eurozine.com/what-does-nietz … ers-today/
Very good read.
I wonder if Freddie would be turning in his grave about now after reading some of these posts? lol
He did say that
One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
but HOW MUCH chaos does it take to bring forth that dancing star?
As much as it takes?
So “Faust” is another account of yours?
That makes five now, as far as I know. Well, if one can’t get any real supporters …
I was going to mention the same thing but then I decided that maybe Jakob did somewhere open another thread, branched out a bit.
I’m beginning to wonder if all of this chaos in here has more to do with semantics than with anything else.
I also intuit that Logic has to necessarily come before Ethics even though it might seem to be a moot issue since anyone who studied Ethics might necessarily have to have a logical mind to begin with or would that be wrong?
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
Back to Top. Logic (from the Greek “logos”, which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.
How does one go about being able to study and grasp hold of certain concepts of ethical moral behavior and distinguish that from unethical moral behavior or any concept except by way of using one’s right reason, one’s logical functions, which include clear cognitive thinking and following all the facts made available and investigating them.
Then there is the work ethic of say self-discipline, hard work, stick-to-it-iveness, focus, et cetera that it takes to achieve one’s desires and goals.
I really think that most of the problem between you guys besides ego is a question of semantics.
When he opened this thread in a window…
Ego killed this thread Arc not semantics and that is a shame because it had some real potential
Arcturus, I pointed out well before all this chaos began that there’s a difference between ethics and Ethics, or between ethics and the study of ethics, respectively. Same for logic and Logic. And yeah, one needs (a) logic–though not necessarily Logic!–to study ethics well. But this “chaos” is more about whether ethics or logic comes first than about whether Ethics or Logic comes first.
Stay tuned for my reply to surreptitious.
Then again, the outcome of this “chaos” could change the answer to the latter question as well. If logic is an ethics, Logic needs to be at least complemented by Ethics in order to truly understand logic: one would need to study logic under Ethics, and only then, when one fully understands where logic originated, how it evolved, etc., should one move on to Logic–i.e., to the study of logic as an independent system.
Stay tuned for my reply to surreptitious.
Actually I had that same stance with Einstein. I had/have nothing against the actual Einstein papers and theories, although the Relativity ontology isn’t entirely coherent. But the worship of it all drives me to be “anti-Einsteinean” and “anti-Relativist”. The good sense within gets lost by the subsequent exaggerated nonsense.
Hey guys, I’m just going to jump in here with both feet because I think this topic is neat.
Well, we need some sensible rationale:
Starting from the top, a progressively higher manner of organism is required to execute the task.
A simple organism can perceive (what is). Even an atom can perceive the presence of charge and react without neural processing. So, perception is most fundamental followed by discernment through a rudimentary network of specialized cells for memory and recognition. Prediction requires a more complex network for statistical processing and ethics is yet more refinement. The pinnacle and full-circle achievement is to develop to the point that reality itself is questioned and we, possibly, start over on another plane of consciousness where ideas are observable objects to be judged, predicted, etc.
How one decides to pigeon-hole arbitrary fields of study into each category is subjective to the semantic interpretation of labels as there seems quite a bit of overlap in some, but I’m thinking:
Thoughts?
I’ve read about halfway now, and I think the only one worthy of my response is Patton. He says:
“Some of his remarks about women are among the most offensive of Nietzsche’s writings. I take these to be indications of the extent to which he was a man of his time who could not see beyond the existing cultural forms of the sexual division of humankind. Like the vast majority of nineteenth century European men, Nietzsche could not divorce female affect, intelligence and corporeal capacities from a supposed ‘essential’ relation to child-bearing. His views on women are representative of his attitude toward morality and politics in the sense that they are in tension with possibilities otherwise opened up by his historical conception of human nature. For example, at times he recognizes that supposedly natural qualities of women or men are really products of particular social arrangements. We can conclude from this, even if he could not, that these qualities are not natural but open to change. In this domain as in other of his social and political views, he was not able to foresee some of the ways in which the very dynamics of human cultural evolution that he identified could lead us into a very different future.”
