Eternal Recurrence for Nietzsche is more of a thought experiment — Vaskane

I would say that it is more than a thought experiment. The eternal return is a riddle. One key to reading that riddle the problem of creation. If all is eternal return then there can be no creation, but above all Zarathustra wants to create are creators. This is why the child is an essential part of the metamorphosis of the spirit:

The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes.

There are some passages that seem to affirm the eternal return and others that seem to deny it.

Oy. Your cardiovascular system may not be too thrilled with that routine. — Joshs

Feh! What doesn't kill me makes me stronger.

I need to rest up now. And I need to do something about the orange dust on my keyboard. But that can wait. I just don't seem to have the energy now.

I am complete skeptic when it comes to Plato

Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Said one skeptic about another. Both must be read skeptically, and this in the original Greek sense of skeptis. In light of their irony and esotericism.

Comfort, routine and the mundane sound pretty good to me. — Tom Storm

Me too. These days my self-overcoming amounts to disrupting my routine of sitting on the couch watching cartoons and eating Cheetos to moving to the recliner watching cartoons and eating potato chips.

Are you any flavour of theist sir? — universeness

No.

I am just trying to confirm whether or not you are simply making academic/technical/philosophical points or you are supporting your own or the theistic worldview of others. — universeness

I am interested in the interpretation of texts. What these texts say about the gods is a reflection of what they say about man and In turn they have influenced how we have come to see ourselves. Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

But a theological discussion should also take into consideration the other root. Two texts to be considered are Plato's Euthyphro and Aristotle's Metaphysics. Both put philosophy above the claims of the theologians and do so by pointing to the limits of what we know, which falls short of knowledge of first things.

Another is the revolution of Modernity in the work of Bacon, Descartes, and others. Until quite recently all educated westerners read and knew the Bible. The theologians read it piously, the philosophers impiously. Theirs is a program for the perfectibility of man. To will without error. In other words, to make man into a god. What separates men and gods in Genesis is overcome.

I can't remember if you have already declared yourself theist or atheist. — universeness

I am pistically atheist and epistemically agnostic. Lacking knowledge I make no claims about gods but I am not uncertain in terms of what I believe and how I live.

But the need for the Overman seems to be born out of the condition the Last Man to me. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The last man is, as the name indicates, is one out of which nothing is born.

From Zarathustra's prologue:

Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you THE LAST MAN.

“What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?”—so asketh the last man and blinketh.

The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

Fukuyama's only point is that the Last Man prediction seems to have missed something. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fukuyama's thesis it that history has come to its end. This stands in stark contrast to Nietzsche's notions of self-overcoming and the eternal return. Whatever his idea of the last man is, it is not Nietzsche's.

Are we talking about the lineage and 'birthrights' (a far more controversial term) of real historical people or invented characters who appeared in ancient fables? — universeness

I am talking about the stories in the Hebrew Bible.

Birthright is controversial. The stories I mentioned are a rejection of the practice.

Do you think the Moses fable is the first story about unification in human history? — universeness

I don't.

We have been exchanging and inventing such stories since our days as hunter gatherers. — universeness

Yes. Stories told and heard along trade routes as well.

There is no evidence of any significance at all, that the Moses character, as described in the bible, was ever a real person. — universeness

I agree.

Is there any character from the bible that you believe 100% existed and did exactly what the bible describes they did? — universeness

No. I do not read the Bible stories as if they were history.

From a source we might not expect:

If you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on it for which they do not have the key. But there is no point in talking to them about it, unless of course you want them to admire the room from outside! The honorable thing to do is put a lock on the door which will be noticed only by those who can open it, not by the rest.

— Wittgenstein Culture and Value

So why must the philosopher rule? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I understand it, it is not that they must rule but that they do. Perhaps the quote in context sheds light:

THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . .

(BGE, 211)

Nietzsche's political philosophy is an inversion of Plato's. Both are concerned with the politics of the soul, and in that sense works of psychology. For both Plato and Nietzsche the question of who is to rule is of central importance. For Plato it was the poets who ruled. For Nietzsche it is Christian Platonism.

Hence the thesis that the Last Man is the father/womb of the Overman. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this Nietzsche' s thesis? Aren't they two different outcomes?

Are gods not a far bigger source of division rather than unity? — universeness

Yes. But the issue is lineage and birthright.

See the discussion above about Moses and the god of their fathers : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864423

The story of Moses is a story of unification.

