Quotes by Nitshze

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...
http://www.raptitude.com/2010/03/40-belief-shaking...
Home About Raptitude Archives Contact Experiments The List Best of Raptitude Subscribe via RSS Raptitude.com The gentle art of sanity amidst civilization
40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist

by David on March 26, 2010
268
tweets
1897
shares Share
retweet
If theres one thing Friedrich Nietzsche did well, its obliterate feel-good beliefs people have about themselves. He has been criticized for being a misanthrope, a subvert, a cynic and a pessimist, but I think these assessments are o the mark. I believe he only wanted human beings to be more honest with themselves. He did have a remarkable gift for aphorism he once declared, It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. A hundred years after his death, Nietzsche retains his disturbing talent for turning a persons worldview upside-down with one jarring remark. Even today his words remain controversial. They hit nerves. Most of his views are completely at odds with the status quo.
1 of 108 Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM
Here are 40 unsympathetic statements from the man himself. Many youll agree with. Others you will resist, but these are the ones to pay the most attention to your beliefs are being challenged. Its either an opportunity to grow, or to insist that you already know better. If any of them hit a nerve in you, ask yourself why. *** 1. People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights. 2. He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted. 3. The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. 4. There are no facts, only interpretations. 5. Morality is but the herd-instinct in the individual. 6. No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any. 7. Without music, life would be a mistake. 8. Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isnt. 9. In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad. 10. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. 11. A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. 12. We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. 13. No victor believes in chance. 14. Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies. 15. Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself. 16. It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy
2 of 108
Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM
marriages. 17. The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. 18. The future influences the present just as much as the past. 19. The most common lie is that which one tells himself; lying to others is relatively an exception. 20. I counsel you, my friends: Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. 21. Rejoicing in our joy, not suffering over our suffering, is what makes someone a friend. 22. God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight. 23. Success has always been a great liar. 24. Nothing on earth consumes a man more quickly than the passion of resentment. 25. What do you regard as most humane? To spare someone shame. 26. Whatever is done for love always occurs beyond good and evil. 27. When a hundred men stand together, each of them loses his mind and gets another one. 28. When one has a great deal to put into it a day has a hundred pockets. 29. Whoever despises himself nonetheless respects himself as one who despises. 30. All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. 31. What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome. 32. Fear is the mother of morality. 33. A politician divides mankind into two classes: tools and enemies. 34. Everyone who has ever built anywhere a new heaven first found the power thereto in his own hell.
3 of 108
35. There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy. 36. The mother of excess is not joy but joylessness. 37. The Kingdom of Heaven is a condition of the heart not something that comes upon the earth or after death. 38. What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself. 39. Glance into the world just as though time were gone: and everything crooked will become straight to you. 40. We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
Did you like this post? Get Raptitude articles via RSS feed. Or if you prefer, get them by Email. Its easy, and free!
268
tweets
retweet
Tagged as: civilization, history, humanity, insights, thinking, wisdom { 10 trackbacks } Tweets that mention 40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist | Raptitude.com -- Topsy.com March 26, 2010 at 2:31 am Freak-Sheet Friday! Brand New Day, Brand New Eves March 26, 2010 at 9:55 am The wonderful worldview of Frederick Nietschze. - PersonalityCafe March 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm 40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist - PersonalityCafe March 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm There are no facts, only interpretations Eden Journal March 30, 2010 at 4:43 pm There are no facts, only interpretations weightkilling.com April 6, 2010 at 11:35 pm Weekly Gems Jason Sokol
April 17, 2010 at 7:48 am 40 Belief- Shaking Remarks | Just Call Me Papillon August 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm Carousel 04.09.10 | evolution you August 27, 2010 at 11:35 am 13 Pieces of Potpourri Spirit Lights The Way September 3, 2010 at 11:06 am { 244 comments read them below or add one }
Tim March 26, 2010 at 12:33 am I back up the idea of feasting on challenging ideas. If your philosophy or beliefs dont stand after reading, pondering, and questioning these challenges then they werent that strong in the rst place. Thanks for Nietsche highlight. Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 1:17 am Makes me think Maybe strong isnt such a good quality for beliefs after all. Maybe were better o if they are able to be dislodged without so much as a blink. Reply
Olivia March 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm I dont know what you mean! Clearly beliefs that stand up to challenge are the most valuable! Reply
Josh March 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm
5 of 108
I strive to find a happy medium. I hold strong beliefs about many things. What I try to do is to make myself flexible enough that I dont need those beliefs to remain true to continue to be who I am. I think it would be sad if any belief could be blown away with the wind. In my opinion, that just makes for either a very empty or a very gullible existence. On the other hand I think it would be sad if one belief were such an integral part of a person that the removal of it would destroy them. If my beliefs are challenged and defeated, I look for new beliefs. If my beliefs are challenged and survive, I continue to hold on to them. Reply
David March 28, 2010 at 12:13 am Stronger is not necessarily better when it comes to beliefs. If a belief is strong, it only means you are emotionally attached to it, it doesnt mean its right or even sensible. This is an impediment to learning and growing. Imagine if your beliefs withstood the test of time from age 10 to 30. Youd be an extremely naive 30 year old. Reply
Phil E. Drifter March 31, 2010 at 6:25 am Nod it is only a fool who refuses to change their position after being confronted with new facts.
Stephen Browne March 31, 2010 at 8:40 am There are no facts.
Justin March 31, 2010 at 7:45 pm Or youd be a very intelligent 10-year old. I agree with Josh. When you cannot logically hold a belief, you
discard it. Wouldnt discarding it beforehand be hasty and potentially wasteful? Of course there are various strains of logic that grow from various equally valid initial assumptions, so it is possible to arrive at a logical impasse, in which case most people make a decision based upon emotion; they go with the stronger belief. Strong beliefs are not necessarily an impediment to learning and growing (though I agree that they can be.) Most strong beliefs are a defense mechanism against insanity. An example of this is the belief in a physical realm.
Jon July 12, 2010 at 11:40 pm Speaking of true religion/philosophy and true science (observation- and experiment-based) we can only conclude that they have one thing in common: truth. We should not fear, no matter how correct or not our beliefs may be, new evidence. I completely agree with Phil (Stephen: lets call facts by the name of observations). In the case that observations refute our current beliefs we have a few options: 1) the evidence is incorrect in some way (be careful to choose solely this route of thinking), 2) in our cluster of beliefs there exists an explanation to be found, 3) we misunderstand our own belief concerning the subject (if you think about this one it does in fact dier from #2), or 4) we have erred in our belief.
Christian July 30, 2010 at 1:03 am Or you were very wise at ten years old. (unlikely for almost everyone)
Christian July 30, 2010 at 1:04 am Oops someone beat me to saying that, sorry.
7 of 108
Leavan September 12, 2010 at 12:50 pm I am a few months late in this conversation, but I have found it completely intriguing. In my opinion, I feel there is a time and place for every belief one might adopt throughout their life. Knowing when to change it, let it be changed, is the art of growing. One can remain with the experience and the essence of the old beliefs while adopting new ones, which in turn, makes one wise.
Irun June 7, 2010 at 7:01 am I think beliefs can be strong because theyre good for some particular situation, time, era, geography, person, people, etc. When those things change, that strong belief may not t anymore but the believers may be too stubborn, or proud, or scared, or just lazy to acknowledge that and change their beliefs. And I think thats the source of many humanitys problems. Reply
Henry August 18, 2010 at 12:51 am Beliefs are bad. Friedrich Nietzsche says himself that faith proves nothing. I choose to only believe what is necessary to make all my intuitive actions rational. Anything else is overkill and a nuisance should it be proven wrong at some point in the future. If I may add a non-conformist quote of my own: All pain is inicted by one who is defending a belief. Reply
ministerj April 1, 2010 at 9:42 am a man without faith in God is a man with one destination.hell. regardless of his belief.
Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm ~phew, Im a woman Reply
Aaron April 1, 2010 at 6:05 pm Hahaha, Love it. Too bad Im a man and apparently going to hell. Reply
Nick April 1, 2010 at 6:05 pm Re. ministerj: I understand that this is a blog, but with all do respect, that statement is rather meaningless. It begs the question of what faith is in the first place, and that question typically leads us down this road: The idea of faith in God throughout western religion has been all too convoluted with asserting that God exists. If by faith in God you mean a commitment to the continual search for the unltered truth of reality, then I think most would agree with you: giving that up will end only one wayabandonment of self. If by faith in God you mean asserting that there is a unied entity with a will, a law, and all the other typical personications appended to western God, that wont end you up in hell at all. It might even do the opposite. Reply
Nick April 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm sorry, and all the other typical personications appended to western God, [GIVING THAT UP] wont end you up in hell at all. It might even do the opposite.
9 of 108
Reply
David April 1, 2010 at 6:19 pm ^^ This is the misunderstanding of all misunderstandings. Reply
Ellie April 5, 2010 at 11:35 am Well rst of all, Christianity is the only belief I know of that believes in hell, so there isnt much of a threat there. Now, if every religion throughout history had a hell, then maybe Id think there was something to that statement. But as it stands, Id much rather go to hell then go to heaven. Who wants to live with the goody goodies who followed the bible to a t, right down to selling their children into marriage, stoning women who got pregnant outside of wedlock, performed abortions when they thought their wife had performed an infidelity (Numbers 5:11-28), etc? All of which, one must do and believe in for Jesus said only those who uphold all the laws will get into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-20). Plus, if hell does exist, there are a lot of awesome people there. Id much rather kick it with them then kick it with fanatics. Reply
Sonny May 11, 2010 at 4:58 pm Wow. I couldnt have said it better myself. Reply
Eric May 11, 2010 at 6:54 pm You took an old testament statement and applied it in accordance to a new testament statement. In that
10 of 108
religion, its widely accepted that the old testament laws do not apply, as they were then rewritten in the new testament to accomodate for after christs death and resurrection (therefore abolishing sacricing,instituting a new path to the afterlife). As a student of anthropology, I thought I would point out the misunderstanding comments in your post. I will say that their would be some cool people to kick it with in hell and heaven, as the bible does not condemn by rooting out the ones who followed to a t or not.
Jon July 21, 2010 at 4:13 pm Well, there are many ancient religions that believe in a form of hell (start with ancient Greeks and go backward and forward chronologically as you wish). Generally speaking, hell throughout the human experience is expressed as a place but most likely is a state of being. It always deals with not doing what you were supposed to do and then facing your past mistakes(judgment). Its a brilliant concept from a philosophical and humanistic perspective, but many people believe in a more tangible hell. There is much disagreement in Christianity as to where/what hell truly is, but many mainstream Christian denominations agree now that it is more of a state of being and less re/brimstone/torture by little horned men. As to the comment Plus, if hell does exist, there are a lot of awesome people there. Id much rather kick it with them then kick it with fanatics Id say that they most certainly are good people, only (given this popular viewpoint of hell) they realize that they failed to reach their potential for happiness because of their disobedience to correct principles that they knew to be true (Id research cognitive dissonance to see what I mean: all of us know that some things we do in life will eventually lead to a form of suering). In summation: we all go through hell in life. The trick is to life according to our actual moral beliefs and then review/alter them for the better as needed. I wont argue which moral beliefs are right, so no worries, everyone! Reply
11 of 108
jess September 9, 2010 at 7:38 am Dont forget vengeance and washing your feet in the blood of the so called wicked (psalms 58:10), or the children, who by the way have done nothing, being dashed to pieces and the women ravished(raped) and being thrust through by swords (Isaiah 13:15-16). oh yeah, isnt only 144,000 (rev. 7:3-4, rev. 9:3-4, rev. 14:1, 14:3-4) taking that escalator ride anyway. I think your odds of making it to the top in the end are worse than winning the lottery. One powerball please. But hey, maybe it was a typo. ya know, there were two stories of creation in there (Genesis 1:27, man and women created together. Genesis 2:21-22, man first, women next), so maybe there might be another end of days story floating around where more than 144,000 make it to the vacation spot. Either way, if you hold on to that, hope you brought some SPF 100. Reply
Kyle September 9, 2010 at 11:40 am It sound like you were approached by a Jehovah Witness, who by which are a cult deceived by the Watchtower. the 144,000 is a group of witnesses coming from the 12 tribes of Israel. It states in Revelation 7:9, which is further down in the verse you quoted [ A Great Multitude from Every Nation ] After this I looked, and behold, [Rom 11:25 ] a great multitude that no one could number, [Revelation 5:9 ] from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, [Revelation 7:14; Revelation 3:4 ] clothed in white robes, with [Lev 23:40; John 12:13] palm branches in their hands. So anyone can approach the throne of God through Christ which why that veil between man and God was ripped apart. Your Old Testament verses need to be put into context of when
they were written. It was during a time of war and also refers to a coming judgment. God used other pagan nation to ravage war again Babylon. The whole the children, who by the way have done nothing, being dashed to pieces and the women ravished(raped) and being thrust through by swords (Isaiah 13:15-16). Is an observation of the Medes, a pagan culture that does not follow the decrees of God conquering the Babylonians and doing such despicable act to those people. Does not say that God or anyone should delight in what happened, just that it happened in that manner when the Babylonians were conquered. 17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. 19And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 20It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. Now for Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them Genesis 2:21-22 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. I dont see a disconnect between the two. The rst
13 of 108
story of creation was the general overview and the second part was a more detailed explanation. More like saying a person built the house, then the person begins explaining how the house was built. The foundation was laid down, the supports were built, the roof, etc.
