Gary's Corner

[Impenitent]

But worse than that: Nietzsche interpreted "the life force" as being expressed as "the will to power," not morality. So to "affirm" your own "life force" by going "beyond good and evil" and becoming an "overman," seizing and exercising power over others, was the only point of life Nietzsche could imagine. In other words, his philosophy affirms the totalitarian impulse and amorality.

no, no, no

Nietzsche never suggested seizing and exercising power over others

Freddy was about overcoming oneself

-Imp

Oh? I don't believe so. As I read Nietzsche, I see his claim as very broad, ubiquitous, and pertaining to several realms: the psychological, the natural world, the social and the political. In fact, I'm unaware of any such restricted meaning as you suggest here. Nietzsche, I think, really thought he'd invented a sort of universal key to the struggle inherent in "life" itself, construed in the broadest possible terms.

This is, in fact, the way readers of Nietzsche have taken it. For example, all sources I've been able to find explain "will to power" as an assumed universal explanation for human motivation, and associate it with the imposition of the will of the individual on the external world, whether natural, social or political. He saw it as irrational, rather than rational and cognitive, and characteristic of all biological life, not of human beings alone. For example, he has Zarathustra say: “Wherever I found a living thing, I found there the will to power.” And Lawrence Hatab, a Nietzsche scholar, insists that the concept is by no means "apolitical" and is rather "an agonistic structure of social life." (words his, emphasis mine) There are many more such sources, you'll find.

In later practice of Nietzsche's theories, we also find this broader biological, social and political reading. We need not refer merely to, say, Hitler, who definitely saw the Nietzschean proposal as quite literal and political; we could consider people like Foucault, who took it as a universal explantion of human social motivation, and thus sought both to indict society as sexually oppressive and to de-moralize sexuality completely. Whatever we guess that Nietzsche might have intended, he failed to put any suitable safeguards on his theorizing. He opened a pandora's box of resentment, conflict and hostility that has never since been restricted to "overcoming oneself" in some merely personal or psychological struggle.

I suggest that with Nietzsche, you have a situation like that with the Islamists and their "jihad." For public approval, they'll tell you that "jihad" means "struggle within the self," or something similarly benign, not "shooting people at the Bataclan," or "flying planes into buildings," or "marching children into minefields." But the reality is that they know "jihad" encompasses all these things, being a much larger concept. And likewise with Nietzsche's "will to power." That's not restricted to some inner, purely-personal struggle. That's a larger concept, not narrowed to the self, and thus too easy to take in a larger and more external way.

However, the countercase is surely yours to make. If you know of some safeguards that limit Nietzsche's claims to the merely psychological, then I'd be interested in seeing them. I haven't found them in my readings of him. It would certainly be helpful for us to have such things, as it would perhaps give us a rationale for resisting the some of the worst implications of Nietzsche's theorizing, as they have been subsequently practiced.

his sister and the Nazis bastardized his works

https://philosophybreak.com/articles/ub ... -superman/

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

no, no, no

Nietzsche never suggested seizing and exercising power over others

Freddy was about overcoming oneself

-Imp

Oh? I don't believe so. As I read Nietzsche, I see his claim as very broad, ubiquitous, and pertaining to several realms: the psychological, the natural world, the social and the political. In fact, I'm unaware of any such restricted meaning as you suggest here. Nietzsche, I think, really thought he'd invented a sort of universal key to the struggle inherent in "life" itself, construed in the broadest possible terms.

This is, in fact, the way readers of Nietzsche have taken it. For example, all sources I've been able to find explain "will to power" as an assumed universal explanation for human motivation, and associate it with the imposition of the will of the individual on the external world, whether natural, social or political. He saw it as irrational, rather than rational and cognitive, and characteristic of all biological life, not of human beings alone. For example, he has Zarathustra say: “Wherever I found a living thing, I found there the will to power.” And Lawrence Hatab, a Nietzsche scholar, insists that the concept is by no means "apolitical" and is rather "an agonistic structure of social life." (words his, emphasis mine) There are many more such sources, you'll find.

In later practice of Nietzsche's theories, we also find this broader biological, social and political reading. We need not refer merely to, say, Hitler, who definitely saw the Nietzschean proposal as quite literal and political; we could consider people like Foucault, who took it as a universal explantion of human social motivation, and thus sought both to indict society as sexually oppressive and to de-moralize sexuality completely. Whatever we guess that Nietzsche might have intended, he failed to put any suitable safeguards on his theorizing. He opened a pandora's box of resentment, conflict and hostility that has never since been restricted to "overcoming oneself" in some merely personal or psychological struggle.

I suggest that with Nietzsche, you have a situation like that with the Islamists and their "jihad." For public approval, they'll tell you that "jihad" means "struggle within the self," or something similarly benign, not "shooting people at the Bataclan," or "flying planes into buildings," or "marching children into minefields." But the reality is that they know "jihad" encompasses all these things, being a much larger concept. And likewise with Nietzsche's "will to power." That's not restricted to some inner, purely-personal struggle. That's a larger concept, not narrowed to the self, and thus too easy to take in a larger and more external way.

