Gary's Corner

[phyllo]

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

Those who can but are not interested in doing.

[Immanuel Can]

"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]"

Perhaps you can just explain what you think this quotation is supposed to show. It's not clear to me that it narrows "will to power" to the merely personal and psychological. Rather, it seems to do the opposite: to argue that Nietzsche's meaning was "undefined" and "open," and including "one's surroundings." And it says its driven by "egoism." None of that seems at all to suggest that "will to power" was narrowed down by Nietzsche to the purely interior.

Do you have any better evidence?

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

Hardly. There are a great many totalitarians and tyrants who have never achieved mastery over themselves. As a class, they're not exactly known for their moral clarity, you know.

Rather, they tend to be driven by various impulses...paranoia, rage, suspicion, greed, egoism...and their lust for power...or shall we say, the "will to power"?

[Immanuel Can]

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

Those who can but are not interested in doing.

I don't think the conclusion is hard to come to, then. The reason you're not answering Henry's question is quite simple: from an Atheistic perspective, it cannot be answered. Atheism has nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

No IC.......

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

No, be honest. I can see you're trying to twist my words, as can anybody who reads back through this thread.

My claim from the start has been that Atheism is incapable of providing grounds for morality. But I have equally insisted since the start that Atheists themselves are often irrational and inconsistent with their Atheism, and so believe in things they cannot explain. Some of them still believe in morality -- and in that limited sense, are "capable" of such belief. But nothing in their Atheism supports the things they believe in, in the moral realm.

If it's not so, I'll even show you how to disprove it: just give me one moral precept that Atheism requires of us. Just one. Any one. You pick it.

And if you have none...then you know I'm right. Or you should know, even if you refuse to confess the truth.

[phyllo]

I don't think the conclusion is hard to come to, then. The reason you're not answering Henry's question is quite simple: from an Atheistic perspective, it cannot be answered. Atheism has nothing.

Atheism has empathy, sympathy and shared humanity.

[henry quirk]

Atheism has empathy, sympathy and shared humanity.

Illustrating Mannie's point: atheism has no legitimate moral ground.

As I say: that little test never disappoints.

[phyllo]

Those are not legitimate?

[henry quirk]

Those are not legitimate?

Not as a ground for morality, no.

A true moral ground sez enslavin' the other guy is wrong even if you despise the other guy.

Yours? You can easily justify slavery for anyone you despise (have no sympathy, empathy for; feel no shared humanity with).

[phyllo]

'Shared humanity' doesn't go away when you don't like someone. Neither doesn't empathy, although that's more controversial.

[Immanuel Can]

'Shared humanity' doesn't go away when you don't like someone. Neither doesn't empathy, although that's more controversial.

I don't think you're right.

As we look at it plainly, there's nothing in the claim, "there are not gods" that implies "you should have empathy," or "you must do X because of shared humanity." Atheism does not imply so much.

So if you suppose it does, would you please show how? How does the claim "there are no gods" issue in "...so you owe it to be empathetic"?

[phyllo]

As we look at it plainly, there's nothing in the claim, "there are not gods" that implies "you should have empathy," or "you must do X because of shared humanity." Atheism does not imply so much.

That's right.

There is nothing in the claim "there are no gods" that atheists don't have empathy or morality or a host of things you repeatedly attribute to atheists.

It just means the atheist doesn't think that there are gods. None of the baggage you load onto atheists is there.

[Immanuel Can]

As we look at it plainly, there's nothing in the claim, "there are not gods" that implies "you should have empathy," or "you must do X because of shared humanity." Atheism does not imply so much.

That's right.

There is nothing in the claim "there are no gods" that atheists don't have empathy or morality or a host of things you repeatedly attribute to atheists.

That wasn't the question. It wasn't "what does Atheism NOT imply." It was "how does Atheism imply what you suggest it implies, namely a duty to have empathy?"

What you do here, in your attempted response, is try to reverse the burden of proof, so that anything Atheism does NOT say becomes implied as a duty. But that's absurd, actually. It cannot possibly be believed. The same argument strategy you're using would imply that if Atheism does NOT say "no owning Ferraris," then all Atheists are obligated to own Ferraris. It would also imply that if Atheism does NOT say, "no murdering gypsies," then Atheists are obligated to murder gypsies.

Atheism contains no claims about empathy either way. An Atheist could choose to have empathy, or could choose to have none at all, and still be as much an Atheist, either way. There's nothing in Atheism itself to tell us that empathy is good, or necessary, or even better than callousness.

[phyllo]

What you do here, in your attempted response, is try to reverse the burden of proof, so that anything Atheism does NOT say becomes implied as a duty. But that's absurd, actually. It cannot possibly be believed. The same argument strategy you're using would imply that if Atheism does NOT say "no owning Ferraris," then all Atheists are obligated to own Ferraris. It would also imply that if Atheism does NOT say, "no murdering gypsies," then Atheists are obligated to murder gypsies.

Nonsense.

Atheism contains no claims about empathy either way.

Empathy is separate from atheism and theism.

Empathy is a foundation of human morality.

Atheists use it in their arguments. Theists put it in their holy scripture.

[Immanuel Can]

What you do here, in your attempted response, is try to reverse the burden of proof, so that anything Atheism does NOT say becomes implied as a duty. But that's absurd, actually. It cannot possibly be believed. The same argument strategy you're using would imply that if Atheism does NOT say "no owning Ferraris," then all Atheists are obligated to own Ferraris. It would also imply that if Atheism does NOT say, "no murdering gypsies," then Atheists are obligated to murder gypsies.

Nonsense.

Exactlly so. There's nothing in Atheism that requires us an Atheist to be empathetic.

Empathy is a foundation of human morality.

Actually it's not. And there's good research now to show it's not. Empathy itself doesn't even have a specific content. It can be used to excuse murder or sympathize with bad behaviour as easily as it can be used to induce good behaviour. Empathy is just a feeling.

But let's pretend it is essentially to morality, just for argument's sake. What in Atheism will get us from "there are no gods" to "...so we ought to be empathetic"?

[phyllo]

Humans are empathetic. It's an evolved characteristic.

Some humans are theists and some are atheists.

There is no "atheists must be empathetic" argument to be made. It doesn't make any sense to ask for it.