 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 278 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613461 Today 4 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Christians will deny to your face that you exist rather than admit that their bronze age superstitions are dumb. That is because they are sick and degenerate. It's a fact. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's exactly the truth |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
woah, don't bust out the Zyklon B on me just yet! Look man, I'm just happy we can live in a world where free expression is possible. Peace! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have intimate conversations with entities that call themselves "the people who live inside my dick"...they tell me to be "good" or else they will castrate me... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they are made of of light...they smoke cigarettes and blow smoke in my face... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the man looks like a deranged jesus...the woman looks like a hippie lesbian. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm supposed to be good or else my dick will get cut off... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am a baby... i am a little baby with fangs.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why is god the codition of the world and not the eternally moving matter? Plato was an Idealist, a philosophical position i simply reject. And about that Heidegger quote. Sinnbilder, analogies or metaphors, make only sense in relation to our immanent (innerworldly) expieriences. If god resides in a supranaturalistic uber-welt which we have no access to, these Sinnbilder, Analogies make simply no sense, because they don't corelate with any of our expieriences. We can't and we don't know what they stand for. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah the Nazis, those guys with the "gott mit uns" belt buckles. I wondered when they'd come up. “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh yes, i forgot the weapon of choice used by Pol Pot, plus Zyklon B just sounds neat in a sentence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You know who else thought Zyklon B sounded neat in a sentence? Hitler. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah unforunatley that man twisted many things for his very own insane vision. like that spiral thing, swastika. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The cross was already a death machine. It's a symbol of hating and denying life. Did you ever see Chronicles of Riddick? Christians are like the Necromongers, always trying to escape life and get into the underverse. The most esteemed among them are the ones furthest from life and closest to death. They bring horror and destruction everywhere they go. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i see what you mean and its certainly valid, but come on, dont you think i already knew that? the Cross is a horrible symbol, i dont even think the romans used a cross in that time of Yehoshuwa's crucifixion, it was originally described as a stake in the hebrew texts . but, yes, christians wearing crosses would be as perverse as if the jewish people of today wore Swastikas to honor their dead forefathers. i think youre kind of starting from the late 1st century onward in your overall opinions of the judeo-christian religion. Judaism split up into many different subgroups around that time as you probably know, christianity became a romanized and hellenistic offshoot of messianic judaism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, death is a part of this life, sometimes the reality of death is what allows people to see the preciousness of life. but pondering the reality of death is diffrerent from romanticizing murder, agreed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But you deny the reality of death, and you worship the torture device (the cross) that is a gateway to something better, because death is merely a transition for you. And eventually the cross became a symbol for life itself - our "cross to bear" - a burden, a domain of suffering - something we must put up with, not something with value in and of itself. This is why Christianity and totalitarian communism have more in common with each other than with secular humanism - they are both slave moralities. Slave morality sees life and the self as irredeemably spoiled except through magical, apocalyptic means. Nothing can be improved through slow, deliberate, patient, rational action because the self is impotent and the world utterly depraved. The world and the self must be cremated and reborn. A person primed for "salvation" by either religion or a socialist strong-man wants the world destroyed and remade, because he projects as little value into it as he sees in himself. Hence, the Christian must be "born again", just as Pol Pot sought to reboot his society in "year zero". One thing you'll notice about slaves is that if there are enough of them, a master will arise. Nature abhors a vacuum. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
who said i worshipped the torture device? youre really being ignorant of the fact that virtually every developing nation at the time of Israel's kingdom was implementing unfair slave practices, non-equal civil rights, poor economies, etc. besides, the term slavery as we know it is an amlgamation of a variety of practices that conflate with unfair practices of servitude alongside more reasonable practices that align with the working structures we see today. in essence, im a slave to my boss, in this capitalistic corporate society. in Ancient Israel, slavery was a form of servitude based around a theocratic monarchy in which someone of poor wealth was given a chance to work for their earnings. im not really in a position to summarize the socio-political structures of antiquity right now, but youre coming from the stance of a person whos benefited from the fruits of a long history of wars, trial and error. now when we look at the news, the economic power has just shifted from the kingdom to the corporation. besides there was many inventive and ingenius aspects of the structures that the ancient people's built that rival the institution of the inventive science. what's more advanced, a building that uses electricity as a means to air condition. or a strucuture that requires no electrical applications to cool the interior of a building and accomplish the same feat? im not saying the advent of electricity isnt an advancemnt, but its just a different means to an end. