IS and OUGHT

[Harbal]

One can feel a sense of rejection by starting to read Nietzsche.

One can also feel a sense that he was quite bonkers, and therefore not read him at all. Honestly, that moustache, there is definitely something going on there.

[Immanuel Can]

Nietzsche was attacking a specific type of value, with HIS OWN set of values.
Nietzsche has values, else he could not attack other values.

Well, you're right: Nietzsche was inconsistent in that. He claimed we could, and should, get "beyond good and evil," and yet he smuggled in his own moralizing as if it ought to be everbody's.

He was a hypocrite in doing so, of course. But then, Nietzsche is much more often a polemicist than a logician. He didn't seem to hold himself to much of a standard of consistency.

And he never "attacked his own values." Rather, he attacked conventional morality and what he conceived of (often wrongly) as "Judeo-Christian" values, as he put it.

As for his own values, he assumed them, imposed them on his readers, and marched on.

But you're quite right that if he were not smuggling back in his own unlegitimized values, he would be utterly unable to critique anybody else's.

One can feel a sense of rejection by starting to read Nietzsche.
But if you then feel his great passion for the Truth, then you can get close to him.

I recognize some “truth” in Nietzsche…most importantly, he has much “truth” to tell us about how amoral a world without God is inherently inclined to become. His indictments of Atheism on that score are not all wrong.

Because he's sincere, and that's what really matters.

He’s often “sincerely” wrong…so no, “sincerity” is far from being “all that matters.”

Following him can lead us along the path of nihilism.
Which is a must for those looking for the Truth.

Well, “Nihilism” by definition, means “belief in nothing.” Nietzsche was against that, although he talked out of both sides of his mouth on that question. But no, it’s not apparent that Nihilism sits on any path to truth.

In fact, a thorough Nihilism cannot possibly do that, since it cannot even believe in truth.

Nietzsche was a great soul.
Who did not want to deceive himself. At any cost.

Nietzsche did not believe he had a “soul,” whether “great” or otherwise. That sort of value-laden assessment of anyone is impossible in a Nihilistic world, or one “beyond good and evil.”

And maybe…maybe he didn’t want to deceive himself…maybe. I’ll leave that in your assessment.

But he did.

[Sculptor]

Nietzsche was attacking a specific type of value, with HIS OWN set of values.
Nietzsche has values, else he could not attack other values.

Well, you're right: Nietzsche was inconsistent in that. He claimed we could, and should, get "beyond good and evil," and yet he smuggled in his own moralizing as if it ought to be everbody's.

He was a hypocrite in doing so, of course. But then, Nietzsche is much more often a polemicist than a logician. He didn't seem to hold himself to much of a standard of consistency.

haha.
Pot calling a clean kettle black.

And he never "attacked his own values." Rather, he attacked conventional morality and what he conceived of (often wrongly) as "Judeo-Christian" values, as he put it.

Pathetic whingeing christian hypocrisy you mean.

As for his own values, he assumed them, imposed them on his readers, and marched on.

Tutut. Churches impose. Philosophers suggest.

But you're quite right that if he were not smuggling back in his own unlegitimized values, he would be utterly unable to critique anybody else's.

And there is is. The arrogance of the religious retard, who thinks their morality is legitimate.
Run along silly boy

[Harbal]

I recognize some “truth” in Nietzsche…most importantly, he has much “truth” to tell us about how amoral a world without God is inherently inclined to become. His indictments of Atheism on that score are not all wrong.

What would the most significant differences be between a world with God, and an amoral world without God? How would godlessness manifest itself in the behaviour of the godless, would you say?

[bobmax]

Well, “Nihilism” by definition, means “belief in nothing.”

Nihilism does not mean not believing in anything, but believing that nothing has value.

Nihilism is closely linked with rational thought, it is the other side of the coin.
Because the more one is convinced that logical - rational thought is a source of truth, the more nihilistic awareness grows.

The rational interpretation of the world by clarifying it implicitly shows the absence of any value.

