Thoughts of a sober mind

Can (MAN-MADE) institutions govern man?

Outside the realm of God, should morals exist and if so, what would be the basis and on what authority?

I see that you have decided to read this article. I would like you think about the above two questions as you go through the writ. Though it’s rather long, I promise not to bore you.

I have always wondered:

'What are the origins of the human conscience?'

Is conscience an innate entity, that is are we born with it or is it acquired/ learned? Because I am from the school of thought that holds the view that man is born a blank slate, I choose to believe that just like language the human conscious is a learned faculty. It (conscience) is the collective teachings that a society deems acceptable behavior and instills these in its children.  Though it pains me to include this school of thought, I shall nevertheless touch on it since I assume most of you will identify with it.

There exists pseudo-Scientific field that will argue that morality, and to some degree conscience, are a result of millions and millions of years of evolution and that the morality we have as things stand is innate. These people believe that morality comes from empathy and altruism. Somehow infants are born with these human qualities just as the linguist Noam Chomsky believed that there is special faculty in human beings that enables us to learn language. This particular biological device he termed Language Acquisition Device (LAD) located in our brains. Enough with academic crap, I promised not to bore you and I intent to keep my word. Let’s delve into real life issues.

Not so long ago Slavery was considered to be moral by those who practiced it. The Scramble for Africa is a wonderful example we can use to uproot this fallacy. If enslavement of the entire continent of Africa was a moral undertaking a few centuries ago, how have the Western civilization suddenly shifted its moral campus and say slavery is despicable? Is evolution this fast that under a few centuries we can go to?

Slavery is wrong from slavery is acceptable

The father of evolution Charles Darwin himself said "Nature does not Jump”, how would we then explain this amazing leap? Yes, in evolutionary terms this would be considered quite a gargantuan leap.

Here is a scenario:

The Chinese eat Dog, Some Africans eat bats, some people just eat ordinary meat and some are vegetarians. The Africans and the vegetarian are most likely to say it is immoral for the Chinese to slay and eat dogs. They would say it is an abomination. The Chinese of course may see absolutely nothing wrong with eating dog meat. It is their way of life. This applies to the Africans too; Bat meat may be their very way of life and see nothing immoral about consuming bats. To the vegetarian all this people are despicable. Now ask yourself, who is wrong and who is right? Is there even a right and wrong to begin with? As Friedrich Nietzsche has eloquently stated,

'You have your way. I have my way. And, as for the right way, the correct way and the only way, it does not exist. "

I am of the opinion that there should not be moral absolutes, the ones that exist are there merely on arbitrary terms. They are arbitrary creations of our subjective selves. Right and wrong I would venture to say were created whimsically. Amazing how it has crept up on us because it became the basis of the very rules we live by in this era. Is there a standard of what moral behavior should be?

A man's conscience is shaped by the society he is brought up in. It is therefore composed of what another man considers to be good or bad moral behavior. We are not born with the ability to distinguish right from wrong nor it is a God given entity, but we acquire it. What can be deduced from this is that the human conscience is therefore an artificial entity. It is man-made, made for man and it is made to control the very same man. Society therefore dictates what should and what shouldn’t be moral, what should be right and what should be wrong. It is then passed on, not in the form of DNA but via social interactions. Morality therefore is unnatural. If there were no human interference and we were left to fend for ourselves in complete isolation, then you would see nature in its truest form. This, what we have here is artificialized existence. It is edited, altered and compromised with human presence.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Thoughts-of-a-sober-mind-20150310

---

Without fear we would not aspire to be moral citizens. A man who has suddenly realized that a Supreme Being is nothing but a far and wide fallacy designed to restrain him may soon come to the epiphany that he is next in rank and then thinks himself to be God. What is to stop him? He has just realized that God is nothing but was the figment of his ancestors' imaginations. What is to stop him from constructing a nuclear device and putting an end to an entire country for the mere fun of it?

It’s a scary thought isn't it?

The greatest constraint for man not to cause harm is because man is fearful. With fear removed what is to stop man from making himself a God, think about it, doesn't it send chills to your spine? Should this man be an atheist having disregarded his conscience, what could really stop him? What is to stop him from unleashing hell to his fellow man?

If this man is an atheist and has realized his conscience is man-made and was designed to restrain him but continue to let it (conscience) rule over him then he is weak and not strong-willed. This man I would consider to still be a prisoner, imprisoned within himself by other selves, that is his own conscious and morality disallow him free will. But worry not dear reader because very few men can out-will the will of society. You are somehow safe from this sort of man because society has made sure he never gets to exist.

A truly free man would set off an atomic bomb killing millions and have no ethical qualms about it whatsoever, that right there is absolute freedom. But because we are not truly free, we do not do that. We are forced to abide by rules we made up ourselves. Therefore people who claim to be free-willed are dishonest with themselves.

Nihilistic lamentation

There is no such thing as free will! That which I presume to be freedom cannot be because it is the only one I have ever known. I was never presented with an alternative. I did not have the luxury of choice; I was born into this, this miserable existence called life. They (Humans) have imposed their freedom, conscience, rules and morality in me while I was most vulnerable, while I was an infant. Because I was naive and was only starting to make sense of the world I gobbled it up not knowing that this was a systematic method of programing me to behave in a manner deemed fit by the collective others. I had not known they were building a prison within me for me. I may as well not exist because not existing I would not have known this misery that is called life.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Friedrich Nietzsche

The truth is not one person in in the world owns themselves; the way things are set up humanity has made sure that not a single man has free will. In the end man, is but a slave, a prisoner and a property of the collective humanity.

You should by now be asking yourself what does this mean in the grand scheme of things. Well, it means that outside the realm of God, real or made-up, everything is permissible. It means there is no right and wrong. The nihilistic/ atheistic Nietzsche puts it this way:

"Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt."

That would mean there is nothing wrong with what Hitler , Bin Laden , Mugabe , Khan , Zuma , Apartheid, Xenophobia , Colonialism , World war 1 & 2 and whatever person or heinous event you can think of that could be said to have been abominable or good. It was just what it was. But because we have built our own delusional reality, we are hurt by it and have the audacity to label things/ acts ‘wrong’.

I DO NOT MEAN TO QUESTION MORALITY NOR AUTHORITY AS I DEEM THEM TO BE NECESSARY FOR  LAW AND ORDER  TO REIGN IN A SOCIETY ; BUT THEN AGAIN I WAS CONDITIONED TO SEE THINGS THAT WAY , THEN IT'S REALLY NOT ME TALKING IS IT ? . IT IS YOU, I DO NOT EVEN EXIST REMEMBER?

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Thoughts-of-a-sober-mind-20150310

---

Quote:

Nietzsche Was Right: There Is No Right and Wrong

That's rights!!!

No, wait... that's wrong!

No, wait....




Nietzsche was sure he was right when he said there is no right or wrong and anyone who thought otherwise was sure to be wrong. 

No wonder his mind collapsed at the sight of a suffering horse ( a wrong).i

"My News" seems to distort Nietzsche for its own ends. It is right that Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality. However, he doesn't at any point claim we should be nihilists and despair. In fact, he was trying to encourage the opposite effect.

