Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:31 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:42 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:33 pm Not necessarily arbitrary - they can be, and are personal, cultural, historical.
That is one reason why IC is wrong (again), Nietzsche was attacking a specific type of value, with HIS OWN set of values.
Nietzsche has values, else he could not attack other values.

I don't know a lot about Nietzshe, but I imagine that his values were no less arbitrary than anyone else's. What I mean by arbitrary is, whatever your values happen to be, they could always have been otherwise.

I agree with Sculptor . I take issue with the definition of arbitrary that conflates unrestricted and random. The definition is okay for chitchat but too vague for philosophy.

Could 'arbitrary' just refer to 'that' what one CHOOSES, for example; the 'values' or 'views' one has?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:31 pm Even insensible wee stones, which don't actually choose anything at all, are restricted in what happens to them by previous events so they can't be otherwise than they are. We, and all other animals that can learn from experience, are restricted in our choices by what we experience and by our genetic inheritances so that we cannot be otherwise than we are.
Nobody is entirely free but some are more free than others.

WHY do you propose some are more free than others are? Are you more free than others?

And, HOW are some more free than others?

To me, 'free will' just refers to; 'the ABILITY to choose'.

So, to me, ALL human beings have 'free will'.

However, what EVERY human being is ABLE TO 'choose' from is limited, and this is because ALL choices can only come from what PRE-EXISTING 'thoughts' lay within.

And, EVERY 'thought' has come from a PREVIOUS bodily experience. Meaning EVERY 'thought' was PRE-DETERMINED, by a PREVIOUS experience.

Which then ALSO means that what is TO OCCUR was PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED, or in other words 'determinism' EXISTS. EQUALLY with 'free will', I will add.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:31 pm A so called 'liberal education' aims to help people to be as free as they can be.

But this is 'self-contradictory'. HOW could ANY 'education', logically, be so-called 'helping' people to be a CERTAIN WAY, like 'being free as one can be' IS?

Just changing the 'teach' word, to the 'help' word, as you have done here, after the 'education' word, does NOT mean that what is 'being taught' is to 'produce a particular outcome', which, by definition, means to CREATE 'that', which was previously DETERMINED.

People are BORN FREE, absolutely Naturally.

And, absolutely NO one 'needs' 'help' "to be as free as they can be". They are ALL absolutely FREE to begin with. And, UNFORTUNATELY, it is because of the Wrongly termed 'education' and its 'system' WHY you once absolutely FREE people 'grow up' to NOT be absolutely FREE, ANYMORE.

See, the word 'educate' ONCE used to mean; To draw out. Like, to draw out the POTENTIAL within. But, sadly and very unfortunately, the word 'educate' became to MEAN; We WILL 'teach' you what we WANT you to learn, AND you will ACCEPT and repeat what we TEACH you UNTIL you copy us, verbatim. And, if you do NOT, then we WILL judge, punish, and ridicule you for NOT "knowing" what we do, AND TEACH.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:31 pm But there are undoubted social and physiological limits to how free a human or any other animal can be.

The human body, and thus the genetics, are ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED by PREVIOUS past events.

ALL past events are experienced, and sensed, by genetically made up bodies. 'you', the person, however, are NOT 'the body'. 'you' are ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE absolutely ANY thing you like, or WANT to CHOOSE. The ONLY 'limit' here is that 'you' only have a limited selection of 'thoughts' to CHOOSE FROM. BUT, 'you' WILL ALWAYS REMAIN ABSOLUTELY FREE, TO CHOOSE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:33 pm 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.

EXACTLY like what so-called "christian" people do, correct?

They do, after all, 'smuggle in their own moralizing, as if it ought to be EVERY ones also, right?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm He was a hypocrite in doing so, of course.

Are so-called "christians" NOT hypocritics at times?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm 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.

Because so-called "christians" ALWAYS hold "themselves" to being consistent right?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm 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.