Jordan September 12, 2010 at 9:32 pm Well, if you read the passage Numbers 5:11-28 (which I did after reading this post), youll notice that there is no abortion performed in it. And the whole ceremony is performed willingly by the woman. The woman has to agree to the oath before they can perform it. So, there is no abortion, its just saying that after the ceremony The Lord will make her infertile due to her lying in front of the priest and in Gods home (the church). Oh, and it says nothing about the woman being pregnant in this passage, just that she wasnt faithful to her husband. Reply
tuplang July 31, 2010 at 7:03 am thank you minister. your contribution has been noted and we will regard it as it suits us. this is the way your god has made us. meditate on that. but now hurry back to your prayers and your idol. it grows cold without your gaze. Reply
Gary September 9, 2010 at 2:24 pm hahawhat a tool! Reply
14 of 108
mic dundee September 13, 2010 at 7:55 am This is kinda lame. Many of these statements are common since. Many are false, and some are silly. Why dont people discover how the world is on there own. why see the world through others quotes. Make your own! Reply
Mike March 26, 2010 at 12:47 am No victor believes in chance Man, I love that one. Reminds me of a quote I like The harder I work, the luckier I get. Fun list of thoughts to go through! Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 1:18 am Thats a great one. I suppose luck is a quality identied only in hindsight. Reply
Balam July 26, 2010 at 2:27 am Although its kind of silly to make a judgment on a quote because of lack of context, i.e. what was the surrounding text where the quote was pulled from my interpretation comes from a dierent angle. Nietzsche might have meant that: 1. He/she is deluded in thinking that they are in control 2. They want all the glory to shine upon themselves Take a look at Nietzsches other quote Success has always been a great liar. This might give you an indication that he thought that
15 of 108
success and perhaps victory are not quite what they seem. Furthermore, this also reminds me of the movie The Matrix when Neo goes to see the Oracle and she tells him the bad news that he will have to decide between Morpheus life or his own and says: Oh, dont worry about it As soon as you step outside that door, youll start feeling better. Youll remember you dont believe in any of this fate crap youre in control of your own life remember? As it turns out, at the end of the movie trilogy, the Oracle (fate) is proven right and the Architect (control) is proven wrong. It is also interesting that in Hinduism control or the world, for that matter, is only an illusion called Maya. Lastly, this seemly simple quote addresses, but does not solve, the age old question which was omnipresent in the ancient Greek ethos called Fate. Balams last blog ..Home Reply
Fyrehed September 14, 2010 at 6:07 pm I was thinking the success comment was more of a remark about the wonders of failure. When you succeed, there really isnt anything gained or learned, though it feels like it. You havent grown or found a new limit. Its not so much about being in control of your life (you are, but freedom is never a constant, its always being tugged and pushed at by others freedoms and choices, just as yours do to them) but rather about the assumption that youve already maximized your potential. Not that success is a bad thing, its awesome for the more mundane goals, but it teaches nothing and hardly inspires. If youre already successful, the best, why even bother trying anymore. Failure ignites the greatest thoughts and discoveries, and is often key to nding dierent points of view and a greater knowledge of self. But we dont celebrate failures, we treat them as shameful acts when theyre more like revelations, epiphanies. Success is a liar because it isnt all that successful; its stagnant, not emergent. Reply
16 of 108
John March 26, 2010 at 1:35 am David my good man, once again, you blow me away with another excellent post. This quote in particular struck me: The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think dierently. If this is the case, people have attempted to corrupt me all my life. But I did not listen. I kept my mind intact all these years. I know who I am now and who I want to become. In truth, all of these quotes are amazing. I cant thank you enough for sharing this wisdom. P.S. On a totally unrelated note, I think Ive just had an epiphany moment. It couldnt have come at a better time. Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 5:36 am I dont think the corruption is intentional. But its shocking how we all learn to value those who agree with us more highly than those who dont. I dont know about you but it didnt occur to me that I do that until I read those words. Reply
Avi March 26, 2010 at 1:53 am There are no facts, only interpretations. I dont understand. This is a nonsense statement, becausethere are facts. Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 5:50 am There are facts? Is that your interpretation?
17 of 108
A fact is only a belief that somebody calls a fact. You can believe it, if you want, and call it a fact too, but thats only your interpretation. You can never escape your own subjective viewpoint of the world. Reply
Josh March 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm No, thats not quite right. There ARE facts. There are certain truths about the world that cant be disputed. Now there lies some truth in saying that there can be dierent interpretations of what certain facts mean. Just for example, Newton suggested laws of gravitation based on observations of his surroundings. (facts) Now those laws were generally accepted for a long, long time. Then Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and changed what people understood about gravitation. Since Einstein, others have come along and further refined the laws that appear to govern the happenings of the universe. The point that Im trying to make is that the facts didnt change. The way that people interpreted those facts is what changed. I dont believe that an object that is dropped from my hand will fall to the ground just because I have faith in gravity, I believe that dropped objects fall because all evidence points to that conclusion across the globe. Now, I know Im oversimplifying this argument but I hope that Im making my point. There is an objective reality out there that doesnt depend on any one persons interpretation of it. Explanations of why that reality is the way it is ARE subject to dierent interpretations however and that is why our knowledge continues to grow over time. Even though reality doesnt change, our understanding of reality does. Reply
George March 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm How can we be sure of this objective reality though when all we have is our perception of it? We may have faith in the idea that there is an knowable,objective reality outside of our own consciouness but how can we be sure of it, and if it does exist we are only getting an interpretation of it from the
18 of 108
messages we receive from our senses which are then interpreted by our brain. How do you feel about quantum mechanics and the superposition of states if There is an objective reality out there that doesnt depend on any one persons interpretation of it? where it seems that the way we interpret data changes what we see. Reply
Josh March 26, 2010 at 6:55 pm Thats the great thing about our brains, we cant be sure of an objective reality. There are many thought experiments that have been proposed over the years by many philosophers ranging from clever demons, to brains in vats, up to and including the Matrix. We dont really have any way of being sure that what our brains are perceiving is an actual external reality. The problem with that way of thinking though is that that is as far as you can go with it. Shannon made a great point in another reply here. (http://www.raptitude.com/2010/03/40-belief-shakingremarks-from-a-ruthless-nonconformist /#comment-8674) It doesnt matter whether or not reality is external to our minds. That fact is totally unknowable, unless of course you take the red pill and learn the truth about The Matrix. What Im trying to say is that if you reduce everything to an inscrutable perception then you reduce everything in life to nothing at all. Hooray nihilism. That kind of thinking doesnt get you anywhere. Accepting that your perceptions are shared and can be combined with the perceptions of others to increase the collective knowledge of mankind has, on the other hand, given us computers and the internet and the ability to debate the fundamental truths of the universe with complete strangers over vast distances. For your second point, regarding quantum mechanics, I think that you may be thinking about quantum mechanics in an unusual way. See, quantum mechanics doesnt apply to objects on a macroscopic scale. (With a few exceptions like plasma, or Bose-Einsteinian Condensates) The quantum part of quantum
mechanics refers to the smallest possible portion of matter or quanta. The only time that our observations eect the results is when we are working on a quantum scale. You dont eect the speed of a car passing you on the street just by looking at it. You do however eect either the speed or position of subatomic particles by trying to measure one or the other. Sorry for the super long replies, I just finally have found something that I am passionate about and I love discussing it with people. By the way, I love all the other quotes here, with the possible exception of #30.
David March 27, 2010 at 1:27 am Great comment Josh, there is a lot to think about there. I disagree that that kind of thinking doesnt get us anywhere though, depending on how you interpret (!) that statement. We certainly can conceptualize an external, objective reality and identify the similarities in the realities each of us apparently perceives. We do it all the time and so much of civilization hinges on our ability to do it. But that does not make There are no facts, only interpretations necessarily false, or even useless. It does not necessarily reduce everything to a nihilistic, inscrutable perception, because we can still employ science even while we acknowledge its objective facts as mere interpretations. There is no reason to toss out objectivity as a concept. When we deal with the word facts, we become inclined to forget that they are only beliefs on a continuum of certainty. That is the sneaky lie that the word fact introduces that its a dierent animal than a mere belief. A fact is a only belief that has been augmented by the additional belief that you could not be wrong. Does that make any sense? Check out How to Be Right All The Time for more on this distinction.
20 of 108
David March 26, 2010 at 6:47 pm Im with George. Of course there are many interpretations. One cant call anything a fact without interpreting it as such. We can suppose there are objective immutable facts beyond out perceptions, but that is only an interpretation of what can only ever be a subjective experience. The whole idea of objectivity is just an interpretation of reality. Its a thought. Reply
juni April 12, 2010 at 1:13 pm I loooove this whole page and just the knowledge that can be consummed here Humans take fact way to serious including me . Until I read this page my mind kinda opened up to the word fact. we as a people can over analyze everything. especially when it comes down to the heavens, and science. But facts of the past have changed, we have evolved our minds acceptance of knowledge to be one way and the proof, collaborations and studies make the fact another thing our observation of a flat land became our observation of that being completely impossible. Science took thousands of years to become what it is now and we are at a time where science is basically working together Technology has given us the ability to look beyond belief and find fact Science is not this amazing thing in the sky, science is the sky science is mathematics, we are all scientist. we all observe and attempt to learn and understand our enviorment.
21 of 108
Science is a misguided diluted word I believe science was the 1st religion . As a people we believed in the sun god we believed in our enviorment. We believed in what we saw. As humans we are too creative for our own good and manipulated these objects of the heavens and nature into the things we will praise believe and live for to understand. We just didnt have the history, technology, and facts of the world to put everything together We are at a time of great advantages a time of being able to go beyond belief, a time where we can even go against fact Numbers are innite that means science can go on forever . It can only grow and change. we can only get smarter from here . The question is once we have this universal sense of understanding whats its purpose? If there is any word we must go beyond its greed and ego. We are a young race of intelligent animals we can only learn from our past we can learn from our mistakes if we truly want to make a change in this world we are going to have to be able to change the world beyond our death
Nick August 15, 2010 at 12:55 pm Exactly, facts are only interpretations given in statement form, made for the sole purpose of allowing others like us to interpret for themselves whether they in turn believe the statement to be true or false. Because of how easily our beliefs adapt and fluctuate, how can any single statement be universally accepted by the entire population at any given point in time?
Chris F. March 26, 2010 at 7:33 pm
22 of 108
Hi Josh. Im really enjoying what you have to say. You said, No, thats not quite right. There ARE facts. There are certain truths about the world that cant be disputed. I think you may be right. Could you please share a few examples? Id be interested in discussing something concrete as opposed to the concept of facts. Reply
Josh March 27, 2010 at 10:47 am Hi Chris, Dave, George. Thanks for the responses. I must say that Im enjoying this very much as well. Unfortunately Ive reached the point where I realize that Im trying to ice-skate uphill. At this point I feel that I could probably write enough to ll a whole other blog post so Ill try to keep my scope limited to t inside a reply. Short and to the point: I was wrong. One apparently incontrovertible fact is that we cant actually have any incontrovertible facts. Hows that for a paradox? While Im on the topic of paradox, Id like to recommend a book that has given me hours if not years of deep thoughts on the matter. The book is called Labyrinths of Reason it is written by William Poundstone. (Subtitled Paradox, puzzles, and the frailty of knowledge) If Im going to be totally honest with myself and everyone else, I have to agree with what David said about beliefs and certainty. I believe with the highest degree of certainty that I can muster that there is an objective universe that is external to the subjective views of any beings inside that universe that may be experiencing it. Basically its the opposite of I think therefore I am. I am, therefore I think. That, of course, is a gross oversimplication. I believe that rocks and trees ARE but I dont believe they can think. I do, however, think you can see what Im trying to say. Now back to the topic of a solid concrete fact. After long and careful consideration Ive decided that I cant really answer that question in a way that I feel is fair. As I stated in my second reply, I accept that all we have is
23 of 108
our perceptions of reality and that to create an objective view based on those perceptions might really just be creating an illusion. I admit, that all I have is a very strong belief that we do live in an objective universe and that I merely believe that the way it seems is actually the way it is. Now with that being said Im going to give some of the, in my opinion unfair, answers that Ive come up with. They all tend to be Meta Observations. For example I could say that one fact is that right now Im sitting in a chair in front of a laptop and typing. Am I really though? It would be more accurate to say that right now I am experiencing the sensation that I am sitting in a chair. I am experiencing the sensation that I am looking at a laptop. I believe that I am typing because what I believe are my fingers are pushing against what I believe are keys on a laptop keyboard. Now those sensations are facts. But they are only facts to me. You reading this right now (are you really reading this?) can never be sure if I am actually experiencing this. Or for that matter if I actually exist at all. But lets go a step further. (Reductio ad absurdum For The Win) What if in fact I am not actually perceiving this at all, and by extension that you are not experiencing the perception of reading this. Maybe there are no brains at all to receive these perceptions. What if in fact we are all just characters in the mind of somebody else? Are we all just part of some elaborate computer simulation, and all that we think we are experiencing through electronic impulses in our brains is simply a series of 1s and 0s traveling through a CPU? Maybe were a bunch of rocks on the beach. I went ahead and read How to Be Right All the Time. It was a good post. Very thought provoking. Id be lying, though, if I said that I didnt take issue with some of your assertions. The way I interpret what youve written there it feels like youve said that anything that we believe that isnt a direct result of personal experience is equivalent to blind faith. You used the example of the earth revolving around the sun. You could ask an astronaut how the earth looks from outside of our atmosphere. You can see pictures taken from satellite images. Now those pictures are just that, pictures. A
picture may be worth a thousand words but it is not what it is showing. A photograph of a lion cant eat a gazelle. The rst hand account of the astronauts however is very compelling evidence. Though I suppose that they could be lying, or they were hallucinating, or that even they dont actually exist and that we are hallucinating or being manipulated somehow. Again, I assert that by following that train of thought and saying The way I see it doesnt make you right, it just makes everything meaningless. If I were to say, The way I see it, I am the last remaining dodo bird, then I would be wrong. Or maybe I shouldnt say wrong. Maybe I should say, that you cannot know that it is true. In Labyrinths of Reason there is a section on knowledge and what it means to know something. The three necessary conditions are Belief, justication, and truth. First of all, I would have to believe that I in fact am a dodo bird and that there are no others. Secondly, that belief would have to be justied, lets say for the sake of argument that I justify this because whenever I look in a mirror I see a dodo bird and when I look at my arms I see feathers and because Ive never seen any other dodo birds. Thirdly, and in my opinion most importantly, it would actually have to be true that I am a dodo bird. Any casual observation by an outside source would quickly dismiss this no matter what I believe. Id invoke at this point Aphorism #11 with regards to the asylum. What Im trying to say is that if you deny truth then you deny knowledge. Please feel free to disagree, and to post those disagreements here. I am enjoying this conversation very much. Thanks again, ~Josh (P.S. so much for keeping it short.)
Chris F. March 27, 2010 at 5:09 pm Hi Josh. Theres a lot of great stu in your recent posts and I would like to write a very long response, but Ill keep it to just one point: You said, Short and to the point: I was wrong.
25 of 108
Its impressive to me that youre the type of person who is not only willing to consider that you might be wrong but is willing to admit that publicly. Personally, I absolutely love to nd-out I am wrong. If people were more willing to follow your example, I think the world would be a quite dierent place.
Andrew May 31, 2010 at 3:37 pm Welcome to Daoism, haha Josh mentioned the paradox of the one real fact being that there are no facts, which I believe is one of the most important trains of thought anyone can take their mind down. But this isnt a call for nihilism, but rather a call for honesty with yourself. Nihilism is like any other system of belief it claims that it is the one truth, even if its truth is that there are no truths and nothing matters. The real lesson that should be learned by acknowledging there are no permanent facts in our world isnt that facts dont matter, but rather that they matter because WE make them matter. If you say that there is no moral structure to the universe, does that mean morals dont matter? No. It means that you must take responsibility for your morals, rather than claiming they are some universal rule that all things must follow because even among human cultures that can be seen as false. If you say that the laws of physics are not permanent truths, does that mean they dont matter? No. They are still the best way for us to explain and explore the world as WE perceive it, until we find something better which will allow us to perceive the world in a dierent light and in doing so change our perception of it. And even with our current physics we have found that the laws we think run the universe are not always constant, are really more akin to probability, and can be broken by nature itself in the right circumstances. The truth is what we make it, what we choose for ourselves, be it science or religion or basic perception of reality. And yes, there are basic truths we all accept
26 of 108
because otherwise we would likely go mad (such as simple identification with other humans and the belief that you are yourself) but that does not change the fact that these are truths that YOU accept, not truths that you can objectively prove. It is up to us to decide what we consider factual, not the universewhatever it is.
