Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 8:21 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 8:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 7:50 pm
"By any subjectivist account, impossible," is what you should really say. That's the truth.

If God exists, more than "possible": certain.

Keep at it, IC, somebody might believe you eventually.

For their sake, I hope they do.

God knows you did your best.

Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:44 pm[Nietzsche] says that all morality is actually "the will to power," and he believes that because he believes "God is dead." He says that puts us "beyond good and evil." Those are his own terms for it. But the people here want to argue that God can be taken out of the equation without moral consequence: that "morality" can be some subjective feeling, and still stick.

Actually, many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

....will concur with this. Only they will include IC among the infidels because it's their God and not the Christian God that imposes consequences on those who choose a path other than their own.

Though I am myself inclined to agree that "in the absence of God all things are permitted".

At least until the deontologists among us come down out of the philosophical clouds and encompass objective morality by, say, going from one conflicting good to another?

Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 5:51 pmAgain I say to you, as Nietzsche would have said to you, show me one moral axiom that follows from subjectivism...one duty every person owes another because of subjectivism...one moral imperative that rationalizes with subjectivism...

And you haven't got one.

Let's just say that "in reality" this gets tricky.

Clearly, any number of these individual subjects...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...will insist that their own moral philosophies reflect the objective truth. And what is always crucial here, of course, is not what they believe but the extent to which they act on their belief in any extant community. In particular when they acquire a position of power and can enforce their own moral dogmas. After all, what counts in human interactions are the consequences of our behaviors. Behaviors that flow from what we do come to believe existentially given our indoctrination as children and given the personal experiences we have out in a particular worlds historically, culturally and experientially.

IC is no less an "individual subject" himself here. Just like all the rest of us. He merely presumes that there are objective moral Commandments to be found in the Christian Bible. And that this has been "proven" scientifically and historically here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:44 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 4:41 am Nietzsche whom you negate...

I don't "negate" Nietzsche at all. I'm the only one here who's believing him, actually.

He says that all morality is actually "the will to power," and he believes that because he believes "God is dead." He says that puts us "beyond good and evil." Those are his own terms for it. But the people here want to argue that God can be taken out of the equation without moral consequence: that "morality" can be some subjective feeling, and still stick.

Nietzsche would rise up and bellow like a zombie bull at such an absurdity. With his usual rhetorical beligerence, he would insist that you must believe that is not possible, that you were like the trusting naive "townspeople," and that for you, it was still "too soon": that the "madman's speech" had gone over your head completely...or else you were simply afraid to face the truth, as he saw it, at all.

So who's the person here who's treating Nietzsche seriously?

Ain't that a laugh! What happened to Nietzsche the weasel, the Madman, the antisemite and all the other aspersions you cast on him throughout the years. Also, that he was the Nazi philosopher par excellence which Hitler himself directly refuted as being incompatible. Now, of a sudden, you're the only one here who understands and takes him seriously.

In truth, what you understand of Nietzsche is nothing more than an abject almost comical distortion, and so it remains. All that you know of N is what you can purposely distort, as you have always distorted everything which doesn't conform with your 2000-year-old beliefs.

Is there anyone here who doesn't know that!

NB, Herr Nietzsche expert! The Will to Power was never actually defined by N in any systematic manner; it can, in fact, be splendidly applied to just about ANY aspect of human behavior...a prime example being theism itself. Will To Power was a title N's sister used - who was as adept in creating distortion as you are - gave to HER edit of Nietzsche's voluminous notes whose subtitle was to be, if consummated, A Transvaluation of All Values.

WTP refers to just about every aspect of human psychology - the reason it's applied in so many ways - a summary in three words denoting the full array of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, the latter of which, if judged by theists like you, theism appears to be a prime member of having paid its dues in lies and falsifications.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 2:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:44 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 4:41 am Nietzsche whom you negate...

I don't "negate" Nietzsche at all. I'm the only one here who's believing him, actually.

He says that all morality is actually "the will to power," and he believes that because he believes "God is dead." He says that puts us "beyond good and evil." Those are his own terms for it. But the people here want to argue that God can be taken out of the equation without moral consequence: that "morality" can be some subjective feeling, and still stick.

Nietzsche would rise up and bellow like a zombie bull at such an absurdity. With his usual rhetorical beligerence, he would insist that you must believe that is not possible, that you were like the trusting naive "townspeople," and that for you, it was still "too soon": that the "madman's speech" had gone over your head completely...or else you were simply afraid to face the truth, as he saw it, at all.

