Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:15 am

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:15 am This is pathetic. Is this is the best you can do?

It's Nietzsche's argument, not mine. But please, do feel free to take issue with him.

I don't need to take issue with Nietzsche's argument. You've distorted it for your own ends, as you've distorted Camus. It's just standard-issue cheap apologetics, nothing new. Yawn.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:58 pm I don't need to take issue with Nietzsche's argument.

You can run away from it, yes. And if I were an Atheist who was wanting to sustain my indoctrinated confidence in Atheism, I suppose I'd run from it too.

What I note, though, is that apparently you have anything to say to defeat it. In short, it is that Atheism rationalizes self-interest, at most, and nothing else -- no meaning, no purpose, no morality, beyond the momentary impulses of the egocentric individual. Nietzsche saw that, as also Camus did, of course. But probably only Nietzsche was willing to look at it unblinkingly. It's not an easy pill to swallow. But to quote Nietzsche, (in Beyond Good and Evil) "Swallow your poison; for you need it badly."

At the end of the day, it wouldn't matter if it were me, Nietzsche or Bugs Bunny who was setting it forth -- the argument is the argument. If an Atheist can refute it, he probably should perform a service to his peers by doing so.

But if he cannot...?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:14 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:58 pm I don't need to take issue with Nietzsche's argument.

You can run away from it, yes. And if I were an Atheist who was wanting to sustain my indoctrinated confidence in Atheism, I suppose I'd run from it too.

What I note, though, is that apparently you have anything to say to defeat it. In short, it is that Atheism rationalizes self-interest, at most, and nothing else -- no meaning, no purpose, no morality, beyond the momentary impulses of the egocentric individual. Nietzsche saw that, as also Camus did, of course. But probably only Nietzsche was willing to look at it unblinkingly. It's not an easy pill to swallow. But to quote Nietzsche, (in Beyond Good and Evil) "Swallow your poison; for you need it badly."

At the end of the day, it wouldn't matter if it were me, Nietzsche or Bugs Bunny who was setting it forth -- the argument is the argument. If an Atheist can refute it, he probably should perform a service to his peers by doing so.

But if he cannot...?

What a complete, unalloyed load of bollocks. You just cherry-pick both Nietzsche and Camus and hope no one notices.

You leave out everything, in Nietzsche, that comes after the death of God -- the ubermenshch, the re-evaluation of all values, the eternal recurrence -- and none of these and other things Nietzsche wrote comes close to your mischaracterization of his philosophy. You want me to elaborate on all this? Why? Am I being paid to do so? You also mischaracterize Camus and the abusrd, but I have already discussed that (and the differences between existentialism, the absurd, and nihilism), so why rinse and repeat? Basically you take everything that Nietzsche and Camus wrote and mischaracterize their philosophy as nihilism, but that is false. Also, perhaps you are unaware that Nietzsche considered Christianity to be the greatest nihilism, and he was right.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:27 pm (Belinda)It's probable that when a man accepts that God is 'dead' that man will also free himself from unquestioning obedience to worldly authorities too.

Ah, but you miss my point. When man is "free" in this sense, he will be without reservations, the slave of his passions. It's one thing to be "free"; it' s quite another to ever become free from that great, squalling, demanding baby, the human self. That will not relinquish its hold.

If that man is in psychological bondage to his unthinking passions he will be less free than if he can control his passions.

But how to control them, when there is no telos, no purpose, no meaning, no objective and no God that relativizes the passions. Then they make their demands, and what will tell them nay?

(IC)

self can never satisfy self

self can be more free the more self follows reason ; reason is not subjective.

You misunderstand what reason is. It can no more satisfy your passions than "mathematics" can. Mathematics is a process, the uses of which are not specified in advance. It works equally well for engineering, origami, or counting cash. But it doesn't tell you what you should want to do, or why.

Likewise, reason is a process. It has no opinion about your passions, your values, your goals, your morality or your meaning. It can only tell you what makes sense if you take these things for granted already.

So reason will not save us. That absurd hope, gestated in the naivete of the Enlightenment ideologues, surely died on the battlefields of Vimy and the Somme, or in Hitler's factories of death...enterprises run by "reasons," and according to "rational" objectives (there was nothing more "rational" than the Auschwitz train schedule!), but with what effects...

No, reason will not save us. We will need to know what "right" objectives to plug into reason, just as you cannot solve X+Y-Z if you have no values for the mathematical variables. Reason is good only if you have the values.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:29 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:27 pm (Belinda)It's probable that when a man accepts that God is 'dead' that man will also free himself from unquestioning obedience to worldly authorities too.

