Do you agree with this quote from Waking Life?

[The Nihilist]

well this is definitely alot easier and often times a workable method for some people.... though most people who have really screwed up their lives are known to have taken this path. Forget the Conservative Christians... talk to a recovering drug-addict instead! If we are to just live our lives without some sense, than it won't be long before we crawl back, tail between our legs and mud on our clothes. It's great you think it's proper to "fight and fornicate" but this is a very popular answer and will no doubt earn you popular vote. But those who have learned the dark and twisted deceptions of this road will no doubt say that you are a coward and a fool to teach people stuff like this. If we just do whatever we want we will end up alone, if we fight to get whatever we want we will end up dead, and if we have sex whenever the urge seizes us than we will end up with AIDS. Wisdom is important and essential to our survival. To tell someone to "just live" is like telling someone to walk into a jungle without a map.

Oh, calm down. Don't you know that almost everything worth doing involves risk? Don't you know that some of the things most worth doing involve the most risk? If you're too cowardly to expose yourself to danger, then stay inside. The rest of us have living to do, and it's best if you don't get in the way.

 

[funyun]

And that is?

And how does this apply to philosophy, and not merely psychology?

And how is this judgment, when applied to philosophy, not mere psychologizing?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I suppose, then, people's own personal "psychology" plays no part in their personal philosophies? I'd say, and I am making no remark on psychology as an applied science but in the broad meaning of the word, you are what constitutes you. So then, your philosophies must be at least heavily influenced by, if not, I would venture to say, dictated by, what constitutes you (by which I mean one's "psychology", which is a relatively crude word to use for it-- but then again, I didn't choose to use it, you did).

So I think much more appropriate than diverting this into a discussion of whether I'm oversimplifying a world view into some bizarre connection to an applied science is in fact itself an oversimplification. That what I said has anything to do with psychology is a construct of your own.

 

[funyun]

I agree with pretty much all of this, and I think Nietzsche would, too. Don't worry about this nonsense that Nietzsche merely told us to fight and fornicate. Nietzsche's power is more often than not in the mind rather than the muscles, and Nietzsche would never advocate an easy life.

I agree too. I think "fight, fornicate" would be the height of what Nietzsche considered nihilism: succumbing to the easily-sought and easily-found hollow pleasures of a meaningless existence. No, instead of "fight, fornicate" I think Nietzsche would instead say "struggle, love" (but then, he was a complex man, and this is simply the message I take from him).

 

[The Nihilist]

I agree too. I think "fight, fornicate" would be the height of what Nietzsche considered nihilism: succumbing to the easily-sought and easily-found hollow pleasures of a meaningless existence. No, instead of "fight, fornicate" I think Nietzsche would instead say "struggle, love" (but then, he was a complex man, and this is simply the message I take from him).

Nietzsche was hard to pin down, so let me preface this by saying that I don't think you're dumb or anything. However, you are way off. Nietzsche's discussion of nihilism indicates that he thinks it is the church that is nihilistic. He thinks that throwing away your books, fighting, and fornicating (not the ideal word to use) are all activities that promote life and make us stronger. Nietzsche is highly suspicious of reason, of love, and of struggle for its own sake.

 

[funyun]

Nietzsche was hard to pin down, so let me preface this by saying that I don't think you're dumb or anything.

Agreed, and ditto.

However, you are way off. Nietzsche's discussion of nihilism indicates that he thinks it is the church that is nihilistic.

Christianity in generally was indeed one of the many things Nietzsche saw as nihilistic. It was certainly not the only thing. He also saw materialism and/or naturalism as nihilistic, which is one point where he and I part ways. I'm one of his "world maligners". Anyway, though...

He thinks that throwing away your books, fighting, and fornicating (not the ideal word to use) are all activities that promote life and make us stronger.

1) Fight? Could you define what you mean by it? If you mean stand up for yourself, what you believe in, and what you want to do, sure. If you mean fight, as in Emerson's "war educates the senses" tripe, or some Tyler Durden "just do it cuz ya can" thing, then no, no, and no.

2) *&$% (which I'm guessing would be your Nietzsche's ideal word?): Again, like fight, this could mean all different kinds of things. And it's one of those things where the exact word you use is important to the context. As such, the way you've put it, or the way I am assuming you would have put it were this not...ahem...Christianforums.com, I'm going to disagree.

3) Throw away your books? Nietzsche? Have you been reading some abridged biography from some forgettable 20th century detractor who equates him with the rise of Naziism?

No, no, go back and read more from the man himself. It's not get drunk and get laid...it's drink and be merry. It's not Tyler Durden...it's Tolkien.

