simply put Nietzsche was remarking about how people adhere to ‘moral principles’ as if they are rules to live by. The axe he ground was about how to make our own ‘morals’ rather than live comfortably by adhering to whatever societal principle we were expected to live by.

‘Asceticism’ as a ‘moral principle’ he would no doubt mock. As a principle arrived at (beyond societal dictates) he wouldn’t. This is why there are a number of seeming contradictions in Nietzsche as he doesn’t lay out ‘rules’ only comments on the problem of creating rules when old rules are disposed of.

I guess it wouldn’t be too far fetched to equate his ‘overman’ with buddhist ‘nirvana’. Neither is to be possessed or attained. They are ‘the reaching for’ or ‘to strive’.

The western world isn’t buddhist it is judeochristian. The judeochristian principles cannot be ‘removed’ without replacing them with something other. The whole point of ‘god is dead’ is the problem of taking responsibility on ourselves rather than shifting it away from ourselves. But we’re all weak and pathetic and will continually keep clutching at ideas of ‘morality’ in the shadow of Christian Virtues. The very same exists in buddhists doctrines with dos and don’ts and Nietzsche would rile against those just as ardently if they happened to fall into his western world.

The quote above from The Genaelogy of Morals is how he first started to address the problem of human values and how to replace and rethink how human value systems can be replaced and/or reconstructed (in the west) in light of the disintegration of Christianity’s appeal due to the age of science. The recognition of humans as animals (less substantiated in his time than now) is something many, including myself, find hard to hold to having lived a life in a culture that regards humans (as someone mentioned) as on a ‘pedestal’ compared to other animals. The crazy thing is we have been trained to deplore our animal self because we’re able to see ourselves as apart from nature. Our images of godhood are our images of our future selves … but we have no idea how to attain them. The Greek gods were more human and lived for war and to murder and torture, to gain the upper hand over each other. The monotheistic god destroys human nature, impedes the capacity to use our ‘animal nature’. It sets up rules that ‘evil’ is a thing rather than Fortune.

I certainly don’t agree with @Xtrix that ‘religion’ came before ‘philosophy’. They are the same thing but the division made in human cognition - socially impelled for unknown circumstances/reasons - most likely allowed the concept of ‘religion’ to congeal more readily in the public eye than the concept of ‘philosophy’. Underlying the Weltanschauung (‘world view’), that has always given us ‘presence,’ was the catalyst for all items of division whether we like it or not.

I’ve tried to frame ‘time’ before through use of the symbolism of Prometheus and Epimetheus. I think it makes sense to look at (speculatively) how ‘time’ (now atomized) sat quite differently for prehistoric humans. Without a conceptual adumbration of ‘time’ I don’t see how ‘religion’ or ‘philosophy’ can gain a good foothold. Maybe they can slightly through use of narrative that exists independent of history.

That’s not how I live, nor how anyone I know lives. We can think it and say it, but an “organism trying to survive” isn’t my experience. First and foremost I’m engaged with someone or something, I’m moving towards something, I’m caring about or interested in something. I have a world, not an environment. — Xtrix

This may well be true of humanity today. Humanity in the depths of prehistory could justifiably be framed as only concerned with survival having (possibly in some cases) more interest in basic sustenance.

Although it is unfair to compare hunter gathers today’s world with those of prehistory, there are some signs that with limited resources people don’t really have any course to care for anything other than basic needs. When asked about what is important the reply is often ‘meat’ not ‘god’. When asked about death their imagination has no real time to convey an answer much further beyond some vague hint at a myth followed by ‘I don’t know’ in reference to any ‘otherly realm’.

In argument against this there must’ve been times where resources were plentiful and then as time kept by more ‘cultivation’ of time was open to them to explore and compare and contrast the inner experience with the outer impressions of existence.

As mentioned above the stresses and strains on the human body do lead to some quite extraordinary experiences. These are most likely where religious practice stems from. If you have been through an experience where you haven’t slept or ate for a week or so (or some other form of stress/strain) you might well appreciate what I’m saying here.

Every religious practice has some form of ‘abstinence’ within its rituals and practices. I generally view them as being tied up with some weird idea of ‘otherly realms’ though. I think somewhere the experience of the individual just tried to frame this lingually intangible experience as best they could and perhaps viewed it as ‘other’ or knew of no other way to express something other than through framing it within some ‘fantasy’ realm.

