Best Philosopher

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So the idea that you shouldn't **** your mother is an idea of what, exactly?

An idea of the nature of the bond between myself and my parents. Or myself and my god, or myself and my society. The idea only signifies my relationship with all of those things, for which it exists. I might die for my family, but never for the mere idea of my family, only the people in it. I might even die for my country, but I won't die for the flag or the anthem.

It's your own egalitarian prejudice that sucks donkey balls. Don't people already agree that a liberal market is wishable, for that precise reason that it entails victory of the fittest?

And why do we desire victory of the fittest? Because, in capitalism, it generally results in the best service for all. Lower prices, a better selection of goods and services, a happier society. Which is not to say that the individual's good means nothing, only that the part is meaningless without the whole to relate to. Nietzsche's contempt for the "common good" is unfounded; there can only be a few of the very best, but those few need a lot of inferiors to hold them up. The greatest and wisest of kings couldn't manage squat without hordes of soldiers, servants, administrators and subjects in general.

[Fake Boris]

Just fell upon this gem of a sentence in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments:

Whoever has taken the trouble to examine idiots with attention, will find that in many of them the faculties of the understanding are by no means weaker than in several other people, who, though acknowledged to be dull and stupid, are not by anybody accounted idiots.

[Kuciwalker]

[Berzerker]

Neither the Greeks, nor Egyptians nor Mesopotamia were ever aware of any planet that can't be seen by the naked eye.

Not according to Democritus and not according to his Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources.

1. They have never recorded anything about it.

We have Democritus saying there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye. In fact, we have evidence from all over the world describing a solar system with unseen bodies. From the Sumerian cylinder seal with a star surrounded by 11 celestial bodies to the stepped pyramids of MesoAmerica with their 9 levels representing the "Lords of the Underworld" and the amazing Incan Genesis laid out in gold in their Holy of Holies depicting the Creator as an ellipse "joining" or "separating" 9 celestial bodies from each other in groups of 4 and 5 with the Sun and Moon on either side of the ellipse. Yeah, the Inca depicted the Creator as an ellipse...

2. Assuming otherwise would imply they were able to build good telescopes, which they weren't.

Perhaps, you're assuming they didn't. I dont have a good telescope and I know there's alot of celestial bodies out there I cant see.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Elok
An idea of the nature of the bond between myself and my parents. Or myself and my god, or myself and my society. The idea only signifies my relationship with all of those things, for which it exists. I might die for my family, but never for the mere idea of my family, only the people in it. I might even die for my country, but I won't die for the flag or the anthem.

Don't try. You know very well that there is no naturalistic monism of "things that are".

And why do we desire victory of the fittest? Because, in capitalism, it generally results in the best service for all. Lower prices, a better selection of goods and services, a happier society. Which is not to say that the individual's good means nothing, only that the part is meaningless without the whole to relate to. Nietzsche's contempt for the "common good" is unfounded; there can only be a few of the very best, but those few need a lot of inferiors to hold them up. The greatest and wisest of kings couldn't manage squat without hordes of soldiers, servants, administrators and subjects in general.

You don't seem to understand Nietzsche very well. Nietzsche believes that democracy results in demagogy, this is to say, a society where the leaders are slave of the mob, and vice-versa. His critique is not that far from Hegel's now famous dialectic of the master and slave. The dynamic of this mutual slavery operates from the Enlightment idea of the common good.
Nietzsche is a humanist in his own way - his philosophy is about reaching happiness through real and authentic individuation. He wholeheartedly rejects the notion of the immediatety of individuation, i.e. the idea that the common good of humanity can be reached from an idea of the common essence of man attained from speculation - as such, he believes in the necessity of a painful and initiatic education of the individual.
His critique resembles the Spinozist notion that the world is only composed of "simples", and that any common idea is a mere nominalist abstraction, that can be easily subject to an uncalled for "transcendization" - hence his rejection of common good.

Now would be time, perhaps, to remind you that philosophy is a demanding discipline, and that your own opinion of it being "easy" stems more from your self-blinding lack of a rigorous reading, than valid observation.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Nietzsche

I've found him to be the single most insightful philosopher I've ever read. Hes simultaneously the clearest and the deepest. His relentless indictment of Christianity, Dualism and Ascetics are superb. Nietzsche basically closed the book on God and Philosophizing on God, the only thing that remains is for history to unfold as he predicted. Far from CyberShy's and other Christians apocalyptic scenario the new age with be Super-Moral not Amoral. It is already quite obvious that todays Atheists are more moral then religionists. Thus I await the coming of the Ubermench with the greatest anticipation.

Rejoice GOD IS DEAD !!

[Elok]

Okay, Boris, I'm willing to play, but first you have to explain what you just said in actual words, as opposed to "immediatety," "initiatic," and "transcendization." Also, if you don't stop referencing people I've never read in an attempt to browbeat me with your Great Education (better known as "pulling a Molly" to the larger discursive networks of this forum's memetic superstructure), I'll be forced to randomly pepper my arguments with terms from my mother's medical books just to make you look them up.

