I am not a fan of "names", "periods" and "ages". I see human thinking as a continuous chain. He was one of the greatest, who set solid foundations in human thinking as "movements" that could get us further to exist.

And if we could live for much longer, we would still see Nietzsche's name to appear even after hundreds of years.
"People can't understand me cause I m 1000years ahead" he said. So yeah,if we take that literally, there are many more years left yet I guess..

Nietzsche considered spiritual development as the next step in human evolution. He saw great potential in mind abilities and what humans could achieve with that. A development that could come via knowledge and constant questioning our personal beliefs. A constant internal hard fight of growing ourselves. Not via religion or any other metaphysical superstitions.

That way spirit could overcome our animal nature. Tame our "low" instincts and make us humans something greater than just an "animal with better mind" than monkey.
That way we could re-evaluate our systems, our moral values, our idiot social stereotypes etc. Destroying them and rebuilding them all over.

That is Ubermensch for Nietzsche(in my interpretation at least) . A higher spiritual version of human. The next level in humankind that mind could drive us.
Asking me, we are not even yet "Mensch". So let's become first that, and then we could consider about "Ubermensch".

Yeah. What else do you think Nietzsche meant with Ubermensch? 3 legs and 2 heads? Spiritual not with any metaphysical or theological meaning of course. But mindfulness.

I see only similarity in the way that Mercury ignored social stereotypes, not fearing to expose himself in front of the public and making a way for homosexuals as to gain more acceptance into their societies.

From what I have read about the other aspects of his life(of course I wasn't his buddy as to know for sure) , he didn't seem that spiritual evolved as Nietzsche suggested. I would consider him as a little step towards "Ubermensch" but by far not "Ubermensch" himself.

Criteria as to be considered what Nietzsche meant by "Ubermensch"?

Yeah, I believe you. You do seem pretty familiar with the territory of arrogance and immodesty.

In fact minds like Nietzsche are simply uncancelable. And despite the efforts will remain that way.

Thus spoke Banno?? Glorious. Maybe he predicted "The Cancelmensch" also. Not sure though, haven't studied all of his writings yet.

Oh boy.. A thread that was opened about exploring the meaning of the "Ubermensch" concept ended up as a shithole.
One of the greatest and most influential deep thinkers of all time is condemned by some TPF wannabe-"experts" as "adolescent", "useless" etc etc.
As if they speak for their neighbor living next door.

You don't know what to do. To laugh or cry??Probably they have achieved much greater things to their life than poor, mad, stupid Nietzsche,who only got in the pantheon of Philosophers by luck maybe for them.

I have no problem someone not liking Nietzsche or what he wrote. But treating such a great mind as if he is a "0" it's just a sign of our times.. Cancel everything except our shitself. Our Holy shit self.

P. S. Morrison?? Mercury? Wtf?!?

so I've no way to make sense of this. — Banno

You just don't want. It was a clear metaphor obviously and well said one. He just tells you that words can never fully uncover the "nature" of entire concepts like "religion" or "God", and what these concepts also represent for humans. Just like Kant's phenomenon can't uncover the nature of objects. And both are true.

I want to consider of you clever and sneaky enough as to pretend that you didn't understand.If indeed you were unable to make sense of this, well that's not very flattering for you then.

If yes, then why would he or she want to believe in it and follow its prescribed traditional behavior patterns? — god must be atheist

Well if he acknowledges his religion as mere phantasy then I can't find the reason for him keep believing in it.

But someone might keep following its traditional behavior patterns just because that was what he was "taught" and the only patterns where he feels comfortable in. Or maybe they seem also reasonable to him but for other reasons.
If we involve social reasons then could be more possible that someone to keep following these patterns as to "fit in". Feeling safety doing what other social members do.

in old time religions there always must have been at least one person who knew that the whole supernatural superstructure over the domain of mankind was mere fantasy — god must be atheist

I would bet more than one.

