back to the beginning: morality

[Magnus_Anderson]

@iambiguous

Note to Magnus:

Ban them?

Absolutely. Maybe issue a warning or two first, see how they react. But if they persist . . .

[iambiguous]

@Magnus Anderson

@iambiguous

Note to Magnus:

Ban them?

Absolutely. Maybe issue a warning or two first, see how they react. But if they persist . . .

Ah, a cartoon character to make your point!

On the other hand, how long would Thor himself last in a forum moderated by you?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Fricken!!! I haven’t seen Thor yet. Ok whatever I’m never coming back here.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

_
Does she mean back to this thread or to this forum?

Let’s hope she means ‘this forum’.

Is the clue in the topic title…

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

This is the advent of reactions of those vested in negativity and disbelief against those trying to adhere to It.(Faith)

No disrespect, like a sacrificial lamb, in order to save Others, I surrender and leave this here. No , such needs no singular toleration especially one sourced to Dasein.

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

The real source of nihilism is negation, and therefore to understand nihilism we have to understand negation, or what Nietzsche we call negative will to power. There two sources of values for Nietzsche in the world: reactive and active. Nihilism in all its forms is reactive, and this is precisely the reason why Nietzsche’s philosophy cannot be nihilism, for it is against reactive will to power that it is written.

Once again, another “general description intellectual contraption”: The “negative will to power”, “active or reactive will to power.”

You tell me how the author’s point here is applicable to your own life. Note for me a set of circumstances in which some would insist on acting/reacting one way, while others will be equally adamant it is, instead, another way altogether.

And then, nestling down all the more in a scholastic assessment…

Nietzsche’s critique of morality is that in fact it is secondary. Morality presents itself as a disinterested objective valuation of the world, but underneath it is just another form of will to power: the desire for self preservation, even if that means dominating others.

Given what actual historical, cultural and uniquely personal/interpersonal context? And, given what particular understanding in such contests, of where to make a distinction, to draw the line between “I” and We"? Morality here as a “disinterested objective valuation of the world”? When on Earth has that ever been the case? All of this [to me] precipitates profoundly problematic narratives from each of us as individuals. What you construe to be a “desire for self-preservation” or “dominating others” or what I do? Or what others here do?

Again and again and again: given what context?

All morality is hypocritical, not because it is false or wrong, which would be too simplistic, since all human beings live by values, even if the supreme value in our age might be to value nothing, but because it presents itself as though it were not of this world, above petty politics and striving, objective and absolutely true.

Now this, even as a “general description intellectual contraption”, certainly seems rational and realistic to me. And, indeed, by focusing in on a “situation” – something fiercely debated “in the news” – I think it is reasonable and realistic for one to subscribe to “situational ethics”.

That, in other words, it is the moral objectivists among us who embrace their own dogmatic value judgments as though they did float above the world encompassed in the actual history of human interaction to date.

Just note your own God, your own Ideology, your own School of Philosophy, your own assessment of Nature.

Then in your own “world of words” define and defend them as the One True Path.

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Nietzsche is not criticising values in general, but reactive values, and it is these values that have led to the nihilism of the West. Having negated the world, and seen nothing positive in it, it has ended up with the ultimate negation of destroying itself.

Got that? Okay, then explain it to us in regard to your own behaviors of late.

From Oxford Reference websIte:

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (and after him French philosopher Gilles Deleuze) used these categories to describe two different ways of acting and—by extension—being in the world. An action (which may be a thought, feeling, or practice) is active when it takes something as its object; conversely, it becomes reactive when it is made the object of someone or something else. Thus, if we feel sad (or happy) and we do not know why we feel this way, then we are reactive; if, however, we can discover the reason we are feeling this way, we can convert reactive forces into active forces. Reactive is not the same as negative and should not be thought of as intrinsically bad; it is, rather, the usual state of things. It is, however, a limiting state of things, because it separates us from what we can do—if we are sad for no apparent reason, and we do not seek out the cause, then we are prevented from forming an appropriate response to that cause, and our power to act is reduced. We are reacting when we could be acting, and more problematically still we are using our reaction to excuse our lack of action. Nietzsche generally refers to this state as ressentiment. Therefore, the challenge for both philosophy and life, according to Nietzsche, is to overcome the reactive state of things and become active, thereby constantly enhancing our power to act.

Does that clear things up for you?

Of course, it’s preposterous to criticize “values in general” because human interactions without values amounts to no interactions at all. We all value different things. We have to. Otherwise what would motivate any behaviors at all.

Instead, the truly dramatic elements throughout human history revolve by and large around interactions in which we mere mortals clash over what some insist we ought to value while others insist that we ought not to value those things at all, but other things.

