What would you say to Nietzsche?

[Metis]

I've thought a lot about "free will" and to what extent we humans actually possess it.

First of all, we have physical limitations; there are just certain events that are beyond our ability to control, although science and technology are broadening the scope of our abilities daily.

What is more interesting to me, however, are the things that someone could do but won't do, even if they might want to. We see psychosomatic blocks in medicine from time to time where there is nothing physically wrong with the patient but they still cannot see, hear, move, etc. These are rare and extreme cases but aren't there also more common instances of lack of free will?

Let's say that you have always dreamed of doing something that you really wanted to do but that things always "got in the way" and thwarted your plans. Do you really have the ability to do this thing? If we never seem to be able goad ourselves into actually doing something can we really say that we can actually do it? The saying "stuck in a rut" and this may have more truth to it then most think. Objects at the bottom of the rut are in a lower relative energy state than those outside it. It's oftentimes easier to just "go with the flow" than it is to break through the wall of the rut and go your own way.

[Laurence Drake]

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

true tbh, but could he shitpost?

[JakeyBoyTH]

I know that this is all based on the assumption that God is dead, but if God is the Holy Spirit (he is) and being that God is an ascended entity (that is to say "higher than us") I don't think God can really die. Is what he is saying that our beliefs in Christianity and its ethics essentially degrading? That metaphorically God is dying?

As a Christian myself (dnt h8) I believe that the bible is not meant to be perceived literally, simply because some of it is a bit far-fetched (an understatement). We are meant to perceive the general ideals and context, just like the morals in Aesops fables. Christian ethics are even taught, at least in my curriculum as a subset of general ethics.
==Ethics have always been seperate from beliefs==

For instance the ten commandments:

I am the lord thy God -- but of an exception here
Thou shalt have no other gods -- again, pretty much having one belief is common among religions.
No graven images or likenesses --- Don't worship idols, like its pretty unhealthy to have a shrine in your wardrobe to Kylie Jenner.
Not take the Lord's name in vain -- language please
Remember the sabbath day --- Respect national holidays and traditions
Honour thy father and thy mother -- Love your parents
Thou shalt not kill -- This one is pretty common, don't murder anyone.
Thou shalt not commit adultery -- Unless you're Bill Clinton
Thou shalt not steal -- Don't steal stuff, again pretty common.
Thou shalt not bear false witness -- Don't lie, unless it is a white lie (Some say the bitterest truth is better than a lie, I disagree)
Thou shalt not covet -- Don't be envious, respect what people have, and what you have. You can work to achieve anything.

Please excuse the formatting. Spacing and my grammar are not playing nice today.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Mimsy for President]

Remember the sabbath day --- Respect national holidays and traditions

[jesus3]

"god isnt dead yet, bless ya dude."

[Dolan]

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

true tbh, but could he shitpost?

Nah, he was too engrossed in his own mental vomit to be able to.

I can outshitpost you, tho.

[Metis]

Christian mythology is more polytheistic than most "believers" are taught. Also, even though there are some "ethical" passages in the collection of writings collectively known as "The Bible," one has to be quite selective if one is going to teach "bible stories" to a child.

"Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

There would be no reason for an all-knowing, all-powerful entity to be jealous. People are only jealous if they are insecure.

As for the so-called "morality" of the bible, it's dubious at best:

"Dash their little ones to the ground, rip open their pregnant women."

"Kill all the men and all the boys and every woman who is not a virgin. Distribute the virgin girls amongst yourselves."

"Some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.” So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts."

If "God is dead" then I would say that it's about time, the bastard deserved to die.

[Laurence Drake]

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

true tbh, but could he shitpost?

Nah, he was too engrossed in his own mental vomit to be able to.

I can outshitpost you, tho.

you take yourself too seriously for that

[musketjr]

just note the inability of people to separate god from religion

[Mimsy for President]

Metis is way too edgy.

