, and it's a fairly apt analysis that if that monetary system wasn't in effect, IE constantly monitored, things would be way worse.

If you want to make this about specific political instances, or try to draw from real scenarios, then at least do in regards to what I'm actually suggesting/inquiring into.

@scorpiomover Yes, you seem to have views that are unconventional on the conservative side. Applause. You still seem to believe that the individual is at fault and responsible. I agree to some degree. The individual could do more in 80% of circumstances. Why would they though when the game is this fucking rigged though is what I'm saying.

Because they have integrity? I wouldn't blame someone who was struggling daily if they spit in your face when you suggest that. Sure, in 30 years time they will maybe realize they lived an emptier life (perhaps not) due to the indifference the treated with the world- but the world planted that indifference there.

You may picture someone you know who randomly throws a piece of trash on the ground when they could've easily found a bin to dispose of it. Have you ever bothered to ask such a person why they did that and tried to find out, really why?

People used to have at least communities they could be loyal to, but that seems to be dying out, and it is because cynicism is wining (imo).

@Old Things You were tagged earlier in the discussion and just now entered assuming I have been talking about theism. In a sense I have, but I haven't been making any spiritual implications. You do bring a good point about us not knowing the intent of God. I don't know. People often say life is a test. Perhaps God is just giving us the worst case scenario of existence to test our wills and merits. That has not been my prerogative.

Side note: I wonder if you have a problem with depicting the prophet of Islam, to see if your just as touchy as they are when someone coopts representations they see they have ownership of. You're flat out trying to control my language and seem to be appealing to identity politics.

 

[Black Rose]

Zeitgeist.

People are aware of the problems they are exposed to. They have ideas of what the solutions are for them. In the system, they work together and discuss what to do. People are working in their personal lives on what they can do and on what they can contribute to those solutions. Sometimes the problems become too abstract for them to comprehend. That is why they work will concrete actions in their immediate environment. What needs to be done is prioritization, what is first and most important, and the order of importance. Once completed new priorities emerge. In engineering, The critical failure points are located first. they are then isolated and the gaps are plugged. The system should be designed so that no point of failure is critical. Everything should support everything else so no one thing or a few such things can take out everything else. A system should be designed from the top down and communications should be bottom up.

G-d in this view would be the highest perspective of a network's self-repair.

The monad of monads. The network protocol of networks.

A Network Theology of intervention.

 

[Old Things]

Side note: I wonder if you have a problem with depicting the prophet of Islam, to see if your just as touchy as they are when someone coopts representations they see they have ownership of. You're flat out trying to control my language and seem to be appealing to identity politics.

Don't know if this was addressed to me or not, but I will answer.

Not sure what gave you the impressing I was playing identity politics. That's a term that is generally used to describe the Left, but I'm more just right of center. But it's possible this term has changed meanings because that seems to be happening a lot in the last few years. I'm generally against changing the definitions of words unless there is a very good reason to. For example, the word "arrogant" used to mean something like proud or haughty in a negative sense. It now means something more like ignorant of all sides of the arguments and such. I'm not trying to control your language, but there are differences between different religions and that should be obvious. So it's not identity politics at all. It has more to do with the nuance of argumentation than anything. Not trying to "control" you. I'm trying to get you to see those arguments against "Theism" may or may not work on different religions or even within one religion. You have to remember you are speaking to an individual and no two individuals are identical. Else, it just sounds like you are gaslighting me.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Not sure what gave you the impressing I was playing identity politics. That's a term that is generally used to describe the Left, but I'm more just right of center.

Dave Chappelle just won a Grammy award for his most recent stand-up special.

The right loves when people use identity politics when it's for things they are inclined to support. If it's not something they support, they always go straight for the jugular and try to categorically condemn the identity and then say the left is the only one that does it.

I'm not trying to control your language, but there are differences between different religions and that should be obvious. So it's not identity politics at all. It has more to do with the nuance of argumentation than anything. Not trying to "control" you. I'm trying to get you to see those arguments against "Theism" may or may not work on different religions or even within one religion. You have to remember you are speaking to an individual and no two individuals are identical. Else, it just sounds like you are gaslighting me.

My argument for "theism" is essentially that we cannot escape purpose. It pretty much ends there.

The argument against theism * that leaves us no where.

If I were to posit Gods, I like the Platonic Forms idea. Thus these concepts being more real than our reality, emerge in our reality and within us.

I'm more likely to follow a religion with large pantheon such as ancient Greek mythology, as at the very least they tried to derive knowledge from representations.

Zues, being the ego, Aries being our aggression, Gaia being the Earth such and such.

This unifying supreme being would be the universe itself for me. Very different from what you are getting at. My interpretation says that we are all a part of God in a way.

 

[scorpiomover]

The individual could do more in 80% of circumstances. Why would they though when the game is this fucking rigged though is what I'm saying.

1) If they thought they were a moron, I would not expect them to.

2) If they thought that they were intelligent, then they should at least realise that the point of not trying when the game is rigged, is because there isn't anything more you could do in 100% of circumstances. So to say that "the individual could do more in 80% of circumstances", implies that the game isn't all that rigged, but merely that you are given the impresssion that the game is rigged, so that even when you can do things in your benefit, if you are a moron, then you will give up before you start.

Thus, the smart move is to do more in 80% of circumstances. So the intelligent person would see through the illusion, realise that it's in their interest to do what they could when they could, and so would do what is in their interest.

Getting increasingly difficult to not be rude to you guys, especially since I got the "puzzle pieces" I was looking for. I just don't see how your lines of thought are going anywhere interesting. The point of developing a rational philosophy is so that it can get to the questions we want to ask and from there science takes the wheel.

Modern science isn't set up to do that. Scientists gather evidence and then come up with theories based on that. So they operate from a model of "evidence => questions", which means that they keep having to hop from science to philosophy to science to philosophy, etc, until they come to a point where the evidence is completely consistent with their theories and doesn't show them anything new, at which point, science has done all it can.

I am consistently being characterized negatively because it seems people have a vendetta over what they THINK I mean.

I swear every boomer mentality person I have spoken to has the temperament of a child when it comes to things the believe.

If I was a Boomer, given how you talk about them, I'd pretend to act like a child so you stay away from me.

There is INQUIRY. Then there is PRESCRIPTIVISM. If you feel threatened regarding your belief because someone starts poking around with questions, then perhaps you should consider taking on different beliefs.

Most people know that. They're not taught it. But the culture differentiates between thinking and doing, by differentiating between academic subjects and practical subjects, by differentiating between jobs that focus on thinking by requiring degrees, and jobs that focus on doing by not requiring degrees. So people are unconsciously conditioned to perceive that there's a big difference between processes that focus on thinking like INQUIRY, and processes that focus on action like PRESCRIPTIVISM.

But you seem to be talking as if you think that most people are unware of that, when you yourself are being subliminally programmed to be aware of that by your country's culture, and so thus everyone else is. So I would guess that your culture ALSO conditions you to believe that you know things that most people do not, concerning things that you have no individual reason to think that you would know them better than others.

This of course would happen if the media keep reporting things as if they are done incompetently when those things should be obvious, but when if you actually thought about it for yourself with questions that were not posed by the media, you'd conclude something entirely different.