And so-called "christians" do NOT attack conventional nor other moralities, which they consider to be wrong or non-"christian" values, correct?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm As for his own values, he assumed them, imposed them on his readers, and marched on.

As for "christian's" own values, do they NOT 'assume' them, and impose them on "others", and then just march on, 'to the beat of their own drum', as some might say?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm 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.

Do 'you', so-called "christians" even LOOK AT your OWN values, let alone 'critique' them?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:16 pm He stated a fact; that people had entered an age of personal responsibility wherein Authority is dead.

No, there's no "personal responsibility" in a universe "beyond good and evil" completely.

This BELIEF of 'yours' here "immanuel can" explains a LOT about WHY 'you' do NOT accept NOR take responsibility for what 'you' SAY and DO here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm There are no standards by which any "person" can identify any "responsibility" he or she could have.

'you' REALLY and Truly are completely and utterly CLOSED, to 'your' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS "immanuel can". Which, by the way, is the VERY OPPOSITE of what your OWN CHOSEN 'religion' TEACHES, and is SAYING and TELLING 'you'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm Nietzsche doesn't care he's being a hypocrite, because he assumes "hypocrite" doesn't even mean anything.

WHY do you NOT show ANY care for being a "hypocite" "immanuel can"?

What are YOUR REASONS?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm It lacks any objective standard or code about which one owes the world to be consistent or logical.

Like, for example, CLAIMING and INSISTING that God IS A "He", which is OBVIOUSLY Truly INCONSISENT and ILLOGICAL, even WITH the EXACT SAME 'book' that you USE to express your OWN views and values.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm For him, its all nothing but "will to power" expressed through dramatics and polemics. Why should he not be as hypocritical, illogical and polemical as he wants?

After all, 'you', "immanuel can", are doing this two-fold here, so WHY can "another" also, correct?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm And Nietzsche is a magnificent example of a man who simply assumed his conclusion, without evidence, and went rolling right along.

Just like, ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that the 'man' God EXISTS, of which absolutely NO evidence has EVER been provided, BUT you WILL KEEP rolling right along with this ASSUMPTION, and BELIEF, of 'yours' correct "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm He said "God is dead,"

And that REALLY 'hurts' 'you', correct "immanuel can"?

Because, after all, if what you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, but REALLY IS NOT, then that leaves 'you' WITH absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm assumed its truth,

You say, "The 'man' God is alive, or exists", AND ASSUME its truth.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm and then kept on speaking about what would follow since that was, on the basis of his assertion and no more, "true."

Which is EXACTLY THE SAME as what 'you', "immanuel can", DO.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm But, of course, it was not.

Based on 'what', EXACTLY?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm And he gave us no actual reason why we should think it is true. He just wanted it to be true.

To a so-called "atheists" this is EXACTLY what 'you' sound like "immanuel can".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm And to that extent, he's a toothless tiger...lots of growl, but no bite.

Have you YET NOTICED the RESEMBLENCE "immanuel can"?

If no, then all one has to do is just REPLACE what the BELIEF and/or ASSUMPTIONS are OF, or FOR, exactly.

And what is Truly LAUGHABLE here is that what 'you' accuse the "other" of doing, 'you' do the EXACT SAME, but just with the BELIEF and/or the ASSUMPTION for the OPPOSITE, of the "other".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm What he is very useful for, though, is showing some of the worst directions human nature can take when it is allowed to deceive itself as to the non-existence of morality.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Who is, ACTUALLY, DECIEVING "themselves" here can be CLEARLY SEEN, and thus is CLEARLY OBVIOUS.

Absolutely ANY one who ASSUMES and/or BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, BUT they have NO ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL FOR, are the ONES who are DECEIVING "themselves".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:18 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:09 pm
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.

Have 'you', or are 'you', DECEIVING "yourself" here "immanuel can"?

If no, then are 'you' SURE?

If yes, then have absolutely NO doubt AT ALL that 'you' could even be DECIEVING "yourself" somewhat here?