However, the countercase is surely yours to make. If you know of some safeguards that limit Nietzsche's claims to the merely psychological, then I'd be interested in seeing them. I haven't found them in my readings of him. It would certainly be helpful for us to have such things, as it would perhaps give us a rationale for resisting the some of the worst implications of Nietzsche's theorizing, as they have been subsequently practiced.

his sister and the Nazis bastardized his works

Yes, that's established. However, it's not the case that they grossly misrepresented him, except they downplayed his distaste for National Socialism. What doesn't seem to have changed is his portrayal of "will to power," which was wide open to such an interpretation -- that is, unless you've found something that most Nietzsche scholars are still unaware of. For they continue to read his "will to power" as including the biological, the social and the political, not merely the personal and psychological.

And if you have, I'm sure the world of Nietzsche scholarship would be interested.

Have you?

[phyllo]

So this is simply a myth. It is not the case that Theism is a major cause of wars, or even a significant cause of wars.

The history is quite clear.

Theist leaders, theist societies, theist populations fought wars against other theists.

[Immanuel Can]

So this is simply a myth. It is not the case that Theism is a major cause of wars, or even a significant cause of wars.

The history is quite clear.

Yes, it is. So it's hard to imagine how the myths about "religious wars" have persisted, except they serve the myth-making purpose of the enemies of Theism. There is simply not adequate historical support for such an allegation. War is the product of other forces, and supremely, of the Atheist ideology of Marxism. That's statistically clear.

But I'm still not seeing any answer to Henry's question. I've been forthcoming in answering, and even given specifics and statistics. Are no Atheists going to speak up in defense of what Atheism itself offers?

Here's something else that history has made clear: the skeptics feel free to criticize Theism. They feel it owes them explanations. They even interrogate the answers it offers, with new questions. And that's all fair. Theism is up to the task, and has been providing explanations and defenses for some 2,000 years, at least.

But why would we give Atheism a free pass? Shouldn't it have to answer even one question about itself? Even just one?

Back to Henry's question. Would you rather answer it as best you can, or would you prefer to just say, "Sorry; I don't know the answer?" We'll take either.

[phyllo]

Yes, it is. So it's hard to imagine how the myths about "religious wars" have persisted, except they serve the myth-making purpose of the enemies of Theism. There is simply not adequate historical support for such an allegation. War is the product of other forces, and supremely, of the Atheist ideology of Marxism. That's statistically clear.

Funny how you manage to find atheists responsible for wars but not theists.

But why would we give Atheism a free pass?

Sounds like you are giving theists a free pass.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, it is. So it's hard to imagine how the myths about "religious wars" have persisted, except they serve the myth-making purpose of the enemies of Theism. There is simply not adequate historical support for such an allegation. War is the product of other forces, and supremely, of the Atheist ideology of Marxism. That's statistically clear.

Funny how you manage to find atheists responsible for wars but not theists.

Did you read it? I pointed out that Theists were responsible for 8%. But some were responsible for 0%, of course. You won't find any Quaker pogroms or Mennonite wars.

But why would we give Atheism a free pass?

Sounds like you are giving theists a free pass.

8% isn't a pass. And Islam is the bloodiest of the religions, as I pointed out, as bloody as all others put together. But statistically, the remainer is only 4%, divided between many different types of Theist, and it is a lot less than the 120 million (that we know of) from the Atheists. So I wouldn't call it a pass, but I would point out that we need some answers from the Atheists, on the very same score upon which they allege against Theism.

I'm not attacking, phyllo. I 'm just asking. Can Atheism itself answer any of the sorts of questions it so routinely throws at Theists? Or does it get a pass, for some reason?

[phyllo]

Your post was whitewash nonsense. You made up 8%.

[Immanuel Can]

Your post was whitewash nonsense. You made up 8%.

Actually, I didn't. You'll find it accords with the data in the Encyclopedia of Wars, the secular source (in three academic volumes) that compiles the statistics. Look it up, if you're in doubt.

[phyllo]

A Catholic and a Protestant fight a piece of land not big enough to bury the dead and you will say it's a war about land.

An atheist and a skeptic fight over the same land and you will say that atheists and skeptics are violent and immoral. That atheism is the cause.

[Immanuel Can]

A Catholic and a Protestant fight a piece of land not big enough to bury the dead and you will say it's a war about land.

And maybe it is. Land is a very important cause of wars. But in making my statements, I was generous to your side, actually: the real number of war dead from Theism is likely somewhat less, but I didn't say so.

An atheist and a skeptic fight over the same land and you will say that atheists and skeptics are violent and immoral. That atheism is the cause.

I didn't raise the issue of war: you did. But when you did, I knew the answer. Socialism is the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude. And I could have gone on, too. Did you know that historically, there is a better than even (52%) chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill at least 200,000 of his own people? That's an interesting stat. But I didn't raise it.

