What sort of divinity do you think Nietzsche believed in? — frank

I don't know. What, exactly, do you mean by "divinity"? But in as much as there is something, he must have believed in something. You cannot have something and intelligibly not believe in anything.

I'm under the impression he was more a Stoic then anything else, but I'll accept correction.

The anti-biotics of the world are truly amazing. But apparently they need bacteria to provide them with something to overcome. So does this argue for or against streptococcus? — fdrake

If I pointed to the antibiotics of the world as examples of creativity and ambition, and you then reminded me why the great struggle of the antibiotics exists in the first place, then I would understand and withdraw the reference. But that's me. All Asian and shit. But wait, what was your point?

Your point was that there are people who struggle and are not rewarded. It's harsh, but laissez faire will leave them in one of two states: dead, or alive with the a peculiar kind of education that no socialist environment could ever equip them with. It's called How to Stop Being a Slave and Get Your Shit Together.

I could pick on some of your examples, but that would be a side track.

Tim. What did you mean by this:

And I have news for you. Nietzsche was far too smart to be Godless. — tim wood

I could pick on some of your examples, but that would be a side track. — frank

You realise I just replaced contrasting terms in your post with other contrasting terms right? The burden of irrelevance is yours here. Anyway, what were we talking about?

But wait, what was your point? — frank

You are a sickening apologist for Sauron, or a useful idiot for him. The orcs are hard working test tube babies born into war and selectively bred for barbarity. If given the opportunity for their successes to accumulate, maybe they would develop a culture of peace and prosperity. But as it stands Sauron enforces his will on the hard working orcs by making it their will.

I want to live in a Middle Earth where the guttural battle cries of the Black Speech (as called by the forced enemies of the orcs) are replaced by the beautiful harmonies of the Nazgul. Dethrone the Wraiths who built nothing of the present world, only acted as the willing hands of a tyrant against his people.

You are a sickening apologist for Sauron — fdrake

If you love the LOTR then you love Sauron. Is this point really too obscure for you? Really?

If you love the LOTR then you love Sauron. Is this point really too obscure for you? Really? — frank

Tell that to the rest of Middle Earth man. Even the rest of the Gods hate Sauron.

Tell that to the rest of Middle Earth man. — fdrake

They love him too. He's badass.

They love him too. He's badass. — frank

Ahistorical nonsense.

"Ere (Sauron's) spirit left its dark house, Luthien came to him and that he should be stripped of his raiment of flesh, and his ghost sent quaking back to Morgoth; and she said 'There everlastingly thy naked self shall endure the torment of his scorn, pierced by his eyes, unless thou yield to me the mastery of thy tower.' — The Threat of Luthien

The Free People of Middle Earth united against him. They hated him. What fucking book did you read?

What fucking book did you read? — fdrake

The one where the organizing principle was: do something about Sauron.

People love life. Life is a great drama. When the monster dies, the drama is over. If you love life, you love Sauron.

If you love life, you love Sauron. — frank

Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.

But the Elves were not so lightly to be caught. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and perceived that he would be master of them, and of an that they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. But he, finding that he was betrayed and that the Elves were not deceived, was filled with wrath; and he came against them with open war, demanding that all the rings should be delivered to him, since the Elven-smiths could not have attained to their making without his lore and counsel. But the Elves fled from him; and three of their rings they saved, and bore them away, and hid them.

“Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye”

Whatever fake sophistication is making you defend a literal avatar of evil, stop it. If you love the free people of Middle Earth, you fucking hate Sauron. The people of Middle Earth will never be free until Sauron is strangled with the entrails of the last Wraith.

If you love the free people of Middle Earth, you fucking hate Sauron. — fdrake

Middle Earth is an expression of a primal conflict between good and evil. It only exists because of Sauron's superior, Morgoth.

