What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:43 pm Prove that an Atheist has an obligation to follow the GR ...
He/she doesn't. Many theists don't follow it either, even though they may pay lip service to it.
Nobody's in charge of this place, and nobody gets to say what we do, they think.
That's right.
We make it up on the personal or social level, not on the basis of some universal duty, they insist.
Right. I'm glad you added the "social level" part, because until now, you have been committing a bifurcation fallacy by insisting that the only two choices are "objective" or "subjective." The "social" is called intersubjective.


And that's the thing. The reason most (certainly not all) people follow, or aspire to follow, the GR, is because it makes sense to do so. Not because it is some edict handed down by a God. It makes sense to do so because I'd rather live in a world where each of us tries, as best we can, to do to others what we would have them do to us. Societies that depart from this precept aren't very pleasant, and most of us (not all) would prefer to live in a pleasant society rather than an unpleasant one. This is also called "reciprocal altruism" and is observed in many other species who have no concept of a god or even an ability to have such a concept.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:43 pm
Prove that an Atheist has an obligation to follow the GR,
That's like asking somebody to prove they like ice cream, how can you prove such a thing?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:15 am
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:43 pm I think your problem is that you maintain a delusion that objectivity means something beyond the perception of humanity.
Actually, "delusion" is the perfect synonym for what you're describing...a perception that fails to correspond to anything objectively real, and is only perceived by some particular person.

Nice definition.
Keep taking the pills.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:46 pm The "social" is called intersubjective.
Oh, I'm familiar with the term "intersubjective." It's po-mo jargon for, "giving my free moral judgment up to the collective." It says, we'll "dialogue," and the "dialectic" will produce morality...

I don't recommend it, but people can choose to believe, if they want, that collectives (ideological groups, cultures, nations, whatever) have a moral discernment and integrity the individual doesn't, and that by "interacting" with that mass we are suddenly made wise...but there isn't any reason to believe that works. After all, other names for collectives with a singular "moral" will are things like, "power-blocks," "cults" and "mobs."

To show otherwise, you'd have to show me that putting a few people together generates a more "moral" outcome than the individual can arrive at. The problem, of course, is that you could never do that without appealing to some conception of morality that transcends both...and the whole point of "intersubjectivity" is to be able to say, "we don't need to do that."
And that's the thing. The reason most (certainly not all) people follow, or aspire to follow, the GR, is because it makes sense to do so.

As Nietzsche saw so clearly, it makes no sense at all. What does make sense, from an individual strategic position, is having a bunch of people following conventional morality of some kind, so they become predictable and limited, but for the "Overman" individual to be able to pick it up or drop it at will, according to his strategic advantage, and without any moral compunction.

In other words, it may suit the individual to leave society "enslaved" (Nietzsche's term) to morality, but to put himself "beyond good and evil." That's ideal; because then he gets to be the one "Overman," and make use of all the other puppets at will.

Nietzsche was right: without God, morality makes no sense either. What makes sense for the individual is (selective, socially undetected) amorality.
...most of us (not all) would prefer to live in a pleasant society rather than an unpleasant one.
Sure. But let's not be disingenuous about that. We get a "pleasant" society if OTHERS are moral. We (the Overmen) don't have to be, because we are few. But playing the game this way, we rise to the top. There's no reason to forego that advantage.
"reciprocal altruism"
No, "selective altruism." What makes sense is only appearing to be altruistic, or being altruistic when it suits the Overman to be. There's no need for real altruism. That just gives up the competitive advantage.

Does that seem cunning and self-serving? Well, where is the Atheist code that says, "Thou shalt be consistently altruisitic?" It could as easily read, "Thou shalt fool the rest, and wait for your best opportunities."

Or, as is the case, it could not exist, and thus could say no such thing at all.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:43 pm
Prove that an Atheist has an obligation to follow the GR,
That's like asking somebody to prove they like ice cream, how can you prove such a thing?
Actually, it's not. The burden of proof is surely on the person saying "Thou shalt," as in "Thou shalt follow the GR." If the Atheist says that, he is rationally obligated to be able to say why he says it.

But you're right about this: he'll never be able to prove it. But not because, like ice cream, it's a matter of taste; but because moral obligations can only be rationally and credibly asserted if we can answer the question, "Why must I?" And that, he simply cannot answer.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by davidm »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:01 am
As Nietzsche saw so clearly, it makes no sense at all. What does make sense, from an individual strategic position, is having a bunch of people following conventional morality of some kind, so they become predictable and limited, but for the "Overman" individual to be able to pick it up or drop it at will, according to his strategic advantage, and without any moral compunction.