Do you deny he had contempt for slave morality? — schopenhauer1

This needs to be seen within its historical context. It was a way of self-overcoming. It turns inward and makes its weakness into its strength. Their inwardness led to their power. Rather than impose rule on the world they learned to impose their will on themselves and rule themselves. Nietzsche saw this as a great advancement for mankind.

This overcoming now threatens to be man's undoing.

the only thing I got for why Rand got it wrong was that she was “resentful”. — schopenhauer1

Nietzsche and Rand had different notions of what it means to be an individual. Rand held to Liberalism's claim of the sovereign individual. Nietzsche thought that only a few are capable of becoming individuals. Rand grounds man on the low value of individual rights. Nietzsche held to the possibility of a higher man. Something achieved not given.

I think the story was created to stop people from sacrificing their sons to a god. — Athena

There may be some truth to that, but the story is not a prohibition against human sacrifice. If others are to be like Abraham it would be by not withholding their sons from sacrifice. (22:16) It was God who stays his hand and provides the ram. For Abraham to have made this substitution himself would have been to fail to demonstrate his faith and obedience.

I don't think they take them literally — Athena

This presents a slippery slope. Even if the story is not taken literally, does this mean that they would
believe that God does not speak to man, that the Law and Commandments do not come from God?

For me, the importance of lineage plays a role in believing Abraham was a real person. — Athena

I agree, but it is not simply a question of lineage but birthright. Cain is the firstborn of Adam and Eve, but the lineage goes through Enoch. Ismael was Abraham's first son, but Isaac inherits.

The eldest son has the birthright but time and again in the Hebrew Bible stories the younger son steals it. Esau was Isaac's firstborn but Jacob deceives his father and inherits. Brothers are often the source of division rather than unity.

Jordan Peterson very wisely said, and I am paraphrasing here, that we may not always know the truth, but we know when we're being dishonest ... — GRWelsh

I think it is often the case that we do not know when we are being dishonest, especially to one's self about our self.

I think that some who have been caught in Trump's web of deceit have moved almost imperceptibly to a position of holding his lies as truth. From small seemingly harmless and insignificant things to greater lies claiming to be the truth. A counterbalance to what the Trump propaganda machine has told them are the big important lies.

I feel like philosophers themselves can be more or less culpable in how their work ends up perceived. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In Nietzsche's case it is a question of perceived by whom. He does not want to be understood by just anyone who reads him. His explicit about this. Perhaps being aware of the fact that a philosopher cannot control how he will be read, he attempts to have control over how he will be misread.

Our highest insights must–and should–sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when
they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for
them. The difference between the exoteric and the esoteric, formerly known to
philosophers–among the Indians as among the Greeks, Persians, and Muslims, in short,
wherever one believed in an order of rank and not in equality and equal rights –….
[consists in this:] the exoteric approach sees things from below, the esoteric looks down
from above…. What serves the higher type of men as nourishment or delectation must
almost be poison for a very different and inferior type…. There are books that have
opposite values for soul and health, depending on whether the lower soul, the lower
vitality, or the higher and more vigorous ones turn to them; in the former case, these
books are dangerous and lead to crumbling and disintegration; in the latter, [they are]
heralds’ cries that call the bravest to their courage. Books for all the world are always
foul-smelling books.

Beyond Good and Evil, 42 (aph 30)

Rand is the natural outcome of Nietzschean thinking as applied in a more stringent way. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so. As with other influential thinkers throughout history, his work has been taken and twisted in different ways. Rand claimed that the individual owes nothing to society.

Nietzsche says:

THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS

(BGE, 211)

He might agree that the individual owes nothing to society, but that is because, and here he agrees with Aristotle, magnanimity is about who one is rather than what one owes. One cannot be both magnanimous and resentful.

To link Nietzsche and Rand is to misunderstand both.

Sound vaguely Nietzschean? — schopenhauer1

But Nietzsche's Ubermensch is not resentful. He does not advocate or feed off of resentment.

And yesterday's. — schopenhauer1

It would be interesting to trace that back. When did resentment become central to Republicans? One might think that it is the have-nots who would be resentful, but those with wealth and power can also be resentful. In the name of freedom they stand against any policy or regulation that impedes their ability to become wealthier and more powerful.