So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading? — Haglund

To me, it sounds as the most possible scenario,so far, for humans to achieve some kind of "immortality". At consciousness level at least. Don't know if that could be via uploading mind on computers or transplanting brains into machines or whatever.

But in general consciousness has much better chances to remain in a way immortal, rather than body itself. The problem is, how you replicate general body functions that play their role in brain(which is the organ for consciousness) processes also, into a synthetic machine?? Still a lot to be answered.

No. In general.

Not surprising for you.

Does God exist? I don’t know — praxis

Well philosophy of God as to exist presupposes God's existence. Starting from that base, it is a subjective matter afterwards what anyone could consider as fallacious or falsifiable. Some will say "God's creation of the world in 7 days", others that "it can't be just one God", or that "God must be some kind of energy and not an entity" etc etc.

For me, despite being atheist, philosophies of God and religions have their significance. Mostly when examining them through the transcedental human need and how they attempt to cover-describe it throughout history. Plus the moral base that humans try to establish via each religion.

What I was objecting was about distinguishing one philosophy of God or religion as "right" and the other as wrong and by which criteria one is called pseudo.
You apparently took it to the next level, considering all philosophies of God and religions as pseudo philosophies and useless.

Can't see the connection you want to imply.

What anyone finds fallacious especially in God and religion issues is absolutely subjective.

Didn't say you did. My words.So what pseudo in philosophy means? And what is pseudo in philosophy of God compared to the other?

pseudophilosophies (for instance, when the focus is "on god/s" instead of on "what is said, or believed, about god/s"). — 180 Proof

Philosophy isn't science. As something pseudo- to exist there must be something" Sure" to exist also as to make the comparison possible. And I don't think in philosophy there are many sure things . You could name almost all philosophies pseudophilosophies then.
And why the philosophy about God is bad or pseudo and that of "what is said about God" the "right" one? What is the criteria?

You do not have to LIKE the changes you see going on, but denying their existence doesn't serve you well. — Bitter Crank

True. Though if someone doesn't like THAT kind of changes then that says a lot about the "human quality" of that someone.

... and here the story ends. Bye.

Just check the numbers. If you want to sound so sure and "confident" about your opinions and "theory", at least don't be lazy. It's just facts.

I'd say everybody who sees imaginable problems, misdiagnoses the situation and applies a remedy that makes things worse, has some introspection to do. ;) be it in terms of quality, antiracism, blm, climate change and other such bunk.

to be honest, righties also doing it with their 'freedom of speech', war on drugs, but still to a much lesser scale. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't understand what imaginable problems have to do with what we were discussing here but anyway.

No I don't want. For that reason at least. I have checked the numbers. You haven't. And apparently you are unwilling to do it. So fine . it's your "theory" vs numerous researches. You decide which is more reliable.

That has nothing to do with leftists as you keep mentioning. I am not even leftist. But I didn't care to state it to you.Found it pointless, till now as to show how imprisoned by your own stereotypes you are. You think everyone who supports equality must be leftist.

but the fact is if women would do the same work for less, why would anybody hire men? — stoicHoneyBadger

Cause of the stereotypes you support. Cause still many think that women can't do the same work as good as men. Plus pregnancy.

You can believe in lots of things that defy logic and reason, — stoicHoneyBadger

Logic says to just check the facts on your own and see the numbers. From numerous valiable institutes. Then you can decide if it's a myth or not.

that woman are payed less is a myth, — stoicHoneyBadger

Why would you write such a thing, since it's so extremely easy to check it over the Internet through numerous researches and see it for yourself??

why you think I/we should be banned. — 180 Proof

You should be banned for using i.e. and () too many fucking times. Kidding.

If someone would point out that your concept of men and women doesn't do your intelligence any favors, well that would be bigotry/disrespectful, right? — Harry Hindu

Don't wanna scare you but there are cases that talking with someone and hear his opinion makes you totally lose your respect for him. And yeah with racists that is very easily achieved.

Not that you should harm them or impose your opinion to them of course, but yeah there is no respect to their idiot opinions. You just ignore them,turn your back and move on.