This can easily be accomplished by politicians pretending to act like idiots and the media playing that up, about matters where anyone in that position would not be able to be so ignorant due to practicalities.

This also has the advantage that because the media and the politicians pretend that the politicians are idiots, people assume their motives are stupid and never question their deeper motives.

Same with the economic system. If it would completely fall a part when someone changes a couple dials, perhaps then, the system needs to change.

There is an incentive structure that keeps it from faltering, and it's a fairly apt analysis that if that monetary system wasn't in effect, IE constantly monitored, things would be way worse.

Adam Smith's argument for capitalism was that the monetary system is naturally self-correcting due to the effects of things like competition: if prices rise too high, then new companies spring up who find ways to offer things for cheaper, so that they can get the sales and the profits, which lowers prices again.

However, what wrecks capitalism is when people lose confidence in the system, as that causes everyone to want to take their money out of the banks and sell their stocks and shares, which causes a run on the banks and topples the stock market.

So how the media and the politicians portray those who have effects on the economic system, like the bankers, affects how people perceive those who affect the economy, and thus affects people's confidence in the system, which is what really pulls the strings on the system.

But because you have been convinced by the media that it's based on controlling the monetary system, then you think you need to keep giving your politicians power over the economy, to keep messing with the monetary system, which in turn gives their friends massive power over the economy to increase their wealth.

You may picture someone you know who randomly throws a piece of trash on the ground when they could've easily found a bin to dispose of it. Have you ever bothered to ask such a person why they did that and tried to find out, really why?

Don't need to. I asked myself why I sometimes do that. Rich areas have lots of shiny bins near shops, which get noticed and encourage people to think that those areas have shiny bins because people throw their trash away properly, which incentivises them to do the same, so the area remains that way.

Poor areas have few bins, mostly out of the way, and they're usually very dirty. So in rich areas, people are incentivised to perceive that the bins require people going out of their way to use them, and that people don't use them anyway, and so don't bother.

This of course means that poor areas look dirty and rich areas look clean, which means people want to live in the rich areas, increasing demand for homes in rich areas, which drives up house prices, which makes rich home-owners even more wealthy.

People used to have at least communities they could be loyal to, but that seems to be dying out, and it is because cynicism is wining (imo).

In the UK, most people met in the local pub. As a result, the local pub became the unofficial de-facto community centre.

1) But then prices on beer in pubs were increased by 800%, while beer bought from supermarkets was kept incredibly cheap. This of course meant that people were drinking at home and thus increased alcoholism, especially in kids, as they were seeing their dads drinking beer in front of them every night.

2) But at this point, a lot of smokers were still going to the pub, in order to ensure they wouldn't smoke at home where their kids would breath in their second-hand smoke. So about 50% of people in pubs were smokers. The smoking ban was then introduced with insane legislation that made it uncomfortable to go to the pub and smoke, and formed an unconscious motivation to stay at home and smoke and drink.

By this point, most pubs were struggling due to massive losses of sales, that most of them closed down or became family restaurants where you went for lunch, but not to hang out.

3) Add to that everyone going online or on their phone, and people didn't even realise that they weren't socialising anymore.

So the unofficial community centres were vary carefully phased out.

This has the advantage for politicians that people no longer gather and talk verbally where they can talk about issues where the government cannot monitor their speech and suppress it, and where the people used to plan demonstrations to force politicians to change things for the better.

So now, fighting despots has become much harder.

Of course, the lack of human social contact has also resulted in a pandemic of mental illness. Do your policiticians care about your welfare?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Zen seems to resolve this by saying that we are mammals that have some preconfigured disposition towards what we will ultimately be anyways. However you, as many would say believe we to some degree have choice in our values.

No what I say is more fundamental than that.
IF... you have instincts like mammals, and research shows you do and elementary observation of your fellow humans shows you, you also have instinct for goodness in some cases.

That is why Christianity works, but is irrational in saying people are bad and sinful.
If people were bad and sinful, why would they bother going to Church in the first place seeking goodness and God?

This blatant contradiction is so glaring is painful to watch.

Second Nietzsche says humans are in a quagmire of cultural baggage, and Christianity uses this to their advantage to tell people they are weak and weakness is virtue.

In reality what Nietzsche believes is that our instinct is to be good, but Christianity keeps people down from developing their best version of morality, because it negates our true instinct and value.
It tells people there is only one way to be good, and that is to be subservient to the Christian doctrine, and they have to submit to it if they are to be good people, without trying to be the best version of themselves.

Nietzsche then says we must use our own will to overpower this baggage and only with will to power, can we become overmen who can come close to morality that is purest in form.
He says Christianity does not allow us to do this. In stead it makes weakness and meekness virtue and it tells people that is the only true way to be true to God.

So Nietzsche divides people into mammals and culture creatures.
In two stages.

One more word against Kant as a moralist. A virtue needs to be our own
invention, our own most personal need and self-defence: in any other
sense, a virtue is just dangerous. Whatever is not a condition for life
harms it: a virtue that comes exclusively from a feeling of respect for the
concept of 'virtue', as Kant would have it, is harmful. 'Virtue', 'duty',
'goodness in itself', goodness that has been stamped with the character

of the impersonal and universally valid - these are fantasies and manifestations
of decline, of the final exhaustion of life, of the Konigsberg6
Chinesianity. The most basic laws of preservation and growth require the
opposite: that everyone should invent his own virtues, his own categorical
imperatives. A people is destroyed when it confuses its own duty with
the concept of duty in general. Nothing ruins us more profoundly or
inwardly than 'impersonal' duty, or any sacrifice in front of the Moloch of
abstraction. - To think that people did not sense the mortal danger posed
by Kant's categorical imperative! . . . The theologian instinct was the
only thing that came to its defence! - When the instinct of life compels
us to act, pleasure proves that the act is right: and this nihilist with the
intestines of a Christian dogmatist saw pleasure as an objection . . . What
could be more destructive than working, thinking, feeling, without any
inner need, any deeply personal choice, any pleasure? as an automaton
of 'duty'? It is almost the recipe for decadence, even for idiocy . . . Kant
became an idiot. - And this was a contemporary of Goethe! This disaster
of a spider passed for the German philosopher, - and still does! . . . I am
careful not to say what I think about the Germans . . . Wasn't it Kant
who saw the French Revolution as the transition from the inorganic to
the organic form of the state? Didn't he ask himself whether there was an
event that could be explained only by a moral predisposition in humanity,
thus proving once and for all the 'human tendency to goodness'? Kant's
answer: 'this is the Revolution'. The instinct that is wrong about everything,
anti-nature as instinct, German decadence as philosophy - this is
Kant! -

 

[Old Things]

I'm more likely to follow a religion with large pantheon such as ancient Greek mythology, as at the very least they tried to derive knowledge from representations.

Zues, being the ego, Aries being our aggression, Gaia being the Earth such and such.

This unifying supreme being would be the universe itself for me. Very different from what you are getting at. My interpretation says that we are all a part of God in a way.

That's not something you can siphon knowledge from. Why? Because you are just putting labels on yourself and calling it "gods".

but is irrational in saying people are bad and sinful.