Rebellion originated with the Vala Melkor (as Morgoth was called before he turned to darkness). According to a story meant as a parable of events beyond Elvish comprehension,[11] Eru let his spirit-children perform a great Music, the Music of the Ainur, developing a theme revealed by Eru himself. For a while the cosmic choir made wondrous music, but then Melkor tried to increase his own glory by weaving into his song thoughts and ideas that were not in accordance with the original theme. "Straightway discord arose around him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent ... but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first."[12]

The discord Melkor created would have dire consequences, as this singing was a kind of template for the world: "The evils of the world were not at first in the great Theme, but entered with the discords of Melkor."[13] However, "Sauron was not a beginner of discord; and he probably knew more of the Music than did Melkor, whose mind had always been filled with his own plans and devices."[14] Apparently Sauron was not even one of the spirits that immediately began to attune their music to that of Melkor, since it is noted elsewhere that his fall occurred later (see below).

The cosmic Music now represented the conflict between good and evil. Finally, Eru abruptly brought the Song of Creation to an end. To show the spirits, faithful or otherwise, what they had done, Eru gave independent being to the now-marred Music. This resulted in the manifestation of the material World, Eä, where the drama of good and evil would play out and be resolved. — Wikipedia

Middle Earth is an expression of a primal conflict between good and evil. It only exists because of Sauron's superior, Morgoth. — frank

I know this. That doesn't mean support Sauron if you have to deal with all his shit you dolt.

It is easy to win The Survival of the Fittest, just buy a gun and shoot loads of people.

That doesn't mean support Sauron if you have to deal with all his shit you dolt. — fdrake

What are you drinking?

What are you drinking? — frank

I'd be drinking wine from Southfarthing if it wasn't for all these genocidal skeletons on dead horses.

'd be drinking wine from Southfarthing if it wasn't for all these genocidal skeletons on dead horses. — fdrake

So you can't accept Sauron even though you know the position he holds in the world that you love. Therefore, your argument comes down to a giant wad of emotion, and my point stands: there is no coherent logical argument against the proposition (in or around the OP.)

So you can't accept Sauron even though you know the position he holds in the world that you love. Therefore, your argument comes down to a giant wad of emotion, and my point stands: there is no coherent logical argument against the proposition (in or around the OP.) — frank

People didn't fight Sauron because of some symbolic opposition between good and evil. People fought Sauron because he was a tyrant ruining their lives. You've got a really warped perspective here - it's as if you're not living in Middle Earth.

People didn't fight Sauron because of some symbolic opposition between good and evil. People fought Sauron because he was a tyrant ruining their lives. — fdrake

And you read it with relish, while Tolkien's other book, where everything started off lovely, wonderful things happened, and it all wound up beautifully, just sat on your shelf unread until this very day. In fact, I bet you didn't even notice that he wrote that book.

Again: your position is all emotion, which is fine. If you have an argument that has something logical or empirical to say about the matter, I'd be interested.

Otherwise, enjoy the mead.

Tim. What did you mean by this:

And I have news for you. Nietzsche was far too smart to be Godless.
— tim wood — frank

Responding to this:

Nietzsche is just there to invalidate any moral argument by way of the godless universe. — frank

I'm pretty sure I meant what I wrote. I don't see anything there that looks confusing.

um sorry to interject but this convo makes me think of the post I sent just a few minutes ago. Please pardon me but I was wondering if the universe is actually "godless". You see I think it is but I also think it isn't and I haven't read Tolkien or Nietzche in over 20 years but I have read Camus and sometimes I agree with existentialism. Thanks for letting me post.

I was wondering if the universe is actually "godless". — christine

Before you consult yourself on such a topic, be good enough to consult yourself as to what understanding of "god" you have or are working with.

Eventually you may discover that "god" is what you say it is. When you get there, your original question will cease to be a question that you ask or have interest in.