Respect is the base you start with all humans you meet. But that doesn't mean that you can't lose respect for someone cause of his actions or words when you interact with him. You should never impose anything on him by force or harm him of course. But not respect him anymore?? Sure you can . It's your right. Same as the racist could lose respect for me cause of my opinions. His right also.

If you find that hypocrisy then your opinion is that we must respect everyone despite what his opinions or acts are, right? So I guess when you hear for example that someone is pedophile or hits his kids, or even treating bad to other people cause of their color skin, you still respect him, right??Well sorry but I don't.

Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? — unenlightened

Cause that way there will be more room for all old Banno's threads to be revived.
So hopefully a Holly Day will come, where TPF's first page will be full of Banno's old threads resurrections and new ones also.
Only those will be permitted. The only really worthy ones! The time will COME, and all of you unfaithful bastards you will then post in.. TBF

but the hypocrisy comes about when you impose your own stereotypes on others and demand that they be respected — Harry Hindu

And where exactly I did that? My opinion is "stereotypes"?? And also means that I m imposing it on others?Cause I disagree with racist stereotypes and find them totally wrong and idiotic makes me wanna impose my worldview to others? Again I can't follow you...

Sorry I can't follow your way of thinking. If I respect others can't I also do whatever my heart wants without caring about idiot social stereotypes? How is that contradiction?

. Be respectful but do whatever you want, even if it's not socially acceptable. — Harry Hindu

And that's wrong because.....??

Sounds like you're saying "I can be disrespectful by forcing my view of sex and gender on others and everyone else has to respect that." — Harry Hindu

Wtf? How you got that idea? No it doesn't sound like that at all. Just what you weirdly understood.

. Free speech means everyone has the right to use it and a certain group does not have the right to use their fragile emotional state as a muzzle for others. I mean seriously, who here is so concerened about others refer to them in the third person when they aren't around, which is usually when you refer to someone in the third person? — Harry Hindu

Again wtf? What's your point and what you want me to rephrase?Who told you I'm against free speech?? Didn't get anything.

Weird post.

You are really messing with yourself my friend. That's the whole point. Your arguments are totally incoherent as all racist arguments. Same old story. Take care.

even if they are obvious? :grin: — stoicHoneyBadger

Obvious for you only.

External of course. Not that justifies any criminal action. It might not be cause of society reasons at all. There are some people who are just bastards. Black or white. Not necessarily society's fault.

if blacks are committing more crimes than whites in the same circumstances, is it OK to say that it is because of racial differences ( lower IQ, higher aggression, etc. ) and that those circumstances need to be taken into account OR saying such things would be heresy, we should assume they are equal and if they are committing crimes, it is only because the white society somehow mistreated them? — stoicHoneyBadger

No it isn't OK to judge a whole group of people cause of their skin color and describe them as inferior or with lower IQ or criminals.And yes they are of course equal. Simply as that.

Each case is different.Each person is different. We can discuss the social reasons for making black people to commit more crimes (if they do) but categorize all blacks as criminals is pure stupidity.
If you belonged to a group of 10 black people let's say and even 9 of them were criminals and treat them as such. Would you like others to treat you as criminal also even if you didn't do anything at all? Or treat you as inferior? Would that be fair for you?

Each person should be judged by his and only actions individually .And not from racial characteristics. Period.

ok, so if a race/culture harms other, we can say it is bad. If it doesn't we can only say it is different. — stoicHoneyBadger

Took you some time but you got there eventually.

And I'm a bit messing around with you, seeing how rigid your thinking is. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah that's what you did. Sure..

.. And that proves it

I mean for me all those concepts ( you can not say such and such!!! ) are very relative, — stoicHoneyBadger

Aztecs and gays very relative indeed...

Man are you kidding me? You use that example as to justify what exactly?What that has to do with gay issues for example? Should I state every time that whatever harms intentionally others lives or creatures is bad, as you not to use irrelevant issues?Do we compare apples with oranges here?
You pretend that you don't understand or really you don't? I hope it is the first.