Then, staying up in the clouds of abstraction…

Active and reactive values describe the relations of dominance and subordination. What is reactive is always a response to what is active. It subordinates itself to more dominating forces. But it is important to realise that this subordination is not an absence of power. It is just as much an expression of power, Nietzsche believes, to dominate as subordinate oneself. In the second case, one obtains power by accommodating and regulating oneself to the status quo. This is exactly how the power of modern societies operates. It is the power of adaptation and utility, and those who are better adapted have more power, and those who refuse to adapt, conform and fall into line, have little or no power. Be like everyone else, or else! This is the motto of our societies, and our schools and universities are nothing but machines to produce this submission.

On the other hand, around the globe there must be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of very different social, political and economic contexts where this “general description intellectual contraption” can, to any particular individual, mean practically anything.

That’s why I ask, “what’s it mean to you?” given a specific situation where you are either active or reactive in choosing your behaviors.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

In order to be 100% proactive, you have to be omniscient, otherwise the unforeseeable will inevitably occur for which you will be unprepared. That explains some of my behavior these days, anyway. Maybe Nietzsche had a small, predictable world? Who am I to say? He was turned by something with which he was probably familiar (a horse being whipped), no? I can’t ever remember him talking about that experience in anything I’ve read so far. Point me?

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Because our societies, or perhaps society itself, is essentially reactive, it is much harder to describe what active forces are. One thing that we do know is that they must be first, because without active forces, there would not be any reactive, for what would they be reacting against?

How about this then: “we’ll need a context.”

Someone noting what they construe to be an example of an “active force” in society today. The pandemic? MAGA/QAnon? BLM? The war in Ukraine?

Lots of reactions to them of course. But what never changes is that, however we distinguish action from reaction here, there are almost always going to be fierce conflicts regarding the right actions to take and the right reactions to them.

Me: dasein. You? Let’s explore it.

This is the first step away from nihilism.

Or, in fact, towards it. Depending on whether the discussion revolves more around ends or means.

For nihilism says that what is first is negation. But this is precisely how reactive forces speak: negate! What is active, on the contrary, is what is creative, what imposes forms and dominates. Its first word is not negate, but create, and what one must first create is oneself beyond the reactive forces of society.

Again, though, given what context? For some, what they deem to be active behaviors others deem to be reactive behaviors to their own active behaviors. We create, you negate. Each side has their own set of accusations regarding things like “politically correct”, “woke”, “cancel culture”, “fake news.” And it’s not for nothing that these fanatics embrace objectivism in regard to the ends and nihilism in regard to the means. Just follow the news for a few weeks.

Again simply to negate society, and the values implicit within it, is not enough, for this is to be dependent on the values of the very society one despises, and have negated it all that one is left with is a black hole. The point is to create new values that leap beyond the negative values of society. This is what Nietzsche calls the ‘Dionysian power’.

And how is this all that far removed from the thesis/anthesis generating a new synthesis becoming the new thesis folks? Hegel as the idealist, Marx as the materialist. Action/reaction all the way down.

Ever and always predicated on objectivism.

But then that’s where “I” come in, isn’t it?

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Perhaps the best way to understand this [Dionysian] power is through the distinction Nietzsche makes between Dionysus and Jesus. The life of Jesus, as those who have seen Gibson’s film The Passion know, is a life that is the justification of suffering and which makes of life itself something that causes suffering and which must be justified and legitimated as suffering.

One thing few will deny. If you are a human being then, one way or another, you will become well acquainted with suffering. Your own or the suffering of those you love. And sometimes this suffering comes at you and at them from all directions. And sometimes it seethes and surges to the point where you or they can’t take it anymore. So, in order to end the suffering, some put an end to life itself. Roll the dice and take their chances on “the other side”.

If there is one.

So, it’s not for nothing that some religious paths will concoct someone or something in the general vicinity of Jesus Christ. He’s there to make your suffering…necessary? To give it “transcending” meaning. To link it to immortality and salvation.

And suffering in a No God world?

Well, that can get trickier. Some pull no punches and cut right to the chase: that human suffering is no less essentially meaningless and purposeless than human joy. We do what we can to minimize it but, when, in situations that are largely “beyond my control”, we do what we can as mere mortals to deal with it.

This must be distinguished from Dionysus, or at least what this Greek god represents for Nietzsche. Here life does not need to be justified, and even if there is pain, then this is a justified part of life. It does not have to be paid for somewhere else, as in the suffering of Jesus, for example. Life does not need to be redeemed, for this is nothing to be redeemed. Rather life is to be affirmed as it is.

A more or less philosophical acceptance that “shit happens”. You make it as meaningful as you are able to. And, of course, some concoct secular renditions of God in order to make this meaning all the more substantial. You suffer [even die] “for the cause”, “for the movement”, “for the revolution”.

