Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am not a religious person. I do though believe in certain moral codes, at the heart of my beliefs is compassion for my fellow man. I believe most people are good people, regardless of race, religion, creed, class or colour. I believe all should be equal. I also believe most people know whats right and whats wrong. I believe the real conspiracy in the world at the moment is unconscious, it is not controlled by anyone, but is a product of advertising, the isolationist way many of us live and work at times, and the distance we feel from each other. The result of this is a cold unloving world for many, where as long as they are OK then they no longer care about others, this was highlighted to me by the reactions of some on this board to the London bombings. They are cash rich but emotionally poor.

Am I right?

No you are quite wrong to be hinest.

The Spirit of Humanity is self-interest....

I am not a religious person either, and I do believe society makes their morals to control their citizens....that doesn't make those morals any less reasonable, they are just not the human nature. I believe all people are neither...good nor bad they just are....they do what they want to do and do it for their own reasons if they know the reasons or not....I don't believe there is something like right or wrong...everything is neutral....these terms only exiist in subjective and biased societies...they are not natural. It might make people feel better that they are connected with others and that they care and are cared for....but they just swindle themselves...they don't care...and no one cares fot them.....I noticed that with some people on this board who mabye like to think maybe really think what they do they do for others...not out of self interest....they are wrong..whatever they do they do it just for themselves and really just for that......those people maybe think they are loving and caring but in fact they are just simple people that don't want to see the truth.

Is Whirly wrong?

Martin Luthor King, Gandhi, etc all simple people Aspirations towards a better world = simple

Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, etc deed = Great
Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, etc beliefs = Simple


Read my post...don't just give your stupid interpretation of parts of my ideas totally out of context.....would that be possible?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I noticed that with some people on this board who mabye like to think maybe really think what they do they do for others...not out of self interest....they are wrong..whatever they do they do it just for themselves and really just for that..



I feel really badly for you that you have never experienced this type of caring.. I have and am grateful for it.. and lately it has been people from this board who have been there for me when i needed them.. and I return the favor in kind.. not to make myself feel better but to help in some small way those that I care about..

Originally posted by bilb
I feel really badly for you that you have never experienced this type of caring.. I have and am grateful for it.. and lately it has been people from this board who have been there for me when i needed them.. and I return the favor in kind.. not to make myself feel better but to help in some small way those that I care about.. I actually agree with bardock on this one. If you really think about it its true, maybe indirectly but when it comes down to it, it is.

then maybe THAT is whats wrong with the world

Originally posted by bilb
I feel really badly for you that you have never experienced this type of caring.. I have and am grateful for it.. and lately it has been people from this board who have been there for me when i needed them.. and I return the favor in kind.. not to make myself feel better but to help in some small way those that I care about..

I didn't say this for of physical or mental caring exists...it does but for selfish reasons........

It is until the consequences have to be paid for, Nietzsche could not live by his. Machi and Sun Wu are the basis of all capitalist ideas and Nietsche's ideas at least in part led to the Holacaust.

Sorry I don't get you reasoning, but I guess in a way Ii'm glad

Reposted

The hour when ye say: "What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!"
The hour when ye say: "What good is my reason! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for his food? It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!"
The hour when ye say: "What good is my virtue! As yet it hath not made me passionate. How weary I am of my good and my bad! It is all poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!"
The hour when ye say: "What good is my justice! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel!"
The hour when we say: "What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion." Have ye ever spoken thus? Have ye ever cried thus? Ah! would that I had heard you crying thus!
It is not your sin- it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven!
Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated?
Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!

It speaks to me of self superiority and self interest, its meaning is clear and it led to the deaths of many jews and many of my people the Roma.

even as I stated earlier Nietzsche could not live by it:

Upon witnessing a horse being whipped by a coachman at the Piazza Carlo Alberto, Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck and collapsed, never to return to full sanity.

Compassion ruled him also in the end.

I never blamed Nietzsche for the holacaust, I do not blame ideas no matter how inhumane they are.

He had a lot of compassion the example with the horse proves that it also proves even he did not believe what he wrote.

Good...although his ideas were not inhumane at all...actually they were the most "human" ideas ever....

Well that's a misconception people that didn't understand Nietzsche could make........but on the contrary...he didn't do it out of compassion he did it becvause the Horse meant something to him....so he did it for himself.....if he had seen the Horse in Pain he would have felt pain himself...and maybe he decided for himself that he wanted to life for himself according to some sort of rules...for himself...and maybe this rules for himself said "help animals that are ion pain" but he did it for himself...

Then why the breakdown? He did not know the horse. Although interstingly he wrote a lot of horse poetry

And yes the Dionysiun based philosophy of Nietsche was inhumane as all self based systems are.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Then why the breakdown? He did not know the horse. Although interstingly he wrote a lot of horse poetry

And yes the Dionysiun based philosophy of Nietsche was inhumane as all self based systems are.

the breakdown because he suffered from a serious disease...he became insane in the end....the help for the Horse because of what I just said...and that he seemed to be fond of horses just underlines it...he chose for himself that he doesn't want a horse to suffer...not for the horses....but for him

You mean the Syphillis never proved, he had a nervous breakdown proved

A little basic Psychology for you Bardock at age 12 the brain starts to understand self is not the centre of the universe, obviously for people who follow this type of thinking this never happens

Originally posted by whirlysplat
You mean the Syphillis never proved, he had a nervous breakdown proved

Even if he didn't suffer from the disease...yes he had a nervous breakdown...can haapen to anyone anytime...doesn't make him wrong.....maybe he helped the horse cause of his insanity....would prove his point just further

he isn't saying that he was capaciously doing it for himself but rather that when you get to the bottom of it he didn't want to see the horse hurt because it hurt him to see it happen. So it all comes back to him. At least I think thats what you're saying bardock I apologize if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if he didn't suffer from the disease...yes he had a nervous breakdown...can haapen to anyone anytime...doesn't make him wrong.....maybe he helped the horse cause of his insanity....would prove his point just further

No he was overcome with compassion, that aside his yay sayers claim inherited brain disease, drug use etc etc.

On he did not see himself as a Superman


Why am I so wise?", "Why am I so clever?", "Why am I a destiny?" -- with these words Nietzsche finished one of his last works on 1888 - his autobiography Ecce Homo, How One Becomes What One Is.

I think this speaks for itself

Originally posted by whirlysplat
A little basic Psychology for you Bardock at age 12 the brain starts to understand self is not the centre of the universe, obviously for people who follow this type of thinking this never happens

A little basic Psychology for you...its just a vague set of theories...nothing proven...someone has an idea and explains it one way...another one the other.....

Bit like your friend Nietzsche you told me to read. Because obviously I am simple

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Bit like your friend Nietzsche you told me to read. Because obviously I am simple

Of course...jsut that he got it right....

Simple:
Your Beliefs = yes
You = I don't even know you.....

You have made assumptions about my beliefs and you make assumptions about my motivations. I disagree with yours but I do not call them simple even though most psychologists would argue the inability to show compassion for compassion's sake is deviant and immature. Interestingly enough you assumed I would not have read an old Prussians philosophical ramblings.