In other words, it may suit the individual to leave society "enslaved" (Nietzsche's term) to morality, but to put himself "beyond good and evil." That's ideal; because then he gets to be the one "Overman," and make use of all the other puppets at will.
This is pathetic. Is this is the best you can do? It is YOU who follows conventional morality, according to Nietzsche. 'Do you really not get this?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:15 am This is pathetic. Is this is the best you can do?
It's Nietzsche's argument, not mine. But please, do feel free to take issue with him. That is, if you can think of a single cogent thing to undermine his interpretation of the Atheist situation, morally speaking. I have no more desire than you do to live in a world where Atheists live out the logic of their creed. It would be a very nasty, amoral place for all of us.
It is YOU who follows conventional morality, according to Nietzsche. 'Do you really not get this?
Absolutely. Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?

And with regard to this question, both Nietzsche and I are on exactly the same page. I agree with him that IF God did not exist, amorality would logically be the most advantageous, winsome and strategic option for an Atheist...and there would be absolutely no reason not to take it. I think anyone can see that. Nietzsche was willing to face those facts. He hated those wobbly, inconsistent pseudo-Atheists of his day, who culturally preserved and continually returned to what he called "slave morality," the "Judeo-Christian" values, when, he thought, they should really know better. They are the townspeople of his "Madman's Speech." They have not realized the true implications of their situation, as the madman has. But he thought they eventually would have to face the fact of their own orphaning in an indifferent universe, and the end of all morality.

It's today's nerveless, inconsistent Atheists who don't like what Nietzsche said, and are afraid to live out the logic of their own beliefs because of the sheer terror and nastiness of what their own worldview entails. So they invent excuses to retain the "Judeo-Christian" moral values that Nietzsche decried as "slave morality," all the while claiming to believe with Nietzsche that God is dead. In this, they are not even consistent with themselves.

But, of course, you're right if you guess I don't agree with Nietzsche on everything. I think Nietzsche was wrong about a couple of essentials...about God being dead, first, and then about morality being "enslavement" secondly. However, the thing he got right was his description of what it really means to be an Atheist living out the logic of Atheism. He mostly hit that dead right.

Refute him, if you can. For it is with Nietzsche you are taking issue, not me: I don't believe what you believe. And it's Nietzsche who said what it logically entailed.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:15 am Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?
What do you think Nietzsche was referring to when he said that god was dead?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:03 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:43 pm
Prove that an Atheist has an obligation to follow the GR,
That's like asking somebody to prove they like ice cream, how can you prove such a thing?
Actually, it's not. The burden of proof is surely on the person saying "Thou shalt," as in "Thou shalt follow the GR." If the Atheist says that, he is rationally obligated to be able to say why he says it.

But you're right about this: he'll never be able to prove it. But not because, like ice cream, it's a matter of taste; but because moral obligations can only be rationally and credibly asserted if we can answer the question, "Why must I?" And that, he simply cannot answer.
If the impulse to follow the GR comes from within the man and he says he must obey it I don't see how that's different from another man saying he must obey God. You might say he doesn't have to obey but then he might say you don't have to obey God.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

immanuel Can wrote:
Absolutely. Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?
Nietzsche meant that Authority is dead. Once that any person releases themself from the shackles of unquestioning Authority that Authority is dead to them. It is not always easy to let go . Psychologically the condition of subservience to Authority is like Stockholm syndrome.

The Golden Rule owes nothing to Stockholm syndrome because the Golden Rule applies to real others, not to the Authority.

Don't you see that the first Commandment was from tribal Jahweh who had to contend with pagan gods? The modern interpretation of the first Commandment was for social control where the other gods were disobedience to social authorities. Now, do you see that your theology is politically right wing? Your theology possibly still is useful in time of war when people need a disciplined fighting force.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:28 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:15 am Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?
What do you think Nietzsche was referring to when he said that god was dead?
Ummm...to God, actually...

Was that a trick question?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:03 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:51 pm

That's like asking somebody to prove they like ice cream, how can you prove such a thing?
Actually, it's not. The burden of proof is surely on the person saying "Thou shalt," as in "Thou shalt follow the GR." If the Atheist says that, he is rationally obligated to be able to say why he says it.