And the technical development of this era has increased the nihilistic conviction.
Which is mostly a weak, cowardly nihilism, almost unaware of itself. Which pushes to enjoy as much as possible, in order to escape the nihilistic existential anguish.

But there is also a strong nihilism, aware of itself, which faces the future fearlessly.
As in Nietzsche or in Leopardi.

Religions, all of them, have been remedies to counter the nihilistic existential anguish.

But these remedies are now ineffective.
We must make up our minds and face the challenge of nihilism.

[Immanuel Can]

What would the most significant differences be between a world with God, and an amoral world without God? How would godlessness manifest itself in the behaviour of the godless, would you say?

That's a complex question to answer, because of the indeterminacy of the terms employed in it.

I'm not avoiding the question, as I'll shortly make clear. But I can see pitfalls in trying to respond to it, in its present form.

We haven't said which "God" is in view, and who this "world" that regards itself with or without this "God" is.

Belief in Allah or Brahma is going to issue in very different things than is the Demiurge of Gnosticism, which is going to be different again from belief in YHWH of the Hebrews. And then it's going to make a big difference which people in the "world" we're looking at: is it non-believers, mere nominalists, legalists, or the devout and obedient to the doctrine in each case. All of those things are variables that change the potential answer.

But specify the God you mean and the people you mean, and I can perhaps have a go at the answer.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, “Nihilism” by definition, means “belief in nothing.”

Nihilism does not mean not believing in anything, but believing that nothing has value.

Well, it depends: Nihilism is a cluster of negations, really. And the extent of those negations, or their specific referents, depends on the type of Nihilism you're speaking about.

For example, Universal Nihilism would hold that all things, everything, is bunk. Epistemological Nihilism would hold that nothing is knowable. Moral Nihilism, that nothing is good. Poltical Nihilism, that no political scheme is effective or trustworthy...and so on.

So what do you mean by Nihilism? Which variety, or which other kind?

Nihilism is closely linked with rational thought

I don't see that it is.

What's "rational" about ending up believing in nothing? That would rather seem highly anti-intellectual, in the sense that it denies any value to intellection. I can't imagine anybody educating themselves if they've been convinced there's nothing to know, or nothing worth learning.

But maybe you mean that somehow you think it's obvious that anybody who looks at the world "rationally" (understood as Nietzschean Atheistically, I suppose?) is going to end up being cynical? That might well be a fault of Atheism, in that case. It might not be anything to do with rationality.

The rational interpretation of the world by clarifying it implicitly shows the absence of any value.

You'd better fill that out, I guess, if I'm to understand your claim: what "reasons" or "rational interpretations" "clarify" by way of "implication" that there is an "absence of value"?

Which is mostly a weak, cowardly nihilism, almost unaware of itself. Which pushes to enjoy as much as possible, in order to escape the nihilistic existential anguish.

Okay, I see something in that claim.

I think that can be true...Nihilism can be a refuge for the fearful through an open license for self-indulgence in order to fend of the presence of the terror of death. That's probably one form of Nihilism.

But there is also a strong nihilism, aware of itself, which faces the future fearlessly.

Is there a blustery, overblown, false-courageous Nihilism? I think we should look to Nietzsche for that. How about a narcissistic Nihilism that proclaims itself "so wise" (his words) when it is actually only gratuitously cynical? Can we count on him for that, too?

I think we can.

Religions, all of them, have been remedies to counter the nihilistic existential anguish.

You think that, for example, ancient tribal people were aware of "nihilistic existential anguish," and so invented polytheisms remedy it?

That explanation, I'd have to see. That would take some very ingenious anthropological account, for sure...one I've never seen.

But go ahead, if you have it.

[Harbal]

But specify the God you mean and the people you mean, and I can perhaps have a go at the answer.

Okay, the God can be the God you believe in, and the atheists can be people like me.

