You don’t have free will, but don’t worry. (Sabine Hossenfelder)

(Nov 3, 2020 05:10 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think, therefore I am.

"It is … a falsification of the facts to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think". It thinks: but to say the "it" is just the famous old "I" — well that is just an assumption or opinion, to put it mildly, and by no means an "immediate certainty." In fact, there is already too much packed into the "it thinks": even the "it" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself."—Nietzsche

His point is that our thoughts appear in our consciousness without our having willed them.

Well, I understand that most women have many thoughts that come unbidden, so much so that it often hinders sleep, but that is not true for many men. Did Nietzsche ever display any homosexual behaviors?

Quote:"Behold, I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."—Nietzsche

Self-overcoming: Nietzsche’s Übermensch is not a product of freewill. It’s an interplay of internal struggles of certain drives. How they play out determines what one will believe, value, and become. When we look at things in greater detail, we obviously expand our awareness. If we look at the past, and understand how we became what we are through chains of events, one might think that we must continue to be what we have been, but with greater awareness, we notice the external forces, such as culture, environmental, evolution, physical laws, etc., and we are more cautious. We notice more options and other ways to live, which increases our freedom, but with greater freedom, comes more responsibility for that which is, and which was, and which is to come.

What tips the balance between internal struggles? Internal drives? That's circular reasoning. Random chance? How can responsibility come from random chance?

I agree, freedom requires the responsibility (a vacuous notion without moral agency) to exercise it within the boundaries that define it.

Quote:I would call this an acquired freedom, which is altogether different from circumstantial freedom. It’s to live as one believes one ought to live. Freewill on the other hand, would be a natural freedom, regardless of circumstances or state of mind, which Nietzsche obviously doesn’t believe in and argued against.

"Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?
To create new values- that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating- that can the might of the lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion."

Freedom is neither absolute nor necessarily exercised.
But no, animals do not create freedom, no more than they can create the requisite boundaries and display the requisite responsibility.

Quote:I used to think that the love of life was and would always remain an unrequited love…

But I no longer do. Life is everything. Nothing exists for us outside of it. "The living cannot know death and the dead know nothing." 

Love of life is what makes desperate people do evil things. And life as everything is pure nihilism. Obviously, hence you're love of Nietzsche.

Quote:No need to pipe in, Syne. I highly doubt that you'd have anything meaningful to contribute. 

Peace out.

Ah, preemptive dismissal. Still so predictable. You just wanted to make the pretense of engagement, without any real intent to do so.

(Nov 4, 2020 05:28 AM)Syne Wrote: Love of life is what makes desperate people do evil things. And life as everything is pure nihilism. Obviously, hence you're love of Nietzsche.

Nah, you know the ole saying; love what you have, not what you want.

A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be, and that the world as it ought to, do not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: this 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.—Nietzsche

(Nov 5, 2020 02:03 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 4, 2020 05:28 AM)Syne Wrote: Love of life is what makes desperate people do evil things. And life as everything is pure nihilism. Obviously, hence you're love of Nietzsche.

Nah, you know the ole saying; love what you have, not what you want.

A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be and that the world as it ought to do not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: this 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.—Nietzsche

What do you mean "nah"? You're affirming what I just said. But yes, without any principles or values that outweigh life, you don't have much else to love, I guess. So if someone threatens your life, being all you have, they can make you do a great many things.

Nietzsche making excuses for his own nihilism isn't too compelling. It's an obvious straw man that your average nihilist is essentially suicidal, as most see their only purpose in hedonism...which is a pretty pure love of life. Seems Nietzsche just couldn't manage to find more pleasure than pain. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy. That which you dwell on, you invite.

For most hedonists, nihilism seems a good justification. So chicken or the egg.

(Nov 5, 2020 08:31 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 5, 2020 02:03 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Nov 4, 2020 05:28 AM)Syne Wrote: Love of life is what makes desperate people do evil things. And life as everything is pure nihilism. Obviously, hence you're love of Nietzsche.

Nah, you know the ole saying; love what you have, not what you want.

A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be and that the world as it ought to do not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: this 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.—Nietzsche

What do you mean "nah"? You're affirming what I just said. But yes, without any principles or values that outweigh life, you don't have much else to love, I guess. So if someone threatens your life, being all you have, they can make you do a great many things.