So who's the person here who's treating Nietzsche seriously?

Ain't that a laugh! What happened to Nietzsche the weasel, the Madman, the antisemite and all the other aspersions you cast on him throughout the years.

I don't recall saying "weasel." If it's apt, it's imprecise. He wrote "The Parable of the Madman." He was an antisemite. As for the other "aspersions," he died insane...probably of siphillis, some think. So those are not "aspersions" but facts. And all that would be ad hominem, except that Nietzsche also wrote, "Why I Am So Wise," which obviously invites us to consider whether or not he was wise, since he, himself, offers that as an argument and invites us to believe he is "so wise."

However, I give him credit where credit is due. And one place where it's due is in his debunking of the whole idea of subjective morality. Nietzsche said that we should be "beyond good and evil," (his words) but it seems most of his later admirers lack his resolution in doing what he told them was reasonable for them to do.

Also, that he was the Nazi philosopher par excellence

I also didn't say this. What Nietzsche did was more subtle than that. He opened the door for Hitler. And the way he did that was to debunk secular morality, so that anything goes. Hitler saw. Hitler believed. Hitler did. And since Nietzsche had mowed down all secular ethics, there was nothing left to resist that.

Now, of a sudden, you're the only one here who understands and takes him seriously.

I am, indeed. Nobody who takes Nietzsche seriously will ever be able to believe in subjective morality. Where Nietzsche and I disagree is at the most fundamental level. His whole reasoning requires God to be dead. But Nietzsche never attempted to prove God was dead; he just argued that IF God was dead, certain things followed. And with that, I certainly agree. No God, no morality. Nietzsche and I agree completely about that.

You really should read him. You'll find out that what I'm saying is true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 amI don't recall saying "weasel."

...but you did. I didn't make it up. Your hatred of Nietzsche is obvious in so many of your posts. He killed your god but can a god ever be killed by a human or only the belief in one?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 am He was an antisemite.

...so you still insist he was antisemitic after all the hoards of data showing otherwise! Sure, whatever! Have it your way since that's the only way you'll ever accept! To hell with facts! How else to maintain the integrity of the bible!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 amAs for the other "aspersions," he died insane...probably of siphillis, some think.

Based on a number of factors in how it progressed, it seems more likely he died what his father died of. Whether or not he died of syphilis, which was common in those days, has no bearing on his writing, his thinking or character, no matter how much you would like it to be a source of detriment.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 am Nietzsche said that we should be "beyond good and evil," (his words) but it seems most of his later admirers lack his resolution in doing what he told them was reasonable for them to do.

Your simplicity is beyond reproach! The title alone is enough to explain the book...and possibly the ones after that!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 am He opened the door for Hitler. He opened the door for Hitler. And the way he did that was to debunk secular morality, so that anything goes. Hitler saw. Hitler believed. Hitler did. And since Nietzsche had mowed down all secular ethics, there was nothing left to resist that

Only because you insist on believing that, in spite that Hitler without ambiguity rejects Nietzsche having any influence in going his own path. You only read what agrees with your views in advance. Even a very short reading of N reveals why Hitler had no choice but to reject him.

To boot, Nietzsche decidedly did not mow down secular ethics. To him truth was a matter of perspective and ethics no less. If he "mowed down" any kind of ethic or morality, it would have been your kind, the authoritative biblical type which considers itself the epitome of objectivity not to be negated without incurring blasphemy and possible damnation! You know, the "old style" crap he came to reevaluate and denounce! In that respect one can consider Nietzsche the sanitary engineer of old mostly defunct morals preparing them for reprocessing!

I like this quote regarding the relativity of morals...

"If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 amNobody who takes Nietzsche seriously will ever be able to believe in subjective morality.

Subjective morality is of a kind which decides for itself what is or isn't moral, that is, acceptable as behavior, personally or societally. Unless you provide data for your assertion or explain yourself further, what you should have written is...Nobody who takes Nietzsche seriously will ever be able to believe in objective morality as if ordered by some being whose authority cannot be disputed.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 am You really should read him. You'll find out that what I'm saying is true.

You should really read him! You'll find out that even as a theist, the detritus you thrust upon him is false...not least that he was antisemitic among a plethora of other falsities. But, what the hell! Why endanger your path to god and salvation just because N said god is dead, even though the god he's talking about was never alive, but only manifest in the human ability, or more accurately stated, the disability to believe without question curtailing the need to further examine without obstruction.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 1:45 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 3:19 am ...only if I wish to accept and maintain a false sense of identity then, I agree, there is no end to its “utility”.