[promethean75]

"Nietzsche did not attack "conventional morality" because it's conventional. He stated a fact; that people had entered an age of personal responsibility wherein Authority is dead."

well said madam. and what these guys gotta remember is that the state of germany and its music influenced and grew in Nietzsche a deep, subconscious pseudo-emo reverence for the great hero-like leaders and conquerors of history. He saw in them what we see today in the x-men... an ubermenschean force of superhuman beings that through their immense power can take over the world and establish their order sans 'god'. the great masters of the erf, the redeemers of mankind!

anyway his fixation on the hyper masculine in art and philosophy is categorically no different than an awkward kid today who idolizes Thor. we don't hold the kid guilty for his fantasies, so we oughtin not hold N guilty of his. plus he was an incredibly shahp philologist who jumped right into some freaky Greek shit at a very early, very impressionable age. kinda an awkward kid, fritz wuz. durant tells the story that one time at school he had lit some matches and let them burn out in his palm to impress some students who were watching or whatever.

[Immanuel Can]

But specify the God you mean and the people you mean, and I can perhaps have a go at the answer.

Okay, the God can be the God you believe in, and the atheists can be people like me.

I thought you were an agnostic?

Well, I don't know you beyond your typed words here, so I can't rightly say what you'd do. I imagine you'd probably take some sort of moral code that you preferred, and try to follow it. You might even be a very nice person, by the standards of somebody else's moral code, too. Most people will choose simply to follow something approximate to whatever they've been raised to believe is good or bad, usually with a little extra laxity thrown into it, in their own particular case. That seems to be human nature.

But if you decided not to do that...say you realized that Atheism warrants no moral codes at all, and decided to act on that...then there wouldn't be any line of thought that would impede you from whatever it is you decided to do on that basis. So, if you were a psychopathic narcissist, say, there would be neither anything to prevent you from acting on that, nor would there be any objective standard to which your society could refer when it came to stopping you or penalizing you for whatever you did.

Absent any rational basis for stopping you, or for you stopping yourself, all your society could to is resort to force of a totally arbitrary kind. Having decided they "don't like" your recreational activities, say, or even if they didn't like some legitimate or harmless action of yours, they could incarcerate or abuse you as much as they had power and will to do...and there would exist no standard to which you, or anyone else, could appeal to tell them, "I don't deserve what you're doing," or "It is enough." You wouldn't have any objective rights, there would be no objective basis of judgment, and there would be no grounds for any appeal; because arbitrary punishment is just that -- arbitrary.

So, in a nutshell, you could do anything you could find a way to get away with. And your society, if they caught you, could reward or punish you, or do nothing at all, on the basis of whatever they felt like doing. On both sides, there would be no actual, objective standard of right and wrong or justice or rights to which any person could refer. Any such thing, like all moral precepts, would simply be arbitrary -- and underneath them, as Nietzsche said, would be nothing but "will to power," rather than truth.

[Harbal]

I thought you were an agnostic?

I'm still trying to make up my mind.

Well, I don't know you beyond your typed words here, so I can't rightly say what you'd do. I imagine you'd probably take some sort of moral code that you preferred, and try to follow it. You might even be a very nice person, by the standards of somebody else's moral code, too. Most people will choose simply to follow something approximate to whatever they've been raised to believe is good or bad, usually with a little extra laxity thrown into it, in their own particular case. That seems to be human nature.

But if you decided not to do that...say you realized that Atheism warrants no moral codes at all, and decided to act on that...then there wouldn't be any line of thought that would impede you from whatever it is you decided to do on that basis. So, if you were a psychopathic narcissist, say, there would be neither anything to prevent you from acting on that, nor would there be any objective standard to which your society could refer when it came to stopping you or penalizing you for whatever you did.

Absent any rational basis for stopping you, or for you stopping yourself, all your society could to is resort to force of a totally arbitrary kind. Having decided they "don't like" your recreational activities, say, or even if they didn't like some legitimate or harmless action of yours, they could incarcerate or abuse you as much as they had power and will to do...and there would exist no standard to which you, or anyone else, could appeal to tell them, "I don't deserve what you're doing," or "It is enough." You wouldn't have any objective rights, there would be no objective basis of judgment, and there would be no grounds for any appeal; because arbitrary punishment is just that -- arbitrary.