Phil E. Drifter March 31, 2010 at 6:29 am There are certain truths about the world that cant be disputed. Can you give an example? Dont even try to say 2+2=4 because that is simply your interpretation of math being factually concrete. There was no math in the universe until mankind created it. Reply
Billy April 5, 2010 at 1:01 am The underlying patterns of math exist in the objective universe without the need of a mind to perceive them. The Mandlebrot Set is a good example. It is a universe unto itself that arises from a simple recursive function. It wasnt created by man. It was discovered. Math is symbolic. Numbers and operators represent fundamental relationships that do exist in the world, independent of interpretation. These relationships do not need to be perceived by us to exist. I cant believe I feel like Im going out on a limb here to say that yes, I would use 2+2=4 as an example of indisputable truth. I cant think of scenario where this statement would not be true.
Nick August 15, 2010 at 1:12 pm I would like a concrete example as well. As I am sitting here, I think of all areas of knowledge I could delve into
to find a example of fact. Starting with math, as Phil said it was created by mankind and was there, while in its development, influenced its fickle creators. Literature: Books and language are the embodiment of objectivism, which I belive is the exact opposite of fact. Science: Science in all forms, biology, chemistry, etc, is not nearly constant enough to even consider the conclusions it has made as fact. This is because if one where to live forever they would see multiple times a dramatic change in the philosophy of science, including changes in the laws which govern our modern day view of our world. History: similar to literature, history is created and continued by mankind and mankind only. Whether past, present, or future, our abilty to objectify things (also our ability to lie) will keep anything in the history books from becoming a concrete fact. If anyone does manage to find an indisputable claim, you have my congratulations.
Remco August 13, 2010 at 6:45 am Actually another fact is that Galileo came along with his theory of relativity. But Im not sure it changed what people understood about gravitation, immediately. Reply
Fyrehed September 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm 1. There are no laws, only tendencies. All the scientic and mathematical laws we have discovered or invented concerning the universe can, will, and have been broken. Not everything has always been and nothing will always be. There is no xed point in time and space that is and forever will be indisputable; i.e. a fact. 2. Nietzsche is rm on one thing concerning human thought and language: all of it is grounded in metaphor. Everything is what it is and not just because we have a name for it. We can only understand the world in relation to ourselves, and language will never encompass the full truth or fact of
anything. Because we understand everything through the use of analogy everything is only an interpretation, a perception. The more we learn, the more we discover how ignorant we really are, and how much we can never know. This isnt a bad thing. Its actually quite marvelous Reply
Aden August 13, 2010 at 8:02 pm That sounds like a fact, David. No, wait. It cant be a fact because nothing is a fact, but if it isnt a fact that nothing is a fact, then there ARE facts! whoa Reply
David August 13, 2010 at 9:02 pm Youre calling it a fact, not me. But thats beside the point. All he means is that we forget that all facts are only interpretations that have been anointed with the title fact because the evidence appears overwhelming. What constitutes overwhelming evidence to you may not necessarily be overwhelming to somebody else. You cant deny that each of us subscribe to a dierent set of facts, and therefore they are not immutable, not indisputable. Some people have seen Elvis ghost FOR A FACT! Of course there are facts. Humans do deal in facts, and I dont avoid the word. But we cannot forget that they are ultimately only interpretations weve grown to take for granted. Reply
Aden August 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm
29 of 108
Im not calling it a fact. Im only pointing out that the assertion (or interpretation if you prefer that term) contradicts itself. Undoubtedly we all have dierent interpretations of the truth, but the truth is there.
Drew Tkac March 27, 2010 at 11:49 am Einstein also said: If the facts dont t the theory, change the facts. Reply
Jessica March 28, 2010 at 7:31 am I think Einstein had it right. After all (and I know this argument is old and dusty) it used to be fact that the world was at. It used to be a fact that the entire universe revolved around our little planet. These werent silly or stupid or ignorant people who came up with those ideas. They were people like us. Were no smarter, we just have more Information. That doesnt necessarily mean we have facts. We just have a certain way that we perceive things thats comfortable for almost everyone. There are a lot of Facts that were never actually true. I dont think well ever have enough time, information, or real understanding of the forces at work in the universe to know the Ultimate Truth (if there is such a thing?). I think that moves into Divine territory; whatever you believe to be the meaning of life, existence, creation and all that. One of my favorite ideas of all time is, We dont know what we dont know. Jessicas last blog ..Photo Friday: Make a Wish Reply
Drew Tkac March 28, 2010 at 12:03 pm
30 of 108
I read a great article a few months ago that grouped knowledge into three categories: 1) shit you know your know, 2) shit you know your dont know and 3) shit you dont know that you dont know. Categories 1 and 2 comprised about 1% of all knowledge, category 3 comprised 99%. The most dangerous people have a very large category 3. The most employable people have a large category 2. So its OK not to know something but its best to know you dont know it. Reply
Phil E. Drifter March 31, 2010 at 6:33 am These werent silly or stupid or ignorant people who came up with those ideas. They were people like us. Speak for yourself. They WERE silly AND stupid AND ignorant because they were creating facts without research. The Pope condemned Galileo (whom I was born exactly 413 years after) for supporting a heliocentric universe over the geocentric one which his faith required. Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for refusing to recant his beliefs. Any facts we arrive at are simply *our interpretation* of facts. Remember when it was discovered that eating eggs every day would raise your cholesterol? And then later we found that eating eggs every day *wouldnt* raise your cholesterol. Reply
tuplang July 31, 2010 at 7:46 am Sorry Phil. But there was nothing silly about the Pope trying to thwart scientific discovery. The Pope is a politician. Sure, he dresses like a mystic and spouts mystic stu here and there but his job is 99% political. He is caretaker for a massive hive-mind known as the Roman Catholic Church and, at the time
31 of 108
of Galileo, this hive-mind controlled most of the known world. It did this because it enjoyed the power that mystics can have over a populace that didnt know any better and were too terrified to ask. God is an awfully big idea to come up against, dont you think? Now some smartypants upstart comes along and tells us that the Bible (the main program of belief) has a fundamental flaw and we are not the centre of the universe?? Man the barricades, boys, were in BIG trouble here. Our lad, Galileo was dobbed in to the Roman Inquisition (read: thought police) and the story continues on its path. These days we think that democracy is a pretty good idea despite the fact that it doesnt really work and that a hell of a lot of people are still marginalized and demonized and left out of the game. We are all dealing with the new hive-idea of everyone is equal when that is obviously untrue. Take a look around. Dont tell me that the poor and the disadvantaged chose that path. But to state these ideas is to mark oneself as a bit of a heretic, a dissident. You will most likely be silenced and marginalized and put into a sort of social house arrest if you do not publicly recant. The more things change, eh? The pope is a politician. (This is only my interpretation and should not be regarded as fact)
David April 11, 2010 at 4:49 pm A philosophy professor I once had knew Einstein at Princeton. He said he asked Einstein, What is the most important question science can answer? Einstein replied, Science cannot answer any question, it can only ask. Reply
32 of 108
Dr. G April 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm Well, not directly related to the topic, just feel reminded of another famous Einstein quote: If I had 60 minutes to solve a problem and my life depended on it, Id spend 55 minutes determining the right question to ask. Once I got the right question, I could easily answer it in 5 minutes. Reply
Molly March 30, 2010 at 11:23 pm My name is Molly. Im Pretty sure that that is a fact I do agree with these quotes, but the fact one doesnt seem completely correct.. At least to me. All of his quotes are his interpretations. Saying There are no facts, only interpretations. is a bit odd because he is saying that there are no facts as if that were a fact. At least that is my interpretation. Reply
David March 31, 2010 at 12:55 am Well you could also say that There are no facts, only interpretations is only Nietzsche stating his interpretation, because what else can we do but state our interpretations? He didnt say it was a fact, you did That remark is by far the most controversial one of the 40. Most of the comments here are part of a debate surrounding it. Looking at all the arguments, I can see both sides I think most probably could which only reinforces the idea that were only ever dealing with interpretations. You may interpret it differently. Reply
tierra May 30, 2010 at 3:09 am
33 of 108
its not nonsense. facts are basically evidence of what there is, and people interpret whats around them into facts. thats the best way i can explain that if it even makes sense Reply
David May 30, 2010 at 6:55 pm Well put Tierra. Ive used hundreds of words to try and explain what you nailed down in one sentence. Reply
Tierra May 31, 2010 at 3:15 pm awsome thanks Reply
Ellen March 26, 2010 at 1:56 am The Kingdom of Heaven is a condition of the heart wow Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 5:54 am I think that was the biggest misrepresentation Christianity made that Heaven is a place, and the living cant reach it. It was always meant to refer to an enlightened living state. Reply
Chris F. March 26, 2010 at 10:34 am Im not a big fan of the Bible. I agree with Thomas Jeerson when
34 of 108
he said reading it is like pick[ing] diamonds from dunghills. That said, Jesus has a lot of cool stu to say about the Kingdom of God. I love this translation of Luke 17:20-21 by Stephen Mitchell (brackets added by me): And someone asked him [Jesus], When will the kingdom of God come? And he said, The kingdom of God will not come if you watch for it. Nor will anyone [including the church] be able to say, It is here or It is there. For the kingdom of God is within you. The mystic poet Kabir said it this way: I laugh when I hear that the fish in the water is thirsty. You dont grasp the fact that what is most alive of all is inside your own house; and so you walk from one holy city to the next with a confused look! Kabir will tell you the truth: go wherever you like, to Calcutta or Tibet; if you cant find where your soul is hidden, for you the world will never be real. Sorry to be so lengthy! Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm I think there are a lot of diamonds in that dungheap! The Bible has been a victim of deliberate misinterpretation at the hands of power-seeking institutions over the years, so I think so much of the wisdom has been lost. Religious conviction only obscures the message. Behind all that you can get a pretty good sense of the message, and you might find its the same thing Kabir, Rumi, Buddha and Lao Tsu talked about. Reply
Chris F. March 26, 2010 at 7:50 pm Hi David. In your opinion, how many of the religious (including parishioners and church leaders past and present) do you think really get the deeper wisdom in
their traditions? IMHO, all the important stu the diamonds are, like the Buddhist metaphor, like fingers pointing at the moon: if you watch [get attached to] the nger, you cant see the moon. So, I dont know if all the misinterpretation is deliberate (specifically to power over, to control others). I think many are trying to do their best while believing that worshiping the fingers IS their salvation they simply dont see the moon.
David March 26, 2010 at 8:58 pm Good question. I have no idea. Organized religion gets people emotionally attached to certain beliefs, which IMO contain misrepresentations of many parts of the teaching, including what Sin, Heaven, Hell, and God were originally meant to mean. So I think the more attached you are to an established doctrine, the more likely you are to find the views that really, honestly resonate with you on that deepest level of understanding. I believe its a combination of deliberate misinformation and honest misunderstanding. Christian institutions of the middle ages held immense power over the populace, and tweaking the message in order to justify war and torture was just a no-brainer for any kingdom wishing to expand its inuence. The teaching was all about transcending those things, but the average person just wouldnt have been up to it yet they didnt let just anyone opt out of the church if they werent jiving with the message.
Ellen April 2, 2010 at 6:10 am I dont even see this as a necessarily religious statement, let alone a necessarily Christian one (maybe you guys dont either and just wanted to have a
36 of 108
religious discussion
).
Chris, in terms of picking diamonds from dunghills, I think thats a bit unfair. Whilst there are large chunks of really terrible stu dunghills, I guess there are other large chunks of really inspirational stuff. I think its more that Christians pick out the good stu disproportionately that makes atheists focus on the bad stu to try and make the representation fairer, but they tend to go too far the other way and then everyone is polarised and yeah
Chris F. April 3, 2010 at 11:22 am Hi Ellen. Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. I think youre right about Christians and Atheists (BTW Im neither) both quote mining to support their own beliefs. That said, the problem with your argument is that (most all) Christians believe the Bible to be something more than just a book: i.e. that it came from some kind of higher, supernatural place. Its like in a court of law: If a witness is found to be lying on the stand, _ALL_ THEIR TESTIMONY IS THROWN-OUT. So, all someone really needs to do is show one (there are many, many) aspect of the Bible COULD NOT POSSIBLY have come from a higher place. Lets give a specic example: SLAVERY (humans owning other humans). Nowhere in the Bible (to my knowledge) is slavery ever forbidden. In fact there are many passages in support of slavery (e.g. you can beat slaves, but dont poke their eyes out) and it appears Yahweh/Jesus expects us to keep slaves. Jesus, for all his inspirational, loving words never speaks-out a single word against slavery (prove me wrong, if possible). Is that an oversight or just a sign of his times and civilization and that he was no more God than any other human-being?
Ellen April 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm
37 of 108
Hey Chris! Thanks for replying I guess I see it like this: the Bible was a book that represents the time it was written in. And I guess like a book thats written now, its going to represent good and bad from a specic period of time. But just because theres cultural stu from that time that we see as bad now, that doesnt necessarily negate other parts of it (help the poor, turn the other cheek etc.), it just means that everything youve got to take with a grain of salt (and of course, I dont believe its divinely inspired). I dont think we actually disagree, I just thought that the whole dunghill/diamond thing was unfair Also, just as an addendum, you cant really expect Jesus to have spoken about everything wrong with society, can you?
Eric | Eden Journal March 26, 2010 at 6:10 am David, thanks for pulling together this list. This is one of those posts where the comments may be more fun to read than the post itself. I really likes seeing people reactions to these and to see what lines are their favorites. For me its, It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages. While Id prefer to word it in the positive, that Friendship, not love, makes for a happy marriage, I find that to be very true in the relationship with my wife. We often comment that we are best friends, and that friendship keeps us close. Eric | Eden Journals last blog ..Embrace Lame Mutant Powers with a New Perspective Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 6:56 pm I love reading the reactions too, especially to such challenging statements. It is interesting how dierent quotes catch dierent
38 of 108
peoples minds. Reply
Lisis March 26, 2010 at 6:28 am Awesomeness, David. THIS is what I call a non-conformist a free-thinker, much like the object of his aection, Lou Salome. Brilliant choices, all of them. I think 32 and 33 are rather appropriate right now, at least in the US. Well, now you have the topics for your next 40 posts. I would LOVE for you to elaborate on each of these! In your case, you should say in a book what most say in ten sentences. Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:06 pm Haha I dont know about each of them, but I could denitely take a closer look at a few. No shortage of post ideas here, just time to write them. Reply
Chris March 26, 2010 at 9:58 am Hi David. #2 (He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted.) resonated with me. How can I really know if Im being genuine (in any area of my life) or not? I mean, I want to be good; I want to do the right thing; I want to develop and improve myself; I want to be happy. But, there is a paradox. The philosopher, Alan Watts talks about the word Te from the title of the Taoist masterpiece the Tao Te Ching. Te roughly means virtue and is conceptualized by Taoism in this sense: True virtue, not virtue, therefore virtue. Expanding that, true virtue does not think of itself as being virtuous (does not force virtue), therefore it is a real, wholehearted expression of virtue.