Quote:

>>1562439 (OP) That dude is not wrong. i had that debate once in my head. What if there is no God, what if there is no right and wrong. I would probaly do the same as the iluminati and try to get as much power as posible to get immunity from criminal persecution. I would, trick, steal, murder, … (Become a banker and politican) just to get more power and just to be clear, laws that goverments make are worth poo. Why should i bother paying taxes? Why should I follow any law when I know how to bypass persecution? poo, i would be a really awful person just because THAT IS NESSEARY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

http://8ch.net/pol/res/1562439.html#1570451

Phil Robertson uses 'rape story' to denounce atheists

So what he's effectively saying is that the only thing keeping him from being a rapist and a murderer is his belief in a god? The HUGE flaw in Robertson's "reasoning" is that he does not believe that people are capable of being moral and ethical without being terrified into it by threats of a vengeful god and a horrifying hell. He equates lack of belief in god with lack of belief in right and wrong.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/24/decapitate_her_head_off_phil_robertsons_vile_message_to_atheists/#comments

“Decapitate her head off”: Phil Robertson’s vile message to atheists

"You're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun"

At the Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast on Friday morning, Phil Robertson waxed on uninterrupted about some kind of grotesque fantasy situation in which a family of atheists is bound, gagged and raped. That the “Duck Dynasty” clan leader has a national platform upon which to spew bullshit is basically an indictment of our whole society, but that is perhaps beside the point.

“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said in the talk which was later broadcast on Christian conservative radio host Rick Wiles’ program, “Trunews.” “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him.

“Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him,” he said, “and then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now, is it dude?”

“But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.”

So Robertson is argued that no atheist has ever had something bad happen? Or that no Christian has ever had something bad happen and questioned the existence of a God that might allow something like that? Would a benevolent God allow Robertson to spend eternity unpunished?

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/24/decapitate_her_head_off_phil_robertsons_vile_message_to_atheists/

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson uses child rape to criticize atheists

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson gives shocking speech at a religious meeting using rape, murder, child rape and castration to criticize atheists

Atheists are the latest group that controversial Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson has decided to train in his cross hairs.

At a Florida prayer meeting last week, the 68-year-old used a very graphic and brutal story about murder, castration and child rape to explain the inherent problems with non-believers.

In his lucrative second career as a Christian speaker, Robertson used the hypothetical situation to illustrate whether or those who don't believe in God can know right from wrong.

The story begins with Robertson challenging his audience to make a bet with him: 'Two guys break into an atheist's home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him.'

With the unsettling scene set, Robertson carried on with his morality tale.

'Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him and then they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this?'' Robertson said. 'There's no right or wrong, now, is it dude?''

To finish off his point and leave his audience in no doubt about his point, Robertson then took relish in describing a castration.

'Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if there was something wrong with this? But you're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011807/Duck-Dynasty-s-Phil-Robertson-gives-shocking-speech-religious-meeting-using-rape-murder-child-rape-castration-criticize-atheists.html

---

vikaryan wrote on Mar 27^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Quote: >>1562439 (OP) That dude is not wrong. i had that debate once in my head. What if there is no God, what if there is no right and wrong. I would probaly do the same as the iluminati and try to get as much power as posible to get immunity from criminal persecution. I would, trick, steal, murder, … (Become a banker and politican) just to get more power and just to be clear, laws that goverments make are worth poo. Why should i bother paying taxes? Why should I follow any law when I know how to bypass persecution? poo, i would be a really awful person just because THAT IS NESSEARY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST http://8ch.net/pol/res/1562439.html#1570451 Phil Robertson uses 'rape story' to denounce atheists So what he's effectively saying is that the only thing keeping him from being a rapist and a murderer is his belief in a god? The HUGE flaw in Robertson's "reasoning" is that he does not believe that people are capable of being moral and ethical without being terrified into it by threats of a vengeful god and a horrifying hell. He equates lack of belief in god with lack of belief in right and wrong. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/24/decapitate_her_head_off_phil_robertsons_vile_message_to_atheists/#comments “Decapitate her head off”: Phil Robertson’s vile message to atheists "You're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun" http://www.salon.com/2015/03/24/decapitate_her_head_off_phil_robertsons_vile_message_to_atheists/ Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson uses child rape to criticize atheists Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson gives shocking speech at a religious meeting using rape, murder, child rape and castration to criticize atheists Atheists are the latest group that controversial Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson has decided to train in his cross hairs. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3011807/Duck-Dynasty-s-Phil-Robertson-gives-shocking-speech-religious-meeting-using-rape-murder-child-rape-castration-criticize-atheists.html

Phil Robertson uses a straw man argument to make a stupid point.

The problem with this — other than it’s somewhat disturbing the sort of things Robertson fantasizes about — is it’s a straw man depiction of what atheists think. About the only thing Robertson gets right is the fact that atheists don’t think there’s a God or Gods that’ll judge the killers for their actions. To suggest that that means we don’t think there’s such a thing as right and wrong is simply not true. I’ve yet to meet an atheist who has espoused the sincerely held belief that there is no right or wrong.

It’s not difficult to come up with a moral system that doesn’t rely on edicts from God(s) to establish right and wrong. There are several different systems of Secular Morality already. Ranging from Secular Humanism to Freethinking to Consequentialism.

On top of that, the morality depicted in the Bible is not only questionable at best, but God himself has a hard time adhering to it. At various times he’s commanded his followers to break any number of the Ten Commandments he supposedly considered so important he wrote them down for us. Apparently it’s OK to break the rules when God commands you to. In fact, if the fictional killers in Robertson’s twisted tale were acting under the orders of God I’m willing to bet that Robertson, had he some reason to believe that were indeed the case, would consider them perfectly justified in following through on them. It wouldn’t be the first time God had ordered his followers to wipe out people He considered bad (see the tale of Vengeance on the Midianites in Numbers 31: 1-47 for a great example).

People like Robertson who believe that without God to tell them right from wrong there’s no reason for them not to go around killing and raping worry me. One would hope that there’s more than just a book of fairy tales keeping these people from being monsters. Considering the truly heinous things a large number of Christians are capable of in spite of their belief that God has defined an objective morality and the threat of eternity in Hell, it would be a nightmare if they could be convinced that those things don’t exist.

http://stupidevilbastard.com/2015/03/phil-robertson-uses-a-straw-man-argument-to-make-a-stupid-point/

---

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 10:26pm:

"My News" seems to distort Nietzsche for its own ends. It is right that Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality. However, he doesn't at any point claim we should be nihilists and despair. In fact, he was trying to encourage the opposite effect.

It sent him mad and no wonder.

"Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality".

Is that right or wrong?

This is why Kierkegaard is much wiser even if not as thrilling to read.  He tells you to take a stand even if (even as) it requires a leap of faith. That way you know where you are (and can do no other). With Nietzsche, you are lost, like a schizophrenic who wants to be simultaneously in and out of the room, or as Kafka put it,"like a Cossack dance between the two houses, whereby the Cossack goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug out under him."

Soren wrote on Mar 27^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

It sent him mad and no wonder. "Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality". Is that right or wrong?

He argues this point by showing how morality changes across time and cultures.


Quote:

This is why Kierkegaard is much wiser even if not as thrilling to read.  He tells you to take a stand even if (even as) it requires a leap of faith. That way you know where you are (and can do no other). With Nietzsche, you are lost, like a schizophrenic who wants to be simultaneously in and out of the room, or as Kafka put it,"like a Cossack dance between the two houses, whereby the Cossack goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug out under him."

Nietzsche also says to make a stand. He has whole sections on trying to convince a new noble class to create values.

It's only the postmodern interpretations of Nietzsche (Derrida, Foucault etc.) that have turned Nietzsche into a maze.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 30^th, 2015 at 6:14am:

Soren wrote on Mar 27th, 2015 at 7:06pm: It sent him mad and no wonder. "Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality". Is that right or wrong? He argues this point by showing how morality changes across time and cultures. Quote: This is why Kierkegaard is much wiser even if not as thrilling to read.  He tells you to take a stand even if (even as) it requires a leap of faith. That way you know where you are (and can do no other). With Nietzsche, you are lost, like a schizophrenic who wants to be simultaneously in and out of the room, or as Kafka put it,"like a Cossack dance between the two houses, whereby the Cossack goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug out under him." Nietzsche also says to make a stand.