So, in a nutshell, you could do anything you could find a way to get away with. And your society, if they caught you, could reward or punish you, or do nothing at all, on the basis of whatever they felt like doing. On both sides, there would be no actual, objective standard of right and wrong or justice or rights to which any person could refer. Any such thing, like all moral precepts, would simply be arbitrary -- and underneath them, as Nietzsche said, would be nothing but "will to power," rather than truth.

You don't paint a pretty picture, IC. Is this inevitable, do you think, or can you see any way in which a society of atheists could take steps to avoid the dystopia you describe.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't paint a pretty picture, IC.

It is, and it isn't.

So long as Atheists continue to, in some measure,"behave Judeo-Christianly," so to speak (and to adopt Nietzsche's language) -- to believe in human rights, to believe in some objective good and evil, to regard laws as reflective of some deeper moral truth, and so on -- the world should continue pretty much as it has done up to now.

But what when they finally process the fact that there's nothing behind that? What if they realize that morality is backed by less than bitcoin? How do things play out then?

It's anybody's guess.

Is this inevitable, do you think, or can you see any way in which a society of atheists could take steps to avoid the dystopia you describe?

Hmmm...

Good question.

Well, one thing seems obvious: that unless morality has some real facts behind it, it's probably only a matter of time until people figure out they've been had. Nietzsche thought that was true: for him, morality was just an inauthentic language used by some people to keep others in line, a language of the weak to keep the strong from eating them, so to speak. It really hid "the will to power," (his term) not an objective truth. And Nietzsche saw himself as the very first of those to realize this situation, and to call it out.

But as with his famous "Parable of the Madman," Nietzsche also thought people were not going to realize this truth for awhile. His "madman" casts down his lantern, smashing it, and declares, "I have come too early, [...] my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard." (Kauffman translation) It was going to be a considerable time, he thought, before the actual belief in the death of God was going to reach most people, and then that the implications of that loss were going to sink in, and then people were going to start to live in the light of that new realization (or rather, "in the dark of it," one might say), and then finally the effects of that would be witnessed.

What could anybody do to reverse what Nietzsche predicted? Well, they could, of course, believe in God again, and then in objective morality grounded in the authority of God. But is that the trend we're witnessing? Perhaps not. So what else could they do...hmmm...perhaps invent their own moral framework, and then propagandize everybody into thinking it was objective and right, and live off that? Would that work? Maybe, but maybe not for long...

But I don't know that there's another alternative. Nietzsche, I think, believed we were inevitably going to end up living "beyond good and evil."

On the subject of Nietzsche and his inheritors, one Jewish journalist has written:

"Nietzsche questioned the idea that there is a body of unchanging moral principles that guide all human conduct. He argued there were no overarching moral principles, and that morality wrongly deprived the powerful of their “natural right” to rule over the weak and ignore their wellbeing.

You can see why the Nazis liked that idea and took it to an extreme the philosopher never could have imagined. Hitler infamously wrote that “conscience is a Jewish invention,” and years later said, “I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience, morality … We will train young people before whom the whole world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence, imperious, relentless, cruel.”

The Nazis interpreted freedom as the liberty of the Aryan race to expand its power unchecked. In their view, justice was served when the strong realized their destiny of dominating the weak. They needed freedom from morality and desired a system of law protecting their privileges as a master race.

For the Nazis, Judaism had to be eliminated because it was a permanent reminder that freedom, justice, and law are all counter to Nazi philosophy.

And in his depraved way, Hitler was right, because for Jews, law and morality are inextricably linked. Freedom is meaningless if not framed in a system of values and laws that defends the weak, protect the basic rights of all people, and tempers the excesses of the powerful. Morality is the bedrock of law, and morality is, by definition, a limitation of power."