One should be loyal to the truth, not to other people, or movements, or political parties. — GRWelsh

While I agree with most of what you have said, loyalty to "the truth" is often loyalty to an ideology called "truth". When it and people stand on opposite sides the consequences are inhuman

God, this reminds me so much why I despise Ayn Randian philosophy — schopenhauer1

A favorite of today's Republicans.

I am interested to see how you will develop this distinction.

I have not looked into this but I suspect that at least in part he is playing on the singularity/duality/plurality of man/men, male/female and god/gods found in Genesis 1.

From The Gay Science:

22

Man and Woman
Seize forcibly the wench for whom you feel
Thus thinks a man. Women don't rob, they steal.

63
Woman in music.- Why is it that warm, rainy winds inspire
a musical mood and the inventive pleasure of melodies? Are
they not the same winds that fill the churches and arouse
thoughts of love in women?

In both cases (and perhaps others) the heading is singular 'woman' but what is said is plural 'women'.

If 'woman' as concept is considered does the same hold for 'man'?

According to 22 men use force but women are a force:

The magic and the most powerful effect of women is, in philosophical language, action at a distance, actio in distans; but this requires first of all and above all-distance.

(60)

His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women,

You and Russell obviously don't know what the whip is. Yet another metaphor hidden in plain sight. The whip is what Zarathustra uses to create dance and song. And can be seen in the second dance song. So the old woman said to Zarathustra "forget not thy dance and song." Those elements of Dionysus that women love. — Vaskane

Who are Nietzsche's women? They include Life and Wisdom. (Zarathustra, "The Dance Song")

Nietzsche begins Beyond Good and Evil by talking about another woman:

Suppose that truth is a woman – and why not?

How men treat flesh and blood women, and how they respond, is taken up in The Gay Science. Here we find a discussion of how the "weaker sex" exerts its strength. Behind much of Nietzsche's criticism of women is a criticism of men.

Seems to me Haley might come out of the wreckage a viable candidate. — Wayfarer

She is trying to appeal to all sides. I don't think it is a winning strategy.

She said she would pardon Trump. She will not be able to distance herself from him.

Because we do not have an adequate understanding of matter.

The puzzle is based on a concept of matter that makes the problem the equivalent of explain how a rock could be conscious.

It's simply how they are already. — baker

In part this is true.Those who voted for him because of his anti-abortion stance already held that view. Those who are anti-gay or anti-trans did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are anti-regulation in many cases did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are racist and white supremacists did not become that way because of Trump. In all these cases he simply fed their fears and added accelerant.

Those who believe he is a good business manager bought into a false image and are ignorant of his "small loan" from his father (one million dollars plus) his business failures, his cheating, his stiffing contractors, his misrepresentations, and his "business strategy of repeated bankruptcies.

He covers his failure to deliver on promises by making further promises.

It seems to be easier to propose that people are basically good, but weak; than to consider the possibility that people are basically evil and strong. — baker

Both are distortions. Some people are basically good and others are not. Some are strong or weak in some ways but not others. There is no correlation between being weak or strong and good or bad.

Alexander the Great had followers who believed he was the son of a god. — Athena

What do you think this meant to them?

It is a term we find in the Hebrew Bible. It is a term used by Paul in much the same way. A son of God is someone, a human being, who holds a special favored place in God's eyes. Due to the influence of Greece and Rome it came to be understood as something more. A son of God was transformed into the only begotten son of God and of the same substance, homoousios.

Why would you think Jesus was a real person and not Abraham? — Athena

As far as I know, there is no evidence that Abraham was a real person. What difference do you think it makes?

Should we passively let people die if that is the will of God, or should we take a moral stand and do what people working together can do? — Athena

I agree. Arguments based on the will of God are incoherent.

Rather than argue about whether Abraham was a real person I think that it is within the stories that the substantive issues lie. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. It is held up as a shining example of faith, but I see it as an example of fanaticism.

Today I was wondering if Trump supporters are the least bit worried that Trump will become a dictator. — GRWelsh

Since Trump was elected Plato's warning about how democracies degenerate into tyrannies through demagogues has frequently pointed to. The demagogue poses as a champion of the people. Because they feel powerless and unable to make things better for themselves they turn to someone who promises to do it for them. They are willing to cede power in order to get the results they hope for, but rather than seeing this as ceding power they believe they are gaining power.

