Flourishing?Morality, as you seem to look at it; what is its purpose? What is its goals? — Beebert
Well it certainly seems to me that you are. For example you call Blake a Christian, and yet Blake advocated and engaged in free love, including adultery and opposed monogamy, marriage and chastity. Please explain to me how that isn't against morality, and how that is Christian.I am not an enemy of morality in itself. — Beebert
I've read quite a bunch of stuff by Berdyaev including most recently Meaning of the Creative Act, but also The End of Our Time and Philosophy of Inequality. I like most of his writings. Berdyaev does advocate for morality though. He goes at length about the necessity of religious asceticism, even his philosophy of sexuality is very interesting, and unlike the full of lust crap you find in Blake and Nietzsche.If you want to look at someone who actually had the RIGHT to criticize Nietzsche, I recommend to you Berdyaev — Beebert
That wasn't my impression at all.He had a great understanding of Nietzsche, and he admired him and considered him one one of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived. — Beebert
:s He seems to admire Aquinas (he calls him "greatest genius"), even at the points where he disagrees with him. Unlike you.And he too was sceptical and critical towards Aquinas. — Beebert
What message? The work doesn't have a very clear message. It seems obvious that the Underground man is opposed to rampant materialism and scientism and wanted to assert the freedom of man. It also seems to argue against rationalistic attempts (like Communism) to enforce a certain scientific standard on society and take man's freedom away in the name of curing him of suffering (for example). It is largely a critique of Russian Westernized intelligentsia of that time, including their blind adherence to science, logic and reason (reason does NOT mean here what it means for Aquinas or for Plato - by the way. It's what reason means for the Enlightenment). If that's the message you refer to, then no, I would agree with that message, not reject it.Btw, regarding Notes from Underground; I guess you dismissed the message there as false and untrue? — Beebert
"Humanist anthropology reached its climax in F. Nietzsche, the most significant spiritual phenomenon of modern history [...] Zarathustra is the most powerful human book without grace; whatever is superior to Zarathustra is so by grace from on high. Zarathustra is the work of man abandoned to himself""That wasn't my impression at all" Lol then you havent read or understood Berdyaev either. He sometimes even referred to himself as a "Nietzschean-Christian" — Beebert
.... I think this is totally wrong. His view is rather that scientific reasoning cannot comprehend the whole of man. So when looking at man by the criteria of scientific reasoning then yes, man is irrational. But this is not the same criteria of reason that Aquinas and Plato had. By that criteria of reason, man is not irrational, but maybe supra-rational.Partly his insight that man is irrational. — Beebert
I do, he didn't much like it.I hope you know what Nietzsche thought about the enlightenment — Beebert
Yes, I know later Berdyaev developed a fetish for Kant :PAnd here is a quote from Berdyaev that I agree with: “Kant is a profoundly Christian thinker, more so than Thomas Aquinas,” — Beebert
Why is salvation divorced from creativity? Why can't a creative person be moral? :s This seems to me to be special pleading. Dostoyevsky isn't a better man because he wrote Brothers Karamazov - it has little to do with his morality. He still committed many sins. His success, as a writer, does not erase his failures as a human being. And the same holds even more true for William Blake and F. Nietzsche. It's not up to us to speculate who is in Heaven and who isn't though.In Berdyaev's work Destiny of Man, as well as in his autobiography, he advocates for two paths in life: The path of creativity, the path chosen by artists Most often; musicians, writers, painters etc. And the path of salvation. Both leads to heaven in the end in his view. And you can rarely choose both at the same time. And he couldn't accept the thought that Nietzsche and other brilliant men were in hell. — Beebert
Well that's the author's reading of Berdyaev, but you said Berdyaev himself said he is a Christian Nietzschean. That's what I'm interested in."He is a compelling writer, a Nietzschean whose critique of Nietzsche is sharper than a blade" — Beebert
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jerusalem._The_Emanation_of_the_Giant_Albion/Plate_49For him, sin was to reject life and vitality, sin was to embrace nothingness. — Beebert
But it was also a moral violation apart from being something more? :sIt wasn't just simply a moral violation. — Beebert
Well I can't instantly read that book, so that's why I'm relying on this conversation. In the Meaning of the Creative Act, it seems that Berdyaev, to the contrary, presupposes that some degree of religious asceticism / morality is needed to fuel one's creativity. For example, he discusses about sublimating the sexual drive (which he identifies as fundamental) and channeling it towards creative endeavours. If one indulges in the sex drive, then one is left without energy to be creative. So the two seem to be intimately related. Why does he change his mind?Regarding Berdyaev's view on creativity, they can co-exist, but that is rare, not rule. Read his Destiny of Man for an explanation, it was his thought, not mine. — Beebert
