• How May Nietzsche's Idea of 'Superman' Be Understood ?
    Nietzsche’s concern was how humanity would ‘replace’ religion. — I like sushi

    This is a common misunderstanding. He did not want to replace religion, he wanted to overcome Christianity. He recognized the importance of religion. People need something to believe in, something to follow. Nietzsche does what Plato did, the invention of a religion in the service of philosophy. Only Nietzsche's religion is to be an inversion of Plato's. A religion of the earth, a religion of becoming, a religion of the god Dionysus, of a god who philosophizes.
    .

    I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly: for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange, wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers. — Beyond Good and Evil, 295
  • How May Nietzsche's Idea of 'Superman' Be Understood ?
    To translate Freddy's famous phrase, it means "beyond religious (priestly) morality" — 180 Proof

    I think this is right, but should be seen within the larger problem of history. What is properly regarded as good or evil is historically contingent. At one historical stage the morality he sees as unhealthy was a means to man's self-overcoming, but it is no longer so.

    This a a problem he addresses in "On the Use and Abuse of History" from Untimely Meditations. He addresses the problem of nihilism. Those who think he was a nihilist should read this. It is the reason the "child" is necessary for the three metamorphoses of the spirit in Zarathustra. If what is called "good" today was at some earlier time "bad" and may at some future time be called "bad", if, in other words, there is no universal, fixed and unchanging transcendent good and evil than this can lead to nihilism. Nihilism, the "sacred no" must be followed by a "sacred yes", but this is only possible if there is a kind of deliberate historical forgetfulness, a new innocence.

    This, of course, should not be taken literally. The trope is one of Nietzsche's "inversions" of the innocence of the child in Christianity:

    And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 18:3

    For mainstream Christianity this is impossible. Following Paul, it is not man who changes but man who is changed. But the metamorphoses of the spirit are not dependent on some divine force outside oneself.
  • How May Nietzsche's Idea of 'Superman' Be Understood ?
    Write with blood' does suggest the Nietzschian path to be more about the call of being a writer than anything else. — Jack Cummins

    Note the title of the chapter is not "Writing" but "Reading and Writing". He is in part addressing writers with regard to readers -

    He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. — Thus Spake Zarathustra, Chapter 7, “Reading and Writing”

    But he is also addressing the reader with regard to those who write with blood, that is, spirit. Such writers do nothing more for the reader. It is up to the reader to make the unfamiliar spirit his own. Nietzsche more than anyone else was instrumental in the revival of the art of reading what is between the lines

    The subtitle of Thus Spoke Zarathustra is "A Book for All and None". Above all, Nietzsche is a philosopher addressing the philosopher of the future, one who is yet to be.

    As to a "Nietzschean path":

    This—is now MY way,—where is yours?” Thus did I answer those who asked me “the way.” For THE way—it doth not exist! — Zarathustra, The Spirit of Gravity
  • How May Nietzsche's Idea of 'Superman' Be Understood ?
    Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit. It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers. He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink. — Thus Spake Zarathustra, Chapter 7, “Reading and Writing”
  • The basic default of what a person must get out of life
    what differentiates in their lyrics' message country music from the blues? — god must be atheist

    Hank Williams sings:

    I got a feelin' called the blues, oh Lord
    Since my baby said goodbye     — Lovesick Blues
  • Athiesm, Theology, and Philosophy
    Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"? — Paine

    I think this was rhetorical. He is reported to have said:

    I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy

    In other words, he was well aware of the danger of allegations of impiety and atheism. So, the first thing to be said about first things must be said about the gods. But perhaps what is most revealing is what is not said. A prime mover is not something to be prayed to or sacrificed to. Prime movers do not protect or intervene on our behalf or reward and punish. They do not have priests or oracles or occult mysteries.
  • If there were a god, are they fair?
    According to Genesis, god gave human beings a form of "free will" lacking the strength or capability for us to freely refrain from "sinning" — 180 Proof

    Here is the first word on sin in Genesis, direct from God to Cain:

    But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. — 4:7

    Paul's teaching to the gentiles is quite different. Here sin rules over man rather than man being able to rule over sin.
  • If there were a god, are they fair?
    But assuming there was an all knowing and all powerful god that created us and wants the best for us. Are they fair? — TiredThinker

    If what is best for us is fair then god, as stipulated, must be fair. If what is best for us is not what is fair, then, for our own good, god is not fair.
  • The basic default of what a person must get out of life
    Well, if your baby is the bass player in a blues band sometimes she has got to walk, but more often a shuffle is the bassic default.
  • Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion
    ↪Hanover


    What is the essential element of your creation that cannot ever vary that leads to paradoxical conclusions?