Some retain faith in a system of checks and balances. They trust that there are limits on what Trump will be able to do in a second term. Some have faith in God and believe Trump is doing God's work. For them theocracy is preferable to democracy. Some have lost all faith in the system and see the only solution to be to destroy it. In an odd reversal of 60's liberalism the state, now controlled by those same liberals, is still the enemy. The major difference is that the Trumpsters have a powerful propaganda machine and have convinced a large segment of the population that the "mainstream media" cannot be trusted or believed. It is the enemy. Believe instead whatever we tell you, for we alone can be trusted. Dictators operate under state sponsored media. Something that up until now we have not had. Why should Trump supporters be worried when they are told repeatedly, day after day, that the "Dems" are destroying our country but Trump will save us?

I really don't care that you criticize Biden. What I care about is reasoned argument. It has become evident that will not be forthcoming.

Also, I think your attempt at likening me to Trump is really immature. — Tzeentch

Pointing to the same argumentative tactics that someone uses is not likening you to anyone.

I take the key point to be the transformation of perception — Wayfarer

I think that is what Zhuangzi is questioning, the transformation of perception. What do we know of it other than what others have said?

When Dogen talks about mountains walking I might think he means that even the most stationary thing moves and changes. That is a way of looking at it, but it is not a transformation of perception.

There's some polemics in that. — Wayfarer

An anti-polemic polemic.

Confucious is often gently satirised in Taoist lore for being uptight and conventionally virtuous. — Wayfarer

Contrary to Kongzi's filial piety, Mozi advocated impartial care. He and his followers, the Mohists. present rational arguments for why this is best. In place of the family is the state. Whereas families divide the state unifies. In place of the cultivation of virtue there is acting in accord with reason and the stronger argument.

Zhuangzi does not take sides or attempt to resolve such arguments. How are the people to be unified? Both sides are concerned with the same thing. Strong family ties can foster allegiance to the group, but loyalty to the family can lead to differences and competition with those who are not members of the family. Impartial care can lead to lack of care, to indifference. Can one hold to reason and impartial care when others do not?

fig leaves don't make good clothes it would be a very stupid human who doesn't know that. — Athena

You asked: "how do we have knowledge". The point is that knowledge of how to make clothes is something that begins with rudimentary attempts, not developed knowledge.

And I strongly doubt that a metaphorical god made their clothes out of animal skins. — Athena

Why would you doubt that in a metaphor of god making clothes out of animal skins god made their clothes out of animal skins?

How did the god kill the animal and treat the skins? Do you know how hard it is to cut and sew leather? — Athena

When you ask how we have knowledge I took it you were asking about human beings.

Surely humans in cold regions learned to do that for themselves without the help of a god ... — Athena

Right. Do you think their early attempts were as proficient as later attempts? In the story nothing is said about god helping them learn. He did for them what they were not yet able to do for themselves.

You answer your own question. They learned for themselves.

Isn't there something wrong with telling us what is good about us is bad and should be punished? — Athena

This is not the way I read the story. Knowledge is not simply good for us, or bad for us. Both are aspects of knowledge. It is not a matter of punishment but of consequences. Knowledge brings both benefits and harm.

People in warm climates such as Hawaii and Africa have no problem exposing their bodies. — Athena

People in warm climates have a problem with vulnerability. They must protect themselves. They must guard against being exposed to whatever it is that can harm them.

And you left out the snake who lured Eve into eating the fruit. — Athena

I wanted to avoid bringing up too much at the same time.

Maybe this god and the snake had bodies or maybe they were just metaphors. — Athena

As I read it the snake's body is part of the metaphor. Consider the way snakes move. In order to move right they move left then right then left. The movement is a metaphor for deviousness.

For sure a person has to have a set of beliefs before anything in the Bible makes sense. — Athena

So much is true in order for any story to make sense. Too often the problem is assuming the story matches the beliefs one brings to it.

Do you think less sophisticated people knew the difference between a metaphor and something that is real? — Athena

If you mean people from ancient cultures, I think they might be more sophisticated than you give them credit for. Understanding stories based on the dichotomy real and metaphorical is not very sophisticated.

Remember the witch hunts and fear of being possessed? — Athena

Some stories are more insightful than others.

I am not sure where Fooloso4 stands on the Christian thing, — Athena

I think Jesus was a real person, but that real person is not the person(s) created by the legends or the persons created by interpretation of the NT legends. The "Christian thing" has from the beginning been different things.

I don't know how anyone can seriously deny US involvement in the Maidan coup and the dumpster fire that it turned into today. — Tzeentch

Are you aware that this is a standard Trumpian rhetorical tactic, claiming that everyone knows or everyone says or everyone thinks?