Ah, but you miss my point. When man is "free" in this sense, he will be without reservations, the slave of his passions.

Ah, yes, atheists everywhere are all running amok!

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:28 pm What a complete, unalloyed load of bollocks...You want me to elaborate on all this? Why? Am I being paid to do so? ...I have already discussed that, so why rinse and repeat?

Again, you dodge the question. Claiming to have answered is not, after all, the same thing as having answered.

Why are you not "beyond good and evil"? why doesn't Atheism issue in amorality? Show Nietzsche why he's not just dead, but dead wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:32 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:28 pm What a complete, unalloyed load of bollocks...You want me to elaborate on all this? Why? Am I being paid to do so? ...I have already discussed that, so why rinse and repeat?

Again, you dodge the question. Claiming to have answered is not, after all, the same thing as having answered.

Why are you not "beyond good and evil"? why doesn't Atheism issue in amorality? Show Nietzsche why he's not just dead, but dead wrong.

The point is you have mischaracterized Nietzsche's philosophy, and I have no desire to rebut a strawman.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:01 am
As Nietzsche saw so clearly, it makes no sense at all. What does make sense, from an individual strategic position, is having a bunch of people following conventional morality of some kind, so they become predictable and limited, but for the "Overman" individual to be able to pick it up or drop it at will, according to his strategic advantage, and without any moral compunction.

In other words, it may suit the individual to leave society "enslaved" (Nietzsche's term) to morality, but to put himself "beyond good and evil." That's ideal; because then he gets to be the one "Overman," and make use of all the other puppets at will.

This is pathetic. Is this is the best you can do? It is YOU who follows conventional morality, according to Nietzsche. 'Do you really not get this?

First and foremost IC is either a liar, or so dense and confused that he can't see past his crooked nose.
No god is required for the GR to make since for everyone, as it's simply a matter of reciprocity! And to become that which you fear is quite insane indeed, as it only perpetuates that which you fear, pure and simple!

The overman is symbolic for the insane!

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:46 pm The point is you have mischaracterized Nietzsche's philosophy, and I have no desire to rebut a strawman.

A facile answer. The argument is the argument. Call it Nietzsche's, call it mine, call it Bugs Bunny's, and it won't change things if the argument is right.

As it is, I have not mischaracterized Nietzsche at all. It's apparent you've always read him (if you have) looking for those moments when he thunders against "Judeo-Christianity," and entirely missing the moments when he casts the dark pall over Atheism.

But I'll give you one, straight from the famous "Madman's Speech."

• The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
  
  "How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? ...and so on.

There it is. But you'll say, "Nietzsche didn't say this...or didn't mean this...or wouldn't ask me to justify my Atheism..."

I know, I know.

It's such hard work preserving one's unfaith from doubt.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:08 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:46 pm The point is you have mischaracterized Nietzsche's philosophy, and I have no desire to rebut a strawman.

A facile answer. The argument is the argument. Call it Nietzsche's, call it mine, call it Bugs Bunny's, and it won't change things if the argument is right.

As it is, I have not mischaracterized Nietzsche at all. It's apparent you've always read him (if you have) looking for those moments when he thunders against "Judeo-Christianity," and entirely missing the moments when he casts the dark pall over Atheism.

But I'll give you one, straight from the famous "Madman's Speech."

• The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
  
  "How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? ...and so on.

There it is. But you'll say, "Nietzsche didn't say this...or didn't mean this...or wouldn't ask me to justify my Atheism..."

I know, I know.

It's such hard work preserving one's unfaith from doubt.

Holy crap.

Yes, I've read Nietzsche. Have you?

This sort of cherry-picking is exactly like creationists who cherry-pick Darwin's quote about the "abusrdity" of the evolution of the human eye, but fail to mention where he goes on to explain, a few paragraphs later, how the evolution of the eye is not absurd at all.

And, in like fashion, you've cherry-pikced Nietzsche, failing to go beyond this to where he answers these questions.

Do you really think quote-mining impresses anyone?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:50 pm No god is required for the GR to make since for everyone, as it's simply a matter of reciprocity!

And where is it written that Atheists owe each other reciprocity?

I know of no moral injunction that prevents one from saying, "Thank you for the consideration...but now I'm going to take advantage of it."

Indeed, why can't an Atheist choose to say, if he wills, "Give me my due, but to hell with you?" What makes that wrong?

If you know how an Atheist can find such an objective moral obligation, I'd be happy to hear about it. As I said earlier, there's no way any of us wants to live in a world full of this kind of Atheist...a consistent one.

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:15 pm Do you really think quote-mining impresses anyone?

