It is not simply about overthrowing religion, but finding connections with the deepest aspects of ourselves, including the numinous and the essential values for living. — Jack Cummins

For sure you can't just simply throw religions out of the window one day. I agree with that work with ourselves that you suggest and I think it plays a huge role as someone to act "good" in societies. But how you could convince people to do that is the real question?

What makes you think religions or god beliefs make people behave morally? — Tom Storm

I don't. I just think in many people helps. Cause of the "fear" of God punishment, or the "reward" they try to act good. Even not achieving it always. But at no point of my post I mentioned that as someone to act moral has to believe in God.

The other problem with a belief in God is that theists have no moral foundation — Tom Storm

And atheists have??

Just consult the Taliban. — Tom Storm

Taliban are evil cause of religion? They are evil cause they choose to be. Religion is their cover and their "excuse" as to act like that. There are millions other islamists that don't "translate" the Korani the shitty way they do. Evil person choose to be evil inside him allready.Its not the religion which makes him evil. I just say that without religions evil people might be even more.

Just consider issues like gay rights, the role of women, drug policy, capital punishment, euthanasia - these moral issues do not unite theists — Tom Storm

And unite atheists?

Many of them have believed in God. This does not prevent them from being violent, from stealing, lying, murdering, dealing drugs, abandoning their children... Name the crime; a religious person is likely to have done it. — Tom Storm

I don't doubt at all about your experience or what you mention here. But it is not what I claimed.

Can't see how can happen. Seems that money is one of the main reasons that chaos would be greater in societies without God. Not a part of the solution.

Too late.

You say it for fun. But I have also considered that possibility also.

I don't think that "reality" is nothing more than the name that observer gives to the "environment" he can perceive.

For me, always imagined the "nature" of ultimate reality as a unique form of energy that goes through everything in universe and contains all the universal information too(information coming from all universal facts ever occurred and those which are going to occur).
And that kind of energy might have some kind of ability to change continuously and contain all the progress goes on, everywhere in universe. Like a "living" energy that "learns" from itself. Know sounds like fiction movie. To myself sometimes also.
Don't ask me why I believe that. There is no reason and I don't even support that this is actual right. It's just how my mind tries to wrap around all these existential questions . Can't blame me, others believe in God.

than a completely non-rational, thoughtless, blind Will-to-Live (as per Schopenhauer) — charles ferraro

"Live" sounds very human-ish to me. And that includes the danger of narrowing our perspectives I think. "Will to Exist" fits better. For me at least.

As in other similar matters too, I find extremely important the Wording. We must be very careful with the right Wording of these questions.

Therefore we must distinguish realities. Are we talking about the absolute universal reality-truth that connects everything so perfectly chaotic? Or are we talking about human reality - truth?
So if we just put the right wording in these matters, answers become really easy sometimes.

If we talk about the first case :No we can't. At least not yet.
If we talk about the second: Yeah of course we can, but STILL not every bit of it. We are still missing parts even from our limited human reality.
Well that's what I think at least.

Be it through philosophy or some guided practice? — Shawn

Self cultivation for me, is mostly about working-knowing yourself.And is a lifelong unstoppable process. There isn't one road as to achieve that. Each one should find his own way. Sure philosophy helps, academic career helps too but just think about how many even academic people seem, talk and act like people with actually no self cultivation!Even a painter could achieve self cultivation, just through his art.

Yet, I don't have the personality and memory to really stand out at college. I have some issues and impediments that prevent me from becoming an academic is what I mean. — Shawn

From the way you put it here seems to me that whatever you do, you are in a good path for self cultivation. Except academic career, simple reading is just fine. So keep reading.No guilts for no academic career.

especially China, there's a tendency to teach no religion or spiritual practices and adopt a system of beliefs that will enable one to cultivate themselves throughout life. — Shawn

I don't know if that's indeed what they do in China, but if they do seems pretty good to me. Maybe it's one of the reasons for China's continuously growing global influence the last years.

Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit — RussellA

"I cannot put into words my private experience of the colour red". — RussellA

When Wittgenstein writes "the world is everything that is the case", what he means is very different from what would be meant in common usage.

The nature of language is such that it allows Wittgenstein to talk about things that, in a sense, transcend language — RussellA

And all these are what makes me believe that Wittgenstein wanted mostly to point out how language easily misleads us ,cause of its limitations! He seemed to me sometimes "playing" in purpose with language as to make it even more obvious to us.The word "world" seems be that case also here.
Good post.

