Vatican III Agenda

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So you say, unshakeable in your ignorance. The Confucian or Taoist Superior Man (for want of a better translation) is a lot older than any of these characters, and has a fair amount in common with Nietszche's Uebermensch--having "gone beyond" binary categories of good and evil. What Nietszche have you read, by the way?

The suitable environment for ...[text shortened]... deology was the Weimar Republic. Please explain how Darwin and Nietszche contributed to that.

Smoke and mirrors. I've given my line of thought to support my assertion; time to give yours. Try not to just make statements without explaining how and why one event supports the other.

Here’s a link that might enlighten you to my position:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

I’ve read enough Nietzsche to have a reasonable view on what he’s about.

Originally posted by Halitose
Whatever. You love to latch onto the anti-Semitic punch line, where I never claimed anything of the sort. It is the Darwinian concept of some races evolving into superior races which Nietzsche jumped on with his Übermench and how such a class of "supermen" could define their own morality. It was this concept that Hitler applied to his twisted view of ...[text shortened]... r of the Jews, gypsies and all other ideologically “unfit” (to use some of Darwin’s phrasing).

Do you actually believe such nonsense?? Darwin never would have described any existing organism as "unfit"; that doesn't make sense in the TOE. Darwin didn't believe in "superior races"; this has been explained soooooooooooo many times in this forum it's getting ridiculous. The concept of some groups believing that they are intrinsically superior to others far predates Darwin (remember "God's Chosen People" in the OT) and is contrary to the TOE.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What issues should be addressed at Vatican III?

A couple ideas I had:
The Doctrine of Infallibility: Have We Been Wrong All Along?

Any others?

Yes on the Doctrine of Infallibility, we have been wronged.

The Popr and Bishops are only human. We know that humans make mistakes.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Yes on the Doctrine of Infallibility, we have been wronged.

The Popr and Bishops are only human. We know that humans make mistakes.

Like the humans who decided what writings would be in the Bible? Is it possible they made mistakes?

Originally posted by Halitose
Here’s a link that might enlighten you to my position:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

I’ve read enough Nietzsche to have a reasonable view on what he’s about.

Go on, be specific. What have you read?

Do you understand the role of Nietszche's sister in the reception of his work, and the sort of people she was involved with?

The student who wrote this paper reasons, "Can Nietzsche's theories be considered a foundation for Hitler's Mein Kampf? Hitler's explicit condemnations of the slave race, his ravings about the Aryan elite, and his proposed Darwinist resolution, as well as Hitler's relationship to Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Richard Wagner signal a definite connection to Nietzsche's work."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you actually believe such nonsense?? Darwin never would have described any existing organism as "unfit"; that doesn't make sense in the TOE. Darwin didn't believe in "superior races"; this has been explained soooooooooooo many times in this forum it's getting ridiculous. The concept of some groups believing that they are intrinsically superior to othe ...[text shortened]... predates Darwin (remember "God's Chosen People" in the OT) and is contrary to the TOE.

It's not like you to go off half-cocked. What does the very concept of "survival of the fittest" imply? The species that didn't survive were obviously "unfit" to survive. For all your blustering I'd have though an intelligent fella like you would have made sense of it.

Racism, of course, long predated Darwin, but allow me to quote a paragraph from his book, The Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18.'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla.

In light of the above statement, I find your hasty assertions pathetically inappropriate and unsubstantiated. Contrary to the TOE? I think not.

Originally posted by Halitose
What does the very concept of "survival of the fittest" imply? The species that didn't survive were obviously "unfit" to survive.

This statement indicates a severe misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Go on, be specific. What have you read?

Do you understand the role of Nietszche's sister in the reception of his work, and the sort of people she was involved with?

The student who wrote this paper reasons, "Can Nietzsche's theories be considered a foundation for Hitler's Mein Kampf? Hitler's explicit condemnations of the slave race, his ravings ...[text shortened]... Förster-Nietzsche and Richard Wagner signal a definite connection to Nietzsche's work."

Is this a one-sided debate where I have to answer all the questions without you having to back up your assertion too?

I breezed through “Beyond Good and Evil” and “Thus spake Zarathustra” without much compulsion to turn the next page. Happy now?

Yes. I understand how Nietzsche's sister tailor-made his work to apply to Nazism. So? Are you implying that it could not in any way be construed to support Nazism or even moral nihilism?