Keep running. I wouldn't want to answer the argument either, were I you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:17 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:15 pm Do you really think quote-mining impresses anyone?

Keep running. I wouldn't want to answer the argument either, were I you.

It's you who are running. You are running away from the fact that Nietzsche was a philosopher-poet who artistically posed the problem in the above-quoted passage, but then, in the balance of his work, provided his solution to the stated problem.

Are you honestly trying to make people believe that the totality of Nietzsche's work resides in the passage you quoted? Do you think people here are that stupid?

Again, this is exactly like people who quote-mine Darwin's comment on the "absurdity" of the evolution of the eye, without then going on to quote the later passages, immediately afterward, in which he explains that the evolution of the eye is not absurd at all. It's just rank dishonesty on your part. It's disgusting Christian apologetics at its most infamous. You are a worthy practitioner of the infamous.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:58 am The ethic that ensued might look the same. But in the latter case, he would have an objective grounds for believing he had a responsibility to do the GR, whereas in the latter he would have none.

The belief in God and that he wills you to act in a certain way is a subjective judgement, otherwise we would all believe it. If I believe that my conscience is the legitimate source of my morality and that I am ethically bound to follow it, that is also a subjective belief but not more so than thinking the morality comes from God.

Thus his commitment to the GR would have to last only as long as he felt like it; and after he stopped wanting to do the GR, he would have no reason at all to continue, because there would be no objective obligation attached to performing the GR.

It's not so unusual for people to follow their conscience rather than their own personal interest. True, we don't have to follow it but many people find it hard to go against it. I doubt very much that many people would just arbitrarily abandon their core beliefs about morality. Also, it is not unheard of for even the strongly religious to lose their faith, at which point they will no longer feel obligated to do God's will.

But if I do not obey God, then I know I am doing the wrong thing, and am responsible for my choice.

The same applies if I do not obey my conscience.

Moreover, I always know that I am falling short of, and damaging the relationship I ought to have with the Creator.

And I know I am falling short and damaging my sense of self esteem.

Even if I agreed with you, how could I be sure what God wanted of me? I don't understand most of what's written in the Bible, I would have to rely on "experts" to interpret it for me, people like you, perhaps. This being the case, I wouldn't actually be doing God's will, I would be doing what somebody thinks is God's will, which could vary quite a lot, depending on who's advice I was dependant on. How do I know they haven't got it wrong or that they are being truthful?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:16 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:50 pm No god is required for the GR to make since for everyone, as it's simply a matter of reciprocity!

And where is it written that Atheists owe each other reciprocity?
Written??? Written??? It's a matter of common knowledge! You seem to be fixated on books that men write, some sane, while others quite insane. Seriously, do you absolutely have to be told by old dead men, how to think?


I know of no moral injunction that prevents one from saying, "Thank you for the consideration...but now I'm going to take advantage of it."
Of course you're correct, but enforcement is not at issue here, as anyone subscribing to any doctrine can practice hypocrisy, if only for a moment.

Indeed, why can't an Atheist choose to say, if he wills, "Give me my due, but to hell with you?" What makes that wrong?
First, even Christians can practice such, despite their teachings via old dead dudes and their books. So nothing necessarily stops anyone from doing such. Except the law of reciprocity! Go ahead IC, punch me in the jaw to see what happens to you! Reciprocity!! And that is indeed the beauty of the GR. You give me the shirt off your back, I do so for you. You kill my cat I kill your dog. You feed me, I feed you. And finally: If you attempt to, you had certainly better, "kill me or mine" because then I shall certainly do so to you and yours! And if not me then someone else, as you have given others license to do to you as you have done to others. It's age old, it's understood, since the beginning of humankind. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It's so evident it's completely sickening, the stone, copper, bronze, iron, black powder, nuclear ages!!! Really, you have to read it in a book? It's everywhere. So knowing these facts only all too well, what does everyone really want? To be free without a care, believing that everyone wants the same, or continually looking over ones shoulder, for the next knife aimed at their back? Well which do you want??? Sure there will always be crazies, but then that's what cages are for! Or treatment, if reciprocity dictates! What would you want for you???

If you know how an Atheist can find such an objective moral obligation, I'd be happy to hear about it.
It's immediately above!

As I said earlier, there's no way any of us wants to live in a world full of this kind of Atheist...a consistent one.
Well I'm certainly no atheist, I'm agnostic, but then it's folly to characterize them as you have, as no two members of any, so called, group are necessarily clones of the others in that, so called, group.

That's your problem, you believe that religion shall definitely save you, it won't necessarily do so! Only 'all' men wanting, expecting, and giving respect of life and peace shall do so!