Debates
01 Jan 05
01 Jan 05
2 edits
About the late 1880's Nietze declared that god was dead.
I worried about that a lot. Because I graduated from high school and began my military carreer at Ft. Leonard Wood Missouri that same summer. 1966 <edit> Explain. Time magazine's cover carried the big headline "God Is Dead" that year.
What I have studied much more in detail since then is that Nietze was really worried about that. He was genuinely concerned as to what would happen to world order and the movement toward chaos that this discovery would bring.
Some of us understood his worry. We have tried to guide civilization toward a "gentle" death and a reawakening. It isn't easy. The fanatics all want "death to god loving fools" and the lovers of god all want to "kill the heratics". Go figure.
For what it's worth.
I wish people here in this forum would devote just a tenth as much energy (notice I didn't say 'thought'😉 to the meaning of 'Reality' as they do to a 116 year old discovery of Nietze.
Poser. One:
What obligation befalls those who finally realize that "maybe God really is dead?"
Answer. One:
Well. We must surplant fear and reward with "reason".
Poser. Two:
Ok. How do we present a superstitious world a valid alternative to a great fire breathing god of vengence?
Answer. Two:
We try and let people continue believing as they want to. Forever. We have a better answer. So what? They want to believe? That's cool.
Where were you when God Died?
Where were you when God resurrected your soul?
Both are valid. It's the nature of our passage through mystery.
01 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou may be right, because Nietze is a complete unknown. He or she could have said anything. But you are wrong that the world has taken notice of any such declaration.
About the late 1880's Nietze declared that god was dead.
I worried about that a lot. Because I graduated from high school and began my military carreer at Ft. Leonard Wood Missouri that same summer. <edit> Explain. Time magazine' ...[text shortened]...
Both are valid. It's the nature of our passage through mystery.
Perhaps you mean to refer to Friedrich Nietzsche, who in The Gay Science (1882) wrote:
Der tolle Mensch sprang mitten unter sie und durchbohrte sie mit seinen Blicken. "Wohin ist Gott? rief er, ich will es euch sagen! Wir haben ihn getödtet, - ihr und ich! Wir Alle sind seine Mörder! Aber wie haben wir diess gemacht? Wie vermochten wir das Meer auszutrinken? Wer gab uns den Schwamm, um den ganzen Horizont wegzuwischen? Was thaten wir, als wir diese Erde von ihrer Sonne losketteten? Wohin bewegt sie sich nun? Wohin bewegen wir uns? Fort von allen Sonnen? Stürzen wir nicht fortwährend? Und rückwärts, seitwärts, vorwärts, nach allen Seiten? Giebt es noch ein Oben und ein Unten? Irren wir nicht wie durch ein unendliches Nichts? Haucht uns nicht der leere Raum an? Ist es nicht kälter geworden? Kommt nicht immerfort die Nacht und mehr Nacht? Müssen nicht Laternen am Vormittage angezündet werden? Hören wir noch Nichts von dem Lärm der Todtengräber, welche Gott begraben? Riechen wir noch Nichts von der göttlichen Verwesung? - auch Götter verwesen! Gott ist todt! Gott bleibt todt! Und wir haben ihn getödtet!
A popular English translation:
The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. "Where is God gone?" he called out. "I mean to tell you! We have killed him, you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even Gods putrify! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!
It is generally understood by most informed people that Nietzsche was addressing the end of the era when the Church held primary cultural authority. Rationalism and science eclipsed faith as the dominant episteme in the West. Although now a residual ideology, however, anti-rationalism in the name of faith has not lost its authority for everyone. Although those who cling to residual ideologies contribute little to the development of Western thought, they assert enough power to keep many in the darkness--Plato's metaphor for such ignorance of "reality".
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by WulebgrSmart ass.
You may be right, because Nietze is a complete unknown. He or she could have said anything. But you are wrong that the world has taken notice of any such declaration.
Perhaps you mean to refer to Friedrich Nietzsche, who in The Gay Science (1882) wrote:
Der tolle Mensch sprang mitten unter sie und durchbohrte sie mit seinen Blicken. "Wohin ist ...[text shortened]... enough power to keep many in the darkness--Plato's metaphor for such ignorance of "reality".
At least you knew my meaning.
Will you do as well as I in forty years hence?
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI notice you still have no thoughts. Of your own. Why?
You may be right, because Nietze is a complete unknown. He or she could have said anything. But you are wrong that the world has taken notice of any such declaration.
Perhaps you mean to refer to Friedrich Nietzsche, who in The Gay Science (1882) wrote:
Der tolle Mensch sprang mitten unter sie und durchbohrte sie mit seinen Blicken. "Wohin ist ...[text shortened]... enough power to keep many in the darkness--Plato's metaphor for such ignorance of "reality".
01 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm sorry, I thought the paragraph break was sufficient to mark off the quote from my thoughts.
I notice you still have no thoughts. Of your own. Why?
I really expected that you would seize the opportunity to identify my "generally understood by most informed people" for what it is, more posturing from an elitist. 😏
i shud hopp mi speleng wud knot degenerrate soo fur bi da tim i are ur aj! 🙄
After you seemed all bent out of shape about people ignoring your thread on reality, I tossed a few pearls in there--and the swine really became excited. Then, while foisting my copy and paste rebuke of your insignificant spelling error, I was careful to end my point with a reference to that supreme author concerned with matters of reality--none other than Socrates' pupil and assassin.
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by WulebgrSay what?
I'm sorry, I thought the paragraph break was sufficient to mark off the quote from my thoughts.
I really expected that you would seize the opportunity to identify my "generally understood by most informed people" for what it is, more posturing from an elitist. 😏
i shud hopp mi speleng wud knot degenerrate soo fur bi da tim i are ur aj! 🙄
After ...[text shortened]... supreme author concerned with matters of reality--none other than Socrates' pupil and assassin.
You still have never posted a single thought on RHP.
No?
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIt remains for you to demonstrate a connection between stateless gangs (fascists if you must use such an inaccurate term) and the sovereign rogue state that we invaded. When you have demonstrated that such a connection exists, I will be happy to examine it. I cannot guarantee that I'll disprove your allegation; for if you actually use some reason to support it, I may well find myself in agreement.
Wilber...
Let's make it easy on you.
I stated that the current war (which you oppose) is valid because we need to fight against "Stateless Facists".
Disprove this. With reason.
Like raising a pup on milk from a wolf. But somebody has to do it.
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by WulebgrFor me to demonstrate? Ok. That was easy.
It remains for you to demonstrate a connection between stateless gangs (fascists if you must use such an inaccurate term) and the sovereign rogue state that we invaded. When you have demonstrated that such a connection exists, I will be happy to examine it. I cannot guarantee that I'll disprove your allegation; for if you actually use some reason to support it, I may well find myself in agreement.
I offer to the court four airplanes. Each directed to achiving the destruction of "The Constitution and the Nation" that is the USA.
See Bin Ladens tape of June, 2001.
That was easy. Next.
01 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThank you for that fine rational, reasonable, and argument replete with mountains of evidence.
For me to demonstrate? Ok. That was easy.
I offer to the court four airplanes. Each directed to achiving the destruction of "The Constitution and the Nation" that is the USA.
See Bin Ladens tape of June, 2001.
That was easy. Next.
Now I can disregard the Congressional investigation of the allegations that link those four airplanes to Iraq, and their conclusion: "no credible evidence."