Make a stand on what moral ground? Why is it important to make a stand if the moral ground of your stand is completely arbitrary?

What is the moral ground of his advice to 'make a stand'? Does it have a right or wrong grounding?

Soren wrote on Mar 30^th, 2015 at 7:58am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 30th, 2015 at 6:14am: Soren wrote on Mar 27th, 2015 at 7:06pm: It sent him mad and no wonder. "Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality". Is that right or wrong? He argues this point by showing how morality changes across time and cultures. Quote: This is why Kierkegaard is much wiser even if not as thrilling to read.  He tells you to take a stand even if (even as) it requires a leap of faith. That way you know where you are (and can do no other). With Nietzsche, you are lost, like a schizophrenic who wants to be simultaneously in and out of the room, or as Kafka put it,"like a Cossack dance between the two houses, whereby the Cossack goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug out under him." Nietzsche also says to make a stand. Make a stand on what moral ground? Why is it important to make a stand if the moral ground of your stand is completely arbitrary? What is the moral ground of his advice to 'make a stand'? Does it have a right or wrong grounding?

Well, it doesn't require a 'leap of faith', as that appears even less than arbitrary. He argues for confident, self-affirming, optimistic individuals to create values. There are no 'grounds' for Nietzsche in matters of morality, except that he wants strong individuals to do the creating.

He uses the noble and/or aristocratic classes of the past as examples of people who could create affirmative values: honour, courage, valour, competition, mercy. These values, he argues, creates a happy disposition. Contrarily, the levellers - socialists, democrats, anarchists - were morbid and weary of life. Hence their desire to reduce everyone to their level.

Nietzsche never gives a solid goal for creators because that would be akin to creating another herd. He only encourages potential creators to step forward.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 30^th, 2015 at 7:00pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2015 at 7:58am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 30th, 2015 at 6:14am: Soren wrote on Mar 27th, 2015 at 7:06pm: It sent him mad and no wonder. "Nietzsche claims (repeatedly) that there is no objective right and wrong in matters of morality". Is that right or wrong? He argues this point by showing how morality changes across time and cultures. Quote: This is why Kierkegaard is much wiser even if not as thrilling to read.  He tells you to take a stand even if (even as) it requires a leap of faith. That way you know where you are (and can do no other). With Nietzsche, you are lost, like a schizophrenic who wants to be simultaneously in and out of the room, or as Kafka put it,"like a Cossack dance between the two houses, whereby the Cossack goes on scraping and throwing aside the earth with the heels of his boots until his grave is dug out under him." Nietzsche also says to make a stand. Make a stand on what moral ground? Why is it important to make a stand if the moral ground of your stand is completely arbitrary? What is the moral ground of his advice to 'make a stand'? Does it have a right or wrong grounding? Well, it doesn't require a 'leap of faith', as that appears even less than arbitrary. He argues for confident, self-affirming, optimistic individuals to create values. There are no 'grounds' for Nietzsche in matters of morality, except that he wants strong individuals to do the creating. He uses the noble and/or aristocratic classes of the past as examples of people who could create affirmative values: honour, courage, valour, competition, mercy. These values, he argues, creates a happy disposition. Contrarily, the levellers - socialists, democrats, anarchists - were morbid and weary of life. Hence their desire to reduce everyone to their level. Nietzsche never gives a solid goal for creators because that would be akin to creating another herd. He only encourages potential creators to step forward.

For someone who was big on the re-valuation of all values, Nietzsche was startingly anachronistic. He wanted to re-valuate all values along the lines of Bronze Age, archaic Greece (he was a professor of classics by 24, after all). His idea on the eternal recurrence may have been a ruse to cover what he would have seen as anachronism.


The 'potential creators' who stepped forward give him no credit at all.

Nietzsche brought German up to par with French as a language of philosophy with a poetic, creative heart. Beyond that, the value of what he wrote is in your ability to creatively abandon it.
You repay Nietzsche poorly, as he said, if you remain merely his pupil.

There is plenty to disagree with Nietzsche on, I agree. But in regards to his comments on equality and those pushing for it, he is spot on.

If you grow up with empathy, then you will be unlikely to require instruction from society.
This where true (IMO) consciousness and conscience develops.

The bible states "Do unto others...", however, without the ability to, and the habit of putting this into practice, those words are pointless. Especially when there are so many conflicting actions within biblical instruction that themselves render those words pointless.

A baby will inherently know how to suckle and it will want to learn how to walk and talk without outside instruction. It will respond well to encouragement without conscious thought, and it will communicate it's needs via crying.
To achieve empathy as an adult, I am of the opinion that they must be taught at a young age how to share and how to imagine themselves in the shoes of others. Without this skill, they will find it difficult to function and find personal freedom within society.

I am of the opinion that the vast majority of tools required for personal freedom are developed at a young age. By 'personal freedom', I mean living by one's own judgments and desires.

People are inherently selfish I agree; we generally assume ourselves to be that little more deserving than the next person. However, to covet all personal wants and desires and to constantly require stimulation via unconscious actions will not bring about a long term feeling of freedom IMO. Especially when you're locked up  ;D

Nietzsche may well have been right, but I don't see why truth, or even a stab at it, has to be so long winded other than to satisfy academics.

issuevoter wrote on Apr 6^th, 2015 at 8:51pm:

Nietzsche may well have been right, but I don't see why truth, or even a stab at it, has to be so long winded other than to satisfy academics.

Academics abandoned truth back in the 1960s. Now we have "narratives", "discourses" or "power structures".

issuevoter wrote on Apr 6^th, 2015 at 8:51pm:

Nietzsche may well have been right, but I don't see why truth, or even a stab at it, has to be so long winded other than to satisfy academics.

He may have been right for his particular situation,  and yes I agree that the more explanation required, the more he needs to answer to himself.
Humanity doesn't do well relying on self-serving dimwits who lack conscience.

How could he be right if there is no right and wrong?

:o

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

How could he be right if there is no right and wrong? :o

;D ;D ;D
It's funny 'cause it's true.

Obviously there are right and wrong ways in regards to the welfare of the human race.

Amadd wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Soren wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 11:01am: How could he be right if there is no right and wrong? :o ;D ;D ;D It's funny 'cause it's true. Obviously there are right and wrong ways in regards to the welfare of the human race.

Nah.

Its just a malicious rumour.

Spread by 'others', to try to elicit some expected benefit to others.        :P

Right,       ...and wrong ?

Nah, such a concept, is a conspiracy, to try to control human behaviour,      and thereby limit our human potential.




Yadda sighs.

Then at least some of the religious and non-religious can agree on this one that Nietzsche was a dickhead?  ;D

I'll refer to my mother, who told me when I was quite young .. there is no right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so.

I've thought about that quite a lot over the years. I came to agree. It is all relative to the circumstances. :)

I have no knowledge of Nietzsche but no matter.
Good people, which is fundamentally most people, know what is right & wrong when it comes down to it.
That is not to say they know the answer to everything in an academic context for example. But in terms of moral issues or the law of survival, they know what is right.
This I believe.

Emma wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 1:43am:

there is no right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so. I've thought about that quite a lot over the years. I came to agree. It is all relative to the circumstances. :)

Ah, there is no right or wrong, only relativised self-regard and self-referential subjectivity.
But it is wrong.
You could not have a justice system if this tosh was actually true, or a functioning transport or education or  industrial system.

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 10:20am:

Emma wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 1:43am: there is no right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so. I've thought about that quite a lot over the years. I came to agree. It is all relative to the circumstances. :) Ah, there is no right or wrong, only relativised self-regard and self-referential subjectivity. But it is wrong. You could not have a justice system if this tosh was actually true, or a functioning transport or education or  industrial system.