39 of 108
Similarly, true humility has no thought (no motive) of being humble, therefore it is a real, genuine expression of humility. Im not sure if Im making any sense. Reply
Christopher Dugan March 26, 2010 at 7:13 pm Taken to an extreme: When a man sacrices himself for a loved one, he does not consider it a sacrice. The loved ones death would kill him just as surely, but slower and more painfull. Altruism is selfishness in disguise and vice versa. Reply
Chris F. March 26, 2010 at 8:12 pm I agree. Youve been reading Dawkins, right? It does seem that the deeper motivation for everything we do comes from selshness and, therefore, is disingenuous. Even things we call expressions of love and selessness are always done for a reason and that reason is always to (somehow) benet us (or our genes). What I was trying to ask was, is it possible to have a 100% genuine experience, independent of the desire to somehow benet our self? If so, how? Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 26, 2010 at 10:44 pm Completely disagree that our base selves are selsh. There is a growing body of evolutionary support for altruism~ and not the theres something in it for me way.
40 of 108
Reply
Chris F. March 27, 2010 at 10:28 am Hi Char. If possible, could you please give some references to the evolutionary support for un-selfserving altruism: where the altruistic individual or their genes (which may be physically located in relatives, i.e. children, cousins, etc.) arent beneted from the altruistic behavior?
Chris F. March 27, 2010 at 5:58 pm I should have been clearer: The denition of altruism is seless concern for the welfare of others. However, when used in evolutionary studies, it often doesnt literally mean altruism, but rather behavior that looks like altruism. As far as I have seen, the evolutionary studies have found that behavior that looks like altruism is always self-serving (or strongly suspected to be): maybe not to the individual, but the individuals DNA via groupselection. I.e. theres no free-lunch in evolution. Thats why Im _very_ interested if you have some dierent info.
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 29, 2010 at 7:29 pm Hi Chris F~ not sure why I am not able to directly reply to your replies? Anyways, my previous response is available if you scroll down. Meanwhile ~ I just wanted to add, that the lack of evidence to support altruism as an evolutionary option is likely due to methodological bias~ the focus of studies has been on competition and aggression rather than cooperation and affiliation.
41 of 108
Christopher Dugan March 26, 2010 at 10:52 pm I havent read Dawkins, though Ive watched some of his talks online. It apears Ive mislead you and David to an extreme in using the word selshness. I meant not that altruistic acts are always done out of self-interest, but that one results in the other. Rather, in this vastly interconnected and feedback driven existence (as I observe it) they are one and the same; empowering another empowers the self and empowering oneself empowers those around you (and humanity as a whole, one person at a time). My thought process here is similar to what David expressed in his two-part post There is No Good and Evil, Just Smart and Dumb. Both altruistic and selsh intent have the same end result, the only qualitative dierence being skill in execution. Nietzsche was pointing out a paradox, not a contradiction. Thus moral judgments against selfishness are as unnecessary as any other; they only serve to cause shame, disempower and dehumanize. Reply
David March 27, 2010 at 1:30 am Well said! A paradox, not a contradiction.
David March 26, 2010 at 8:11 pm I think Christopher is on the right track. The way I see it, we cannot be anything but self-serving, but some would argue that the most satisfying way to serve ourselves is to serve others. The word selshness is a loaded one. I dont know anybody who doesnt wish to be exalted, and I dont think theres anything wrong with it. But society tells us were wrong
42 of 108
to seek it. I suspect religious doctrine behind it. Reply
Chris F. March 26, 2010 at 8:24 pm The way I see it, we cannot be anything but self-serving Can we absolutely know that that is true? Is there no other possibility? (Im not trying to say I have an answer here I dont.) Just who would we be without the need to be self-serving and could we live that way? Didnt understand the connection to your second paragraph. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 26, 2010 at 11:21 pm Is there no other possibility?~ sure for my truth its the state of bodhisattva Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor)s last blog ..Item #3~ Boxing Kangaroo Australia T-Shirt Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:42 pm Since I only believe in interpretations, the I would say no we cant absolutely know it is true. I dont know how we can be expected to step out from beyond our own minds to see that something is true for everyone else too. Reply
tuplang July 31, 2010 at 8:21 am Makes perfect sense to me.
43 of 108
Ive always had a problem with karma. It occurred to me that if Im doing something good or avoiding doing something bad just to make sure my karma wasnt adversely aected then surely karma itself gets canceled out as a result. It seems that the only reason Im being virtuous or humble or whatever is to get myself some good karma points and that, in itself, is pretty er well, lousy of me. I believe it is called enlightened self interest. Im not sure. As a result, any of us aware of karma and who act upon the awareness of karma are automatically disqualified from the game. We cannot possibly act in any innocence anymore. All our intentions and actions are now somewhat tainted and were sent o the field to wait on the benches for the next incarnation. So I ask myself: why then karma? and it occurs to me that karma is just sin turned on its side and decorated with a picture of a daisy. Instead of the vengeful, judging god-monster we now have the vengeful, judging universe/cosmos-monster. Meet the new boss.same as the old boss. Again, interpretation not fact. Reply
Jerry September 10, 2010 at 4:43 am I believe Karmas purpose is to provide a safety zone for the mind. The more you do evil things (acts that go against your moral code) the more your mind will be numbed from doing such things. Reply
Brenda (betaphi) March 26, 2010 at 10:10 am THIS, from a man who hates quotes, I love. Aphorism does sound better. Had a little trouble with number 4 the sun, the moon, the earth feel like more than interpretations. Wondered a bit what crooked and straight meant to him in 22 & 39. Never thought of humility as a wish to be exalted
44 of 108
and yet it probably is. My dear little dad prized humility above all things and many exalted him for it. I would love to know the backstory on how you arrive at some of these topics, especially this one. Good stuff, DC. Brenda (betaphi)s last blog ..You Were Loved Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:18 pm Did he hate quotes? He certainly loved aphorisms. I love quotes. Especially from quote-haters. 22 and 39 really struck me. I grew up with a cloudly idea of a religious God and suddenly everything became clear and sensible when I decided to dismiss the idea altogether. I think his crooked refers to views that dont add up, dont appear consistent with themselves. Davids last blog ..40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist Reply
Terry and Tony March 26, 2010 at 10:25 am Its a pity that words that hit nerves are mostly considered controversial, because we feel it is just these kinds of words that get people thinking about being more honest with themselves, and get them to start to work on self-improvement. Terry and Tonys last blog ..Plastic People Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:22 pm Yes. The real test is what you do when something you hear or read hits a nerve ask what it says about the world, or what it says about your take of it?
45 of 108
Reply
Alletron March 26, 2010 at 12:38 pm If theres one thing Friedrich Nietzsche did well, it was growing that killer stache! Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:24 pm No doubt! That thing is seriously subversive. Reply
Cheryl Paris March 26, 2010 at 1:36 pm Hello David, Great job for putting this together. I am glad to have read it. I agree to this one Success has always been a great liar. Bye for now, Cheryl Cheryl Pariss last blog ..How We Grew With An Acorn- N is for Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:26 pm Hi Cheryl. That one took me a while, but I think its right on the mark. Recently I read a post by Tim Ferriss about how he decided to stop using certain meaningless and misleading works, including success. Reply
46 of 108
Rosa March 26, 2010 at 1:43 pm This is an awesome list David, the guy can really shake things up! I agree with Lisis, you should elaborate on them =) Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:26 pm I will pick a few and get to work Reply
Patty - Why Not Start Now? March 26, 2010 at 2:32 pm Excellent, David. He was one of a kind. My favorite Nietzsche quote: Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves. And as much as I love his words, I still have trouble remembering how to spell his name. Patty Why Not Start Now?s last blog ..Eight Black Shoes Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:29 pm Ah thats a great one. Never saw it before. Completely true in my experience. Ive never felt more trapped than when Ive refused to be responsible. Even after researching and writing this post I still have to slow down to get the spelling right. Just remember E-T-Z-S and the rest works itself out. Reply
47 of 108
matt March 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm ha Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:29 pm ha Reply
Shannon March 26, 2010 at 5:44 pm F.N. always was one for stirring the pot. Shame the poor fellow died mad as a hatter. Of course, it takes real genius to go insane, so called normal people are too invested with the boring minutiae of the daily grind to enter into the deep questioning thoughts that can make a mind wend its way towards madness. I do disagree with there being no facts. A human cannot breathe water. That is a fact and I defy anyone who does not believe it to stick his head in a swimming pool and take in a nice deep breath. Fire burns. This too is a fact. Grasp a flaming, red hot piece of oak in your hand and you can interpret the blackening of your skin any way you wish but it is still a burn. Some things are facts. Not everything is as profound as the philosophers would have us believe. Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:34 pm The there are no facts seems to be the most challenging of these aphorisms so far. I used to believe there are facts, but I dont see it that way anymore. I discussed my view of objective facts in How to Be Right All The Time if
48 of 108
you want to know why I agree with him. Reply
Tom F March 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm David, Ive thoroughly enjoyed this entire page, comments included. However corny it may seem, heres my own aphorism for your problem with facts. A fact is a belief, and a belief is no fact. I hope Ive made sense, Cheers!:) Reply
Jessica March 28, 2010 at 7:39 am I challenge that! (In a friendly way ) Just because we dont know how to grasp a aming piece of wood without burning ourselves yet doesnt mean we cant. Actuallyarent there people who walk on coals? Not that I would try, because I dont know how to do it. I wouldnt try to pilot a cruise ship either, until I learned. I dont think things have to be profound or complicated. I take a more Zen approach. I think its so startlingly simple that we just cant grasp it all the time. Jessicas last blog ..Photo Friday: Make a Wish Reply
dan June 14, 2010 at 9:40 pm Shannon wrote: Of course, it takes real genius to go insane that and syphilis Reply
Ashley March 26, 2010 at 6:05 pm David, I stumbled upon this page, and this just struck me as so true, and well, what I was struggling to piece together in my head: What is the mark of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself. I suppose I was becoming disillusioned with the world, something that happens often with me. Sometimes I will bounce back, and suddenly seem to see the beauty and well, point (or rather, that maybe there doesnt need to be a point) to life, but the disillusionment always comes back. Maybe you can relate? Anyway, this page just shook me out of my state and made it sink inmaybeno, life doesnt need one point. Life doesnt need a single meaning. Because it just is. And its up to each person to see thator not. Thank you. -Ashley Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:38 pm In my view life has no intrinsic purpose and you just have to pick one. It can have plenty of meaning, but it all comes from you. So that makes your role a pretty important one Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 26, 2010 at 7:24 pm 25~ a beautiful expression of love 39 had me smiling Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor)s last blog ..Studies on Track Chat~ FREE WiziQ class, 29th March, 2010 Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 8:39 pm
50 of 108
I love those two especially. Reply
Sunny March 26, 2010 at 8:40 pm I started out picking things that I liked and things I just kind of skimmed over, getting excited at the ones that stuck out to me, but I went back and sat down to really read them and theyre all very good. Id been a small fan of Nietzsche but theres a lot of good quotes here I hadnt seen before, and as always, an amazing post from you =]. also! I actually came upon this through stumbleupon which excited me even more, because I love Raptitude and I love stumbleupon and to have them collide when I was behind on blogs was great Sunnys last blog ..My friend in Lady Gagas video! Reply
David March 26, 2010 at 10:08 pm Once in a while I hit the Stumble button and one of my own articles comes up. Its a strange but lovely feeling. Davids last blog ..40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist Reply
Maisie March 27, 2010 at 11:54 am Hello! I stumbled upon this page last night and have been reading a lot here since. This is a beautiful website. I think its going to help me a lot. Heres a thought: 22. God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight. 39. Glance into the world just as though time were gone: and everything crooked will become straight to you. I love Nietzsche, but the whole God is dead bit doesnt convince me at all.
Maybe its all the Saint Augustine I read but in my opinion, #22 and #39 are contradictory. Part of my concept of God (completely influenced by Augustine) is that everything is timelessly contained within time. Time is only a perception thing to do our immediate connection to the world. So everything that happens in time has happened eternally and unchangably. Part of an idea many people share about God includes glancing at the world as though time were gone. Not so much gone I guess, but I think thinking of the world as timelessly existing is getting at the same sort of thing Nietzsche is here. I think doing this is one of the biggest keys to having any sort of vision of God, or the Good to be platonic about it, or whatever you want to call it. I just call it God, I feel I might as well. Im so happy I found this site. Nothing like a bit of philosophical argument in the morning! Reply
David March 27, 2010 at 11:38 pm Hi Maisie, welcome to Raptitude. The statements involving God are really tricky because that particular word has vastly dierent meanings to dierent people, not to mention the emotional attachments people form over it, one way or the other. If you wiki God is dead you get a rather interesting discussion about what it is supposed to mean. I feel a very powerful peace when I view the moment as if time doesnt exist one I might associate with God if I used that word freely. Reply
Drew Tkac March 27, 2010 at 12:39 pm There are no facts, only interpretations. This is a good one. I am an engineer, I work with engineers, and I went to college with engineers. When I bring up this quote it sure stirs up a shit storm. I agree with David that the best I can oer is this is how I see it and this is no dierent. So this is how I see it.
