To] ultimately prefer even a handful of ‘certainty’ to a whole carload of beautiful possibilities [ . . . ] this is nihilism and the sign of a mortally weary soul.

I think Nietzsche is mistaken in his critique of Socrates and western philosophy here. It is a misunderstanding of human psychology. It's human nature to seek certainty, it's probably related to our survival instinct. I don't agree that Socrates thought is nihilism. Socrates and many others after him and indeed the field of science sought a rational explanation for the universe and for human life. There's nothing nihilistic about that. I think some of the religious or political ideologies may be a form of nihilism eg the belief in salvation and in heaven or a Utopia etc. But I think Nietzsche goes to far in attacking the whole edifice of western thought including even science of being nihilistic.

But Aristotle's ethics which have been hugely influential in western thought is not at all a rigid system. There are no rules or duties in it. It's aim to cultivate a good character through developing the virtues. Now what argument could Nietzsche make against that. Aristotle's ethics are not life denying, they are secular, don't assume any creed or doctrines. Yet Nietzsche attacks the whole tradition of the thought and I presume he's including Aristotle in this critique.

But doesn't only attack Christianity for this he also attacks most of Western philosophy since Socrates as being in the category in what he describes as "life denying". I would take issue with Nietzsche here. I think he is overlooking the great diversity in western thought, some of which was influenced by Christianity but a lot of it may have been influenced by the pagan ancient philosophers and even Eastern philosophy from the 19th century onwards.

So what do you think of my original post about Nietzsche's critique of traditional western philosophy and Christianity as being life denying. Is he correct do you think

Who is Frantic Freddie, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you saying that Nietzsche is borrowing some ideas from other thinkers. I think Nietzsche's concept of amor fati is different from the ancient stoics. It's more above loving and embracing life rather than mere stoic acceptance, which for Nietzsche seems not very life affirming.

Thanks for your reply but unfortunately I don't understand alot of what you're saying. There's loads of technical terms that I can't understand. If you could put it into simple straightforward language that would be appreciated. Thanks

[reply="Joshs;627399"
Yes I see what you mean but what about Aristotle's ethics or virtue ethics, neither are not a rigid system of rules or codes to live by. They emphasis the importance of developing a good character , that's their end goal and they do not include a prescription of what one most do or believe in. Essentially these philosophies are flexible, there is not set of rules , just guidance on how to achieve well being unlike Christianity or Kant's ethics which includes set of rules and duties to live by. Why does Nietzsche reject Aristotle's and stoicism also . I don't perceive any element of control or the "freezing into place of one set of values" . Rather the stoics emphasis how we can navigate the hardships of life successfully through cultivating resilience. They don't preach a religious creed or doctrines.

So you have thoroughly studied and realized paṭiccasamuppāda and found it lacking?

Do tell us how you improved on it! — baker

I don't know what that is. I don't have an in depth knowledge of all of Eastern philosophy.
What I'm saying is that 21st century society is so different and far removed from ancient times that we can't just literally take the words of someone 2000 years ago . It has to be adapted to modern culture. All ages throughout history have done that. Even the ancients would have had their own interpretation of earlier texts.

Before doing so, it seems it would behoove to first look into what ancient philosophy actually said, so that we know what exactly it is that we're updating/improving. — baker

That's true. There have been many scholars who have tried to discover what the Ancients actually said. On the other hand the Ancients got many many things wrong or their ideas would not be appropriate for a modern 21st century liberal democracy for example although Aristotle's Ethics is the basis for contemporary Virtue Ethics his views on women and slavery are incompatible with present day views. As regards the Buddha he was teaching at a time when nearly everyone believed in spirits and religion, and existence in a previous life but for a lot of people nowadays they don't believe. So he needs to be updated.

He explains it very lucidly. I like the way he tells stories in lot of his videos.

But I can't accept the historical narrative of Christianity, the belief in the second coming, and other fundamental elements of Christian dogma. That's where Buddhism has won out in my view, but I'm open to persuasion. — Wayfarer

I agree Im more drawn to Buddhism. I didn't know anything about it until I came across some books in it a few years ago and Einzelgangers channel on YouTube was a big inspiration. I also didn't realize that there was much more similarity between Ancient Greek philosophy, such as Stoicism and Buddhism. Western philosophy seems to have gone in a very different direction from the Middle Ages and had no contact anymore with Eastern philosophy in the modern period until the 19th century with Schopenhauer who was one of the very few western thinkers to be interested in Buddhism. Even today there seems to be a lot of ignorance in the west about Eastern philosophy.

