Hmm. Sure about that? — dimosthenis9
Don't know as to be honest what BGE stands for. But I couldn't agree more with the above statement. — dimosthenis9
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. — dimosthenis9
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. This would suggest that Nietzsche’s works may still be captivating because they confront a concern that is not restricted to modern times. They address our uncomfortable feeling that our awareness of ourselves and of the world depends on conceptions that we ultimately do not understand. We conceive of ourselves as subjects trying to live a decent life, guided in our doings by aims that ht the normal expectations of our social and cultural environment; we believe certain things to be true beyond any doubt, and we hold others and ourselves to many moral obligations. Although all this is constitutive of a normal way of life, we have only a vague idea of why we have to deal with things in this way; we do not really know what in the end justifies these practices. In questioning not the normality but the objectivity or truth of such a normal world view, Nietzsche’s writings can have the effect of making us feel less worried about our inability to account for some of our central convictions in an “absolute” way. It is up to each of us to decide whether to be grateful for this reminder or to loathe it. — Rolf-Peter Horstmann
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. — dimosthenis9
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 — dimosthenis9
But that's exactly what the Buddha said 2000 years before Nietzsche, namely that "suffering is your teacher" . It increases your compassion and understanding. Nietzsche is not original in this idea. I think Nietzsche has in mind Utilitarianism which he hated, which argues that pleasure is the highest good and that pain is to be avoided. I would agree with Nietzsche , Utilitarianism which has been hugely influential is a life denying or running alway from reality . For me Stoicism and Buddhism has far more wisdom. Perhaps Nietzsche doesn't realize that Stoicism has had a huge influence on western thought and culture , not only Christianity. Up until the early 20th century latin and Greek authors were a major part of education, like Cicero, Seneca, and others. Shakespeare was immersed in the classical writers of antiquity and hence the philosophy of Stoicism. Nietzsche seems to think that it's only Christianity that has dominated western thought. But Christianity was imbued with ancient philosophy. — Ross Campbell
Imo Nietzsche focused on person as individual and what he personally can do, and not at all in relation to all ready collapsed (in his eyes) societies. — dimosthenis9
But I think Nietzsche's road to that society transformation comes mostly from personal change and spiritual development. Through that progression you change societies also. You can't change anything to a society if you don't change individuals first. If individuals aren't ready for change, you will never achieve anything. — dimosthenis9
I m not fan at all of that assumptions. I never say that someone deserves suffering (even if some do indeed). — dimosthenis9
But that's the thing. Since I don't show much compassion to others (except close friends and family). I expect NO compassion from others either, when I need it most. It's only fair for me. I wouldn't complain about others at all! It's just fine. — dimosthenis9
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. — dimosthenis9
It's also for some readers (me, anyway), a turgid, often dull book that makes you think of shopping lists, washing the car, clipping the dog's fur - anything to get away from a needy, monomaniacal polemicist. I can take Human, All Too Human and the Gay Science, but not TSZ. — Tom Storm
That's the thing that makes me more skeptical about. It's just potential. When you don't suffer yourself it's always potential... — dimosthenis9
I wonder would Nietzsche agree with you that he is not presenting a philosophy. He's doing more than just raise questions or proposing new viewpoints. He's propounding various notions such as the Will to power and the Superman. Is he trying to use rational argument and logic or emotional reasoning. Here's a quote from Nietzsche.
"Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”
Now that looks like emotional reasoning to me. His clever use of aphorisms and metaphors makes him , in my opinion , no more than a poet, rather than a serious philosopher. Its provocative and sensational nature also makes it very attractive , hence his cult like status amongst many people. Other existentialists like Sartre conveyed their philosophy in novels and plays, but Sartre in Being and Nothingness uses proper rational argument. But I don't find that anywhere in Nietzsche's thought. Kierkegaard employs irony and narrative techniques in his works, but unlike Nietzsche they are deliberately ambiguous. It's clear what his ideas are. Tell me another famous thinker apart from Nietzsche whose philosophy is full of ambiguity. — Ross Campbell
I'm afraid I have to disagree that "Jesus and Nietzsche were not against the current culture. Both figures were very radical and they attacked many aspects of their current culture and Jesus was executed for doing so. Nietzsche , and I think I'm correct in this-. attacked the whole edifice and tradition of western thought going back to Socrates. How radical can you get. — Ross Campbell
I'm not anti Nietzsche, I think he was a profound and original thinker and there is a grain of truth in his view of Christianity as a slave morality. But I think his psychological analysis is flawed in certain aspects. He, unlike modern psychologists or even thinkers like Aristotle, did not base his ideas on observation and empirical research, hard evidence. Anyone , in my opinion, who is arguing for or proposing philosophical or psychological ideas without basing them on empirical evidence is not doing proper philosophy. That's why some academics don't regard Nietzsche as a philosopher but as a writer, more akin to a novelist or poet who can express him/herself in an ambiguous way. But in that case then what they're saying is just their opinion. Philosophy in my opinion should not be conducted in this way. It should be based on reasoned argument, evidence and observation. — Ross Campbell
So you think Nietzsche thought compassion and other virtues, since they can be defined specifically, then shouldn't society follow them? And are useless? — dimosthenis9
But is that ever possible? Can you actually suffer when you aren't at the same position with the other person? I hear many people say these things and I wonder if I am a bastard that I could never realize that or feel it? For me always seemed to me that other's problem (except family and close friends of course) is just a bite on your dinner plate. The problem comes as thought, you stop a bit, think "oh what a pity. Poor John", and just go on your bite thinking of your own "problems".