52 of 108
It is easy to handle the concept of others viewpoints and not considering them facts, so the facts that are the issue here are science facts. A science fact is simply something that has been tested enough times to say it has the highest probably that it will happen again given the same initial conditions to cause it. But the key word is probability. In his time Einstein could not accept the concept of quantum mechanics. He said that god does not play dice with the universe. Even Einstein could not accept the randomness of matter and the universe. But now quantum mechanics is the generally accepted THEORY of how the universe operates. I am not an expert on quantum physics, but the bases of it is probability. The underlying quote is, Anything with non zero probability given innite time will happen. So anything is possible and all so called facts are really just theories with high probabilities of occurring. There is a non zero probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow, that if I stick my hand in a fire i will not get burnt, and that if I step off the edge of a building that I will not fall. Anything we want to call a fact is actually anything that has a 100% probability of occurring. Nothing like that exists in this universe. Niels Bohr and the other fathers of quantum physics put forth this concept 90 years ago. Einstein could not handle it. Can we? Reply
Josh March 27, 2010 at 1:12 pm It sounds like youre talking more about the ability of science to make predictions than your are talking about the ability of science to collect factual information about the world around us. I love what youve posted here, it is very eloquent and I believe that it represents what science is all about. Or at least what science should be about. In order to make those probability based predictions about some future event science relies on a collection of observations made in the past. You said A science fact is simply something that has been tested enough times to say it has the highest probably [sic] that it will happen again given the same initial conditions to cause it. Now say all you want about what it is possible to predict based on those tests, but you cant deny the tests themselves. What about historical facts? Those observations and experiments that
53 of 108
have already occurred and are the basis of the scientic facts are not in dispute. You man not be able to say that dropping a lit match in a bucket of water will always extinguish that match, but you can certainly say that we dropped 100 lit matches in 100 buckets of water and 100 out of 100 times the match was extinguished. Using the facts recorded in those experiments you can devise a theory that water will extinguish re. Now, that THEORY (your emphasis) might not be able to predict with 100 percent accuracy what will happen when a lit match interacts with a bucket of water but even so that theory doesnt discard the hundred tests that came before it. Those tests are what I am calling facts. Recorded events that happened. You might not be able to predict the future, but you can certainly recall the past. (unless of course the world was created ve seconds ago and all of what we think are memories are just a part of that fabrication.) Reply
Drew Tkac March 27, 2010 at 5:53 pm Thank you Josh for your thoughtful reply. You make a good point regarding historical fact. I understand that I may be cutting this very fine here, but the observation that the match was extinguished is an observation subject to each observers interpretation. When we ask a bit more of our observers, such as when was the flame extinguished, we would get different answers from our observers. The observations could then be grouped and statistically analyzed and a probability curve created. The result would be a Gaussian distribution with some value representing the highest probability that the flame went out in so many milliseconds. But we can say that all of the observers agreed that the flame was completely out within so many seconds. This is rather indisputable. Perhaps I am missing Nietzsche point. Upon a bit more research I think the word fact that Nietzsche is using here is more closely related to truth, in a philosophical sense. Here is a link to wikis article on truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth The denition of truth/fact seems to be a extensive discussion of
54 of 108
its own. But beware, searching for the denition of quality drove the protagonist in Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to a breakdown. This may have the same results to unprepared travelers. Reply
Christopher Dugan March 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm Heres a dierent tack Drew, springing from observation of how the brains structure seems formed of connections between neurons, varying in redundancy. In the same way, all knowledge is formed of inferred correlations with varying probabilities of veracity. The strength of a given belief is related to its percieved probability of veracity based on repeated past perceptions (redundancy) and that of any supporting correlations that interconnect with it. The operating principle being that the more a given result repeats, the more likely it is to continue to repeat. Learning is a function of reassessing or recalibrating these probabilities in relation to one another and forming new connections. The scientific method merely adds a third step to learning: severing any correlation that fails to acurately predict perception even once, in order to promote a more accurate model. Therefore, knowledge works thus: Percieve > Correlate (Predict) > Percieve > Correct > Correlate ad innitum. It is a process rather than a state of being, and cannot occur without feedback. Our language decieves us. I disagree on one important point, however. The probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow is not non-zero, it is undefined. I have no perceptions of the sun not rising, or correlations to support the prediction, by which to infer such a probability; it is unknowable until I do. Reply
Christopher Dugan March 27, 2010 at 3:00 pm Whoops, quick clarification:
55 of 108
The probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow is not non-zero, it is undened [or worse, imaginary!]. Reply
Jessica March 28, 2010 at 7:41 am Thanks for breaking down quantum physics into one sentence. That was awesome Jessicas last blog ..Photo Friday: Make a Wish Reply
Chris F. March 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm I have a question about facts: I agree that all the information we receive from the outside, objective world is (or appears to be) processed by our subjective selves and, therefore, can only be interpretations (not facts). Furthermore, all science can really do is express probabilities: not 100% prove nor disprove something. However, dovetailing with Davids last post on developing a mindfulness habit, Im wondering if the direct experience of opening a door or sitting down in the fully experiencing of it couldnt be considered a type of truth or even subjective fact? It seems there is a special quality there: if not a fact, what would you call it? Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 27, 2010 at 6:09 pm ^Chris F~ There is a growing body of evolutionary support for altruism~ and not the theres something in it for me way. My response was to the intention behind apparent seless acts of a person. The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is dened in terms of tness consequences, not motivating intentions.
56 of 108
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ As the way I see it is that humans are more than genes, that self is a state of being other than genes, then I choose too to believe that we are not at base, selfish. Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor)s last blog ..Studies on Track Chat~ FREE WiziQ class, 29th March, 2010 Reply
Chris F. April 3, 2010 at 11:52 am Hi Char. Thanks! I really enjoyed the Stanford article. It stretched my mind a bit. I also agree that humans are more than genes. I think were gonna have to agree to disagree regarding altruism, though. What the Stanford authors call real altruism you claim to be our base (core). While you may be right, I think its _much_ more likely an emergent characteristic: Can bacteria demonstrate real altruism, can tuna? (Those are the kind of places we came-from.) No, evolution is, if anything, exceptionally energy-ecient: individuals (genes), in a natural setting with limited resources, who give away energy without benet will not survive. Isnt it MORE impressive that we have to work and struggle against our DNA-programmed selshness to demonstrate real altruism rather than it being inborn? If you look into your base/core (e.g. a la Ramana/Who am I?), if you project that there _should_ be true altruism there, you _may_ be only seeing at what youre projecting, what you expect to see. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 3, 2010 at 6:22 pm Thats assuming that it is a universal struggle Chris. Looking at prehistoric art, reading archeological and evolutionary anthro papers this past week, all Im seeing are lots of sharing caring communities (within and inter) who revered nature and women and mans ability to produce little ones. Not saying there
57 of 108
was no selsh behaviours at this time, but the norm displayed on the cave walls and artifacts left behind indicate there was not much of a struggle with it. (Well, now that there is a re-analysis of the first interpretations by predominantly male archeologists etc who ignored many female aspects of what they were looking at; and when bonobos started to be looked at not just the common chimp) Even the papers Ive seen up to the Bronze age with the Minoan do not demonstrate selshness as the norm. And lets not forget the bonobos~ sharing of food is the core of their socialisation, including interactions with other groups that want to feed o the same tree. Overall, I see very little empirical evidence to support my cognition being similar to that of bacteria or tuna. Choice for one. Sex for pleasure and not procreation for another. btw: I may be right ~:-) Chris, I so am not interested in being right during our discussion. Reply
Chris March 28, 2010 at 2:20 pm Hi David. Just wanted to drop a line in saying that Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers, and to thank you for putting this list together. Then, of course, I found the comments, and had to spend a half hour reading through them! I might have to look at the comments more often from now on. Some excellent, civil back-and-forth on the nature of facts/reality there, and you and your readers have given me some things to think about. Looking forward to your next post. Chriss last blog ..Eighty-six Reply
David March 28, 2010 at 2:59 pm Hi Chris,

This post has spurred quite a discussion. I guess its a testament to Nietzsches polarizing ideas. Reply
Vanessa March 28, 2010 at 9:31 pm 22. God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight. I dont necessarily agree with this one. I honestly think everything is always crooked whether God is in the picture or not, and just accepting that its crooked makes it straight. Reply
David March 28, 2010 at 10:57 pm That is a murky one. I suspect it is a reference to the institutionally imposed notion of a God that is loving yet angry, forgiving yet vengeful, omnipotent yet fallible I think hes addressing the inconsistencies in the common religious conception of God. When I was younger I tossed out all thoughts of a God like that and suddenly the world made sense. Reply
anon March 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm This discussion reminds me of another Nietzsche quote I read on the subway in Montreal: A strong belief proves but the strength, not the truth, of what one believes. Reply
David March 30, 2010 at 6:02 pm Ah, that might be the best one yet Montreal is a very conscious city.
Davids last blog ..This is Your Lifes Work Reply
James March 30, 2010 at 7:49 pm I believe comment 25 is a bit out of context. It makes it seem that Nietzsche is saying that sparing someone shame is humane, when in fact he says just the opposite. To Nietzsche pity, feeling sorry for someone, was not humane because it enabled someone to hide from the truth. It caused more harm than good. Reply
David March 30, 2010 at 9:42 pm Hi James. One problem with quotes is that they must be removed from their context. I have tried not to use aphorisms here that mean something different when considered without their original context. Nietzsche was known for the deliberate use of aphorism, none of which should require additional context to communicate the point. In any case though, sparing someone shame is not pity. Feeling sorry for someone is suffering for their suffering. It is a self-defeating emotion and Im not surprised to hear Nietzsche was not a fan of it. Pity, to my mind, does more to enforce shame than to alleviate it. You can spare someone shame by not creating situations in which they lose face. Dale Carnegie wrote compellingly about the benefits of never causing others to lose face in How to Win Friends and Influence People. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 30, 2010 at 8:39 pm ^re. 25~ compassion is not pity Reply
60 of 108
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) March 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm ^re. 25~ compassion is not pity. And who gets to decide what truth is? Reply
Azhak Hussam March 31, 2010 at 2:17 am For the past 30 years of my life F.N was and still my companion, every day I have to read couple pages of his work, debate them,agree,disagree think and then try to sleep. the time it takes me to fall asleep are the prize,the dream. falling asleep was and is the end of the joy. I will try soon to post what I think of what I think of what I read in this beautiful blog. I really thank you David and all of the participants for this great site which I found by stumble !!! Reply
David March 31, 2010 at 3:47 pm Three cheers for StumbleUpon! Thanks for stopping by Ashak. Reply
Aussiedude March 31, 2010 at 6:00 am A few people asked which is better to be solid in your beliefs or fluid and easily swayed. What is better is to have doubt. Certainty is arrogance. But that doesnt mean you cant have assumptions based on what youve observed thus far. For instance: Gravity! .. Certain? Maybe. We dont know. All we know is that so far every time you drop that blasted apple it falls. And as far as we can see, gravity applies through the entire universe.
61 of 108
The keywords though in that was so far . Maybe gravity might one day change? Also, it is seeming more and more apparent to scientists now that the further in you get to the smallest parts of matter, gravity doesnt seem to apply, or does so in a different way. So even something as certain as gravity, is something we can and should have doubt in. But that doesnt mean we should go jumping of bridges to test it. least thats my thoughts on it all! Reply
David March 31, 2010 at 3:52 pm Yes, gravity is still mysterious. It was originally interpreted to be an attractive force between two objects of mass, a model which seemed to t quite nicely. And then Einstein turned it upside down by describing it as the curvature of space-time. Later on Einsteins interpretation was shown to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. We cant *know*, only believe. Reply
Yisca March 31, 2010 at 8:39 am My philosophy professor once said that Existentialism is more of a mood than a philosophy. I thought that was a good one, but I do have a deep resonance with what Neitzche has to offer. Reply
David March 31, 2010 at 3:53 pm Thats an interesting take. I think moods fluctuate a little to quickly to determine our philosophies. Reply
62 of 108
J April 1, 2010 at 11:41 am These comments = intellectual masturbation Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm J~ are you interpreting masturbation as bad? Otherwise, cant speak for the others, but me likes the comparison to a bunch of happy bonobo. Reply
Derek April 30, 2010 at 11:38 pm J~ are you interpreting masturbation as bad? Thanks, had a good laugh due to that blunt response. For some reason, I imagine them cheering for Palin. Great read by the way, the comments included. As to the quotes, My favorites are 12, 20, and especially 34. Everyone who has ever built anywhere a new heaven first found the power thereto in his own hell. Ill spare you the lengthy details of why I like it so much. I think Im going to read some of this mans works. I feel Ive missed out on a good deal of interesting perspective. Reply
David May 1, 2010 at 1:02 am 12 is my favorite, I think. Davids last blog ..Insight Is Not Enough
63 of 108
Reply
David April 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm Thats what the internet is for. Sorry to interrupt your purposeful StumbleUpon session with our pointless talk. Reply
Jojirius April 2, 2010 at 1:15 am 1. People who have given us their complete confidence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights. -From the get-go, each aphorism stands alone. The fact that an inference can be, in an absolute system, false, is contradicted by the there are no facts statement. INFERENCE: Nietzsche is not trying via logic to convince us of anything. He merely wishes to inspire thought that is not normally thought. Allow me to get back on topic. I am now back on topic. REFUTATION: Giving someone a gift may not bestow rights on the giver, but the circumstances surrounding the giving often do make a relationship closer, and the expectation from a closer relationship of being mutually open is not only perfectly reasonable, but productive. While I understand Nietzsches point that trust cannot be expected, it is certainly not harmful to conduct life as if it is, for otherwise we are presented with an excuse to be closed to certain friends we would otherwise be open to, though wed also be more secure from potential clumsy/cruel people. 2. He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted. -He that humbleth himself, eh? ANALYSIS: himself is the key term. DISCLAIMER: Fortunately, this phrase is not a blanket statement smiting humble people so much as people who actively humble themselves, do it consciously, and promote their own humility. 3. The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. -Instructing a youth, as phrased, to hold those in agreement in no higher esteem than those who think dierently, would appear to be the antithesis.
64 of 108
ASSUMPTION: that doing so does not corrupt said youth. CONCLUSION: youth told what to believe, is fundamentally corrupt by his denition. Balance of appreciation in our world might be optimal, but teaching our youth what to believe is just brainwashing them with more generosity toward dierent people. We still need a body of bandwagoners and agreers for the disagreers to stand out. 4. There are no facts, only interpretations. -Highly controversial, though it does not need to be. PROBLEM: Individual denition for facts. DEFINITION: My own perceived reality. RESULTS: I believe facts exist, as I have dened them as my own perceived reality. I believe facts change as I perceive reality dierently, but for any given time frame, they are absolute. EXAMPLE: Currently I believe we are all discolored cheesecake. Therefore, all human beings are discolored cheesecake. That is a fact. In the next instant I am forced to change my fact, but there is no one who can prove to me that in that time frame human beings were not all discolored cheesecake. FUNDAMENTAL THEORY: While this generates meaningful discussion, Nietzsche did not intend to convince so much as he meant us to think. When we get into semantics, like oh I know how to not burn myself while holding a stick, or gravity has been re-dened since its introduction as a theory we are just being stubborn. Denitions for facts also dier. Hence, moot point for some, not so moot for others. Semi-moot. 5. Morality is but the herd-instinct in the individual. -ERROR: Cannot interpret aphorism/quote. Require administrative explanation. Dene: herd-instinct, morality. Explain relationship between two. Explain why Nietzsche believed this was a non-conformist statement. 6. No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any. -FIRST REACTION: LOL -SECOND REACTION: This statement is actually very sad. It is true that on some level, initially, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi had to be extraordinarily insecure. This is why most people do not become civil rights leaders. They overcame their insecurities, and not only spoke for themselves, but also the population they represented. True bravery, but it is not because they faced any outside force. It is because they overcame their own doubts as to whether they did or did not deserve rights. Incredible insight. Apologies for my first reaction. 7. Without music, life would be a mistake.