You're right he does have the title Sir. What do you mean by the attitude of scientists

I mean the attitude of scientists. As if they address the one and inly reality. — VincePee

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you regarding Popper. He is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of science in the 20th century and his ideas have changed the view of scientific theory.
I didn't know Popper had the title Sir. I must check if you're correct on Google.

He is very critical on science insofar it makes claims of possessing an ultimate truth — VincePee

Scientists nowadays don't generally regard their theories as absolute truth, like Newton did but just the best theory that is available at the moment. You should study Karl Popper. This area is known as the philosophy of science which has become a major field since the 20th century

Is western philosophy simply based on scientific knowledge? Is is only about scientific or Academia knowledge? Why is it called western? Because it has its roots in ancient Greece where western democracy has its roots?

Is western philosophy more abstract? Trying to catch life in scientific terms? — VincePee

In my thread I discuss Eastern philosophy, specifically Buddhism if you want to have look. I contrast it with Christianity.
In answer to your question not all western philosophy is based on science. Some of the great western philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, were scientists, but other very famous thinkers were not scientific at all. There have been notable crirics of modern science among thinkers. Nietszche and The Frankfurt school of philosophers were very scathing about science. They saw it as viewing the human being and human life from a very reductionist, narrow and dehumanizing perspective.
Eastern philosophy on the whole has been more closely intertwined with spirituality. There's a less sharp division between religion and philosophy in Eastern thought. Buddhism for example is both a philosophy AND a religion. And some people, including myself only take the Philosophical component and reject the religious part.
You're right it's called Western philosophy because it has its roots in Ancient Greece. It is also a label to distinguish it from Indian and Chinese philosophy which is collectively known as Eastern philosophy. Throughout much of history they were two very separate traditions, even nowadays many western academics are largely ignorant of Eastern philosophy which in my opinion is a pity. Maybe it's to do with Eurocentrism.

How is it that so many people feel no qualms about ascribing words to the Buddha for which they have no textual basis to assume he actually said those things or something like them? — baker

Anyway what does it matter whether the Buddha really said them. If you're reading a self help book do you really care what or who the author was if you find the content good for you and helpful in your everyday life . I happen to find the quotes from Buddhism and the videos about it such as Einzelgangers channel and I don't care whether the Buddha said exactly everything that's in them . Ancient philosophy has to be updated to apply to 21st society. Buddha also didn't have the benefit of modern science and psychology. We do. So it would be ridiculous not to update Ancient philosophy in the light of modern psychology and learning.

Oh dear. This is the standard problem with Buddhism: the pitifully low standard of quotation — baker

Look we,ll have to agree to disagree . I agree with the content of the quotes I sent that it is genuinely from Buddhism. I'm not going to change my opinion on that.

They are just some quotes that someone attributed to the Buddha. — baker

Nonsense.

I asked you for a canonical reference, ie. an actual Buddhist source. — baker

Here's it from the mouth of the Buddha himself:-

Rise above your anger through forgiveness and compassion, for yourself, and others.

“Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”

— Buddha

“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.”

— Buddha

You need to be more precise here and source your claims about Buddhism. — baker

Ok here you go.
Buddha's teachings are known as “dharma.” He taught that wisdom, kindness, patience, generosity and compassion were important virtues.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism
Now if these are not values which promote happiness tell me what are.

The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness. — baker

Why do you say that. So compassion, love, kindness which the Buddha teaches you think psychologists don't think that those values improve happiness. Well what kind of psychology are you thinking about.

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, — TheMadFool

What kind of psychology have you been studying. Are you seriously saying that Victor Frankls book Man's Search for meaning and Carl Jung's notions of The Shadow and Individuation are reducing humans to things. Those two very famous psychologists in fact are against the kind of empirical reductionist materialistic description of the human condition that you find in the logical positivists or Analytic philosophy .

If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the — TheMadFool

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Ive never it said that the Buddha was depressed, he May have had moments of unhappiness but that's irrelevant because his teaching has inspired a whole tradition of Wisdom for thousands of years and is one of the main world religions as well as a major world philosophy.