    No logical puzzle arises from positing an entity to exempts itself from the rules it creates for others. The assumption seems to be that moral rules must apply without exception. The further assumption is that the creator of moral rules is like us in so far as it is free to obey or disobey the rules. But if what is essential about this entity is that its actions must be invariant then it makes no sense to ask whether it is bound by the moral rules it created.
  • Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion
    Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example. — Hanover

    It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging.
  • Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion
    I had at times thought you had more nous — Banno

    With enough nous you can hang yourself.
  • Localized Interaction and Metaphysics
    The various anthropocentric views expressed here (including those that want to exempt themselves) are in one sense correct in so far as they share Protagoras' insight that man is the measure of all things. But in another sense they are wrong to the extent that they take statements determined by our human limits to be statements about what is or must or might or cannot be beyond those limits.

    Although we cannot say what is beyond our limits it is hubris to think that there is nothing beyond those limits. I think Zhuangzi got it exactly right with his sage stories of the relativism of species perspectivism.
  • E l'era del Terzo Mondo
    I wonder if communication via social media will come to be face-to-face communication through Zoom or holographs or images in virtual reality or some other device. — Ciceronianus

    I think there will always be a need for carefully crafted, well thought out arguments. It may be, however, that there will come a time when thinking through writing will become a rarity or lost art.

    The other side of the coin is that although the written word has certain advantages, it also has disadvantages. The same is likely to be true of whatever modes of communication develop. Real time face to face encounters may become one mode of virtual face to face encounters. Another mode might be face to face encounters with response times that are much longer and are then edited or ones that return to comments and tie things together in ways that are not possible in the moment.

    "Thinking with a pen" never worked well for me, but "thinking with a word processor" certainly has. Asynchronous virtual face to face discussion which allows the participants to edit before posting, to think out loud and revise statements might work well, at least for some.
  • E l'era del Terzo Mondo
    The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. — Ciceronianus

    I am in general agreement regarding social media, but in the universe of discourse, most of our intellectual history has not been face-to-face, but rather through books, letters, essays. Time is certainly a factor. A response that takes days of weeks or more to arrive tends to favor considered, more substantive responses. Another important factor is that in an open forum not only can anyone, usually anonymously, make accusations, but others can pile on, creating an ideational infection that can grow rapidly.
  • Education Professionals please Reply
    teach students how to identify and refute logical fallacies i — Elric

    Critical thinking addresses this, but identifying and refuting logical fallacies is only a part of it. A weak argument is not limited to one that contains a logical fallacy. The goal is not simply to identify weak arguments but to develop the skills to think clearly and rationally, to evaluate problems and develop strategies to solve them.

    In my opinion this is best addressed in an integrated way rather than through stand alone courses. The problem with the latter is that it can be treated by both teachers and students as an exercise abstracted from the everyday concerns of life. Learning a taxonomy of fallacies is very different than learning to evaluate arguments.

    It should begin when students first enter school.
  • Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion
    ↪Banno


    If philosophy is the love of wisdom then it is necessary to address claims of wisdom. Theological beliefs and claims are part of our intellectual and spiritual history. They are not simply relics of the past, they inform our understanding of ourselves and the world.

    To address them is not to accept them. As philosophers have always known, if for no other reason, we must understand them in order to combat them.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. — Hanover

    So, in other words, belief in a higher power makes no difference to whether one is moral or not.
  • Understanding the Christian Trinity
    in Matthew 28:19, it is written “Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. — tryhard

    One can read this in light of the later doctrine of the Trinity or in the plain sense of this, that, and the other, that is, three separate but related things. For example, "In the name of God, Country, and our Community.