Okay, but aren't the two identical, or in fact, creation being higher than salvation? For man in his primordial state, before the Fall, was created in the image of God, and therefore in the image of a creator. And remember that according to Aquinas whom you don't like >:) man is meant to be a participant in creation - a co-Creator. Marriage, and having children, are symbolic of these creative capacities of man (and woman). Because salvation - okay one is saved. But what happens after? Clearly the after is defined by creativity or as Aquinas would say, participation in Creation.Correct, that was his view in the Destiny of Man too. But you see how the purpose here is to create, not to seek salvation. Nietzsche too reasoned like Berdyaev that sublimating the sexual drive can be fundamental for the creative act. Though except that, Nietzsche is probably not the best to seek advice from regarding questions about sex — Beebert
>:O >:O Why do you say that?Though except that, Nietzsche is probably not the best to seek advice from regarding questions about sex — Beebert
What do you mean by chastity being tyrannical or pharasaic?Chastity can definitely be tyrannical and pharasaic, so it all depends on how Blake understood chastity. — Beebert
The doctrine of participation in Being has been quite essential to the Thomist tradition. And it shows through art as well, for example in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (Tolkien was a Catholic).And this has been much of my argument all the time, that man is created in order to create, or to be a co-creator. I did not know this though about Aquinas, and if what you say is the case, I am inclined to agree and appreciate this insight of his, though I would appreciate to read how he defined it. — Beebert
Okay, but why would him being a virgin, or having sex with a prostitute and contracting syphillis, or being a homosexual tell us anything about his sexual insights? Do you mean to suggest that someone who doesn't have a lot of sex with women in particular fails to understand sexuality?On a superficial level, have you heard about the different interpretations on Nietzsche's sexuality etc? — Beebert
Yes, Nietzsche was in all likelihood quite selfish.I once read a biography of Nietzsche and laughed myself to death almost when I read Nietzsche's letter about how he liked Lou-Andreas Salome but that when it comes to marriage, he wanted his friend to tell her that he might consider it, but at max (!)for two years! As if more than two years with a woman in a marriage would be unendurable. That was hilarious to read. — Beebert
Yes, same, but again this isn't to say he's not interesting to read. It's interesting to read because it helps you form your own position, even if you disagree with him.I would say that I most often disagree with his view on women. — Beebert
What do you mean "forced chastity"? How can a virtue be "forced"? If you are forced to love X, then you don't really love X.I am talking about a certain type of forced chastity — Beebert
Why would chastity be self-torture instead of self-respect?self-torture for the sake of it — Beebert
That is quite rare for the most part I think. Most believers aren't Puritans. And as a Christian one doesn't have sex outside of marriage because they love and treasure sex (not because they think it bad), and want to save it for the special person in their life with whom they develop a spiritual bond & connection.condemning attitude towards sex in its totality, losing the insight about the holy nature that also can exist in sex. — Beebert
Why not? It's an amazing theodicy - justification of Creation as good, despite evil.I can't say I find Lord of the Rings to be particularly good art though... — Beebert
Okay.They don't, and no I wouldn't. Having sex with a lot of women can on the opposite mean you don't understand sex. My main suggestion regarding this lay in much of Nietzsche's understanding of women. — Beebert
Sure, but does Blake ever speak about that true meaning of chastity?I personally understand Blake as cririzising priests who preach chastity in order to achieve power and mental and social control over others instead of understanding the true meaning of chastity. — Beebert
Ah, I actually forgot about it, I didn't mean to avoid replying. Sorry.Now if you dont mind, I would really appreciate you commenting on the things from my earlier post(s) that you avoid commenting and replying to but said you were going to comment on later. This one for example : — Beebert
It can mean that, but it's difficult to argue in light of his other works like his Genealogy of Morality which you mentioned as one of your favorite books. Nietzsche also wrote this poem to the Unknown God:'Nietzsche wrote in Daybreak: “In this book faith in morality is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality!" This means that morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of morality he retains and employs. — Beebert
Once more, before I move on
I am directing my gaze forward
In loneliness, I am lifting my hands
Up to Thee, to whom I flee,
To whom I, from the deepest bottom of my heart
Solemnly consecrate altars
So that, at all times,
His voice would call me again.