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and i dont agree at all with the slave morality assessment you made, the principles of Chrsitianity that supercede the petty denominational differences and bad history are good principles. I may be picking and choosing here, but i never once read the books of the old and new testament and felt i was a slave morally. in fact i felt empowered and enlightened, realizing the worldview i was raised in and the values of others who are my peers and contemporaries arent the final frontier of humanism. if fast food, lolcats, pop music and and a cynical worldview is all the world has to offer in terms of a maximum existence, then i'm guilty as charged of not wanting to be any part of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that sounded like i meant id rather be dead than be alive, oops. i meant that id rather live by principles i accept rather than the principles and circumstances i'm born into. i just look it like all of the world's past has something to offer, and the supernatural claims of a certain religion may or may not be true, or apply to us today, but i wont throw out anything because of what a specifix group of people decided use it for. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(1) why can eternally moving matter not be the condition of the world? - because it's absolutely mysterious how you get from matter to mind. neuroscience proves that there are laws that relate mind to matter, but it doesn't prove that mind in analysis IS matter. (i don't see how you could prove it.) - a weaker reason is that materialism forces you to re-interpret our intuitive concepts of morality. the evolution theory basically re-interprets morality as a tool for passing on DNA. one might feel that such a life has lost its point and is absurd. this is not a knock-down argument, but an argument that can make you suspicious. if a theory of the world renders the world absurd, it's worth to be open to competing interpretations of the world and see if they work. (2) how can we speak in metaphors about an über-welt to which we have no access? - this question seems to rest on a misinterpretation of plato. plato says we are in constant connection to both (A) the everyday-world and (B) the supernatural world. plato's argument for our connection to a supernatural world is the following: in our everyday-world we deal with particular objects, say: tables, books, chairs. even though we only ever see single chairs, whenever we see a chair, we see more than is given in the world: in the world we see only a particular object, but that single object manifests a general category: the category chair. thus, rather than saying we abstract the general category of chair from the particular examples of chair, plato claims that we are in connection with the abstract category "chair" which resides in a supernatural realm. in basically this sense we, too, have a connection to the form of the good (god). plato's arguments for positing the super-natural realm are not very strong, but they are not absurd. and given the weaknesses of competing theories, i think, plato is well worth to be taken seriously. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You should do some traveling, putz cock. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think fleetmouse implicitly referred to the concept of slave-morality that nietzsche develops in 'on the genalogy of morals'. in master-morality you spotantenously affirm yourself by spotaneously saying something like "I AM GOOD, I AM THE TRUTH." in slave-morality the slave, who suffers at the hands of the master, points to a master, claims "THE MASTER IS EVIL". and then concludes "I'M NOT THE MASTER, SO I AM GOOD," the problem of slave-morality, according to nietzsche is that it doesn't derive from a direct affirmation of life, but that it needs to take the twisted route of demonizing the master and presenting yourself as the opposite of the master, in order to realize a self-affirmation. slave-morality is thus inherently negative; master-morality ineherently positive. but of course nietzsche doesn't even try to argue against christian metaphysics. he only gives it an analysis from a philosophical viewpoint that already assumes that not christian ideals are of value, but that the real value is "Life". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Excellent summary of master/slave morality a la Nietzsche, welt. I'm sort of mashing it up with some of Eric Hoffer's ideas from The True Believer. This is not the first time I've heard a critique of Christianity criticized for not assuming Christianity is true. :-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, thanks. i'm not criticizing nietzsche for not being christian. i was and am quite impressed by nietzsche's argument within its scope. but it explicitly rests on the premise that the only real and primary value for us humans is "Life" / "Leben" and that all other values are reducible to life or lack of life/sickness. for his argument to be complete he would need to make the case that Life really is the one fundamental value. i don't see why i should assume that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, I apologize, it's obvious I am the unlearned one in this current conversation. I need to read more philosophies. I've been immersed in cosmology, archaeology and the ancient hebrews. I've read a refutation of Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity by G.K. Chesterton Fleetmouse have you read it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The scales justice tilt & society often weighs them. Whom governs and for whom does the bell toll? Anyone ever read Les Miserables? This is one of my fav paragraphs & not in the sense of job or