Arguing about the true meaning of Nietzsche often seems like arguments over the meaning of Bible versus.

Pedophiles, rapists, murderers. They’re a set of human beings. They seem the botched and weak to me. Doesn’t seem evil to help them perish. — Xtrix

Not keen on this approach. It seems medieval. Does 'help them perish' mean kill them? Or do we bathe in the warmth of a responsibility free figurative reading? :wink:

Opening of Will to Power talks about the coming of European nihilism. — Jackson

I wonder what is the evidence that there is much difference to culture between alleged nihilism and Christianity? It's not like Europe under centuries of Christianity wasn't free of abusive power, endless and bloody wars, poverty, hatred, tribalism and general misery brought about by ignorance and ideology.

Never understand the pull of Nietszche — Wayfarer

It makes sense that young people and disaffected folk really love him. He's so dazzlingly iconoclastic, with vicious and sparkling prose even in translation (Kauffmann). Personally I find him unappealing and have yet to finish any of his works. I am not really philosophically inclined.

My view is that if mankind is unable to acknowledge their difference from and separation from nature — Wayfarer

I know you're talking more in contemplative terms, but isn't it generally argued that it is precisely this separation and our failure to recognize our unity with nature that has resulted in us screwing the environment as just some 'other' to be dominated and exploited?

Isn't subjectivity and objectivity this - The last James Bond movie stared Daniel Craig. (objective) I think James Bond films are shit. (subjective).

What some philosophers might call communities of intersubjective agreement.

What is the objective world? — Jackson

A shared subjective account. :wink:

So a plan to replace beliefs with actions might have had some merit. — Banno

It's an intriguing idea for me as a non-philosopher. It has often struck me how people's professed beliefs bear little similarity to their actions (and I don't think I am talking about hypocrisy).

This is a societal link. That is, what society does not understand it labels madness. — ArielAssante

Best not to overstate the case. Sometimes it is indeed madness, with risks to self and others. Also, what society doesn't understand it is quite capable of elevating and worshiping. Hence god/s.

We're good. You've helped me clarify my thinking. Cheers.

Made me giggle a little. The exact same can be said of claims of extraterrestrial intelligence. Are you not familiar with people walking about with tinfoil hats to protect against them alien's thoughts? — javra

Of course - I should have included UFO's but I had moved on from that part.

Even if the supernatural (correction -or UFOs) are true this does not mean that every claim is true. People can still have hallucinations, mental illness, drug induced episodes, be hypnotised, mistaken or in some other way in error.

Right. So what is the epistemological difference (the "in part" aspect) between claims of the supernatural and claims of extraterrestrial intelligence? — javra

Are we debating this? Probably none. I wasn't trying to make an argument about this - clumsy writing.

This seems obvious to me. If we are talking about modest supernatural claims like 'my mum appeared to me as a ghost' then what you say is true. If the event is huge - let's say Jesus showing up and all the dead rising from their graves - we would have almost no reason to doubt it.

So then why "in part" rather then "in whole"? — javra

Can you clarify your question?

Indeed.

Besides, there are no supernatural claims that I know of which purport the restoration of amputated limbs — javra

Indeed. Which is why skeptics often raise this one. We hear a lot about healers curing cancer - but this happens in nature, spontaneous remission, etc. But restoring a limb? Now why would a faith healer be able to vanquish cancer and restore walking, hearing and sight, but not be able to do this? Could it be because this is impossible to fake (outside of a one-off conjuring trick that when examined collapses)?

I'm saying that they're epistemologically indistinguishable from supernatural claims. Belief in neither can be definitely evidenced either true or false given the tools we currently have at out disposal. — javra

In part. Would you not think that if a UFO arrived on earth, (say on top of the Capitol Building) with aliens pouring out of it we would very quickly have sufficient warrant? Would not replicability and testability be superfluous?

Are UFO's supernatural claims?

I gather then that we agree there can be no (universally recognizable) proof either for or against the reality of supernatural claims as we know them. — javra

It's an interesting position but I don't think I agree. The most I can say is that we have not established here what would prove or disprove the reality of a supernatural claim. This is not the same thing as saying it can't be done. Nevertheless, if Allah were to present on earth and demonstrate his power, a deity like this would know how to prove its reality. If a faith healer were to raise the dead and restore amputated limbs in good numbers, I would say we would have warrant to believe that something supernatural has taken place.

