Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[gad-fly]

“Do you want to have an easy life? Then always stay with the herd and lose yourself in the herd.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Where is this from?

Can this be taken that Nietzsche encourages you to stop thinking? If not, what has it got with thinking, and with God?

[thrasymachus]

gad-fly
I wish we can confine our discussion on God is Dead as raised by Nietzsche. Leave him aside as a person, whether poet, artist, or madman, as a separate issue. Quote him, and debate on what is in his mind, rather than on what is on your mind about God's survival. Quote what others philosopher have commented on Nietzsche observation that God is dead, why did he think God is dead, and why he did not follow up on the death of God. On the last point, I have come to the conclusion: he does not care. Do I care? That is another issue.

But the idea he raised this, generally put: can faith and religion survive the critical perspective of modernity? Kierkegaard's attack on Christendom had the same ring: social religious constructs rest on a naivety in the consensus that gives rise to them. The mentality for this consensus is finished (for philosophy), and all that is left are the cultural institutions, which both despised, and these are embarrassingly vacuous. The critique is about what is left, and for Nietzsche this is (Schopenhauer's) Will, and for Kierkegaard it is the analysis of our finitude in the face of eternity (The Concept of Anxiety, and others).

So, to think of the death of God in this perspective, we have already dismissed mediaeval anthropomorphic notions, and we look to the structure of existence itself. What is it? K famously asks in Repetition: stick my finger in it, "it smells of nothing. Where am I? Who am I? How came I here?" If God has any residual, post mortem existence, it begins here, in philosophical questions that remain in his wake. This is where it gets interesting.

Now one has to analyze God, that is, discover the essence of this concept, and this is done apriori. What is the essence of God? Why was it essential that God be conceived into existence given what is there IN existence that needed addressing? How does one sanitize this term such that Nietzsche's complaints do not come back to attack more invented metaphysics?

I hold that once the smoke has cleared, the substantive God emerges out of the place Wittgenstein feared to go: ethics and aesthetics.

[Newme]

“Do you want to have an easy life? Then always stay with the herd and lose yourself in the herd.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Where is this from?

Can this be taken that Nietzsche encourages you to stop thinking? If not, what has it got with thinking, and with God?

The quote’s from Portable Nietzsche as far as I know.

As with a lot of writings from Nietzsche, he meant it kind of sarcastically - like, “If you are so pathetically lazy as to not lift a psychological or intellectual finger, then just let the mob/herd carry you along & maybe stampede you too - but either way, you’ll have it easy - and that’s what most people want!”

Obviously or not, religious groups and anti-religious groups are herd mentalities. They are not based on individual thought, but on group thought.

[Hereandnow]

Newme wrote
On the contrary, Nietzsche was all about THINKING - & rethinking old assumptions. But few dates to step outside the herd. The herd is so easy - just carries people along without thinking effort.

Here you have 2 main herds:
1) Religious dogma like human sacrifice scapegoating &
2) Atheist dogma that rejects the most important part of oneself

To think outside those 2 boxes leaves you pretty lonely - without a herd, or tribe.

“Do you want to have an easy life? Then always stay with the herd and lose yourself in the herd.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Atheist dogma? Not that the idea is wrong, but what is your characterization of this? Suggesting that either atheism is inherently dogmatic and dismissive, or only some forms of atheism are this and others are not, allowing some kind of atheism open to agreement with these important parts of oneself.

What important parts?

[gad-fly]

“Do you want to have an easy life? Then always stay with the herd and lose yourself in the herd.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Where is this from?

Can this be taken that Nietzsche encourages you to stop thinking? If not, what has it got with thinking, and with God?

The quote’s from Portable Nietzsche as far as I know.

As with a lot of writings from Nietzsche, he meant it kind of sarcastically - like, “If you are so pathetically lazy as to not lift a psychological or intellectual finger, then just let the mob/herd carry you along & maybe stampede you too - but either way, you’ll have it easy - and that’s what most people want!”

Obviously or not, religious groups and anti-religious groups are herd mentalities. They are not based on individual thought, but on group thought.