This is so.
Perhaps ..I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms.
For example, I think locking up refugees like POWs is wrong, but Abbott and Co. think it is right.
I think freedom of choice is right, but Abbott and Co. think it is wrong.

I think owning weapons for personal protection is right, but others think it is wrong.

Get the idea.?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 7^th, 2015 at 6:00am:

issuevoter wrote on Apr 6th, 2015 at 8:51pm: Nietzsche may well have been right, but I don't see why truth, or even a stab at it, has to be so long winded other than to satisfy academics. Academics abandoned truth back in the 1960s. Now we have "narratives", "discourses" or "power structures".

I prefer references

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

Quote: Nietzsche Was Right: There Is No Right and Wrong That's rights!!! No, wait... that's wrong! No, wait.... Nietzsche was sure he was right when he said there is no right or wrong and anyone who thought otherwise was sure to be wrong.  No wonder his mind collapsed at the sight of a suffering horse (a wrong)

Is that why he died a pathetic and insane reclusive nutter?

Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on.

Emma wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:20am: Emma wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 1:43am: there is no right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so. I've thought about that quite a lot over the years. I came to agree. It is all relative to the circumstances. :) Ah, there is no right or wrong, only relativised self-regard and self-referential subjectivity. But it is wrong. You could not have a justice system if this tosh was actually true, or a functioning transport or education or  industrial system. This is so. Perhaps ..I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms. For example, I think locking up refugees like POWs is wrong, but Abbott and Co. think it is right. I think freedom of choice is right, but Abbott and Co. think it is wrong. I think owning weapons for personal protection is right, but others think it is wrong. Get the idea.?

I think it is a good example of contemporary narcissism. There is an element of purported generosity and open-mindedness to it but in reality it is faked.
It is really an inability to accept that you may be wrong and judging things by your own lights may not be the best way.   Take your own sign off, for example. Piss off , please, you say, and then post "I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms".


The worst thing about this narcissism, though, is that it relativises good arguments just as much as it does bad ones and so there is no accepted and shared grounds of reasoning that would allow the distinction.

And if we do not have a shared, common ground of discourse whereby ideas can be weighed and judged, total fragmentation and atomisation of society is just around the corner.

But for narcissists that is a price worth paying. To them any price is worth paying.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on.

Not a thing you can say if you accept what is nothing more than a linguistic paradox that he was taken in by: there is no right or wrong.

He also said that there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, which is the same sort of elegant-looking quip that appeals to the young and young at heart but which  turns out to be a load of nonsense.

Johnson refuted Bishop Berkeley's similar relativising attempts by kicking a stone, demonstrating that facts, like material objects, exist. Nietzsche didn't read Boswell.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:27am:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 12:56pm: Quote: Nietzsche Was Right: There Is No Right and Wrong That's rights!!! No, wait... that's wrong! No, wait.... Nietzsche was sure he was right when he said there is no right or wrong and anyone who thought otherwise was sure to be wrong.  No wonder his mind collapsed at the sight of a suffering horse (a wrong) Is that why he died a pathetic and insane reclusive nutter?

Well, that is imposed hindsight I couldn't resist. Actually he was a syphilitic and that's what made him mad and eventually killed him.
But a suffering horse breaking his heart is both a deeply moving event and testament to his solidly humane and good qualities as a person - and also a tragically telling refutation of his lucid ideas.
I have taken to heart only one of his many excellent aphorisms: a pupil repays his master poorly if he remains a pupil.
So I am not a pupil of Nietzsche.
And am.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:09pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:27am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 12:56pm: Quote: Nietzsche Was Right: There Is No Right and Wrong That's rights!!! No, wait... that's wrong! No, wait.... Nietzsche was sure he was right when he said there is no right or wrong and anyone who thought otherwise was sure to be wrong.  No wonder his mind collapsed at the sight of a suffering horse (a wrong) Is that why he died a pathetic and insane reclusive nutter? Well, that is imposed hindsight I couldn't resist. Actually he was a syphilitic and that's what made him mad and eventually killed him. But a suffering horse breaking his heart is both a deeply moving event and testament to his solidly humane and good qualities as a person - and also a tragically telling refutation of his lucid ideas. I have taken to heart only one of his many excellent aphorisms: a pupil repays his master poorly if he remains a pupil. So I am not a pupil of Nietzsche. And am.

:)

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on. Not a thing you can say if you accept what is nothing more than a linguistic paradox that he was taken in by: there is no right or wrong. He also said that there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, which is the same sort of elegant-looking quip that appeals to the young and young at heart but which  turns out to be a load of nonsense. Johnson refuted Bishop Berkeley's similar relativising attempts by kicking a stone, demonstrating that facts, like material objects, exist. Nietzsche didn't read Boswell.

Given that morality has changed over time, a point he shows in On the Genealogy of Morals, it is hard to argue a case for objective, absolute morality.

Nietzsche's point could be refuted by his own hand - that there are only interpretations and not facts - but this would only reaffirm his stance that morality isn't stagnant.

He doesn't say an unequal society can be proven objectively; he can only argue the point that it's preferable. And he does so by arguing that it's the artists, great statesmen, thinkers, and leaders that make cultural greatness. Equality leads to the bottom dwellers, who create nothing and inspire no one, deciding everyone should be equal to them.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:03pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 7:06pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on. Not a thing you can say if you accept what is nothing more than a linguistic paradox that he was taken in by: there is no right or wrong. He also said that there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, which is the same sort of elegant-looking quip that appeals to the young and young at heart but which  turns out to be a load of nonsense. Johnson refuted Bishop Berkeley's similar relativising attempts by kicking a stone, demonstrating that facts, like material objects, exist. Nietzsche didn't read Boswell. Given that morality has changed over time, a point he shows in On the Genealogy of Morals, it is hard to argue a case for objective, absolute morality. Nietzsche's point could be refuted by his own hand - that there are only interpretations and not facts - but this would only reaffirm his stance that morality isn't stagnant.

Morality is NOT changing. Antigone, the Iliad, the story of the taming of Enkidu, the Bible, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Julius Caesar, etc would be meaningless to us if morality was really changing over time.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Emma wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:58pm: Soren wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:20am: Emma wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 1:43am: there is no right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so. I've thought about that quite a lot over the years. I came to agree. It is all relative to the circumstances. :) Ah, there is no right or wrong, only relativised self-regard and self-referential subjectivity. But it is wrong. You could not have a justice system if this tosh was actually true, or a functioning transport or education or  industrial system. This is so. Perhaps ..I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms. For example, I think locking up refugees like POWs is wrong, but Abbott and Co. think it is right. I think freedom of choice is right, but Abbott and Co. think it is wrong. I think owning weapons for personal protection is right, but others think it is wrong. Get the idea.? I think it is a good example of contemporary narcissism. There is an element of purported generosity and open-mindedness to it but in reality it is faked. It is really an inability to accept that you may be wrong and judging things by your own lights may not be the best way.   Take your own sign off, for example. Piss off , please, you say, and then post "I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms". The worst thing about this narcissism, though, is that it relativises good arguments just as much as it does bad ones and so there is no accepted and shared grounds of reasoning that would allow the distinction. And if we do not have a shared, common ground of discourse whereby ideas can be weighed and judged, total fragmentation and atomisation of society is just around the corner.But for narcissists that is a price worth paying. To them any price is worth paying.

Soren, we have already turned that corner. Look around you, and realise this is so.

Right or wrong no longer exists in our reality. Australian 'culture' shows this is true. Is it wrong? is it right?

No-one really knows, and most people simply don't care anymore.
Morality? Depends on who has power. Power does not equal morality. I think morality is a harmful concept, because it is based on social mores.

  Ethics , on the other hand, holds more gravitas, but no-one talks about ethics either. We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion, not fact.