65 of 108
-SUMMARY: Nietzsche liked music. Whether or not bias is intended, it is very much there, and at any rate, art comes in many forms. What I consider art includes Impressionist paintings, Post-Modern Sculpture, and Molecular Biology. Some people prefer music. 8. Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isnt. -FIRST REACTION: ROFL -SECOND REACTION: Still ROFL 9. In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad. -SOLUTION: Any large state can be treated as small states, just as large-scale loans have been converted into micro-loans in poor countries, with a higher success rate and less overall risk. Nietzsches wording, if quoted correctly, implies a lack of a solution, but I certainly believe our world can solve this problem. 10. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. -EMOTICON RESPONSE: However very true. A wealth of knowledge creates a man or woman with little room for bias, and they must do what they feel is best, which may not coincide with human emotions, which are of course imperfect. 11. A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. -REVELATION: Nietzsche is definitely not religious. Faith of course does not prove. That is not the point. Though at the same time, I am not blind to his point. 12. We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. -PSYCHOANALYSIS: Nietzsche was bitter when he said/wrote this. I wish I could have been there for him. This statement, however, should be conventional wisdom. Where I live, everyone knows this fact. Anyone who doesnt, gets told in short order. 13. No victor believes in chance.
66 of 108
-EVIDENCE: Hitler decided to rely not on his generals calculations, and instead on his own ego and inated feeling of importance. He believed himself close to God, so he abandoned logic in favor of chance. He also committed suicide. 14. Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies. -REFLECTION: My friends and I often forget this. Jumping to conclusions without evidence, a.k.a. conviction, is certainly very dangerous. Our heads are bruised from the low ceiling of reality, and many opportunities have been missed. Friends have been lost. Relationships have fractured. Mercy has been abandoned. As this aphorism has hurt me the most, I value it the most. 15. Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself. -One of the more correct and useless quotations, because of word usage can. Very non-denitive. You could say, non-specic. SYNONYM: vague. 16. It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages. -EMOTICON RESPONSE: O.O I should take notes, as I have not yet married. 17. The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. -DECISION: It is 2:00 AM for me, as a fact. You may have noticed my first responses were the longest. Melatonin and adenosine seem to be causing drowsiness. If post is responded to, another 15 or so aphorisms will be looked at in somewhat depth. -ANNOUNCEMENT: Do not take me too seriously. Relative to the total number of aphorisms, I am less than 1/3 of them in years of age. Reply
David April 2, 2010 at 3:10 am Hah! This is excellent. Insightful and proper, but with a sense of humor. Best comment ever You asked about number 5 5. Morality is but the herd-instinct in the individual.
67 of 108
-ERROR: Cannot interpret aphorism/quote. Require administrative explanation. Dene: herd-instinct, morality. Explain relationship between two. Explain why Nietzsche believed this was a non-conformist statement. Nah Im not going to define those words because thats when this kind of talk gets really dry and boring when we start pulling out our dictionaries. We can sort it out without strict definitions. My take is that he meant that a persons concept of right and wrong is based on what everyone else does, rather than some internal compass or Gods will or anything other than pure conformity. Herd-instinct refers the compulsion to seek security in doing as others do. Nonconformist was my word for Nietzsche, I dont know if he called himself that. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 2, 2010 at 1:42 am ^ luv it~ I would like to understand philosophy better and your method of expression is certainly one that helps Thanks Reply
Daniel April 2, 2010 at 2:00 am 4. There are no facts, only interpretations. 22. God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight. 12. We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. -Is everything we read from Nietzsche an interpretation? Would he refuse to accept someone telling him: God is a thought who makes straight all that is crooked. After allwe all interpret things differently. We are all the same sadly in this way. If deductive reasoning can make two conflicting believes true, deductive reasoning is false.
68 of 108
14. Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies. - I have to agree with this. Can this be considered a conviction of a sort? It seems worthy of it. Reply
Daniel April 2, 2010 at 2:06 am haha fuck me beliefs* Reply
Dionysus April 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm I knew this was going to be a cut-and-paste blog from the introduction, I mean your summary of Nietzches justly famous quote about saying in ten sentences what others say in a book misses the clever end of the thought when he adds to say what others do not say in a book He also had a word for lazy blog writers and others who would seemingly slander his name by speed-reading through his worksThe worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole. Reply
David April 3, 2010 at 8:02 pm Your comment makes it clear who the worst readers are. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 3, 2010 at 11:38 pm roflmfao! a cut and paste here and there (with commentary whilst on a
working holiday!), does not a blogfull maketh Reply
Jojirius April 3, 2010 at 11:17 pm Even if you are trying to say that Mr. David omitted something he should not have, theres no need to treat cut-and-paste blogs as slanderous. Or scandalous, or anything else associated with negativity and paparazzi! Mr. Nieztche certainly also had a word for poor readers, but if you truly wanted Mr. David to take it to heart, you could have worded it more tastefully, such as replacing the word lazy with omnipotent, and replacing the word slander with honor . Ignoring that, since whats done is done, would Mr. Nieztche prefer his ideas to be perpetuated or for people to pick on details and use internet coverage to attack others? Allow me to cut and paste this: I counsel you, my friends: Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. Your words are far more punishing than they are helpful, and even in quoting Nietzche, who was himself quite the vicious character, you ignore the point of the blog: to inspire thought. While I too prefer perfection, David-san never boasted his perfect quotation ability, or if he did it was in white text. To end on a lighter note, O god of winedrink less prior to posting. And O he who is the beloved in Hebrew nomenclature, try not to let anger get to your head. Mr. Winey God has a point about wanting your posts to be perfect, no matter how dull and crude of a point it is. Reply
Kevin April 4, 2010 at 7:06 pm Stumbled upon this ages ago, spent the last many minutes reading through all the comments and even though i had an immense amount of comments running through my head as i read, i cant for the life of me remember half of them. Thank you david for posting this, i think its an extremely insightful look into a realm of thought few people venture into in their life, however i did read one comment by josh, and another by char
70 of 108
that i feel i have to comment on. Firstly Josh, while i respect your view on what constitues a fact, and with no intention of dismissing yours as untrue, i would like to oer my belief on the now famous quote in this blog, there are no facts, only interpretations. The way i see it, everything, even historical facts if you will, CAN (not are) be seen as interpretations, you could sit here and say that you dropped a match into water and it extinguished, but for a blind man, he might not have the same interpretation, to him he never saw the match or it being extinguished, he only heard something, also i think that even though some may consider this a childish point, i think it has value, that while i cannot disprove that lets say a match was extinguished, someone else cannot prove it was. And even if they provided eyewitness acounts, or there was stu written about it, it could be false, i have already talked about it too long, but i will add one last point about this quote, i remember when i was younger, about 8 years old, and i read a book and in this book was the theory that you could not prove that a train was moving along the earth, it could be that the train is still and everything else including the earth, lamposts and people, and moving underneath it, i could not wrap my head around that thought then, as it seemed to bizarre, but i have since changed that tune, that to me is an example of how i have changed my view from the fact that the train was moving, to the fact that it might be something else entirely, or even my brain simply showing me a different picture. Also i wanted to comment on Chars posts about altruism, i would like to add my insight which is that, in my view, there is no such thing as a seless good deed, i am not saying this is correct, it is my opinion, if i can be proven wrong then ill gladly change my opinion, but i believe that even if you do something say you give money to help someone else, even if you needed the money yourself, you would feel good about helping someone else, and the reason i believe there are no real seless good deeds, is that i believe we are programmed so that the very act of helping others is recognised as a good thing by our minds, and i believe this as i always try to help people wherever i can, and even if i use my own time and resources that i had earmarked for something else, when youve helped someone, no matter if you hear those two little words (thank you) or not, you have a sense of accomplishment and purpose about you that lifts your mood inexplicably, or at least that is my take, i would love to hear feedback on it to see if others feel this aswell. Finally i would like to just say if i offended anyone with these comments it was not on purpose, and if i have i will say sorry now in advance, sorry. Reply
Sean April 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm
71 of 108
I like Nietzsche. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 4, 2010 at 10:30 pm Hi Kevin~ I do not agree that it is socialisation alone that can instill a person with a sense of altruism. I agree, that detaching oneself from internal rewards can be difficult~ though I do not impossible. Following are some quotes from an article, and I included a link above to non-primate critters exhibits of altruistic behaviours from the biological definition (if you are a Creationist, my apologies for only including an evolutionary perspective and I will source some materials). Selfless Chimps http://www.livescience.com/animals/070625_chimp_altruism.html Chimpanzees and such young infants [18 months] both show that some level of altruism may be innate and not just a factor of education, said developmental and comparative psychologist Felix Warneken at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology at Leipzig, Germany. People say we become altruistic because our parents teach us so, but that young children are originally selsh. This suggests maybe culture is not the only source of altruism. Paper available here: http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho /pdf/Publications_2006_PDF/Altruistic_Helping_in_Human_06.pdf (free download) There is a biological predisposition to altruistic tendencies that we share with our common ancestor, and culture cultivates rather than implants the roots of altruism in the human psyche from primordial forms to more mature ones, Warneken told LiveScience. One of his papers available here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article /info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050190 (free download) A recent blog post of his: We should stop listening to ideologues who tout their dog-eat-dog view of nature as a prescription for society, and start taking the latest evidence
72 of 108
about the human primate into account. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/the-selfishnessof-giving_b_426414.html For me, accepting the idea that we only do things because I am inherently selfish, can be a cop-out excuse to do nothing and to lose hope in humankind. Reply
Kevin April 5, 2010 at 3:25 am Hey Char, very good point the last one, and even though i havent looked at the articles yet, i look forward to reading them later today, but i of course am not sure of this, but to me it sounds like i might not have described my point of view as best as i could, the way i see it, if we choose to say that we only do things because we are inherently selsh, that is indeed not a good saying to live by, however what i do believe is that even the most seless acts bring great pleasure at least in my experience to the one who performs them. The meaning of the word seless is always going to be a tricky one to dene, as the very notion of the word would in my case automatically turn me to the thought that the seless person did something for someone else, and gained nothing, but depending on how i define selshness, i can actually see your point, and if you describe altruism as merely doing something of which you recieve no direct benet over at least physical, while someone else does, then i believe that you are right, however what i cant seem to forget is that whenever i have tried being seless, i nd myself pleased with myself for helping others, which i count as a reward, although i do not necessarily think that makes you selsh. Thanks for replying though, its always interesting to get someone elses take on an opinion as otherwise we would never evolve mentally . In fact i just realised now that i think you are probably right concerning that some level of altruism is innate, and ever conscious in us, however i think in the society we live in, where so much relies on money, and good grades, and getting jobs, and climbing the ladder etc, many people nd it hard if they ever manage or even attempt, to act consciously on an altruistic scale. Reply
73 of 108
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 5, 2010 at 4:17 am Kevin~ that selfless state you are trying to achieve, The Buddha called ego detachment; Jesus referred to as giving up of the self; Rumi called the jihad (holy war) as the killing of the ego and the abandonment of personal wishes; Catherine of Siena is noted to have said No matter what your state in life it is essential to kill this selsh-love; Native Americans aspire to with drumming, The practice of drum healing is all about detachment. It is to be present with all that there is. It is going to that inner place to eect change in our consciousness and physicality. And Carlos Castaneda termed, Stalking the Ego there are many others The perennial philosophy Reply
John April 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm Char, the ideas you bring up here I think strike to the heart of the discussion. As humans, though, can we truly become seless? Is it possible to completely eliminate self? It seems that the only way to exhibit true altruism is to completely lack an ego, a self. Though perhaps not impossible, following this assumption, most if not all humans cant and never will be truly seless. To be seless is just that, to lack a self. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 6, 2010 at 11:18 pm
74 of 108
Hi John~ well, you answered the question ~:-) yes possible, though difficult What if we as a species, instead of polarizing the action to an always situation, made it a social goal to act more altruistically rather than selshly. We know that this state is possible, sociobiologists and evolutionary anthropologists point to non-human communities which are predominantly low on aggression and high on altruism. Paleo and Neolithic artifacts and engravings/drawings etc show us that this was the predominant norm in their times. As to the idea that the majority cant and never will, well our ancestors show this isnt the case, and who knows what future humans maybe able to achieve.
Pip April 5, 2010 at 12:41 am Its not about about having strong beliefs. You can have them or not. Its the idea that you see it from the other sides. Every situation has a left or right or a million debates. If you believe in something you should stand for it but also understand its opposition. Reply
Jonathan Barrett April 6, 2010 at 4:30 am For me, my most empowering act of self liberation is being somewhat skeptical of everythingTo question EVERYTHING, the world, even myself. Slowly but surely the facade I was putting up began falling away to the point that people no longer recognized me..I found something amazing in the fact that the people who I thought were my GOOD friends were really not, and what I thought was cool wasnt just not cool; it didnt even exist! . A core reasoning emerged from this transformation and I am left with good friends and signicant matters to attend toI am satised Reply
75 of 108
Dena April 9, 2010 at 11:31 am Hey David, Great post! I just want to let you know that I featured it in my weekly Friday Carousel of links here: http://evolutionyou.net/blog/carousel-040910/. I think that my readers will really enjoy this. Have a great weekend! In love & light, Dena Denas last blog ..Carousel 04.09.10 Reply
Dr. G April 10, 2010 at 8:32 pm Very nice 40 famous phrases, Dave; thank you! Since you are a passionate reader, heres another must have for your bookshelf: And Nietzsche Wept by Irvind D. Yalom, emeritus of Stanford University and my favorite author on psychology. Freuds mentor, Josef Breuer, attempts to cure Friedrich Nietzsche of suicidal despair in the clinics, cemeteries, and coeehouses of 19th-century Vienna An entertainining, but at the same time thought-provoking read. Reply
juni April 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm I love ethis amazing tool of knowledge the internet Humans take fact way to serious including me . Until I read this page my mind kinda opened up to the word fact. we as a people can over analyze everything. especially when it comes down to the heavens, and science. But facts of the past have changed, we have evolved our minds acceptance of knowledge to be one way and the proof, collaborations and studies make the fact another thing
76 of 108
our observation of a flat land became our observation of that being completely impossible. Science took thousands of years to become what it is now and we are at a time where science is basically working together Technology has given us the ability to look beyond belief and nd fact Science is not this amazing thing in the sky, science is the sky science is mathematics, we are all scientist. we all observe and attempt to learn and understand our enviorment. Science is a misguided diluted word I believe science was the 1st religion . As a people we believed in the sun god we believed in our enviorment. We believed in what we saw. As humans we are too creative for our own good and manipulated these objects of the heavens and nature into the things we will praise believe and live for to understand. We just didnt have the history, technology, and facts of the world to put everything together We are at a time of great advantages a time of being able to go beyond belief, a time where we can even go against fact Numbers are innite that means science can go on forever . It can only grow and change. we can only get smarter from here . The question is once we have this universal sense of understanding whats its purpose? If there is any word we must go beyond its greed and ego. We are a young race of intelligent animals we can only learn from our past we can learn from our mistakes if we truly want to make a change in this world we are going to have to be able to change the world beyond our death Reply
Steve D April 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm Just a comment on the global evil that is organised religeon The need to believe in ANY form of religeon is a fundamental weakness of the human mind if you need to believe in something to get you by, then believe in yourself. Free your mind.