Your superiority complex is amusing we will have to discuss which universities and courses we studied at sometime

Originally posted by whirlysplat
You have made assumptions about my beliefs and you make assumptions about my motivations. I disagree with yours but I do not call them simple even though most psychologists would argue the inability to show compassion for compassion's sake is deviant and immature. Interestingly enough you assumed I would not have read an old Prussians philosophical ramblings.

Your superiority complex is amusing we will have to discuss which universities and courses we studied at sometime

Actually you did call them simple but that doesn't matter. Psychologists don't really know anything aboot our mind..they know bits but even that are theories....to call Psychology a science is an insult to every Science out there.

And of course I only mean those beliefs that are obvious because you stated them i.e. Belief in Compassion.....

I agree much of psychology is not science, however it is at least as well thought out as anything from Willheim.

I do think you need to avoid the filibuster tactic of "You should read or your simple" and stick to arguing the point.

You brought up Nietzsche and the most accepted version of his death undermines your argument as it did his.

Nietzsche, having spent his whole life stubbornly preaching the merits of what he called the will to power, stepped outside his Turin apartment one fine day to see a horse being beaten by its carriage driver. He cracked. Nietzsche threw himself between the driver and the horse, and he wrapped his arms around the horse, whispering in consoling tones.

Here's where it gets sketchy. Some people believe Nietzsche uttered one thing in this intimate moment with the horse (e.g., "Sing me a new song! The World is transformed, and all the Heavens sing for joy!", some people say he said something else, and some people say he never spoke a word again. This third claim can be discarded, as there are still records available of letters Nietzsche wrote and conversations he had after being admitted to the asylum where he'd die after 11 years of largely incoherent madness; these letters are curious reads, but only because the guy is nutty as a fruitcake, and not because he's continuing to make a contribution to the fields of philosophy or philology.

As if these details weren't sketchy enough, there are many medical professionals/historians who believe that Nietzsche actually faked his affliction. There is even a conspiracy theory about his sister Elizabeth "setting the whole thing up" in an attempt to discredit him. While this is clearly ludicrous, it does serve to illustrate the reaction of the many devoted followers of the philosopher, who perceived the tale of his breakdown as a compromise of the strength he had preached.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if he didn't suffer from the disease...yes he had a nervous breakdown...can haapen to anyone anytime...doesn't make him wrong.....maybe he helped the horse cause of his insanity....would prove his point just further


Hitler has syphilis too......what's going on those those countries?

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I agree much of psychology is not science, however it is at least as well thought out as anything from Willheim.

I do think you need to avoid the filibuster tactic of "You should read or your simple" and stick to arguing the point.

You brought up Nietzsche and the most accepted version of his death undermines your argument as it did his.

Nietzsche, having spent his whole life stubbornly preaching the merits of what he called the will to power, stepped outside his Turin apartment one fine day to see a horse being beaten by its carriage driver. He cracked. Nietzsche threw himself between the driver and the horse, and he wrapped his arms around the horse, whispering in consoling tones.

Here's where it gets sketchy. Some people believe Nietzsche uttered one thing in this intimate moment with the horse (e.g., "Sing me a new song! The World is transformed, and all the Heavens sing for joy!", some people say he said something else, and some people say he never spoke a word again. This third claim can be discarded, as there are still records available of letters Nietzsche wrote and conversations he had after being admitted to the asylum where he'd die after 11 years of largely incoherent madness; these letters are curious reads, but only because the guy is nutty as a fruitcake, and not because he's continuing to make a contribution to the fields of philosophy or philology.

As if these details weren't sketchy enough, there are many medical professionals/historians who believe that Nietzsche actually faked his affliction. There is even a conspiracy theory about his sister Elizabeth "setting the whole thing up" in an attempt to discredit him. While this is clearly ludicrous, it does serve to illustrate the reaction of the many devoted followers of the philosopher, who perceived the tale of his breakdown as a compromise of the strength he had preached.

and on Willheim and Nazis

There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? A Nazi could proudly quote him on almost every conceivable subject, and did. On Christianity: "the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.... This Christianity is no more than the typical teaching of the Socialists." On the State, power, and the jungle world of man: "Society has never regarded virtue as anything other than as a means to strength, power, and order. The State unmorality organized... the will to war, to conquest and revenge... Society is not entitled to exist for its own sake but only as a substructure and scaffolding by means of which a select race of beings may elevate themselves to their higher duties... There is no such thing as the right to live, the right to work, or the right to be happy: in this respect man is no different from the meanest worm." (Women, whom Nietzsche never had, he consigned to a distinctly inferior status, as did the Nazis, who decreed that their place was in the kitchen and their chief role in life to beget children for German warriors. Nietzsche put the idea this way: "Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior. All else is folly." He went further. In Thus Spake Zarathustra he exclaims: "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip!"...) And he exalted the superman as the beast of prey, "the magnificent blond brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory."

And war? Here Nietzsche took the view of most of the other nineteenth-century German thinkers. In the thundering Old Testament language in which Thus Spake Zarathustra is written, the philosopher cries out: "Ye shall love peace as a means to new war, and the short peace more than the long. You I advise not to work, but to fight. You I advise not to peace but to victory.... Ye say it is the good cause which halloweth even war? I say unto you: it is the good war which halloweth every cause. War and courage have done more great things than charity."

Finally there was Nietzsche's prophecy of the coming elite who would rule the world and from whom the superman would spring. In The Will to Power he exclaims: "A daring and ruler race is building itself up.... The aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become the 'lords of the earth'."

Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. "Lords of the Earth" is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche's prophecy cannot be doubted....

Do you see yourself as one of the ruling elite eventually Bardock is that why you have disregard for human compassion?

Whirly please get that..I never said anything like that...I nevver attacked you personally...no did I say reading was important...I called a beliefsystem simple...nothing more...not you...not anyone else....

As for his madness...what should he do? IOf he is ill he cant really control what he perceives anymore...his deat and the time in teh Asylum in no way disproves any of his teachings....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Whirly please get that..I never said anything like that...I nevver attacked you personally...no did I say reading was important...I called a beliefsystem simple...nothing more...not you...not anyone else....

As for his madness...what should he do? IOf he is ill he cant really control what he perceives anymore...his deat and the time in teh Asylum in no way disproves any of his teachings....

I think judging someones beliefs as simple is personal and arrogant, but I forgive you

I state again:

There is even a conspiracy theory about his sister Elizabeth "setting the whole thing up" in an attempt to discredit him. While this is clearly ludicrous, it does serve to illustrate the reaction of the many devoted followers of the philosopher, who perceived the tale of his breakdown as a compromise of the strength he had preached.

Many crazy people are brilliant....but don't know anthing about that N guy....I do know that's he was Philosphus's god.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
and on Willheim and Nazis

There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? A Nazi could proudly quote him on almost every conceivable subject, and did. On Christianity: "the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.... This Christianity is no more than the typical teaching of the Socialists." On the State, power, and the jungle world of man: "Society has never regarded virtue as anything other than as a means to strength, power, and order. The State unmorality organized... the will to war, to conquest and revenge... Society is not entitled to exist for its own sake but only as a substructure and scaffolding by means of which a select race of beings may elevate themselves to their higher duties... There is no such thing as the right to live, the right to work, or the right to be happy: in this respect man is no different from the meanest worm." (Women, whom Nietzsche never had, he consigned to a distinctly inferior status, as did the Nazis, who decreed that their place was in the kitchen and their chief role in life to beget children for German warriors. Nietzsche put the idea this way: "Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior. All else is folly." He went further. In Thus Spake Zarathustra he exclaims: "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip!"...) And he exalted the superman as the beast of prey, "the magnificent blond brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory."