Emma wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 10:06pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:59pm: Emma wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 9:58pm: Soren wrote on Jul 1st, 2015 at 10:20am: Emma wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 1:43am: there is no right or wrong. Only thinking makes it so. I've thought about that quite a lot over the years. I came to agree. It is all relative to the circumstances. :) Ah, there is no right or wrong, only relativised self-regard and self-referential subjectivity. But it is wrong. You could not have a justice system if this tosh was actually true, or a functioning transport or education or  industrial system. This is so. Perhaps ..I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms. For example, I think locking up refugees like POWs is wrong, but Abbott and Co. think it is right. I think freedom of choice is right, but Abbott and Co. think it is wrong. I think owning weapons for personal protection is right, but others think it is wrong. Get the idea.? I think it is a good example of contemporary narcissism. There is an element of purported generosity and open-mindedness to it but in reality it is faked. It is really an inability to accept that you may be wrong and judging things by your own lights may not be the best way.   Take your own sign off, for example. Piss off , please, you say, and then post "I mean everything can be right or wrong, depending on your cultural norms". The worst thing about this narcissism, though, is that it relativises good arguments just as much as it does bad ones and so there is no accepted and shared grounds of reasoning that would allow the distinction. And if we do not have a shared, common ground of discourse whereby ideas can be weighed and judged, total fragmentation and atomisation of society is just around the corner.But for narcissists that is a price worth paying. To them any price is worth paying. Soren, we have already turned that corner. Look around you, and realise this is so. Right or wrong no longer exists in our reality. Australian 'culture' shows this is true. Is it wrong? is it right? No-one really knows, and most people simply don't care anymore. Morality? Depends on who has power. Power does not equal morality. I think morality is a harmful concept, because it is based on social mores.   Ethics , on the other hand, holds more gravitas, but no-one talks about ethics either. We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion, not fact.

Emma Peel,

Whether we individually acknowledge the fact, or reject it,       we live in a world and a culture today, where increasingly, individuals reject the idea of accountability, for their choices.

e.g.
'Everyone else should be 'good',       But its OK if i break community rules [laws].'


Emma Peel,

You stated;
"Morality? Depends on who has power."

e.g.
'If i can break [ignore] the laws of society, and i can get away with it, then what is the problem!!'

Yadda says;
I'm mean, that is how wild animals behave!!




Yadda says;

There is right, and there is wrong.

And if you are a human being, then you know what the difference between the two, is.




Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.


Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.



.




What follows, the world hates ------- >

Love God....
Keep his commandments...




Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Exodus 34:6
And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7  Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Deuteronomy 5:10
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
10  And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

Deuteronomy 7:12
Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

1 Kings 8:23
And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:

Nehemiah 1:5
And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

Psalms 25:10
All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.


Is it evil, to seek God ?

Many men, say it is both futile and worthless.

That, is their choice.

sorry Yadda BUT

God is not in my reality.
Yadda wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 10:38pm:

Emma Peel, You stated; "Morality? Depends on who has power." e.g. 'If i can break [ignore] the laws of society, and i can get away with it, then what is the problem!!' Yadda says; I'm mean, that is how wild animals behave!!

Perhaps I play the 'devil's advocate' here. :)
  Personally I live by what I believe is the correct path. I do no harm, and wish no harm, on people, or animals.
Whatever their transgressions against Law.
Law is made by individuals, just as God is created by individuals. Everyone has their own idea of GOD,  as written in the Holy BOOK to which they cleve.

IMO there IS NO BOOK that reigns supreme. Your Christian faith no doubt gives you solace. I live my own life. I try the best I can, but I will NOT give over my free will to any GOD.

Don't bother preaching to me or quoting from YOUR sacerd text.
It means nothing except the animal need to belong to a particular tribe.
I am a human.

Oh .. one exception.. if someone seeks to harm me, or mine, I will stand up and do my best to negate their power.

Power does seek to rule all.. whether it is wealth or physical advantage. Or even moralistic rubbish that says everyone has to agree with me or be damned.

TOUGH. I don't agree with that. I'll stand up and fight for my right to be MYSELF.

Emma wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 11:13pm:

sorry Yadda BUT God is not in my reality. Yadda wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 10:38pm: Emma Peel, You stated; "Morality? Depends on who has power." e.g. 'If i can break [ignore] the laws of society, and i can get away with it, then what is the problem!!' Yadda says; I'm mean, that is how wild animals behave!! Perhaps I play the 'devil's advocate' here. :)   Personally I live by what I believe is the correct path. I do no harm, and wish no harm, on people, or animals. Whatever their transgressions against Law. Law is made by individuals, just as God is created by individuals. Everyone has their own idea of GOD,  as written in the Holy BOOK to which they cleve. IMO there IS NO BOOK that reigns supreme. Your Christian faith no doubt gives you solace. I live my own life. I try the best I can, but I will NOT give over my free will to any GOD. Don't bother preaching to me or quoting from YOUR sacerd text. It means nothing except the animal need to belong to a particular tribe. I am a human.

You are correct.

I can see, that i do belong to a 'tribe', of sorts,       that i am choosing to belong to a 'tribe', of sorts.




And i have always considered myself to be an individual.

And i choose to live in the world, alone.

But not alone.

Because yes, i do belong to something bigger than myself,      and that 'something', is not the 'zeitgeist' of mankind.

thanks for your reply.

But Yadda .. you choose to be alone? , but not alone ?

Yadda wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 11:32pm:

Because yes, i do belong to something bigger than myself,      and that 'something', is not the 'zeitgeist' of mankind.

Well, if not, then what? do you belong to.?..

GOD is man-made. You couldn't be more a part of the human 'zeitgeist', if you choose a GOD to rule your life.

Emma wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 11:41pm:

thanks for your reply. But Yadda .. you choose to be alone? , but not alone ? Yadda wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 11:32pm: Because yes, i do belong to something bigger than myself,      and that 'something', is not the 'zeitgeist' of mankind. Well, if not, then what? do you belong to.?..

Emma Peel,

In answer, i invite you to judge me.

Do i belong to one of the two groups - in the 'definition' presented below ?    ------- >

If yes, which one would you assign me to ?

You do not have to reveal it, if you do not want to.



Quote:

A simple definition of SANITY/INSANITY. Typically, an unrestrained sane person will act in ways which are harmless to others, and in ways which are creative, and productive [for himself, others, and society]. And typically, and conversely, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself, and, or, others around him.

'Normal' criminal behaviour - in mankind
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293669294/0#0iEmma wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 11:41pm:

GOD is man-made. You couldn't be more a part of the human 'zeitgeist', if you choose a GOD to rule your life.

If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it.

:)

My opinion does not coincide with yours.

We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion, not fact.


As to judging you..?

Not my job.
You can believe whatever you like. It is a free world after all. ;D

Emma wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 12:18am:

We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion, not fact. As to judging you..? Not my job. You can believe whatever you like. It is a free world after all. ;D

Not free, and not sane,          imo.


'We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion.'       :)




.




Psalms 23:1
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2  He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3  He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4  Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5  Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6  Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

like I said already, you are welcome to your opinion.
I would agree that , in most respects, humans act like the societies in which we live are insane. Hence humans are generally, insane.

Then, there is perspective on offer.

Look after you and your own. If there is anything left over, then look after others.

I suppose its a bit late, but I would like to address one paragraph in the OP:

“Not so long ago Slavery was considered to be moral by those who practiced it. The Scramble for Africa is a wonderful example we can use to uproot this fallacy. If enslavement of the entire continent of Africa was a moral undertaking a few centuries ago, how have the Western civilization suddenly shifted its moral campus and say slavery is despicable? Is evolution this fast that under a few centuries we can go to?”

The entire continent was not enslaved, it is hyperbole to say so.