If yes, then okay 'you' SINCERELY BELIEVE that there is NO way that "immanuel can" could be even somewhat DECEIVING "themselves" here.

Which to the rest of 'us' is a SURE SIGN that 'you' ACTUALLY ARE DECEIVING "yourself" here. Just so 'you' BECOME AWARE.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:18 pm
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?

For a START, there would be NO START.

If there is NO God, to a God BELIEVER, then NOT even the Universe would have manifested into Existence, let alone a little insignificant 'thing' as a human being mani-festing.

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:18 pm Well, “Nihilism” by definition, means “belief in nothing.”

Nihilism does not mean not believing in anything,

NO one here said otherwise.

What was reported and SAID was; " nihilism means 'belief in nothing' ". Which IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT to; "not believing in anything".

WHEN 'you', human beings, START SEEING and TAKING words as they are ACTUALLY SAID or WRITTEN, then 'you' will STOP being SO Wrong, or CONFUSED, AS OFTEN as 'you' ARE.

If one wants to DEFEND 'their position' or COUNTER 'another's position', then I suggest 'you' ATTACK 'each other' on the ACTUAL WORDS that are SAID, WRITTEN, or USED, and NOT ATTACKING some PRESUMED 'meaning' nor 'understanding'.

And, the best way I found of doing this is by JUST CLARIFYING what the "other" is ACTUALLY MEANING, FIRST, then there is NO MISUNDERSTANDING AT ALL, and then, and ONLY THEN thee ACTUAL Truth can come OUT.

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:51 pm but believing that nothing has value.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of PRIME MISCOMMUNICATION.

Are you REALLY SAYING, and thus REALLY MEANING, "believing that NOTHING has value", OR, 'that what is being BELIEVED is that there is NO value in ANY thing'?

If it is the latter, then this could be better, or more accurately, stated as: 'but believing there is absolutely NO value in absolutely ANY thing'.

1. Saying, "but believing that nothing has value", could either mean that one is BELIEVING that absolutely NO 'thing' HAS 'value'. And, OBVIOUSLY, if there is absolutely NO 'thing', besides the Fact that 'it' could NOT do absolutely ANY thing, let alone BELIEVE absolutely ANY thing, thee Truth ALWAYS REMAINS that there could NEVER be NOTHING, IN THE FIRST PLACE, OR, 'that one is BELIEVING that there is absolutely NO value in absolutely ANY thing'. So, which one is it?

2. Saying, "not believing in anything", could either mean that one is NOT BELIEVING in absolutely ANY thing, OR, that one is BELIEVING in absolutely NO 'thing'. Which could be two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'. So, which one is it?

3. Even saying, "belief in nothing", is an obscure and REALLY ABSURD and ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL CLAIM anyway. What does "not believing IN anything", or "belief IN nothing" even ACTUALLY REALLY mean, or refer to, EXACTLY?

4. What does saying, "I believe IN ...", REALLY MEAN, if NO qualifier is even added?

There is NO wonder 'you', human beings, were STILL LOOKING FOR thee Truth of 'things' especially when 'you' SPOKE and WROTE the way you did, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and NOTICED here.

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:51 pm 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.

So, according to this "logic" here, the more one is convinced that the source of 'truth' is through logical and rational thought or thinking, then the more aware they become that EITHER;

ONLY the absolutely NOTHING, has value. And start BELIEVING this to be 'the truth'. Or,

There is absolutely NO value AT ALL, in absolutely ANY thing AT ALL, including human beings, and children. And start BELIEVING that this is 'the truth'.

By the way, the more they ALSO start BELIEVING, and CONVINCING "themselves", that LOGIC and RATIONAL THOUGHT is NOT the source of EITHER of 'those truths'. Which, REALLY and Naturally, speaks LOUDLY and VOLUMES for itself.

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:51 pm The rational interpretation of the world by clarifying it implicitly shows the absence of any value.