The fact there are hundreds of millions of practitioners confers neither correctness nor legitimacy only consensus whose established nucleus usually consists of a monumental lie believed in for generations.

Over months we have probed and exposed the “monumental lie” that is generally present in all religious mythologies. Judaism and Christianity are simply very close to all of us. In that sense we are all acute-minded moderns: our seeing has an acidic force and breaks apart the myths.

However, myths and energizing, encompassing life stories (e.g. Joseph Campbell) are part of the human picture. I don’t think they will ever go away, they tend to restructure themselves under different guises.

Though the Christian myth is bound up in mythology and metaphysical idealism, and by definition is false, those choices and actions that result from it (kindness, generosity, service, a sense of sanctity) are not false.

We know what the natural world is: a raging ball of violently competing energies. That is *the truth*. And we in fact live by many fictions when we choose to oppose — like Quijote — the reality of things by living through idealisms.

There isn't much I would disagree with here. As for (kindness, generosity, service, a sense of sanctity), you can't seriously believe these ideals evolved only when Christianity came on the scene! All of these qualities were discussed by philosophers long before, which Christians, as much as they attempted it, did not have any prior claim to but adopted within their hierarchy of values.

Joseph Campbell, I still have a very high regard for, more so than Jung, who long ago used to be a culture hero of mine. I have a fairly large collection of both accumulated through the years but prefer to read critically no matter how high my opinion of either or anyone. They are all interpretations which requires the reader's own thought inflections to digest. They are among the most potent catalysts to thinking, but without the latter, their effect is nil.

Metaphors should never be reified else they result in absurdity and final negation...the "god is dead" syndrome. Instead, their effect lies in their possible extension into regions of meaning which only the most potent metaphors can explore, compared to realities which can only be accepted.

The most egregious perversion of theism is that the metaphor becomes the reality inhibiting its access to what may lie beyond.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 6:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 amI don't recall saying "weasel."

...but you did.

I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 am He was an antisemite.

...so you still insist he was antisemitic after all the hoards of data showing otherwise!

Like the "weasel" comment, I doubt the existence of these "hoards of data." So I'm going to ask you to produce that data.

Whether or not he died of syphilis, which was common in those days, has no bearing on his writing, his thinking or character,

Actually, it says powerful things about all three. Syphilis is a brain-eating disease, one usually induced by promiscuity, and certainly would make an impact on his writing...

However, that would be ad hominem, except for Nietzsche's insistence that he was "wise." How "wise" a syphilitic person can be is certainly up for grabs.

The title alone is enough to explain the book...

I have the whole book right here, if you want to debate the content. But it only says exactly what I said it says.

I'm getting the feeling you don't actually know Nietzsche at all...

Hitler without ambiguity rejects Nietzsche having any influence in going his own path.

Let's see that proof, too.

To boot, Nietzsche decidedly did not mow down secular ethics.

Yes, he did exactly that. You really should read him, before you pronounce what he "did" and "didn't" do or say.

I like this quote regarding the relativity of morals...

"If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria."

That's the goofiest thing I've seen in a long time. It makes morals judgeable by the same criteria as paintings.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 amNobody who takes Nietzsche seriously will ever be able to believe in subjective morality.

Subjective morality is of a kind which decides for itself what is or isn't moral,

It can't -- for the simple reason that it voids "moral" of any content. When "moral" is the term used to describe absolutely everything a person could ever subjectively want, it describes absolutely everything -- with the consquence that "moral" fails to describe any distinct quality at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 am You really should read him. You'll find out that what I'm saying is true.

You should really read him!

Too late. Done. As I say, I have many of his works right here, on my desk; and if you want to kick some of them around, well, I'm up for that. But you're going to have to read some yourself, if we're going to do that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:53 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 6:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:48 amI don't recall saying "weasel."

...but you did.

I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:53 pmNietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"

Nietzsche's values were no more "arbitrary" than our own.

In other words, Nietzsche, like all the rest of us, lived a particular life out in a particular world historically, culturally and in regard to his own personal experiences and relationships. This predisposed him existentially to embrace one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another. With Nietzsche, however, the speculations [philosophical or otherwise] revolved around the assumption that God is expunged from the "human condition".