Reply
David April 13, 2010 at 7:46 pm I would go further than that and say that attachment is the fundamental weakness of the human mind. Religion and the feelings of security associated with it is just one thing people are attached to. Very few of us (maybe none of us) are attached to nothing. An inclination is not always a need. Reply
Dr. G April 14, 2010 at 1:29 am As much as I support believing in oneself, and as much I have my troubles with the catholic church, I can also only agree that we should not forget that religion adds a lot of stability to many peoples life. I also remember a serious discussion I once had with a catholic priest about the church, and he said: I do not know any organization that takes better care of the misery in this world. I couldnt argue with that. Reply
David April 14, 2010 at 2:10 am Thats a good point. Existence is difficult, and attachment to a religion does provide a feeling of belonging and meaning, which might keep some from despair. I dont think I understand what you mean by your second paragraph though. Reply
78 of 108
Dr. G April 14, 2010 at 2:31 am Sorry if I was not clear. Let me try again: When I wanted to get married, it turned out as a serious issue that I did not attend the sacrament of confirmation. Usually, the catholic church would not allow me to get married without this sacrament. I had a very intense discussion with a catholic priest, Father van den Bosch, about this topic. I brought up my general concerns about religion in general and the catholic church in particular. To my surprise, Father van den Bosch accepted all my reasons. But he made a very good point by saying that he is not aware of any other organisation that is more effective than the church in e.g. supporting the poor and fighting hunger. This discussion about 14 years ago is one of the two reasons why I am still a member of the catholic church.
David April 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm I see, but is religion really necessary in order to organize efforts to help people? Many charities and relief eorts are organized through the catholic church, but at the same time Im not sure if any organization in history is responsible for causing as much suffering as it has. Crusades, inquisitions, residential schools, covering up sexual abuse these are causes of intense suffering on a vast scale. Their stance against contraception alone is helping to create much of the poverty they are trying to x with the other hand. I respect your choice of religious aliation but I just dont think the organization as a whole is doing more good than harm. Davids last blog ..Die on Purpose
Steve D April 14, 2010 at 8:19 pm
79 of 108
There is no doult that a lot of good work is done by some forms of religion to help those in need but there is usually a price to pay in the form of subtle (and not so subtle) brain washing. If it was possible to quantify the amout of good over evil that has happend in the name of religion since any rst existed, I think the results would be an overwhelming argument for those of sound mind to abandon this nonsense and help those who have not yet seen the light. Apart from climate change, nuclear proliferation, viruses and over population, religion is the single biggest threat to mankind and always will be untill its complete eradication. False idols?just say no. Reply
Phil April 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm Hey David I absolutely love your site. This post is very cool especially many of the comments. Laughed at this.. 4. There are no facts, only interpretations. He says it as if it were a fact. LOL P.S. Glad to see you enjoying NZ Reply
David April 15, 2010 at 12:58 am Thanks Phil. You could also say he says it as if its an opinion. I think people are taking it a little too plainly. I think he means facts are not beyond doubt, as they are all interpretations. I was speaking to a German friend last night and she was convinced that German works could never be perfectly translated to English, even if the translator is very good. So we may be splitting hairs for no reason. Reply
80 of 108
Dr. G April 17, 2010 at 7:02 am Interesting aspects regarding a possible change of meaning after translation. I am German and the original German sentence makes perfect sense to me. To the best of my knowledge, Nietzsche uses the German term Tatsachen which (according to leo.org) can be translated into fact, actuality, or certainty. With my poor knowledge of English, I would still say that facts mot probably suits best. Reply
David April 17, 2010 at 3:25 pm Ah! Thanks Dr G. Reply
bryan April 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm This guy is a fucking idiot. He proves it with each retarded sentance he spews. Reply
Drew Tkac April 27, 2010 at 9:49 pm Thank you Bryan for an insightful and meaningful comment. Im sure you searched the depths of your knowledge and reflected on your vast philosophical experiences to explore the meaning of each Nietzsche statements. Your Harvard journalism professor must be very proud of you! I have no problem with criticism. I enjoy an argument or a discussion with differing opinions. I feel it is mind expanding to explore a subject or comment from other peoples perspective. Bryan, the only reason I am even spending more than a few seconds responding to such a infantile statement is to point out a big problem
81 of 108
with the direction of modern society. Somewhere in the past few decades it has become fashionable to be stupid while intelligence, insight and depth has become a pejorative. Bryan, its not just you. There is a entire sub culture that starts at the top with ex-president Bush and goes all the way down through the octo-mom and ends with home schooling your kids that proliferate ignorance. Normally I would not care. But sadly stupid people get one vote in electing our government officials. Ignorant people are more likely to be persuaded by the propaganda of the modern news and religious zealots. They lack the experience of critical thought necessary to examine all of the issues. It is very difficult, in our age of so much information, to sort through what makes sense and what is simply an agenda from big business to promote their cause. I hope I have offended you. I have taken offense to many things that people have said about me. Its the criticisms that hit a nerve and hurt the most that require close self examination to nd out what we are protecting inside. You can either look at yourself or you could call me the same name you called Nietzsche and continue the spiral of ignorance. Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 27, 2010 at 11:07 pm ^ yeah~ what he said ~:-) Reply
Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 27, 2010 at 11:07 pm ^ yeah~ what Drew KTac said ~:-) Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor)s last blog ..Critical Reflection #9~ Learning about Rubrics! Reply
82 of 108
Dr. G April 28, 2010 at 12:50 am Touch! Reply
dj July 13, 2010 at 2:12 am Drew, you seem to be a tool of the left. You just tried to sound smarter by using more words with your insult of bryan. The result was the same; an insult. While bryans insult was to a dead person, your insult was more vicious and covered over half of the country. Personally, I prefer the home schooled children because of Nietzsche remark no. 9. Where you schooled in government classrooms? Why do you connet bryan with the right? Reply
Trish Scott April 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm I LOVE this list. Guess, bryan, Im just another fucking idiot. Thankfully I dont much care what you think . Thanks David Ill be passing it on. Trish Scotts last blog ..About Wildlife Direct Reply
ryan April 28, 2010 at 3:18 pm My fav quote is about how when a hundred men stand together, they all lose their minds and get a new one. No truer a description of pack mentality has ever been uttered. ryans last blog ..Your State of Being Affects Your Singing Reply
83 of 108
Nate May 2, 2010 at 10:51 pm Ah, just stumbled in with StumbleUpon. My old foe, Nietzsche. I actually took the time to read the whole premise and then all 40 quotes. I really dont know why anyone would think these are great or brilliant or whatever theyre supposed to be. There are so many of them that can be simply exposed for the bs they are. And some of them are just plain stupid like without music, life would be a mistake. What does that mean? Humans are the only living beings who are really capable of either making or appreciating music. Dont get me wrong, I know music soothes the savage beast, but come on, the only music that exists in nature is bird song. And whos mistake would it be? Certainly not Gods, right? It is really just silly. Might as well quote Frank Zappa: Music is the best. Also, this really is quite the pairing: 4. There are no facts, only interpretations. 5. Morality is but the herd-instinct in the individual. 5 is discredited by 4 before we even begin, but what cracks me up about Nietzsche is his tendency to point out how things are just arbitrary labels and yet he slaps a label on something and calls it a fact. Morality is just herd-instict. Right. So, okay, even if you accept this premise, what exactly IS herd-instinct and how does it apply to human beings? Labeling it herd-instinct does not discredit it, although I get the feeling he was trying to dehumanize it and make it seem like a beastial concept which perhaps are below us. But, then, of course, he likes to favorably compare highlyevolved men with predators like the lion. Makes a lot of sense. Anybody whos well-read knows morality comes from a good upbringing with nurturing and support. A baby learns through absorption a sense of self and rights which cause him to be happy and successful in life and, in turn, pass on this script to other people. The way cybernetics works is a loop: the image you project onto others returns the sort of response you expect and reinforces your beliefs. Thus, people who feel happy and deserving are generally treated well, become successful and have very happy families. Morality comes from the sense of self and rights one has absorbed through childhood, as that sense of self and rights is naturally projected onto others. Obviously, Nietzsche did not have a happy childhood. And his arguments are rhetoric and hogwash.
84 of 108
I could go on, but why bother. Nietzsche freaks never accept any counter arguments. Reply
David May 3, 2010 at 2:22 am Well I dont necessarily disagree with you. I dont agree with all of these aphorisms. All I said was that they are provocative. Evidently, they are. I could go on, but why bother. Nietzsche freaks never accept any counter arguments. Why bother? Yes, good question. Reply
Drew Tkac May 3, 2010 at 10:24 am I like the Nietzsche insight and I enjoy comments from his critics. From your writing it sounds like you, Nate, enjoy absolutes and literal interpretation. Saying that Nietzsche freaks never accept any counter arguments is a huge absolute statement. I bristle when words like never and always are used. I think Nietzsches work, like the Bible should, not be taken literally but use as a parable. His statements about music, for instance, is really a statements of the human emotion and is also referenced in other works of art. My favorite line from Dead Poets Society where John Keating said, We dont read and write poetry because its cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is lled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. Shakespeares wine, women and song and sex, drugs and rock and roll are further references to the same emotion and passion for art and creativity.
85 of 108
As far as 5 being discredited by 4, Nate you are the one that is interpreting 5 as fact not Nietzsche. I think Nietzsche would be the first to say his statements are just his interpretations and not facts. I think Zappa had some great insight into the state of the Political State. He said, To me, absurdity is the only reality. Sounds like his way of saying this is how I see life, but you may see it dierently. Anyway thats my two cents, your mileage may vary. Reply
Nate May 3, 2010 at 11:22 am I realize N would be the rst to admit his statements are just his interpretations and not facts, however, the point was (and always is when discussing N) that he presented his ideas as if they were more factual than anyone elses. That is why he presented them. There was a great article online I read once that really explained his fault of logic in general in a really well-turned phrase. Something like: Nietzsches philosophy of value suffers from the same fault as all forms of egoism. The rational egoist admires the exercise of individual will, especially when it goes against the flow of conventional moral opinion. But since the individual will can as readily be exercised in AFFIRMING conventional morality, his admiration is groundless and his preference for the unconventional is also groundless. This is because rational egoism can only give an account of instrumental value, yet requires some account of intrinsic value as well. Its interesting how he refused to get into straight up logical argumentation and preferred, instead, to use a combination of prose and rhetoric to get his message across. He claims this is due to the fallibility of language to express absolute truths and yet here he was trying to express absolute truths. I believe instinctively he knew his ideas could not stand up to logical scrutiny, so when I read his work, it strikes me as an emotional guy screaming, CAN YA FEELZ ME?! But, if you dont like absolutes, you should stay away from Nietzsche. He plays a little game where he wiggles one hand to distract you while with the other hand he pulls a card from his
sleeve. Reply
Drew Tkac May 3, 2010 at 1:01 pm Who said this is about logic. Its about the human condition, emotions and passion. That is any thing but logical. Its like using logic to argue with a religious zealot. It cant be done. The zealot is coming from belief and emotions and the other from logic. Just because it is not logical does not mean it is useless, just dierent. Unless you want to be Spock. Reply
Nate May 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm Not true, logic is involved here, obviously. When deciding on what a superior man should be and how he should behave, obviously that is something deduced by a kind of logic, it is simply a type that is not based on sound logic. If anyones going to try to convince me of something, it should be reasonable and use sound logic to form a solid argument. His particular way of argument was why people have said hes no philosopher at all. Rhetoric. If we are going to throw logic out the window, it really is like trying to argue with a religious zealot!
