What would you say to Nietzsche?

[farran34]

I have been studying selections from Nietzsche's book The Gay Science and I have been extremely interested in some of his philosophy. I am particularly interested in how he seems to make (and assume) the claim that God is dead, yet also claim how "his shadow" is still present, and greatly influencing us. Nietzsche seems to be claiming that even though we all know that God is dead (or at least the intellectuals among us know this), we are still acting as if God did exist, and not fully coming to grasp with what the implications the death of God should be.

He applies this to different topics, but the one of particular interest to me is morality. Nietzsche seems to be criticizing us for our continued belief in objective moral truths (actually the objective in general, but that is beside the point) given that God is dead. Nietzsche has much to say about our moral beliefs, most of which is either highly negative or given a naturalistic explanation about the belief being examined.

If I remember from reading a past thread on a philosophical or religious topic (can't remember what thread), the majority of this community is either agnostic or atheist. My question is then to those members of this community (if any are interested and wish to respond) as to what you would say to Nietzsche if he criticised you on the basis of being inconsistent by claiming "God is dead", yet actually living as if God still existed due to your belief in moral truths and values. Would you argue that even though God is dead moral truths can exist, or disagree that you are being influenced by "God's shadow" in that you actually reject the objectiveness of moral truths? If you take the latter view, what are the implications, if any, of there being no objective moral truths?

[AOEisLOVE_AOEisLIFE]

''LOL, Nietzsche is dead.'' - God

[Laurence Drake]

sounds a bit like dolan to me

[Mimsy for President]

UP. Good thread.

[musketjr]

I have heard the point being raised before, that without god there cannot be any 'objective' yardstick (viz. god IS the objective measure) against which, or more properly with which to understand morality abstractly or concretely. i think it entails a false dichotomy: god and objective morality, or no god and no objective morality.

let us assume religions (and associated deities) are social constructs informed by and constituted of human characteristics - which i contend they clearly are; it's clear that god in this formulae is not an objective measure at all, rather a projection of our own values, conclusions or methods. but assume god exists in the Abrahamic sense and ask why even so we should need to derive a sense of morality from it or its scriptures. what the moustachio'd raving so-called philosopher has done is to unwarrantedly conflate morality with theology.

consider empathy and compassion and rationality in their biological sense, and then what they imply. we call the results morality.

on his contention that god is dead, he cannot demonstrate this and i suspect that he, like many shallow thinkers (dawkins regularly does the same in his diatribes) has falsely equated god as an abstract conception with religious constructions of god, or perhaps even with religions themselves. if his proof of god's death involved proof of how the universe began, i would be inclined to believe him. as it is, it's not, and so i'm not.

why humans are attracted to mystery and spirituality is a standalone question that ought to be considered in its own right, not only insofar as it juxtaposes with the perception that since god does not exist, spirituality is rendered arbitrary, misguided or foolhardy. to rephrase, attaching spirituality to nietzsche's proposition makes it seem as though it merits discussion only in that context, whereas I would say that is to diminish spirituality and the many varied, rich meanings it can have or allude to. on his actual point, it's a bit of a non-starter given that I perceive his discussion of god as fundamentally flawed and shallow.

[Dolan]

sounds a bit like dolan to me

Sounds like you're a knob-polishing limey.

You =>

[Laurence Drake]

sounds a bit like dolan to me

Sounds like you're a knob-polishing limey.

You =>

lol faggot

[Dolan]

sounds a bit like dolan to me

Sounds like you're a knob-polishing limey.

You =>

lol faggot

Says the guy who constantly says he wants to suck a dick or have sex with Metis.

W/e, dude, you're a weirdo. I'm not sure why you're even here. You never wrote one good post on this forum.
Do yourself a favour and kys.

[Laurence Drake]

Show hidden quotes

sounds a bit like dolan to me

Sounds like you're a knob-polishing limey.

You =>

lol faggot

Says the guy who constantly says he wants to suck a dick or have sex with Metis.