Does ANY one else find the COINCIDENCE that one's OWN view 'just happens to be' ALWAYS the so-called "rational interpretation", and if ANY one else's view OPPOSES 'that view', then that one and 'their view' IS an "irrational interpretation"?

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:51 pm 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.

WHY NOT just SIT BACK and WATCH and OBSERVE 'you', human beings, and ALL of those 'views' and 'thoughts' rambling around in those heads, INSTEAD of 'trying to' MAKE UP which 'view' or 'thought' is the CORRECT one. I find doing this FAR MORE AMAZING, AMUSING, and ENJOYABLE.

Besides, which 'views' and 'thoughts' are ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct are ALREADY KNOWN.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:31 pm 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.

WHY when one is completely and utterly BAFFLED, they resort to the EXCUSE, "Oh 'that' is complex or hard".

LOOK, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 'hard', NOR 'complex' IN Life.

If one BELIEVES otherwise, then NO wonder they are CONFUSED and STRESSED.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm 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.

You find the question, 'WHY do you call God a "He"?" 'complex' AND 'hard' to respond to, in its present form. NOT because there are ANY ACTUAL so-called 'pitfalls' in the ACTUAL QUESTION, but BECAUSE IF you EVER answered the ACTUAL QUESTION OPENLY and Honestly, then ALL of your current BELIEFS surrounding God FALL and CRUMBLE to pieces, leaving 'you' with presupposition that 'you' would have absolutely NOTHING to build "yourself" back up again with.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm We haven't said which "God" is in view, and who this "world" that regards itself with or without this "God" is.

There was NO 'need' to EITHER.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm 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.

To 'you', "immanuel can", there IS, REALLY, ONLY One God, right?

If yes, then WHY DETRACT and TALK ABOUT these IMAGINED and UNTRUE 'things' here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm 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.

Have you FORGOTTEN that the question was about a GODLESS 'world'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm But specify the God you mean and the people you mean, and I can perhaps have a go at the answer.

How about just the One that you BELIEVE IN?

You KNOW the 'male' God that you go on about, and BELIEVE you would be going around DOING Wrong and ABUSING "others" IF It did NOT exist.

And, LOL you asking another to SPECIFIY 'the' God they mean, when you ARE STUCK in just answering and clarifying a Truly SIMPLE question, BUT NEVER asking for SPECIFICS when discussing WHETHER God exists or not, just SHOWS and REVEALS WHERE and WHY you FAIL and FAULTER here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:21 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:18 pm 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.

WHY do SO MANY of 'you', people, talk in such Incorrect and Wrong ways, and USE such False, Wrong, or ILLOGICAL terms, as SEEN here?

HOW is it POSSIBLE that 'nothing' can be known? Besides from the Fact that 'nothing' is, literally, knowable, (or able-to-be-known) as; NO thing,

Absolutely ANY one who can use a dictionary KNOWS that 'nothing' IS knowable, and thus would and does hold that 'nothing' is KNOWABLE.

'Nothing' IS, NOT ANY 'thing'; NO single thing

That there are some human beings, however, who HOLD or BELIEVE that there are SOME 'things', or even ALL 'things', can NOT be KNOWN, then that is ANOTHER completely DIFFERENT thing and matter.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm Moral Nihilism, that nothing is good.

Do you ACTUALLY MEAN that there is NOT 'good' NOR 'bad' in absolutely ANY thing? Or, do you SERIOUSLY MEAN that absolutely 'nothing' (whatever that ACTUALLY IS) is 'good'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm Poltical Nihilism, that no political scheme is effective or trustworthy...and so on.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm So what do you mean by Nihilism? Which variety, or which other kind?

What do you MEAN by 'Nihilism', "immanuel can"?

Which variety, or which other kind, of 'Nhilism'?

Is what, after all, 'you' who CLAIMS;
“Nihilism” by definition, means “belief in nothing.”