If you do that I really wish I was like you. And that's not ironically at all. I feel guilty sometimes for not feeling like that. — dimosthenis9
The one writer I’ve found who seems to share my view of blame is George Kelly.
Here’s my summary of Kelly’s position on blame: — Joshs
For me the key to the concept of blame is a belief in the
arbitrariness , capriciousness and fickleness of the qualitative variations in shifts of perspective. — Joshs
Its not so much a question that I misunderstand Nietzsche. I have read leading scholars on Nietzsche who argue that Nietzsche despised compassion and kindness. I think Nietzsche misunderstood Aristotle's Ethics which is not confined to certain social structures and is not eternal, fixed or based on belief in God . Aristotle keeps religion out of his philosophy. Nietzsche was not particularly interested in social issues, he dismissed these in a naive manner as part of a herd mentality. Human beings cannot completely rise above their group or tribe as Nietzsche proposed because we are hardwied to cooperate with one another and follow a common set of values. We don't have absolute freedom as the existentialists thought. In constructing our value systems we have to take into account the society in which we live , our CURRENT social structures , that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to change them or that we blindly accept all the structures. Jesus was actually a counter cultural figure. He treated women as equals, attacked the hypocrisy of the current religion which used to stone women for adultery. — Ross Campbell
Tell me what distinctions you might make, if any , between evil and blame in general.
I include within the boundaries of blame the following: all feelings and expressions of blame aimed at another (or oneself in self-anger). These include: irritation, annoyance, disapproval, condemnation, feeling insulted, taking umbrage, resentment, exasperation, impatience, hatred, ire, outrage, contempt, righteous indignation, ‘adaptive' anger, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, lazy, culpable, perverse, inconsiderate, disrespectful, disgraceful, greedy, evil, sinful, criminal. — Joshs
My argument is that the concept of evil. particularly in its theological guises, is a more foundationalisr version of blame ,but all of the varieties I mentioned above share central structure features with evil. I’m aware of only one writer who seems to support my view of blame as a failure of understanding. Every other philosophy I know of is essentially a philosophy of blame i. that it relies on a notion of capricious and arbitrariness at the core of human intent. This takes a wide variety of forms, ranging from concepts of social influence on the individual ( Marx, Foucault, etc) to internal sources of bias and influence such as drives and emotions. — Joshs
I am just saying that if you want to give people reasons for acting kind and with compassion you can give them plenty of reasonable reasons for that. Not that you will achieve everyone to act like this, but for me it would convince many more people to act like that even if they don't feel like doing it. For sure more than now, that we try to convince them with religious myths and idealistic fairytale.
How many times, for example, you acted with kindness even if you weren't feeling to do so, just because you realized that it is the best way for what you wanted to achieve?Well I will speak for myself, I have done it plenty of times. You find it hypocritical? Well yes, for sure it is! But this kind of necessary hypocrisy, is much more useful if you wanna live among others in organized societies and not on your own like monk. And for sure it brings less mess than the hypocrisy from those who blame others for not following their path. — dimosthenis9
It’s possible to interpret these values as limited only by our capacity or willingness to relate to others, regardless of how we define the ‘self’. In this sense, Nietzsche’s approach is relational.