It would establish that there's more to the universe than meets the eye; in this one case, that clairvoyance can occur. — javra

You'd have to demonstrate it was clairvoyance first. It would just be an event that has no current explanation.

In the 1997 my mother said she had a sense that my grandma was about to die. She died a few days later. I asked my father just how she knew this was going to happen. He laughed and said she had been saying the same thing to him for a couple of years. My grandma was in her nineties.

There are so many potential rival explanations for any alleged supernatural event - how do you know you have ruled out quotidian explanations first?

As contrasted to a necessary connection to an atheistic materialism in which no such events can occur. — javra

I haven't said they 'can't occur' (how could that be demonstrated?) just that we can't say they have occurred.

You seem to have a thing about atheist materialism. I am not a materialist. My friend, John, a Catholic priest doesn't believe supernatural claims either (apart from the idea of a god) - although he tends to construct his religious stories as allegorical and mystical. Many Christians I have known have been strong skeptics of woo.

As a reminder, I've already affirmed my position on this: no such tests are feasible. — javra

Full circle, huh? I guess I am done too. That was a cool discussion. Thanks.

You say, "good evidence can verify supernatural occurrences."

I ask, "what would 'good evidence' be?" — javra

Good evidence for me would be something like my dad's thumb being brought back (he lost it 60 years ago). Or my mum coming back to life. Not repeatable or rigorous, scientific evidence, but it would do me. But the question for any such event is what precisely does it establish, apart from the extraordinary nature of the event? We can attribute remarkable events to religion or some occult cosmology but there is no necessary connection. Just as a Muslim might say that the world is evidence of a god.

I ask, "can you provide a viable test for anything supernatural?" — javra

You tell me. If you want to discuss science methods with someone I'm not your guy.

I’m not hung up on science, just good evidence. If something can’t be explained I am not afraid of 'don’t know', which seems better than ‘because magic or god/s.’

Yep - your 'clairvoyance' story has too many missing pieces to investigate. It’s an anecdote.

You lost me with this question. Assuming the reality of inexplicable walking for a few moments necessitates that lost appendages be regrown as well? — javra

The point is that many people in wheelchairs are able to walk for a minute or two. My grandmother was a case in point. Getting someone psyched up to stand and walk and psychologically override pain is not hard to explain. What is hard to explain is the growing back of a limb. It is interesting to note that no miracle healers ever seem to be able to do this one. And it would be fairly easy to demonstrate, right?

At any rate, my only - maybe so far implicit - affirmation in this thread is that the supernatural would be impossible to satisfactorily evidence in any empirical manner if it indeed in any way occurs — javra

Don't think I agree. If we stop talking about generalities and deal with specific claims, then we can look at evidence and assess it. There is often evidence of some kind, or people would not be making claims in the first place. The questions are : what is the quality of the evidence AND the claim itself?

In many cases supernatural claims are about matters which impact in some way upon the physical world. Mind reading, spiritual healing, levitation, raising the dead, fortune telling - are all examples of supernatural claims that directly impact upon the physical world and therefore can be tested.

In relation to spiritual healing, for instance, the whole point of it is physical evidence of healing. And while people often rise out of wheelchairs for a few minutes and walk, permanently restored people seem rare. It is also interesting that while god or spirits seem to allow people to 'walk again' for a minute or two, where are the examples of an amputated leg or arm which has regrown?

In hoping not to be talking past each other, my question concerns the epistemic. I can’t conceive of any type of evidence that can convince an adamant materialist or atheist of the occurrence of anything supernatural - and so I’m asking for examples of what this might be given sufficient investigation. — javra

I'm a methodological naturalist (my metaphysical claims are modest), but yes, as I have already said, I require some physical evidence or something testable. But I do not argue that the supernatural is impossible.