I was listening to Yuval guy recently talking about the mystery of patriarchy. He suggested something I have been looking at a lot over the past decade. He was suggesting that in smaller groups matriarchy can exist yet in larger social groups (nations and such) something else happens. I’m curious as to whether humans, like locust, go through physical changes once a certain population threshold is met. Obviously we don’t look physiologically different (like locust) but I think the effect could show in our neurological state - hence the lack of matriarchal societies. Given the present state of the species with mass communication this may be revealing itself more now (if there is anything to ‘reveal’).

I know it’s very speculative but I have found it an interesting premise from which to view social change. Rather than the obsession with the abstract ‘cultural’ exchanges maybe the issue is a matter of physiological changes due to reaching a population threshold.

Where’s the irony? Do you not understand what he is saying here. This is basically a description of ‘asceticism’ that he is praising.

You take it that I worship Nietzsche because I quote him mentioning something that is clearly about ‘asceticism’? Is youur ‘sacred cow’ buddhism … I don’t assume that but I could have been petty and threw such nonsense at you if I wished to.

He actually praises it (‘asceticism’), so I gather you both agree and disagree with this. I don’t see how this isn’t about the use of ‘asceticism’.

Ignore the derogatory remark of you not ‘seeing’. I’m interested how you can read this and not appreciate it as a direction reference (and understanding of) ‘asceticism’.

I guess if you view the view of the Dionysian as ‘indulging’ then you can easily mistaken his point as being opposed to ‘ascetic’ living. That is a fair stance I guess but I don’t think it can be justified fully or stand up to the test of other points put across by him and others.

placing living man at the forefront of everything and human endeavor on a pedestal...now that's conceit. — theRiddler

Conceit as in intelligence? ;)

And I don't see any reason to believe that Nietszche had an insight or training into what ascetic practises are supposed to open up and why anyone would pursue them. — Wayfarer

Because you ‘follow’ and ‘see’ nothing.

“Genuine - this is what I call him who goes into godforsaken deserts and has broken his venerating heart.
In yellow sand and burned by the sun, perhaps he blinks thirstily at the islands filled with springs where living creatures rest beneath shady trees.
But his thirst does not persuade him to become like these comfortable creatures: for where there are oases there are also idols.
Hungered, violent, solitary, godless: that is how the lion-will wants to be.”

- Thus Spake …

So I cannot possibly agree with our point because it is blatantly wrong.

If you follow it through you'll find absurdism ... some just get stuck in nihilism though.

If you get stuck you're my enemy.

I struggle with the idea of free will. Sometimes, like AA mentions, I find it helpful to acknowledge my helplessness. Taking responsibility and admitting helplessness are both forms of facing up to reality, I guess, and very hard to do. — Yohan

I know what you mean. This is where nihilism sneaks in often enough. Sometimes people have to become nihilistic to see past it.

Acknowledging helplessness is usually another way to avoid a problem. Jung used an analogy about problems we face in life by referring to a storm in a valley. When we're in the storm there is no way out yet when we look back down the valley once we're out of it we know the problem still exists yet we are not exactly in its shadow.

I would go for saying 'acknowledging ignorance' rather than what I often see as 'clinging to helplessness' in order to avoid any possible recognition of responsibility. If you listen to yourself you will eventually come to understand, bit by bit, where to put your energies. Put them somewhere though rather than opting for passivity as nihilism will eat you up.

?

They are just thoughts. And they are basically my own voice. But I recognize voices represent different parts of myself, if that makes sense. — Yohan

OK. You're human. Congrats! It is a madness in and of itself in times like these. You might come to recognise this 'insanity' as sanity that is probably what is needling you :)

-My mind is constantly moving and agitated. I'm never fully at peace. Never fully present. I feel the need to keep myself constantly distracted from my own thoughts and feelings. At the same time, I try to hide this fact from myself. — Yohan

This is the burden of freedom. Many ignore it and suffer as a consequence, some don't ignore it and suffer actively. Choose the later if you have the fortitude.

