Ok, I am not Nietzsche I can't answer what he believed...and we are shooting way of since I never called his Philosophy the right one but I called his ideas that humans are split and don't have real moral beliefs true.....
Oh and he didn't mean Roma or any oned particualr with that its not agains any Race...he believed every one could be the "Übermensch"...black, white, Roma, Jew ...everyone....
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok, I am not Nietzsche I can't answer what he believed...and we are shooting way of since I never called his Philosophy the right one but I called his ideas that humans are split and don't have real moral beliefs true.....Oh and he didn't mean Roma or any oned particualr with that its not agains any Race...he believed every one could be the "Übermensch"...black, white, Roma, Jew ...everyone....
Again you assume you understand him better than Hitler. I would say the breeding of a specific species is an interesting line, although he was not anti any specific race I would agree with you at least that much.
You told me to read Nietschze and you indicated this would prove your point, I have read Nietschze and to your own admission you have not, again I say to you Bardock:
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.
The above statement sums up all my beliefs better than I ever could
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.
Yes your right a very simple idea, but the simple ones are often the most true and resonate to all willing to hear.
I hope you listen and one day like Nietzsche hear this, although I hope for you, you do not pay the way he did.
-Whirly
Look my friend...I didn't claim i understand Nietzsche better than Hitler I interpret him different and you have no prove how he meant it whatsoever....I am talking aboot my beliefs and I said that people like Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche had similiar beliefs...I never said that you would agree with it I said you should consider it...its my opinion...and whatever Nietzsche did with his life doesn't necessarily mean that my (maybe similiar) beliefs must be wrong.....I am not an advocate for Nietzsche...I just said I am not the only one with this belief...i said that because I know that I am not infaillable and that I am not an authority on that matter....but you quoting yourself again and again trying to link Nietzsche to hitler seriously doesn't matter.....let me tell you this even if he meant it like Hitler interpreted it and even if its his fault that Jews and Roma got killed...he is still right Humans don't care.....I don't know if I agree with the "Übermensch" I don't know if I agree with the "Will to power" but I know I agree that when a mother saves her child from death she doesn't do it out of compassion she does it for herself.....and please...pretty please get this I never called you simple I called what you revealed as your beliefs in the beginning of our conversation as rather simple...becasue they are common....nothing special...what everyone beliefs..probaly because everyone beliefs it too....
Originally posted by Bardock42
Look my friend...I didn't claim i understand Nietzsche better than Hitler I interpret him different and you have no prove how he meant it whatsoever....I am talking aboot my beliefs and I said that people like Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche had similiar beliefs...I never said that you would agree with it I said you should consider it...its my opinion...and whatever Nietzsche did with his life doesn't necessarily mean that my (maybe similiar) beliefs must be wrong.....I am not an advocate for Nietzsche...I just said I am not the only one with this belief...i said that because I know that I am not infaillable and that I am not an authority on that matter....but you quoting yourself again and again trying to link Nietzsche to hitler seriously doesn't matter.....let me tell you this even if he meant it like Hitler interpreted it and even if its his fault that Jews and Roma got killed...he is still right Humans don't care.....I don't know if I agree with the "Übermensch" I don't know if I agree with the "Will to power" but I know I agree that when a mother saves her child from death she doesn't do it out of compassion she does it for herself.....and please...pretty please get this I never called you simple I called what you revealed as your beliefs in the beginning of our conversation as rather simple...becasue they are common....nothing special...what everyone beliefs..probaly because everyone beliefs it too....
I'm actually quoting in Part William Shirer, from his book the rise and fall of the third reich.
You say my beliefs are simple and I reply with this again because you actually make no reference to the ideas contained therein you simply call them simple.
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.
I suspect when you have seen more you will understand more, like Nietszche your ego gets in the way (just an assumption).
Have you read Hobbs? Because we can get on to his huge flaws if you wish as well😄
Ok...to this "Humans are compassionate, Ghandi Martin Luthor King etc" I said it was simple...nothing more...so can we stop with that now?...
Ok I am not Nietzsche but I will try to answer although I don't see what yo will get from it:
"Mr. Shirer, what you seem to forget is that Nietzsche never said that you can't chose for yourself for your own reasons to do something that might be considered compassionate....actually he even said that the "Übermensch" whiom he never claimed to be would chose for himself to obey Morals that he finds fit...he says there is just no true compassion in the world. You claim that Nietzsche learned in the end...on the contrary Nietzsche knew from the beginning, he decided for himself that he didn't want to see sufferring and he couldn't act against his decision it would have harmed him more than doing what he decided to do...he didn't help the Horse because of compassion for the Horse but because he felt that on his way to the "Übermensch" he had to decide that helping Horses (and Humans for that matter) was the right thing to do....furthermore Nietzsche suffered from insanity so not very many of his later actions can be explained by logic.....you need to open up and understand Nietzsche as a whole and not jsut take parts from his teachingst and try to contradict them with his own actions...he could have explained them"
Oh by the way Whirly...same for you...tkae the ideas at a whole not as the one perverted part you think you found a contradiciton in 😉
As for my ego....I don't think you can make any assumptions aboot my ego but thanks for trying.
Same as Nietzsche I have read aboot him.....lots...but didn't read Leviathan if that's what you are aiming at....did you?
Oh and I would love to see how you contradict Hobbes....maybe this time it will work because obviously you are to emotionally attached to Nietzsche and can't see his teachings from an objective standpoint....
So Please....where are his flaws....?
Oh and in special where are his flaws according to the Human....you can argue aboot his theory of a state for ages.
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?
Originally posted by Fishy
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.
I think you have to have a frame of reference yes.
If I was socialised in a deviant different way would I act differently yes.
But thats not the question. and it is another flaw in Hobbes reasoning Bardock😄
If I judge that killing you is a sensible or even necessary move to safeguard my life, then - in Hobbes's state of nature – I have a right to kill you. Others might judge the matter differently, of course. Almost certainly you'll have quite a different view of things (perhaps you were just stretching your arms, not raising a musket to shoot me). Because we're all insecure, because trust is more-or-less absent, there's little chance of our sorting out misunderstandings peacefully, nor can we rely on some (trusted) third party to decide whose judgment is right. We all have to be judges in our own causes, and the stakes are very high indeed: life or death.
Do I need to explain the flaws?
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?