And war? Here Nietzsche took the view of most of the other nineteenth-century German thinkers. In the thundering Old Testament language in which Thus Spake Zarathustra is written, the philosopher cries out: "Ye shall love peace as a means to new war, and the short peace more than the long. You I advise not to work, but to fight. You I advise not to peace but to victory.... Ye say it is the good cause which halloweth even war? I say unto you: it is the good war which halloweth every cause. War and courage have done more great things than charity."

Finally there was Nietzsche's prophecy of the coming elite who would rule the world and from whom the superman would spring. In The Will to Power he exclaims: "A daring and ruler race is building itself up.... The aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become the 'lords of the earth'."

Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. "Lords of the Earth" is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche's prophecy cannot be doubted....

Do you see yourself as one of the ruling elite eventually Bardock is that why you have disregard for human compassion?

No I don't and I don't have a disregard for human compassion..I just noticed that there is no such thing.....easy isn't it....

And just because someone takes someone elses teachings and pervertesd them doesn't mean the first person had anything to do with the new ideas.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
No I don't and I don't have a disregard for human compassion..I just noticed that there is no such thing.....easy isn't it....

And just because someone takes someone elses teachings and pervertesd them doesn't mean the first person had anything to do with the new ideas.....

You make a lot of assumptions as to what Nietzsche meant, I saved this for you, first in Hitlers then in Nietzsche's own words.

In Hitler's utterances there runs the theme that the supreme leader is above the morals of ordinary men. Hegel and Nietzsche thought so too.... Nietzsche, with his grotesque exaggeration, goes much further:

The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.

Pretty clear in my opinion, what do you think this means Bardock?

Have you read Nietzsche?

I read aboot him, I currently read "Also sprach Zarathustra" ....so this are not solely my assumptions what Nietzsche meant....its what some of he Philosophical writers of Germany think.

It means that the Humans are not caring...especially the strong ones don't have to.....so the concept of morals is wrong and has to be exchanged the morals must be brought to the people like you tame a beast...and a new better Race of Humans must be created.....doesn't involve any Holocaust any Aryans or anything that would justify what Hitler did....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I read aboot him, I currently read "Also sprach Zarathustra" ....so this are not solely my assumptions what Nietzsche meant....its what some of he Philosophical writers of Germany think.

It means that the Humans are not caring...especially the strong ones don't have to.....so the concept of morals is wrong and has to be exchanged the morals must be brought to the people like you tame a beast...and a new better Race of Humans must be created.....doesn't involve any Holocaust any Aryans or anything that would justify what Hitler did....

OK I read Nietzsche long ago, I'm about to make some assumptions myself, maybe before you were born.

What is more harmful than any vice? - Active sympathy for the ill-constituted and weak - Nietzsche

and in rebuttle

This is an old quote now common on the net

I would ask Nietzsche, What is a more explicit manifestation of weakness than to deny the receptiveness of the human mind to the world, to deny one's knowledge of the suffering of the horse, because one cannot handle it? Sympathy is no contemptible choice, it is neither contemptible nor choice, but rather a natural reflex of one's humanity, a receptiveness to the world that exists in all humankind, though he may try and fail to curtail or deny it. It is in such a way that humanity is connected to all the things it comprehends. And more sad and limiting than any other vice is it to deny what one necessarily feels because one is either too terrified of the truth or too weak to know and deal with the suffering of the horse, the suffering a human being vicariously endures proportionate to his knowledge of it.

Humanity pays for the fire of comprehension it has stolen from the gods by enduring the pain of all horses, by having access to all suffering. So Nietzsche vehemently denied; so Nietszche learned.

To omit sympathy from one's repetoire of feeling is to deny to understand. Nietzsche paid for his hubris.

Before you call peoples beliefs simple, don't omit anything.

-Whirly

Originally posted by Bardock42
I read aboot him, I currently read "Also sprach Zarathustra" ....so this are not solely my assumptions what Nietzsche meant....its what some of he Philosophical writers of Germany think.

It means that the Humans are not caring...especially the strong ones don't have to.....so the concept of morals is wrong and has to be exchanged the morals must be brought to the people like you tame a beast...and a new better Race of Humans must be created.....doesn't involve any Holocaust any Aryans or anything that would justify what Hitler did....

I think the role of the Leaders clearly explains why Hitler looked to Willheims writings, read it again.

You make a lot of assumptions as to what Nietzsche meant, I saved this for you, first in Hitlers then in Nietzsche's own words.

In Hitler's utterances there runs the theme that the supreme leader is above the morals of ordinary men. Hegel and Nietzsche thought so too.... Nietzsche, with his grotesque exaggeration, goes much further:

The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.

Pretty clear in my opinion, what do you think this means Bardock?

As someone whith Roma blood I find this section particularly offensive.

To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.

-Whilry

Hobbs flaws here we go lets start here:

Hobbes likes to make bold and even shocking claims to get his point across. 'I obtained two absolutely certain postulates of human nature,' he says, 'one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death' (De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory). What could be clearer? - We want all we can get, and we certainly want to avoid death. There are two problems with this view, however. First, quite simply, it represents a false view of human nature. People do all sorts of altruistic things that go against their interests. They also do all sorts of needlessly cruel things that go against self-interest (think of the self-defeating lengths that revenge can run to).

Oh so the flaws you think there are is that you think differen?....haha funny...but wrong....first humans never do altruistic things....ever....all those so called altruistic things come aboot because people think they will have an advantage from that...physically or mentally either way....and only because of our fear of losses and our Greed we built societies to protect us......yes Hobbes takes it simple he just says Death and Greed, but of course there is also pain, and other fears you jave to consider.....if you weren't born in a society and you came across someone that had something to drink and you were thirsty you would just take it...the only thing that keeps you from doing it is your upbringing....

Ah Hobbs later thinks a bit differently, so ha ha to you

The upshot is that Hobbes does not think that we are basically or reliably selfish; and he does not think we are fundamentally or reliably rational in our ideas about what is in our interests. He is rarely surprised to find human beings doing things that go against self-interest: we will cut off our noses to spite our faces, we will torture others for their eternal salvation, we will charge to our deaths for love of country. In fact, a lot of the problems that befall human beings, according to Hobbes, result from their being too little concerned with self-interest.

Fascinating

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Ah Hobbs later thinks a bit differently, so ha ha to you

The upshot is that Hobbes does not think that we are basically or reliably selfish; and he does not think we are fundamentally or reliably rational in our ideas about what is in our interests. He is rarely surprised to find human beings doing things that go against self-interest: we will cut off our noses to spite our faces, we will torture others for their eternal salvation, we will charge to our deaths for love of country. In fact, a lot of the problems that befall human beings, according to Hobbes, result from their being too little concerned with self-interest.