The history of the African slave trade goes back a long way. It existed on the east coast of Africa to Arabia before European Colonialism. That was an Arab trade. If we are only going to consider West Africa to the Americas, then it needs to be understood the rounding up was done between Senegal and Sierra Leone by establish black chieftains who had adopted Islam. They sold the slaves to the European traders, mainly Spanish and Portuguese, and smaller number of others, at points on the coast. These traders rarely went into the interior where they were hopelessly outnumbered. The black Muslims almost never sold another “believer” into slavery except for major crimes.

From the accounts that I have read, the traders did not question the morality of the trade. They were there to make money, and devil take the hindmost. And the black Muslim chieftains used the Koran to justify their right to capture and sell the more primitive black tribes that had not been exposed to Islam.
Certainly Western civilisation was evolving, but it did not happen as a moral upheaval. While slave traders, and more importantly, their investors, could keep the reality of the trade quiet, they could make money. They could easily argue a justification of some sort, but it was publicity that released British and later American public opinion. That is quite different to some kind of swing in morals. The distaste for the trade was already there in any fair-minded person.

And on the subject of Nietsche, I do want to like him, but he repeats himself so often it gets tedious.

Emma wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 12:18am:

We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion, not fact.

Only those of you who have destroyed your moral compasses.

Amadd wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 1:22am:

Then, there is perspective on offer. Look after you and your own. If there is anything left over, then look after others.

Yes, and even this is problematic. You may have to do a generally perceived 'wrong' to do so.

Soren wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Emma wrote on Jul 3rd, 2015 at 12:18am: We live in a wasteland of conflicting opinion, not fact. Only those of you who have destroyed your moral compasses.

Well then who would you say has not done this today Soren.? Yourself perhaps?
Isn't that narcissistic.? You claim the higher ground?

We have a crazy world to deal with, every day. Look out for you and yours is the only rational response.  Perhaps you'd send your child to the Police and their tender mercies, if your child broke a Law.

I doubt that very much. But I could be wrong.  :)
Perhaps you would,  ?? Hmm?
Perhaps YOU KNOW the truth ! Will you share it.?

Your compass must be easily adjustable surely.
( ahem don't call me Shirley!!)

Emma wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 12:50am:

like I said already, you are welcome to your opinion. I would agree that , in most respects, humans act like the societies in which we live are insane. Hence humans are generally, insane.

Therefore your statement is insane?

Tut tut Soren, don't try to deflect from what I have asked you. Share with us your wisdom.
It may be just as insane as mine. Give it a go old chap. :)

Either we have shared norms and make a community, a society on he basis of those shared norms, values, mores - or we have nuffin' to do wiv each other and it's all about the rule of brute force.

You seem to be advocating, without realising it, for the re-primitivasion of the world. You seem to want to uncivilise the world because you think civilisation is barely disguised oppression.

I think that is bonkers stupid. Dissociate yourself.

interesting.
I mean, it is interesting that you think civilisation is good, when,  really, we are not civilised at all. The jungle exists just out of sight, under our skins.

We are not civilised, whatever you think that means. We are simply somewhat sophisticated animals with an unrealistic view of ourselves as something 'greater' than the animal world. Hubris indeed.
Communities exist entirely for self-interest and a perception of safety in numbers.

IE  we have more weapons and money than you lot, so we get to call the shots. Power is the word, and it is an animalistic urge. Don't try to make it something more.
That is simple enough to understand shirley.

We do good when we can, but we do much more harm than we should.
When do you think we became 'civilised'.?

'Cos I don't see much good in our civilisation. It is a shaky house of cards that can fall at any time. Just like all the civilisations before us. WE are not superior in any way to what has gone before. We just have bigger brains, but are still ruled by the old instincts.

We are primitive, and we are not able to deny that.  It shows in our actions and chosen beliefs, every day.

Our old lizard brain still rules.


.

Plus you still haven't answered my question.
Deflection once again.

Would you turn in your own child to the tender mercies of the Police, if they had broken the Law.?  Would it depend on WHAT law.? Would that matter.?

After all, the POLICE and the LAW, represents our civilisation, more than any other man-made construct.  Can't have anarchy can we.?  Perhaps you think there is no anarchy in this, our civilisation.
Look again.

How does YOUR moral compass work in the world as we know it?. Do the circumstances matter.?

issuevoter wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 8:53am:

I suppose its a bit late, but I would like to address one paragraph in the OP: “Not so long ago Slavery was considered to be moral by those who practiced it. The Scramble for Africa is a wonderful example we can use to uproot this fallacy. If enslavement of the entire continent of Africa was a moral undertaking a few centuries ago, how have the Western civilization suddenly shifted its moral campus and say slavery is despicable? Is evolution this fast that under a few centuries we can go to?” The entire continent was not enslaved, it is hyperbole to say so. The history of the African slave trade goes back a long way. It existed on the east coast of Africa to Arabia before European Colonialism. That was an Arab trade. If we are only going to consider West Africa to the Americas, then it needs to be understood the rounding up was done between Senegal and Sierra Leone by establish black chieftains who had adopted Islam. They sold the slaves to the European traders, mainly Spanish and Portuguese, and smaller number of others, at points on the coast. These traders rarely went into the interior where they were hopelessly outnumbered. The black Muslims almost never sold another “believer” into slavery except for major crimes. From the accounts that I have read, the traders did not question the morality of the trade. They were there to make money, and devil take the hindmost. And the black Muslim chieftains used the Koran to justify their right to capture and sell the more primitive black tribes that had not been exposed to Islam. Certainly Western civilisation was evolving, but it did not happen as a moral upheaval. While slave traders, and more importantly, their investors, could keep the reality of the trade quiet, they could make money. They could easily argue a justification of some sort, but it was publicity that released British and later American public opinion. That is quite different to some kind of swing in morals. The distaste for the trade was already there in any fair-minded person. And on the subject of Nietsche, I do want to like him, but he repeats himself so often it gets tedious.

Slavery.?  It is bigger today than it ever was in the past.

Fair-minded people are simply unaware, and/or are unwilling to acknowledge this truth.
Trafficking humans and slavery is way up there in the statosphere when it comes to participation and profit in our civilised world.
Please do not think it ended when the UK and then America turned against it. It simply went underground.. and therefore, became even more profitable.  :(

gone to bed? Thinking about it? Or have NO answer.! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxsVroiUHik

Soren, I won't bother looking at the vid. I thought you would repond personally, not shuffle it off to someone else. And an intellectual POM at that.!!  :) Of course they will espouse the greatness of their Empire, and the good it did.

I guess YOU don't have a reasonable reply.
WHY?
Because you are unable to deny the truth. Which is a good thing. :)

ah OK I'll have a quick look.