— Possibility
I'm not sure I got your point totally here. If you could explain it a little more. — dimosthenis9
Mainstream feminism conveniently forgets about the realities of socio-economic class, and tries to blame on gender issues things that actually have to do with socio-economic class. — baker
For an employer, it makes sense to hire someone for whom there is reason to believe will consistently be available for work. Having to hire and train new people and substitutes is time-consuming and expensive, so employers avoid it as much as possible. — baker
Hitler was trying to create a master race and trying to get rid of people who he saw as not being pure. — Jack Cummins
I believe that the thinking of blame and evil always represent our failure to understand the other’s motives from their pint of view, and never represent an accurate depiction of the other’s thinking. Blame and evil aren’t explanations , they are nothing but question marks nWby on earth did the other want to do something so terrible? Why didn’t they feel strong enough guilt at the prospect of performing those actions so as to prevent them from going through with it? I know that I have been tempted by such things but I was able to resist. This question mark of blame flies by many different labels and accusations. For instance, when we call the other lazy, inconsiderate , selfish, recalcitrant , immoral, criminal.
In sum, we blame the other for our failure to understand them. Perhaps this failure on our part is the true basis of ‘evil’ and all of the violence that emanates from it — Joshs
Probably, my own way of thinking about evil is based on atrocities, such as the way people were killed by Nazis in concentration camps or, the potential destruction of humanity through warfare or ecological devastation. For me, they seem to be the most extreme forms of evil possible. But, obviously, events in our own lives do matter and I think that these include loss of others through death, homelessness, severe injuries or blindness, but of course, we may see so many aspects of experience as devastating. — Jack Cummins
But, I definitely believe that we need to face up to evil within ourselves, rather than blaming others, as Joshs points out. But, I am not thinking as that involving beating oneself up over things because that most certainly doesn't help at all. I believe that the best ideal is to be able to process the 'evil' aspects of life, in order to become the most positive we can be for our wellbeing and others. — Jack Cummins
No wonder it didn't ring a bell. It's not one of the texts I'm familiar with. — Ying
The early realisation that negative events in my life - life in general - was not all about me, gave me a whole new perspective. 'Bad' things, as we know, happen to 'good' people and v.v.
But not all is what it seems.
There's a story out there - I think in taoism - which demonstrates this very well.
Perhaps someone knows it and can share, I've forgotten — Amity
To compute is to enact, which aims ultimately to destroy the concept as its opposite. In our day by day reality we polarize computation (act) and concept (theory), such that there are institutions devoted to research and those that create consumer products. — kudos
The issue with FN is he is subject to as much exegetical interpretation as any scripture. — Tom Storm
I will disagree on this and say that there is indeed pure logical reason acting with these virtues when you live in a society. Being kind for example can make your life easier in many ways (saves you from conflicts, people like you more, yourself even grows bigger, in many practical situations you gain much more etc). The problem with these virtues is the way people react to them. When someone acts with compassion he should do it cause he truly feels it.Cause he just can't do otherwise! He needs to do that as to feel better.Even Nietzsche mentions "the one who gives is the one who gains the most"!
Showing compassion as to point the finger to others and blame them for not acting like you (which is what most people do) is the most hypocritical thing.You shouldn't give a fuck about what others do or else is better not doing it at all. In general I mean that if someone acts with compassion he should do it only for selfish reasons as to feel better! And he has no right to blame others who don't! And if someone doesn't want to act with compassion it's also fine! He shouldn't be characterized as "bad" or "cruel" or whatever stupidity. The other side of the "compassion coin" isn't cruelty!
For me at least, that's what Nietzsche was trying to do with all these virtues. Redefine them and break the chains that someone must do that and this as to be considered "good" person . I don't think Nietzsche imagined that there can be a world ever, actually, without all these virtues. Asking from people to act like angels on earth is beyond their powers and stupid. You can't ask from anyone to be hero and save the world. He should and can only save his own self! And through saving yourself you actually contribute more in saving the world also. — dimosthenis9
Most cultures and religions seem to end up with some variation of The Golden Rule it seems to me. It's sheer ubiquity suggests that self-interested altruism (if that's what it is) is hard wired. Did humans evolve to cooperate and coexist respectfully for the most part? Do we really need something as substantial and potentially transcendent as a 'foundation'.
What seems radical about Christianity is the extension from self-interested altruism into loving your enemy and helping that most loathed of all people e.g., the Samaritan. This is much harder to justify than being 'good' in your own tribe. This seems to echo the Roman poet Terence - "Nothing that is human is alien to me." By extension, all humans are sacred.
It's interesting that Nietzsche singled out this 'compassion' because is seems to me that Christianity did a bloody good job of eviscerating this from their practice all by themselves, even with a putative foundation. — Tom Storm
People need more logical reasons and things that are doable indeed. Not idealistic nonsense that people can never follow and achieve! — dimosthenis9
You have to give people to realize that living in a society and act with compassion is for their very own benefit at the end! — dimosthenis9
I think virtue ethics based on Aristotles ethics is a far better system. However I do think that Nietzsche is mistaken in attacking the virtues of compassion and virtue. Modern psychology would disagree with Nietzsche on this point. It is well documented that when people show compassion and kindness (and pity is an emotion associated with these) they feel happier in themselves and indeed they spread happiness around them whereas the contrary is the case that when people behave selfisly , without compassion they feel unhappy and damage their relationships with others.