Nietzsche making excuses for his own nihilism isn't too compelling. It's an obvious straw man that your average nihilist is essentially suicidal, as most see their only purpose in hedonism...which is a pretty pure love of life. Seems Nietzsche just couldn't manage to find more pleasure than pain. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy. That which you dwell on, you invite.

For most hedonists, nihilism seems a good justification. So chicken or the egg.

I didn’t say my life or just human life. I said life—life itself.

What else is there to value, rocks?

Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, Syne. I think that you got that from Peterson and it’s inaccurate.

Read the quote more carefully. It’s not an excuse. I broke it up a little better for you.

(Nov 5, 2020 12:30 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I didn’t say my life or just human life. I said life—life itself.

Yet you don't value human life in the womb.
And what you could be made to do for your own life is not different from what you could be made to do for the lives of others.

Quote:What else is there to value, rocks?

Like I just said, principles and values.

Quote:Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, Syne. I think that you got that from Peterson and it’s inaccurate.

I'm not aware of Peterson ever calling Nietzsche a nihilist. If you are, maybe you could point it out?

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xvz_yRYW0zI

And I'm not aware of anyone who seriously claims Nietzsche to be a nihilist...except me. While some may call him a moral nihilist, I think I'd go further than that.

For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had.--We require, sometime, new values.
- Will to Power

He expresses nihilism as inevitable, so much so that he predicted the progress of Western culture. From his supposed repudiation of nihilism he asserts "new values". But all these values are just expressions of his surrender and resignation to what is. Life, Darwinian fitness, and acceptance of fate are expressions of nihilism, devoid of any further meaning beyond what simply is. And all his values are ad hoc, without any unifying or underlying principles. They're just the excuses he makes, as needed, to justify his true underlying nihilism.


So as far as I know, the vast majority of people would disagree with me about Nietzsche. But I assure you, my thoughts on him are my own.

(Nov 5, 2020 06:32 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Nov 5, 2020 12:30 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I didn’t say my life or just human life. I said life—life itself.

Yet you don't value human life in the womb.
And what you could be made to do for your own life is not different from what you could be made to do for the lives of others.

Quote:What else is there to value, rocks?

Like I just said, principles and values.

Quote:Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, Syne. I think that you got that from Peterson and it’s inaccurate.

I'm not aware of Peterson ever calling Nietzsche a nihilist. If you are, maybe you could point it out?

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xvz_yRYW0zI

And I'm not aware of anyone who seriously claims Nietzsche to be a nihilist...except me. While some may call him a moral nihilist, I think I'd go further than that.

For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had.--We require, sometime, new values.
- Will to Power

He expresses nihilism as inevitable, so much so that he predicted the progress of Western culture. From his supposed repudiation of nihilism he asserts "new values". But all these values are just expressions of his surrender and resignation to what is. Life, Darwinian fitness, and acceptance of fate are expressions of nihilism, devoid of any further meaning beyond what simply is. And all his values are ad hoc, without any unifying or underlying principles. They're just the excuses he makes, as needed, to justify his true underlying nihilism.


So as far as I know, the vast majority of people would disagree with me about Nietzsche. But I assure you, my thoughts on him are my own.

I’m going hiking with my best friend. I’ll try to school you tonight if I have the time. 

Edit: In the meantime, start with this.

https://lehewych123.medium.com/jordan-pe...4a05df6bc8

(Nov 5, 2020 07:27 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I’m going hiking with my best friend. I’ll try to school you tonight if I have the time. 

Edit: In the meantime, start with this.

https://lehewych123.medium.com/jordan-pe...4a05df6bc8

Hope you have a lot better than that, as it only points out Peterson's view of the scientific world-view as nihilistic, in contrast to Nietzsche's opinion on the scientific world-view...without Peterson ever claiming Nietzsche was, himself, nihilistic. And even on the face of it, Nietzsche's expressed values would necessarily be superfluous to science, making his view and the staid scientific world-view two different things. So one can be nihilistic while the other is not. Conflating Nietzsche's values with the scientific world-view and then using Peterson's appraisal of the latter to infer something of the former is just fallacious. It relies solely on the false premise that Nietzsche's values are one and the same with a strictly scientific view.

That said, I still think Nietzsche's values are just a resignation to scientific facts, which are themselves nihilistic. I'm sure he thought he was opposing nihilism, as he claimed, but I don't think his own self-awareness was all he made it out to be.