Nietzsche is highly suspicious of reason, of love, and of struggle for its own sake.

Oh, he's certainly highly suspicious of reason, that is, when it leads to conclusions other than his own.

I'm not talking about struggle for its own sake. You're the one talking about struggle for it's own sake. I think this is where you defining "fight" would really, really come in useful.

As for love I mean general love-- for oneself, for the wide open world, for mystery, for the (Nietzsche's) ideal(s), for whatever you freaking well want to love. The Romantic, not the romance novel. I'm talking about passion, man. What the heck is more Nietzsche than that?

It escapes me who said it but someone did: "There are no cynics-- only idealists with masks." Nietzsche to a tee.

 

[nadroj1985]

Nietzsche's discussion of nihilism indicates that he thinks it is the church that is nihilistic.

Well, not quite. What Nietzsche calls nihilism has a pretty specific meaning -- nihilism is in general the despairing reaction to the death of God (i.e. of an anchor for absolute values). If nothing has absolute value (i.e. if God is dead) then why care anymore? If nothing has absolute value, the world has no value -- that is nihilism. Certainly it is a position that Nietzsche rejects; no absolute values means we must create our own table of values, not that we should abandon all values altogether.

He thinks that throwing away your books, fighting, and fornicating (not the ideal word to use) are all activities that promote life and make us stronger.

I really think this is a misreading of Nietzsche. Well, it might not be if it's understood in the right sense. Nietzsche says, of course, that "one has renounced the good life when one renounces war." He doesn't mean that we should start thoughtlessly waging wars. And indeed, I think Nietzsche would be very open to saying that wars go on within books, too. I mean, think about the man's life: he didn't spend a whole lot of time having sex or starting scuffles, but he spent a great deal of time reading and writing books. What does that mean to you?

Nietzsche is highly suspicious of reason, of love, and of struggle for its own sake.

Quite true, but that does not change the fact that they still might have value. Nietzsche still valued good, clear thinking, friendship, and struggle for greatness. He was merely suspicious of the philosophers' story that these things came from a divine or absolute origin. It was the tracing of reason or love to a pure origin that Nietzsche disliked, and not the things themselves, which is part of the reason why Derrida can be important in understanding Nietzsche.

 

[funyun]

I mean, think about the man's life: he didn't spend a whole lot of time having sex or starting scuffles, but he spent a great deal of time reading and writing books.

Thank you. I'm glad somebody said that. For a man who, supposedly, wants us to stop "living in our heads", he's either being misunderstood or is an enormous hypocrite.

 

[LostFound1986]

Hey Lib Dems, great , I agree with you too. What a silly man!

 

[funyun]

Hey Lib Dems, great , I agree with you too. What a silly man!

I'm one of those rare and elusive American Liberal Democrats

 

[The Nihilist]

Agreed, and ditto.
Christianity in generally was indeed one of the many things Nietzsche saw as nihilistic. It was certainly not the only thing. He also saw materialism and/or naturalism as nihilistic, which is one point where he and I part ways. I'm one of his "world maligners". Anyway, though...
1) Fight? Could you define what you mean by it? If you mean stand up for yourself, what you believe in, and what you want to do, sure. If you mean fight, as in Emerson's "war educates the senses" tripe, or some Tyler Durden "just do it cuz ya can" thing, then no, no, and no.
2) *&$% (which I'm guessing would be your Nietzsche's ideal word?): Again, like fight, this could mean all different kinds of things. And it's one of those things where the exact word you use is important to the context. As such, the way you've put it, or the way I am assuming you would have put it were this not...ahem...Christianforums.com, I'm going to disagree.
3) Throw away your books? Nietzsche? Have you been reading some abridged biography from some forgettable 20th century detractor who equates him with the rise of Naziism?
No, no, go back and read more from the man himself. It's not get drunk and get laid...it's drink and be merry. It's not Tyler Durden...it's Tolkien.
Oh, he's certainly highly suspicious of reason, that is, when it leads to conclusions other than his own.
I'm not talking about struggle for its own sake. You're the one talking about struggle for it's own sake. I think this is where you defining "fight" would really, really come in useful.
As for love I mean general love-- for oneself, for the wide open world, for mystery, for the (Nietzsche's) ideal(s), for whatever you freaking well want to love. The Romantic, not the romance novel. I'm talking about passion, man. What the heck is more Nietzsche than that?
It escapes me who said it but someone did: "There are no cynics-- only idealists with masks." Nietzsche to a tee.

