The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Or better yet, we can keep posting, but put you on ignore.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


That's a point some Christian philosophers made, that organized religion has failed to recognize that there are still prophets.

Spinoza kinds of address the point in the Theologico-Political treatise. He says that with the advent of Christ, prophecy became philosophy. Should we then interpret that some scholars could have been "prophets" ? This is open to debate, and no one is really sure what Spinoza meant to say.

Its generally accepted in mainstream Judaism that prophecy ended with Ezra and Nehemia, and that miracles in general end with the fall of the Temple in 69 CE. Spinoza MAY have been influenced by that notion, even while putting it into a philosophical and universal context. OTOH Yehuda Halevy claimed that prophecy required daily use of the Hebrew Language, and residence in the Land of Israel, and that if and when the conditions were restored, prophecy could return. OTOH Halevy was a rather odd duck in many ways.

[Kidlicious]

This thread is itself proof that God is dead.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

Originally posted by lord of the mark


To get back on topic

Its the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Good and Evil is Sklavenmoral, right?

From an universalist perspective, yes. But Nietzsche doesn't say that the terms in themselves can't be used; the Surhuman will recycle them into individual "supermorals".

Something the weak use to gull the strong, and to express their "ressentiment". It would seem to be, in FNs thought, the very opposite of science, it would seem to be the very thing that the Jewish Priests are foisting on the world.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Nietzsche believed that scientific method is simply an illusory path to knowledge made for fools, taken from its universalist perspective. But he also believes that there is a superior use of science, that should guided by the insight of superior men.

[Fake Boris]

BTW LOTM, I'm interested to know how Spinoza is viewed by contemporary Jews. Is he considered as an outcast, or has been rehabilitated as one of history's great Jews ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
BTW LOTM, I'm interested to know how Spinoza is viewed by contemporary Jews. Is he considered as an outcast, or has been rehabilitated as one of history's great Jews ?

My vague sense is that theres some admiration for him in the Reform movement, without being seen as a central figure, hes still totally a heretic to the Orthodox, and Conservative dont mention him much one or the other - their views of scripture and life being somewhat orthogonal to his (IE largely accepting the basics of biblical criticism, but rejecting the notion that means giving up on the centrality and bindingness of the law - though Id add that C Judaisms view of the law is somewhat more ambiguous today than it was - much of this came to a head over the gay ordination issue during which, of the 3 factions, the Gillman faction took an almost Reform view)

ISTR reading that theres been something of a Spinoza revivial among SOME secular Jews in Israel, but I have no details to report.


For an interesting discussion of Spinoza and later Jewish philosophy, I would suggest Fackenheim's "To Mend the World"


Actually Im not clear what you mean by "one of historys greatest Jews"

We have a tribal tendency to list and take pride in the intellectual accomplishments of famous Jews. Freud, for example, would be inluded in any such list, though no one (other than the very eccentric) would suggest him as a model for Jewish religious thought of any kind. In THAT sense, everyone but the narrowest Orthodox probably is happy to "claim" Spinoza. My points above were more about him as a "canonical" thinker.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: The Genesis : Common sense vs. Nietzsche

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


From an universalist perspective, yes. But Nietzsche doesn't say that the terms in themselves can't be used; the Surhuman will recycle them into individual "supermorals".



I'm not sure I'm following you here. Nietzsche believed that scientific method is simply an illusory path to knowledge made for fools, taken from its universalist perspective. But he also believes that there is a superior use of science, that should guided by the insight of superior men.

My point is that scientific method, while perhaps a later evolution of the (to FN) false notion of universal truth, is still diametrically opposed to Jewish slave morality, which, must be what the bible is referring to in Genesis (he surely doesnt think it refers to later individual supermorals)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
You're the one persisting with personal insults despite my efforts to be as polite as possible while facing posters suffering delusions.

Wheee, a contradiction in one sentence! Smug atheists who think that all religionists are afflicted with some psychological disorder are worse than the fundies.

If someone wants to seriously argue god is "inside me" and he has assigned me the task of figuring him out then I'm sorry but that is a claim requiring some proof. If you don't have it fine, but leave the insults at the door please.