What is Portable Nietzsche?

I take the quotation as casual and commonsense, like: If you are tired, take a break.

It is arrogant to dismiss religious and non-relgious groups (meaning all groups) with group mentality. There is nothing with group thoguht. We are social animals.

[Stoppelmann]

Let me re-emphasize: It it futile to take Nietzsche literally. "What was the holiest and mightiest"? Are we the murderer? What water to clean? There is no need for answer, as far as Nietzsche is concerned. If you read on, you can say: Nietzsche cannot care less, nor would he be bothered with your re-thinking.

Nietzsche did care deeply about these issues. He was a philosopher who critiqued the prevailing moral and religious values of his time and was concerned with the future direction of Western culture. His work is often seen as an exploration of the consequences of the "death of God" and an attempt to grapple with the challenges and opportunities it presents. While Nietzsche was critical of traditional religious values, he was also interested in the possibility of new, life-affirming values emerging in a post-religious world.

In his famous quote, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him,” Nietzsche is not making a literal statement about the death of a divine being. Instead, he is addressing the decline of religious belief and the diminishing influence of religious values in Western society. He suggests that as society becomes more secular and science-oriented, traditional religious beliefs lose their significance, and he is concerned about the consequences of this decline. He believes that with the loss of religious underpinnings, people will face a crisis of meaning and value. Traditional moral and ethical frameworks, rooted in religion, may no longer provide guidance and purpose.

The passage also reflects Nietzsche's concern about how individuals and society will find new sources of meaning and values to replace the ones lost with the decline of religion. He raises questions about how people will cope with this loss and what alternatives they will turn to.

[Lagayascienza]

Poor old Nietzsche. A great and much maligned philosopher who was ahead of his time and, in that sense, a prophet. And a great writer/poet. For large swathes of humanity god is now indeed dead. In my own country nearly 40% marked the "no religion" box at the last census. From where I stand, that's all to the good. But there is a lot of work still to do on the other several billon. Part of Nietzsche's message was that we should feel ok about the death of god(s). As Hitch said in God Is Not Great, religion belongs to the infancy of our species and goodbyes should not be prolonged. (I'm probably paraphrasing a bit there but that was the thrust of it.) We don't need gods any more. We can lead fulfilling lives and be decent people without Bronze Age myths. We can be super-people. Nietzsche was right.

[Stoppelmann]

Part of Nietzsche's message was that we should feel ok about the death of god(s).

Nietzsche had concerns about how individuals and society will find new sources of meaning and values to replace the ones lost with the decline of religion.The alternatives they turned to were communism, fascism, eugenics, and Nietzsche also discussed nihilism as a potential consequence of the decline of traditional values. State control and ideology followed, resulting in repressive regimes and atrocities. Nationalism was taken to the extreme and contributed to conflicts and tensions, as well as two World Wars.

In the absence of religious values, some individuals and groups turned to racist and xenophobic ideologies,which admittedly were already around, but taken to a new extreme, leading to discrimination and persecution based on ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

But in your mind, that's okay?

[Lagayascienza]

Hitler was a theist. He never relinquished his membership of the church. He often spoke of god and his god given destiny which was to rescue Germany from atheist communists. And most Russian communists in the day weren't really atheists. They were brainwashed to worship Stalin (another psychopath) and his religion of communism. Most true atheist, in contrast, are good law abiding citizens who love their families and who also want the best for others. Blind ideology, whether is be religious or political, is as dangerous today as it was in the time of Hitler and Stalin.

[Lagayascienza]

Part of Nietzsche's message was that we should feel ok about the death of god(s).

Nietzsche had concerns about how individuals and society will find new sources of meaning and values to replace the ones lost with the decline of religion.The alternatives they turned to were communism, fascism, eugenics, and Nietzsche also discussed nihilism as a potential consequence of the decline of traditional values. State control and ideology followed, resulting in repressive regimes and atrocities. Nationalism was taken to the extreme and contributed to conflicts and tensions, as well as two World Wars.