So, would that NOT, by definition, just mean or refer to ALL of the OTHER so-called "nihilisms', which you made up and created here, and which you just made up and created in order to DEFLECT AWAY from what was being POINTED OUT to 'you', by "bobmax", by the way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm

Nihilism is closely linked with rational thought

I don't see that it is.

What's "rational" about ending up believing in nothing?

Is it even possible to BELIEVE IN NOTHING?

If yes, then how does one do this, EXACTLY?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm 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.

How has having 'doubt', a 'fault', EXACTLY?

And, WHY would this be a so-called 'fault' of "atheism"?

'you' REALLY do let your OWN FAITH and BELIEF is this 'man' God thing, which 'you' completely and utterly FAIL to EXPLAIN, have True and FULL CONTROL OVER how 'you' end up LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things', correct?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm

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"?

You ask "others" for 'reasons' or 'rational interpretations' to CLARIFY their views, but you NEVER provide the same courtesy back of EXPLAINING YOUR 'reasons' or 'rational interpretations' to CLARIFY 'your', OBVIOUSLY, just as STUPID, IRRATIONAL, and ILLOGICAL views, WHEN ASKED FOR.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm

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?

Does NOT the bible self-proclaim that 'it' is the WORD of God, AND that God is the not just 'so wise' but the ALL-KNOWING, as well as the ALL-POWERFUL?

Is this a form of 'narcissism'? Or, is it DIFFERENT when YOUR God does it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm 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?

And it was also YOUR, ancient, ''tribe' "immanuel can", which invented just ANOTHER One God, of the MANY Gods.

WHY makes you think or BELIEVE that YOUR God is the MORE RIGHT or BETTER God?

Because God, Itself, TOLD you SO?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm
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.

LOL Do you think or envision so-called "psychopathic narissist" read what 'the laws' are, and then follow them. They more or less just do whatever they want to do, to get what they want.

Also, let us say if 'you' is NOT a "pyschopathic narcissist" and 'you' is either just "harbal" or 'you', "immanuel can" , then what would "harbal" or 'immanuel can" do in a GODLESS 'world'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm 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.

Which is more or less, EXACTLY, like it was, back in the days when this was being written.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm 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...

Would they also NOT kill 'you', the so-called "psychopathic narcissist", like they did in the 'world' that was, when this was being written?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm 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, is this REALLY DIFFERENT from the 'world' that 'you', "immanuel can", lived in, when this was being written?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm So, in a nutshell, you could do anything you could find a way to get away with.

But you are just describing 'that world', which you were living in, when this was being written.

You were asked for the DIFFERENCE between 'that world', which you CLAIM is the God 'world' from the GODLESS 'world'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm 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.

AGAIN, which is EXACTLY what happens in 'that world' that you live in.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm On both sides, there would be no actual, objective standard of right and wrong or justice or rights to which any person could refer.

WHICH, supposed, 'objective standard of right and wrong or justice or rights', which 'you', people, 'could refer to'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm 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.

Well 'your' 'moral precepts' "immanuel can" are OBVIOUSLY VERY 'arbitrary', as they CERTAINLY DO NOT BELONG in NOR with ANY True NOR Right 'moral precept'.

In fact YOUR OWN 'moral precepts' GO AGAINST what is even written in that 'book', which you put ALL of your FAITH and BELIEF IN.

So, talk about HYPOCRISY, to the EXTREME.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am

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...

I still think morality is the same thing for atheists as it is for (in this case) Christians. It is something that human beings have an innate capacity for, and the nature of an individual's morality is shaped by his formative environment. I think a child will be far more influenced in his attitude and behaviour towards others by the attitude and behaviour of the people he lives amongst than by what he is told. Morality isn't an intellectual thing, it is an emotional response, and is not informed by logic or rationality.

Honestly, IC, I just don't think morality works like you seem to think it does. And another thought: If your morality can be influenced by the church, it can also be corrupted by it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:25 pm 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.

So, is that in God's 'world' or in a GODLESS 'world'?

Sounds like you SEE BOTH 'worlds' as being the EXACT SAME.