The fundamental problem with Nietzsche , as with some other existentialists is that they are too individualistic in their thinking. Aristotle said, "Man is a social animal". It does not make sense to talk about morals and values, in relation to the individual as an separate entity but only in the context of him/her as a SOCIAL being, a part of a community. That's why Aristotle's ethics and his politics are one big interlinked system, not separated from one another. Compassion and kindness are fundamental ways in which humans interact positively with one another. Values and morals are not private issues , as Nietzsche would have it, merely of concern to the individual and chosen or discarded at the whim of an individual, they are social concerns , part of the fabric of society. Compassion is rather like a glue that bonds a community together and creates a more humane and happier society without which it would be a very cold place. — Ross Campbell
There things make us feel bad: loneliness; prolonged anger (expressed or not); fear; hunger and fatigue; serious debt; too many frustrations and interferences; too much alcohol and recreational drugs (sometimes prescribed drugs can cause depression); physical pain; chronic illness; lack of sleep; a failure to fulfill perfection. (Perfectionism is the opposite side of low self-esteem.) — Bitter Crank
For an employer, it makes sense to hire someone for whom there is reason to believe will consistently be available for work. Having to hire and train new people and substitutes is time-consuming and expensive, so employers avoid it as much as possible. — baker
Sure, this is a possibility sometimes, but not something to count on. — baker
So, again, it's about socio-economic class. You could afford such an arrangment, Most people can't. — baker
In Buddhism, attachment leads to suffering, not desire. If the Buddha had no desire he wouldn’t get out of bed. — khaled
You don't have to be able to define knowledge in order to possess knowledge. Everyone on the planet knows a lot of things (which usually correlates to the ability to act successfully in various contexts). — Pantagruel
Many people probably hate working in lowly positions in a capitalist system, where they are pushed to work at the edge of exhaustion for very little pay and always under the threat of losing their job. — baker
Generally, men are in this regard more reliable than women, for men don't typically take maternity leave, nor do they miss work because they need to attend to the children, such as missing time from work when the children are sick. This is why men are payed more for what seems like the same work: they are payed for their prospective availability. Of course, this is not specified on a person's employment contract or paycheck, it's a cultural assumption. — baker
If you are good at what you do and are loyal, you would be surprised how accommodating people can be. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
But, what is 'self' exactly? Does it exist in it's own right, or as a construct? Even if we only see it as a construct, most of us do feel a sense of self, and how do we make sense of this at all in a way which is useful and meaningful for us in life? — Jack Cummins
The paradox is clear as clear can be. Nobody (men & women) wants to work but, now that I think of it, women want to work. Women have an agenda (equality) over and above the real reason why people work (survival) and that makes them want to work. Women perceive work as part of the feminist struggle. That makes them blind to the fact work is not some kind of privilege or mark of superiority that men possess; instead it's actually a heavy burden, such a heavy burden that men would like nothing better than to get rid of it asap. — TheMadFool
2. Women want to work (to close the gender gap) — TheMadFool
Nobody wants work! Ask anybody you know. Also, children literally hate school, their abhorrence of homework being stuff of legend. — TheMadFool
I would make clear that 'infinity' and 'infinite' are not be be conflated — TonesInDeepFreeze
If someone took a single drop of water of finite size from an infinite ocean would it actually be taking from the ocean? Would the ocean replace that exact drop immediately upon it being taken or would it simply never matter? — TiredThinker
The question is, why aren't blue whales with their humongous brains more intelligent than humans? — TheMadFool
Infinite is a quality, not a quantity.
— Possibility
Tell that to a mathematician. — Banno
If someone took a single drop of water of finite size from an infinite ocean would it actually be taking from the ocean? Would the ocean replace that exact drop immediately upon it being taken or would it simply never matter? I assume there could be no butterfly effect and nothing could really be changed by it? Is the drop a free gift? — TiredThinker
They might relate to that aspect of god but they would have more definitive qualities, more qualifiers, than that for god. “Existence beyond knowledge” is generic and unspecific enough to apply to more than just a god concept and so if you are using only that as your criterion for “god” then you aren’t qualifying a theistic definition of god, you aren’t reaching minimum requirements for a theistic god despite having this generic trait “existence beyond knowledge” in common. — DingoJones