It is Christianity itself that led to nihilism according to Nietzsche. — Fooloso4

That's not correct. "As a result, Nietzsche claims that nihilism is the devaluation of the highest values caused by the death of God"
https://brill.com/view/journals/fphc/11/2/article-p298_11.xml

We do not know what Jesus taught — Fooloso4

Most texts written thousands of years ago would be open to question of how accurate they are. But what does it matter whether Jesus said exactly what's in the gospels. What we have in them is a very sophisticated and coherent set of moral values and principles on how to live and a religious creed just like in many other world religions. So whether it's actually Jesus exact word doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the teaching. Does it preach wisdom. Is it something that improves the human condition. Of course it's well known that many people have been killed in the name of Christianity and the Church during the middle ages became very corrupt, a great multinational superstate with very autocratic powers. But just like Communism which was meant to liberate people it abused and misused to control hearts and minds. On the other Christianity has inspired many many great noble acts of love, kindness, compassion and care and some of it's values such as temperance, justice, caring for the poor and it's preaching against gluttony, avarice, greed and so on are in short supply in a world that no longer believes in many christian values. This arguably leaves a modern generation more prone to exploitation by advertisers and so on which manipulate people's greed, and other weaknesses. In a world nowadays where people have to figure out their own set of values, if they don't choose a wise set of values that leaves them prey to manipulation and exploitation. I think Nietszche was correctly worried about humanity sinking into Nihilism and despair with "The Death of God" . Others would argue that secular forms of ethics such as Stoicism could adequately replace Christianity. I have another thread on that topic if anyone wants to respond to it.

buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. — TheMadFool

Now you've put your finger on it "a long line of erudite disciples". Why then do you view Buddhism negatively as taking a carot and stick approach. I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life.

the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that! — TheMadFool

Yes but Christianity doesn't mean heaven and hell in a symbolic sense as representing good or bad outcomes, the problem (for me) is that it literally believes in the existence of a heaven of eternal Bliss and hell of eternal damnation. These are ways to instill fear in people to make them "behave themselves" and so become instruments of control by the powers that be. Marx said that religion promises happiness in another world to make injustice and oppression in this world acceptable, to switch the focus away from happiness in THIS world and place it in ANOTHER world. Buddhism on the other hand teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn't believe in a supernatural Being for a start and it's focus is on achieving happiness in this world. They may have religious beliefs such as being reborn again , but it's philosophy can and often is taken separately by many people without the religious component. You should watch The Buddhist quotes on YouTube on wonder zone channel , a fountain of wisdom.

Do good and the pearly gates await you; do bad and off to the fiery pits of hell. — TheMadFool

As far as I'm aware it's Christianity that teaches about the entering the kingdom of heaven and fires of hell for those who haven't repented, that's not a teaching of Buddhism. Buddhism says that whatever you do comes back to you. So that if you do good, you will be rewarded in some way and if you are bad it will have negative consequences for you. For me I interpret this from a psychological perspective, not metaphysical. The Buddhists are right that you will feel happier when you do good, eg help someone, and you'll feel bad if you deliberately harm people. I think that's what they mean, it's nothing to do with a God who punishes you

I think it's possible to just use the terms Buddhism and the term Christianity without going into specifics about which type of Christianity etc. I have seen discussions on this topic which just use those terms. Although there are many different forms in each religion , they are 2 different traditions, each with a different set of core principles. One of the core principles in all types of Christianity is salvation through faith in Christ. Whereas
Buddhism has no such tenet in any of it's forms. It focuses on achieving happiness, wisdom, whatever you like to make of those terms in THIS life whereas Christianitys core tenet is salvation , achieving eternal Bliss in the Afterlife. And my point was since there are much more christians in the world today than Buddhists does that mean that salvation and eternal Bliss in heaven is more popular than striving for wisdom in this world which firstly means accepting reality AS IT IS which is a core tenet of Buddhism. I think Nietszche gives one of the most famous critiques of Christianity as a turning away or denial of this life. And the more I study Nietszche the more convinced I am of his argument.