What then, he asked.

And here IC and I conclude that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted".

Then what, I ask.

Then, IC asserts, you go here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- and discover that scientists and historians have "proven" that Nietzsche was indeed a weasel.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 11:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:53 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 6:15 am
...but you did.

I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:53 pmNietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"

Nietzsche's values were no more "arbitrary" than our own.

Nietzsche said they were ALL arbitrary...well, except that he attempted to endow his own values, such as "life force" and "will to power" with a moral cachet he gave us no reason to believe was real...but as for any conventional values, he said all of them were bunk.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 11:35 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 11:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:53 pm
I disagree. Maybe you can quote where I did, if you insist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:53 pmNietzsche was a weasel. There can be no "values" in a Nietzschean world, other than purely arbitrary ones. So there's no way to defend against an "attack on our values,"

Nietzsche's values were no more "arbitrary" than our own.

Nietzsche said they were ALL arbitrary...well, except that he attempted to endow his own values, such as "life force" and "will to power" with a moral cachet he gave us no reason to believe was real...but as for any conventional values, he said all of them were bunk.

Neitzsche believed that we need to create our own values, that we can't rely on traditional ones given by the Bible, which makes sense considering some of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with the conduct of humans toward other humans. Like you, Nietzsche believed, however, that nihilism is the result of losing belief in God. Unfortunately, that is something both you and Nietzsche are wrong about.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:15 am Neitzsche believed that we need to create our own values, that we can't rely on traditional ones given by the Bible,

No, he argued that we should get beyond the values of good and evil, and accept that all that nonsense is really about "the will to power." He definitely did not say we can just go on and invent new values as we may wish. He thought that the smart person sees through all that, and just recognizes that it's all a fix, and lives strategically, instead.

And if you could do that, Nietzsche thought, it proved you were ubermensch stuff. And if you couldn't, then you were just another kind of sheep.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:37 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:15 am Neitzsche believed that we need to create our own values, that we can't rely on traditional ones given by the Bible,

No, he argued that we should get beyond the values of good and evil, and accept that all that nonsense is really about "the will to power." He definitely did not say we can just go on and invent new values as we may wish. He thought that the smart person sees through all that, and just recognizes that it's all a fix, and lives strategically, instead.

And if you could do that, Nietzsche thought, it proved you were ubermensch stuff. And if you couldn't, then you were just another kind of sheep.

I've read and studied Nietzsche under Nietzsche scholars in college. If you go back and read TSZ he saw the need to create new values. Yes. He got fixated on the "ascetic ideal" and "slave morality" which he thought was the foundation of Christianity and thought that it needed to be abolished. Not entirely true, but the idea of discarding some outdated values is probably valid. Do you really think God wants every human on Earth to observe the Sabbath day? Come on, IC. Be realistic.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:37 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:15 am Neitzsche believed that we need to create our own values, that we can't rely on traditional ones given by the Bible,

No, he argued that we should get beyond the values of good and evil, and accept that all that nonsense is really about "the will to power." He definitely did not say we can just go on and invent new values as we may wish. He thought that the smart person sees through all that, and just recognizes that it's all a fix, and lives strategically, instead.

And if you could do that, Nietzsche thought, it proved you were ubermensch stuff. And if you couldn't, then you were just another kind of sheep.

I've read and studied Nietzsche under Nietzsche scholars in college.

Then you should have stayed awake during the lectures, or read a bit from your text. And you'd know I'm telling you the truth.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:47 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 12:37 am
No, he argued that we should get beyond the values of good and evil, and accept that all that nonsense is really about "the will to power." He definitely did not say we can just go on and invent new values as we may wish. He thought that the smart person sees through all that, and just recognizes that it's all a fix, and lives strategically, instead.

And if you could do that, Nietzsche thought, it proved you were ubermensch stuff. And if you couldn't, then you were just another kind of sheep.

I've read and studied Nietzsche under Nietzsche scholars in college.

Then you should have stayed awake during the lectures, or read a bit from your text. And you'd know I'm telling you the truth.

Cute, however, I'm pretty aware of much of what Nietzsche wrote. I stated that Nietzsche believed we need to create our own values and you said, "no he thought we should get beyond good and evil." YES. He thought that we needed to create our own values because he believed that we needed to get beyond good and evil. I can't fault you for bad reading comprehension, it happens to most of us, however, it is bad reading comprehension on your part. Sorry.