In the absence of religious values, some individuals and groups turned to racist and xenophobic ideologies,which admittedly were already around, but taken to a new extreme, leading to discrimination and persecution based on ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

But in your mind, that's okay?

No, with or without religion, some individuals and groups can "turn to racist and xenophobic ideologies". And, no, to my mind, that is not okay! As mentioned above, most atheists are like me. They love their families and want the best for their societies. They don't need religion for that. All they need is the core morality instilled in us by evolution. If we follow our inborn moral compass we'll usually get it right. The greatest danger is that we not listen to out inborn moral compass and follow theist psychopaths like Hitler, or Narcissistic power hungry political psychopaths like Stalin, or some mad mullah. Most atheists that I know arrived at atheism by long, careful and often painful deliberation. They are thinkers and, as such, less easily to be swayed by psychopathic demagogues who may violently seize power if they can succeed in getting enough of the unthinking theist masses behind them. Religion has always been fertile ground for violence and tyranny. As a great man, whose name escapes me right now once said (and to paraphrase), no man commits evil so willingly or gleefully as when the he does so in the name of his religion.

[gad-fly]

Let me re-emphasize: It it futile to take Nietzsche literally. "What was the holiest and mightiest"? Are we the murderer? What water to clean? There is no need for answer, as far as Nietzsche is concerned. If you read on, you can say: Nietzsche cannot care less, nor would he be bothered with your re-thinking.

Nietzsche did care deeply about these issues. He was a philosopher who critiqued the prevailing moral and religious values of his time and was concerned with the future direction of Western culture. His work is often seen as an exploration of the consequences of the "death of God" and an attempt to grapple with the challenges and opportunities it presents. While Nietzsche was critical of traditional religious values, he was also interested in the possibility of new, life-affirming values emerging in a post-religious world.

In his famous quote, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him,” Nietzsche is not making a literal statement about the death of a divine being. Instead, he is addressing the decline of religious belief and the diminishing influence of religious values in Western society. He suggests that as society becomes more secular and science-oriented, traditional religious beliefs lose their significance, and he is concerned about the consequences of this decline. He believes that with the loss of religious underpinnings, people will face a crisis of meaning and value. Traditional moral and ethical frameworks, rooted in religion, may no longer provide guidance and purpose.

The passage also reflects Nietzsche's concern about how individuals and society will find new sources of meaning and values to replace the ones lost with the decline of religion. He raises questions about how people will cope with this loss and what alternatives they will turn to.

I agree with your observation. I maintain Nietzsche should not be taken literally. In the context that he does not search for answers to in the crisis facing humanity as raised by him, i would usggest that he does not care less, like someone witnessing an accident and simply walks away.

[Stoppelmann]

But in your mind, that's okay?

No, with or without religion, some individuals and groups can "turn to racist and xenophobic ideologies". And, no, to my mind, that is not okay! As mentioned above, most atheists are like me. They love their families and want the best for their societies. They don't need religion for that.

What I think you are not considering is a point that Tom Holland made, that, while it is true that Enlightenment philosophers contributed to the development of secular moral and ethical theories, they did not necessarily create morality from scratch. Instead, they often built upon and adapted existing moral frameworks. Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant, for example, developed deontological ethics that have been seen as secularized versions of certain Christian ethical principles.

Many of the moral principles and ethical values that underpin Western societies have their roots in Christian teachings. Concepts such as the sanctity of life, compassion for the poor and marginalized, and the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) have strong connections to Christian ethics. These principles have played a fundamental role in shaping the moral landscape of the Western world, and Western societies have, over time, developed very distinct norms and values that differ from those of ancient Greek and Roman cultures. While there may be historical and philosophical connections, the specific religious and ethical influence of Christianity has set Western societies apart in many ways.

Nietzsche was concerned that the decline of Christian values could lead to the rise of nihilism, a belief that life lacks inherent meaning and value. He worried that without a strong moral and philosophical framework, people might turn to destructive ideologies or belief systems to fill the void left by the loss of religious beliefs, and communism, fascism, eugenics, and nihilism, seem to fill that role.