    However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. — tryhard

    One can take the position of Credo quia absurdum

    The doctrine of the Trinity does not make sense because it is an attempt to combine the monotheistic God of Judaism with the pagan belief in a man who is a god.

    A more pious view might regard it as pointing to the limits of human understanding which cannot comprehend the divine. Or as something to be contemplated rather than something to be rationally understood.
  • An Argument Against Theological Fatalism
    1. 1000 years ago, it was true that you will eat sushi tomorrow. — SwampMan

    If it is true that its sushi tomorrow then it can never be true that it is sushi today, or something like that, as the Queen tells Alice.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    ↪Paine


    I think Apollodorus suffers from the delusion of what Hegel called the Universal night where all cows are black. Under the guise of shedding light he casts shadows. He lumps together the Egyptians, the Greeks, and Jesus, as if they are all members of a continuous secret society. A society that excludes Judaism, but allows for:

    the more open-minded among Hellenistic Jews — Apollodorus

    That is Jews who look and act and think like neoPlatonist Romans. What he calls:

    a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus

    but is nothing more that a pretense to exclude everyone who does not accept his version of what he calls:

    Ultimate Reality face to face in a life-transforming and ignorance-dispelling experience of eternal truth from which there is no return to untruth. — Apollodorus

    What he hides behind is the fact that he knows nothing about "ultimate reality". It is nothing more than something he has read about and imagines to be. What is missing is the experience itself, without which it is all just empty words.
  • Adam Eve and the unjust punishment
    A & E now had knowledge of ethics (good & evil). — Agent Smith

    I take it to mean that they had the knowledge to do or make or produce or procreate (Adam knew Eve), the results of which are both good and bad.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    I agree but I guess Hanover might ask you on what basis ought one to care for these values? The adoption of 'wellbeing' as a criterion of value is adopting a presupposition, is it not? — Tom Storm

    If he asked why one ought to care about human life I would take the question as argumentative since it seems he does care. If he meant why those who don't care should there is no argument that would persuade them. That others do care may be a presupposition, but to care is not. That we ought to maximize well being may be a presupposition, but one's own well being is not. Well being is not a criterion of value but rather stems from the value of human life.

    [Added: By maximizing well being I do not mean that everything we do ought to be done to maximize well being or that in every situation the goal is to maximize well being, but that if we care then we want what is best for those whom we care for.]
  • The Concept of Religion
    The universe is not merely matter; matter means nothing, can be nothing, unless it takes form. Meaning is inherent within form. How could there be form without meaning? — Janus

    How can there be matter without form? There is no meaning without beings for whom things have meaning. Meaning is not inherent in form. Things can mean different things to different people. It is a matter of what we ascribe meaning to.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

    In order to change our mind there must be good reason to do so. Moral deliberation is not capricious. Rape is not an isolated moral issue, it is part of the larger consideration of the value of human life, which includes minimizing harm and suffering and maximizing well being.

    Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." — Hanover

    More relevantly, "one ought to eat a plant based diet". There are some good reasons for this, including the environmental impact of factory farming. Moral considerations have led a significant number of people to consider the value of animal life and thus limit or eliminate eating animals and/or animal products. It is not unreasonable to think that in future generations killing and eating animals will be considered immoral by the majority of people.
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    Unfortunately, people tend to be averse to anything that contradicts their preferred perception of reality. — Apollodorus

    Which is abundantly clear from your posts.

    For example, some believe that a great Hebrew king named “David” existed — Apollodorus

    You have argued that Jesus is the messiah based in part on the alleged lineage from David to Jesus. There are two problems with this that you have refused to acknowledge. First, if David did not exist then there can be no lineage from David to Jesus. Second, if David did exist, there is no evidence of the geneology from David to Jesus.

    We know that the OT authors suppressed information about the Omride dynasty. — Apollodorus

    Once again you are confused about the difference between history and mythology. They did not "suppress information". They are telling a story not giving an historical account.

    In any case, Jeroboam, Saul’s successor as King of Israel after David and Solomon — Apollodorus

    You mean after the king you claim did not exist?

