the right religion

[Enai de a lukal]

First of all, there is no "correct" philosophy. You can't say Nietzsche was right or wrong about anything.

This is not relevant, nor is it accurate. Of course there's "right" and "wrong" (as in "true" and "false") in philosophy.

And yes, I would liken any nut that's in love with his sister to a bum on the subway

You have a bad memory. Nietzsche loved his sister- as most people do- he was not in love with his sister. Regardless, you failed to address the point- any facts about Nietzsche's person are irrelevant to his views.

Nietzsche was crazy when he wrote his books

No. After.

The man was in love with his sister

Except he wasn't. Oops!

then he got syphilis and became even more crazy.

In other words, your view of Nietzsche is based on a willful misrepresentation of facts. Gotcha. (this explains everything, actually)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

[youtube]aM6SenbQDKw[/youtube]
Friedrich Nietzsche and Sister Lifelong Incest/lAcie Cargill - YouTube

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I also said Nietzsche wasn't insane MEDICALLY SPEAKING when he wrote his books, but he was still a nutcase. But I guess that won't stop you from misquoting me in order to feel superior about your argument...

 

[Ingledsva]

I also said Nietzsche wasn't insane MEDICALLY SPEAKING when he wrote his books, but he was still a nutcase. But I guess that won't stop you from misquoting me in order to feel superior about your argument...

What is the proof that Nietzsche had sex with his sister?

*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What is the proof that Nietzsche had sex with his sister?

*

I said he was in love with her, not that they had sex. The youtube video implied they had a relationship; I knew nothing about that.

 

[Ingledsva]

I said he was in love with her, not that they had sex. The youtube video implied they had a relationship; I knew nothing about that.

Platonic? Or otherwise?

The video speaks words from a book (My Sister and I) which was denounced as fake.

Nietzsche didn't write it.

Apparently a George David Plotkin confessed to writing it for Samuel Roth, owner of the company that published it, and know for shady dealings, and jail time.

*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Platonic? Or otherwise?

How the hell should I know? I never said they were in a relationship. Today was the first time I'd ever heard that alleged, but I had heard before that he was in love with her.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The video speaks words from a book (My Sister and I) which was denounced as fake.

Nietzsche didn't write it.

Apparently a George David Plotkin confessed to writing it for Samuel Roth, owner of the company that published it, and know for shady dealings, and jail time.

*

Didn't know that book existed, let alone that it was fake. I've never really been a fan of Nietzsche or his philosophy either way. Too depressing...

 

[Ingledsva]

Didn't know that book existed, let alone that it was fake. I've never really been a fan of Nietzsche or his philosophy either way. Too depressing...

I knew the fake book existed, and the general gist, but I have never read it, so I was quite surprised by the "reading." LOL.

*

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I said he was in love with her, not that they had sex.

And there is absolute zero evidence he was even "in love" with her, despite the fact that Nietzsche left thousands of correspondences (including with his family) for us to examine as evidence. Zero evidence their relationship was anything but familial. Moreover, the best word to describe their relationship would be forbearance- while he loved her as family, and corresponded with both her and his mother throughout his life, they were hardly close. Both Nietzsche's sister and her husband, Forster, were proto-Nazis, and Nietzsche opposed and despised what they stood for- so despite being his sister, Nietzsche had essentially no respect her.

In any case, this just sounds like an attempt to demonize and discredit a writer who is highly controversial- the same way people try to discredit Freud as being gay, discredit rock stars as being devil worshippers, and so on. Not to mention, one last time, that even if he had had an inappropriate relationship, this would be irrelevant to his writings- which are widely acknowledged as being some of the finest, most insightful, and most influential of ANY writer in ANY period of time.

So much for you "crazy homeless guy" BS.

 

[1robin]

Um.. What? You appeared to be repeating the canard that Nietzsche was making a metaphysical claim in saying that "God is dead"- he was not saying literally that there was a God, who is now dead. The phrase is metaphorical- he means literally, that belief in God is dead.

Of course I am not suggesting Nietzsche is not claiming that either a literal God was dead or that if one existed all the humans on Earth could kill him. Why would you have even thought I even hinted at that? I think he meant that humans had killed of the social and moral foundations that God had provided whether he actually existed or not and now that we had set Western humanity adrift on the shifting seas of morality untethered form any objective foundation that there would literally be "Hell" to pay.

Or we could ask Nietzsche, whose tremendous reputation and career depending on challenging God. Or any number of other atheists whose livelihood depended on their atheism.

Of course not all atheists have been converted, you seem to adopt the most literal interpretation and the one least likely to be true of me. What I pointed out is that God's challengers certainly do not fare well in general, and it is almost certain that most of those you mentioned were paid more for academic proficiency and not their stance on God.

It wasn't quite that simple. Nietzsche was not a prophet in any literal sense- for one, his descriptions of the mass chaos and pandemonium which would ensue if "the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal.. are hurled into the people" (Untimely Meditations) were hyperbolic, and what ended up happening with WWII and the Holocaust hardly followed the same lines Nietzsche spoke of.

Once again the literal and least likely interpretation for what I said. Of course I do not think that which lacks a God has any basis for being prophetic. It was what Nietzsche knew the setting mankind adrift form objective foundations would mean that was the point. He unlike most atheists knew what was at stake.