Originally posted by Halitose
It's not like you to go off half-cocked. What does the very concept of "survival of the fittest" imply? The species that didn't survive were obviously "unfit" to survive. For all your blustering I'd have though an intelligent fella like you would have made sense of it.

Racism, of course, long predated Darwin, but allow me to quote a paragraph from his b ...[text shortened]... tions pathetically inappropriate and unsubstantiated. Contrary to the TOE? I think not.

I don't know enough to coment on Darwin's racial views, but although the quote you show does make it sound like he saw some races as inferior I don't think he was overtly racist. If you looked at the world then the caucasion races were technologically and socially far more advanced* so it would have been easly to interpret this as Caucasions being generaly superior. That thinking would certainly have fitted with general European opinion at the time.

*(not knocking the societies taht other races had/still have... maybe saying they weren't as advanced is the wrong way to put it)

One thing you must remember about survival of the fittest is that it's not simply a case that the fittest race will survive every time. They have a better chance of survival. but it's not guaranteed. Plus, no species is absolutely superior to anothe rin all aspects.
eg. bug species A can reproduce 50% faster than bug speces B, whoi compete for the same food source. Species A is more likely on that basis to survive. But Bug B can survive in colder temperatures and a particularly cold spell wipes bug species A out.
eg2. (a true one dredged from my memory of school biology) rice species A was widespread in China, but was gradually being driven out by a new species (B) that grew more rapidly. but species B was shorter, so when there was a very wet year species B would largely drown and species A would take over again. Any period of prolonged dryness or wettness could wipe out either species entirely even though both are 'superior' in one way over the other.

don't know if this was relevent...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This statement indicates a severe misunderstanding of the theory of natural selection.

Very well. State your understanding of the theory of natural selection and see if it differs much from mine. Let the semantic games begin.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
I don't know enough to coment on Darwin's racial views, but although the quote you show does make it sound like he saw some races as inferior I don't think he was overtly racist. If you looked at the world then the caucasion races were technologically and socially far more advanced* so it would have been easly to interpret this as Caucasions being gener ...[text shortened]... gh both are 'superior' in one way over the other.

don't know if this was relevent...

don't know if this was relevent...

Thanks BF. IIRC correctly Darwin was quite horrified when he saw the slavery in Brazil while doing his cruise aboard The Beagle. My point is not that he was a racist, but rather that his scientific theory cultivated a social climate (a society which might have been inclined in that direction anyway) for the likes of Nietzsche and more importantly Hitler. Of course it would be simplistic to lay the blame squarely on his shoulders, but I contend that the contribution was not as insignificant (or nonexistent) as BDN and No1 would like to make it out as.

Originally posted by Halitose
Very well. State your understanding of the theory of natural selection and see if it differs much from mine. Let the semantic games begin.

Your statement contains two major flaws.

It is based on the premise that natural selection operates at the species level. This is not what the theory of natural selection claims. Rather, natural selection operates at the level of a generation of individuals within a local population. It doesn't speak to or imply anything about the survival of species.

It is also based on the premise that natural selection is deterministic with respect to the fit surviving. This is not what the theory of natural selection claims. Rather, selection is a stochastic process with the fit being more likely to survive, making it a logical fallacy to deduce that those that did survive were obviously the fit. Contrary to the strawman versions of the theory portrayed in "Darwin's Black Box" and similar works, the theory of natural selection is not actually a tautological one but an empirical one that could be false - although the data we observe indicate that it is true.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
I don't know enough to coment on Darwin's racial views, but although the quote you show does make it sound like he saw some races as inferior I don't think he was overtly racist. If you looked at the world then the caucasion races were technologically and socially far more advanced* so it would have been easly to interpret this as Caucasions being gener ...[text shortened]... gh both are 'superior' in one way over the other.

don't know if this was relevent...

Your examples emphasise what I intended "unfit" to mean. Perhaps I should have expanded the phrase to include "given the current conditions".

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your statement contains two major flaws.

It is based on the premise that natural selection operates at the species level. This is not what the theory of natural selection claims. Rather, natural selection operates at the level of a generation of individuals within a local population. It doesn't speak to or imply anything about the survival of s ...[text shortened]... n empirical one that could be false - although the data we observe indicate that it is true.

I'm surprised, Doc. You are quite correct. Rec'd.

Originally posted by Halitose
You are quite correct.

Naturally.