Fascinating

All those things you mentioned you do for yourself... You don't care about keeping yourself alive you care about how you would feel if you would stay alive. Imagine not helping somebody you would feel bad about it and it would suck. Now help him, this seems like a good thing to do. It isn't htough, you only did it because you didn't want to feel bad. And tahats basically what this is all about. Everything you do you do for you, the rest comes second and that never ever changes for anybody.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Ah Hobbs later thinks a bit differently, so ha ha to you

The upshot is that Hobbes does not think that we are basically or reliably selfish; and he does not think we are fundamentally or reliably rational in our ideas about what is in our interests. He is rarely surprised to find human beings doing things that go against self-interest: we will cut off our noses to spite our faces, we will torture others for their eternal salvation, we will charge to our deaths for love of country. In fact, a lot of the problems that befall human beings, according to Hobbes, result from their being too little concerned with self-interest.

Fascinating

Source....

Oh and then early Hobbes was right..not my problem what later Hobbes thought...although: "charge to our deaths for love of country" is selfish right there.....

and the others are easily explained too:
we torture people becuase we are sick freaks that like to torture or we think we get something from our god if we torture them or we got told that we had to do it from the beginning

I have no clue what he meant with Noses but I bet one of the earlier explainations apply....

And maybe...just maybe what hobbes meant is that we got told to much that we should don't sdo things because of self interest so that our selfishness gets shifted and it looks like we do things for others while we actually do it for ourselves......

But maybe Hobbes didn't measn what I just sad and just wasn't strong enough to argue it to the end...or didn't see it anymore.....you know old people get rather stubborn and crazy sometimes....

Originally posted by Fishy
All those things you mentioned you do for yourself... You don't care about keeping yourself alive you care about how you would feel if you would stay alive. Imagine not helping somebody you would feel bad about it and it would suck. Now help him, this seems like a good thing to do. It isn't htough, you only did it because you didn't want to feel bad. And tahats basically what this is all about. Everything you do you do for you, the rest comes second and that never ever changes for anybody.

right on brother....couldn't have said it better myself

Originally posted by Fishy
All those things you mentioned you do for yourself... You don't care about keeping yourself alive you care about how you would feel if you would stay alive. Imagine not helping somebody you would feel bad about it and it would suck. Now help him, this seems like a good thing to do. It isn't htough, you only did it because you didn't want to feel bad. And tahats basically what this is all about. Everything you do you do for you, the rest comes second and that never ever changes for anybody.

again I state this as your opinion and I say its one which is flawed

Sympathy is no contemptible choice, it is neither contemptible nor choice, but rather a natural reflex of one's humanity, a receptiveness to the world that exists in all humankind, though he may try and fail to curtail or deny it. It is in such a way that humanity is connected to all the things it comprehends. And more sad and limiting than any other vice is it to deny what one necessarily feels because one is either too terrified of the truth or too weak to know and deal with the suffering of the horse, the suffering a human being vicariously endures proportionate to his knowledge of it.

Would you have cared about stealing or killing peopel if you were taught it was the right thing to do? No you wouldn't have.

Would you care about animals if you thought they were nothing? No you would not have.

Would you help a stranger if helping people was wrong? No you wouldn't have.

You would never help anybody then, wanna know why? Because its the right thing to do and it makes you feel better. You really do not care about other people nobody does.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
again I state this as your opinion and I say its one which is flawed

Sympathy is no contemptible choice, it is neither contemptible nor choice, but rather a natural reflex of one's humanity, a receptiveness to the world that exists in all humankind, though he may try and fail to curtail or deny it. It is in such a way that humanity is connected to all the things it comprehends. And more sad and limiting than any other vice is it to deny what one necessarily feels because one is either too terrified of the truth or too weak to know and deal with the suffering of the horse, the suffering a human being vicariously endures proportionate to his knowledge of it.

Can't you give your own opinion...do you really have to resstate what someone else said 5 times in one thread...of course its his opinion...but its also the truth...and please the guy you quoted was an idiott...had no clue what he was talking aboot and thought he coul contradict one of the greatest philosophers ever...please....he should get a real job....by the way
Quoting: Use these " little thingies and state the Source...okie?

Exactly, you would have killed him for yourself. You would have done the same if you thought you deserved to live more then him even if he could have cured cancer two weeks later. The thing is though, you wouldn't want to be responsible for killing the person that could cure cancer so you would probably just let yourself die and let him shoot his musket.

You would do it for yourself because you wouldn't be able to live with yourself otherwise.

Well I will anyway

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbs held that, absent the existence of a strong government threatening to put the smackdown on citizens, people would be in a constant state resembling war and the world would be every man for his own. Individual freedom was something to be feared because mankind, being naturally evil, would take advantage by plundering and raping each other blind (I'm paraphrasing). In short, Thomas Hobbs thought people were bad and needed to be babysat and/or shot.

What an idiot imo

-Whirly

Originally posted by Fishy
Exactly, you would have killed him for yourself. You would have done the same if you thought you deserved to live more then him even if he could have cured cancer two weeks later. The thing is though, you wouldn't want to be responsible for killing the person that could cure cancer so you would probably just let yourself die and let him shoot his musket.

You would do it for yourself because you wouldn't be able to live with yourself otherwise.

No I did it because I cared.

-Whirly

No that's not a flaw of Hobbes because it applies to everyone...yes every single person...wherever he/she/it was socialised....that is the great thing aboot him....

Yes...cause there aren't any..its subjective...what seems right to you might be wrong to me....its just what it is....and a third party has its own view again also subjective...its jsut right....

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Well I will anyway

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbs held that, absent the existence of a strong government threatening to put the smackdown on citizens, people would be in a constant state resembling war and the world would be every man for his own. Individual freedom was something to be feared because mankind, being naturally evil, would take advantage by plundering and raping each other blind (I'm paraphrasing). In short, Thomas Hobbs thought people were bad and needed to be babysat and/or shot.

What an idiot imo

-Whirly

You know you didn't point out hsi flaws...you just summarized his (imo right) philosophy.....he is absolutely right..and I bet he would think you are the idiot but that's ok...

Originally posted by whirlysplat
No I did it because I cared.

-Whirly

No that is just not true....you are lying to yourself...why are you doing that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can't you give your own opinion...do you really have to resstate what someone else said 5 times in one thread...of course its his opinion...but its also the truth...and please the guy you quoted was an idiott...had no clue what he was talking aboot and thought he coul contradict one of the greatest philosophers ever...please....he should get a real job....by the way
Quoting: Use these " little thingies and state the Source...okie?


Hilarious, I could start anywhere with this, but ok, Nietschze was a famous philiosopher who inspired Hitler, that sure makes him great . I stated the source in one of the posts you'll have to find it I think he was a University of London and Harvard Politics Prof in the Late 50's So he had a real job My opinion is the same as his.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
No I did it because I cared.

-Whirly

You only care because you would hate it if you didn't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You see inspiring something doesn't make you great or not...Nietzsche from his teachings is great and just because some Madman took his teachings turned them upside down and fed them to the masses doesn't make him any less of a good Philosopher...and nowadays he is considered ass one of the greats ....although not liked to be believed in....