I'm going to address both you and nadro here. First, let me say how excited I am that we're arguing about Nietzsche. More importantly, though, I think we are all in perfect agreement. I have been speaking of the savages Nietzsche spends some time praising, I think in the Gay Science; the Romans, the Huns, the German blond beasts. I think you two have been speaking of a more contemporary, more civilized concept of man, and I think to Nietzsche, more interesting. But still, I must be speaking metaphorically, because we can't very well go out raping and pillaging. I think we're all of one mind.

 

[nadroj1985]

More importantly, though, I think we are all in perfect agreement.

But what of your injunction that we throw away our books, and go fight and fornicate? At the very least, this is a false dichotomy -- perhaps we are so attached to our books because we now fight and fornicate through them?

 

[funyun]

But what of your injunction that we throw away our books, and go fight and fornicate? At the very least, this is a false dichotomy -- perhaps we are so attached to our books because we now fight and fornicate through them?

That's an incredibly astute observation on human nature, Nadroj. I think if he were a contemporary observer, he would make much the same statement. But I'm not sure what it tells us about Nietzsche, and I'm not sure what Nietzsche would tell us about it.

Maybe he would tell us that if we must fight and fornicate (whether or not that would necessarily be what he would personally advise), we may as well do it for real, not through or with some proxy.

 

[funyun]

I'm going to address both you and nadro here. First, let me say how excited I am that we're arguing about Nietzsche. More importantly, though, I think we are all in perfect agreement. I have been speaking of the savages Nietzsche spends some time praising, I think in the Gay Science; the Romans, the Huns, the German blond beasts. I think you two have been speaking of a more contemporary, more civilized concept of man, and I think to Nietzsche, more interesting. But still, I must be speaking metaphorically, because we can't very well go out raping and pillaging. I think we're all of one mind.

That's interesting. I haven't read The Gay Science, and I can't say I'm very familiar with this "savage" template. Certainly, I don't find it unbelievable-- Nietzsche is very much a fiend for proper consideration of context.

But would he still see such activity, even then, as self-empowering? I'm not so sure. He might as easily reason that to "rise above" the worldly maxims of the age is much more commedable. I could see him quoting "Those who live by the sword...", and I can see him declaring the true super men aren't the "blonde beasts" but the ones who break the norm, turn the swords to plowshares.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I suppose, then, people's own personal "psychology" plays no part in their personal philosophies?

Did I say that? No.

My point here is that just because someone has psychological feature X, that doesn't mean that philosophy Y is necessarily undermined by X. To make this assumption is to attempt to psychologize away a philosophy, and is an insidious form of ad hominem. However, philosophies stand on their own strengths and weaknesses, not the psychologies of their creators. Stick to the ideas, and not the personalities, and you are likely to do much better philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

He thinks that throwing away your books, fighting, and fornicating (not the ideal word to use) are all activities that promote life and make us stronger.

This sounds like the ethics of a schoolyard bully. If that is really what it meant to Nietszche to be "strong", I think he may have been shortsighted.

But I think he intended more than this. His ideal man was a creator of values, and so did more than "fight and fornicate".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[funyun]

Did I say that? No.

My point here is that just because someone has psychological feature X, that doesn't mean that philosophy Y is necessarily undermined by X. To make this assumption is to attempt to psychologize away a philosophy, and is an insidious form of ad hominem. However, philosophies stand on their own strengths and weaknesses, not the psychologies of their creators. Stick to the ideas, and not the personalities, and you are likely to do much better philosophy.

Again, I don't see the connection between what you're saying I said and what I actually said.

I was not attacking Rand, or Mysticus, and saying they had victim complexes. I don't pretend to be some psychologist studying a case file, and I certainly don't pretend that whatever their psychological state, that has any bearing on the validity of their philosophies. I was saying the philosophy itself is grounded in a foundation that is, for all intents and purposes, a victim complex (that is, it feeds off of perceived victimization). And simply because you disagree with such a statement doesn't make what I said an ad hominem.

This is no more spurious or ad hominem than saying "Kantianism (or Marxism, or what have you) is overly obsessive with a singular topic." I see no philosophical problem with that statement, yet it contains the word "obsessive", which, in the strictest sense, in the context of the social sciences, would appear to be an inappropriate use.

Perhaps I worded it poorly, and shouldn't have used a term with so easily falsely-construed meanings. Nevertheless, I stand by the point, poorly phrased or not. But you also shouldn't take it at such rigid face value. Is it possible to use a word without receiving flak for using it in not a sctrictly analytical or academic way?

 

[Mysticus]

How typically simple.