Easy money if we could bet on that.

Absolutely. It's the key. But you've got to believe. Emunnah isn't for everyone. — Hanover

You should have never opened such dark gates. Now anxiety seems to be our lightest problem.

Maybe you should try the books then. Or maybe not .... — Apollodorus

Can I bet to the "maybe not" case?

That's fear not anxiety. — hope

Isn't anxiety caused by fear? What are you talking about?

Basically stop doubting and hating yourself, and start accepting and loving yourself, and your anxiety will be gone. — hope

Sorry my friend but you sound like one of those life coaches, who are to philosophers what mall security guys are for actual police men.

I asked for people their opinion and views, not a suggestion on what book should I read — Alkis Piskas

Well yeah but the book suggestion answers to your initial question. Maybe that's why they try to urge you read it. You can't blame them for that. Just answering your question.

No, I was certainly not confused about Wittgenstein's quote. I — Alkis Piskas

Well if you were not confused what would be the reason to start the thread then at the first place? You did sound that you needed clarification for the Wittgenstein's statement. That's at least what I do when I'm confused.

Stubbornness is a virtue cultivated by having to explain things repeatedly. — Banno

As long as you explain them right.

Again, if you want to understand Wittgenstein, or any other philosopher of worth, you needsmust expend some effort. — Banno

Again your understanding isn't the only one. And not necessarily the right one. The one who disagrees with your understanding doesn't mean that hasn't studied Wittgenstein.

Just a little bit. — Banno

Glad you admit it.Just on time as to get out the idea, that was starting to shape in my mind, of you being stubborn.

The question is, "Tell me about something which cannot be put into words." — Banno

I think you are playing with the words here. He did told you something already. But since you insist. Can you put what is going on in unconscious human mind into words? If yes I would be glad to hear.

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. — Banno

A fool might think that what cannot be spoken of is not important. For Wittgenstein, it was of the highest importance. — Banno

So since you say that for Wittgenstein was of the highest importance what can't be said. You think he proposes to just let them pass? To not deal with them at all since language can't help?? Not to try to actually "discover" more of them?? Let the important things be in the dark and in deep silence?
No.For me is about trying to get over language limitations as an attempt to discover them!Wittgenstein wouldn't give up such easily! And yes, then language might evolve also in the future! Human language has remained the same from Homo sapiens till now? Nothing is stable!

But the most outstanding thing shown by this thread is how little effort so many of you are willing to put into actually doing philosophy. — Banno

I don't doubt that you studied Wittgenstein and that you seem to be a well read man.
But is your understanding of Wittgenstein the only right one? Can't someone else read him and had a different opinion about what Wittgenstein actually meant? That is a shallow statement.

At any rate, it seems awful strong to limit reality to human language — Marchesk

Awful wrong better.

Yeah but that doesn't mean that it isn't a chaos also.

They share some common principles. But yes no fixed way at all.

Human nature is random chaos.

But, anyway, saying that a prominent person said this and that so it can't be wrong, etc., is not philosophising. It cannot replace personal judgement — Alkis Piskas

True. We don't have to take anything that has been said for granted and to accept it, just because someone said it. Even if that someone is a great philosopher and mind.
But it doesn't seem to be that case here.

That's not what was claimed — Banno

It's what you claimed.

Where is this claim made? — Banno

It is made in my head.That's what I understood.Not necessarily right of course.

Language isn't limited — Banno

You really believe this? That language gives people all the tools to express everything inside themselves?? All your actual feelings you find language always appropriate to describe them?
And except that, you get more meaning of what someone means when you talk face to face with him and see his facial expressions too. Facial expressions that might say much more than the actual language. So yes for me language is limited. If it wasn't, people won't have to use almost all of their body as to communicate and fully express themselves.

The title phrase is not placing a limit on language, so much as on the world. — Banno

My understanding on that is that Wittgenstein meant that since human world (reality) is limited by his senses, then language follow this limitations also. And we might need to acknowledge that and break language's borders as to get more "reality" from the world. Things that can't be said (as you mentioned) doesn't mean that don't exist also.

No; it's what can't be said.

"Whereof on cannot speak..."