I know I saw the source but you have to do it every time and show that its a quote...please that would make debating much easier.....I am just saying that what he said aboot Nietzsche is not necessarily true...he interpreted him that way....although it is very unlikely Nietzsche meant it that way.....

And I answered to what he said...I will quote it for you:

I think giving the source once is enough on here!

He was insane only after he displayed "love" for the horse (an action many followers saw as hypocritical) I have quoted Nietzsche himself a great deal. Being well known due to Hitler, because make no bones about it he was not well thought of alive and his notoriety is purely due to his sisters links to the Nazi Party, does not make you a great philosopher.

-Whirly

OH...it's a Bardock and Whirlysplat day.....


Clinton has syphillis......

Originally posted by debbiejo
OH...it's a Bardock and Whirlysplat day.....


Clinton has syphillis......

Dah wah? What?

Kidding......

I know, and it made me laugh.

But still.... Why the hell did you say that, oh well who cares.

Originally posted by Fishy
I know, and it made me laugh.

But still.... Why the hell did you say that, oh well who cares.


They kept brining up syphilis that makes people insane....

You keep using Nietscze, I will use a far better and more famous (in his lifetime philosopher Bertrand Russells words)

Three passions have governed my life:
The longings for love, the search for knowledge,
And unbearable pity for the suffering of .

Love brings ecstasy and relieves loneliness.
In the union of love I have seen
In a mystic miniature the prefiguring vision
Of the heavens that saints and poets have imagined.

With equal passion I have sought knowledge.
I have wished to understand the hearts of .
I have wished to know why the stars shine.

Love and knowledge led upwards to the heavens,
But always pity brought me back to earth;
Cries of pain reverberated in my heart
Of children in famine, of victims tortured
And of old people left helpless.
I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot,
And I too suffer.

This has been my life; I found it worth living.

Read it again, read it until you understand

He wants to stop evil but he can't and because of that he suffers.

Again its all about him, he suffers because he can't stop the suffering of other people. The reason he would want to stop the suffering of other people is to make sure he can stop suffering and so that he can finally go upwards into the heavens.

I have not argued against self interest at anypoint I have argued people care. Two different things read my posts again and understand


He does it because its right!

Martin Wright Edelman

It's time for greatness -- not for greed. It's a time for idealism -- not ideology. It is a time not just for compassionate words, but compassionate action.

Martin Luthor King Junior

I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream -- a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character; a dream of a nation where all our gifts and resources are held not for ourselves alone, but as instruments of service for the rest of humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality.

Pearl S Buck

Life without idealism is empty indeed. We just hope or starve to death.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Each man has his own vocation; his talent is his call. There is one direction in which all space is open to him.

Victor Frankl

We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and (3) by suffering.


and most importantly and read and understand it

William Ellery Channing

Every human being has a work to carry on within, duties to perform abroad, influence to exert, which are peculiarly his, and which no conscience but his own can teach.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I have not argued against self interest at anypoint I have argued people care. Two different things read my posts again and understand


He does it because its right!

Yeah he does it because its right, and that makes him feel better. If he would not feel better he would not have done it.

Albert eistein maybe says it best, not bad for a dyslexic like me

A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

Sure many people..smart people thought there was a thing like "compassion" that doesn't make them any more right though

Oh and its Luther I believe...Luthor is the bad guy from superman

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure many people..smart people thought there was a thing like "compassion" that doesn't make them any more right though

Oh and its Luther I believe...Luthor is the bad guy from superman

That will be my dyslexia just like Albeart E kicking in, by the way Bardock its about and not aboot

nitpicking last bastion

So like me they are all simple

I am aware of that...I just want a dead man to be spelled right...no actually it bothers me because Luther is a german name

I never said you were simple...nor did I say they are simple..they are just wrong in this instance...smart people do doubt aboot it....but even they can fail...

Wait back up take a step back...

Whirly you said you weren't argueing about something I just have on question for you.

Do you believe people do things that are not selfish?

Originally posted by whirlysplat
That will be my dyslexia just like Albeart E kicking in, by the way Bardock its about and not aboot

nitpicking last bastion

So like me they are all simple

Albert was pulled out of school.....and became a self taught homeschooler....as did Edison......seee what school does to a person....Destroys real thinkers......Albert was way too cool.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Albert was pulled out of school.....and became a self taught homeschooler....as did Edison......seee what school does to a person....Destroys real thinkers......Albert was way too cool.

Yes...well John Stuart Mill was better ......why do you bring it back to Albert again and again though?

I believe sometimes people do things for others wishing nothing in return What we do for ourselves fades quickly, what we do for others lives on in them imo good enough?

-Whirly

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I believe sometimes people do things for others wishing nothing in return What we do for ourselves fades quickly, what we do for others lives on in them imo good enough?

-Whirly

You mean nothing in return from the person they help...or nothing in return at all?....

A simple yes or no would have done, but this is just as good...

No use to argue anymore, we already agree. You have never nor will ever do anything selfless

I think most people do things out of greed, even helping others.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I think most people do things out of greed, even helping others.


Some on each side........greed and not.....depends on your character....but still.........

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I am not a religious person. I do though believe in certain moral codes, at the heart of my beliefs is compassion for my fellow man. I believe most people are good people, regardless of race, religion, creed, class or colour. I believe all should be equal. I also believe most people know whats right and whats wrong. I believe the real conspiracy in the world at the moment is unconscious, it is not controlled by anyone, but is a product of advertising, the isolationist way many of us live and work at times, and the distance we feel from each other. The result of this is a cold unloving world for many, where as long as they are OK then they no longer care about others, this was highlighted to me by the reactions of some on this board to the London bombings. They are cash rich but emotionally poor.

Am I right?

So at last you understand this fishy

The Real Nietzsche and his real views on morals

"My brother, when thou hast a virtue, and it is thine own virtue, thou hast
it in common with no one.

To be sure, thou wouldst call it by name and caress it; thou wouldst pull
its ears and amuse thyself with it.

And lo! Then hast thou its name in common with the people, and hast become
one of the people and the herd with thy virtue!

Better for thee to say: "Ineffable is it, and nameless, that which is pain
and sweetness to my soul, and also the hunger of my bowels."

Let thy virtue be too high for the familiarity of names, and if thou must
speak of it, be not ashamed to stammer about it.

Thus speak and stammer: "That is MY good, that do I love, thus doth it
please me entirely, thus only do _I_ desire the good.

Not as the law of a God do I desire it, not as a human law or a human need
do I desire it; it is not to be a guide-post for me to superearths and
paradises.

An earthly virtue is it which I love: little prudence is therein, and the
least everyday wisdom.

But that bird built its nest beside me: therefore, I love and cherish it--
now sitteth it beside me on its golden eggs."

Thus shouldst thou stammer, and praise thy virtue.

Once hadst thou passions and calledst them evil. But now hast thou only
thy virtues: they grew out of thy passions."