Thereupon, written deeply inside, the word
Is blazing like fire: To the unknown God:
I am his, even if I remained with the hord of the infidels
Up to this hour:
I am his – and I feel the ties
That pull me down in fight
And, even if I should flee,
Still would force me into his service.
I want to know Thee, Unknown One
Thou, who is reaching deeply into my soul,
Who is raging through my life like a storm
Thou Unfathomable One, akin to me!
I want to know Thee, and serve Thee.
Yes, I'm not one of those people who think Nietzsche was himself a Nazi, ALTHOUGH he did have elements which could very easily be interpreted that way. Even the Genealogy of Morality for example."And yet all the same I know of nothing more monstrous in its inner untruth, than to connect Nietzsche with the modern militaristic Germany. This means -- to read the alphabetic letters, without understanding the meaning of the words. They know Nietzsche only through certain fragmented aphorisms, turned round in reverse and filled with shoddy nuances, they read through and ponder on too little in him, and sense not his spirit and his fate." — Beebert
To be honest, I think the reason Freud said that was because Nietzsche essentially agreed with him :)There is a reason why Freud said of Nietzsche that no man in history has ever had a greater understanding of himself and man than Nietzsche. And that very likely no man in the future will ever reach the insights and the understanding Nietzsche reached. — Beebert
You are not responsible for your existence, but you are responsible for what you do while you exist.How can I be responsible for everything if God is the one creating me without my consent for example?' — Beebert
Yes, no doubt he did, but at many times it feels like he repressed these feelings. I think quite the opposite of you. Nietzsche didn't know himself. Nietzsche was a man of many masks, a man who was in flight from himself, always changing the mask that he was wearing. He thought he was someone different than he actually was, he never looked at his own face.I also dont believe Nietzsche was cruel, pitiless and without compassion. But rather that he had a quite strong tendency towards feeling compassion and pity... — Beebert
As with regards to the priests. — Agustino
Here's the issue with priests. It depends on the age in which one lives. Our age suffers from sexual promiscuity, and therefore leaning towards condemnation of lust is preferable to the opposite, since the opposite will be misinterpreted. In Blake's age, I guess this was different.True about lay-men. Not as often true about priests and pastors. — Beebert
You could extract this idea out of N. But you could also extract the opposite. For example when he says morality is a function of social status in Genealogy of Morality.Nietzsche opposition is to morality is as an excuse for hierarchy. Not in the sense of there are no right or wrong actions or people who are better or worse, but rather to the citing of moral character as an account of the worth of existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But Eastern Orthodox Christians do not take Jesus Christ to be a substitutionary sacrifice for sinners, but quite the contrary - Christ came to save and deify human nature. The doctrine of penal substitution is foreign to this oldest form of Christianity:Since sacrifice does not undo what has been done, it cannot pay for wrongs at all, not even in Jesus. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is a common but false interpretation of Scripture. Please see above. Sacrifice is something positive, not negative in Eastern Orthodoxy. As a husband for example, you're supposed to sacrifice yourself for your wife, and doing so is something positive. There is no legalistic demand for it, but it's something you'd do out of love. Jesus sacrificed Himself for the Church out of love in order to bring salvation of human nature from ourselves, not as a response to a legalistic God.God is just as ignorant as the sacrifice obsessed humans which went before him, at worst building a religion on the very premise of sacrifice which was meant to be targeting, at best lying about why Jesus is sacrificed (i.e. that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sins, rather the death being a cultural act of power to cause people to alter their relationship to sacrifice). — TheWillowOfDarkness
:s That's a non-sequitur.God is dead because we already have the meaning God is meant to grant us and always well. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Okay, but is there ONLY will to power behind every philosophy & theology?This is very much one of the things I have been trying to say. Nietzsche is in other words extremely misunderstood. As he himself said, he found there to be hierarchy thinking, political thinking and Will to power and control behind every philosophy and theology. — Beebert
Indeed he did.No not necessarily, if my memory serves me correctly he wrote it before losing faith but I might be wrong about that. — Beebert
I agree. But he was still someone who misunderstood the highest spiritual realities.Nietzsche was definitely NOT am atheist in the pathetic sense in which Dawkins is an atheist. — Beebert
Sure, I agree, I never said otherwise.Nietzsche wasn't a materialist, nor was he without sense of the religious, myterious and sacred in life. — Beebert