-I have multiple voices in my head. Eg, one voice says "do what you want" another says "better be careful". Sometimes I talk to myself, even fight myself. Some voices say things to me like, "you are an awful person." while other voices say megalomaniacal things to me which I am too shy to share. — Yohan

Do you ‘think’ this thoughts or actually hear ‘voices’? There is a HUGE difference and some experience the first believing it to be the later.

There are people who hear voices and they live perfectly normal lives without any medication. In fact many report the use of having these voices to solve problems. Hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of insanity. If you hear voices (I mean really hear voices) that are independent of you then …

I would highly recommend visiting a psychologist - NOT a psychiatrist - and discussing your concerns. It may well be merely an episode of psychosis (it is more common than you think) or it could be the sign of a more severe underlying brain condition such as schizophrenia (in which case get second and third opinion before consulting a psychiatrist if possible).

I’m not qualified at all but what you’re describing sounds a lot like what they classify as hypomania, but in all honesty such labels are vague at best. Chances are you’re just having an episode that will pass but you should probably still seek out a psychologist to discuss this with for your own safety and peace of mind.

Just to emphasis having strange thoughts and drives vying for attention is not the same as hearing voices. Either way the voices are You so don’t get lost in them.

Book an appointment and insist on seeing a professional rather than filling out some nonsense form and being dismissed without speaking to anyone.

I’m not a buddhist.

Buddhism as far as I’m concerned is related to nihilism. The nihilist grows from the assumption that life needs to give them something, that they deserve more. They stare down into the abyss instead of recognising what is around them. The buddhist is in the abyss, they look up but see nothing much. Both disregard life. One expected more from life and the other nothing whatsoever.

Both abstain from living. Some who tread that pass hit the depths of despair so hard they suffer just the right amount and release something within that shine a light on life in full technicolour.

Heroin isn’t ‘bliss’ btw. I know someone who took it and they sounded more like a nihilist/buddhist. They wanted to stop feeling, it numbed them. The thing is such practices (like buddhism or nihilism) cause stress and strain. From stress and strain humans can trigger something in themselves.

It is no coincidence that the stories of Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha stem from each individual being under enormous stress and strain prior to their revelations. For buddhism the story is a little more unique as buddha appears on the cusp of nihilism coming from a life of extraordinary wealth and riches. His exposure to ‘suffering’ gave him life not his unknown avoidance of it.

The same ritual is plain enough in shamanic practices too all around the globe.

I didn’t quote you?

More precisely 'Heirophany'

To quote:

Man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself, shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane. To designate the act of manifestation of the sacred, we use the heirophany. It is a fitting term, because it does not imply anything further; it expresses no more than is implicit in its etymological context, i.e., that something sacred shows itself to us.

- Introduction to The Sacred and The Profane, by Mirea Eliade

@Xtrix I'd highly recommend reading The Sacred and The Profane by Eliade. Unlike other works of his (like Shamanism) it isn't a dry piece of scholarship and he actually attempts to frame some of his thoughts rather than just give a scholarly record.

His use of 'Heirophant' is something I carry around with me every day now

Yes, and the 'weltanschauung' is not readily questioned because it is the foundation upon which our conscious appreciation exists.

I didn't exactly attempt to define religion and that isn't what I meant either way.

In simple, and short, terms I just meant that 'religion' (as in that part of us sometimes referred to as 'religiosity') is more concerned with the 'world grounding' of our existence than science. Science is not concerned so much with what 'feels' right but rather how items operate.

As the OP isn't directly about science/religion I was more or less cutting away the 'science' part to make clearer what distinctions there are between philosophy and religion ... I do not view 'religion' as merely the modern presentation of some social institution though.

Philosophy deals with 'questions' (broadly speaking) and 'religions' deal with orientation (sense of place and world at large).

I would argue strongly against any of these rough adumbrations being anything clearly defined bounds, meaning I see 'religion' in 'science' and 'science' in 'philosophy,' and 'philosophy' in 'religion' and round and round we go. I would add a forth aspect but that is not what this OP is about.

I had bliss. That is all I can say on the matter. It's quite clear to me that persons/myths such as Buddha are existent because their there are people who experience this thing and some actually manage to interpret it in part to others. In other situations (due to their 'bliss') they are 'influencers' and those looking and listening will inevitably mischaracterise what is said/shown and trip over themselves.

