-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whatever is done from love
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Which kind of love?
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Careful with that thought.....You might end up like this guy did.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/28/wired.bath.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/28/wired.bath.ap/index.html
I think I see the point, Engyo, but I would say the man was more obsessed with his marriage than in love with his wife, there being an important difference between love and obsession. Nietzsche's statement that whatever is done from love occurs beyond good and evil certainly cannot be applied to what is done from obsession masquerading as love.
That's the rub. I don't know about you, Engyo, but I think that we must rely on others -- good friends -- for "reality checks" from time to time. Because that ego is a tricky thing. And it helps to have substantial humility about ourselves.Engyo said:
If we are doing something from love -- and even if that makes what we do beyond good and evil (as Nietzsche claims) --- isn't it still foolish of us if we think that our actions are justified by love? Isn't it very dangerous to think that?
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
If there is a state of being beyond good and evil, then it would also be beyond love. It would surpass all opposites.
robtex
Veteran Member
It may transcent it may not but it doens't eclispe it or negate it. You know what... I see his point. I don't buy it but I see it. He is saying that men a person does something out of passion love for another, love for an idea, love for a country, relgion....that he/she is not thinking in terms of right and wrong or good or evil cause love has already created the justification that morality without love would have presented Or if it were bridge love trumps good and evil.
Take Hitler...easy fella to pick on cause most people would conceed he did some evil things. But Nietzsche might (me guessing) say based on the qoute provided by sunstone, that he loved Germany and he loved his church.....he loved God....and he was doing what need to be done to nurish that love. Germany was owned by france financially and christanity was not growing at an acceptable rate and the Jews were part of the problem. Beyond good and evil.
In the article that Engyo presented lets pretend that the man kills his wife to be with his new lover. He succeeds He has the dilima that he will loose in court because of cheating and alimony. He doesn't want to loose custody of his kids. He loves his kids he loves his gf...he kills his wife and while an outsider sees it as evil he sees it as love. I think I am feeling Nietzsche and yikes is that a creepy thought.He kills his wife and keeps his money and has his kids replacing her with his gf.
I don't buy the hilter senserio because he may have done what he did for love but there is no way he could have orchestrated without propogating hate and you can push hate through your soul day in day out and not realize it. He didn't wake up one morning and say man I feel all this disgust envy, anger and its not good.....he felt things that would turn a better person's stomach and he moved forward.....without hesitiation. He may have done what he did out of love but he did it though hate and that is what makes it NOT BEYOND EVIL
In the second senerio the man loves his gf his kids but not his wife. He at some point must realize that to love his kids is not to hurt them, to love his gf is not to hurt her and to not love his wife does not mean kill her. He made a decsion based on personal needs while factoring out the harmful effect on the victm and those indirectly affect. He may say love was his motive but even if it is in the heat of an arguement his dicsion was based soley on self or self love and not for those around him.
Both good and evil can work in conjunction with love but evil cannot be eradicated, even from a personal standpoint (as opposed to a communial standpoint) by love.
How do yall interpret that phrase?
Take Hitler...easy fella to pick on cause most people would conceed he did some evil things. But Nietzsche might (me guessing) say based on the qoute provided by sunstone, that he loved Germany and he loved his church.....he loved God....and he was doing what need to be done to nurish that love. Germany was owned by france financially and christanity was not growing at an acceptable rate and the Jews were part of the problem. Beyond good and evil.
In the article that Engyo presented lets pretend that the man kills his wife to be with his new lover. He succeeds He has the dilima that he will loose in court because of cheating and alimony. He doesn't want to loose custody of his kids. He loves his kids he loves his gf...he kills his wife and while an outsider sees it as evil he sees it as love. I think I am feeling Nietzsche and yikes is that a creepy thought.He kills his wife and keeps his money and has his kids replacing her with his gf.
I don't buy the hilter senserio because he may have done what he did for love but there is no way he could have orchestrated without propogating hate and you can push hate through your soul day in day out and not realize it. He didn't wake up one morning and say man I feel all this disgust envy, anger and its not good.....he felt things that would turn a better person's stomach and he moved forward.....without hesitiation. He may have done what he did out of love but he did it though hate and that is what makes it NOT BEYOND EVIL
In the second senerio the man loves his gf his kids but not his wife. He at some point must realize that to love his kids is not to hurt them, to love his gf is not to hurt her and to not love his wife does not mean kill her. He made a decsion based on personal needs while factoring out the harmful effect on the victm and those indirectly affect. He may say love was his motive but even if it is in the heat of an arguement his dicsion was based soley on self or self love and not for those around him.
Both good and evil can work in conjunction with love but evil cannot be eradicated, even from a personal standpoint (as opposed to a communial standpoint) by love.
How do yall interpret that phrase?
The way I interpret Nietzsche's statement, he's talking about love specifically in the sense of that love we have when we follow our bliss in life. That is, when we are being true to ourselves. It's my hunch that Nietzsche would not consider that statement to apply to sexual love. But that's just a hunch.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Haven't people killed their spouses out of love? Killed other people out of love of God? Sent their daughters or sons to "Homosexual Rehabilitation" out of love? And done a variety of other injustices out of love? I think love, at times, can be right at the heart of what we call "good" and "evil".
The thing that comes most quickly to mind is Joseph Campbell's love for mythology. By following his love for mythology, he found self-fulfillment.robtex said:
The thought occurs to me that so many of us are in jobs we hold merely because we must make a living -- jobs we hate otherwise -- that the example of someone following their boon might not resonate with us; we might not have a sense or feel for what that can mean to us. But I think that Nietzsche himself felt he was doing with his life what he was born to do. And I think that when he talks here about what is done in love being beyond good and evil, he is thinking of the love he has for what he is doing with his life.
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't something occuring beyond good or evil, be neither good or evil? Maybe we are dwelling too much on the act and not enough on the outcome.
It could be that Nietzsche is saying the concepts of good and evil do not make sense when applied to describe some things, such as love.Lightkeeper said:
I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at there. But, if it's any help, I recall that Nietzsche was sharply critical of the notion that you can base morality solely on whether the outcome of your action is good or evil. He argued that even the simplest acts tended to have many more than one consequence or outcome, and that you could not know all the outcomes and consequences of even the simplest acts. Hence, if you tried to base a morality solely on the consequences of actions, you were in effect basing it on ignorance.