The reality is that the thinker never lives up to their ideas. — Noble Dust

Sometimes the thinker does, and those ultimately end up being the thinkers I'm most interested in. Think for example about Thomas Aquinas, or Kierkegaard (even Socrates from what we're told).

It's helpful to accept that. — Noble Dust

Typically, when most people/situations aren't the way they should be, the world tells you "oh well, it's helpful to just accept that" - well, I don't want to, nor have I ever accepted that a wrong thing is a right thing.

Even Berdyaev, for that matter, was like that from what I know. Loyal to his thoughts.

Typically, when most people/situations aren't the way they should be, the world tells you "oh well, it's helpful to just accept that" - well, I don't want to, nor have I ever accepted that a wrong thing is a right thing. — Agustino

It's not about accepting that a wrong thing is a right thing; it's about acknowledging the imperfect humanity of all; The imperfection of Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates in their kind. It's the understanding of the common, imperfect nature of all. That's the thing I'm actually trying to get at here. Your view is inherently legalistic, and it's strangling. The greatest moralist you could think of is still morally imperfect; the worst offender still has redeeming qualities. Ironically, this is the crux of the Gospel.

Oh, don't pander to who you think I like. I don't give a rat's ass about Berdy's morality. His ideas changed my life. That's all I need.

The imperfection of Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates in their kind. — Noble Dust

Yes, imperfection isn't a problem, but there's a difference between imperfection and dishonest thinking or otherwise just being a bad person. I'm not saying Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates were perfect for that matter, I'm just saying that they were righteous and good people. I can't say the same about Bertrand Russell or Nietzsche for that matter.

@Agustino
I dont think Aquinas Kierkegaard or Socrates would want to be considered "righteous"

What is righteous anyway? And whos righteousness. Im sure Nietchze would have been impeccably righteous according to his own ethics. In fact i think it is can be said that Nietchze remained true to his ideas.

Im sure Nietchze would have been impeccably righteous according to his own ethics. In fact i think it is can be said that Nietchze remained true to his ideas. — Gotterdammerung

Right. By falling on his knees and protecting a horse who was getting beaten he was very true to THESE words of his:

"What belongs to greatness. Who will attain anything great if he does not find in himself the strength and the will to inflict great suffering? Being able to suffer is the least thing; weak women and even slaves often achieve virtuosity in that. But not to perish of internal distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of the suffering -- that is great, that belongs to greatness"

:-} One of the biggest hypocrites.

@Agustino
I am not familiar with the horse forgive me of my ignorance.
It feels condescending of us however to judge the actions of people who have liveid in the past, but i shall leave it at that.

However i would be interested in hearing a response to my other question which i shall repeat.
What is righteousness? Since it is by "righteousness" that we are condeming peoples ideas.

A lot of you guys seem to like Christian thinkers. One name I haven't seen mentioned so far is Rudolf Eucken. He wasn't perfect, but I like him. His philosophy was called "activism", so you can already imagine what his life was like. — absoluteaspiration

I'll have to check him out... Thanks!

"Sometimes the thinker does, and those ultimately end up being the thinkers I'm most interested in. Think for example about Thomas Aquinas, or Kierkegaard (even Socrates from what we're told)."

I dont know where you have gotten this idea from. Especially regarding Kierkegaard. You should read his biography by Peter Thielst for example, who was Regine Olsen's relative. You value human beings and demand things thereafter in a way that Christ did NOT. Period.

Isn't Kierkegaard's behavior especially strange from a Protestant perspective? Marriage is supposed to be an expression of one's devotion to God. The love between God and His church is the love between husband and wife united in holy matrimony, right? — absoluteaspiration

I spent some time researching K. He had nothing against marriage, he just thought he had a calling, and knew that he couldn't pursue his calling while he was married.

"Even Berdyaev, for that matter, was like that from what I know. Loyal to his thoughts."

You must really dislike and have no respect for Scopenhauer then?

You are a modern pharisee I believe. As Berdyaev used to day; The cruelest people arent the immoral sinners, but the moral monsters, who are moral but without a heart.

"Oh, don't pander to who you think I like. I don't give a rat's ass about Berdy's morality. His ideas changed my life. That's all I need."

Finally someone here who understands something

"I can't say the same about Bertrand Russell or Nietzsche for that matter."

You dont know their hearts. And if you value christian ethics, then Nietzsche's last act before insanity should be approved as great by you. And I agree if you think so. Him protecting that horse is deeply moving. You dont know what happened with him there.

"What belongs to greatness. Who will attain anything great if he does not find in himself the strength and the will to inflict great suffering? Being able to suffer is the least thing; weak women and even slaves often achieve virtuosity in that. But not to perish of internal distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of the suffering -- that is great, that belongs to greatness"

I agree that this is a very troubling statement. Yet, those hell-preachers you admire inflict among the greatest suffering imaginable to people already in this life by telling then that they will suffer horribly forever. And they certainly dont even care; they believe that they do a good thing.