What the Church prohibited was not philosophy itself but the teaching of it as a non-Christian tradition (or as an alternative to Christianity). Philosophy in Greece has been taught without interruption from Plato and Aristotle down to the present! — Apollodorus

Yes I was aware that ancient philosophy survived in the Eastern Roman empire. However all over Europe Christianity triumphed, and although some ancient survived it had to fit in with Christian dogma , otherwise it was rejected, so as far as I know and (one of us can check that out on Google ! ) Stoicism, Epicureanism, and many other ancient schools of philosophy which ran counter to Christian dogma were rejected as "pagan" philosophy. The reason why Plato and Aristotles thought was acceptable to the church is because it (parts of it to be precise ) was found to be compatible with Christian dogma. My point as I made previously, is that only during the 18th century Enlightenment and beyond when Church control of learning disappeared that much of ancient philosophy, such as Epicureanism, which was an atheistic , materialistic philosophy revived. And in fact this paved the way for the birth of modern science. The Renaissance you mentioned was not a period of much radical thought, it was mainly very creative in art and architecture, not philosophical thought , which had to wait until the Enlightenment.

. I don't see this as being connected with any particular philosophical or religious system. — Apollodorus

Actually it is. If you take the Celts which Im a bit familiar with being Irish or a Celt myself! They regarded the natural environment as sacred , they had a respect for nature, not seeing it as a worthless object to be used for exploitation. Of course they cut down trees, but they still had reverence for and respect and a sense of awe for creation and the natural world. Nowadays there's nothing of that attitude left. From my personal experience I was never brought up with that idea but a friend of mine who is in the Green party hugs trees and campaigns to protect the environment. Actually he and other like minded people influenced my views here. Then when I discovered Buddhism, Daoism and read Anam Cara by John o Donohue, an Irish expert on Celtic spirituality, who ironically was a former Catholic priest, it opened my eyes and I realized that I had been brought up with a closed mindset. Also when I met and befriended chinese nationals I realized that my mindset was a Eurocentric one and I found philosophy was a means to expand my mindset.

Correct. However, the concept of ethical conduct as conducive to happiness both in the individual and in society, was already central to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and subsequently passed into the Christian tradition along with other elements of Hellenistic philosophy.

So, it does not seem to be exclusively a feature of Buddhism. — Apollodorus

That's a good point and I've often pondered that myself. Having studied WESTERN philosophy in college for a few years I was intially impressed by the likes of Socrates and other WESTERN figures for a long time until I discovered EASTERN philosophy and I found a whole new tradition of wisdom there I had been largely ignorant of. There's a book Id recommend which examines both Western and Eastern philosophy . It's called How the World thinks by Julian Baggini. It's a bestseller I think. He's one of the few western philosophers whose very interested and knowledgeable about Eastern philosophy. Now some western thought such as Stoicism has similarities with Buddhism and you're correct that there was an intermingling of the traditions during the Hellenistic period. But unfortunately with the coming of Christianity all that ancient wisdom came to an end as Ancient Philosophical schools were closed by the Church in the 5th century AD. What survived of western philosophy was a Christianized Aristotle and Plato. Not until the 18th century did you get a revival of much ancient wisdom and then western colonial attitudes coupled with ignorance of Eastern thought continued until the 19th or even 20th centuries. It's all there explained much better than I can in Baginnis book.

I think the Buddhists meant only human beings in relation to Metta — Ross

I want to make a correction to my point here, although Metta is meant to apply to all living things that obviously is not going to impact the behavior of Tiger you mentioned in your example. But the value of the Buddhist teaching here lies in the fact that it changes our attitude towards the whole of creation. Something I think is a very valuable life lesson for us TODAY in the plundering of the planets finite resources. Christianity does not have, to my knowledge, the same attitude of respect or Metta towards the natural environment. In the Bible it says Man has dominion over creation. Man is seen as superior to the animals. It's also due to the Newtownian view of the mechanical universe. That arrogance and flawed thinking is possibly what led us to the plundering of our planet, viewing it as a material object to exploit for our pleasure and to climate crisis of today. I think many people are realize that this attitude is not wise and the ecological and environmental movement is growing.

It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended. — Apollodorus

I think the Buddhists meant only human beings in relation to Metta. In my opinion modern psychology proves the validity of the Buddhist teachings about Metta, compassion, kindness and so on. It's been shown empirically that these values when practiced lead to greater happiness. The human brain over the course of evolution developed the capacity for empathy, compassion in response to the survival needs, and this led to greater cooperation and ultimately the building of more stable and larger communities and fast forward to the development of advanced civilizations. So in my opinion Buddhist philosophy not only contains the value of thousands of years of accumulated wisdom drawn from observing REAL people in REAL life situations but it makes practical sense for someone in pursuit of happiness.