Nietzsche's problem was this- as a man of the Englightenment, the old Judeo-Christian worldview is not longer an intellectually tenable or viable option; it is founded upon superstition and ressentiment. But without this worldview, all moral behavior, and any "cardinal distinction between man and animal" appears to have no basis- why act morally if there is no God? What does it matter? This is what Nietzsche sought to avoid, this nihilism that seems to be the result of the absence of belief in God- and he endeavored to find a naturalistic basis for morality, which would restore the distinction between man and beast, and his eventual solution was the dual conception of the overman and the eternal return of the same.

The one thing we have not avoided is the moral nihilism that comes from a lack of faith nor its' cost. When we achieve the Superman status then I will consider what he said on the issue important. By the way Hitler personally submitted the works of Nietzsche to Stalin and Mussolini.

 

[1robin]

Paul never used the name Jesus/Yeshua. He only referred to "Christ", as did every other Christian until the Gospel of Mark. Paul also never implied that Jesus was a real man.

What? Then you claim that Christ and Jesus are two different entities and Paul did not believe Jesus existed literally? Sometimes the claims are so unusual that it requires clarification before contention.

 

[1robin]

And Newton was a complete and utter arrogant prick. And he was one of the most brilliant mathematicians who has ever lived. This is why 'ad-hominem" is a fallacy- because that someone was "creepy", or an arrogant turd, is irrelevant to the quality or truth of their work.

I have no reason to doubt what you say about Newton, but am curious why you say it or what you mean.

 

[Ingledsva]

They ALL say they are true - and they ALL have no proof!

That does not change the correctness of my statement.

The point here being - that outside your belief - to people of other beliefs - atheists, etc, that "truth" is only in your mind.

*

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What? Then you claim that Christ and Jesus are two different entities and Paul did not believe Jesus existed literally? Sometimes the claims are so unusual that it requires clarification before contention.

Early Christians believed in a divine Christ that was never said to have been a real person, and the story of Jesus the man was added on to that afterwards.

 

[1robin]

The point here being - that outside your belief - to people of other beliefs - atheists, etc, that "truth" is only in your mind.

*

No the nature of this kind of truth is absoluteness. I may be right or wrong, they may be right or wrong but we are right or wrong absolutely. This is not like the subjective moving moral targets developed without God these are objective facts whether anyone or everyone agrees or not. God like life on other planets either exists or not and what we think has nothing to do with it. As far as who has the best evidence, that is more subjective but by most standards the Bible does by far.

 

[1robin]

Early Christians believed in a divine Christ that was never said to have been a real person, and the story of Jesus the man was added on to that afterwards.

That is not true. Paul and the Bible in general must have a thousand scriptures like this:

English Standard Version (©2001)
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Christ is specifically said to be like us in that we die. Non real entities do not die and sure do not need to rise. The Bible is simply a 750,000 word refutation of what you claim but what about the early Christian's. Councils were the first and most elaborate ways in which doctrine was determined. When someone began some fringe belief like what you put forward the issue was debated and decided in council. This is the best place to track what the dominant beliefs were. The council of Nicaea, Chalcedonia, part of the Ecumenical council, etc.... The largest and most applicable one to your point is Nicaea. 1800 bishops were invited to settle the issue of the nature of Christ because a new belief had emerged about his nature. A vote was taken and at most less than ten voted in favor of anything even close to what you are saying and they were considered heretics. What you claimed has never been anything by a small heretical belief that conflicts with just about the entire Bible. However let's pretend that was not the case. The majority of NT scholars throughout history from all sides consider three facts to be virtually certain. 1. Christ appeared on the historical scene as a man with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. 2. He was literally killed by the Romans. 3. His tomb was found empty. However let's pretend that even all the non-Christian NT scholars want to make you look bad. Christ is mentioned as a historical figure by over 40 extra biblical authors writing very close to his lifetime in one aspect or another. If I and the virtual entirety of scholarship can't convince you then I suggest a PM to Sojourner as he/she is a Biblical graduate student.

It seems Christ said specific statements apparently designed to stop people from claiming what you have:

New International Version (©2011)
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is not like the subjective moving moral targets developed without God these are objective facts whether anyone or everyone agrees or not.

And yet my challenge for you to post three of these absolute truths seems to have sent you into silence. No response.

How about one? Can you post one of these objective moral truths which you claim to exist?

If you are feeling brave, post three.

If you can't post any at all, what sense does it make to claim that they exist?

 

[1robin]

And yet my challenge for you to post three of these absolute truths seems to have sent you into silence. No response.

I do not recall that, and I have been anything but silent.

How about one? Can you post one of these objective moral truths which you claim to exist?

If you are feeling brave, post three.

If you can't post any at all, what sense does it make to claim that they exist?[/quote] Thou shall not murder, or take any of the ten commandments you wish.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Thou shall not murder.

That's a tautology. Are you familiar with that term? It's like saying You should not do things which you should not do.

It's a circle. It has no meaning. 'To murder' means 'to kill another human without proper justification (without shouldness).'

But maybe I'm wrong. Can you define 'murder' for me? I'm asking for the very best definition you can concoct in your own words. What is murder, in your opinion?

...or take any of the ten commandments you wish.

OK. What translation into modern American English should I study? (American English is my only language.)