And while you're at it, can you answer Henry's question? Or at least acknowledge that he asked it?

[phyllo]

But in making my statements, I was generous to your side, actually

I don't have a side.

I didn't raise the issue of war

You called Stoicism a death-cult.Which is frankly ridiculous.

I pointed out that theism and Christianity could be called death-cults given how much warfare they engage in.

[phyllo]

And while you're at it, can you answer Henry's question? Or at least acknowledge that he asked it?

He asked two questions.

[henry quirk]

And while you're at it, can you answer Henry's question? Or at least acknowledge that he asked it?

As I say: I'm never disappointed with this test.Those who can, do; those who can't, don't.

I'm gonna start another thread for this.


viewtopic.php?p=800562#p800562

[Impenitent]

Oh? I don't believe so. As I read Nietzsche, I see his claim as very broad, ubiquitous, and pertaining to several realms: the psychological, the natural world, the social and the political. In fact, I'm unaware of any such restricted meaning as you suggest here. Nietzsche, I think, really thought he'd invented a sort of universal key to the struggle inherent in "life" itself, construed in the broadest possible terms.

This is, in fact, the way readers of Nietzsche have taken it. For example, all sources I've been able to find explain "will to power" as an assumed universal explanation for human motivation, and associate it with the imposition of the will of the individual on the external world, whether natural, social or political. He saw it as irrational, rather than rational and cognitive, and characteristic of all biological life, not of human beings alone. For example, he has Zarathustra say: “Wherever I found a living thing, I found there the will to power.” And Lawrence Hatab, a Nietzsche scholar, insists that the concept is by no means "apolitical" and is rather "an agonistic structure of social life." (words his, emphasis mine) There are many more such sources, you'll find.

In later practice of Nietzsche's theories, we also find this broader biological, social and political reading. We need not refer merely to, say, Hitler, who definitely saw the Nietzschean proposal as quite literal and political; we could consider people like Foucault, who took it as a universal explantion of human social motivation, and thus sought both to indict society as sexually oppressive and to de-moralize sexuality completely. Whatever we guess that Nietzsche might have intended, he failed to put any suitable safeguards on his theorizing. He opened a pandora's box of resentment, conflict and hostility that has never since been restricted to "overcoming oneself" in some merely personal or psychological struggle.

I suggest that with Nietzsche, you have a situation like that with the Islamists and their "jihad." For public approval, they'll tell you that "jihad" means "struggle within the self," or something similarly benign, not "shooting people at the Bataclan," or "flying planes into buildings," or "marching children into minefields." But the reality is that they know "jihad" encompasses all these things, being a much larger concept. And likewise with Nietzsche's "will to power." That's not restricted to some inner, purely-personal struggle. That's a larger concept, not narrowed to the self, and thus too easy to take in a larger and more external way.

However, the countercase is surely yours to make. If you know of some safeguards that limit Nietzsche's claims to the merely psychological, then I'd be interested in seeing them. I haven't found them in my readings of him. It would certainly be helpful for us to have such things, as it would perhaps give us a rationale for resisting the some of the worst implications of Nietzsche's theorizing, as they have been subsequently practiced.

his sister and the Nazis bastardized his works

Yes, that's established. However, it's not the case that they grossly misrepresented him, except they downplayed his distaste for National Socialism. What doesn't seem to have changed is his portrayal of "will to power," which was wide open to such an interpretation -- that is, unless you've found something that most Nietzsche scholars are still unaware of. For they continue to read his "will to power" as including the biological, the social and the political, not merely the personal and psychological.

And if you have, I'm sure the world of Nietzsche scholarship would be interested.

Have you?

https://philosophybreak.com/articles/ub ... -superman/

https://medium.com/the-hawken-edition/w ... 9412a18520

https://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Nie ... f_Our_Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

"The will to power (German: der Wille zur Macht) is a concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The will to power describes what Nietzsche may have believed to be the main driving force in humans. He never systematically defined it, leaving its interpretation open to debate.[1] His use of the term can be summarized as self-determination, the concept of actualizing one's will onto oneself or one's surroundings, and it coincides heavily with egoism.[2]"

But worse than that: Nietzsche interpreted "the life force" as being expressed as "the will to power," not morality. So to "affirm" your own "life force" by going "beyond good and evil" and becoming an "overman," seizing and exercising power over others, was the only point of life Nietzsche could imagine. In other words, his philosophy affirms the totalitarian impulse and amorality.

totalitarian impulses aside... being an "overman" seizing and exercising power over others, when you can't seize and exercise power over yourself, is a great trick

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

No IC.......

It is YOUR belief that the non-theist is incapable of morality AS THEY SEE IT.

In other words, you may believe that their basis of morality is WRONG (their moral rules not the correct moral rules) But that is very different than believing that they are not considering morality. Have you never met any atheists? If so, did you observe them not taking morality into account? << even though you consider their morality incorrect >>

Amorality means without any morality, not without the one true and correct morality. Again, your belief that they are irrational in believing in morality is not relevant.