But, short of a physically spiritual occurrence - whatever this might be - what could possibly amount to good evidence for spirituality’s existence for the materialist or atheist – this, again, when the spiritual, or supernatural, is deemed distinct from the physical? — javra

I'd say we have to look at an individual claim and assess the evidence for it rather than posit an abstract and overarching, 'what evidence is there for the supernatural'. We need a for instance to investigate.

Are occurrences such as Marian apparitions good evidence for spiritual realm(s)? — javra

I am quite happy to accept that hundreds of people saw a thing. The fact that they put it down to a specific religious vision is a separate part of the claim and probably all about their socialization. If the event happened in a non-Christian setting it would have been explained as a Muslim vision, or a Hindu one, depending on geography. It's also been said that the visions were alien in origin. The point for me is we are not in a position to make any conclusion about such events.

Ghosts travelling through walls are implausible but now we know things including radio waves can pass through walls and communicate information. — Andrew4Handel

But the issue isn't what ghosts can do - it is the existence of ghosts in the first place. If my dead mother appeared that would be much more noteworthy than her walking through a wall.

Reincarnation has been made more plausible because we can imagine consciousness interacting with the body in a different way like a radio interacts with a signal or things can be stored on memory sticks. — Andrew4Handel

The problem is people use the same examples to undermine such metaphysical claims. People talk about the brain and consciousness as a fancy computer - the brain being a kind of hard drive. I don't accept this reduction, but you can see that this idea goes both ways.

One can demonstrate and reproduce technology - can the same be said for any supernatural claim? Is the world not less magical with technology?

I think if you make a claim like this and stick to generalities the idea can't be fully understood. One needs to drill down and look at examples to make any kind of case.

Perhaps the closest example might be certain interpretations of QM leading to idealism.

We haven't escaped the supernatural through science and philosophising but just deepened the mysteries. — Andrew4Handel

Are you able to be specific? I am willing to be convinced but I'd appreciate some examples. What supernatural claims seem to be more realistic in the light of our technology? What do you count as supernatural claims?

For me technology just seems to emphasise the physicalist nature of reality and that technology is about understanding and reproducing the science.

Would you say that anyone finds anything implausible without believing they have reason to think so? And does not believing you have a reason to think that something is likely to be the case amount to believing that you have some evidence to think that, even if the "evidence" is nothing more than a gut feeling? This is why I disagree with the definition of faith as "believe in spite of the evidence", because that definition only speaks to a certain conception of what constitutes evidence; a conception which has its own uneividnced presuppositions underpinning it. — Janus

Yes, my presupposition would be that there be robust, testable physical evidence. I don't generally accept anecdote, stories, feelings or claims as proof.

I generally hold to 'good evidence' as opposed to just evidence. There is the 1967 Roger Patterson film footage of Bigfoot which is clearly evidence of Bigfoot. But is it good evidence? Is it ultimately persuasive, or does it look like some person in a monkey suit? Is there anything more than testimony and blurred 8mm film to demonstrate the existence of this creature? The Bible is evidence of god. But it is good evidence, or just one of many contradictory old books which exist for disparate faiths?

For me faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence. Sure they can point to an old book that says a thing or to an aunt in Nebraska who saw an angel once. But is this good evidence? Perhaps you'd like to call it implausible?

If you want implausible to be the same thing functionally as not having good evidence, fine. I just find implausible weak. Personal taste? Implausible describes the plot of a James Bond film or the acting of Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys.

But this is all general and not very interesting. I'd be interested to understand just what 'supernatural' claim is more plausible now that we have our technology.

Do you believe that there is a hedonically ideal set of propensities for aesthetic pleasure to which all should aspire, and that this sets the standard for resolving disputes about taste? — Natherton

No. But I'm willing to be convinced if there were good evidence.

whose sensibilities are perfectly calibrated for the maximization of aesthetic pleasure, — Natherton

Tease that out. Not sure what it means or how it would work. And it sounds like a fancy language for the old fashioned idea of 'good taste'.

I think it grounds it. For me 'Implausible' hangs in the air without any precision.

