The 'Intellectual Conscience', by Friedrich Nietzsche

[DrP]

27 minutes ago, tar said:

There is no particular need a spider has to make a human happy.

Well in my house they need to make me happy by staying out of my way. I try to use a glass to put them out, but can't always practically do it...  but it's evolution - the ones that stay hidden are the ones I want to select for reproduction - the ones that come at me boldly can be removed from the spider gene pool.

I swear they are getting bigger and bigger each decade.  I have had 2 or 3 in the last couple of years that would not fit onto a poker sized playing card!

[tar]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if god is just a teaching aid to convey the objective truth of the value of a good moral compass?

When one understands why god is no longer needed, the unseen other is oneself, that said I think humanism has a little way to go yet.

dimreepr,

Well agreed.  But putting yourself in the shoes of an unseen other, might occur in the rTPJ, in your head, but this does not mean the unseen other is you.  There actually are objective judges to please.  Me, you, Area54, iNow, CharonY,  dead philosophers, prophets of gods, scientists, mathematicians, Trump, Hillary, Sanders, Putin, some guy drinking wine in France and some woman washing her clothes on a rock in the Ganges.  Objective reality is replete with humans, dead, alive and imaginary that we "should" please or displease, depending on the membership of the teams we are on.

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

When one understands oneself the team becomes humanity.

"No man is an island entire of itself" John Donne 

[tar]

dimreepr,

Well yes, but what of those humans you wish to displease?

There are 7 or 8 billion humans, currently alive, each with a different will, different background, different favorite teams, different family members, different religions, philosophies, associations, companies, nations and rules.   They are not all doing stuff that pleases you, some are in fact displeasing you actively.  North Koreans want to kill Imperialist Americans for instance.   How do I get them on my team?

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, tar said:

  How do I get them on my team?

 

Teach them how to be at peace with themselves.

If one can't be at peace with oneself how can one be at peace with others?

[tar]

dimreepr,

I don't think, in general it is a good stance to think you are right, and other people need fixing or teaching.

Goes back to the idea, that the more things that would need to change in order for you to be right, the more likely it is that you are trying to make the world match you, rather than attempting to behave in such a way that pleases the world.

You usually have good indications of whether another individual, or group of individuals, is for you or against you.  This creates a situation where all of humanity is not a singular person that you can behave in such a way toward that pleases everyone, all the time.

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

It's not a matter of me being correct, it's a matter of my accepting that no one is and everyone is.

I didn't say others need fixing, I said there's something to be taught.

 

[tar]

47 minutes ago, DrP said:

Well in my house they need to make me happy by staying out of my way. I try to use a glass to put them out, but can't always practically do it...  but it's evolution - the ones that stay hidden are the ones I want to select for reproduction - the ones that come at me boldly can be removed from the spider gene pool.

I swear they are getting bigger and bigger each decade.  I have had 2 or 3 in the last couple of years that would not fit onto a poker sized playing card!

DrP.

yeah, those wolf spiders are rather awe inspiring, dropping off the ceiling and making a thud on the bed or rug

I must admit I was always taught to leave spiders alone as they ate more bothersome flies and biting insects, but I squished one (dime size) that fell to the slate on my front porch after I detached her web from the window near my front door my wife called me over to be creeped out by.  "Should" have left her as a Halloween decoration for the trick or treaters in a few weeks.

Regards, TAR

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not a matter of me being correct, it's a matter of my accepting that no one is and everyone is.

I didn't say others need fixing, I said there's something to be taught.

 

I know dimreepr, but I am following the idea that the OP and Nietzsche felt they were of a higher order of human, able to philosophize in the proper manner to arrive at the "right" way to be.  And I am thinking that this elitism is not directly compatible with attempting to please others with your behavior.  In my efforts to address the opioid crisis in my town and county, I have run into a lot of people that feel they know how to fix other people, what other people are doing wrong, that they would not do.  What other people "should" and should not do.

Few have made the realization that I have made, that we all want to feel good, and normally dopamine does the job, because it flows when we do it right, when we match the world, when we we win, when we survive, when we bring pleasure and comfort to ourselves and our loved ones. And that drugs that simulate victoryk and feeling right and feeling alive, are making us feel that way, without the reason.

But if my theory is correct, morals are based on engaging in behaviors that please an unseen other.   This conscience is not anything in and of itself, but is tied completely to pleasing objective reality.   Therefore it is not up to you to tell other people how to do it right, it is up to you to seek the behaviors that will please those around you.