I'm pretty sure I meant what I wrote. I don't see anything there that looks confusing. — tim wood

OK.

um sorry to interject but this convo makes me think of the post I sent just a few minutes ago. Please pardon me but I was wondering if the universe is actually "godless". You see I think it is but I also think it isn't and I haven't read Tolkien or Nietzche in over 20 years but I have read Camus and sometimes I agree with existentialism. Thanks for letting me post. — christine

I think we took the concept of mechanism as far as we could. I think the pendulum is poised to turn back. But the age of mechanism will be like a chamber in the nautilus shell. IOW, I think going forward, things like qualia, volition, creativity, purpose, all of them tied to our inherited concept of divinity, will have a more comfortable place in science and philosophy.

How many people will realize that god survived? Don't know.

By "strong," I mean creative individuals with ambition and determination. By rewarding such individuals with wealth and power, society in general becomes leaner and fitter. — frank

I don't know what this means, in practical terms, even with the title's laissez faire.

Opposition to this view is essentially an anti-life ethic which promotes mercy and pity over greatness. — frank

Well, part of what makes us great is that we are also empathetic creatures. We are social mammals that have always taken care of each other - to vary degrees and to varying degrees of what we consider us - and this has always been part of what made us the apex carnivores on the planet. So this second quote is presuming that the life in us is more like the life in insects and some reptiles where there is generally a colder more of what we would call a psychopathic or at least sociopathic base for even intraspecies, even intratribal or familial relations. The very qualities you call mercy and pity are part of what we are as social mammals.

Opposition to this view is essentially an anti-life ethic which promotes mercy and pity over greatness. — frank

Your principle demands allowing the sinking to drown, both literally and figuratively. Watching people drown seems an odd way to express your pro-life ethic.

It's both true that sometimes trying to help people actually helps them and that sometimes trying to help people actually hurts them. I think our focus as a society should be in doing things that actually help people, as opposed to abandoning the attempt because sometimes we fail.

I’m not suggesting that you should allow people you love to drown. You should protect yourself and that means protecting your loved ones.

As for those beyond your sphere, the notion that you could protect them all is unreasonable. What we’re really talking about is whether you should put your energy into a futile attempt to help them in the name of some abberrent and unnatural concept of life.

Think of a farmer who is collecting seeds for the next season. Should he collect seeds from all the plants regardless of their health because to do otherwise would be to throw aside a living thing?

That approach, though heart warming in a childish and irrational way, is mistaken. It fails to take into account that life pours forth stupidly from the earth. Life appears around us with the same amount of forethought and planning as a volcano or typhoon. What we see around us for the most part is the winners: the products of evolution who hit the jackpot. We ourselves relatively recently genetically drifted into apex-hood. We didn’t arrive in this position by some loving, caring, guiding hand. The farmer of our species is heartless and blind. She allows the weak to die, leaving behind a species equipped to deal with what the world throws its way.

Knowing that this is why we exist in the first place, why would we now turn against the blind wisdom of Nature?

By "strong," I mean creative individuals with ambition and determination. By rewarding such individuals with wealth and power, society in general becomes leaner and fitter. — frank

One other question I have around this is the people who rise to the top now often get there by damaging themselves, making themselves less human. Not in all fields, but in the business world where real power to transform society generally lies. I also don't see much creativity in that class, though ambition and determination - in those not born into dynasties - are certainly qualities they have. World class musicians have those two qualities and so did Hitler.

I'm not suggesting that you should allow people you love to drown. You should protect yourself and that means protecting your loved ones. — frank

How does it protect me to jump in a lake to save someone?

As for those beyond your sphere — frank

Is my sphere just my immediate family, my extended family, my whole tribe, or my entire race?

It is easy to win The Survival of the Fittest, just buy a gun and shoot loads of people. — Andrew4Handel

The "fittest" will be American, then. They practice this sort of thing, all the time, in case someone tries to take their gun-toys away from them.

The "fittest" will be American, then. They practice this sort of thing, all the time, in case someone tries to take their gun-toys away from them. — Pattern-chaser

Actually the fittest in the US, like other places, in the sense of those with power, real power, have other people who carry guns to protect them.