I've already explained that sinners, through their sins, choose the lake of fire willingly.Yes and I see huge problems here to harmonize that with Christianity and its gastly doctrine of eternal punishment in a lake of fire. Is that Free will? Rather sounds like making fun of the whole concept to me. But I might be without understanding here. — Beebert
Yeah it was something about us being like bees bringing back honey to our intellectual hives or something >:O >:OAnd remember what he said in the beginning of Genealogy of Morals where he Said that the insightful man doesn't know himself because he hasn't searched himself. — Beebert
N. is someone who searched but never found in my opinion and understanding of him.Except that you say Nietzsche didnt know himself, while I say he knew so deeply and profoundly all these things about himself and the power of unconcious instincts within man that he analyzed deeper than no one before him(except maybe Dostoevsky, but Dostoevsky was a tiny bit more biased though) — Beebert
Why would you say it's the worst thing, especially since I presume you must not encounter it very often in Sweden?It was horrible to read the example of the 14 year old girl. Condemning like that is the worst thing I know. — Beebert
So then condemnation of lust would be productive in Sweden. When the pendulum swings too far one way, you have to swing further in the opposite direction to balance it.In Sweden sex is not tabu as it was before and people too often idolize it here, at least Young People, both male and female. Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. — Beebert
It's very funny, because I've never been to Sweden - though I've been to your neighbour Finland before - but we often hear how "happy" Swedish people and the rest of the Nordic countries are. It's disappointing to hear that Sweden is just another Western country in terms of morality.Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. Both Christianity and Nietzsche is rejected here, and the hedonists are the number. Sweden's perhaps most famous philosopher today is Torbjörn Tännsjö. He is a typical utilitarist, who IMO stands for onecof the most pathetic philosophy possible. He is very superficial. Nietzsche would have critizised Swedish culture harshly, that is for sure. Everything is very mediocre. — Beebert
>:O Yes, you're not very popular it seems, but it's not because of your views in my opinion, but rather that you end up arguing with the wrong people.Funny that you mention the orthodox forum, I wondered if perhaps you had seen me there. I am not a very popular member there because of many of my provocative posts etc. I think. Some appreciate me, most seem to want me gone. — Beebert
Why is life will to power?It depends in how one views will to power I think. If you ask Nietzsche he would say yes. Because life in itself IS will to power. But it is a concept with a meaning, and words are just masks or mirrors of something beyond the words. — Beebert
Can you offer an example of what you mean?Because similar condemnations in different situations happen. — Beebert
Sure, but I made no mention of threats of punishment there, did I?Yes. But I dont find threats of eternal punishment to be the best strategy. — Beebert
So then Sweden is affected by an unconscious despair because of the absence of spiritual depth would you say? People live materialistically, unaware of their spiritual wants.But there is no spiritual depth, and the cultural depth is low IMO. Sweden is different from France or England and even Germany in many ways IMO. In some ways better, in many ways worse. One thing that defines Sweden IMO is that it is relatively safe. And people generally have it comfortable and "better" materially than most countries. — Beebert
What does the statement "life is will to power" mean, and how do we know it's true? Why do you think it's true? What reasons do you have to believe it?I am not sure I would go as far as Nietzsche even though I find his ideas very interesting. It is hard to answer "why". What do you mean by "why"? — Beebert
HmmmPeople in general have a tendency to define others by what they have done in the past and thereby prevent people from not being defined by their mistakes. Which is horrible. — Beebert
I very much doubt that. There's many nice American Christians (and non-Christians too) out there.No you didnt. But historically and very much today in America, the most disgusting country I know of when it comes to religiousity and spirituality, these threats have been popular. America's religion is almost always a typical example of Will to power as the primary driving force. — Beebert
Ahh I see - so mindless entertainment basically :PI would call that a very accurate way of putting it. The gods of Sweden are social medias like instagram and facebook, and also training in gym. — Beebert
Ehmm I did read Nietzsche, the problem of course is that there's not only one way to interpret will to power. So I'm curious what your interpretation is, and why.If you really read Nietzsche carefully, he tells you what it means. I can give you examples based on social situations and inner drives and motives within me and observations on others, but I do that tomorrow then since I am quite tired now and it is soon time for bed — Beebert
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.