That is, if we are talking about morals, and what one should do, what one ought to do, and on what basis one should do it, it is probably better to find out what would make the other happy, rather than to think you can teach them to be happy your way.   Not that your way might not indeed work for them, but it is not your happiness we are after here, it is the unhappy person we should be looking to find a way to please.

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, tar said:

Nietzsche felt they were of a higher order of human, able to philosophize in the proper manner to arrive at the "right" way to be. 

 

What makes you think that?

[tar]

a guru on a mountain top can reach nirvana and be one with the world, with involving me, who actually is part of the world this guru feels he is now one with

To love humanity you have to love all, including all those people who are doing it wrong in your estimation.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think that?

I read a take on German philosophers of the time, including him, that quoted him indicating that he had this obligation to do the thinking for others that they could not do for themselves.

 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, tar said:

a guru on a mountain top can reach nirvana and be one with the world, with involving me, who actually is part of the world this guru feels he is now one with

To love humanity you have to love all, including all those people who are doing it wrong in your estimation.

1

How can a human do being human, wrong? 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by dimreepr

[tar]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How can a human do being human, wrong? 

 

exactly

[Eise]

14 hours ago, tar said:

Funny to me, that a humanist is in possession of the answer, yet still looks for some objective verification.  Some ideal residing in Plato’s heaven,  or derivable from logic. 

...

So I reject arguments that seek to prove that morality is objectively true, without God, because God is just, in one take, the putting of our individual judgements into a collective basket that we can refer to as a human, an unseen other, that we wish to please.

Lindsay gives arguments against your position, so without countering these arguments you are just stating your position. That's fine, but it is not a philosophical argument in this way. 

I think you did not understand what Lindsay means with morality being objective. Objectivity of norms is not the same as objectivity of facts. It seems to me that you fall in the pit of 'if it is not factual true, then it is subjective'. Compare: 'if it is not raining, then the sun is shining'. In this case you just forget a third option, e.g. that it can be cloudy. So I suggest you read the article again, and find out why Lindsay thinks he is justified to call morality objective. ('Objective' of course does not mean we have established the complete field of morality.  'Objectivity' in science also does not mean we already know everything. It means we have a touchstone with which we can argue about what statements or theories are true.)

[tar]

Eise, 

I did read the article, and I understood his arguments and the arguments of Derek Parfit.  My comments came after understanding, and finding weaknesses or contradictions or unrequired lines of reasoning, in their arguments.

Much of what is discussed on this board in terms of religion and politics leans in the direction of finding a rational alternative to God.  I get the arguments, but they are not required in my case, or to fit my worldview, because I have already become an atheist and I am not good because I fear boiling oil if I am bad.  I am good, because I want to please you, my dead grandfather, my dad, my wife, my daughters, my mayor and president, my friend who is a philosopher, my friend who is a real estate agent, my friend that is an elderly catholic woman...etc.p

To me, this is enough.  Those people are objective reality to me, and to you, and to everyone else on the planet.  My philosopher friend is a scholar in residence at a university that hundreds of thousands of people have attended.  He taught me logic and how to think and the Socratic method.  He has taught countless others how to think. 

 There is no danger of me falling into the pit you describe, I don't even have the definition of factually true that you have, as I am not on one side or the other of the science denier arguments.  I am on both sides in most debates, because I look at where people are grounding their arguments, and enjoy seeing where they find footing in the same places I do, and I enjoy pointing out the chasms people should avoid, and the bridges they can use to get across chasms I have encountered and mastered.

I am personally very much guided by the thought that even if I find nirvana, or the secret to life, or become one with Jesus or find the god particle, or derive the mathematical law that governs all interactions...the rest of the world will go right along pretty much undisturbed by my findings.  That is because what happens in my head does not affect the waking world, until I do something about it, or say something about it.   That is the realm of subjectivity.  It applies equally to Krauss understanding what the universe will be doing in 600,000,000,000 years, or Mohammed listening to the Angel Gabriel.    Subjectivity in my definition, has to do with having an insight.  Objectivity has to do with sharing it.

Moral judgements require a judge.  It is fairly simple, when you think it through, to get to the bottom of your conscience.  You just have to ask yourself who you are trying to please.