[JakeyBoyTH]

Christian mythology is more polytheistic than most "believers" are taught. Also, even though there are some "ethical" passages in the collection of writings collectively known as "The Bible," one has to be quite selective if one is going to teach "bible stories" to a child.

"Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

There would be no reason for an all-knowing, all-powerful entity to be jealous. People are only jealous if they are insecure.

As for the so-called "morality" of the bible, it's dubious at best:

"Dash their little ones to the ground, rip open their pregnant women."

"Kill all the men and all the boys and every woman who is not a virgin. Distribute the virgin girls amongst yourselves."

"Some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.” The owner of the house said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.” So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts."

If "God is dead" then I would say that it's about time, the bastard deserved to die.

It's not how you interpret ethics from the bible its how you use them. As I have said you shouldn't interpret the bible literally.

[Metis]

It's not how you interpret ethics from the bible its how you use them.

There is something to be said about how you act, no matter what you believe. For instance, Mormonism has to be just about the weirdest major branch of Christianity and the Mormons of the past could be pretty ruthless people. However, the modern Mormons that I've met are pretty much the epitome of American family values. As someone once said, "They will nice you to death."

[Dolan]

you take yourself too seriously for that

Bruh, I was a Pupinia Stewart fan until she got off meth and stopped doing vids, of course I'm as serious as they come.

[farran34]

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

skimmed the thread, not going to reply intelligently since i'm watching starcraft and eating too many oreos, but i want to let you know that your discussion is actually quite interesting to me

i feel engaged in a discussion with YOU, but i don't feel the need to engage myself or my views against what Mr N may have put in writing

That's reasonable. The main reason I make statements like, "Nietzsche might say x" or "I think Nietzsche disagrees with you here" is because I do not necessarily agree with everything Nietzsche has to say on this topic, although I do not necessarily disagree with everything he says either. Part of me making this thread is for the goal of helping me understand Nietzsche more, that is hearing other's responses to Nietzsche and pondering how he might have replied. If you find the time I would be very interested to hear more of your thoughts on my previous post.

[farran34]

I've thought a lot about "free will" and to what extent we humans actually possess it.

First of all, we have physical limitations; there are just certain events that are beyond our ability to control, although science and technology are broadening the scope of our abilities daily.

What is more interesting to me, however, are the things that someone could do but won't do, even if they might want to. We see psychosomatic blocks in medicine from time to time where there is nothing physically wrong with the patient but they still cannot see, hear, move, etc. These are rare and extreme cases but aren't there also more common instances of lack of free will?

Let's say that you have always dreamed of doing something that you really wanted to do but that things always "got in the way" and thwarted your plans. Do you really have the ability to do this thing? If we never seem to be able goad ourselves into actually doing something can we really say that we can actually do it? The saying "stuck in a rut" and this may have more truth to it than most think. Objects at the bottom of the rut are in a lower relative energy state than those outside it. It's oftentimes easier to just "go with the flow" than it is to break through the wall of the rut and go your own way.

Since I am a Christian, I hold firmly to the belief that we have libertarian free-will. If I were not a Christian, and say a reductive materialist, I would think the notion of libertarian free-will to be incoherent. Obviously not all atheists are reductive materialists, but I think determinism should be the default position for naturalism, and anyone who is a naturalist and not a determinist should have a strong argument for their reasoning that allows them to deny determinism.

[farran34]

I know that this is all based on the assumption that God is dead, but if God is the Holy Spirit (he is) and being that God is an ascended entity (that is to say "higher than us") I don't think God can really die. Is what he is saying that our beliefs in Christianity and its ethics essentially degrading? That metaphorically God is dying?

When Nietzsche says God is dead, he does not mean that God existed at one point and then died. Nietzsche tends to describe things in peculiar, clever ways which can make things both more interesting and ambiguous. In this statement, Nietzsche means that belief in God is no longer respectable or held by the majority of intellectuals.