Such persons in history most likely knew damn well what problems they would reveal ... but someone had to really because there has to be a pinhole for others in the knowledge that some others will 'see' rather than 'follow'.

The concept of Death is the most beautiful gift humans have.

note: NO explanation forthcoming just take it as a serious and sincere statement.

I do actually have a definition of god though. I think most other people would call it 'me' though and dismiss themselves as ever inhabiting even an iota of godhood.

I'm not happy to say I am god but I am aware of its truth nevertheless.

Again, this depends on what is meant by 'God'. Define it and it is possible. Don't define it and it is meaningless.

It really is that simply (or complex).

I wasn’t referring to any particular institution. I was stating that ‘religions’ are about reinforcing our sense of existence - meaning ‘weltanschauung’ or ‘axis mundi’.

In such a sense we’re all religious.

You guys use the term "religion" as if describes this single monolithic entity, as if Talmudic analysis is at all like Taoism. The same can be said of "philosophy," as if all it seeks the same thing. — Hanover

Trust me I don’t.

I king did this experiment already. He locked a child in a room and it had no contact with any human. The child couldn't talk or walk. It was nothing, just a vegetable.

I'm too 'hungry' to waste it most of the time :D

I don't think you understand my contention. — Caldwell

I don't think you understand the point of what Husserl was trying to achieve (that is a SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS). He says so plain and clear. If you think it is 'ironic' that cognitive neuroscience makes use of his work/ideas you missed that the whole point of his endeavor was to aid scientific research into consciousness.

The real object is in fact an idealization, so they say. And I think objectivity in this sense doesn't fit with Husserl's explanation of spatial objects. Because as much as he or any other phenomenologist wants to make his narrative as objective as possible, he inadvertently implicates his own explanation, thereby exposing his own idealization of the phenomenon. They should not have started with the denial of objects in itself and the denial of access to other minds. They should have, for all intents and purposes, admitted that the "kinaesthetics sensation of our voluntary movement" is indeed physical and material, therefore, no matter how much we call it idealization, we are inextricably made of matter. — Caldwell

Husserl doesn't 'deny' any such thing. Husserl cares about the experience of some 'object' as an experience of some 'object'. If I see a table it doesn't matter if it is there or not for the purposes of looking at conscious experience. If I 'experience' a table I cannot deny that I experience a table. The 'existence' of the table is not important other than as an item of cognition.

He wasn't interested in dualistic arguments only to frame phenomenology as a Science of Consciousness. There is no attempt to make any narrative objective because that isn't anything like what Husserl had in mind. He states this is various ways multiple times (probably because people didn't get it at first) which led to a lot of confusion.

Consciousness is like Gravity. We know it yet when we get down to the barebones we're clueless. It is okay to a low resolution understanding of something.

The phenomenological perspective seems like the most constructive way to look at consciousness imo as it does away with dualism (or rather 'brackets' it out) rather than get sidetracked with this extrinsic question. All I see that has come from dualistic posturing is the empty idea of panpsychism (empty because it doesn't really say anything much other than 'we don't know!').

The point being we understand well enough what happens when we jump just as we understand well enough what being conscious means. Anything beyond this is not really in our scope yet so it's mostly guesswork until better concepts and experience comes along.

We're quite capable of viewing the brain and we're gaining a better understanding of how items like awareness and authorship function via our neural networks.

ANYTHING else on this subject is more about constructing different lingual terms to frame and segment the perceived problem and/or blind speculation where wishful thinking often dooms sensible ideas thoughts on the matter.

It's more that people are taught to look at the future negatively and critically. Being optimistic sounds too much as being care free and not being worried about future. It isn't politically correct. — ssu

I don't think they're 'taught' this exactly. It is just fashionable to be moody most of the time. Whilst negative nobodies writhe in despair the rest get to work. It's been like that for a long time it's just that now the nobodies have a megaphone created by those they holler at sadistically.

Enough people grow up to become children again thankfully :)

I agree with you that climate pessimism makes more sense than climate optimism. — Bitter Crank

One without the other is stupidity. I'm a self confessed pessimist. Because of my pessimism I am always rewarded with reasons to be optimistic because nothing is ever as bad as I imagined it would be. Wallowing in pessimism, and/or raging about it, is the kind of thing I spit on though ;)

It's still the minimum common basis of the notion of the Creator. — PoeticUniverse

It's not 'minimum' it's meaningless and empty. I cannot 'disprove' something that has no substance or bounds within experience.