I don't think 'implausibility' of supernatural is quite the right frame. It is more of a case of 'unlikely given the available evidence'. That evidence - for ghosts, demons, gods, etc - has not gotten any better, despite mobile phones or the internet. In fact, it may seem less likely now. The best observation of this theme was writer Arthur C Clarke who said, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' But that is a different slant. What I tend to observe is that the supernatural recedes and a technological dream life asserts itself - Do we live in a simulation? Were we created by an alien race? Will technology help us render death obsolete?

t might be worth starting with a look at his suggestion that being objective is attempting the impossible task of adopting a View From Nowhere. The Bat is an extension of this line of thinking into consciousness; that the bat has a view that is different from anything else in the world, and hence irreducible. There is, then, for Nagel, an irreducible aspect of first-person conscious experience.

While it might not be possible to adopt a view from nowhere, that's not what rationality requires. Rather, what is required are explanations that work for many - any - points of view; Einstein's Principle of Relativity makes the point: the laws of physics must be such that they are true for all observers. And if we can do this for physics, why not philosophy?

Rationality does not ask for the view from nowhere, but the view from anywhere.

There is a shared world, a world about which we overwhelmingly agree. A world that we might set out in terms that are agreeable to all observers. So you, I and the bat all see the moth.

That's realism.

And further I am not sure that what I have said here is at odds with Nagel's own position. He has, if I recall correctly, objected to the direction that his bats have been flown. It's not at all uncommon to find folk claiming that because the bat sees the moth differently, there is no moth. An absurd, but ubiquitous, position. — Banno

That's one of the most helpful insights I have seen on this matter to date. Appreciated.

Do you approve of this idea or do you think this shows that hell, horror and terror are only limited by what a human imagination can perceive? I am sure someone could come up with an even worse punishment than this quite disturbing suggestion. Do you really think that encouraging competitive evil is the way forward for a future human justice system? — universeness

Absolutely not. I think resorting to evil to to deal with evil as a general approach is stunted and just smacks of a person who is aroused by and interested in abject cruelty.

In this case, how exactly is "experiencing a red qual" different from "seeing red"? I'm not asking for an answer, since there is a plethora of posts and indeed treads on the topic. But what is germane is the common use of "like" in "What it is like to be a bat" and "What it is like to see red".

There is nothing "it is like" to see red or to be a bat; there is just seeing red, and being a bat. — Banno

This makes sense to me. Yep, it's the 'what is it like' that I find intractable.

Yep. I think this has been said by a few folk here when Nagel's stuff comes up. Personally I have no idea what it means to be 'like' me.

Good for you trying to articulate your thoughts on this subject. But do we need yet another text on morality?

I think the work would benefit from being more organised and concise - I got lost in it all. There doesn't seem to be a flow to an argument that is building a coherent approach to the subject. It seems to me to be a series of incomplete vignettes on various themes. The language is sometimes awkward.

I noticed you include Mother Teresa as an example of compassion. Are you aware of the criticism around her fraudulent and narcissistic activities in Calcutta, a perpetuation of suffering in the name of a deity she barely believed in? Maybe you could use her as an example to illustrate just how much the idea of 'the good' involves contested value systems.

Going to bed with a smile for the first time in years.

They are both. We’re socialised into values and norms. We find ourselves attracted or repelled and select from them.

So do you have a functional definition of truth?

I understand that some things are (or not) the case regardless of words. I also figure that to some extent this is situationally determined. A mouse runs behind a tree is an event. But how do we determine what is true when we talk about how we ought to live? Is idealism true? Causation? Is all this just a battle of perspectival value systems?

Interesting discussion. Just by way of summary - are you able to outline in a few dot points what your current tentative account of consciousness is (if this is not too crass a question)?

Ok, thanks. Not sure I understand the argument. Sounds like I probably need @Banno and some Austin...

Surely you get the point. — creativesoul

Are you being snarky? Please don't if you are.

Belief that a mouse ran behind a tree does not require language. — creativesoul

Well... it's not a 'mouse' or a 'tree' or 'running' if there is no web of linguistic relations operating. Without the words, the belief would look like something else. Not sure what that would be.

And when we get to more complex beliefs like creation myths or morality how are these understood without language?

You might be right. I put it out there as a perspective, I know many hate RR as a decadent SoB. But I am interested to know how you can hold a true believe in things that require language to understand, without that language.