But is he right that Nietzsche "could never have imagined" where his philosophy could go? I don't think so. Though he could not have foreseen the 3rd Reich and all it entailed, obviously, what's important about Nietzsche is that there is nothing in his description of morality that offers any resistance at all to the kind of interpretation that Hitler made of it -- even though Nietzsche himself was not a Nazi, of course. He opened a Pandora's Box of possible interpretations of what it could mean to live "beyond good and evil"; and if Hitler took it in an extreme way, then it still wasn't, by the lights Nietzsche offers, a wrong way. Because there are no "wrong" ways, to Nietzsche.

Hitler's gone, and the Nazis are now really no more than a historical artifact. They're not coming back. But that Pandora's Box is still open, so long as we have no grounded basis for objective morality. What can come out of it next? There's no telling. But without a way to close that box, it's bound to be something...new ubermenschen of some kind, another "elite class" of tyrants? Unrestricted governmental manipulation and social engineering of the populace, uninhibited by moral qualms? Maybe.

But that's as far as I can speculate.

[Age]

VERY, VERY True.

Shit! Shit! Shit! Age agrees with something I wrote.

Just LOOK AT how many people CHOOSE to take the 'redshift data' to, LOL, MEAN that the Universe IS EXPANDING, and BEGAN.

Phew! Panic over.

I fuggin lost it at this post

WHY is it that the ones who BELIEVE some 'thing' to be true, when it OBVIOUSLY IS NOT, are the ones who 'try to' STICK TOGETHER THE HARDEST?

Just LOOK AT the ones who BELIEVED that the sun revolved around the earth, and how they 'tried to' STICK TOGETHER.

[Age]

I think that some hard version of doxastic voluntarism is false: I don't think we consciously choose our values any more than we could consciously choose what we're convinced by.

Schopenhauer nailed it when in reference to free will he claimed that we can do as we please; we just can't choose what pleases us. Skipping forward a century, in some ways the most influential book of our time was Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Like most great works, it wasn't created in a vacuum; Kuhn cited Ludwik Fleck and Michael Polanyi for example. Pivotal in the shift from modernism to post-modernism, it was pretty much the nail in the coffin for any belief that theories, scientific or otherwise, are objective. This has emboldened nutjobs who take it to mean that all theories are equally valid; the irony being that they more often than not also want to insist that their pet fruitloopery is the (frequently capitalised) Truth. The data is what it is (are what they are, for purists) there isn't any ought about interpretation. If there is an imperative, it is that one ought at least to look at the data, and not take any conclusion too seriously, but we know there is a tendency to choose the data that supports what we are already convinced of.

Well why ought I have those values? I think that I just do: some combination of evolutionary history (nature) and my upbringing and circumstances (nurture).

You just have to look at a map to know that's true.

I’m keeping this Schopenhauer quote for the next time I have to talk about doxastic voluntarism.

As for the rest, I quite agree.

Here we have ANOTHER one who appears TRAPPED in Life, and apparently has NO CONTROL NOR CHOICE over certain 'things' like, what they do or do NOT like.

Some people REALLY NEVER did 'grow up' and take RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN lives, back in the days when this was being written.

And this is WHY some people, back then, REALLY BELIEVED that they HAVE TO BELIEVE some 'things'.

They, lol, ACTUALLY BELIEVED that they HAVE TO BELIEVE 'some things' are true.

There were even some who BELIEVED that they could NOT live if they did NOT HAVE BELIEFS, as ABSURD as that may sound.

[Age]

'Survival of the fittest' is too glib. What is the case is natural selection partly depends on individuals who are fit enough to survive until they reproduce their genes.

I have heard that the term 'survival of the fittest' was NOT in relation to an 'individual', like a human being, or some particular species of animal, being STRONGER nor THE FITTEST, at all. But rather was in relation to 'that', which FIT IN best with the environment.

'That', which is best SUITED TO, or best FITS IN WITH, the environment, SURVIVES.

Which is VERY DIFFERENT from how I OBSERVE and SEE adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, present that term.