OK I saw a bit, and all he can talk about is EUROPEAN CIVILISATION, with all its science and architecture  etc etc. BUT he admits we nearly lost this small piece of human history when nearly over run by the hordes out of Asia.!! 
Good GRIEF.  ::)

Of course he says nothing about the foundations of the European supremacy, which, going back a bit, was largely driven by the Middle East. 
Or, if he did, I couldn't be bothered going that far. And NOTE.. it is a PERSONAL view.  That doesn't make it anything but gratuitous patting oneself on the back.  :P

Emma wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 10:19pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jul 3rd, 2015 at 8:53am: I suppose its a bit late, but I would like to address one paragraph in the OP: “Not so long ago Slavery was considered to be moral by those who practiced it. The Scramble for Africa is a wonderful example we can use to uproot this fallacy. If enslavement of the entire continent of Africa was a moral undertaking a few centuries ago, how have the Western civilization suddenly shifted its moral campus and say slavery is despicable? Is evolution this fast that under a few centuries we can go to?” The entire continent was not enslaved, it is hyperbole to say so. The history of the African slave trade goes back a long way. It existed on the east coast of Africa to Arabia before European Colonialism. That was an Arab trade. If we are only going to consider West Africa to the Americas, then it needs to be understood the rounding up was done between Senegal and Sierra Leone by establish black chieftains who had adopted Islam. They sold the slaves to the European traders, mainly Spanish and Portuguese, and smaller number of others, at points on the coast. These traders rarely went into the interior where they were hopelessly outnumbered. The black Muslims almost never sold another “believer” into slavery except for major crimes. From the accounts that I have read, the traders did not question the morality of the trade. They were there to make money, and devil take the hindmost. And the black Muslim chieftains used the Koran to justify their right to capture and sell the more primitive black tribes that had not been exposed to Islam. Certainly Western civilisation was evolving, but it did not happen as a moral upheaval. While slave traders, and more importantly, their investors, could keep the reality of the trade quiet, they could make money. They could easily argue a justification of some sort, but it was publicity that released British and later American public opinion. That is quite different to some kind of swing in morals. The distaste for the trade was already there in any fair-minded person. And on the subject of Nietsche, I do want to like him, but he repeats himself so often it gets tedious. Slavery.?  It is bigger today than it ever was in the past. Fair-minded people are simply unaware, and/or are unwilling to acknowledge this truth. Trafficking humans and slavery is way up there in the statosphere when it comes to participation and profit in our civilised world. Please do not think it ended when the UK and then America turned against it. It simply went underground.. and therefore, became even more profitable.  :(

No contest. I was simply addressing one paragraph in the OP which is highly representative of popular perceptions.

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 9:52pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:03pm: Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 7:06pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on. Not a thing you can say if you accept what is nothing more than a linguistic paradox that he was taken in by: there is no right or wrong. He also said that there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, which is the same sort of elegant-looking quip that appeals to the young and young at heart but which  turns out to be a load of nonsense. Johnson refuted Bishop Berkeley's similar relativising attempts by kicking a stone, demonstrating that facts, like material objects, exist. Nietzsche didn't read Boswell. Given that morality has changed over time, a point he shows in On the Genealogy of Morals, it is hard to argue a case for objective, absolute morality. Nietzsche's point could be refuted by his own hand - that there are only interpretations and not facts - but this would only reaffirm his stance that morality isn't stagnant. Morality is NOT changing. Antigone, the Iliad, the story of the taming of Enkidu, the Bible, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Julius Caesar, etc would be meaningless to us if morality was really changing over time.

What is the common thread of morality that runs through these characters and texts?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:52pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:03pm: Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 7:06pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on. Not a thing you can say if you accept what is nothing more than a linguistic paradox that he was taken in by: there is no right or wrong. He also said that there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, which is the same sort of elegant-looking quip that appeals to the young and young at heart but which  turns out to be a load of nonsense. Johnson refuted Bishop Berkeley's similar relativising attempts by kicking a stone, demonstrating that facts, like material objects, exist. Nietzsche didn't read Boswell. Given that morality has changed over time, a point he shows in On the Genealogy of Morals, it is hard to argue a case for objective, absolute morality. Nietzsche's point could be refuted by his own hand - that there are only interpretations and not facts - but this would only reaffirm his stance that morality isn't stagnant. Morality is NOT changing. Antigone, the Iliad, the story of the taming of Enkidu, the Bible, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Julius Caesar, etc would be meaningless to us if morality was really changing over time. What is the common thread of morality that runs through these characters and texts?

The centrality of the individual, the light of reason, public mindedness and cooperation, kindness, love of family and neighbour, excellence, striving for betterment.

And of course, above all, confidence - now actively and relentlessly undermined by shrill relativising.


You can look at Western Art, as Kenneth Clark points out, and see the motivating spirit.
What is the motivating spirit of this?

http://artstuffbitch.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/piero-manzoni-artists-poo-merda.html

This seems appropriate.

If the inward power that rules us be true to Nature, it will always adjust itself readily to the possibilities and opportunities offered by circumstance. It asks for no predeterminate material; in the pursuance of its aims it is willing to compromise; hindrances to its progress are merely converted into matter for its own use. It is like a bonfire mastering a heap of rubbish, which would have quenched a feeble glow; but its fiery blaze quickly assimilates the load, consumes it, and flames the higher for it.

From 'Marcus Aurelius' Meditations
translated by Maxwell Staniforth, 1964.

Choice between a slow burn or a high flame. Which will you choose?

If you have children, you would naturally choose a slow burn.

are you suggesting children are heaps of rubbish? If not, what ARE you trying to say.?

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 5:31pm: Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:52pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 9:03pm: Soren wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 7:06pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 2nd, 2015 at 6:40pm: Nietzsche isn't all bad. His criticisms of equality are spot on. Not a thing you can say if you accept what is nothing more than a linguistic paradox that he was taken in by: there is no right or wrong. He also said that there are no such things as facts, only interpretations, which is the same sort of elegant-looking quip that appeals to the young and young at heart but which  turns out to be a load of nonsense. Johnson refuted Bishop Berkeley's similar relativising attempts by kicking a stone, demonstrating that facts, like material objects, exist. Nietzsche didn't read Boswell. Given that morality has changed over time, a point he shows in On the Genealogy of Morals, it is hard to argue a case for objective, absolute morality. Nietzsche's point could be refuted by his own hand - that there are only interpretations and not facts - but this would only reaffirm his stance that morality isn't stagnant. Morality is NOT changing. Antigone, the Iliad, the story of the taming of Enkidu, the Bible, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Julius Caesar, etc would be meaningless to us if morality was really changing over time. What is the common thread of morality that runs through these characters and texts? The centrality of the individual, the light of reason, public mindedness and cooperation, kindness, love of family and neighbour, excellence, striving for betterment. And of course, above all, confidence - now actively and relentlessly undermined by shrill relativising.

They are considered moral now by fair minded people, but not all were once moral, mostly because they didn't exist for sometime. For example, the concept of the individual, as we see it today, is a recent invention, from about the time of the Enlightenment (Protestantism and liberalism have helped shaped the modern understanding of the individual). Striving and betterment would have been an aristocratic pursuit before the masses were pulled out of the monotony of agriculture and got leisure time.



Quote:

You can look at Western Art, as Kenneth Clark points out, and see the motivating spirit. What is the motivating spirit of this? http://artstuffbitch.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/piero-manzoni-artists-poo-merda.html

I can only see a song in the link. Is there something I am missing?

‘Notes on the Death of Culture’ by Mario Vargas Llosa
In this accessible set of essays, the Nobel laureate argues that we have reached a time in which there is no culture

This is a book of mourning. What Vargas Llosa writes is a lament for how things used to be and how they are now in all aspects of life from the political to the spiritual. Like TS Eliot in his essay Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, written in 1948, he takes the concept of culture in the general sense as a shared sensibility, a way of life.
Eliot too saw culture decaying around him and foresaw a time in which there would be no culture. This time, Vargas Llosa argues, is ours. Eliot has since been under attack for what his critics often describe as his elitist attitudes – as well as much else – and Vargas Llosa will probably also be tarred with the same brush for his pains.
But we must be grateful to him for describing in a relatively orderly manner the chaos of hypocrisy and emptiness into which our globalised culture has plunged and to which we seem to have little option but to subscribe.
...
We have abandoned the former minority culture, which was truth-seeking, profound, quiet and subtle, in favour of mainstream or mass entertainment, which has to be accessible – and how brave if foolhardy of anyone these days to cast aspersions on accessibility – as well as sensation-loving and frivolous.

Value-free, this kind of culture is essentially valueless.
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/book-review-notes-on-the-death-of-culture-by-mario-vargas-llosa-1.2308929

this is a sad thing, but true.

I look at the world today and see nothing that will save us from ourselves.