And this is why it is vital to refer to the text. — Banno

You talk about what Wittgenstein meant to his work? If yes I agree.

But before I asked your thoughts on that. Yes language has its limitations(huge ones) but seems to me that people make also limited use of it! I see fear in using it to express their own deeper thoughts and feelings. Fear of facing their own self maybe if they hear what their thoughts "say" , their world would shake. So they prefer to depress language also as to protect themselves.

The salient point in relation to the OP is that it is the really important stuff that can't be said — Banno

I would take it a little further and wonder "can't be said" or maybe we don't "dare" to say them?

The thing about ethics, and it's something that pisses philosophers off, is that it is not what you say, but what you do, that is of relevance — Banno

So doesn't that mean that many things that are said about ethics arent doable at all in reality? Isn't time to start putting ethics in a base that reflects more actual life and what humans can really achieve? Ethics seem like idealistic fairytale and those who "preach" about them are the first who don't follow them!

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". I found it quite shallow — Alkis Piskas

I don't think that Wittgenstein meant that there is no world outside of language. I see it more as an attempt to show that human "reality" is limited (even by senses). And language is also following that limited reality that people can understand and also express through it.
Maybe Wittgenstein meant that we need to understand language's limitations as to be able to "see", feel more of our world. Like breaking the borders of language as to get as much more "reality" as we can.
I can't otherwise explain that such a great mind as Wittgenstein would make such a "shallow" statement(mistake) as you say.

insofar we are obliged to live for them. — Nils Loc

But is it right indeed? Why should we be obligated to live for anyone else except ourselves?

Maybe we need a cultural revolution around death, that makes it less scary, streamlined, normal. — Nils Loc

That's totally what humans need at the end. And societies as outcome of individuals also. I couldn't agree more.
But what bothers me is, how that is possible? And is it indeed possible after all?! Can you change what humanity learnt and passes for million years now, from generation to generation, how to deal with death? Not sure is possible.

Both having kinds or not are selfish for different reasons. The only moral question here is
"which form of Egoism is better at the end?". And in that case, when I say better i mean more useful for the society.
To don't deprive yourself from all the "fun" you could have by not having a kid and the responsibility that it brings, or to want to have one as to extend your own self through it? And "teach" it whatever you think you "know"?

Most probably moderators think it is infinite after all.

And what if someone's idea is that good that he is afraid of being stolen?
(I am not that someone by the way).

With all due respect, the way you conduct a philosophical discussion here does not reflect this type of foundational knowledge — Christoffer

Or he simply isn't good at his job.

yet your view is that we should act as if this were not the case - as if we can (and should direct our efforts to) somehow consolidate our value structure, our intentions, against the influence of others — Possibility

Yes more or less that's what I believe.

The
‘ubermensch’ was a bridge, not a destination — Possibility

Hmm. Sure about that? Nietszche in TSZ refers many times that Human is the bridge as to pass to the Ubermensch. I think Nietzsche was thinking of Ubermensch as the next evolution step that humanity should chase.A spiritual evolution that will lead to the new human "version",that his Spirit would break all the chains of the past. I think Nietzsche strongly believed in the power of human spirit and how it can lead humanity forward to its next evolution step,Ubermensch. For me I see Ubermensch as the highest spiritual potential that humans can reach, and we might be surprised of how high this potential actual can be.

If one wants to account for the appeal of his writings, it is perhaps advisable not to look too closely at his actual teachings, but to think of his texts as a kind of mental tonic designed to encourage his readers to continue to confront their doubts and suspicions about the well-foundedness of many of their most fundamental ideas about themselves and their world. — Rolf-Peter Horstmann

Don't know as to be honest what BGE stands for. But I couldn't agree more with the above statement.

What you may see as ‘complaining’ is expressing a difference of perspective. — Possibility

When i mentioned complaining to my previous post. I meant that if for example don't show compassion and then when I suffer I expect compassion from others and complaining about not acting like that. Well yes I would hate that to myself!
Don't get me wrong. I don't disregard compassion and thinking that shouldn't exist. Not at all. I just strongly question how people understand compassion and how they "practicing" it. Compassion and similar virtues are necessary when you live in societies. Cause exactly as you mention we are social entities who interact.And even sharing suffering, as you mentioned previously, is at our very own benefit at the end. Living in Society makes these virtues necessary but for different reasons.