Unless, OF COURSE, you now wanto ARGUE that the 'world', in which you live, was NOT created by this God 'thing' that you keep going on about.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am 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.

Could 'you' EVER come to this REVELATION or REALIZATION also "immanuel can"?

Or, are 'you' NOT that STUPID and could NEVER of 'been had'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am 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. [/quote]

Do you think that the HUMAN BEING/S who wrote 'the bible' 'could EVER have imagined' the DEATH and DESTRUCTION that book has CAUSED and CREATED?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am 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.

WOW Well that is ONE WAY to INTERPRET things here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am 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 do you think or BELIEVE IS the 'grounded basis for objective morality'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am 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?

Maybe another kind of 'elite class of tyrants' like the so-called "christians", but let us CERTAINLY HOPE NOT.

The DEATH and DESTRUCTION the "christians" have ALREADY CAUSED in 'the world' is just too much to bear to think of ANY more occurring.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:42 am Unrestricted governmental manipulation and social engineering of the populace, uninhibited by moral qualms? Maybe.

But that's as far as I can speculate.

Are you even somewhat AWARE that EVERY thing you have DESCRIBE here IS HAPPENING in 'this world', which you CLAIM is God's 'world'.

So, as far as can be SEEN here a GODLESS 'world' is LOOKING MUCH BETTER, ALL THE TIME.

Age wrote:

Could 'arbitrary' just refer to 'that' what one CHOOSES, for example; the 'values' or 'views' one has?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:31 pm

As I remarked to Harbal, that definition of 'arbitrary' is fine in the context of everyday conversations but is not precise enough for philosophical analysis.

Age wrote:

WHY do you propose some are more free than others are? Are you more free than others?

And, HOW are some more free than others?

To me, 'free will' just refers to; 'the ABILITY to choose'.

So, to me, ALL human beings have 'free will'.

Again this is probably the most popular definition of free will. The philosophical and theological definition of Free Will is stronger than "ability to choose". Sure you can choose, but you cannot choose what you want to choose. In other words we are not the ORIGINS of our choices
Age wrote:

However, what EVERY human being is ABLE TO 'choose' from is limited, and this is because ALL choices can only come from what PRE-EXISTING 'thoughts' lay within.

I agree.

And, EVERY 'thought' has come from a PREVIOUS bodily experience. Meaning EVERY 'thought' was PRE-DETERMINED, by a PREVIOUS experience.

I agree.

Which then ALSO means that what is TO OCCUR was PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED, or in other words 'determinism' EXISTS. EQUALLY with 'free will', I will add.

Impossible! Free Will , philosophical version, is absolutely free. This must be a real headache for God who, before he granted humans Free Will, had been in control of everything.

Age wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:31 pm

A so called 'liberal education' aims to help people to be as free as they can be.

But this is 'self-contradictory'. HOW could ANY 'education', logically, be so-called 'helping' people to be a CERTAIN WAY, like 'being free as one can be' IS?

Just changing the 'teach' word, to the 'help' word, as you have done here, after the 'education' word, does NOT mean that what is 'being taught' is to 'produce a particular outcome', which, by definition, means to CREATE 'that', which was previously DETERMINED.

People are BORN FREE, absolutely Naturally.

Not so. The newborn baby is not free to choose whether or not he has been born with a hare lip and cleft palate, or how much pigment is in his skin, and so forth. What I think you mean to say is that people are born free of preconceived ideas, and teachers fill their minds with other people's ideas.

This used to be how children in schools were taught. However modern teachers in liberal democracies who have been properly educated as teachers teach children some facts and old stories, but are very careful not to indoctrinate the children in their care. Education, training, and indoctrination are three different approaches to learning. I did initial teacher training and to me and others like me, to indoctrinate children, and adults too, is like a sin.

Age wrote:

And, absolutely NO one 'needs' 'help' "to be as free as they can be". They are ALL absolutely FREE to begin with. And, UNFORTUNATELY, it is because of the Wrongly termed 'education' and its 'system' WHY you once absolutely FREE people 'grow up' to NOT be absolutely FREE, ANYMORE.