Regards, TAR 

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, tar said:

exactly

You seem to be missing my point(I never thought I'd ask this of you) please elaborate.

[tar]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You seem to be missing my point(I never thought I'd ask this of you) please elaborate.

dimreepr,

A human being cannot do being human wrong.   That is a perfect way of saying one person is hardly in a position to suggest another person is doing it wrong.  This goes directly to the OP in both directions.   It is not correct to say that one who inspects someone else's behavior and finds it lacking is operating on a higher than human level, like Nietzsche and the OP suggest is the case when one philosophizes correctly and arrives at a synthesized morality.  Nor is it correct to establish morality for someone else, based on dogma and the ire or love of an imaginary judge.

The OP read  Nietzsche in the context of celebrating gay scientist's thinking.   To me, this implies a we vs. them attitude, where it is important to please Nietzsche and gay scientists, and find fault with anybody other,  especially those who would not be pleased by your being gay.   I do not even know if Nietzsche was gay, I am merely going by the idea that if your morality goes against the churches morality, it is OK because the churches morality is bullocks and one can be good by manufacturing a set of rules and following them.

I have no problem finding fault with the Bible and its edicts.  It is a work of literature, written by man, for man.  It is antiquated in many regards, yet timeless in others and should not be discarded out of hand, just based on the fact that god is dead.   

I operate on the basis of the understanding that God is an anthropomorphized universe.  I operate on the understanding that when I talk to god, I am just doing it figuratively and am really talking to objective reality, in reality.   Sometimes its the weather, sometimes its the stars, sometimes its nature and plants and animals I associate with, and sometimes its the order and beauty and workability of the  place that pleases me...but most of the time, the part of objective reality that responds to me directly and acts most like me, is other people.  So I look to them to do this existing thing with.  To please them and utilize the many many things they have done for me over the centuries, to allow me to be comfortable and happy and fulfill my needs.

Saw a commercial last night, I know not what it was for, but it had the line that you don't realize how many people care about you.

It is other people that we are wired to please.  And this is good for us, and good for them.  You therefore cannot logically synthesize a morality that puts you by yourself, above and separated from those wicked, uninitiated humans.  You can't do it in a cave, or while you are sleeping.  Morality has to be constructed as a team sport.

Regards, TAR

 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, tar said:

The OP read  Nietzsche in the context of celebrating gay scientist's thinking.   To me, this implies a we vs. them attitude, where it is important to please Nietzsche and gay scientists, and find fault with anybody other, 

2

WTF are you talking about? 

When did Nietzsche talk about homosexuality ?

[CharonY]

 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

WTF are you talking about? 

When did Nietzsche talk about homosexuality ?

It seems to be the case of reading the headline and extrapolate from there. Just to state the painfully obvious for tar: "gay" here means "jovial" or "happy". 

Edited October 12, 2017 by CharonY

[dimreepr]

Indeed.

[tar]

indeed, sorry

I took the headline and extrapolated from there.   It was that flowery talk and passages like this

How repulsive pleasure is now, that crude, musty, brown pleasure as it is understood by those who like pleasure, our "educated" people, our rich people, and our rulers! How maliciously we listen now to the big country-fair boom-boom with which the "educated" person and city dweller today permits art, books, and music to rape him and provide "spiritual pleasures"—with the aid of spirituous liquors! How the theatrical scream of passion now hurts our ears, how strange to our taste the whole romantic uproar and tumult of the senses have become, which the educated mob loves, and all its aspirations after the elevated, inflated, and exaggerated! No, if we convalescents still need art, it is another kind of art—a mocking, light, fleeting, divinely untroubled, divinely artificial art that, like a pure flame, licks into unclouded skies. Above all, an art for artists, for artists only! We know better afterward what above all is needed for this: cheerfulness, any cheerfulness, my friends—also as artists: let me prove it. There are a few things we now know too well, we knowing ones: oh, how we now learn to forget well, and to be good at not knowing, as artists!

[Eise]

On 10/12/2017 at 1:23 PM, tar said:

I did read the article, and I understood his arguments and the arguments of Derek Parfit.  My comments came after understanding, and finding weaknesses or contradictions or unrequired lines of reasoning, in their arguments.

It is difficult to discuss the article if you do not mention the weaknesses, contradictions or unrequired lines of reasoning, and why they are weak, contradictory or not required. Just saying 'I see it differently' does not do right to an argumentative philosophical text.