then I wonder: on what grounds do you seek to consolidate your current perspective against this potential variability? — Possibility

Of course we are social entities who react to each other and society create many of our beliefs, I can't deny that. But we have to lift ourselves above all these social structures that gave to us since our birth (at the level that is possible of course).Like creating our own path inside societies and trying to keep it as "clean" as possible from society's stereotype nonsense. Acknowledging at the same time though, that we are part of the society and our acts affect others and we are affected by other's acts. It's like doing your "social" duty but with your own way!
In that way I think we contribute more as to change societies. Piece by piece. Making others to see our actions and start to doubt about their beliefs. Giving a living example that we can act differently as social members.
"The victory over ourselves,it DOES matter, cause that way we prepare the road for Ubermensch" TSZ

People around you adjust to your suffering every day - you just don’t notice, because you’re not recognising these adjustments as ‘compassion’, — Possibility

But I do recognize them. And they might adjust indeed. All I say is that this won't make any difference to me at all at the end. When the door closes I m the one who will give the "fight". And it's just fine.I don't say it as to "blame" their compassion. I just say that in some cases compassion doesn't make any difference at all.

l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

Oh don't worry my friend. Nietzsche was saying "I'm 1000 years ahead my time". So you have to wait muchhhh more till he fades away. And gets out of "fashion".

Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

Unfortunately yes.And that's why even if Democracy is the "worst" best thing for societies, still isn't right. "Most people" = democracy. Logical people have to suffer in democracies. It's inevitable and also fair at the same time!

He didn’t see the individual as atomic, like a billiard ball, but as variable in relation to other ‘individuals’. — Possibility

I don't think we disagree on that. We think different in the way Nietzsche suggested of what individuals should do in relation to each other. But it's fine.I might be wrong.

So why do you feel guilty? I see no issues with this. There are plenty of people who manage fine at this level of awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Well you know how thoughts are. And I get tons of them. Sometimes you question yourself and your attitude also. So thoughts like that have crossed my mind also. But yes, I don't ask for anything that I m not willing to give. I try to take over my own personal responsibility for my actions and beliefs fully! That's why I hate when I see people complaining all the time. And that's why I see compassion and pity in many cases not helpful at all for the one who suffers.

It seems you’re still looking at individuals as consolidated identities, as if my suffering is mine from birth — Possibility

But it is mine from birth indeed! Despite it might got created in relation with others in society, at the very end I m the only one who will deal with it. Even if all people in the world feeling compassion for me, wouldn't change anything.

Truth is neither reality nor phantasy. It needs to be understood, instead, as a continually emerging relationship between reality and ingenuity — Joshs

And let's also make clear to that point, that we can only talk about our "truth". Human truth. And what is reality according to it.So even truth is a relevant thing.
The absolute Truth and what is actual reality might be very very different than what people can realize with their limited senses. Human Truth is just what we people deal with cause it's what concerns us, but we have to be ready to accept that the absolute Truth (the general picture) most probably won't have nothing to do with our "limited truth".

I

compassion. To pity is to feel the difference and find ways to justify it, based on social structures or assumptions (‘I/they probably deserve it’). — Possibility

I m not fan at all of that assumptions. I never say that someone deserves suffering (even if some do indeed).

Nietzsche believes we act with compassion only because we believe that suffering is bad, and he argues that suffering should be recognised instead as part of the human condition. — Possibility

I agree on that one, but my aspect is that Nietzsche meant people to embrace their own suffering as a part of human nature as you mention . And deal with that.Not so much about helping others with their suffering.

We act with compassion because we acknowledge that suffering, as part of the human condition, is to be shared rather than avoided or eliminated. — Possibility

That's what I mean when, at a previous response to you, i mentioned that at the end acting with compassion is at your very own benefit. Cause if you wanna live in organized societies and you want others to feel compassion for you (as you told me also at your previous post), then you have to act like that also. It's only fair. That's why I find compassion's root in Ego. But I understood your different view and your protest on that.

If you're saying that FN isn't interested in being understood - that might be accurate and why I don't feel a passion for his work. He's certainly the source of some fantastically vivid aphorisms and quips, but sometimes to me FN just seems to be a Germanic and rather truculent version of Oscar Wilde. — Tom Storm

It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's just matter of taste. I have heard many people saying the same for Nietzsche as what you mentioned and I can't blame them, just cause I like him.