I attribute primary (though not all) responsibility to the US, and the people in the US that orchestrated it are sitting in the White House right now. — Tzeentch

Again, an allegation without substantive evidence is not a substitute for an argument.

Rather than posting an hour plus video how about explaining in your own words or at least a transcript of why the Ukraine is the West's fault, and specifically why Biden is to blame.

I don't know. You'd have to ask a Russian resident. — frank

I don't know either. The answer we are likely to get from them will depend on whether Putin is listening. But whatever their perception might be it might not be a good measure of how the economy is doing or will do in the next few years.

It would be interesting to hear what Putin really thinks about the economy. That it can continue to sustain the war might be enough for now.

Biden was VP during the Maidan, and Ukraine was his portfolio. Of course he was involved. — Tzeentch

Being "involved" might mean several different things. What I said is that he cannot be blamed. Are you putting the blame on him?

The entire current administration was involved in the Maidan. Ukraine is their project, and it crashed and burned in a most spectacular fashion, sadly taking Ukraine itself along with it. — Tzeentch

More accusations without substantive evidence. Are you blaming the entire current administration?
Are you claiming that without the US involvement there would not have been a conflict?

You don't think the Biden administration has been an unmitigated disaster? Ok. — Tzeentch

No. What could Trump or anyone else have done do prevent or fix the messes we are in?

I suppose it will forever remain a mystery to you then why people vote Trump. — Tzeentch

Not at all. I can sum it up in two words. Ignorance and resentment. Many see him as a savior or hero who will save us.

War is always profitable ... for some.

He wants people at home to feel like everything is fine, and it's not going to be without that boost to the economy from the war. — frank

How do the people feel? How will they feel long term? How closely aligned are the perception and the reality?

That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc. — Tzeentch

His administration is committed to Ukraine joining NATO despite Putin's rhetoric. It is a defensive move in response to Putin's aggression.

I'm not aware of any members of the Trump administration handing out cookies on the Maidan. — Tzeentch

Right. The Maidan conflict predates Trump and cannot be blamed on Biden.

To many people's dismay, Putin and Trump kinda liked each other. — Tzeentch

To many people's dismay, Trump aligned himself with several autocratic leaders. This is why he did not press the issue of Ukraine. For him the issue was to implicate Biden. If elected the fear is he will side with Putin against Ukraine, against NATO, and against anyone and anything that stands in the way of the aligned autocrats.

What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right. — Tzeentch

Except you haven't. The post hoc blame game should not be mistaken for insightful political analysis.

the US blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, and expressed its unconditional support for Israel. — Tzeentch

This is quite different than:

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. — Tzeentch

A resolution calling for a cease fire is not a cease fire. Both sides in the conflict must agree to a cease fire. It is not as if they did and the US blocked it.




.

How do we have knowledge? If we believe we magically have knowledge then don't we have a serious problem? — Athena

The metaphor of the tree of knowledge is not intended to be an explanation, magical or otherwise. But the story does point to desire and vulnerability as leading to knowledge. Even before eating Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (3:6). They saw that they were naked and sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves. (3:7) This was the beginning of technical knowledge. But this attempt was not adequate. God made garments of skin for them (3:21). The problem of nakedness is that they were aware that they were vulnerable, exposed. They hid because they were naked and afraid. (3:10)

Desire also leads to sexual knowledge. It is interesting that woman's desire will be for her husband (3:16) but nothing is said about a husband's desire for his wife. For man knowledge is tied to the need to produce food from the ground. Agriculture.

Socrates thought we knew everything but when we are born we are in a state of forgetfulness. — Athena

The myth of anamnesis. I discuss it a bit in my thread on Plato's Phaedo.

Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. — Tzeentch

In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.

He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...

What seeds of conflict did he sow?

The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret. — Tzeentch

The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore
what is going on.

The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. — Tzeentch

I am referring to Putin.

So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it?

The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear. — Tzeentch

Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office?

Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014?

In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it.

If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame?

Biden is old but the history of the region is much older.

Ironically, Putin attacked Ukraine when Biden became president... — Tzeentch

Why is that ironic?

...most likely due to Biden's long standing involvement in Ukraine. — Tzeentch

What evidence do you have of this post hoc claim?

Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu — Tzeentch

With funding provided by Congress.