Or for your honor. Or for the nation.

Anything, in other words, that will allow you to affirm the life you live as more than just part and parcel of the “brute facticity” embedded, in the end, in an utterly indifferent universe.

We have lots of members here who are able to do this, don’t we? The One True Pathers. And for a few it’s the path that Nietzsche suggested: the Übermensch.

See them swaggering before the flocks of sheep.

Here for example: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

[iambiguous]

From PN:

@Dimebag

Greed and envy.

“Given what particular set of circumstances? Out in what particular world understood in what particular way historically and culturally and interpersonally?”

That’s where I always start. Greed and envy in a village community? in a large modern metropolis? in a commune? on Wall Street? in a family that embraces socialism? in a family that embraces capitalism? for those who embrace collectivism, for those who own and operate the “show me the money” amoral global economy? for those who embrace atheism? for those eho embrace God and religion? for those born in one such community rather than another?

Okay, Mr. Philosopher, Mr. Ethicist, Mr. Political Scientist…what then is the most rational and the most ethical way for human beings to interact? Given the tools at your disciplined, technical disposal what then is “the best of all possible worlds” here?

Now, here, at the Philosophy Now forum, we have what I call the objectivists. And they will tell us to an “ism” what that is. And even though there are hundreds of often hopelessly conflicting One True Paths “out there” from which to choose, each one of these zealots will insist that it is their path and only their path that is the one true path.

Then, as I often suggest, just ask them.

Whereas my own focus here is less on examining what they believe and more on exploring how, existentially, individuals come to believe what they do given the argument I make in the OP of this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529

@Dimebag

Keep in mind my theory relates to the development of morals within a single life. It takes into account how humans develop mentally over time. If your theory also deals with this aspect of morality, then it may be useful, though I am not interested in battles of ideas, only shared search for truth.

Yes, I tend to focus in on the individual myself. And, I as noted above, I definitely focus in on the development of moral and political and spiritual value judgments over the course of the life an individual lives.

Me for example. Something I explored in the OP on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

Only I don’t believe that, in a No God world, there can be a “shared search for the truth”. Or, rather, there can be a search, but the “truth” will always be a cultural, historical and interpersonal consensus. Or encompassed theoretically.

Though, sure, I may well be wrong about that. That’s why I invite others to note a particular “conflicting good” and ask them to bring their own theoretical assumptions/conclusions to bear on it. And I will do the same with my own intellectual assumptions/conclusions.

@Dimebag

This means that if You are attached to your theory, you will do your best to defend that theory, even where it’s merits are not supported. That is not a search for truth but a battle of ideas. The ego ensures that truth remains hidden and shared truth can not be attained.

Again, given a particular “moral conflagration” that often comes up here – abortion, guns, the role of government – let’s explore our respective moral philosophies.

@Dimebag

It doesn’t bother me if my theory if wrong. In fact, I am almost certain it probably is wrong. So I am not interested in defending my theory. If someone takes interest in this theory then that is okay.

Same with me. My point though is that with the particularly fanatic moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us, they can become unequivocally insistent that their own theory is, in fact, the One True Path. And then when they acquire the power in any particular community to enforce their own dogmatic, authoritarian “Ism” the results for those who refuse to think like they do can be dire. Up to and including things like fatwahs and inquisitions and crusades and reeducation camps and gas chambers and genocide.

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Why then is Nietzsche not a nihilist? Because the nihilist is the one who reduces life to nothing. In this sense it is the Christian or the moralist who is the nihilist. For without Jesus, or morality, life would be exactly nothing. It is because they experience life as nothing in itself that they need the extra moral or religious order above life.

Come on, as though there are not conflicting ways in which to think this through. As though nihilism includes mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around us and the rules of logic in “reducing life down to nothing”. Actually, in regard to value judgments, religious and secular objectivists are, in fact, “for all practical purposes” anything but nihilists. In their interactions with others, others toe the line. Or else.

What does it even mean to “experience life as nothing in itself”?

The modern nihilist is merely the believer without, God, the Christian without Jesus, the moraliser without morals.

Even here this is always a matter of degree. The distinction is always between essential, so-called “universal meaning” said to be applicable to all of us, and intersubjective existential meaning evolving over time historically and culturally. Not all nihilists are “fractured and fragmented” as I am.

They are left with the negation of the world, but simply have no belief system to replace religion, morality and philosophy.

“Negation of the world”. Another classic intellectual contraption that can mean practically anything. You tell me what it means to you given your own day to day interactions with others.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I can’t fuh-reaking WAIT!!! But. I have to. Sigh.

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Without God life is meaningless. But this means that Christianity has to prove that life without God is meaningless. Now that God is dead, all we are left with is the meaningless of life.

