You will probably never be able to stop people abusing science to dress up excuses for their behaviour as fatalistic, or ‘natural’, or similar.
I advise you not to get mad about it. Just blow up a few scientists so that they get the message that allowing their ‘knowledge’ to be used and abused destroys their credibility.
“Fatalism can arouse several responses: it can make us open-hearted and release our energies, but it can also make us cowardly, resigned, indifferent or reckless. How we take it depends ultimately of course on ourselves. But Nietzsche’s theory of determinism at least eliminates a misunderstanding: fate is not something external that compels us against our will; it partly acts through our willing, and therefore it gives no reason for resignation or passivity.”
[George Morgan, What Nietzsche Means.]
I don’t see what’s wrong with restricting advertising. While clearly people have a responsibility, as more and more parents shirk that responsibility, and as society has become more nucleated than in the past, it makes sense to try and eliminate negative elements present in what has become a major source of inspiration for children.
I dont see whats wrong with the world view… its open for discussion but I certainly dont think its conclusions are outrageous or absurd. The authors argument is this:
“We are wired in such a way that passion and desire often trumps reason.”
I am not at all opposed to granting this. What is important to note though is that alot of tendencies we notice in humanity these days are very much dependant on sociological circumstances. But even if it is the case that there is no natural tendency to be a glutton, and its totally sociological, who cares? The important point is that it is a choice, and as long as it is an informed choice than, as the author said, good for the glutton. The author addressed the issue of providing the right information.
Soiatd, this guy is not excusing behavior, he is saying the choice to be a glutton is not abnormal or “unatural” as some opponents to an “unhealthy” life style might say to argue against it.
The only thing I must disagree with is that a “healthy” life style is boring. This is totally subjective. It is a matter of instant gratification vs an investment for the future. It is up to the individual to decide which is worth more to him.
So we may be passionate, greedy creatures. But the author seems to imply that the obesity epidemic is not really a problem in the world, or at least not comparatively (“As we are piling on the kilos, more than 30,000 people are dying of starvation or readily preventable illness every day in Africa”), ignoring the fact that it is precisely our consumerism and greed which intensifies these more critical problems.
I think that is the heart of the real problem.
But I have socialist leanings, so that would explain that.
believe me, non-socialists can also see the problem…
it truly is sad and ironic when on one hand we have people dying from having too much food, and others from not having enough
almost harder than calculus this one … almost …
From those of you who aren’t from Australia, this is the type of tripe we get in our newspapers. This above section I cut and pasted is nothing but brown-nosing to the shallow desires of the mob. As an apprentice Nietzschean, I am disgusted with the position of this journalist. He’s justifying the insatiable desires of the herd by way of current consumerist values. Nietzsche said that we today are more ape than man and that the ape is a painful embarrassment, hence it must be overcome. This journalist and his readers represent what is ape in man, hence this journalist and his petty minions are what is to be declared war upon. Nietzsche taught that a declaration of war must be taken against the values of the herd. And it shall be so![/i]
-
Nietzsche is not God.
-
This goes back to the Life of the senses vs. life of the ascetic debate. It’s wrong that while some people thrive, others live in squalor, but luckily, there’s something we can do about that. The thousands of people in Africa and beyond who are underfed and underappreciated are getting some help. Some, not nearly enough, but some. If that doesn’t show an optimistic way of looking at how a human works, I don’t know what does.
In addition, I’m of the life-of-happiness mindset. In other words, if you create happiness in yourself and those around you, then good. I don’t think it’s right to say that humans always choose (or end up choosing) gluttony over necessity; that’s shown in certain people’s clean moderation. But I also don’t think that it’s right to say that people should choose a life of total, eclipsing minimalism; it’s not necessary, and it’s not good for your body or (if you believe in it) soul.
Back to the issue: I don’t think it’s completely incorrect to say that men are beings of gluttony. But they’re also beings of reason, and it seems to be a fight between those two. It might be a pessimistic view, but it’s a facet of the larger one.
Never said he was.
I utilized his thought to express my disgust at what passes for ‘journalism’ these days. In effect, that particular journalist is saying, “don’t think, don’t be in awe of 2,000 years of brilliant philosophical inquiry, just be a self-indulgent, narcissistic, waste of space, and to hell with everything else”. He is justifying and reinforcing the idiotic, shallow, desires of the mob, so that they (the herd) can feel ‘happy’ with their own existence.
[/quote]
Yes, I know you don’t think that he’s God. But there are a lot of references to him in this thread. Overwhelmingly so to me.
Anyway, to address your other point, he was referring to man being an inherent glutton; Man is an inherent glutton, just as are all animals. They need food to live, so they stockpile it up. Proof of this is in my cat.
But the reason that Man has done such wonderful things (philosophy, technology, etc.) is that he also has another aspect to his mind (reason) that sometimes overrides and takes over the glutton. That’s what I was saying. While his view may be pessimistic, it’s still part of what makes a person.
You are proving that man is inherently a glutton because your cat is a glutton? Lol. Yes, in many animals it is an instinctive drive to eat whatever food is easily available, but that does not mean it is so for all animals. Reason is not the only reason man can overcome his gluttony. He can be driven by something outside of the realms of reason to do something else. We aren’t all wired to have our sole priority made food.
When I say gluttony, I mean a wanting of food, sex, money… all of the stuff that people think pleasurable in their lives. I can’t think of an animal besides man that doesn’t want all of that stuff, and a lot of men do want it. And when you say that reason is not the only thing that opposes gluttony/lust/all-of-that-other-stuff, could you please use an example (just so I have something to refer to)?
Whether is is our wiring or our culture (I live in the USA), pointing out that there seems to be a lot of shallow, gluttonous oafs walking around seems hardly debatable.
We can overcome these behaviors no doubt, but I believe it is healthy for people to recognize first that they are in fact gluttons. It’s the denial of this fact that I consider much more troubling.
Membrain, I agree.
Indeed. I find it so puzzling that people seem to think that their life purpose resides in having 5 tvs, 7 dvd players, 4 cars etc.
^^Decadence of old values and the onset of Nihilism-we are only beginning to feel its effects. We are going to get closer and closer to what we really are, which is, what membrain put so eloquently.
He was more of a god than anyone else I’ve ever come across/heard of/read.