the bible. Whether he had been the only one in fault in his fatal history. Whether it was not a serious thing, that he, a laborer, out of work, that he, an industrious man, should have lacked bread. And whether, the fault once committed and confessed, the chastisement had not been ferocious and disproportioned. Whether there had not been more abuse on the part of the law, in respect to the penalty, than there had been on the part of the culprit in respect to his fault. Whether there had not been an excess of weights in one balance of the scale, in the one which contains expiation. Whether the over-weight of the penalty was not equivalent to the annihilation of the crime, and did not result in reversing the situation, of replacing the fault of the delinquent by the fault of the repression, of converting the guilty man into the victim, and the debtor into the creditor, and of ranging the law definitely on the side of the man who had violated it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A couple of points - First, Nietzsche is not an analytic philosopher and he's not laying out formal arguments with conclusions that necessarily follow from premises. Secondly, he's not endorsing master morality to the exclusion of slave morality and recommending that slave morality be purged - he makes the point several times that higher cultures and people will be a blend of the two. His "good European" is a paradigm of this. Thirdly, Nietzsche does not want the reader to take his books as an instruction manual. He'd rather expose philosophical and cultural tensions to you and have you wrestle with them, thereby becoming more aware of them. This is why he often obfuscates or uses misdirection like a stage magician, underplaying important points and exaggerating others. Finally, the briefest summary of Nietzsche can be given as "Nietzsche is widely misunderstood". ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No I've not read any Chesterton but I've heard nothing but good things about him - I'll check that out - |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Regarding point 1: when i said that nietzsche posits that "lifes" is the fundamental value driving human behavior i referred to the passage in On the Genealogy of Morals in which nietzsche describes the aim of his investigation. he sets out to answer the following question: Under what conditions did man invent for himself those value judgments good and evil? And what value do they inherently possess? Have they hindered or fostered human well-being up to now? Are they a sign of some emergency, of impoverishment, of an atrophying life? Or is it the other way around? Do they indicate fullness, power, a will for living, courage, confidence, his future? (Preface, Chapter 3) i can follow nietzsche's argument [not an argument in the sense of analytical philosophy, that's right] or polemic as he lays it out, but i don't see why i should assume that this question is the basic question of philosophy. he writes that his philosophy is based on instinctive Suspicions and instinctive Doubt. "Because of a doubt peculiar to my own nature, which I am reluctant to confess—for it concerns itself with morality, with everything which up to the present has been celebrated on earth as morality— a doubt which came into my life so early, so uninvited, so irresistibly, in such contradiction to my surroundings, my age, the examples around me, and my origin, that I would almost have the right to call it my “a priori” [before experience]—because of this, my curiosity as well as my suspicions had to pause early on at the question about where our good and evil really originated." (Preface, Chapter 3) "But a constantly more fundamental suspicion of these very instincts [pity, self-sacrifice] voiced itself in me, a scepticism which always dug deeper!" (Preface, Chapter 5) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
okay, he is suspicious of alturism. he can back his suspicions up by providing an analysis of christian morality [not an analysis in the sense of british-american analytic philosophy of course] which coheres beautifully with his skeptical premises. but personally i'm suspicious of his fundamental idea, that human beings are fundamentally driven by nothing but a "will for living" and lust for power. nietzsche's critical argument or rhethoric rests on the uncritical holding-fast to the idea that life is will to power and i'm not at all convinced by that. you can call that fundamental conviction by the technical term 'premise' or not, but it's acceptance seems necessary for the success of his enterprise and i don't see why i should accept that idea. it's also funny and possibly reavaling, that nietzsche, who ridiculed the christian values of pity throught his career, expressed pity by hugging a suffering horse, right before he turned mad. Regarding point 3: if all he wants is people to wrestle with his ideas and not necessarily convince them of his ideas i don't see why he called for an active fight against christianity in the last [originally censored] pages of his book The Anti-Christ. [i don't find this last page on the web at the moment, but it's in the current german deutscher taschenbuch verlag edition of der antichrist.] Regarding 2: Yes, he only wants the superior people to be aware of the true nature of Christian slave-morality, so that they can rise above it and free themselves from the Christian values that currently hinder potential masters from producing cultural greatness. slave-morality is good for slaves, but masters should have a master-morality, he claims. my point, however is that i'm afraid that his master-morality is an illusion. [for the reasons laid out above.] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1. Without moving objects there is no motion. Without matter there is no mind. 2. Why does life become? Most people don't think about the big questions but they still take themselves seriously. 3. The categories of the mind structure the way we perceive the world and not some obscure platonic ideas. 'Chair' is just a name we gave to a class of objects which share some similarities. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