All they need is the core morality instilled in us by evolution. If we follow our inborn moral compass we'll usually get it right.

Advocates of this perspective argue that our evolutionary moral instincts are universal and simple, making them accessible to all humans regardless of cultural or religious background. But human morality is not fixed but can be quite variable and context dependent, and different cultures and individuals interpret moral principles differently. What one person considers morally acceptable, another may not, which makes it challenging to rely solely on an inborn moral compass.

Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed moral instincts, like empathy, to enhance group cohesion and cooperation, which can be conducive to harmonious and functioning societies, but it does not necessarily offer clear guidance on how to handle complex moral dilemmas or novel ethical situations. In modern society, ethical challenges often go beyond the scope of our evolutionary heritage. As much as the idea that our moral compass could be rooted in empathy and cooperation could be seen as a positive aspect, this has to be developed.

The greatest danger is that we not listen to out inborn moral compass …

Quite the point, and this has been the reason that religions have served as guideline for moral teaching. It is one thing to say that religionists are hypocritical, but humanity’s cultures all say that human beings don’t follow their own standards, so it is an inherent problem, not one of religion. If anything, religion makes the hypocrisy visible.

… and follow theist psychopaths like Hitler, or Narcissistic power hungry political psychopaths like Stalin, or some mad mullah. Most atheists that I know arrived at atheism by long, careful and often painful deliberation. They are thinkers and, as such, less easily to be swayed by psychopathic demagogues who may violently seize power if they can succeed in getting enough of the unthinking theist masses behind them. Religion has always been fertile ground for violence and tyranny. As a great man, whose name escapes me right now once said (and to paraphrase), no man commits evil so willingly or gleefully as when the he does so in the name of his religion.

You are conflating theism with everything that contradicted its teaching, thereby ignoring the fact that theism makes the human tendency to ignore their own standards visible. It is only by realising that theism and the evil committed by psychopaths are opposites that we see the contradiction. You see white especially clear on a black background. On the other hand, Atheism does not provide a specific moral or ethical framework, therefore Atheists can have a wide range of moral and ethical perspectives, and may derive their values from various sources, such as secular humanism, moral philosophy, or even Satanism. If you do not specify you moral framework, you can prevent being accused of hypocrisy.

So, it just isn’t accurate to make a blanket statement that atheism is inherently less violent than religion. Acts of violence and persecution can be carried out by individuals or groups with a wide range of beliefs, including religious, political, and atheistic. The relationship between belief systems and violence is complex and context dependent.

[Lagayascienza]

I don't think I'm conflating anything. Christian apologists are the ones who conflate atheism with many of the very evils that Christianity is itself guilty of. The pogroms in Europe, The Catholic Church's supported Hitler, the enslavement of Africans, the conquest and destruction of whole civilizations in the Americas and elsewhere are just a few of many examples of evils justified (in part) by religion.

And it's not just Christianity. Muslim terrorism and the ongoing disaster in the Middle East are as much about religion as it is about living space.

The notion that the roots of the Golden Rule are to be found in Christian teaching is false. The Golden Rule is merely our evolved sentiment of fair play put into words. It has been around as long as humanity and long before Judaism and Christianity was ever invented.

Given the track record of religion, littered as it is with blood and strife, we are better to listen to our own moral compasses and, in problematic cases, do a bit of clear thinking which religion especially discourages for obvious reasons.

[Stoppelmann]

I don't think I'm conflating anything. Christian apologists are the ones who conflate atheism with many of the very evils that Christianity is itself guilty of. The pogroms in Europe, The Catholic Church's supported Hitler, the enslavement of Africans, the conquest and destruction of whole civilizations in the Americas and elsewhere are just a few of many examples of evils justified (in part) by religion.

Society as a whole is unable to differentiate, this leads to group identities and group aggressions. If there is anything that we should be able to learn from the Enlightenment then it should be discernment, but it seems to have produced another prejudice. If you went through those points, you would discover how multifactorial they are, and especially with slavery, how people were enslaved in Africa prior to their being shipped elsewhere, and there was a large Christian opposition, led by the Quakers, that finally led to abolishment. I am as critical as anyone about church history, but the points I made above are historically proven.