The Church is far from faultless, even in the case of Northern Ireland. The idea that religion is ‘used and abused’ or a tool to be wielded is the same argument the gun lobby employs. — Possibility

I disagree I think religion is used frequently for the purposes of all kinds of injustice. I lived through the troubles in Ireland so I know what it was like. The famous slogan of the Unionists in Northern Ireland is we don't want Rome Rule . By that they meant being ruled by a Dublin government which was a Catholic country would mean Catholic domination of the whole island and the protestant unionists would then be a minority. So you see how they used religion for their political ends. It was a few priests in northern Ireland who were important in developing the peace process. The Church during the conflict preached non violence and did not take sides.
I wonder to what extent is it powerful conservative elements in society who are using the Church for their own agenda or is it the other way around that the Church is the cause of these elements. I think it's a chicken-and-egg situation. It's not that straightforward . In the middle ages the Church made war and actually organized massacres of heretics, protestants etc. Nowadays the Church,s role is very different, in a world of ethnic conflict, terrorism and violence, the Church preaches non violence, peace, help for the needy and so on. I think where it was greatly at fault nowadays was it's recent covering up of child sex abuse rather than handing over the perpetrators to justice. That did more damage to the church than anything else in it's history and it will never recover it's moral authority or trust in Ireland that it once had.

The ideal catholic community is one in which there is an acceptance that pretty much ‘everyone does this — Possibility

I think it's more a question of political authorities using and abusing religion for their own ends rather than the fault of the Church itself. A classic case in my country is Northern Ireland during the conflict there in the 70,s and 80,s where people were murdered simply because they were a Catholic or Protestant. It had nothing to do with religion, the motives were political. If you think of Renaissance painters in the 15th century in Italy like Michelangelo who painted and sculpted make and female nudes for exhibition in public places and was commissioned by the Catholic church to do so. And Leonardo da Vinci was openly homosexual as far back as THE 15th century. and it had no impact on his celebrity status. I think something has happened since that time when things became more conservative or repressive , 19th century Victorian society in Britain and Ireland was notoriously repressive where women had to cover themselves up completely , reminds me of the fundamentalist Islamic codes on women's dress nowadays . I think it's more about politics and social attitudes than religion which is used by people for their agendas. Jesus treated women as equals 2000 years ago when it was almost unheard of at that time. He was in my opinion a counter cultural figure.

the teachers had us believing that all our religious practices at least were ‘normal’ — Possibility

What do you mean by normal in this sense. In primary school were marched down to the church on a regular basis but I went to a non denominational secondary school where God was hardly mentioned. My Dad was very religious but my mother although she had faith had a much more liberal take of Catholicism. There was a fierce backlash against the Catholic church in Ireland from about the late 80,s and especially 90,s mainly because of the clerical sexual abuse scandals. The Irish had felt so oppressed by a traditionally authoritarian church that the reaction against it by a new generation was huge and now we have the first openly homosexual prime minister in our history which would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

hedonistic by day" — Ross

That should be hedonistic by Night

We were taught to believe that by obeying our Catholic parents, teachers and clergy, who taught us how to think and what to do, we were obeying God — Possibility

Do you mind me asking but What kind of church did you belong to because I'm from Ireland which when I was a child in the 60's was a very conservative Catholic country, but I don't remember my parents commanding me to obey them even though they were practicing Catholics. I was given full freedom to think for myself by them and my teachers. Of course 90% of people at that time attended mass. Religion was everywhere. But I think the Irish, although it was a conservative Catholic country, are by their nature quite a liberal minded, freedom loving , irreverent and progressive people's and just ignored the Church,s pronouncements or attempts to control our minds and hearts. I remember the wild parties full of casual sex and almost orgies, even back in the 70,s in so called Catholic Ireland. One Irish Professer on tv said "we Irish were straight-laced by day and hedonistic by day"

most are obscured by the teachings of the church - especially the Catholic Church, which assumes its own authority. Read and think for yourself — Possibility

I wonder is it really true that the Catholic church are obscuring Christ's teaching. That's a huge sweeping statement. I hardly think that hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics in the world are all that naive that none of them have ever questioned whether their church is true to the teachings of Christ. There's been a lot of religious scholarship going on for over a hundred years examining these very issues by Catholic scholars. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but if what you say is correct then Catholics are not true Christians at all if they're not being true to Jesus s teaching.