Emma wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 8:49pm:

this is a sad thing, but true. I look at the world today and see nothing that will save us from ourselves.

No argument.



We are so offended, if our expectations are not pandered to, by everyone around us,     our parents, our peers, our governments.

We are spiritually weak, and selfish.



Is there a solution ?

Pursue and defend truth.

Q.
Why truth ?

A.
Because where there is open truth, men are always offended by wrongdoing.

And that feeling of 'offence', tends to cause men, to seek to do what is correct.

No ?




Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.



.



Isaiah 1:16
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.


Jeremiah 22:3
Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

Yadda?

these words you like to quote at every opportunity, are actually  PART of the PROBLEM..!!  Not part of the solution. We need cohesion not divergence.

Talk about flogging a deaaad horse!!

Emma wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 11:28pm:

Yadda? these words you like to quote at every opportunity, are actually  PART of the PROBLEM..!!  Not part of the solution. We need cohesion not divergence.

Emma Peel,

How does a society of men [who desire to live together in peace] find [the word you used was] 'cohesion' [aka, social harmony] ?

I suspect that what you are suggesting, is that social cohesion and peace can be achieved [among a society of men], only when a society of men embrace tolerance of the 'other' ?

Am i correct in my assumption ?



Well, if that is so,     ....i disagree, strongly.


IMO, a society of men can only hope to successfully live together in peace and social cohesion, if they can all [say, 95% of them] agree on a set of laws [i.e. restrictions in law, which apply to all of them],    ....laws which govern their conduct towards other members of their society of men.

I would suggest, that it is the widely held respect for a [sensible] set of laws which [can] enable a society of men to live together in peace.

Do you disagree with that proposition ?

And conversely, i would suggest, that it is a widespread 'tolerance' of lawbreaking [within a society of men] which can and will destroy the peace which a society of men [may currently] enjoy.

Do you disagree with that proposition ?





IMO, promoting the ideal of "tolerance" [into a society] will not, and cannot, produce 'cohesion' within a society of men.

But what such an ideal will produce is lawlessness [and the breakdown of 'the peace', in a society of men], imo.


Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434160480/2#2

Quote:

"Tolerance",  is a really great sounding word, and "tolerance", is a great sounding concept. But in a society where "tolerance" is the highest ideal, imo, it is only those who would choose to routinely do what would normally be deemed to be socially unacceptable, who are going to be the winners, who are going to be the beneficiaries of such an 'ideal', as "tolerance". IMO, the call today for "tolerance", is another expression, another call, for the abandonment of law [i.e. the abandonment of ACTUAL - judgement - against bad behaviour]. And imo, many of those who are calling for "tolerance", are, in reality, calling for [i.e. are encouraging!!] lawlessness. They are calling for a society where every wickedness, is given licence. Dictionary; licence  = = 1 a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic liquor). Ø formal or official permission. 2 a writer’s or artist’s conventional freedom to deviate from facts or accepted rules. 3 freedom to behave without restraint.

.




Emma Peel,

Perhaps a government of men, could enact a law that required everyone [in their society] to 'tolerate' every one else in their society ?

That would work, wouldn't it!

Because 'tolerance' would have the force of the law of the land!

And you could simply remove all of the 'intolerant' people from society,      .......just put all of the intolerant people in prison - for breaking the law!

RESULT ?

A HUMAN SOCIETY WHICH IS A UTOPIA ON EARTH !!!!



Quick!, write a letter today, to your parliamentary representative, suggesting the enactment of such a law !!!!

:)

wow 
YADDA

you are amazingly capable of taking a small statement and creating a rant of truly wondrous proportion. I commend you.

You even create an entire society to enhance your words.  :) Incredible

Yadda wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 3:08am:

[quote author=jalane3311@yahoo.c link=1426109275/67#67 date=1440413397]this is a sad thing, but true. I look at the world today and see nothing that will save us from ourselves.

No argument.



Why then Yadda, do you argue.? 

No,, oops , sorry... don't answer that. I don't care.

"Well i started out down a dirty road.....and the world got still.....I'm learning to fly but i ain't got wings..."



Tom Petty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WowZLe95WDY


The guy is a philosopher.            :)

as you like Yadda.

Did he write the "Stand my ground, won't back down' tune.? or was that Thorogood.?  Nah I think it might have been Petty.

Chamberlain understands Nietzsche’s everlasting appeal well. Foremost, it was his gift as a writer – a writer who wrote in German as if it were French and who assembled prose as if he were composing operas. ‘What he had’, Chamberlain writes, ‘was a wonderful musical way with words. In that sense he was a musician. In that sense he did fulfil his desire to make music the fundament of his creative life.’

Chamberlain’s description of Nietzsche’s liberating philosophy, or psychology, encapsulates his allure as the arch-individualist and ultimate free thinker: ‘He is implicitly inimical to any form of political correctness or mass ideology… Nietzsche was not a proto-Nazi, not a nihilist, not an anarchist.’

Bewitching style and meaty substance – there lies Nietzsche’s everlasting appeal.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/11/14/the-twilight-of-nietzsche/

Exactly.

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2022 at 6:56pm:

Chamberlain’s description of Nietzsche’s liberating philosophy, or psychology, encapsulates his allure as the arch-individualist and ultimate free thinker: ‘He is implicitly inimical to any form of political correctness or mass ideology… Nietzsche was not a proto-Nazi, not a nihilist, not an anarchist.’ Bewitching style and meaty substance – there lies Nietzsche’s everlasting appeal. Exactly.

Können Sie deutsch?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 17^th, 2022 at 9:43pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 17th, 2022 at 6:56pm: Chamberlain’s description of Nietzsche’s liberating philosophy, or psychology, encapsulates his allure as the arch-individualist and ultimate free thinker: ‘He is implicitly inimical to any form of political correctness or mass ideology… Nietzsche was not a proto-Nazi, not a nihilist, not an anarchist.’ Bewitching style and meaty substance – there lies Nietzsche’s everlasting appeal. Exactly. Können Sie deutsch?

Ein bisschen.

Frank wrote on Nov 18^th, 2022 at 10:58am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Nov 17th, 2022 at 9:43pm: Frank wrote on Nov 17th, 2022 at 6:56pm: Chamberlain’s description of Nietzsche’s liberating philosophy, or psychology, encapsulates his allure as the arch-individualist and ultimate free thinker: ‘He is implicitly inimical to any form of political correctness or mass ideology… Nietzsche was not a proto-Nazi, not a nihilist, not an anarchist.’ Bewitching style and meaty substance – there lies Nietzsche’s everlasting appeal. Exactly. Können Sie deutsch? Ein bisschen.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/11/14/the-twilight-of-nietzsche/

Yes there is. Nietzsche was wrong.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj2fMTrXwAERmdh?.png
Scruton

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2022 at 10:09am:

Yes there is. Nietzsche was wrong. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj2fMTrXwAERmdh?.png Scruton

Can we pause for a moment and ask ourselves which species is addicted to all such idiocies and more than willing to slaughter millions in their 'just' wars. ?

Ayn Marx wrote on Dec 14^th, 2022 at 12:01pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2022 at 10:09am: Yes there is. Nietzsche was wrong. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj2fMTrXwAERmdh?.png Scruton Can we pause for a moment and ask ourselves which species is addicted to all such idiocies and more than willing to slaughter millions in their 'just' wars. ?

Er.... ant??

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2022 at 12:09pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Dec 14th, 2022 at 12:01pm: Frank wrote on Dec 14th, 2022 at 10:09am: Yes there is. Nietzsche was wrong. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj2fMTrXwAERmdh?.png Scruton Can we pause for a moment and ask ourselves which species is addicted to all such idiocies and more than willing to slaughter millions in their 'just' wars. ? Er.... ant??

;D ;D ;D