The problem is the authoritarian/libertarian divide, and our cultures were, until relatively recently, very authoritarian – in consequence, religions were too. It is only after the French revolution and the Industrial revolution that conditions for the poorest became so prevalent that people protested against it and socialist and communist ideologies grew, culminating in Russia and China, but also in Germany after WWI, when Communists tried to call out the Republic, but were beaten back by the Social Democrats, who used the power of the state to contain them. In the end, as we know, the authoritarian Nazis gained power.

If you look at Britain and the way they administered their colonies, you see authoritarianism, which was something that the American colonies resented and led to independence. The Irish fought for independence, which southern Ireland achieved, and after the war many colonies were given independence, because authoritarian administration caused uprisings and became too difficult and too expensive after having fought a war against Nazi Germany. Socialist parties throughout Europe were on the rise and liberal policies made our culture more and more “progressive.”

However, the Europeans and Americans built the West on the backs of previous colonies, and what we see now is how increasing liberties have caused a decadence that has been the downfall of empires in the past. Our western culture is falling apart, and in defiance of all the assurances of “progressives,” authoritarian parties and politicians are on the rise. These usually lead with “conservative” policies, with which religious people agree with, and seek to prevent a complete decay of values. So you can see how intertwined the whole development is, and I value my liberty as well, but if society falls apart, that will go too.

And it's not just Christianity. Muslim terrorism and the ongoing disaster in the Middle East are as much about religion as it is about living space.

The notion that the roots of the Golden Rule are to be found in Christian teaching is false. The Golden Rule is merely our evolved sentiment of fair play put into words. It has been around as long as humanity and long before Judaism and Christianity was ever invented.

You are very smart, but not wise. Of course, the golden rule is widespread, but how much influence does Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, or wherever else it is found, have on Western society? Christianity promoted that teaching, and it was a key ingredient to social reform, even if the church wasn’t leading the change. When churches preach neighbourly love each Sunday, it isn’t surprising if it sticks somewhere – regardless of the behaviour of the priest or the pope.

As far as I am concerned, the struggle of the Arab countries is like what went on here. They too have the authoritarian/libertarian divide in their societies, but the authoritarians win, not least because they argue that the West is trying to take away their lifestyle and culture. It is an existential struggle against what they see as a perversion, and what the West exports through the internet seems to suggest that they are right. Their struggle for example against pornography and sexualisation of society leads to women wearing the Burqa and Hijab, despite in the past it had gone out of fashion. Western women who wear these clothes have often converted for similar reasons.

Your over-simplification of the situation is part of the West’s problems, and the inability to differentiate and empathise with people who do not agree with our libertarian attitudes causes the conflicts. I worked with Muslim staff for quite a while, and it was our mutual respect for each other that made it work. Because I behaved in a way that my Muslim deputy respected, he and the rest of the staff showed the best behaviour I have ever seen. Admittedly, we were an organisation that gave elderly care, and so it was relatively easy, but speaking to Muslim staff, they said that their husbands had difficulties with managers in industry who were prejudiced or “dishonourable” in their behaviour.

[Lagayascienza]

And you may be wise, but not very smart.

You laud Western society and just discount all the rest. It's just Christian happy-clapping. And your preaching about the benefits brought by Christianity is an extreme over-simplification. Christianity resulted in the collapse of Roman civilisation and the destruction of much of the greatest human art and culture seen in the west and Middle East up until that time. The collapse of Rome was a disaster for civilization. Classical civilization was on the cusp of giving birth to science. But it was to be still-born. Christianity plunged Europe into centuries of darkness, ignorance and superstition, and then into centuries more of conquest, the destruction of civilizations and cultures in the New World, the enslavement of millions of Africans, endless wars of religion ... Christianity was a disaster that we only began to emerge from with the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science which is still resisted by crazy Christian fundamentalists. There, how's that for over-simplification?

Christianity? You can have it. I'm sticking with my evolved Golden Rule that predated all your religious' craziness and mayhem.