    Yet, unlike in Israel, this tension did not lead to open conflict. — Apollodorus

    Do you mean the conflict that you claim never actually happened? You go back and forth between the archeological theories of Finkelstein and Silberman and the stories in the Hebrew Bible, picking and choosing which way to go in order to put forth your own skewed account.

    As the OT itself admits, the true religion originated in Egypt where it was revealed to Moses who had been brought up in the Egyptian tradition. — Apollodorus

    "Admits"?! An odd choice of words.

    According to Genesis Abraham was the progenitor of the Jews, not Moses. Moses's parents were descended from Abraham through Levi, a son of Jacob, who was Abraham's grandson. Once again you toggle back and forth, on the one hand denying Moses existed and on the other claiming "the true religion" originated in Egypt because Moses was raised by Egyptians.

    You get the Biblical account wrong on another key point as well. Moses' upbringing has nothing to do with the Law given to him by the God who brought the people out of Egypt. The God who brought plagues upon the Egyptians and killed their first born sons.

    To be clear, this is not an historical claim, it is theological. It marks a disjunction between Judaism and Egyptian beliefs and practices.

    Moreover, if God is Truth, then the authentic revelation of Truth is nothing but a manifestation, embodiment, or creation of Truth. — Apollodorus

    That is your conjecture. In the Hebrew Bible "authentic revelation" is from God through his prophets. An act of God is not an act of "Truth".

    Jesus is a teacher in the authentic spiritual tradition initiated by Egypt’s divine kings — Apollodorus

    Still trying your best to distance Jesus from Judaism. Why?

    ... gave the timeless wisdom of Egypt to the world ... — Apollodorus

    And what is that timeless wisdom? What evidence do you have of it? Where in this timeless wisdom do we find the Law and prophets that Jesus admonished his follows to adhere to? Where does the ancient wisdom refer to the Sabbath or the laws of kosher (which are quite specific)? Where does it refer to the prophets?

    a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus

    As I have pointed out more than once, the Sermon on the Mount rejects the idea of a universal religion. Is your point that Jesus was a "Jewish fundamentalists"?

    the Ineffable One (to Hen), the Sun of the noetic realm — Apollodorus

    Where does Jesus say anything about "the noetic realm"? When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord, this means obedience to the Law of God, not an ascent to an imagined noetic realm.

    You begin by talking about facts but end with wild and careless conjecture that can only appear plausible when one ignores the facts. The facts in question are not those of archeology from centuries earlier but of theological claims, beliefs, and practices at the time of Jesus.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    What’s next? — NOS4A2

    I don't know. Maybe for once [you] actually reading what you link to?
  • The Concept of Religion
    Wittgenstein did not put an end to metaphysics, so much as showed that it is better done in action than in philosophical speculation. — Banno

    I would add the importance of experience. In the Tractatus, rewards and punishment, and the happy man. In the Lecture on Ethics, certain feelings.
  • The 'New Atheism' : How May it Be Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪180 Proof


    Nice summary!
  • Jesus and Greek Philosophy
    ↪Apollodorus


    If I didn't know better I would think that this is a parody. And since you don't know better you are unaware of how ridiculous this is.

    If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to identify them as Egyptian or to claim that the stories are true but the names have been changed.

    there is also the glaring anomaly of David and Solomon as “sons of God”. — Apollodorus

    If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to say that it is an anomaly that they were were referred to as 'son of God'. They are in fact called son of God in the Hebrew Bible.

    Further, if they did exist that does not mean that their stories are historical with a few changes to disguise the fact that they were Egyptian. You arbitrary choose what to take as historical and what to alter in order to make them Egyptians.

    We might ask why you do this. The answer can be found here:

    Moreover, while divine kings were unknown to the Ancient Hebrews, divine kingship was a centuries-old institution in Egypt. — Apollodorus

    This is all a long runaround to avoid facing the fact that the Jewish Jesus was not a man-god.

    But you equivocate. If 'son of God' is, as you say, someone who has a physical father as well as a spiritual one, then when Jesus is called a 'son of God' it does not mean what it does for pagan Christians. It does not mean, as you previously claimed, that he is one and the same as God or that God was his actual father.

