Alright, sorry I haven't been able to open up a big old can of Internet Argument lately(went to a nice wedding up in Vermont), but I've got to get in the lastish word for fear of losing my coveted title as infallible.
Dahemo post=18.69865.675590 said:
Hmm, I was brought up RC so this is somewhat contrary to my understanding of Methodist doctrine, and I'm happy to be wrong, but while we were asked to sublimate our desires so as not to contravene the will of God, the actual surrendering of will wasn't too high on the list. Literally put, don't do what's wrong, but we had the free will to fo so, it's innate in the concept of punishment that we have the capacity for wrong action. The Ubermensch philosophy intrigues me, on a side note, as the flip side of the Nihilistic aspect, I've wondered since I learned about it if anyone genuinely followed it.
As I come to understand it from reading
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the Ubermensch is someone who consciously rejects the "herd mentality" of deontological ethics in favor for self-fulfillment. It's like Ayn Rand without all the bullshit about morality. It's simply hedonism with a touch of Machiavelli and Might Makes Right. I consider myself a follower of that 'creed' though it's pretty obvious I'm not the shining pinnacle of humanity.
Dahemo post=18.69865.675590 said:
If that seems like mumbo jumbo I'll use an example, who is more redeemed, a criminal who is perfectly hypnotised into being a model citizen, or a criminal who is truly reformed by the punishment he serves?
That depends on what you're looking for. If you're a teleologist, then it doesn't matter what the means are, so long as they meet adequate ends, but I can see what you mean by stating that it is the path that matters. Hell, my own personal journey from Methodism to Nietzsche has been a blast.
From a personal standpoint, I guess a person who consciously redeems themself would be a more 'redeemed' figure, seeing as how they exercised the force of will to make that choice, however, is the warden not responsible for what happens when the inmates are ardently following another rehabilitation course that the warden allows to be spread as easily as his own? How are we supposed to know which faith or lack thereof is right?
Dahemo post=18.69865.675590 said:
I've read that a few times and it still isn't any clearer (I'm not criticizing, I'm genuinely confused), if God is complex and unknowable then attempts to understand could potentially be wildly different. I don't think you'll like that but oh well...
Don't worry, I haven't a clue as to what you're saying in anything over three sentences. I guess most arguments over the internet consist mainly of two people shouting their unchangeable views at each other until someone makes a funnier analogy. At least, that's how I judge the winner of most debates. Man, a collective consciousness would be damn handy right about now. Oh well, at least we all get an A for effort.
Dahemo post=18.69865.675590 said:
You've answered yourself unknowingly there, we hold on to our faiths because one day we will know, at the very latest, when we die we get the answer, but something might happen before then.
Oh damn, I walked
straight into that. You tricky religious types.
Dahemo post=18.69865.675590 said:
Well, essentially you've made an unfounded statment to contradict my unfounded statement. Firstly, morality from my perspective is innate. Dogs know right from wrong from an early age, without training, and other animals have shown these abilities, and the problem with humans is that by they time we are measurably congnicient we have been acculturated. The concept of isolation is ludicrous these days but a documented case has existed, a human raised by animals, and there was a vague but measurable moral compass (I have no idea on the source of that, young boy in 18th Century europe is the best I can do). Also, your reading choices are your concern, know thine enemy? I've got Mein Kampf on my wall at Uni, my best friend's Jewish, I'm not seeing a connection. As for this knowledge of morality, through Free Will we can decide to perform each action and because of this our actions are not a reflection upon the creator but rather out moral selves are formed more or less in it's likeness.
Oh Christ, I think I may have actually found common ground with you there. Damn, now I've lost all my internets. But in order to save my self-image, I've still got doubts on your last statement. If you're willing to concede that our morality is formed somewhat from a creator, then you've got to ask yourself which morality is it we 'inherited'. So without any way to tell which morality we've inherited, how can we be sure which is the right direction?
Oh hang on, there's some pretty convincing agnostics banging on my head right now. Great, now I got to turn in my militant atheist card.
Dahemo post=18.69865.675590 said:
I realise we're moving in very Abrahamic/Classical fields here but I'm a westerner so this is home turf for me.
You're speaking with someone who's spent the majority of his life in a Southern town comprised primarily by Methodists. If Abrahamic faith isn't my home field, I don't know what is!