Due to me not wanting to my laziness and lack of desire to tediously quote everything which I want to respond to in the next part of your post, I will just bold my responses.

As a Christian myself (dnt h8) I believe that the bible is not meant to be perceived literally, simply because some of it is a bit far-fetched (an understatement). We are meant to perceive the general ideals and context, just like the morals in Aesops fables. Christian ethics are even taught, at least in my curriculum as a subset of general ethics.

I have thought much about how one ought to interpret scripture (I am also a Christian), as this is a very important issue for Christians. Your statement, the bible "is not meant to be perceived literally" is too ambiguous to do me any good in understanding your view. Almost no Christians interpret the bible "literally", although some have a much more rigid, conservative interpretation than others.

==Ethics have always been seperate from beliefs== What do you mean by this

For instance the ten commandments:

I am the lord thy God -- but of an exception here
Thou shalt have no other gods -- again, pretty much having one belief is common among religions.
No graven images or likenesses --- Don't worship idols, like its pretty unhealthy to have a shrine in your wardrobe to Kylie Jenner.
Not take the Lord's name in vain -- language please
Remember the sabbath day --- Respect national holidays and traditions (not sure how you got national holdiays or traditions out of this)
Honour thy father and thy mother -- Love your parents
Thou shalt not kill -- This one is pretty common, don't murder anyone.
Thou shalt not commit adultery -- Unless you're Bill Clinton (or donald trump )
Thou shalt not steal -- Don't steal stuff, again pretty common.
Thou shalt not bear false witness -- Don't lie, unless it is a white lie (Some say the bitterest truth is better than a lie, I disagree) You may hold this belief, but I have no idea how you have inferred it from the 10 commandments)
Thou shalt not covet -- Don't be envious, respect what people have, and what you have. You can work to achieve anything.

Please excuse the formatting. Spacing and my grammar are not playing nice today.

[Metis]

If a moving billiard ball hits another, it will usually react in a certain way. This reaction can be described within a high degree of probability if one knows the state of the system and the amount and direction of the new forces applied. If I combine two solutions of molecules, given that I know their types and amounts and the conditions involved, I can almost always predict how they will react and what products will be formed within a high degree of probability.

We as entities are electrochemical phenomena that arise from a mammalian brain. All mammals have certain anatomical, physiological and behavioral similarities and will react in certain similar ways to the same stimuli or, if they don't, why they don't also can be explained.

The interactions of the human system with its environment are complex but given enough knowledge you can still make high-probability predictions as to how humans will usually act. Couples who have been together a long time routinely finish each other's sentences and con men and other social engineers use their knowledge of human behavior to their advantage every day. Given enough knowledge, one would reasonably expect to be able to predict nearly everything a human might think, say or do. If our behaviours can be predicted, can we then say that we actually have free will?

[JakeyBoyTH]

@farran34

notification

Ill just try and reply to you. I also hate bit blocks of text
(The numbers correlate to your bold text - apart from Donald Trump that was just really funny)

1) I mainly put this here because some critics (Notable the typical internet crossfit vegan aethist) likes to prove the bible false because of all the ridiculous stuff thats in there. I am making it blatant that I also agree a lot of the stuff is a bit of baloney - Jorah getting swallowed by a whale and then somehow getting out of said whale. It is quite ambigious I agree.

2) The Ethics that we hold as a person come from a variety of factors, including parental influences, friends and morals that we learn from society, as well as religion. The foundation of our own ethics is personal, and seperate from religtion (i.e. someone may choose to only follow 4 of the commandments - that is their choice)

3) Some people celebrate the sabbath as a holiday. It is a tradition in some societies to take sunday off - as a remembrance of the sabbath.

4) Not gonna lie I couldn't remember all of them word for word. I copy+pasted a list from google.

Take from it what you will, but I think what I am trying to say, is that our own personal morality and ethics have always been seperate, and been influenced by a number of things - not just religion, but it can be/is an influence.