If you didn't get that...here's it for short...if you have your morals like them, but they are for you not for anything else, have your virtues because you want them......

i just enjoyed finding pro Nazi passages in an egomaniacs works

Originally posted by whirlysplat
i just enjoyed finding pro Nazi passages in an egomaniacs works

They are not pro Nazi..since the Nazis didn't exist back then...and why did you do it although you read his book...you know what way he meant it and you still take his passages out of context..it is just pathetic....

No your right he helped form the philosophy of Hitler

His sister seemed to think thats how they were meant

Originally posted by whirlysplat
No your right he helped form the philosophy of Hitler

Yes....he did....not on purpose though....

Originally posted by whirlysplat
His sister seemed to think thats how they were meant

Possible, but his sister just wasn't the genius he was.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes....he did....not on purpose though....



Possible, but his sister just wasn't the genius he was.....

she knew him better than you or me

Originally posted by whirlysplat
she knew him better than you or me

true but we all know what he wrote it....and its pretty clear that he didn't mean it in any way like the Nazis did use it.....so why don't you quote the Bible where it has Inquisition quotes? .....or Darwin where he helped the Nazi View.....

So you are more intelligent than Hitler I look forward to reading Bardock: My Struggle

Originally posted by whirlysplat
So you are more intelligent than Hitler I look forward to reading Bardock: My Struggle

So you are saying that what Stalin did to the Farmers (starved them to death) was all right?


^typical Whirly behaviour

To answer your question, no I don't think I am smarter than Hitler....most Historians and Philosophers nowadays agree that Hitler misinterpreted him....and Hitler didn't care he just took whatever made sense to use.....and Mein Kampf is one of the most horrible and stupid books ever...

Originally posted by Bardock42
So you are saying that what Stalin did to the Farmers (starved them to death) was all right?


^typical Whirly behaviour

To answer your question, no I don't think I am smarter than Hitler....most Historians and Philosophers nowadays agree that Hitler misinterpreted him....and Hitler didn't care he just took whatever made sense to use.....and Mein Kampf is one of the most horrible and stupid books ever...

Typical Whirly behaviour uh huh..........OK.......... backs away slowly.

Some believe he misinterpreted him, others do not!
Where did I mention Stalin?
Bardock the book critic, it helped move a nation so whatever your feelings on content retrospectively, it was well written.
Hitler was evil imo, maybe not in yours as good an evil are constructs to Nietzsche, but he was intelligent!

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Please why the personal abuse my friend we are debating here take a step back, deep breath, relax.

Look you perceive Nieschze one way. I perceive him another only he knows which of us is right. If my posts are upsetting you that much I apologise. I offer no malice to you.
I am sorry you find the quotes I use out of context in your opinion, I showed you where I got the commentary and analysis I used from. So blame Shirer not me.
If I bother you that much please put me on ignore then you will not have to read my opinions. I thought we were debating. Not arguing. You raised Nietzsche about an issue which is emotive to me in my frame of reference, I understand Nietzsche would see this as weakness, but hell I think he talks bollocks. If you raise Nietzsche in the way you did you must expect the arguments I used brought up. I understand it is probably an emotive issue for you also proving Nietzsche talks bollocks.

Sorry if I upset you.

It's unbelievable you did it again.....

MY "friend" I answered to Shirers opinion...he pretended that Nietzsche didn't live according to his Philosophy....this quite obviously was wrong and how someone that says such Bullshit can become Professor at Harvard amazes me.....anyways

I don't mind your opinion...I just never read any of it....all I read from you are quotes from people that didn't like Nietzsche...I would really like to hear your own opinion one day....

You don't bother me just one aspect of your "debating" tactics...which i found offensive because they are more of personal attacks...I don't like that...I prefer serious debates....

I never intended to argue for Nietzsche (I notice that I did but I didn't want to do that, although I find it offensicve how one of the greates german philosophers gets misinterpreted and linked with the biggest criminals ever)
I just said that I wasn't the only one having that view (Nietzsche, Hobbes, etc...), I realize that you know a lot against Nietzsche but this more aor less brought us off-topic because we were debating Nietzsche, not our own opinions.
I like Nietzsche this is true but I don't see why I have to be his advocate....he is right...but I prefer my own views

You didn't...if you felt like an emotinal upsetness this is just due to my dislike of getting my worxs twisted and perverted......I think I have that in common with poor Nietzsche

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's unbelievable you did it again.....

MY "friend" I answered to Shirers opinion...he pretended that Nietzsche didn't live according to his Philosophy....this quite obviously was wrong and how someone that says such Bullshit can become Professor at Harvard amazes me.....anyways

I don't mind your opinion...I just never read any of it....all I read from you are quotes from people that didn't like Nietzsche...I would really like to hear your own opinion one day....

You don't bother me just one aspect of your "debating" tactics...which i found offensive because they are more of personal attacks...I don't like that...I prefer serious debates....

I never intended to argue for Nietzsche (I notice that I did but I didn't want to do that, although I find it offensicve how one of the greates german philosophers gets misinterpreted and linked with the biggest criminals ever)
I just said that I wasn't the only one having that view (Nietzsche, Hobbes, etc...), I realize that you know a lot against Nietzsche but this more aor less brought us off-topic because we were debating Nietzsche, not our own opinions.
I like Nietzsche this is true but I don't see why I have to be his advocate....he is right...but I prefer my own views

You didn't...if you felt like an emotinal upsetness this is just due to my dislike of getting my worxs twisted and perverted......I think I have that in common with poor Nietzsche

Dear Bardock

I respect your national pride in Nietzsche, I am sorry you believe despite the incident with the horse Nietzsche lived by his beliefs and you feel this is misrepresentation by myself and others. Again the only one who really knows is Nietzsche.

As for misinterpretation well we differ in opinion on that.
Your right Nietzsche brought us off topic but I did not raise him. You did and I quote "you should read Nietzsche". This comment set the tone for our "debate", unfortunately you made an assumption that I had not read Nietzsche, a fair guess as many have not including you only to find I had.
Not only that I knew a little bit about his history and the hypocrisy of the horse incident. I understand you like Nietzsche, It is good to try on lots of different types of ideas until you decide what fits best for you. I am glad you like your own views.

#i never twisted your words you made an assumption about me, one which was untrue. I don't think we are in a position to know what Nietzsche would have thought of others interpretations of his ideas. He did claim to be a fatality and a destiny perhaps he would have been proud, or perhaps and I think in this you are right sickened. Nietzsche like many philosophers came up with ideas to shock, to understand Nietzsche you need to have read his works, and understand his position on Christianity, as this was the root of weakness he felt. I am not Christian but I see his code as no better than there's. I suggest if you are truly interested in reading good philosophy with a Nietzschen bent although far better thought out you look East to Sun Wu.

I hope this clarifies things

The Whirly one

Ok my whirlyful friend get this.....even if you read Nietzsche (which I am absolutely not sure off because what you quoted is in the 2nd chapter of the first part while his further beliefs are just two chapters further) you misunderstood him...sorry maybe it was a bad translation I don't know....furthermore its not my pride in a national philosopher (Kant, Schopenhauer, Jaspers, Heidegger.....we got enough others) its because he is right....
Furthermore you bring up this half thought through idea that he didn't live according to what he said but not only is that absolutely wrong I even quoted where it is shown in "Also sprach Zarathustra"

Plus yes you twisted my words...more than once...last occurance "So you think you are more intelligent than Hitler" ..... never said that...never even touched upon this subject....Nietzsches hate for Christianity was unnatural and I don't knoiw if I agree with that...but we talk abopot Nietzsche because you think you somehow have some knowlege against him...I am not attached to Nietzsches views they are similiar but not the same...so you should respond to my views (way bac) with your views (not with other peoples) ....I will see into Sun Wu when I am done with the western philosophers I am currently into.....

