|
Post by uz on Sept 10, 2011 17:48:24 GMT -5
What do you define as faithful, following a text?
|
|
|
Post by fishcake on Sept 10, 2011 19:47:27 GMT -5
Nihilism is a contradictory concept. If nothing matters and everything is pointless then the very definition of nihilism defeats the purpose of its existence. I don't take Nieztche very seriously, I think he had something to say and said it because he was allowed to do so but other than "god is dead" I don't know what he really wants to say. He gets very close to making a point but doesn't. Just because he has a cult following doesn't mean anything. Christianity is too broad a religion I think to discuss as a single subject. Also you have to be clear if you're talking about the church, parishioners, old or new testament etc. In more simple words, like everything else, religions are good at some things and bad at others. Fascinating topic though.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 19:50:48 GMT -5
None of em. They are all totalitarian. I prefer Vendanta Buddhism or Hinduism (if I were faithful): You're not Donnie, but since you answered by mentioning those religions, I suppose you are in agreement with their philosophy. So are you vegetarian, then?
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 19:56:12 GMT -5
Nihilism is a contradictory concept. If nothing matters and everything is pointless then the very definition of nihilism defeats the purpose of its existence. I don't take Nieztche very seriously, I think he had something to say and said it because he was allowed to do so but other than "god is dead" I don't know what he really wants to say. He gets very close to making a point but doesn't. Just because he has a cult following doesn't mean anything. Christianity is too broad a religion I think to discuss as a single subject. Also you have to be clear if you're talking about the church, parishioners, old or new testament etc. In more simple words, like everything else, religions are good at some things and bad at others. Fascinating topic though. Have you even read Nietzsche? He has influenced dozens of philosophers and psychologists. Not everything in Nietzsche was rebellious. Freud based his thesis on dreams on Nietzsche's thoughts on the subject. Do you even know what he meant when he said that "god is dead"? And Nietzsche didn't promote nihilism. I don't know why Melty had to fvcking spread that misconception. It just makes people like you confused.
|
|
|
Post by fishcake on Sept 10, 2011 20:05:00 GMT -5
Some of the concepts that Freud came up with were pretty messed up too so it makes sense that he was influenced by him. By the term "god is dead" he wanted to say that God is an illusion in people's minds but if it is an illusion how can it be dead if he was never alive? Distribute a pen, a paper and a false sense of importance and everyone becomes a philosopher.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 10, 2011 20:11:29 GMT -5
I will argue that the usage of the saying "God is Dead" was meant to describe the current human situation. He explained how God abandoned us for we were destroying ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 20:14:00 GMT -5
No, that's not what he was saying. He was saying that humanity had reached a point in evolution where man no longer needed to believe in god. He predicted that the modern man would grow nihilistic, since religion would no longer give him hope for an afterlife, so life itself would become useless. But a new man would overcome nihilism--a so-called superman--and he would elevate humanity to a higher level.
It seems that you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 10, 2011 20:24:28 GMT -5
At the time when he first spoke about "Gob is Dead" he was a firm beleiver in "God", in fact he conteplated his whole life why "God" abandoned him. Nietzsche was ill most of his life, and his early stages of writing contained many dark views a lot of which is depressing. Throughout the years of his writings you notice the transition in mood and feel.
You don't seem to know much about him as the person he was, so pipe down.
This all came after in the later years.
|
|
|
Post by fishcake on Sept 10, 2011 20:32:09 GMT -5
That's the confusing part, whether or not Nieztche was talking about God abandoning people during his own time or in the past and if so when because humanity has always been destroying itself. If GOd was there at one point what made him finally decide to quit? he comes off as very arrogant and sure of himself when he doesn't know for a fact for example that 'this' is all there is whereas in Christianity the concept of 'faith' is not foolproof. Both are beliefs, but Nieztche's beliefs are kind of useless except for he makes some good points about the superman but it's not something people before him or during his time wouldn't have figured out.
|
|
|
Post by fishcake on Sept 10, 2011 20:34:30 GMT -5
No, that's not what he was saying. He was saying that humanity had reached a point in evolution where man no longer needed to believe in god. He predicted that the modern man would grow nihilistic, since religion would no longer give him hope for an afterlife, so life itself would become useless. But a new man would overcome nihilism--a so-called superman--and he would elevate humanity to a higher level. It seems that you don't know what you're talking about. That's your interpretation of it and it seems you dont understand the concept of superman which is basically what people have been doing for centuries which is change and progress.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 10, 2011 20:37:19 GMT -5
The basis of the "superman" was when one found their essense within their own existence, would you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 20:39:23 GMT -5
At the time when he first spoke about "Gob is Dead" he was a firm beleiver in "God", in fact he conteplated his whole life why "God" abandoned him. Nietzsche was ill most of his life, and his early stages of writing contained many dark views a lot of which is depressing. Throughout the years of his writings you notice the transition in mood and feel. You don't seem to know much about him as the person he was, so pipe down. You are wrong on all accounts. You either make things up or you confuse him with a different person. There is a third alternative, but I'll rather not mention it. Nietzsche was influenced by Spinoza and his view on pantheism. Nietzsche did not believe in god when he wrote that "god is dead" and consequently, he did not believe that god abandoned him. Your interpretation of what he meant when he said that is incorrect. As for his various illnesses, they did not affect his rationale. This happened much later in his life. There's no way you have read anything of what he wrote, apart from perhaps some citations posted on the internet, so I find it laughable that you try to convince us of otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 10, 2011 20:42:11 GMT -5
Neitsche beleiving that God abandoned him was a pinacle stage in his life.