But you're right about this: he'll never be able to prove it. But not because, like ice cream, it's a matter of taste; but because moral obligations can only be rationally and credibly asserted if we can answer the question, "Why must I?" And that, he simply cannot answer.
If the impulse to follow the GR comes from within the man and he says he must obey it I don't see how that's different from another man saying he must obey God.
The ethic that ensued might look the same. But in the latter case, he would have an objective grounds for believing he had a responsibility to do the GR, whereas in the latter he would have none. Thus his commitment to the GR would have to last only as long as he felt like it; and after he stopped wanting to do the GR, he would have no reason at all to continue, because there would be no objective obligation attached to performing the GR.
You might say he doesn't have to obey but then he might say you don't have to obey God.
That is also true. But if I do not obey God, then I know I am doing the wrong thing, and am responsible for my choice. Moreover, I always know that I am falling short of, and damaging the relationship I ought to have with the Creator. In contrast, the non-Theist would think he had no such responsibility, and that what he was doing was really no more wrong than right. And having no relationship to God, he would think he would not be impairing any relationship with his creator, since his creator would be Chance.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:37 am immanuel Can wrote:
Absolutely. Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?
Nietzsche meant that Authority is dead.
Funny. He explicitly said "God." :wink:

But your extension of his idea isn't wrong, really, so I'll go with you that much. For if the Great Authority is dead, then so are all lesser authorities...from government and society down to the private conscience of the individual. None of them has any authority at all anymore.
The Golden Rule owes nothing to Stockholm syndrome because the Golden Rule applies to real others, not to the Authority.
Ha. :D Do you suppose that if a man throws over the authority of God he's going to feel hesitant to throw over the authority of any "real others"? Not if he thinks about it for ten seconds. Having done what Nietzsche called "a deed to great for us," namely "killing" God, do you think such a one needs to be the least bit hesitant about what he does to the mere mortals he meets? If he does, he's surely fooled himself.
Don't you see that the first Commandment was from tribal Jahweh who had to contend with pagan gods?
We have our modern 'gods.' We worship money, youth, social reform, governments, individualism, and a host of others; but above all, we worship ourselves. And more than any gods previously, we find ourselves enslaved to a tyrant when we do; for while the ancient pagan gods were located in a temple and often "inattentive" to us, and while they could be "sated" with sacrifices, the restless human ego is both insatiable and unrelenting.

There is no slavery so complete as needing to satisfy one's own restless desperation to achieve happiness, security and well-being. That longing is never sated, because self can never satisfy self.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:37 am immanuel Can wrote:
Absolutely. Nietzsche claimed (without ever offering even a spot of proof) that "God is dead." He just presumed he was right about that, and moved on to the question we were discussing: namely, IF God is really dead, then what follows logically for Atheists?
Nietzsche meant that Authority is dead.
Funny. He explicitly said "God." :wink:

But your extension of his idea isn't wrong, really, so I'll go with you that much. For if the Great Authority is dead, then so are all lesser authorities...from government and society down to the private conscience of the individual. None of them has any authority at all anymore.
The Golden Rule owes nothing to Stockholm syndrome because the Golden Rule applies to real others, not to the Authority.
Ha. :D Do you suppose that if a man throws over the authority of God he's going to feel hesitant to throw over the authority of any "real others"? Not if he thinks about it for ten seconds. Having done what Nietzsche called "a deed to great for us," namely "killing" God, do you think such a one needs to be the least bit hesitant about what he does to the mere mortals he meets? If he does, he's surely fooled himself.
Don't you see that the first Commandment was from tribal Jahweh who had to contend with pagan gods?
We have our modern 'gods.' We worship money, youth, social reform, governments, individualism, and a host of others; but above all, we worship ourselves. And more than any gods previously, we find ourselves enslaved to a tyrant when we do; for while the ancient pagan gods were located in a temple and often "inattentive" to us, and while they could be "sated" with sacrifices, the restless human ego is both insatiable and unrelenting.

There is no slavery so complete as needing to satisfy one's own restless desperation to achieve happiness, security and well-being. That longing is never sated, because self can never satisfy self.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Do you suppose that if a man throws over the authority of God he's going to feel hesitant to throw over the authority of any "real others"? Not if he thinks about it for ten seconds. Having done what Nietzsche called "a deed to great for us," namely "killing" God, do you think such a one needs to be the least bit hesitant about what he does to the mere mortals he meets? If he does, he's surely fooled himself.

( Belinda]Don't you see that the first Commandment was from tribal Jahweh who had to contend with pagan gods?
(IC)
There is no slavery so complete as needing to satisfy one's own restless desperation to achieve happiness, security and well-being. That longing is never sated, because self can never satisfy self.
(Belinda)It's probable that when a man accepts that God is 'dead' that man will also free himself from unquestioning obedience to worldly authorities too.
If that man is in psychological bondage to his unthinking passions he will be less free than if he can control his passions.

(IC)
self can never satisfy self
self can be more free the more self follows reason ; reason is not subjective.
Post Reply