And iot doesn't clarify anything it just shows again that you are not able to debate but rather try to make it personal...its not it is a serious debate...please understand that.....I have no problem with yoiu...just don't twist my words.....and lets stop with Nietzsche because we both seem to be stubborn on this subject (although I am right)....

So can we talk aboot our views...and not make this a philosophical arguement....

Nope I have nothing against Nietzsche, I think he is wrong thatsa all.
You said Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche, you assume again that you understand Nietzsche better than Hitler. Yes I read Nietzsche at university about 15 years ago. It was an English translation but it was accurate. I read it in the epistemeology unit of my first degree as an example of an anti christian philosopher for an essay on Science and Christianity. He has some ideas which have some truth. I do not twist words. I use words.

I truly have nothing against Nietzsche or you.

Relax its only the internet.

I know its the Internet...so please don't take personal what I say....its not against you....your "style" of "debating" is very immature though.

We really don't need to fight aboot Nietzsche, I don't claim that I understand him better, I read aboot him from learned aboot him and many if not all serious Philosophers and Historians agree that Nietzsche didn't intend anything like Hitler ....

And you very much misuse words of other people, you make assumptions that just make no sense at all......

And I don't have anything personal against you or the Philosophers you quoted

I am "immature", "simple", "twist words", please stop this bardock I am not into insulting people, just debating. Keep the flames to yourself.

It really is nothing personal

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I am "immature", "simple", "twist words", please stop this bardock I am not into insulting people, just debating. Keep the flames to yourself.

It really is nothing personal

Again Whirly:
Not you are simple but your "people do good deeds and care for otheres" ciew is simple
Not you are immature but your "style" of "debating" is immature

And for the twisting of my words...you just did it again...so there's really no flaming going on

I don't take it personal, I just don't think you respond to what I say ever.....and when you do it is a quote from someone else.....

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, But if you really make them think, they'll hate you!

-Don Marquis (1878-1937)

Originally posted by whirlysplat
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, But if you really make them think, they'll hate you!

-Don Marquis (1878-1937)


Nice and al..but how does it realte to the topic...not at all

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nice and al..but how does it realte to the topic...not at all

that depends what topic I am relating it to

Originally posted by whirlysplat
that depends what topic I am relating it to

Off course...but the only two actually necessary in this thread "Do people have compassion" and "Did Nietzsche contradict himself" ....well it just doesn't fit...its a good quote no doubt aboot it but that'S what I am talking aboot...can't we talk aboot our views...not the views of others?

Or alternatively is Whirly twisting words or providing a counter argument to at least my preconcieved notions on Nietzsche, which I have been reduced to insulting him over.


............................................Why?

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I am not a religious person. I do though believe in certain moral codes, at the heart of my beliefs is compassion for my fellow man. I believe most people are good people, regardless of race, religion, creed, class or colour. I believe all should be equal. I also believe most people know whats right and whats wrong. I believe the real conspiracy in the world at the moment is unconscious, it is not controlled by anyone, but is a product of advertising, the isolationist way many of us live and work at times, and the distance we feel from each other. The result of this is a cold unloving world for many, where as long as they are OK then they no longer care about others, this was highlighted to me by the reactions of some on this board to the London bombings. They are cash rich but emotionally poor.

Am I right?

Compassion, morality, ethics, and conscience are what separate us from other animals and organisms.

They're uniquely human creations.

Originally posted by Tex
Compassion, morality, ethics, and conscience are what separate us from other animals and organisms.

They're uniquely human creations.

Are they uniquely human creations or uniquely human characteristics? Now we have the true question.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Or alternatively is Whirly twisting words or providing a counter argument to at least my preconcieved notions on Nietzsche, which I have been reduced to insulting him over.


............................................Why?

Hmm interesting ...that's how you see it?...well ok I guess .....its your style of debating.....it doesn't reallly fit that Topic either though.....


Originally posted by Tex
Compassion, morality, ethics, and conscience are what separate us from other animals and organisms.

They're uniquely human creations.

I strongly disagree....it is the reasoning that makes us different (if at all) but that just means we have more possibilities and can further plan out our selfishness

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Are they uniquely human creations or uniquely human characteristics? Now we have the true question.

Oh actually put like that...they are huiman creations.....fake so to say....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm interesting ...that's how you see it?...well ok I guess .....its your style of debating.....it doesn't reallly fit that Topic either though.....




I strongly disagree....it is the reasoning that makes us different (if at all) but that just means we have more possibilities and can further plan out our selfishness I like that last part.....so true.

A characteristic and a creation are two separate things one is intrinsic the other is existential

-Whirly

For Bardock

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

Originally posted by whirlysplat
For Bardock

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

Why...just why do you only quote....don't you have own views?......
I don't want to argue with a long Dead philosopher....this is a debate between us two.....furthermore maybe you should take Nietzsches advise.....no wait....you don't have arguements at all.....

Hmmm the only thing that has more potential for human good is human evil. I don't think the "spirit" of humanity is compassion. Fear, necessity... survival drove the first humans together, kept the tribal families unified. From the earliest true civilisations compassion didn't figure largely into it, and morals were very, very different...

As a species we are selfish, prone to foolishness and violence, eager to protect ourselves above all else. On an individual level we have a lot of good stuff, including compassion, but I don't think, sadly, very sadly, it is the "spirit" of our species. In fact in the sense it is used here the concept is relatively new in the long march of history. So yes, people have a potential for good and bad. So I say neutrality is where humanity sits, and good and bad depends on the morals of the time. A good, strong, virtuous Roman was lauded and loved in the Republic, but to us would be a monster. In certain past societies compassion, mercy was a weakness. And even today not a single nation is built on compassion, but it is an important social construct. In a way it's kind of relative.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why...just why do you only quote....don't you have own views?......
I don't want to argue with a long Dead philosopher....this is a debate between us two.....furthermore maybe you should take Nietzsches advise.....no wait....you don't have arguements at all.....



I do, just ones you find painful to counter.


-Whirly

Originally posted by whirlysplat
I do, just ones you find painful to counter.


-Whirly

Ok....dude just do...please...no one liners...no quotes....come on just show your view and "try" to support it.....I just want to see one of your own thoughts in this thread....please......we argue over more than 6 pages now , but I feel like I have to talk against shirer...and when I am done with that I have to talk against Kant....never against you.....get some debating etiquette.....