Not with a 30-minute look through human history. Humans cause wars all the time. Doesn't seem like humans are basically good to me.

This blatant contradiction is so glaring is painful to watch.

In reality what Nietzsche believes is that our instinct is to be good, but Christianity keeps people down from developing their best version of morality, because it negates our true instinct and value.

Our own instincts are to take advantage of things. I think Richard Dawkins talks about this in his book "The Selfish Gene".

Also, it is quite false that Christianity doesn't lead to well-being for people. We've already talked about this and you chose not to watch the video. But even when I summarized it for you, you don't seem to care. The basic idea is that Christianity is actually very very good for people and the research shows this.

Here is the video (again) in case you care:


Also, read this:

The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries - Christianity Today

They didn’t set out to change history. But one modern scholar’s research shows they did just that.

www.christianitytoday.com

It tells people there is only one way to be good, and that is to be subservient to the Christian doctrine, and they have to submit to it if they are to be good people, without trying to be the best version of themselves.

The devil is in the details. How does Christianity tell you to be good? "Love your neighbor as yourself." The church is not an entity itself. It is made of individuals. The only way this flies from Nietzsche's perspective is if all Christians were Catholics, which is clearly not the case. Of course, Nietzsche thought loving your neighbor was bad. He had a problem with self-sacrificial love. He thought you should only love those close to you and everyone else, who cares? Does not sound like Nietzsche had superior ethics to me.

Nietzsche then says we must use our own will to overpower this baggage and only with will to power, can we become overmen who can come close to morality that is purest in form.
He says Christianity does not allow us to do this. In stead it makes weakness and meekness virtue and it tells people that is the only true way to be true to God.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is basically what this means. I should not have to point out that this is impossible.

 

[Black Rose]

In reality what Nietzsche believes is that our instinct is to be good, but Christianity keeps people down from developing their best version of morality, because it negates our true instinct and value.
It tells people there is only one way to be good, and that is to be subservient to the Christian doctrine, and they have to submit to it if they are to be good people, without trying to be the best version of themselves.

It is our instinct to survive not good necessarily.

Being the best a man can be is not at best something higher than just being a man.

Humans can be twisted in many ways like believing animal blood can pay for one's sins.

Like believing that one's parents sins cause one to be born blind.

Many many things Jesus said were in the keeping with what the prophets said which is to reform Judaism.

The other things were added on later.

What is a reformer if not someone who believes in the goodness of which man should live to attain.

If man is good what makes man sin?

What is sin?

Why did paul kill the followers of Jesus and then turn around?

Could it be he thought what he did was wrong?

Why is killing Christians them "trying to be the best version of themselves".

Why do people hate "the good people"?

The belief that Christianity devalues life is based on the view that belief in an afterlife is a false belief system. Has nothing to do with good and evil.

Being good gets you to heaven, but this does not say we know what good is.

good people are hated. but evil people are also hated.

good people are loved. and evil people are loved

believing in God is evil if God does not exist so we SHOULD kill them?

believing in the wrong god, believing in the wrong Jesus.

We are good if we don't care about killing or not killing them Nietche would say because it is not life-affirming either way.

Why do you call me good non is good but God - JC

If everyone is good we would have no killing no murder no theft no torture.

People do not act good because of instinct, good and evil both are instinct.

instincts are beyond good and evil.

it is survival.

survival is power, power is the best self, and there is no life after death, no power.

so get what you can in this life. whatever you want to do. the only morality.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

2) If they thought that they were intelligent, then they should at least realise that the point of not trying when the game is rigged, is because there isn't anything more you could do in 100% of circumstances. So to say that "the individual could do more in 80% of circumstances", implies that the game isn't all that rigged, but merely that you are given the impresssion that the game is rigged, so that even when you can do things in your benefit, if you are a moron, then you will give up before you start.

Thus, the smart move is to do more in 80% of circumstances. So the intelligent person would see through the illusion, realise that it's in their interest to do what they could when they could, and so would do what is in their interest.

Yes I brought this up pretty much from the start.

Is the avoidance of narcissism and this consideration of a pluralistic moral system the only way to not be a stupid, evil, or otherwise winny bitch? Sounds like a brain crunching process to figure out how you are going to tango with reality.

You mean to make it sound easy if one is smart. It is not easy. That is one of the reasons people don't like change. When people feel secure in their position, is when they like change the least.

Getting increasingly difficult to not be rude to you guys, especially since I got the "puzzle pieces" I was looking for. I just don't see how your lines of thought are going anywhere interesting. The point of developing a rational philosophy is so that it can get to the questions we want to ask and from there science takes the wheel.

Modern science isn't set up to do that. Scientists gather evidence and then come up with theories based on that. So they operate from a model of "evidence => questions", which means that they keep having to hop from science to philosophy to science to philosophy, etc, until they come to a point where the evidence is completely consistent with their theories and doesn't show them anything new, at which point, science has done all it can.

The Institution of Science is not some scared cow that is escaping my criticism. That being said, science itself is a methology. It is redundant to add this qualification.

I am consistently being characterized negatively because it seems people have a vendetta over what they THINK I mean.

I swear every boomer mentality person I have spoken to has the temperament of a child when it comes to things the believe.

If I was a Boomer, given how you talk about them, I'd pretend to act like a child so you stay away from me.

Boomers colloquially speaking are people that have been "blue pilled" by ideas coming from the boomer era. Post WW2 nations came together after the horrifying scene of war and got drunk on idealisms and sold the next generation propaganda about patriotism and what radicalism was to them.

You seem to have a lot of boomer mentality. Is that bad? Perhaps you hold pride in it? The only observation I made is that people who are reminiscent of such things are very touchy about said beliefs, perhaps not for a bad reason, but it comes off as childish when someone kinda just blows off what someone is saying in favor of protecting long held beliefs.

There is INQUIRY. Then there is PRESCRIPTIVISM. If you feel threatened regarding your belief because someone starts poking around with questions, then perhaps you should consider taking on different beliefs.

Most people know that. They're not taught it. But the culture differentiates between thinking and doing, by differentiating between academic subjects and practical subjects, by differentiating between jobs that focus on thinking by requiring degrees, and jobs that focus on doing by not requiring degrees. So people are unconsciously conditioned to perceive that there's a big difference between processes that focus on thinking like INQUIRY, and processes that focus on action like PRESCRIPTIVISM.

But you seem to be talking as if you think that most people are unware of that, when you yourself are being subliminally programmed to be aware of that by your country's culture, and so thus everyone else is. So I would guess that your culture ALSO conditions you to believe that you know things that most people do not, concerning things that you have no individual reason to think that you would know them better than others.

This of course would happen if the media keep reporting things as if they are done incompetently when those things should be obvious, but when if you actually thought about it for yourself with questions that were not posed by the media, you'd conclude something entirely different.

This can easily be accomplished by politicians pretending to act like idiots and the media playing that up, about matters where anyone in that position would not be able to be so ignorant due to practicalities.

This also has the advantage that because the media and the politicians pretend that the politicians are idiots, people assume their motives are stupid and never question their deeper motives.