Let’s go to the dictionary:

Meaningful: having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose.

Does anyone here…either alone or in interacting with others given any number of different contexts…engage in meaningful experiences from day to day? Do these experiences acquire meaning only because you believe in God?

Existential meaning let’s call it.

No, instead, what is meant by meaningless in a No God world is that without God [or one or another religious and spiritual path] there does not appear to be a way in which to assess your experiences as essentially meaningful. Meaningful in the sense that all rational and virtuous people are obligated to find them meaningful; and meaningful in the sense that after you are dead and gone from this side of the grave, the meaning continues on for all of eternity on the other side of it.

And most Christians will scoff at the idea of proving anything in regard to the Lord. They have taken their leap of faith to Him and that need be as far as it goes.

All that could happen in the future is that we would get new beliefs (capitalism, nationalism) that would simply cover over this the death of God.

And, of course, that is precisely what many have done. They have shifted their objectivist font from the sacred to the secular: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ideologies

Not relevant much beyond the grave perhaps but at least you’ve got something in the way of an “identity politics” from which to divide up the world properly between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

An ice cream cone can exist without the gods.
The ice cream cone is still valuable. It has meaning.
It is desirable.

The problem is when we give God all the meaning in all of reality,
and all of the morality and all of the value.
Then later, God is removed, and there exists a hole / void.

We can still have meaning and morality without God.
Ex-christians have the nihilism problem.
But people whom never were exposed to christianity in the first place,
have their own natural values and morals in tact.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Dan… If you can remove God, that which you removed was not God.

Same with true value/quality.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Ichthus77

Dan… If you can remove God, that which you removed was not God.
Same with true value/quality.

This seems true.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Fair enough. Thanks.

[iambiguous]

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd

1. Science

What? Science as a source of morality? But, but—calm yourself.

Why might one be alarmed by those – those in power especially – claiming that right and wrong, good and bad can be differentiated by/derived from science? That, in other words, using the scientific method reflecting objectivity thought to be embedded in, among other things, mathematics, we can pin down how one ought to behave?

Universally?

Though, sure, if there are scientists actually able to demonstrate this in regard to any of the moral conflagrations that rend us…let’s hear them out?

Anyone here aware of such definitive evidence?

Morality may have begun as something unscientific—e.g., a way to deal with failures to cooperate as the human population grew and expanded into just about every habitable portion of the globe. However, now we can use the tools of science to determine the most reliable paths to the moral outcomes that we prefer.

We can use science in order to more precisely pin down facts pertaining to any number of conflicting value judgments. The science of skin color, of gender, of human sexuality, of human psychology, of human social interactions. But how “more precisely”?

Thus…

What decisions, policies, etc. tend to promote cooperation and minimize violence? That’s an empirical question. And science offers the most reliable methods for answering empirical questions. At least, that’s the kind of claim you will expect from those who adopt a naturalist view of ethics.

I certainly would not argue that in regard to things like the abortion wars, gun control, animal rights, homosexuality, capital punishment, etc., science [hard and soft] can’t provide us with more rather than less intelligent parameters able to be explored empirically…experientially and experimentally. Assessments where predictions can be made and results more or less replicated.

But. again, how definitive can the “naturalists” be here?

Given a particular context.

Anyone here have one?

[iambiguous]

8 Sources Of Morality
Nick Byrd

2. Evolution

Evolution is invoked to explain many things. One of them is human morality.

Of course evolution.

After all, we are explaining morality grappled with by the human species. And, unless you are partial to God, the human species itself only exists because we are the [so far] culmination of the evolution of life on Earth. No evolution, no us. No us, no philosophy. Among other things.

Then the profound mysteries that revolve around human brain matter. Matter not only conscious of itself as matter but matter that is actually able to “think up” arguments for and against behaviors that human brains themselves may or may not be able choose freely to opt for.

An evolutionary psychological view of morality holds that ethical systems, judgments, and norms are products (or byproducts) of various forms of evolutionary selection.

Maybe, but given that biological life itself began on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago, It took an awfully long time for “ethical systems” to become a part of this “selection”. And we are to make of that…what exactly?

After all, disapproving of certain practices (e.g., killing children) and approving of other practices (e.g., cleanliness) may become more or less common depending on how they impact reproduction rates.

Well, overall, the killing of children may have become a biological imperative built into the human brain, but any number of children are killed for any number of reasons by individual men and women. Not to mention the fact that for biological life that we evolved out of, the killing of offspring seems to be the whole point of nature. The classic example being that of a 1,000 leatherneck turtle eggs hatched, only 1 will actually make it to adulthood.

As for cleanliness, there are complete slobs by the hundreds no doubt right in any particular community.