[tar]

Eise,

I read the article in between doing other things over the period of a few days,  and like always read it with my own colored glasses on.  As I made the assumption that the OP had read a work celebrating gay scientists that had Nietzsche in it, and did not know the work was BY Nietzsche and had nothing overtly to due with being gay, I am obviously prone to taking a fact and carrying it forward, when the fact is not even true.

So a point by point discussion on the article is hard for me to recount, because I took it in the context of the thread, which I already had possibly misunderstood Nietzsche's and the OPs intent, but you suggested the article was another take, and I saw some of the same arguments against God, that I saw in Nietzsche and the OP and in the arguments on this board against faith and belief and I think them all weak arguments, or unrequired and contradictory.  Here is why.  If there is no god, then when we follow our conscience, it is not because we wish to please god.   If it is, then it is our image of God that we wish to please, which cannot be an anthropomorphic guy sitting in the clouds, because we have looked and he is not there.  So this unseen other that we wish to please has to be some conglomeration of actual beings in objective reality, that would live or die, be happy or sad, depending on our behavior.   Since ideals, are game, but need someone to hold them, we only have, as our potential judges, other living things, and a general godlike agency that might care if we grow a garden or blow the place up. 

So to argue that there is no god, or that god is dead is unrequired.  I already am proceeding with the non existence of god as a stipulation.

But that leaves, still the whole rest of objective reality to please.  The whole rest of the world to aim to protect and agree with, be responsible for and responsible to.  Your conscience is still extant, whether there is or is not a god to enforce any rules, because there is not a god, and the rules stlill need enforcing.   A police force  cannot watch every citizen, all the time.  Every citizen needs to police themselves.  So where the intellectual conscience is not logical is to pretend that  somebody, anybody, smart as they are, artist that they are, philosopher that they are, can arrive at a set of morals that pleases only their own internal model of the world, and discounts ALL else.   So a humanist cannot say they are following an ideal principle of proper behavior, while at the same time saying that the way everybody else is behaving is wrong.  This, because, the only place to get proper behavior is from the world around you.   It cannot spring forth magically  from a dream or insight.  

Regards, TAR

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by tar

[Eise]

TAR,

It seems you do not see in which context the article is written, even if the author is very clear about it.

The article is meant to argue against the theist outcry: "Without a God we have no objective basis for morality anymore; morality would become just 'do what you like'!."

He argues this in 2 ways: the first, short, way is that commands given by a powerful person do not form the basis for morality. The second, longer, one is that we have very well an objective basis for morality even if we do not believe in any God. After he laid this out, he shows how many arguments against a secular and objective morality are wrong.

So he does not argue against God's existence: he takes it granted that He does not exist. His argument however is for following proposition: there is objective morality, and we do not need a God for that.

[tar]

Eise,

That is how I read the article also, but there are some points where they did not complete the proof.  For instance when saying there are rational ways to derive morality the arguments were weak and ungrounded, like saying we don't murder our butcher because then we would not have a place to buy meat.  (he didn't say that, I forget the arguments, but in looking for a replacement reason to behave, he did not come up with any good objective argument)  However I think there are some good objective arguments, but they lie in the area of brain chemistry, religion, constitutions, agreements, promises and other emergent facilities that have arisen from our need to agree with each other, and our need to agree with each other is objectively true both in the survival situations that arise when we do, and in the way we feel good when we do it. (dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine)   Hence the weak argument and the contradiction.   The objective reasons for moral behavior were not based on any objective principle, because the whole complex is driven subjectively and has everything to do with our need to be accepted by the group.  This reintroduces the reason for why we should and do listen to the imposed authority, because the imposed authority is the moral leader chosen by or imposed on the group.  Which reintroduces religion and codes of ethics and club rules and family codes and such, and even pacts and promises between blood brothers or marriage vows, as objective basis for morals.

And the thought that one can derive logically, the moral code required to live in society, without considering religion and law and personal agreements and expectations is baseless.

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, tar said:

And the thought that one can derive logically, the moral code required to live in society, without considering religion and law and personal agreements and expectations is baseless.

 

That reasoning is circular, where else did religion find its morals if not from people? 

God may be the inspiration but it didn't write the text.

For instance, Moses wombles up a mountain, spends some time in introspective thought then wombles down with a written description of ethical laws to aid his society and when asked about a source...