Does anyone on this green Earth not think they have a unique perspective? Why is this suddenly about my whole culture? You don't even know how or when I consume news. I don't even think it's a political thing, you just want to think I'm dysfunctional rather than engage with what I am saying. I'm not going to get every little detail right, I'm sorry I don't live up to your standards of checking every source and writing in Chicago Style Citation Formatting that comes to mind on this humble little forum.

Prescriptivism is advice that one is suggested to act on. A doctor prescribes medication. He cannot force that medicine down the throat although, through his diagnostic opinion, you probably should.

If I am prescribing anything, I suppose I would say that people take a good look at the world that people just blindly accept. Conventions work until they don't. Conventions should be updated like an operating system as people become familiar with the architecture of it and abuse the weak points as much as they can.

I have not prescribed a response to what one should do about these. I have just been making the case, that there is an inherent problem right down to the core of the human condition regardless if such institutions or society exist or not.

But because you have been convinced by the media that it's based on controlling the monetary system, then you think you need to keep giving your politicians power over the economy, to keep messing with the monetary system, which in turn gives their friends massive power over the economy to increase their wealth.

Do you think people that go to Ivy League (really any higher tier) schools play the same game you are playing? We are all playing the game of life really, but how different do you think their parameters and dials are?

Books out here teaching us to not "think like a poor person", meanwhile the upper class pays other people to think for them, and in fact the more you can do so, the better your odds of success are. You're already poor as soon as you start thinking in terms of performing labor.

They meet you with a smile on their face and think about how they will use you and choose how much they can respect you based on what you tell them what you can do for them. Hell they even got you to buy into an ideology that allows them to exploit you, the world just seems like it's perfectly made for them, and that is the only thing they will ever love about you.

You may picture someone you know who randomly throws a piece of trash on the ground when they could've easily found a bin to dispose of it. Have you ever bothered to ask such a person why they did that and tried to find out, really why?

Don't need to. I asked myself why I sometimes do that. Rich areas have lots of shiny bins near shops, which get noticed and encourage people to think that those areas have shiny bins because people throw their trash away properly, which incentivises them to do the same, so the area remains that way.

Poor areas have few bins, mostly out of the way, and they're usually very dirty. So in rich areas, people are incentivised to perceive that the bins require people going out of their way to use them, and that people don't use them anyway, and so don't bother.

This of course means that poor areas look dirty and rich areas look clean, which means people want to live in the rich areas, increasing demand for homes in rich areas, which drives up house prices, which makes rich home-owners even more wealthy.

You don't know enough deplorable people. I have been sitting in the car with someone who throws their fast food bag out the window and act like they didn't do anything questionable.

Even despite how much I've talked down to humanity, you seem to be giving me a run for my money every time we get into a prolonged exchange. Maybe you just hate people and I should stop probing for why you think the things you think.

People used to have at least communities they could be loyal to, but that seems to be dying out, and it is because cynicism is wining (imo).

In the UK, most people met in the local pub. As a result, the local pub became the unofficial de-facto community centre.

1) But then prices on beer in pubs were increased by 800%, while beer bought from supermarkets was kept incredibly cheap. This of course meant that people were drinking at home and thus increased alcoholism, especially in kids, as they were seeing their dads drinking beer in front of them every night.

2) But at this point, a lot of smokers were still going to the pub, in order to ensure they wouldn't smoke at home where their kids would breath in their second-hand smoke. So about 50% of people in pubs were smokers. The smoking ban was then introduced with insane legislation that made it uncomfortable to go to the pub and smoke, and formed an unconscious motivation to stay at home and smoke and drink.

By this point, most pubs were struggling due to massive losses of sales, that most of them closed down or became family restaurants where you went for lunch, but not to hang out.

3) Add to that everyone going online or on their phone, and people didn't even realise that they weren't socialising anymore.

So the unofficial community centres were vary carefully phased out.

This has the advantage for politicians that people no longer gather and talk verbally where they can talk about issues where the government cannot monitor their speech and suppress it, and where the people used to plan demonstrations to force politicians to change things for the better.

So now, fighting despots has become much harder.

Of course, the lack of human social contact has also resulted in a pandemic of mental illness. Do your policiticians care about your welfare?

Again, I would just blame this on the prior generation doing a poor job at passing on valuable traditions to the following generation. You seem to equate people to sheep. Which is true, but if we are taught something and we enjoy that thing, we will seek it out despite any obstacles. Such as smoking.
-

In reality what Nietzsche believes is that our instinct is to be good, but Christianity keeps people down from developing their best version of morality, because it negates our true instinct and value.

I would say that Nietzsche is being an optimist here. Perhaps according to him though I should just shut up.

I guess he would argue that goodness just comes out from human actions outputs assuming the context is right. Kinda Adam Smith, invisible hand-like. Now I'm not so sure he correctly identifies what causes a decadent society.

My approach to Nietzsche is that he is very specific with vague language, so I can never tell when I should be taking him seriously or if he's memeing.

For instance he seems to condemn progress here, but specifically he condemns a specific type of progress if it is at the cost of whatever he is describing as virtuous. He is trying to say that Kant's way was always going to lead to a dead end essentially, which I suppose if you just look at Kant is troubling. That his tools get you no where- well I suppose that is true from a point of view, but sometimes a tool that just deconstructs is useful. One can say that Kant didn't mean to be a self-help guru, and that regardless of what he said, if you only look at Kant you are missing a lot.

I always wished I took more German classes to see what he originally wrote, and how much of what we see is a product of translations. I would take me forever to get through one of those books as it is in English though, so probably not gonna happen.

I agree with what you quoted from Nietzsche. However, say once we are uninhibited by what pains us. We remove that undesirable baggage and we act as we feel/know we should we still must live in the cage of society, and thus in a cage of our own doing by making us assimilate to society.

There is a catch 22 with everything it seems. This will to power, when focused can get much done, but it seems like there is no why that sparks in the eyes of of people with a word. There is something that one must experience. What is the essence of this experience, it surely could not be found in this state where we are seeking power- to me, it would seem like we corrupt it.

That's not something you can siphon knowledge from. Why? Because you are just putting labels on yourself and calling it "gods".

I feel like your trying to diminish what I would say is more expository about reality, because when you think about your God you feel tingly in your dangly bits.

Perhaps I am missing something like this. My conceptions about theology are there to interface with the world at a glance.

 

[Old Things]

I feel like your trying to diminish what I would say is more expository about reality, because when you think about your God you feel tingly in your dangly bits.

Perhaps I am missing something like this. My conceptions about theology are there to interface with the world at a glance.

If you are not humbled by the prospect of God, it can hardly be God. Who are we compared to the creator of the universe?

Your conception of theology is flawed. At least your conception of the Christian God is flawed. If you just want to take a glance rather than a deep dive, I'm sure something like Hinduism would be more your cup of tea.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I would say that Nietzsche is being an optimist here. Perhaps according to him though I should just shut up.

Really? Doing better than Christianity? Optimism?

He says we must trust in physics, and be true to physics.
Meaning the natural world ergo nature it self is the most powerful thing people can referrer to.
Interestingly if you look at what peoples understanding of nature has done for people, its not bad.

Plus whether you believe in Christianity or not, circumventing nature is impossible.
Not unless you want to have a miracle every-time nature does not agree with you.