    It has taken you almost a year to get to this point. It is nice to see that you are still learning. There is hope for you yet.
  • Black woman on Supreme Court
    If Brown started identifying as a male, wouldn't we have to refer to her as "Mr. Brown"? — RogueAI

    Justice Jackson or Your Honor.
  • Black woman on Supreme Court
    I only care about the ridiculous claim that there is a reasonable claim of being more than two sexes when there aren’t. — I like sushi

    You have acknowledged the difference between sex and gender. The issue at hand has to do with Blackburn's challenge to define the word 'woman'. Any such definition must take into account not just sex but gender.

    While Ambiguous Genitalia is rare it is not non-existent. Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Children's Minnesota, and others in the US treat these conditions.

    It is a not a matter of there being more than two sexes but of ambiguity as to whether the child is male or female. In any case, and despite the only thing you care about, Blackburn's question had nothing to do with how many sexes there are.
  • Can morality be absolute?
    ↪PhilosophyRunner


    The term 'cultural relativism' is bound to get you entangled in arguments that go beyond what you may have intended. As it is usually understood it means that the norms and values of a culture should not be evaluated in terms of the norms and values of another.

    A more reasonable form of relativism is opposed to moral absolutes and/or moral objectivism. One problem is that those who posit an objective morality cannot explain how their version of objective moral evaluation can be established and known. Or, in other words, why we should regard their norms and values as transcending time and place.

    Some will admit that they too are culturally bound but that they are moving toward an absolute. The same problem arises. While, to their credit, they acknowledge change, the claim that it is toward an absolute is without basis.
  • The 'New Atheism' : How May it Be Evaluated Philosophically?
    ↪180 Proof


    Why do you think Spinoza used the term 'God'? It is for theologico-political and ethical reasons? One might think his signet "caute" would warn against it, but it is more than likely that he acted with due care. The term 'infinite' might have avoided the connection with the assumptions and associations connected to 'God' and 'nature', but it is perhaps for this very reason that he deliberately chose them.
  • Black woman on Supreme Court
    So why not admit you’re being dishonest? Did you think the sex of fish were under scrutiny here just because there was talk about a trans swimmer. — I like sushi

    See my earlier response:

    She is well aware of the trap that was laid. It has to do with the Republicans obsession with transgender people.

    The biology of gender is not a simple matter of male vs female.     — Fooloso4

    And read my last response to you,note this part:

    Third, the issue that was raised during the hearings was not about how many sexes there are but about gender identity. — Fooloso4
  • The Concept of Religion
    Sure, but that isn't my scope of interest anyway. — baker

    What is your scope of interest? Denying those who do not hold to an absolute moral authority a decision making voice? How so we determine what is the authentic voice of authority? What authority do those who are to decide have?
  • The Concept of Religion
    Our role and responsibility is not enhanced but is instead diminished by claims of cosmic significance.
    — Fooloso4

    How so?     — Wayfarer

    Because you are in danger of losing the human scale of things.
    You write this as if there is a real universe without sentient beings in it to realise what it is. — Wayfarer

    I think it very likely that there are sentient beings elsewhere, but they are too far away for anything we do here to make any difference to what happens there.

    What if part of the significance of sentient beings is to help bring reality into existence? 1 — Wayfarer

    What holds for photons does not tell us what happens at other scales of magnitude. Theoretical possibilities may be interesting to think about, but there is not enough attention to what is happening here and now.
  • The Concept of Religion
    Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

    It's not clear what you mean here.     — baker

    If you have 100 people, 50 think that there is an absolute moral authority and 50 do not. If you poll them on their views of moral issues you will not be able to identify who was in one group rather than they other.
  • The Concept of Religion
    No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker

    Is your claim that only people who posit an absolute moral authority have any say on issues of morality? Those who do posit an absolute moral authority do not always hold the same opinion as to whether a particular act is moral. Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.
  • Black woman on Supreme Court
    Not always … be honest and give hard data. It is a minuscule number. — I like sushi

    First of all, biology is not limited to human biology. There are animals that are hermaphrodites and that change sex. Non-binary Second, there is no agreed upon definition of interesex Here and Here. Third, the issue that was raised during the hearings was not about how many sexes there are but about gender identity.
Home » Fooloso4