W/e, dude, you're a weirdo. I'm not sure why you're even here. You never wrote one good post on this forum.
Do yourself a favour and kys.

haha jokes on you i already want to kill myself

[farran34]

Thanks for writing a meaningful reply. I was not able to respond for a while because I had to study for a giant midterm test all day, but I finally found the time to respond.

I have heard the point being raised before, that without god there cannot be any 'objective' yardstick (viz. god IS the objective measure) against which, or more properly with which to understand morality abstractly or concretely. i think it entails a false dichotomy: god and objectively morality, or no god and no objective morality.

let us assume religions (and associated deities) are social constructs informed by and constituted of human characteristics - which i contend they clearly are; it's clear that god in this formulae is not an objective measure at all, rather a projection of our own values, conclusions or methods. but assume god exists in the Abrahamic sense and ask why even so we should need to derive a sense of morality from it or its scriptures. what the moustachio'd raving so-called philosopher has done is to unwarrantedly conflate morality with theology.

consider empathy and compassion and rationality in their biological sense, and then what they imply. we call the results morality.

I am not sure you would escape Nietzsche's criticism with your answer. Nietzsche is not arguing that moral systems and practices cannot or do not exist without God but rather he seems to argue that moral systems and practices lack any objective truth or justification if God is dead. Nietzsche argues this because he believes that once we get rid of God and Christianity, we must also get rid of various metaphysical claims which were contained in and depended on Christianity.
He thinks that even though we think we have killed God and gotten rid of him, we still live as though he exists through our continued belief in several metaphysical claims. These claims could include us holding on to things such as mind-independent truth, free-will, and certain values we give ourself and the universe.

Given that God is dead we would be (according to Nietzsche) lacking free will and determined mostly by drives unknown to us which exist in us through the evolutionary process, which are responsible for most of our actions. This alone is enough to challenge our moral beliefs but unfortunately for us, Nietzsche presents it as being worse. Not only are we mostly determined by these unknown evolutionary drives, but up until now almost all of what we have considered as being truth has been influenced (and perhaps caused) by our unconscious physiological needs. To quote Nietzsche on some of this, "The unconscious disguise of physiological needs under the mantel of the objective, the ideal, the purely spiritual, takes place to a shocking extent...I have often asked myself whether on the whole, philosophy up to now has not simply been an interpretation of the body, and a misunderstanding of the body...[perhaps]all philosophizing up to now was not about "truth," but about something else, let us say about health, future, growth, power, life."

I have not even begun to begin to state all of what Nietzsche has to say on this, but I think I have given a broad summary of some of the reasons for why he claims that we are not truly acting as if God as dead when we hold on to traditional concepts of morality.

For instance, let us suppose (in a universe where religions and deities are social constructs ) a moral system prohibits action x, and deems action x morally wrong. Nietzsche would agree with you that under that under that moral system action x is "wrong", but he might ask both "so what?" and "why should we care". To Nietzsche, the action would be considered by the "herd" under the moral system "morally wrong",not due to some objective truth existing in the universe that makes the action wrong independent of us, but only due to the "herd" having deemed it to be "wrong" for some reason which can be explained by unconscious drives (such as action x being named morally wrong because it helped the "herd" thrive in some way). Why should we give the value or substance to moral claims we give in our lives given Nietzsche's understanding? When we state that torturing innocent babies is wrong, many atheists and theists alike believe they are making a claim that is true for reasons other than the "herd" morality Nietzsche proposes contains.

In order to answer Nietzsche properly, I think we need to either argue that the supposed metaphysical claims (I have only sketched out a few of them) that were supposed to die off with God do not actually need to die off, or that despite getting rid of these metaphysical claims and having evolutionary-based explanations for the origin of morals we should still care and give value to these systems.

Both of these possible ways of answering seem difficult, which is why I am interested in Nietzsche's thought

In a sense, it seems Nietzsche is arguing
on his contention that god is dead, he cannot demonstrate this and i suspect that he, like many shallow thinkers (dawkins regularly does the same in his diatribes) has falsely equated god as an abstract conception with religious constructions of god, or perhaps even with religions themselves. if his proof of god's death involved proof of how the universe began, i would be inclined to believe him. as it is, it's not, and so i'm not.