You are born with the right, not the privilege, to be free. But until ideas like the social contract and rule by the people for the people came about, there were kings and aristocracies who saw to it that you were exploited and subjugated from the day you were born. I don't call that freedom. I think my 15 year old self would argue on your side against myself today, but that was a phase I grew out of. Not all institutions are made equally, and I've learned the difference between victimization and simply having a victim complex, which I don't mind openly admitting I believe is the central foundation of Randianism and other like-minded philosophies.

You missed my point entirely. As a biological entity you are born free, just like any other organism born into the world. Then you are raised and conditioned to be what is expected of you by society... which is to be a citizen, subject, or whatever.

And just for the record, in my opinion various indigenous peoples of the world and throughout history exhibit cultures which retain and even promote that original freedom one is born with. Which I would say is to be a balanced perpetuation of nature.

 

[LostFound1986]

I'm not sure one is born free. I think it is morally right that everyone should be given freedom, be we don't automatically have it. We only have a 'right' to try and get our hands on whatever we can. To say we're born free is like saying a wild cat is born free...that's not exactly true. Its born into a school of hard knocks where it has to quickly begin to fend for itself, kill smaller prey and avoid larger predators. The bestowing of freedom to human beings is one of the greatest benefits of civilization.

 

[funyun]

You missed my point entirely. As a biological entity you are born free, just like any other organism born into the world. Then you are raised and conditioned to be what is expected of you by society... which is to be a citizen, subject, or whatever.

In that case, I'm glad you explained what you meant. If I "missed your point entirely" it's because you gave next to no information on what it is you meant. In the future it would make more sense to amend your words with explanations.

And just for the record, in my opinion various indigenous peoples of the world and throughout history exhibit cultures which retain and even promote that original freedom one is born with. Which I would say is to be a balanced perpetuation of nature.

Not that there's anything wrong with anarcho-primitivism, but it sounds to me like you deny causality when you confront a societal structure you sympathize with.

Make no mistake, every society, from Nazi Germany to Reign of Terror France to Hellenic Greece, to the most isolated New Guinea tribes, conditions you from birth. For some societies the
(and I am loathe to use such an overly dramatic and overly cynical phrase) "propaganda machine" is more conspicuous than others. In some it is more malevolent than others, and the degree to which it exists is not always the same. But it is present in all. I don't believe it is always a malevolent force, but it is certainly easily corrupted into one. You can never escape your nature, and you can never escape the fact that something is going to nurture.

This seems more like it's devolving into a discussion on free will. Perhaps we should continue in that thread?

 

[Mysticus]

In that case, I'm glad you explained what you meant. If I "missed your point entirely" it's because you gave next to no information on what it is you meant. In the future it would make more sense to amend your words with explanations.



Not that there's anything wrong with anarcho-primitivism, but it sounds to me like you deny causality when you confront a societal structure you sympathize with.

Make no mistake, every society, from Nazi Germany to Reign of Terror France to Hellenic Greece, to the most isolated New Guinea tribes, conditions you from birth. For some societies the
(and I am loathe to use such an overly dramatic and overly cynical phrase) "propaganda machine" is more conspicuous than others. In some it is more malevolent than others, and the degree to which it exists is not always the same. But it is present in all. I don't believe it is always a malevolent force, but it is certainly easily corrupted into one. You can never escape your nature, and you can never escape the fact that something is going to nurture.

This seems more like it's devolving into a discussion on free will. Perhaps we should continue in that thread?

A society which promotes an ideology that humanity is somehow better than and can control the natural world about us is bound to promote a false identity upon members of that society, as well as an imbalance within the ecosystem in which such a society functions.

I was not saying that as a human one can escape the nurturing aspect of up bringing or as a social animal escape interactions on a broader scale. And if anything I am pointing out causality. You act as if modern day societies have been around since the dawn of humanity when actually such is a relatively new phenomena.

And you are right in saying that I or anyone els cannot escape human nature, yet be aware that just because the disruption perpetuated within the natural balance is unlikely to snuff out all life on Earth, humans are definitely up for potential extinction as well. And you might say that how can that be? There are billions upon billions of human living on Earth today, and the numbers are growing exponentially... that would simply confirm my point because within biological systems it is not uncommon for there to be exponential growth of a population that is followed by a comparable sharp decline, which can potentially result in an extinction of that population due to disruptions within the ecosystem making it difficult for the population to stabilize.

Especially today with the on going industrial revolution against ecosystems, humans are causing more of a drastic change in the environment than any other species known. The identity put on to each of us growing up in the modern world is something along the lines of it is our right as human beings to do so. Getting back to my original point, to be free of the moral standards and false ego conditioned into oneself may be a stepping stone for change in this trend... I can surely say that blindly following the piper is not.