OR I can simply say that I create things therefore I am a God. I'm okay with that and don't require that anyone (dis)prove my existence.

Because you say so or because you've written a poem about it you wish to share? :D

Seriously, No. It's not enough to say something like "Him the be ending up the start" and say that suffices as a coherent remark.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Because no one can define 'God'. I've yet here a coherent expression of what anyone means when they say 'God'. People generally don't know what they mean when they speak though so it's not entirely surprising.

Taking the 200,000 number as an exact date for behaviorally modern humans' emergence (for the sake of simplicity), and then reminding ourselves that writing wasn't invented until roughly 5,000 years ago (3,200 BC), it leads to a question: what was happening during those 195 thousand years of our existence? What were we thinking? — Xtrix

It's all surmise. But we know these people buried their dead, created cave art, and had complex tools. — Xtrix

More like 70,000 years. From the hard evidence we currently have. Maybe 200,000 but we don't know for sure if they were 'the same'.

All humans have a cosmological stance. We have a 'foundation' upon which we build. A devout religious person cannot simply 'give up' believing in what they believe in regardless of the evidence put before them no more than a scientist would disregard scientific evidence.

Note: NO to arguments that 'science' trumps 'belief' in this respect. To 'disregard' your cosmological perspective would mean for your entire sense of reality to collapse.

The commonality is the requirement for a sense of world (weltanschauung), axis mundi or, simply put, an anchor by which we can feel grounded. No anchor, no reality and no sense of life.

The very terms 'religion,' 'science' and 'philosophy' are expressions of our understanding that there are different means to approach different explorations. The confusion comes when we use one to explore the other as if it has priority over it. We do not tend to pray for answers to questions about physics nor do we calculate the 'meaning' of life in a physics-based formula. When we ask about the best course of action for a moral issue we don't hold purely to cold logic or measure the weight of good vs bad like a scientist.

The common feature of all of these is that they necessarily operate within a community of humans and therefore seem to express something about what humans are/do.

The heart of the religious questioning (in my mind) is that of ontology. Religion is more about reinforcing the foundations of our cosmological view, science is more about exploring it and philosophy is about questioning it. All approaches are void without the others.

What should I do? — Shawn

Aim - Move - Fail - Glory - Repeat

Beauty outstretches logic.

As a stoic — Shawn

Still lost I take it? I didn't need to read further.

Look my fellow human. This is pointless. Passivity will just instill more and more self disgust. Step up and away. Stillness is death in the manner you're framing it. Why you want death is beyond me. Seems like a strange choice given the godhood you inhabit as a human.

Yeah, it's basically just nonsense.

In terms of psychometrics the most solid grounding is 'g' and The Big Five. EQ is just some attempt to smuggle in a new term when it is already covered under The Big Five.

I think we see a lot of attempts to discredit this more standard 'model' of personality because it is vague enough to warrant a good degree of speculation. It is a pretty well established foundation though BUT is often misapplied to individual cases when in reality such self analysis tests only really give a decent broad picture of the human personality spectrum.

It's normal to be drawn to that which is like you. But it's very stigmatized to express that now. — Lil

With a slight change to "It's optimal to be directed to that which you like, but it's stigmatized to express this."

That just about sums up all of humanity's problems throughout (pre)history. The 'modern' era (ie. last several millennia) has been punctuated by how this is being slowly realised and ignored with a fanatical fastidiousness.

And here's the US per capita carbon dioxide emissions. It's already happening in the US and Europe, the decrease of per capita emissions. India and China are really what we the World should focus on. — ssu

China and India both have nearly x5 the population of the US. Yet China has under twice the amount of emissions as the US whilst India produces less than half that that the US does.

Out of the top 20 Indonesia, India and Brasil are extremely low per capita. The US is in no position to pat themselves on the back or point the finger at India or China. Such a thing is ridiculous as China is around on par with the UK AND has the ability to make sweeping changes overnight due to their authoritarian regime.

India are not major contributors to the problem yet.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-urges-g20-nations-to-bring-down-per-capita-emissions-by-30-101627152729395.html