And if you value christian ethics, then Nietzsche's last act before insanity should be approved as great by you. — Beebert

It is, however - it does show that Nietzsche was a hypocrite who didn't really believe what he wrote. Either that, or that he rejected his writings.

You must really dislike and have no respect for Scopenhauer then? — Beebert

In certain regards, sure. However I have found his ideas to be significantly better than most other philosophers.

"It is, however - it does show that Nietzsche was a hypocrite who didn't really believe what he wrote. Either that, or that he rejected his writings."

Or that you understand not even 0.1 percent of how complex human beings are

I agree that this is a very troubling statement. Yet, those hell-preachers you admire inflict among the greatest suffering imaginable to people already in this life by telling then that they will suffer horribly forever. And they certainly dont even care; they believe that they do a good thing. — Beebert

Why is that the greatest suffering imaginable?! You surely have to be kidding! How can that be the greatest suffering imaginable? The fact that you may suffer in the afterlife in hell pales in terms of the suffering it causes in this life to the suffering of being raped, beaten, etc.

"In certain regards, sure. However I have found his ideas to be significantly better than most other philosophers."

But you should be consequent here. He was far from living out his ideas. Far from it. So, according to your earlier statements, he should be taken with a grain of salt

But you should be consequent here. He was far from living out his ideas. Far from it. So, according to your earlier statements, he should be taken with a grain of salt — Beebert

No he wasn't that far actually. He lived quite an ascetic life considering the fact he was born as one of the richest people of his day.

I Said AMONG the greatest suffering imaginable. You seem to be without a history? I mean your soul. Dont you see that the sufferings of the soul can be the most horrible of all?

Dont you see that the sufferings of the soul can be the most horrible of all? — Beebert

In the afterlife for sure, but why would that be so in this life? It's such a crock of nonsense.

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning. — Benedictus de Spinoza

Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them

You seem to be one of that multitude.

"The fact that you may suffer in the afterlife in hell pales in terms of the suffering it causes in this life to the suffering of being raped, beaten, etc."

Or of mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. As I said;

Your problem is perhaps not that you lack fantasy, but that you lack understanding and subtlety. Also, in opposition to what especially the Chruch have thought at least in the past but apparently still; it has always been the conscientious and NOT the conscienceless who have had to suffer so incredibly much from the oppression of Hellfire preachers and the fears of Hell, especially when they were at the same time people of imagination. As a consequence, life has been made most miserable precisely for those who had need of joy and cheerfulness etc. Not only cheerfulness for their own recovery from themselves, but so that mankind might take pleasure in them and take joy in their gifts of imagination etc. In other words, the Church has caused more lost souls than saved ones, to use christian language. They have more often been an arc of damnation and destruction than the opposite, destroying sensitive people's lives. And those people who desired by means of these evil condemnations to gain the highest enjoyment of their oppresion because they hate what they call "the immoral" are among those that have caused the most harm to people in history.

Or of mentally oppressing and tormenting people so that they become insane of all superstitions and lose hope and the ability to love. So the opposite effect of what christianity should actually intend to preach. — Beebert

Those people mentally torment themselves. Why do they do it?! As Spinoza said:

These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning. — Benedictus de Spinoza

"In the afterlife for sure, but why would that be so in this life? It's such a crock of nonsense."

In this life too, stupid. It is the soul that suffers the most when someone has been raped. By the way, there is no soul seperate from the body I believe, but that is not the point now. You are almost a hopeless case when it comes to understanding.

I've come across people who have had mistresses, and their wives knew about it. I can forgive that a lot easier than someone who sneaks around and pretends he is faithful.

Supporting the Nazi party seems really odd. What would the world be like if we were all Nazi sympathizers?

"No he wasn't that far actually. He lived quite an ascetic life considering the fact he was born as one of the richest people of his day."

Like when he made a Woman fall down from the stairs and then rejoiced when she died years later? Or when he committed fornication?

& The attitudes expressed in your posts sounds similar to the attitude of the Stoics. They talked about their heroes (Hercules, for example) in glowing terms... Those heroes had some significant flaws, but the Stoics only talked about their good qualities.

In this life too, stupid. It is the soul that suffers the most when someone has been raped. By the way, there is no soul seperate from the body I believe, but that is not the point now. You are almost a hopeless case when it comes to understanding. — Beebert

I was actually referring the fact that the worst imaginable suffering of the soul only occurs (potentially) in the afterlife, not in this life. And again, you are a case in point. You hypocritically preach all encompassing love, and yet you hate people like me (by for example calling me stupid), who you're actually speaking with. As I said, it's easy to love mankind from a distance. It's unbelievable that you can't even look at yourself.