Nikki Sinclair for leader - orientation discussions

Tom Wilde · 29-05-2006, 12:04 AM

Yes, it was Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I got the quote a bit wrong, I'm afraid, but have now found it on Wikipedia:

Quote:

'And what is the saint doing in the forest?' asked Zarathustra. The saint answered: 'I make songs and sing them; and when I make songs, I laugh, cry, and hum: thus do I praise God. With singing, crying, laughing, and humming do I praise the god who is my god. But what do you bring us as a gift?' When Zarathustra had heard these words he bade farewell and said: 'What could I have to give you? But let me go quickly lest I take something from you!' And thus they separated, the old one and the man, laughing as two boys laugh.

But when Zarathustra was alone he spoke thus to his heart: 'Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!'

— trans. Walter Kaufmann, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, sect. 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

Millennium3 · 29-05-2006, 01:47 AM

Thanks Tom - I think yours is an improvement!

Mikeuk · 29-05-2006, 11:36 AM

One of the big questions that Nietzsche is posing when Zarathustra (Zoroaster) proclaims the death of God - killed by man - is:

'Without God what possible foundation can we have for any system of ethics?'

Nietzsche - an atheist himself - derides the 'Tartuffery of old Kant'. You may attempt to justify Christian morality by rational means, but the attempt - however ingenious - is doomed to failure. All the more so, totally humanist systems such as those of Comte or Marx, whose foundations really go no further than the 'lifestyle choices' of their founders.

The angry response from yesterday's Christians and today's Humanists is simply to deride Nietzsche (and Hume, Hobbes etc. before him) as preachers against morality and humanity.

But we still don't get an answer to the nagging question. :twisted:

Intbel · 29-05-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

But we still don't get an answer to the nagging question. :twisted:

Go one - I'll bite:
What is the 'nagging question' please?

Mikeuk · 29-05-2006, 12:32 PM

I've just told you,

Quote:

'Without God what possible foundation can we have for any system of ethics?'

John Page · 29-05-2006, 12:38 PM

Whose "God"?

Intbel · 29-05-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

I've just told you,

Quote:

'Without God what possible foundation can we have for any system of ethics?'

Ah .. I didn't realise that was a nagging question.
I guess the answer is easy, really.
A system of ethics can be built on a foundation of what works positively, what is practically useful and what enables, rather than dis ables people.

Millennium3 · 29-05-2006, 12:56 PM

My interest was eastern religion/philosophy. The Tao is the equivalent to western god, in its more sophisticated form Tao is an eternal law - without personality or individuality. It operates from the bases that in our hearts we do know what is universally right and wrong but ‘I’ [egotistical judgement] clouds what we know deep down. This is why in the Rinzai sect of Zen the master attacks the pupil’s responses with questions such as “Who judges it?’

CG Jung developed a concept of ‘transcendence’ which is a non intellectual breakthrough which individuals trapped in apparently impossible situations can experience. Einstein said that one of his theories [relativity - I think] came to him in a flash and it took him another ten years to understand it!

Mikeuk · 29-05-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Page

Whose "God"?

Any God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intbel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

I've just told you,

Quote:

'Without God what possible foundation can we have for any system of ethics?'

Ah .. I didn't realise that was a nagging question.
I guess the answer is easy, really.
A system of ethics can be built on a foundation of what works positively, what is practically useful and what enables, rather than dis ables people.

Of course, but that is simply the system that you choose. There is nothing to say that you are right and anybody else is - well - less right than you are.

We have a serious problem today in that - just like their religiously-motivated predecessors of centuries past - today's ethical arbiters think they are right and you are wrong.

Hence the dilemma of your actress friend (mentioned on another thread)who would lose her job if she were to support UKIP.

Intbel · 29-05-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Of course, but that is simply the system that you choose. There is nothing to say that you are right and anybody else is - well - less right than you are.

We each choose what is right for ourselves, do we not?
I'd never impose my values on another though of course I'm happy to state and explain them as are most folks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

We have a serious problem today in that - just like their religiously-motivated predecessors of centuries past - today's ethical arbiters think they are right and you are wrong.

It is only a problem, though, if folks take notice of what they think?
If their values correspond with mine, okay; if they don't? That's okay also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

Hence the dilemma of your actress friend (mentioned on another thread)who would lose her job if she were to support UKIP.

She has no dilemma. She had a clear choice: be a patron of UKIP or keep her job. She chose to keep her job.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29-05-2006, 01:47 AM	#122 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,762	Thanks Tom - I think yours is an improvement!

29-05-2006, 11:36 AM	#123 (permalink)
Mikeuk Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fareham Posts: 5,761 Party: Conservatives	One of the big questions that Nietzsche is posing when Zarathustra (Zoroaster) proclaims the death of God - killed by man - is: 'Without God what possible foundation can we have for any system of ethics?' Nietzsche - an atheist himself - derides the 'Tartuffery of old Kant'. You may attempt to justify Christian morality by rational means, but the attempt - however ingenious - is doomed to failure. All the more so, totally humanist systems such as those of Comte or Marx, whose foundations really go no further than the 'lifestyle choices' of their founders. The angry response from yesterday's Christians and today's Humanists is simply to deride Nietzsche (and Hume, Hobbes etc. before him) as preachers against morality and humanity. But we still don't get an answer to the nagging question. :twisted:

29-05-2006, 12:38 PM	#126 (permalink)
John Page Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Welwyn Hatfield (Herts.) Posts: 1,878	Whose "God"?

29-05-2006, 12:56 PM	#128 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,762	My interest was eastern religion/philosophy. The Tao is the equivalent to western god, in its more sophisticated form Tao is an eternal law - without personality or individuality. It operates from the bases that in our hearts we do know what is universally right and wrong but ‘I’ [egotistical judgement] clouds what we know deep down. This is why in the Rinzai sect of Zen the master attacks the pupil’s responses with questions such as “Who judges it?’ CG Jung developed a concept of ‘transcendence’ which is a non intellectual breakthrough which individuals trapped in apparently impossible situations can experience. Einstein said that one of his theories [relativity - I think] came to him in a flash and it took him another ten years to understand it!