As far as Nietzsche's historical sense, he's the only western philosopher who even utilized ANY Historical sense at all. — Vaskane
As far as Nietzsche's historical sense, he's the only western philosopher who even utilized ANY Historical sense at all.
— Vaskane
That does not account for Hegel who was bold enough to claim what that history was destined to bring about.
It also excludes those philosophers who presented "natural' right as outcomes of our development as human beings, as seen in the differences between Hume, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etcetera.
Against that backdrop, the use of the word Genealogy by Nietzsche seems less explanatory than others. — Paine
but a history whose basis and sense is rethought in every epoche. This is the sense of the genealogical for Nietzsche. — Joshs
but a history whose basis and sense is rethought in every epoche. This is the sense of the genealogical for Nietzsche.
— Joshs
I don't think he's trying to let each "epoche" speak for itself. He's myth making to explain why we have directly opposing conceptions of goodness. His answer is that it's our heritage, built into our language. One could easily swap that answer with something about the structure of the human psyche. — frank
The will to power must not be interpreted psychologically, as if the will to power wanted power because of a motive; just as genealogy must not be interpreted as a merely philosophical genesis. ( Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy)
There is no act of creation that is not transhistorical and does not come up from behind or proceed by way of a liberated line. Nietzsche opposes history not to the eternal but to the subhistorical or superhistorical: the Untimely, which is another name for haecceity, becoming, the innocence of becoming (in other words, forgetting as opposed to memory, geography as opposed to history, the map as opposed to the tracing, the rhizome as opposed to arborescence). "The unhistorical is like an atmosphere within which alone life can germinate and with the destruction of which it must vanish. . . . What deed would man be capable of if he had not first entered into that vaporous region of the unhistorical?" Creations are like mutant abstract lines that have detached themselves from the task of representing a world, precisely because they assemble a new type of reality that history can only recontain or relocate in punctual systems.
He is sui generis and thus not quite "Jewish" but only "within the Jews". — schopenhauer1
As I said, I'm willing to accept that all of it is myth. — schopenhauer1
That is to say, we really don't know if the Hillelites held "official" positions and that there could not be ones that could vascilate between various points of view, but generally align with the core ideas of their main "party" or "school of thought". So I don't think that really provides solid evidence against this. Rather, Jesus' call for intention over ritual seems more in line with Hillelite ideals. — schopenhauer1
Broadly-speaking, Schopenhauer characterized Judaism, Islam, and Protestant Christianity as "life affirming" because of their emphasis on embracing the here and now, and this life. He characterized Buddhism, Hinduism, and Catholic Christianity as life-denying — schopenhauer1
Right, and that is my whole point countering the general way you are interpreting Jesus. You are taking traditional (Christian) Gospel portrayals as gospel. In scholarship of texts in the ancient world, you have to understand the intent of the authors, the surrounding context, the surrounding differences in cultures, the conflicts going on when they were writing, their audience, their influences, and then weigh what was trying to be conveyed to what was probably the case.Jesus is unquestionably life-denying if we regard his teachings in the gospels as accurate representations of his thought. — BitconnectCarlos
When I form my views on Jesus as a thinker I am based my analysis of him based on what he says in the gospels, particularly Mark and Matthew. Pirkei Avot is a Talmudic tractate on Jewish ethics at that time and I find considerable contrasts (although with some common ideas) with the teachings of Jesus. It's fascinating for me: Pirkei Avot has timeless wisdom with a practical utility; with Jesus his teachings tends to focus more attaining the ideal even if it puts one at great danger. Jesus never really expresses concern for his followers physical well-being or living a long life; OTOH he says it is of no great matter whether one dies at e.g. age 6, 30, 60, or 90 because it is all in God's hands. Jesus differs from Judaism both on the nature of salvation and on the nature of God. — BitconnectCarlos
Jesus is unquestionably life-denying if we regard his teachings in the gospels as accurate representations of his thought. — BitconnectCarlos
with Jesus his teachings tends to focus more attaining the ideal even if it puts one at great danger. — BitconnectCarlos
my position is due to the clear and powerful emphasis that jesus places on the afterlife and avoiding hell. he preaches a hard line. do you disagree? — BitconnectCarlos
It also implies that a human can and should find ultimate satisfaction in an unending consumption and constant conflict and struggle. Eat, drink, make merry, fight, and never get bored with any of it.I would suggest, though, that there are other ways of understanding the emergence of the morality of Good and Evil besides that of a weakness or sickness. This implies some sort of pathology or regression occurred in human history with respect to a prior period of a healthy Will to Power. — Joshs
Let me get this straight. You don’t want to single the jews out as the only recipients of discrimination. But you do want to single the jews out in the follow way:
“When one religion claims to have superior knowledge of "how things really are", this is an automatic declaration of war to all other religions.” — Joshs
But then this doesn't take into account, well, to put it in gross terms, the value of "keeping up appearances."Christianity, became a philosophy of the "weak" because it emphasized humility, charity. It was a sort of philosophy of the slave, and not of the aristocrat which he championed. — schopenhauer1
metaphorically that mental aspect which protects you from living life to the fullest, from taking those risks, breaking out of our comfort zones — Vaskane
If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want"). — baker
Here is a thread that has to do with Jewish people. As an analysis of them and some phenomena related to them, you have been offering the arguments of someone who flat-out denies or ignores what is central to Jewish people, namely, the existence of God and God's revelation to the Jewish people. And who instead, basically, implies that the Jews merely invented their morality and religious doctrine as a reaction to certain challenges.Otherwise I suggest contemplating why you questioned me (not that it's not allowed, hell I encourage it to the fullest, because I always seek to affirm my own abilities by a good challenge) to say "no," to me, or to challenge yourself, or perhaps even both? — Vaskane
Rule number 1: if you want to understand a philosopher -- you need to remove your lens and put theirs on. Otherwise your preconceived notions leave no room for learning. — Vaskane
No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the importance of _t_talking the _t_alk.If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want").
— baker
Indeed. Self-righteousness becomes its own smug example of non-humility. — schopenhauer1
This is disgracefully facile. It goes to show you have no respect for those you presume to analyze.God said it was okay for me to ignore their revelations, see how that works? — Vaskane
Irrelevant. What Nietzsche is doing (and now you, along with him) is plain old authoritarianism, a kind of cultural imperialism.Basically any argument that asserts God gave me X is dumb af as it can't be proven.
It's not an "emotional reaction". It's about fairness.You could read Theodor Lessings Der Jüdische Selbsthass, or Jacob Golomb's Nietzsche and Zion. You may actually come into a more informed opinion rather than just basing your opinion on emotional reactions.
If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want"). — baker
Yes forgiveness is very important, but there's a not-so-subtle reason for it. "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:14). — BitconnectCarlos
In short, Judaism popularized hate and resentment as the equation for birthing values with the ancient slave revolt in morals. AntiSemitism is just another form of slave morality following the Judaic formula. — Vaskane
Judaism popularized a book where the oppressed are uplifted and mighty kings are humbled. it is not about hating the aristocratic. much of the old testament attests to the regal glory of the mighty king david. it is jesus who says "blessed be the poor and meek" and "it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." it is the jesus of the gospels who most adequately encaptures what jesus refers to as "jewish slave morality." — BitconnectCarlos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.