See, the word 'educate' ONCE used to mean; To draw out. Like, to draw out the POTENTIAL within. But, sadly and very unfortunately, the word 'educate' became to MEAN; We WILL 'teach' you what we WANT you to learn, AND you will ACCEPT and repeat what we TEACH you UNTIL you copy us, verbatim. And, if you do NOT, then we WILL judge, punish, and ridicule you for NOT "knowing" what we do, AND TEACH.

I am sorry this is your experience and I credit you with the hindsight, intelligence, and good intention to object to that system. Believe me, you are not alone and have the backing of the best intellectuals and all properly educated teachers in your intention to object to that system.

The human body, and thus the genetics, are ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED by PREVIOUS past events.

ALL past events are experienced, and sensed, by genetically made up bodies. 'you', the person, however, are NOT 'the body'. 'you' are ABSOLUTELY FREE to CHOOSE absolutely ANY thing you like, or WANT to CHOOSE. The ONLY 'limit' here is that 'you' only have a limited selection of 'thoughts' to CHOOSE FROM. BUT, 'you' WILL ALWAYS REMAIN ABSOLUTELY FREE, TO CHOOSE.

My choices are and always have been limited by circumstances. Circumstances limit me in my body and in my mind. I am not free to choose to be an athlete, and I am not free to choose to be a religious bigot.


I, the person, am a body/mind, all one unit.

Your predilection for capital letters is a caused predilection.

I apologise for my post being shown as all one highlighted quote. I have not quite got to grips with how to format my replies when I want to quote several times.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm I thought you were an agnostic?

I'm still trying to make up my mind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm 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.

The Bible doesn't warrant any particular moral code, it just agrees with the reader about everything. That's why there are some nice decent Christians who cheerfully perform the occasional gay marriage ceremony but there are are vicious disgusting Christians who stand outside funerals with placards that say "God hates Fags". It's not because one set are good Christians and the others false.

These are more or less equally good Christians who just don't happen to be equally decent sets of people.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:04 pm
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.

As a moral noncognitivist I have a lot to say about this, but alas I’m going to sleep and leaving town when I wake up. I’ll try to get back to it Monday or Tuesday.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:21 pm 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.

It is necessary to look at it with simplicity.

As did Anselm with his ontological proof of God. Which consists of an extremely simple act.
But the simple is always very difficult...

It is necessary to consider that rationality is based on separation.
Only by dividing reality into distinct parts is rational thinking possible.
But... 2 is the source of all evil.

The same principle of identity, A = A, is indispensable in order to think however, this principle is essentially a negation.
That is, A is not B, C, D... it is not everything that is not A.

While God is the negation of the negation!

If you seek the simple, with all your heart, then in every direction you will venture you will perceive God.

You can also do this by reading the Bible.
But you have to keep it simple, cost what it costs!
Even at the cost of crossing the desert, where all hope seems lost.

The Bible, which is written by man for man, is an allegory that describes the epochal event of the birth of rationality.
An event that threw us out of the earthly paradise of our ignorance.
We got out of it precisely because of the incompatibility between rationality and evil.

It is enough to accept that the voice of God is nothing but the feeling of man.
There is no God, God is!

Rationality is based on separation.
The sky separates from the earth, the earth from the waters and so on.

But man becomes aware of good and evil.
Which for rationality have no reality in themselves.
And so man loses the innocence he previously had by not knowing.

But what this entails we see with Cain, the first man to repent of the evil committed, and repents because of greater awareness (agriculture supplants pastoralism).
Cain is in effect the forefather of humanity.
He cannot ignore what he did, as everyone before him did, and he condemns himself to damnation (God's voice is actually the inner voice of Cain).

And then Moses, the first to warn: "I am who I am".
God's voice is that of Moses himself.

The homecoming has begun.

There is no God, God is!