I have shown my views, I believe that rather than selfishness making men greedy (your opinion is that the natural state of man is selfish as is Willheims). It is society which makes them selfish. I believe intrinsically if you remove the constructs of the "market" you are so proud of in your post and distribute wealth fairly, you would find the human spirit is not as base as you think. Eventually I believe this will happen that the true compassion of man will show through. I think we have seen signs of it in the west over the last century, when individual deviants do not affect group think. In one way Nietzsche's ideas are right but he attributes the will to power to individuals, I believe the Ubermensch will be a product of an uber understanding. This may take a thousand years or more to achieve, but eventually we will have no market, we will all have food on the table, we will all have the things that make life worthwhile. At this point the true spirit of humanity will show. Nietzsche also got right his ideas on some of the barriers to progression, his view on organised religion and mine fit nicely.
The true nature of man is not sin, it is not greed, these are states forced upon man by lack, the true nature of man is brotherhood.
But this understanding will not come in my lifetime.

Never for as long as historians could trace has there been a day of peace.

Never once has there been a human that did not get mad, or deep down hated somebody or wanted them to get the hell away from them. All humans are proud of what they achieve because it makes them feel special. Why do you think Communism fails, if you think about it its the best system ever. However when you realise what it does it sucks. It makes people equal, we can not deal with equality. Perfection is beyond our reach. We do not even really understand the concept.

Do you think you can be happy sharing everything you have, and with everybody having exactly the same. Nothing will be special anymore. You won't be happy you'll feel normal. Thats not enough. Thats not a perfect world.

Originally posted by Fishy
Never for as long as historians could trace has there been a day of peace.

Never once has there been a human that did not get mad, or deep down hated somebody or wanted them to get the hell away from them. All humans are proud of what they achieve because it makes them feel special. Why do you think Communism fails, if you think about it its the best system ever. However when you realise what it does it sucks. It makes people equal, we can not deal with equality. Perfection is beyond our reach. We do not even really understand the concept.

Do you think you can be happy sharing everything you have, and with everybody having exactly the same. Nothing will be special anymore. You won't be happy you'll feel normal. Thats not enough. Thats not a perfect world.


read my post you misunderstand. Without bring rude I said nothing about sharing No, higher ideals replace the base ideas of the market.
Your rebuttle is a rant and addresses none of the points I made as I tried to explain to you ages ago you are arguing you interpretation of my question. Which is not the same as the question. I suspect this is a product of the "group think" you belong to.

"distribute wealth fairly"

"we will have no market, we will all have food on the table, we will all have the things that make life worthwhile"

"The true nature of man is not sin, it is not greed, these are states forced upon man by lack, the true nature of man is brotherhood."

If not claiming what I said we could not achieve then what were you claiming? Because from this I get that you want everybody to be happy equality, the lack of war and all that crap that will never ever happen.

sooo many pages to read...compassion...i'm not sure on that...the spirit of humanity is...ummmSorrow...that's what i think anyway....cause you figure....anger...has sorrow....happpiness has sorrow once you lose it....revenge has sorrow, hatred has sorrow... i guess it's the way you look at it....

Originally posted by Fishy
"distribute wealth fairly"

"we will have no market, we will all have food on the table, we will all have the things that make life worthwhile"

"The true nature of man is not sin, it is not greed, these are states forced upon man by lack, the true nature of man is brotherhood."

If not claiming what I said we could not achieve then what were you claiming? Because from this I get that you want everybody to be happy equality, the lack of war and all that crap that will never ever happen.

Probably the best example of what humans should aspire to and a perfect example of what I blieve the true nature of man is.

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

John Lennon

Its a good song...and it might be an Utopia...sure...but it will still happen(if it will happen at all) humans will still be selfish....it just won't mean anything anymore...

I believe our true nature is above the greed placed on it by insufficiency. You see what happens when people have enough. They will compete but in different ways like academics generally compete or purely for the challenge like Davinci. Purpose is still present.

People will always do what they want...DaVinci paint, construct whatever...Rockefeller earn money.....BAch play music.....and they will compete...if they want that....because society might have implanted them that being the best is important...o0r maybe its their nature...but they will do it cause they want....

Example: I like to do so called "good" things....but I don't like when people know it (makes me feel bad) but if I do something good (to some extend, small things) and no one knows that is a great feeling for me...so I do it...sometimes ...when I want to...but I do it for me...not for anyone else....least for the person that gets something out of it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wow, a big massive copy and paste from Marihemp.

Congratulations on being able to work C&P.

Is there some sarcasm I sense?

.....anyways good example again...why did she do that? to see Deano cry...possibly....just for the hell of saying something....could be......to entertain herself....most likely....but I can tell you what she didn't do it for...for any other person here there or anyhwere...she just did it for herself.....like everyone does......

and why did Deano post it....to educate his fellow earthmen...NO (except its his own goal to do though...but then he would do it to fuilfill his goal)......for the sadistical notion that people might actually read the BS....yes could be.......to see jis own sig...most likely...also selfish....

I know those are not the best examples but that's it with every action of a human being...it has ultimately selfish otives...whixh isn't bad...its just human nature...

He says or pastes all that, then moans at everyone for being controlled.

Yet adopts new theories like a benetton commercial.

The man is up slack alley with a broken oar and significantly damaged rudder.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
People will always do what they want...DaVinci paint, construct whatever...Rockefeller earn money.....BAch play music.....and they will compete...if they want that....because society might have implanted them that being the best is important...o0r maybe its their nature...but they will do it cause they want....

Example: I like to do so called "good" things....but I don't like when people know it (makes me feel bad) but if I do something good (to some extend, small things) and no one knows that is a great feeling for me...so I do it...sometimes ...when I want to...but I do it for me...not for anyone else....least for the person that gets something out of it.

Only because they have been socialised to need those things, when the things in life we require exist, for many other challenges will exist.
You are a product of your own greed Bardock and it blinds you to other possibilities. In your frame of reference and the world as it exists now this is not a problem. I do not judge you, I do pity you.
I'm sorry you want all the time.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He says or pastes all that, then moans at everyone for being controlled.

Yet adopts new theories like a benetton commercial.

The man is up slack alley with a broken oar and significantly damaged rudder.

-AC

Sadly AC much of what he posts is purely trollin and he believes none of it

No problem I don't judge you either....because I don't judge people since what they do is ultimately selfish anyways and they don't really have much of a choice....and my belief is that Society makes us these "accpetable" beings.....cavemen wouldn't be...and we are still the same as them just "educated"....and forced to think in a particular way...you too...and I.....just that I luckily think the right way

Originally posted by Bardock42
No problem I don't judge you either....because I don't judge people since what they do is ultimately selfish anyways and they don't really have much of a choice....and my belief is that Society makes us these "accpetable" beings.....cavemen wouldn't be...and we are still the same as them just "educated"....and forced to think in a particular way...you too...and I.....just that I luckily think the right way



You think the right way considering your selfish needs

Hmm yes..thank you....although I didn't get the "your selfish need" part

The selfish needs you society has taught you to believe are natural.

Originally posted by whirlysplat
The selfish needs you society has taught you to believe are natural.
Oh you mean the selfless ideas society has pout in your mind....I get it....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh you mean the selfless ideas society has pout in your mind....I get it....

I only wish to challenge, basically most of my needs are fed, I am fortunate and want for little I am a well fed, well off, wel educated Westerner, of Traveller extraction. So i have been exposed to some unusual situations.

bump