I am not a Nietzsche scholar by any means, but I think he just assumes "the death of God". By this, I mean that he assumes that most intelligent people understand that God does not exist, and therefore God is dead. I am not certain on this however, but it is somewhat besides the point as to whether or not he makes an argument to back up his claim.

why humans are attracted to mystery and spirituality is a standalone question that ought to be considered in its own right, not only insofar as it juxtaposes with the perception that since god does not exist, spirituality is rendered arbitrary, misguided or foolhardy. to rephrase, attaching spirituality to nietzsche's proposition makes it seem as though it merits discussion only in that context, whereas I would say that is to diminish spirituality and the many varied, rich meanings it can have or allude to. on his actual point, it's a bit of a non-starter given that I perceive his discussion of god as fundamentally flawed and shallow.

[Metis]

The idea of a deity is a very old one and one that is deeply ingrained in human language and culture. Even staunch atheists may occasionally be heard to utter an "adios," or a "god forbid," etc. Even a casual "bye" is technically telling the person "God be with you."

Existentialism is premised on the idea that there is no deity and thus humanity is responsible for its own thoughts and actions. When Nietzsche says "God is Dead" he is saying that humanity it at the stage in its development where it should go beyond ascribing unknown causes to a deity and look for them in the natural world. However, he also realizes that the idea of a deity is so ingrained in culture and language that the ghost remains. This was especially true of his time and even is today.

It's still expedient for politicians to at least pretend to be religious. There currently are no openly atheist members of the US Congress. Polls show that most people would rather trust their children to a convicted criminal than to an atheist.

When I was in the Army, you had only three choices for religion on your dog tags, "Protestant," "Catholic" or "Jewish." I think that they would have kicked you out of the service if you had answered "Atheist."

[farran34]

Existentialism is premised on the idea that there is no deity and thus humanity is responsible for its own thoughts and actions.

Not sure I would agree here. Kierkegaard is often described as the father of existentialism, yet he is considered to be a Christian (although a peculiar one). I would rather say that existentialism is premised on the idea that there is an absence of objective values or meanings in the world and that existentialism focuses on how we (individually and as a culture) might react when we come to grips with this purported absence.

When Nietzsche says "God is Dead" he is saying that humanity it at the stage in its development where it should go beyond ascribing unknown causes to a deity and look for them in the natural world. However, he also realizes that the idea of a deity is so ingrained in culture and language that the ghost remains. This was especially true of his time and even is today.

I think when Nietzsche says "God is Dead" he means more than just staying we are at a stage where we should go beyond ascribing unknown causes to a deity, but that we are at a point where we should get rid of our beliefs which have a necessary foundation in the belief in God. Nietzsche criticises us for not doing this, and as you put it "the ghost remains".

It's still expedient for politicians to at least pretend to be religious. There currently are no openly atheist members of the US Congress. Polls show that most people would rather trust their children to a convicted criminal than to an atheist.

This is most definitely true, in that politicians pretend to be religious. Donald Trump, speaking to a Christian crowd, attempted to quote the bible only to mess up and say "two Corinthians". It was obvious that he was merely trying to uphold the appearance of being a "good" Christian to obtain more votes.
I am not sure this is what Nietzsche is really referring to though when he speaks of God's shadow still being present. I think he rather is addressing honest beliefs we hold that should have been thrown away when we came to the conclusion that God is dead, such as the belief that humanity has an objective worth or purpose, or even that we are free agents.

When I was in the Army, you had only three choices for religion on your dog tags, "Protestant," "Catholic" or "Jewish." I think that they would have kicked you out of the service if you had answered "Atheist."

[Metis]

I would rather say that existentialism is premised on the idea that there is an absence of objective values or meanings

And for the most part of human history objective values purportedly came from a deity or something else "perfect," such as the Platonic Good. You can realize that there is no evidence of anything perfect upon which our morals are based but this then opens up that "can of worms" that we call cultural relativism.