I guess he would argue that goodness just comes out from human actions outputs assuming the context is right. Kinda Adam Smith, invisible hand-like. Now I'm not so sure he correctly identifies what causes a decadent society.

Well its either people learn to create meaning and value, or old guys in hats and golden chains will tell you. You pick.

You want an old guy who read the bible to tell you how to exist?

My approach to Nietzsche is that he is very specific with vague language, so I can never tell when I should be taking him seriously or if he's memeing.

There is plenty people who get caught up in specifics.
Laser sharp focus on one thing, lacks explaining power for complex things, unless you figure out a perfect theory for society.
But we know that understanding one piece of puzzle is not enough.
Kind of like knowing arithmetic does not make you a mathematician today.

SO you think some categorical imperative of Kant is making you moral?
Is sticking to single good thing more moral than knowing how to do many more good things, even if in scope they are smaller?
So is understanding of society better if we quibble over small over analyzed facts, or can we build up a larger picture even if its resolution is not perfect.

After all Christian morals are dictated by few words and are deciding fate of millions.
Some passage gets quoted and then millions of people act in algorithm to that and millions of variables get in motion.

For instance he seems to condemn progress here, but specifically he condemns a specific type of progress if it is at the cost of whatever he is describing as virtuous. He is trying to say that Kant's way was always going to lead to a dead end essentially, which I suppose if you just look at Kant is troubling. That his tools get you no where- well I suppose that is true from a point of view, but sometimes a tool that just deconstructs is useful. One can say that you Kant didn't mean to be a self-help guru, and that regardless of what he said, if you only look at Kant you are missing a lot.

No he is not condemning progress.
He is saying that virtue for sake of virtue is no virtue.
It makes those who act on such virtue empty of the core value they carry.
If he believes people have inherent human value with ability to outgrow certain dogma it makes perfect sense to follow that thought and say - don't follow value that robs you of your best quality.

I agree with what you quoted from Nietzsche. However, say once we are uninhibited by what pains us. We remove that undesirable baggage and we act as we feel/know we should we still must live in the cage of society, and thus in a cage of our own doing by making us assimilate to society.

Nietzsche believes people should strive to inhibit bad things or transform them into good things, or reframe them if they have such qualities.
He believes that those things are the things we have to look away from and leave them be, while improving all else that makes us good.
That is just pure practical approach.

There is a catch 22 with everything it seems. This will to power, when focused can get much done, but it seems like there is no why that sparks in the eyes of of people with a word. There is something that one must experience. What is the essence of this experience, it surely could not be found in this state where we are seeking power- to me, it would seem like we corrupt it.

He is not talking about brute power though.
He is talking about the will to overcome limitations that were imposed on you.
All he is saying is that progress requires us to grow and that is creative process, that cannot happen as long as we believe that you are sticking to just prescribed virtue that you accept as your own despite it not being your own.

 

[Black Rose]

My conceptions about theology are there to interface with the world at a glance.

pantheism is enticing when you think in Newtonian causality.

but what I have found is that the higher power is very much mental as is physical.

so I only suggest that any further alignment should be done by accepting a mental component to reality.

Animism at first then subjectivism and further detection of subtle energies.

Just imagine that you are creating everything, your body your perceptions your thoughts.

It is direct access to the unconscious around you.

pay attention most of all, let go of control to just be.

wu wei

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I feel like your trying to diminish what I would say is more expository about reality, because when you think about your God you feel tingly in your dangly bits.

Perhaps I am missing something like this. My conceptions about theology are there to interface with the world at a glance.

If you are not humbled by the prospect of God, it can hardly be God. Who are we compared to the creator of the universe?

Your conception of theology is flawed. At least your conception of the Christian God is flawed. If you just want to take a glance rather than a deep dive, I'm sure something like Hinduism would be more your cup of tea.

That theological glance gives great insight. Like poetry which gives character to words at the expense of conventional understanding of them.

Gods of War, and Death, and just about all things humans have been creating gods for have endless stories that strike deep into the human condition. My problem is that I am too analytical apparently, according to Nietzsche anyways. Or perhaps it is not this analytical nature, but some other bottomless pit that perhaps "God" could have filled.

Dissatisfaction in that emptiness seems to be something I must accept, and honestly it's not much of a curse so long as I can tune out of it.

--

Really? Doing better than Christianity? Optimism?

Damn you right my bad

My approach to Nietzsche is that he is very specific with vague language, so I can never tell when I should be taking him seriously or if he's memeing.

There is plenty people who get caught up in specifics.
Laser sharp focus on one thing, lacks explaining power for complex things, unless you figure out a perfect theory for society.
But we know that understanding one piece of puzzle is not enough.
Kind of like knowing arithmetic does not make you a mathematician today.

SO you think some categorical imperative of Kant is making you moral?
Is sticking to single good thing more moral than knowing how to do many more good things, even if in scope they are smaller?
So is understanding of society better if we quibble over small over analyzed facts, or can we build up a larger picture even if its resolution is not perfect.

After all Christian morals are dictated by few words and are deciding fate of millions.
Some passage gets quoted and then millions of people act in algorithm to that and millions of variables get in motion.

Certainly not. Such a tool is meant to rob you of agency and culpability. If you intend to do such a thing I would assume it is because you are a coward.

To me categorical imperative speaks to some need for guidelines. Outside of predictable circumstances they are impractical except for perhaps finding out where things went wrong. Deontology falls apart fairly quickly in the real world.

For instance he seems to condemn progress here, but specifically he condemns a specific type of progress if it is at the cost of whatever he is describing as virtuous. He is trying to say that Kant's way was always going to lead to a dead end essentially, which I suppose if you just look at Kant is troubling. That his tools get you no where- well I suppose that is true from a point of view, but sometimes a tool that just deconstructs is useful. One can say that you Kant didn't mean to be a self-help guru, and that regardless of what he said, if you only look at Kant you are missing a lot.

No he is not condemning progress.
He is saying that virtue for sake of virtue is no virtue.
It makes those who act on such virtue empty of the core value they carry.
If he believes people have inherent human value with ability to outgrow certain dogma it makes perfect sense to follow that thought and say - don't follow value that robs you of your best quality.

I interjected too much into that passage. This criticism of Kant today is not that important. Yes, he is making valid points in his time about a predecessor of his.

I agree with what you quoted from Nietzsche. However, say once we are uninhibited by what pains us. We remove that undesirable baggage and we act as we feel/know we should we still must live in the cage of society, and thus in a cage of our own doing by making us assimilate to society.

Nietzsche believes people should strive to inhibit bad things or transform them into good things, or reframe them if they have such qualities.
He believes that those things are the things we have to look away from and leave them be, while improving all else that makes us good.
That is just pure practical approach.

There is a catch 22 with everything it seems. This will to power, when focused can get much done, but it seems like there is no why that sparks in the eyes of of people with a word. There is something that one must experience. What is the essence of this experience, it surely could not be found in this state where we are seeking power- to me, it would seem like we corrupt it.

He is not talking about brute power though.
He is talking about the will to overcome limitations that were imposed on you.
All he is saying is that progress requires us to grow and that is creative process, that cannot happen as long as we believe that you are sticking to just prescribed virtue that you accept as your own despite it not being your own.