If we view nihilism through the lens of Judeo-Christian values (which Nietzsche mainly railed against) Nietzsche is likely seen as a nihilist, in that he rejects God and the idea of absolute or objective morality as necessary to leading a meaningful life. But I can't help but wonder if religious types and Nietzsche disagree not about what nihilism is, but rather what specific values are most important (or not at all essential) to an overall sense of purpose. Therefore, a Christian may view Nietzsche as a nihilist, but Nietzsche himself may not have considered himself to be one.

I think there's a lot of misleading information out there when it comes to Nietzsche's views on nihilism, and it could be due to the fact that we all approach the idea of it, from a slightly different view.

Peterson wants to erect a new God. Similar to what Syne has been trying to do. He appeals to traditional values. Peterson thrives on the power that he receives to tell you how to live. His recipe for such, has made him quite wealthy.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Nietzsche wanted to replace life-denying values with life affirming values.

"What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!"

Unlike Peterson, Nietzsche didn’t want followers. Nietzsche wants you to create your own values.

He doesn’t tell us how to live.

How to live? Who knows the question knows not how. Who knows not the question cannot tell.—Wheelis

And truly, I love you for not knowing how to live today, you higher men. For thus you live – best! ~Nietzsche

Peterson believes that we don’t have capacity to create our own values. It might be a matter of rediscovering those values, he says. He thought that Nietzsche’s recommendation was profoundly wrong. Peterson’s answer to the problem of "God is dead" is to resurrect him. He said that Jung found a fatal flaw in Nietzsche’s theorizing. He said that Jung thought we couldn’t create our own values. Given the mutability of man and the fact that we are composed of multiple subpersonalities, given the fact that we aren’t even masters of our own house, and that we’re divided amongst ourselves, how in the world is it possible for us to develop our own values when we’re a mass of internal contradictions?

Nietzsche is exposing the Christian religion as nihilistic but he’s also more interested in exposing a more covert nihilism in their morality. For Christians, this world is bad and pitiable because of the original sin and can only be redeemed by Christ and an after-life. It's a rejection of this world for a fictitious world.

When you start to understand, you’ll be disturbed, but you’ll have a clean canvas to create your own values, meaning and purpose. And Nietzsche was right, life will be dearer to you and you’ll understand why you can’t resurrect a new God, nor will you want to. Nietzsche tries to get us to look at the roots of our values. They are the values of men and each man has his own ideas on how to build a good life.

Values, like we’ve discussed before, are aids for survival and growth, but let us not forget who creates them. They are not absolutes. They have and will continue to change over time whenever we find that they are no longer in the service of life. All values, meaning and purpose are things in which we construct. They are relative. They are not absolutes.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/zGDGobqibDc

Christians (if they're following the Bible) don't believe that this world is bad, and that the after life is all there is to ''live for.'' That is a common misconception about Christianity, rather Christianity teaches in its accurate and purest form without spin from pastors and denominations, that this life is a beautiful creation of God, and that Jesus died so we could continue living, in spirit. (after our physical body passes on)

Not everyone will read the Bible and come away wanting to believe in God, but for those who do, the idea of an after life is part of the faith, but the other part is that you live an enriched life right now, by following Jesus. There are passages where Jesus tells his followers that one must hate this life in order to be part of his kingdom, but that doesn't mean to hate on it. This life is a a blessing from God, most Christians believe. Rather, he meant to love a life of following him, over a life of chasing worldly pursuits. This isn't to say we shouldn't pursue accomplishments, friendships, love, etc. It just means to not place those pursuits over God. He came not seeking perfection in us, but for us to simply know him.

I've been thinking lately how Christianity struggles in the West because many Christians have manipulated the Gospel for material or political gain, causing division and confusion in the overall church. I've been following online, this group in India who is planting churches there...now that is raw and real faith in action. The church itself is a humble shack-like structure, that can fit probably 50 people for a service. The West is distracted by money, politics, pride, social media, etc and has manufactured this version of Christianity as being synonymous with the American dream. If you have a great job, big house, etc God must be shining ''his favor'' on you. But I guess if you lost your job, God thinks you're a loser? lol Meanwhile, the Bible talks favorably about those living in poverty, that their riches are in heaven, etc. And somehow, the second amendment and other political things, became a part of this Christian package, if you will. How'd that happen?

On the flipside, there are other denominations that want their congregations to flog themselves everyday (figuratively speaking), wallowing in their guilt and shame. This is largely why Christianity is struggling in the West, Jesus isn't really at the center, man's ideas are.

Sorry, not meaning to derail your thread, but noticed the after life being brought up, and thought I'd chime in with my two cents.