Speaking of "free agents," some think that we are merely slaves to our DNA and all the free will we think we have is pretty much imaginary. To the DNA, individual lives or even the lives of all the individuals of a species are, of little consequence as long as some sort of life continues to exist.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[dietschlander]

I'm not so big of a writer but would like to add that I can not believe that their are people who do not believe there is a God. I do believe people don't want to accept their is a God.

This is most definitely true, in that politicians pretend to be religious. Donald Trump, speaking to a Christian crowd, attempted to quote the bible only to mess up and say "two Corinthians". It was obvious that he was merely trying to uphold the appearance of being a "good" Christian to obtain more votes.

Even uncle Adolf did, his favourite bible part was when Jesus cleaned up the temple from all bullsh*t ppl brought there.

[Dolan]

haha jokes on you i already want to kill myself

And you're calling me socially anxious etc, lmao.

I never had such thoughts because I'm not a loser.

[farran34]

Which values and moral truths? Those values come from common sense and the old golden rule "don't do to others what you wouldn't want for yourself"

Nietzsche would certainly challenge our basis for thinking that common sense and the golden rule should be listened to given that "God is dead".

Some of the values which we have obtained from "God" are good (don't steal, don't lie, etc.) but many others are being thrown into question by society (homosexuality or abortions being bad for instance). There are some core values which happen to be good which we're keeping and some other values which are shit which we're rotating out either way.

I think Nietzsche here would ask what it means in your statement "there are some core values which happen to be good...some other values which are shit". I think he would ask this for the point of emphasizing the question, on what basis do you/we determine core values to be "good" or "bad/shit", and is that basis justified in us making these moral claims? Since for Nietzsche, our original values or moral beliefs can be given naturalistic explanations (in that whatever was considered moral by the herd was done so by unconscious drives for thriving), why should we continue, in an atheistic world, to ascribe to these original values or moral beliefs the mysterious words of "good" or "bad/shit"? What does "good" or "bad/shit" actually mean, and do they have any real substance outside of what various cultures extend them to?

I personally don't care what Nietzche has said or would say to me, since my values are my own, which I come through by thinking to myself about different topics, not reading whatever that guy wrote.

That's fine, you don't have to care about what Nietzsche has said or about what I wrote/will write on this thread

[farran34]

And for the most part of human history objective values purportedly came from a deity or something else "perfect," such as the Platonic Good. You can realize that there is no evidence of anything perfect upon which our morals are based but this then opens up that "can of worms" that we call cultural relativism.

Perhaps this is true, but I was criticizing your earlier proposed basis for what existentialism is premised on (there is no deity) through the fact that there have been existentialists who believe there is such a deity (named Kierkegaard as my example)

Speaking of "free agents," some think that we are merely slaves to our DNA and all the free will we think we have is pretty much imaginary.

I think Nietzsche would be one of these people, and that he would argue that our concept of libertarian free-will becomes false or incoherent when we "kill God"

[musketjr]

farran I implore you not to fall into this academic trap of believing you have to argue in this rigid way. philosophy is not what you are led to believe it is in university.

[farran34]

farran I implore you not to fall into this academic trap of believing you have to argue in this rigid way. philosophy is not what you are led to believe it is in university.

Unfortunately, I am naturally drawn toward the argumentative and writing style of analytic philosophy. Nietzsche, being a continental philosopher writes with a very different style than most analytic philosophers do. The writing style of continental philosophy both intrigues me and annoys me. It annoys me because I prefer clearly stated arguments that can be traced out, yet the writing style of Nietzsche does interest me because of its ability to engage the reader in different ways from different angles.

Could you explain to me what 'academic trap' you believe I am falling in, or how else one could/should argue?

[Laurence Drake]

haha jokes on you i already want to kill myself

And you're calling me socially anxious etc, lmao.

I never had such thoughts because I'm not a loser.

I said you were like Nietzsche calm the fuck down.

[Dolan]

I "was" like Nietzsche in what respect?

[Laurence Drake]

wtf I hate Nietzsche now

[Dolan]

Why would you hate him, he was a permavirgin, like yourself.