I for the most part agree.

The will to power is one's own machinations and feelings. Not power yes. I'm saying that in our machinations and feelings, depending on our intent, we can easily ruin the purity of such experiences.

Like the zen philosophy says, if you seek happiness you will never find it. You will know you only found it because you were looking for it, and that will taint the experience. I don't think we can dissolve this dissatisfaction.

Just imagine that you are creating everything, your body your perceptions your thoughts.

It is direct access to the unconscious around you.

pay attention most of all, let go of control to just be.

Yes I think meditation does serve well for this. I think there is salvation in hopelessness yet.

 

[Old Things]

That theological glance gives great insight. Like poetry which gives character to words at the expense of conventional understanding of them.

Gods of War, and Death, and just about all things humans have been creating gods for have endless stories that strike deep into the human condition. My problem is that I am too analytical apparently, according to Nietzsche anyways. Or perhaps it is not this analytical nature, but some other bottomless pit that perhaps "God" could have filled.

Dissatisfaction in that emptiness seems to be something I must accept, and honestly it's not much of a curse so long as I can tune out of it.

The creation story of Genesis is quite different from their contemporaries. It did not make gods in man's image but says humans are made in God's image. Not only that, but it's kind of a big deal that the Christian God is the One God. This is totally different from any other culture of the time. So if you want a more rich theology than the shallow imprints of humans on gods then I commend the Bible and church history to you.

 

[Black Rose]

There is the unconsciousness of matter then there is the consciousness of the spirit.

From the beginning, the first spirit that originated all matter was the first consciousness.

We are the shadow of what is projected into this world as the fractal of consciousness.

We understand that we exist. We understand we have consciousness.

We understand there was a first such being among the unconscious motion of matter the demiurge.

Spirit is what animates us, all things are connected to it. All things return to it.

Matter is not evil it is just unconscious.

The purpose of humans is to bring consciousness into reality.

To the final resolution of matter from unconsciousness to consciousness.

Immortality. The end of suffering. Enlightenment.

If this is not our purpose then nothing is.

 

[Old Things]

There is the unconsciousness of matter then there is the consciousness of the spirit.

From the beginning, the first spirit that originated all matter was the first consciousness.

We are the shadow of what is projected into this world as the fractal of consciousness.

We understand that we exist. We understand we have consciousness.

We understand there was a first such being among the unconscious motion of matter the demiurge.

Spirit is what animates us, all things are connected to it. All things return to it.

Matter is not evil it is just unconscious.

The purpose of humans is to bring consciousness into reality.

To the final resolution of matter from unconsciousness to consciousness.

Immortality. The end of suffering. Enlightenment.

If this is not our purpose then nothing is.

I largely agree with you. I don't know that I would put it in those terms, but we might be able to say that God is the only real conscious entity. Everything else is a shadow like you said - an artifact of what is real. And what is real is God. God is Holy. It is one of His prime characteristics. Holy simply means "set apart." It is why Christians are to imitate Christ and be "set apart" from non-Christians. Not in an arrogant way, but in a way that their good character can shine through - the salt of the earth.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nietzsche is and was a bad philosopher. He's more of a literary man rather than someone who did rigorous civilivation building. The more I understand Nietzsche's life, the more I understand his writing are a rebellion against the culture he lived in because he felt handicapped by his weak body. Also, I feel like he's more of a product of the times rather than a result of disciplined philosophers perserving and progressing knowledge. I think Napolean and other figures of conquest shaped a lot of the thinkers back in those days, moreso than the gigantic thinkers like Hegel, who thought up of the deep connections with logic, culture, religion and politics and economics. They believed more in the will of the man to shape the world rather than reason. Spiritually speaking, it's just desperation trying to find catharsis through wailing.

But, I think one way to salvage Nietzsche's works is that it's a good measure of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The problem with Christianity in the 19th century was that it was seen as a ideological humanist program on the level with humanism- if we were to employ today's cultural language. European Christians really thought that Christianity was the engine for human progress and much of the politics and academica was geared and calibrated towards this sense of building the 'kingdom of god'. In Hegel's time for example, the head chair of the central universities were appointed by princes and kings to support the Christian program within the country. So it was in this context that Nietzsche wrote his works: he did not have faith, but to achieve academic success, you had to bend the knee to the Christian king and must avow a personal and public faith, which he obviously felt disgusted to do. So I guess in light of all this, I think his works can be seem as a check against systems themselves. Either way, if it wasn't Nietzsche that corrected Europe's infatuation with their own system, it was Hitler and the other facists who smashed it to pieces just 50 years later.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Nietzsche is and was a bad philosopher. He's more of a literary man rather than someone who did rigorous civilivation building. The more I understand Nietzsche's life, the more I understand his writing are a rebellion against the culture he lived in because he felt handicapped by his weak body. Also, I feel like he's more of a product of the times rather than a result of disciplined philosophers perserving and progressing knowledge. I think Napolean and other figures of conquest shaped a lot of the thinkers back in those days, moreso than the gigantic thinkers like Hegel, who thought up of the deep connections with logic, culture, religion and politics and economics. They believed more in the will of the man to shape the world rather than reason. Spiritually speaking, it's just desperation trying to find catharsis through wailing.

But, I think one way to salvage Nietzsche's works is that it's a good measure of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The problem with Christianity in the 19th century was that it was seen as a ideological humanist program on the level with humanism- if we were to employ today's cultural language. European Christians really thought that Christianity was the engine for human progress and much of the politics and academica was geared and calibrated towards this sense of building the 'kingdom of god'. In Hegel's time for example, the head chair of the central universities were appointed by princes and kings to support the Christian program within the country. So it was in this context that Nietzsche wrote his works: he did not have faith, but to achieve academic success, you had to bend the knee to the Christian king and must avow a personal and public faith, which he obviously felt disgusted to do. So I guess in light of all this, I think his works can be seem as a check against systems themselves. Either way, if it wasn't Nietzsche that corrected Europe's infatuation with their own system, it was Hitler and the other facists who smashed it to pieces just 50 years later.

Do you really think Nietzsche was going to analyze or use logic to dismantle religion?
That is kind of like the guy who wrote a book of Harry Potter using conventional science and logic.
If someone is fan of LOTR you think using standards of reasons will explain why its stupid movie and that orcs don't exist?
I think not.