[Metis]

If you raise a baby beaver apart from other beavers it will still build a dam, albeit a rather poor one. The same goes for a song bird, which will sing a song that's close to that usually sung by the other males of its species.

Morality of a sort is probably an innate human behavior. The males of many species will usually fight more of a ritualized battle than an actual one when vying for a mate. Although deaths may occur, actual determined killing is reserved for obtaining food. Even in the defense of one's life the primary goal is not to kill but to prevent oneself from being killed.

You may think that you have developed a personal set of morals but they really began with your innate behaviors, which were then molded by the society in which you were raised.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you keep saying that morality and ethics are separate. The Latin "mores" and Greek "ethos" refer to the same thing, namely the accepted customs, values and beliefs of a group of people. If I say that an act was ethical it's the same as if I said it was moral.

[_venox_]

Whatever you believe in, it doesn't really matter as long as it helps you in a way (e.g. in having positive outlook on life). Utility of beliefs is important as well, else we lose sight of the importance that's in the discussion. I think the world is deterministic, that's also why I think it's not. If the world was deterministic in nature, I don't think having a deterministic and accepting attitude in life worse than thinking you have free will. If the world was not deterministic in nature, believing in free will is actually true. Also keep an open mind in mind (fallibilism).

[Laurence Drake]

The best life philosophy:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN_94PYPPdk[/video]

[Goodspeed]

I'd tell him he's right, there is no objective morality and God is indeed dead. But it's hard to be impressed by these ideas because they seem so obvious now.

[farran34]

Whatever you believe in, it doesn't really matter as long as it helps you in a way (e.g. in having positive outlook on life). Utility of beliefs is important as well, else we lose sight of the importance that's in the discussion. I think the world is deterministic, that's also why I think it's not. If the world was deterministic in nature, I don't think having a deterministic and accepting attitude in life worse than thinking you have free will. If the world was not deterministic in nature, believing in free will is actually true. Also keep an open mind in mind (fallibilism).

I don't really agree with you here, but I understand what you are saying. I just cant bring myself to the conclusion that the content of my beliefs doesn't matter as long as I have prudential reasons to for holding the belief.

[musketjr]

Since I am a Christian, I hold firmly to the belief that we have libertarian free-will. If I were not a Christian, and say a reductive materialist, I would think the notion of libertarian free-will to be incoherent. Obviously not all atheists are reductive materialists, but I think determinism should be the default position for naturalism, and anyone who is a naturalist and not a determinist should have a strong argument for their reasoning that allows them to deny determinism.

Look, my friend, at what academia has done to you! how it has led you - at first unwittingly, but now you should know better! - and moulded you, like an apprentice to a mentor, to take on its ways, believing on the former's authority that they are the best! And now you, too, propagate philosophy in this stilted, jargon-inundated way, following all the while the convention of sieving any thought you might have through another's inherited dogma. "Determinism", you pronounce, like a radio presenter announces the time of day, "informs naturalism"; yet this impressive speech doesn't discuss philosophy - it shows its ruin, when construed in your manner.

Are you not ashamed at what you have done? Perhaps not, but then you would be if you knew what philosophy ought to be used for. Certainly not for these semantic games of yours, nor too for an accreditation or exam success. No, philosophy arises when we look to consider our lives and most acutely when we fall on necessity to seek help for ourselves through the difficulties of life. The tool we each have as our guide and counsel, that is philosophy. "Reductive materialism", you say! but what do you mean, and why not say that instead? "Libertarian free will", you exclaim! but I protest: why obfuscate? "Naturalism!", and "determinism!", these are your regal pronouncements! but what are you doing when you use philosophy like this?

You have already fallen into the trap, that much is clear. Here then is your opportunity: to see it for what it is, reject its disguise, and seek instead true philosophy. What do I look for? What is it? Does it have a name? It accords with innate propensities we each have, so that you will know it when you see it, you will feel it when you touch it, and you will recognise it when you hear it.