You seem overly sensitive about this topic, take a chill pill, we're here to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 20:42:13 GMT -5
That's the confusing part, whether or not Nieztche was talking about God abandoning people during his own time or in the past and if so when because humanity has always been destroying itself. If GOd was there at one point what made him finally decide to quit? he comes off as very arrogant and sure of himself when he doesn't know for a fact for example that 'this' is all there is whereas in Christianity the concept of 'faith' is not foolproof. Both are beliefs, but Nieztche's beliefs are kind of useless except for he makes some good points about the superman but it's not something people before him or during his time wouldn't have figured out. It's confusing for people like you and Uz, but he was not talking about god abandoning him or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 20:43:51 GMT -5
No, that's not what he was saying. He was saying that humanity had reached a point in evolution where man no longer needed to believe in god. He predicted that the modern man would grow nihilistic, since religion would no longer give him hope for an afterlife, so life itself would become useless. But a new man would overcome nihilism--a so-called superman--and he would elevate humanity to a higher level. It seems that you don't know what you're talking about. That's your interpretation of it and it seems you dont understand the concept of superman which is basically what people have been doing for centuries which is change and progress. That's not my interpretation... it is The Interpretation. Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't read a single book that he wrote. Stop playing a wanna-be.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Sept 10, 2011 20:49:48 GMT -5
Its not THE interpretation, and you're not qualified to be talking about this subject anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 20:54:34 GMT -5
I'll tell you what. What if we agree to make a bet. We will contact a professor at a university and ask him if Nietzsche believed in God when he wrote that "god is dead". He can be a Serbian professor, if it makes you more comfortable.
If the professor--that we both agree in advance is qualified to answer this question--says that Nietzsche did believe in god when he wrote that "god is dead"--as you claim, I will delete my account on Illyria and never return. However, if the professor says that Nietzsche did not believe in any god when he wrote that "god is dead"--as I claim, you will delete your account on Illyria and never set your foot here again.
I will await your answer.
|
|
|
Post by fishcake on Sept 10, 2011 20:56:14 GMT -5
That's your interpretation of it and it seems you dont understand the concept of superman which is basically what people have been doing for centuries which is change and progress. That's not my interpretation... it is The Interpretation. Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't read a single book that he wrote. Stop playing a wanna-be. I have only read what they made us read in school because I've never really been interested in him. What he means by the superman is something we all know which is that progress is good. And if 'higher levels' require constant change that really is the only interpretation of the superman. I don't know why you're being so defensive. I doubt Neiztche would care what your opinions of him were, I doubt he even cared himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he was on medication when he wrote most of his nonsense. The idea that all of humanity can be raised to an equal high level is impossibly unreal especially since it defeats the purpose of progress that Nieztche initially addresses.
|
|
|
Post by sandokan on Sept 10, 2011 20:58:23 GMT -5
Hello, and by way of a quick introduction, I am Sandokan, the Tiger of Mompracem. There is a certain irony that we are talking about Nietzsche, nihilism and OverMan in a thread about the physics of the BigBang and possibility of multi-dimensional-multiple-universes. Nietzsche is a very misunderstood philosopher, I certainly won't lay claim to having understood him. One way to understand my partial reading of his many aphorisms is that he found a new "religion" in his "eternal recurrence" and his prophet was the "OverMan". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietzsche(My salutation) Love is the Law, Love under Will.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 10, 2011 21:00:03 GMT -5
That's not my interpretation... it is The Interpretation. Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you haven't read a single book that he wrote. Stop playing a wanna-be. I have only read what they made us read in school because I've never really been interested in him. What he means by the superman is something we all know which is that progress is good. And if 'higher levels' require constant change that really is the only interpretation of the superman. I don't know why you're being so defensive. I doubt Neiztche would care what your opinions of him were, I doubt he even cared himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he was on medication when he wrote most of his nonsense. The idea that all of humanity can be raised to an equal high level is impossibly unreal especially since it defeats the purpose of progress that Nieztche initially addresses. Man, he never argued that all humanity can be raised to an equal level. Where the hell do you get this stuff? A month ago, that clown, Hugo Chaves, compared himself to Nietzsche's Zarathustra and his own "Socialist Man". He made all the scholars laugh with his poor interpretation of Thus Spach Zarathustra. And now you and Uz post this made-up stuff.
|
|