Spoiler

It is very important to be
clear about this, however great the temptation of Christian (and, I should
say, ecclesiastical ) prejudice really is: this sort of symbolism par excellence
is positioned outside all religion, all cult concepts, all history, all natural
science, all experience of the world, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology,
all books, all art - his 'knowing' is just pure stupidity concerning the
fact that things like this exist. He does not know anything about culture,
even in passing, he does not need to struggle against it, - he does not
negate it . . . The same is true about the state, about the whole civic order
and society, about work, about war - he never had any reason to negate
'the world', the ecclesiastical concept of 'world' never occurred to him . . .
Negation is out of the question for him. - Dialectic is missing as well, there
is no conception that a belief, a 'truth', could be grounded in reasons (- his
proofs are inner 'lights', inner feelings of pleasure and self-affirmations,
pure 'proofs of strength' -). A doctrine like this cannot contradict, it has
no idea that there are, that there could be any other doctrines, it has no idea
how even to form the thought of an opposing judgment . . . If it comes
across an opposing judgment, it will feel deeply sympathetic and grieve
over this 'blindness' - since it sees the 'light' - but it would not offer any
objections . . .
33

 

[Old Things]

Nietzsche is and was a bad philosopher. He's more of a literary man rather than someone who did rigorous civilivation building. The more I understand Nietzsche's life, the more I understand his writing are a rebellion against the culture he lived in because he felt handicapped by his weak body. Also, I feel like he's more of a product of the times rather than a result of disciplined philosophers perserving and progressing knowledge. I think Napolean and other figures of conquest shaped a lot of the thinkers back in those days, moreso than the gigantic thinkers like Hegel, who thought up of the deep connections with logic, culture, religion and politics and economics. They believed more in the will of the man to shape the world rather than reason. Spiritually speaking, it's just desperation trying to find catharsis through wailing.

But, I think one way to salvage Nietzsche's works is that it's a good measure of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The problem with Christianity in the 19th century was that it was seen as a ideological humanist program on the level with humanism- if we were to employ today's cultural language. European Christians really thought that Christianity was the engine for human progress and much of the politics and academica was geared and calibrated towards this sense of building the 'kingdom of god'. In Hegel's time for example, the head chair of the central universities were appointed by princes and kings to support the Christian program within the country. So it was in this context that Nietzsche wrote his works: he did not have faith, but to achieve academic success, you had to bend the knee to the Christian king and must avow a personal and public faith, which he obviously felt disgusted to do. So I guess in light of all this, I think his works can be seem as a check against systems themselves. Either way, if it wasn't Nietzsche that corrected Europe's infatuation with their own system, it was Hitler and the other facists who smashed it to pieces just 50 years later.

Do you really think Nietzsche was going to analyze or use logic to dismantle religion?
That is kind of like the guy who wrote a book of Harry Potter using conventional science and logic.
If someone is fan of LOTR you think using standards of reasons will explain why its stupid movie and that orcs don't exist?
I think not.

Spoiler

It is very important to be
clear about this, however great the temptation of Christian (and, I should
say, ecclesiastical ) prejudice really is: this sort of symbolism par excellence
is positioned outside all religion, all cult concepts, all history, all natural
science, all experience of the world, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology,
all books, all art - his 'knowing' is just pure stupidity concerning the
fact that things like this exist. He does not know anything about culture,
even in passing, he does not need to struggle against it, - he does not
negate it . . . The same is true about the state, about the whole civic order
and society, about work, about war - he never had any reason to negate
'the world', the ecclesiastical concept of 'world' never occurred to him . . .
Negation is out of the question for him. - Dialectic is missing as well, there
is no conception that a belief, a 'truth', could be grounded in reasons (- his
proofs are inner 'lights', inner feelings of pleasure and self-affirmations,
pure 'proofs of strength' -). A doctrine like this cannot contradict, it has
no idea that there are, that there could be any other doctrines, it has no idea
how even to form the thought of an opposing judgment . . . If it comes
across an opposing judgment, it will feel deeply sympathetic and grieve
over this 'blindness' - since it sees the 'light' - but it would not offer any
objections . . .
33

He was clearly a hateful monster.

 

[ZenRaiden]

He was clearly a hateful monster.

Every defense of every religion ever.
"YOU ARE CORRUPTING OUR MORALS HOW DARE YOU!"
Anyone who attacks sanctity of values of others will be viewed as such hence we get Nietzsche.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nietzsche is and was a bad philosopher. He's more of a literary man rather than someone who did rigorous civilivation building. The more I understand Nietzsche's life, the more I understand his writing are a rebellion against the culture he lived in because he felt handicapped by his weak body. Also, I feel like he's more of a product of the times rather than a result of disciplined philosophers perserving and progressing knowledge. I think Napolean and other figures of conquest shaped a lot of the thinkers back in those days, moreso than the gigantic thinkers like Hegel, who thought up of the deep connections with logic, culture, religion and politics and economics. They believed more in the will of the man to shape the world rather than reason. Spiritually speaking, it's just desperation trying to find catharsis through wailing.

But, I think one way to salvage Nietzsche's works is that it's a good measure of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The problem with Christianity in the 19th century was that it was seen as a ideological humanist program on the level with humanism- if we were to employ today's cultural language. European Christians really thought that Christianity was the engine for human progress and much of the politics and academica was geared and calibrated towards this sense of building the 'kingdom of god'. In Hegel's time for example, the head chair of the central universities were appointed by princes and kings to support the Christian program within the country. So it was in this context that Nietzsche wrote his works: he did not have faith, but to achieve academic success, you had to bend the knee to the Christian king and must avow a personal and public faith, which he obviously felt disgusted to do. So I guess in light of all this, I think his works can be seem as a check against systems themselves. Either way, if it wasn't Nietzsche that corrected Europe's infatuation with their own system, it was Hitler and the other facists who smashed it to pieces just 50 years later.

Do you really think Nietzsche was going to analyze or use logic to dismantle religion?
That is kind of like the guy who wrote a book of Harry Potter using conventional science and logic.
If someone is fan of LOTR you think using standards of reasons will explain why its stupid movie and that orcs don't exist?
I think not.

Spoiler

It is very important to be
clear about this, however great the temptation of Christian (and, I should
say, ecclesiastical ) prejudice really is: this sort of symbolism par excellence
is positioned outside all religion, all cult concepts, all history, all natural
science, all experience of the world, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology,
all books, all art - his 'knowing' is just pure stupidity concerning the
fact that things like this exist. He does not know anything about culture,
even in passing, he does not need to struggle against it, - he does not
negate it . . . The same is true about the state, about the whole civic order
and society, about work, about war - he never had any reason to negate
'the world', the ecclesiastical concept of 'world' never occurred to him . . .
Negation is out of the question for him. - Dialectic is missing as well, there
is no conception that a belief, a 'truth', could be grounded in reasons (- his
proofs are inner 'lights', inner feelings of pleasure and self-affirmations,
pure 'proofs of strength' -). A doctrine like this cannot contradict, it has
no idea that there are, that there could be any other doctrines, it has no idea
how even to form the thought of an opposing judgment . . . If it comes
across an opposing judgment, it will feel deeply sympathetic and grieve
over this 'blindness' - since it sees the 'light' - but it would not offer any
objections . . .
33

What's this supposed to mean? Are you saying Nietzsche is irrational?

Either way if you're trying to disprove the reality of LOTR for some reason, then you have an odd obession with disproving something which purportly you claim has no merit in the first place. That obession in itself seems much more harmful than the subject which it claims to criticize. Wouldn't it be more rational to ignore it?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I think Nietzsche certainly had a great degree of self awareness.

You can point out that he was bitter about his inability to change or the social system or what have you, but you still have to contend with his words as they have spread throughout culture without people knowing.

