Took me a second. Just search for Nietzche and the Nazis, as I suggested.
I read two different articles on the relationship between Hitler's ideas and Nietzche...which is more than I'd do for most posters. Typically, when someone makes a claim about me being wrong...I leave it upon them to prove that claim.
Regardless, I didn't find any connection between Hitler and moral relativism. I found out a lot about how he borrowed a lot from Nietzsche, and even more about how he misunderstood him, but nothing to suggest that he saw his morals as merely his opinions....just the opposite in fact.
Attached one for you. Hitler even used phrases associated with Nietzchean morality, like Ubermensch, Lords of the Earth or Will to Power. The Nazis did use a bastardised form, mind you.
I'm sure I don't need to explain why the fact that Hitler's use of certain terms and phrases of Nietzsche doesn't prove your claim. You'll need to show that Hitler believed morals were opinions...not absolutes....which is going to be difficult since there's a ton of evidence that he saw morals as factual.
I'm more than willing to look at your pdf file...it's just that it's 85 pages, and I've already read more on this topic than I care to. I also don't want to go through the whole thing just to find out it doesn't support your claim, tell you so, and then have you try to say that it does.
You don't even need to quote the passages themselves...simply give me the appropriate page numbers and I'll read them. I'm not really asking for much here Quid.
Again, which was my point, regarding your silly disregard of the Psychological thereof in favour of Conversion.
What disregard??? You made a claim, said psychology backs it up, and have offered nothing in the way of evidence. Nothing. What would you like me to do with such a claim? Because I have a feeling that I've already given it far more consideration than you would have if our positions were reversed.
If you have any....any evidence at all....that some psychological impairment somehow kept witch burners from exercising rational thought, then present it already. Lots of people throughout history have been wrong about a lot of facts....but that itself doesn't somehow make them all gibbering, mouth foaming, irrational lunatics.
I don't believe you. You have not demonstrated this at all in this thread.
Lol well there's a catch-22....how am I supposed to demonstrate that I'll consider any evidence you'll present if you don't present any? Anyone can make claims and not back them up....do you want me to just take your word for it?
Up until this post, the only "evidence" you've presented was an article describing the various conditions that have historically fallen under the term hysteria...and I read the whole thing. Here's what it didn't include...
1. Any description of mass hysteria or what conditions that may have been used to describe it historically.
2. Any condition that was historically described as hysteria which, when applied to a large group of people involved in the persecution and execution of witches, would explain their behavior as irrational...absolving them of their moral realist beliefs.
I've since pointed this out to you...and it's not as if you quoted some passage from your link which proves me wrong. So unless you can do that...it simply does not support your claim.
This is rank and dishonest sophistry. Dum Diversas uses standard nomenclature for Crusade Bulls. The same wording of subjugation and servitude was used when the Angevins were established in Naples for instance: Did this allow them to enslave Italians? Portugal was allowed to bring pagan lands under her fealty, not to establish slavery.
The edict was issued in direct response to the Portuguese enslaving Africans. It's not some coincidental edict which just happened to be issued at the same time the Portuguese were enslaving Africans lol. Read up.
Slavery is never mentioned. In fact, it talks of establishing or confirming duchies et al. in those lands. None of the vulgar Latin terms used therein are *snip*
Here's a nice scholarly article clearly establishing the church's endorsement of slavery.
Pope Nicolas V and the Portuguese Slave Trade · African Laborers for a New Empire: Iberia, Slavery, and the Atlantic World · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative
It's getting a bit ridiculous at this point...I'm not going to argue with you on a topic that is entirely uncontroversial amongst historians and scholars. There's no real disagreement that this happened.
You don't have to believe it if it helps you sleep at night, but it's the truth.