Nietzsche was very much able to foresee that. He by no means considered human nature, including human sexual dimorphism (mental as well as physical), as a “given”. But he wanted the eternal recurrence of it, in the sense that natura usque recurrat, “nature keep coming back”. As I wrote elsewhere:
“Hedonistic Transhumanism likewise [i.e., like (Mahayana) Buddhism] wants the bliss of all sentient beings. This is the ‘potentially […] glorious future’ such Transhumanists want to follow life’s ‘grim past’ (David Pearce, 2011 interview in Manniska Plus magazine). But can the future, however ‘glorious’, ever justify the past for such people? If it can, and the future is as glorious as can be, then if that future eventually comes to an end, as it most probably shall, such people should want the eternal recurrence. But the same compassion that makes them judge that the pleasure of a beast of prey successfully hunting down a prey can never justify the corresponding horrors undergone by its prey must prevent them from feeling that way. Even in their universally shared bliss they would have to dwell on the ‘grimness’ of the past–which would nullify their bliss. Those who do feel that way, on the other hand, will want the future to be the mirror image of the past in all essential respects.” (http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t990-reflecting-on-yesterday-s-high-with-watered-down-wine)
And all these worshippers are one (not the only, but nevertheless one) of the main reasons why science has become almost unable to make progress.
And I have to wonder how much of that non-progress is intentional. Until the supreme elite authority of all life is fully irreproachable, progress must be governed and in the long run, perhaps entirely reversed.
It is very much. The worshippers are one of the main reasons, but they are not mainly responsible (as always). Worshippers are more like followers.
Yes. And the longer it lasts, the more must be reversed.
Yes, that is the classical view. In fact, this view is what drove the philosophers to search for a natural law or a law of reason.
In ancient Greek, ethos and nomos are (near-)synonyms. Nomos means, in developmental order, “way, habit, custom; convention, principle; law”. In its sense of “convention, principle”, it was a if not the standing antonym of physis, “nature”. So a “natural law” is a paradoxical concept in the classical view. One should compare “positive law” or “positive right” on the one hand, and “natural law” or “natural right” on the other. Natural is what is not posited (by persons).
A similar discrepancy can be found between law and reason (logos). Consider astronomy and astrology. In Presocratic times, astrologia still meant “astronomy” (for example in Heraclitus). However:
“In Latin and later Greek, astronomia tended to be more scientific than astrologia.” (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=astronomy)
And that’s certainly the way it is (considered) now, of course. Astronomy supposedly describes the physical laws of celestial objects–which are not conventions, let alone mere habits–, whereas astrology reads reason (sense, meaning) into the ways of celestial objects.
But all this has been uprooted by radical historicism. The God of the philosophers, Reason, is dead; nature is history. Formerly, nature or the Reason in nature was grasped by something likewise considered natural (eternal): human reason, the Reason in man. Now human reason is understood to be historical, a product of evolution; and not a finished product, never finished, but always subject to evolution. Nature itself, existence, the cosmos, or whatever you wish to call it is now understood to be wholly in flux–or is that only a misunderstanding rooted in the current form of human reason?..
Wow, what kind of total BS is that?
Again, BS. What is posited by people (proposed) is not the antithesis of natural. What is constructed by people is the antithesis of natural phenomenon (by common usage of the language). Quite the reverse is true concerning what is proposed by people as “natural law” or even as “dialectics”. There is no black or white between natural and conceptual. And that includes the entire issue of “God”.
I should probably expound on this a bit, lest solely the opposite discrepancy be seen.
Astronomos literally means “an allotting of the stars”, e.g., allotting them to different sections of a map of the heavens. This was understood as a man-made arrangement (nomos).
Astrologia literally means “an account of the stars”; but a logos account and not, for example, a mythos or epos account. It was understood as a dis-covery (unconcealment) of the truth (aletheia legein, “to tell the truth”, literally “to tell unconcealment”).
Interesting, by the way, that in Greek, as distinct from proto-Indo-European, the root (of) lethe meant “forgetfulness, oblivion”–sc. of the past (physis, the way things have sprouted up?)…
Recently approved post…
It’s common knowledge that nomos and physis were standing antonyms. See for example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis#Classical_usage
and here:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nomos-Greek-philosophy
I deliberate wrote “persons”, not “people”. A law posited by a personal god–as opposed to, say, Deus sive Natura–would also be a positive law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law
Even if a law posited by persons would reflect a natural law as perfectly as possible, there’s still the difference between the letter and the spirit of the posited law. A natural law would be all spirit. A positive law can never be all spirit, for then it wouldn’t be posited. Even if the Mosaic law, for example, was posited by a personal God, it still needs to be interpreted; one needs to infer back from its letter to its spirit.
Perception requires innate, non-lingual logic (“what I see is what is there”).
Perception requires a degree of consciousness (and vsvrsa). Natural law reactions are not perceptions.