For every "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" there may be a quote that is whiny resentful, but this is not cause to dismiss everything surely.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nietzsche isn't a good model for anyone to follow. You might agree sentimentally with his writings, but his life is a mess. You can say that his life is a cautionary tale of what happens when you neglect the most weakest in your society.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nietzsche is and was a bad philosopher. He's more of a literary man rather than someone who did rigorous civilivation building. The more I understand Nietzsche's life, the more I understand his writing are a rebellion against the culture he lived in because he felt handicapped by his weak body. Also, I feel like he's more of a product of the times rather than a result of disciplined philosophers perserving and progressing knowledge. I think Napolean and other figures of conquest shaped a lot of the thinkers back in those days, moreso than the gigantic thinkers like Hegel, who thought up of the deep connections with logic, culture, religion and politics and economics. They believed more in the will of the man to shape the world rather than reason. Spiritually speaking, it's just desperation trying to find catharsis through wailing.

But, I think one way to salvage Nietzsche's works is that it's a good measure of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The problem with Christianity in the 19th century was that it was seen as a ideological humanist program on the level with humanism- if we were to employ today's cultural language. European Christians really thought that Christianity was the engine for human progress and much of the politics and academica was geared and calibrated towards this sense of building the 'kingdom of god'. In Hegel's time for example, the head chair of the central universities were appointed by princes and kings to support the Christian program within the country. So it was in this context that Nietzsche wrote his works: he did not have faith, but to achieve academic success, you had to bend the knee to the Christian king and must avow a personal and public faith, which he obviously felt disgusted to do. So I guess in light of all this, I think his works can be seem as a check against systems themselves. Either way, if it wasn't Nietzsche that corrected Europe's infatuation with their own system, it was Hitler and the other facists who smashed it to pieces just 50 years later.

Do you really think Nietzsche was going to analyze or use logic to dismantle religion?
That is kind of like the guy who wrote a book of Harry Potter using conventional science and logic.
If someone is fan of LOTR you think using standards of reasons will explain why its stupid movie and that orcs don't exist?
I think not.

Spoiler

It is very important to be
clear about this, however great the temptation of Christian (and, I should
say, ecclesiastical ) prejudice really is: this sort of symbolism par excellence
is positioned outside all religion, all cult concepts, all history, all natural
science, all experience of the world, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology,
all books, all art - his 'knowing' is just pure stupidity concerning the
fact that things like this exist. He does not know anything about culture,
even in passing, he does not need to struggle against it, - he does not
negate it . . . The same is true about the state, about the whole civic order
and society, about work, about war - he never had any reason to negate
'the world', the ecclesiastical concept of 'world' never occurred to him . . .
Negation is out of the question for him. - Dialectic is missing as well, there
is no conception that a belief, a 'truth', could be grounded in reasons (- his
proofs are inner 'lights', inner feelings of pleasure and self-affirmations,
pure 'proofs of strength' -). A doctrine like this cannot contradict, it has
no idea that there are, that there could be any other doctrines, it has no idea
how even to form the thought of an opposing judgment . . . If it comes
across an opposing judgment, it will feel deeply sympathetic and grieve
over this 'blindness' - since it sees the 'light' - but it would not offer any
objections . . .
33

He was clearly a hateful monster.

He wasn't hateful, just a victim of circumstance and misfortune. I think he did the best he could in channeling that misery into writing that has lasted for centuries. His writing are like a polemic of humanity when it forsakes its god. An inverted psalms if you will.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Nietzsche isn't a good model for anyone to follow. You might agree sentimentally with his writings, but his life is a mess. You can say that his life is a cautionary tale of what happens when you neglect the most weakest in your society.

Yet Christians often make the point Nietzsche was making all along.
There is no dialectic, there is nothing you can grasp as moral foundation.
There is nothing to analyze. Morals without reason are kind of morals no one can touch.
No one can touch them because they don't operate in the real.
You just made his point.... strawman and pitty for him, cause God is great and perfect, therefore if Christians go and do something less then moral they just brush it off and move on. Rub hands together and let sins be washed away.
God works in mysterious ways.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Nietzsche isn't a good model for anyone to follow. You might agree sentimentally with his writings, but his life is a mess. You can say that his life is a cautionary tale of what happens when you neglect the most weakest in your society.

Valid point there. He died in squalor of syphilis and obscurity. But how many other famous philosophers can we say are similar to Nietzsche's disposition?

His words seem to indicate he practiced what he preached and that he would preach what was good.

Maybe in final assessment he failed, but that is no shock. The light he did provide I don't think can be discounted, even if his goal was overly ambitious.

 

[ZenRaiden]

He wasn't hateful, just a victim of circumstance and misfortune. I think he did the best he could in channeling that misery into writing that has lasted for centuries. His writing are like a polemic of humanity when it forsakes its god. An inverted psalms if you will.

If people who are miserable are wrong, with that logic, how did Christians arrive at Jesus was right? Wasnt Jesus miserable?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Valid point there. He died in squalor of syphilis and obscurity. But how many other famous philosophers can we say are similar to Nietzsche's disposition?

If Christians did not persecute their own philosophers who were Christians themselves....but Nietzsche was safer to be critical of Church as murdering opposition in his time was no longer acceptable Thank God.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nietzsche isn't a good model for anyone to follow. You might agree sentimentally with his writings, but his life is a mess. You can say that his life is a cautionary tale of what happens when you neglect the most weakest in your society.

Yet Christians often make the point Nietzsche was making all along.
There is no dialectic, there is nothing you can grasp as moral foundation.
There is nothing to analyze. Morals without reason are kind of morals no one can touch.
No one can touch them because they don't operate in the real.
You just made his point.... strawman and pitty for him, cause God is great and perfect, therefore if Christians go and do something less then moral they just brush it off and move on. Rub hands together and let sins be washed away.
God works in mysterious ways.

Idk what you're saying here.

He wasn't hateful, just a victim of circumstance and misfortune. I think he did the best he could in channeling that misery into writing that has lasted for centuries. His writing are like a polemic of humanity when it forsakes its god. An inverted psalms if you will.

If people who are miserable are wrong, with that logic, how did Christians arrive at Jesus was right? Wasnt Jesus miserable?

I'm not saying he's wrong, I perfectly empathize with his thoughts. His notions aren't really in the category of true or false because they're more an exploration of "faithlessness". I see his experience as another hue in the experiences of mankind.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nietzsche isn't a good model for anyone to follow. You might agree sentimentally with his writings, but his life is a mess. You can say that his life is a cautionary tale of what happens when you neglect the most weakest in your society.

Valid point there. He died in squalor of syphilis and obscurity. But how many other famous philosophers can we say are similar to Nietzsche's disposition?

His words seem to indicate he practiced what he preached and that he would preach what was good.

Maybe in final assessment he failed, but that is no shock. The light he did provide I don't think can be discounted, even if his goal was overly ambitious.

He lived a miserable life in general. He didn't have a father figure growing up and he had a chronic sickness that made him rely on his mother. His advances for marriage were shot down thrice and his academic career went nowhere. He died when he was 40, most likely due to severe mental disorder. He generally didn't have any friends either. His writing are more of an emotional outlet rather than a poised criticism. I don't think anyone should live a life like that. He really didn't "practice" what he preached either. All he did was wallow in his misery and tried to blame it on his society and the Christianity that helped develop it. That isn't really "ubermesh"- and that ubermesh is really just a projection of his own fantasy for salvation.