I never said philosophy was easy; on the contrary, it can be quite difficult due to the fact that half of all philosophers don't know how to communicate effectively and use far more words than are required--and the other half are full of crap and obfuscate continually in an effort to hide it. It's been a while since I read Nietzsche, but IIRC he was an odd man out in that respect: he tangled his words despite actually having something to say, just out of perversity and a desire to be clever. Not as bad as I once thought him, though, and once you wade through the muck he does have some good points.

Finally, the deeper meanings you see in your close readings more often than not do not really exist. What you see when you do that is the result of obsessively reading bad writing over and over again, looking at each individual word out of context, losing track, and assembling a meaning for yourself out of the ensuing gibberish. That meaning may be very elaborate, but it has no more connection to reality or logic than a "magic eye" picture. It's just a fantastic game of Let's Pretend. There's something to be said for many philosophers' words, but I'm not going to drink your Kool-Aid.

[Pekka]

Elok, why are you such a jerk?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Pekka
Elok, why are you such a jerk?

Retaliation. I'm just honest enough to put my rudeness in the form of direct insults, as opposed to mock-patiently condescending to correct Oncle Boris's "mistakes" with a smug barrage of jargon. I'd be a lot nicer if he had the decency to flame directly instead of wrapping his feces in silk before throwing it at me.

Now, I admit that here I'm assuming he was deliberately trying to be illucid to sit on the argument when he spoke of "nominalist abstractions" and so on. If he actually meant what he said to be clear and really answer me, then I might owe him an apology (though if that were so, he just proved my point about philosophers and poor communication skills).

EDIT: On further reflection, though, I was still more aggressive than the situation called for. As always, I need to watch my temper.

[Pekka]

eh, relax. I didn't even read the posts. Hell, this is what I am. Let's throw stones.

[Elok]

Okay, you got me.

[Fake Boris]

I thought you had minored in philosophy or something. Anyway I'll come back later, I need to work tonight.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Nietzsche

I've found him to be the single most insightful philosopher I've ever read. Hes simultaneously the clearest and the deepest. His relentless indictment of Christianity, Dualism and Ascetics are superb. Nietzsche basically closed the book on God and Philosophizing on God, the only thing that remains is for history to unfold as he predicted. Far from CyberShy's and other Christians apocalyptic scenario the new age with be Super-Moral not Amoral. It is already quite obvious that todays Atheists are more moral then religionists. Thus I await the coming of the Ubermench with the greatest anticipation.

Rejoice GOD IS DEAD !!

Okay, now I know that's not right. Nietzsche held the death of God up as a tragic thing, the loss of guidance which would hurl the world into confusion. And as for "super-moral" vs. "amoral," that doesn't fit either. He believed in people inventing their own values for themselves, finding their own way. The Will to Power is basically the inclination to impose something like the appearance of permanence on a world in constant flux; that's the biggest (if not the only) virtue he believed in as having intrinsic worth, AFAICT. It takes the form of creative impulses most of the time. I imagine OB will gladly correct me if I misremember things.

I do not believe there will be a "new age," apocalyptic or otherwise. Such a new age would indeed be amoral as we understand morality...which is precisely why it won't happen. People have been declaring the death of God for almost as long as they've been declaring God's existence. Things haven't changed, because faith is embedded in the human psyche in ways atheists don't seem to appreciate.

Not that most modern theists appreciate it either. What people think of as the end of faith is really the decline of traditional western religion. The Protestant Reformation ate itself hollow, the Fundamentalist crazies took over, and the RCC...I won't even try to analyze what's up with them. But we Orthodox are quite ready to run the place when they go, and indeed we've already started. Non-christian religions are poised to explode too, at least in America. I don't know how things stand in Europe.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I thought you had minored in philosophy or something. Anyway I'll come back later, I need to work tonight.

Yes, I minored in Philosophy, but I don't have all the lingo memorized or anything; I prospered in class by arduously decoding such gobbledygook from context and putting the meat of the argument in an understandable form. But I can't even begin to decode all that shpiel you just made. It doesn't seem to relate to Nietzsche's aristocratic prejudices in any way (you know him, the guy who referred to most humans as the "herd" and expected the rise of men as far above them as men over beasts?). I pay attention to what a man says and the way he says it before trying to pigeonhole his thought in with that of others according to predecided groupings--or rephrasing it into a terminology which is alien to it; one of the things I like best about him is that, while his words are difficult, they are densely packed rather than bloated out like those of most philosophers. I never encountered Spinoza or Hegel in detail either, though come to think of it you had no way of knowing as much. I just got carried away back there. Heh.

[Sandman]

Things haven't changed, because faith is embedded in the human psyche in ways atheists don't seem to appreciate.

Obviously it's not embedded enough to prevent people behaving in ways which are contrary to the ancient texts.