Of course I don't have proof, I'm an atheist, I don't believe it in the first place. And I'm trying to be as polite as possible while facing posters who are being complete *******s wrt other posters...

As to the direction the thread has taken - too bad.

It's the direction you're forcing it in. I'm pointing out your attempts to threadjack.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And I'm trying to be as polite as possible while facing posters who are being complete *******s wrt other posters...

Because you are always so polite and never a *******?

[lord of the mark]

BTW, do contemporary followers of FN maintain the historicity of the slave origin of Jewish morality? It seems clear to me that the key elements well predate the Roman conquest, and one doesnt have to be as much of a scoffer as Wezil to recognize that the historicity of the Egyptian exile is questionable. Now I suppose one COULD attribute the sklavenmoral to, say, the Babylonian exile, but I dont think that holds tight with current views on the origin of the bible, or to Jewish origins in rebellious Canaanite peons (one of my pet historical theories) but I still think its weak.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Of course I don't have proof, I'm an atheist, I don't believe it in the first place. And I'm trying to be as polite as possible while facing posters who are being complete *******s wrt other posters...

To make something else clear, the question of whether interpretation is a reasonable approach to religious texts, is, I think at least partly orthogonal to the question of belief in God.

While I do NOT consider myself an atheist, i also do not beleive in a traditional view of revelation. I consider the bible essentially a human product, and Im "agnostic" as to how much inspiration took place, and how content filled it was, or even if it was particular to that time and place. Midrash is an approach thats largely based on assumptions about the origin of the text at variance with my own. Yet I can take it seriously, not just as a cultural heritage, but as a sincere and deep wrestling with the text, that discovers/creates meanings that are spiritually meaningful. Indeed it is, in part, that history of engagement and creation, that grants the text its holiness.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Smug atheists who think that all religionists are afflicted with some psychological disorder are worse than the fundies.

I said delusions. If you want to make that "afflicted with some psychological disorder" then that's your call.

Anyone that believes in imaginary beings w/o evidence that said beings exist is deluded. If I started a thread in which I in all seriousness wanted to talk about the unicorn I saw last week or the conversation I had with Zeus last month I would accused of being delusional and/or a liar.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, do contemporary followers of FN maintain the historicity of the slave origin of Jewish morality?

You mean there are people who read historicity into Ns stuff

Whatever his merits as philo are, he is not and shouldn't be understood as historian.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW, do contemporary followers of FN maintain the historicity of the slave origin of Jewish morality? It seems clear to me that the key elements well predate the Roman conquest, and one doesnt have to be as much of a scoffer as Wezil to recognize that the historicity of the Egyptian exile is questionable. Now I suppose one COULD attribute the sklavenmoral to, say, the Babylonian exile, but I dont think that holds tight with current views on the origin of the bible, or to Jewish origins in rebellious Canaanite peons (one of my pet historical theories) but I still think its weak.

IMO, it's a false question you're asking. In Nietzsche's way, you could very well be, socially, a slave, and still think and behave like a nobleman. Nietzsche's claim of Jewish morals being a "slave morality" comes from the notion of sin, as it entails (a) belief in a transcendant and retributivist moral order and (b) submission to the passions of regret and "salvation", i.e. messianism. That's why he believes that Christianism is a mere "universalized" judaism, something that he calls the "ultima ratio" of lie and degenerescence.

But that's not where his reflexions stop. The question to be asked, then, is to know whether Christianism is a lie created by astute Jews to ensure their own protection against persecution, or a pure, determined consequence of their morals. That's why Nietzsche was so ambiguous about Jews : on one hand, they're smart ; on the other hand though, they created messianism and decadence.

The bottom line can be found in Hegel's famous dialectics of the slave and tyrant : is the tyrant slave of his "tyranny" ? Or put differently : what is the profound meaning of St. Paul's foundation of the Church ? Was he still oppressing (being a former persecutor) Christians by herding them into a Church ?

I could ramble on and on on how this tension on universalism is still present in Spinoza's works, but I guess you get the point.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, heres a symposium on Spinoza from a relatively enlightened Orthodox Jewish institution (Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University)

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues.asp?VolumeID=17