Chris July 12, 2010 at 7:56 am Birds and humans arent the only things capable of creating music. Ever been to the beach? Reply
Nate May 3, 2010 at 10:04 am
87 of 108
Sorry if I came on strong there. This is due to my several dealings in the past with hypersensitive, stubborn and extremely immature Nietzsche lovers online. Philosophy forums, Youtube, hell even on a forum dedicated to only Nietzsche they tend to hurl insults at one another and proclaim their understanding as superior. I suppose such a philosophy is bound to have such a result. I shouldnt let it color my opinion of all fans of his work, but unfortunately it has. I have yet to meet a really level-headed human being who truly embraces Ns message. Like N, I nd a great many of them simply are looking to justify something that makes them feel good, although I use the term loosely. It seems more like emotional self-defense. Your response indicates to me you are an exception, though. Yes, N is provocative in the same way any faulty logic is provocative in a rhetorical context. BTW, thanks for actually reading and not deleting my post! Cheers. Reply
Drew Tkac May 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm Well Nate I think this is the point where we will need to agree to disagree. If any one is to convince me of matters of the human spirit there should be more to it than logic. Nice match. Reply
David May 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm I have met a lot of teenage Nietzsche-dorks too, but I dont think they make a up a majority of people who nd some meaning in his work. I agree with Drew about logic. It is much beloved by philosophy undergrads but it is not the only way for a human to understand something. Intuition cannot be shared, so it cannot be discussed objectively. This makes it impossible to teach and easy for academics
to disregard. Davids last blog ..Aliens Exist, and We Should Avoid Them if We Want to Live Reply
Nate May 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm Intuition and emotions are part of life, but of course, I would trust my own over someone elses. If someone is going to sway me otherwise, I would be careful that it was logical and not an emotional argument (They took our jobs!). Reply
David May 4, 2010 at 5:22 pm I agree, and that is how I try to make decisions in my life. I tend to think of emotions as a way of biasing us towards a particular action (usually one that has to do with maintaining security or some other primal motive.) So I search my motivations for an emotional bias, and try to avoid acting on it. I think Nietzsches words trigger emotional responses in people, and if you stop to ask why, you can learn something about yourself or your worldview. They dont have to be logically sound to be of value. They can even be contradictory, like #4 and any other aphorism. I think number 4 is brilliant. Most people reject it flat out (an emotional reaction) but if you look for how it might be true, you can see everything in a new light. It contradicts in a logical sense, but language can convey meaning beyond logic. Reply
sir jorge May 30, 2010 at 5:24 pm some of them are good, some of them are actually kind of weak, but I loved them none the less
89 of 108
sir jorges last blog ..A Look At Mark Gonzales Reply
Joshua June 7, 2010 at 2:16 am Well, after reading (Im proud to say) through the entire length of these comments, the only thing of which Im convinced is that, David, if you dont currently teach at a University, you denitely should. And if you decide to, let me know where. ] That said, Im a fan of: 11. A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Ive heard more than one religious fanatic remark you must have faith. I wish Id read some of this mans work earlier. Fantastic group of aphorisms. Thanks David. Reply
David June 7, 2010 at 6:58 am Careful now, that kind of stuff goes to my head. Ive never attended a university class. Ill get to it one day. Reply
Joshua June 7, 2010 at 11:13 am Ha. I understand completely, Im the same way (goes to my head, that is). Im only 19 myself, poised and ready to start sophomore year this fall. And, Im still convinced you would make an excellent professor of philosophy. Hit the books! Reply
90 of 108
Sasa June 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm Alas, no Youtube in Nietzsches day or I would immediately search for a video of that man shaking his booty ;P Sasas last blog ..Eating Crow and Brown Sugar and Lemon Cake Reply
David June 12, 2010 at 7:28 pm Intriguing mental image Reply
Colin July 10, 2010 at 11:25 am Rejoicing in our joy, not suffering over our suering, is what makes someone a friend. That one was my favorite one. When the someone you know is happy and their happiness in turn makes you happy, you know you have a real friend. Reply
Delta July 11, 2010 at 10:44 am 1. People who have given us their complete condence believe that they have a right to ours. The inference is false, a gift confers no rights. This is interesting in that it encapsulates the basic functioning of any condence scam (like a pigeon drop, etc.) People actually can be convinced into giving up money & possessions on the spot if a stranger just walks up and acts like theyre revealing personal information to them. While #1 might be taken as good advice, its not universally descriptive most people have a natural, intuitive bias in the opposite direction (that condence does require returned confidence). Reply
Riskboy July 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm Love this post, found it through stumbleupon, number 10. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. got me thinking, my interpretation is that a wise man must know right from wrong and be able to choose right over loyalty. A man who loves and is loyal to his friend will always choose to side with a friend even when his friend is wrong (as is with the Gang or Bro mentality). Bringing into mind the saying A true friend is not one who bails you out, but the guy sitting next to you in prison saying, Dude, we really screwed up last night . With that being said, Nietzsches interpretation of a man of knowledge is someone who will sometimes have to go against the laws of social interaction and break a friends heart for the better good. which explains why, With more knowledge comes more sorrow Which make a good hypothesis as to why intelligent people (Brighter minds) have few friends, and the dumbest people in the planet are the happiest. Reply
Riskboy July 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm Love this post, found it through stumbleupon, number 10. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. got me thinking, my interpretation is that a wise man must know right from wrong and be able to choose right over loyalty. A man who loves and is loyal to his friend will always choose to side with a friend even when his friend is wrong (as is with the Gang or Bro mentality). Bringing into mind the saying A true friend is not one who bails you out, but the guy sitting next to you in prison saying, Dude, we really screwed up last night . With that being said, Nietzsches interpretation of a man of knowledge is someone who will sometimes have to go against the laws of social interaction and break a friends heart for the better good. which explains
92 of 108
why, With more knowledge comes more sorrow Which could make a good hypothesis as to why intelligent people (Brighter minds) have few friends, and the dumbest people in the planet are the happiest. Reply
Apodyopsis July 11, 2010 at 11:50 pm There are no facts, only interpretations. I disagree. It seems that everybody who is in accordance with this quote hides behind the word interpretation. You interpret this interpretation blah blah blah. Come ooooon. Believing this is like saying you can never be wrong about anything, because you could just interpret your way out of it. You just get lost in this circular logic where nothing is real. That is denitely NOT being nonconformist. Its taking the easy way out. I think the biggest problem here is that people who also disagree with this quote have been using science to explain themselves. That is the mistake. How about using mathematics. 2 + 2 will always be four (literally forever). I dont care how you want to interpret it. (Dont bother arguing saying that it is only my interpretation of the equation. I do not buy it. There are absolutes. Maybe not in science, but math never lies). Or we can use the past. The past cannot change (if it could we would be living in a paradox). There is only one interpretation, and it is what happened. Say you got an 80% on a philosophy exam (ironic huh?). You cannot magically interpret your way to an A. You got what you got. That is a fact. I know its blunt. Reply
Riskboy July 12, 2010 at 10:40 am There are no facts, only interpretations. I tend to agree with this, because reality is only a perception given by our brains. Fact means reality and something can only be a fact if everyone agrees that it is real. But its hard if not impossible to have all
people on the planet to agree about one thing, because everybody has their own interpretations. math never lies this it not true, Math does lie, as much as a photograph can lie. In order to get correct results you have to modify your Math to fit the research. Basic Mathematics does not work everywhere, this meaning that 1 + 1 = 2 is only true based on what you are working on. In computer mathematics in Binary calculations 1 + 1 = 0 (carry 1), rendering the former answer wrong. Which comes to show that what we call facts are just interpretations, which is why once in a while something we call a fact will sometimes to our amazement change if someone gives a better interpretation. The past cannot change I dont know how you define the past but to me, the past is based on information passed on from older generations, and since each new generation receives slightly altered information , there perception of the past is different from older generations, which makes the past change as time goes on. And the way i see it we might actually be living in a paradox. What we experience and believe at a given time in space is what we call true, but in time we make more discoveries that contradict our previous interpretations. i would write a long post about this but to give a simple example; Most Religions are an example of a Paradox. They are aware of this problem, and what is the solution? FAITH having complete condence in something that you can neither explain or understand. Reply
Apodyopsis July 18, 2010 at 1:06 am I think you are misinterpreting (ha) what I am saying here, and using semantics in your argument against what I am saying. Math does not lie. I cant for a very simple reason. It was man made, and it is constant. (Baring in mind I have NO knowledge of binary calculations) Just because you input an equation into a system, say 1 + 1, and it doesnt give you two, in no way proves that 1 + 1 doesnt equal 2. Let us say I asked (random name)
Jason what 3 + 3 is and he says 7. That doesnt prove anything. Like I said, I have no knowledge of how a computer does its math, but it clearly uses the information differently than to simply answer the equation. As for the past. The past is not information passed down. The past is what actually happened outside your perception of it. You can believe what ever you want, but JFK got shot. It happened regardless of what was passed down to you about it. That is a fact. If you want to say that the world interpreted what happen to him as being shot, ne. Doesnt change anything (because it cannot be changed no matter how you, or anybody interprets it). It is not possible to live in a paradox. That is the reason the past cannot change. To illustrate this, let us pretend that the past can change. You go back in time 5 years and kill yourself. Now what? Do you die in the future and now do not exist to go back in time and kill yourself? It doesnt make sense and that is why this situation cannot happen! The religion thing has quite irrelevant. You can believe in a paradox if you so choose. You can even find yourself in a paradox-like situation, but you cannot actually live in one. That is the nature of a paradox. It cannot actually happen. They are THOUGHT experiments. Reply
Riskboy July 18, 2010 at 3:20 am I will skip the math part, as using math in this argument is a meaningless endeavour in which we will never reach a conclusion.. If you read my previous post i did not say the past is information passed down, i stated its based on information passed down, we know JFK was assassinated, we all know that today, but a millennia from now, people might be saying he committed suicide, example, Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt died 30 BC, today people believe she committed suicide by a bite from a cobra, some say she drank poison, while others say she was killed (poisoned), recently others believe Augustus killed her. The alteration of information
95 of 108
about her death over the years changed her past as we perceive it today. The past is based on memories and without those memories the past does not exist. It goes back to the saying If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a sound? yes it does make a sound but because nobody heard it, the sound was a void in space, a null if you will.. If nobody in the future remembers or has information about JFKs death, then him being shot becomes void information. In the future they could nd out that JFK was a president and he was killed (but not how), but if somebody said he was shot and didnt have proof, this could be a theory not a fact, another could come up with a convincing theory that JFK was stabbed to death, and it could be turned into a fact as you call it. Reply
Apodyopsis July 20, 2010 at 10:12 pm It seems you are completely missing the point of what I am saying here. You are arguing that information and perception can change (although we are arguing about whether facts exist). I do not disagree with that, but if in 500 years they are saying that JFK got stabbed, then they would be wrong. This is because we know what happened. Regardless of what people say or believe, he was shot. There is no such thing as a fact (the way it is in parentheses). Many people may say that information is fact when it is not true. Then they are just wrong. It doesnt mean facts dont exist. Facts exist outside of perception. They are greater than what you yourself see and believe. Cleopatra died somehow. That is a fact. I challenge you (or anyone else that reads this) to prove that this fact does not exist (If you take this challenge do not split hairs on the definition of words and other such trivial arguments). If you can make me believe that Cleopatra is not dead,
96 of 108
and therefore alive, I will concede to you. Back to the point, it does not matter in the slightest that we do not know how or why she died. Its all hearsay. As for the tree in the woods. I will use this to prove my point. Just because nobody was there to perceive or interpret the tree falling, it does not mean that it didnt fall. There are facts that NOBODY knows (facts that we cant know), and therefore arent left to interpretation. They can only be facts. Thats all thats left. What happened happened and there is nobody to say otherwise. (See my response to David below for more on the matter) P.S. the word based does nothing to change the meaning of what you said in terms of this argument. Regardless, I will apologize for misquoting you.
David July 13, 2010 at 9:04 am To leap from interpretation to fact you must presume that there is an objective common ground that you can access directly without error or bias. You cant access anything except your own perceptions. There is a lot of interesting discussion about this quote in the comments. Its been more controversial than any other. Reply
Apodyopsis July 18, 2010 at 1:33 am To make an argument of this nature you must presume that facts only exist within ourselves, and what we observe. To believe that would be an utter mistake. This is the very difference between a fact and an interpretation or a perception. Facts are greater than what we see and observe. They are present even when we dont know about them (they are that objective common ground with no error and bias). What you mean to say is that you cant interpret anything except your own perceptions. Reply
97 of 108
David July 31, 2010 at 6:33 pm Nah. Facts are greater than what we see and observe. They are present even when we dont know about them (they are that objective common ground with no error and bias). ^^^ These are just your beliefs. Reply
Jake August 11, 2010 at 10:16 pm This argument is among the most comical in philosophy to me. My response: My perception limits my understanding, but my understanding does not limit truth. Only humanity is conceited enough to say that if I cannot perceive and understand it, then it cannot be absolute. I agree with Apodyopsis. Human record contains no facts, true, only interpretations. But the universe would exist just fine without us. Then again, that is just my belief I suppose. You could be right, and humanity could be the foundation and center of the universe, just as it has claimed ownership to for thousands of years. I prefer to believe that the universe is grounded on something a little more solid. Reply
David August 11, 2010 at 10:37 pm Human record contains no facts, true, only interpretations. But the universe would exist just fine without us.
98 of 108
Then again, that is just my belief I suppose. You could be right, and humanity could be the foundation and center of the universe, just as it has claimed ownership to for thousands of years. I prefer to believe that the universe is grounded on something a little more solid. I didnt say that humanity is the foundation or center of the universe. If we are, that doesnt make me right. I just dont believe that the conventional conception of an objective universe is worth taking for granted. To do that presumes that we have a near-complete understanding of what we are seeing. This is normal we are at least that conceited. Why must it be one or the other, and why say it with certainty? Thats all Im saying. You can never experience anything but your own perceptions, because youll never be anyone other than you. With me? But you can still organize your interpretations and build a model in your mind of how everything works. Thats all everyone can ever really do, and each of us is going to end up with something slightly dierent. If all of those models are based on some baseline model that were all drawing from, then ne, but we will never be able to conrm that. You are only ever working with your interpretations. Who says there is anything unsolid about a universe that doesnt quite work the way we conventionally imagine it does? The thought is uncomfortable, maybe, but that doesnt make it unsolid or unreal.
travis July 12, 2010 at 9:30 pm this man was completely enlightened.. these are some of the greatest quotes ever spoken.. Reply
sir jorge July 30, 2010 at 7:37 pm

got to admit, the guy makes sense sir jorges last blog ..Jade Dagger Ninja Review Reply
Susi July 30, 2010 at 10:14 pm I like what I see here, more food for thought to share and care. Susis last blog ..Sentiments on Thursday-Genealogywisecom comments Friday Reply
Carolyn Holt July 31, 2010 at 6:24 pm http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/ Reply
David July 31, 2010 at 6:26 pm Loved these. Thanks Reply
Gabriel August 1, 2010 at 12:32 am 35. There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy. *farts* Reply
Chad August 12, 2010 at 2:49 am To think or have an opinion for even one moment is simply guessing. The amount of options to guess is infinite, but with any query, it would be
ignorant to choose just one answer. If interpretations are truly infinite, then we all must be wrong 100% of the time. What is known as a fact is just society agreeing on one interpretation for a specific amount of time. Facts can change, it just takes one person to convince others that his/her interpretation is more acceptable. But to agree with anybody for even one moment makes you wrong. To be right, you must accept that you will never be right. But just saying that and believing that for a moment makes me wrong. Ahh to question reality just makes it that much more enjoyable! Im glad to nd this post, good stuff! Reply
Vivek Ghai August 19, 2010 at 10:34 pm In my humble opinion, Maths is the purest form of [provable] logic. Reply
Jas August 21, 2010 at 9:25 am Are we humans? Reply
Kyle September 8, 2010 at 3:58 pm There are no facts, only interpretations., sounds like he is stating a fact there and is defeating his own quote. Could my interpretation of his statement be wrong, maybe, but he seems to be saying regardless of anyones interpretations, this quote is a fact. Which would then defeat itself since it says there are no facts. Its fun to butcher quotes. These quotes all appear to be his statements of facts. For instance, God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight, he is stating that as a fact when he hasnt presented evidence to prove whether there is a God or not. I can certainly say that the observations he made were upon religion, which is mans way of trying to get to God. All the laws, the rules, the regulations, and justications based on the name of God. Here is an interesting thought I wish he would have considered. What if what he saw was a blame game
101 of 108
that doesnt present the true abilities and character of God. So a better way to say his statement is that Religion is a thought that makes crooked all that is straight In other words religion makes crooked the straight ways of God. To present my evidence of God is based merely on the fact of who was Jesus, did He raise from the dead, and if He did not where is His body? If it was stolen by His disciples, how did they get past Roman guards put there to protect it under penalty of death? If it was the wrong tomb, why not ask Joseph (the guy who donated the tomb) if they made a wrong turn? Or if you say He didnt die and just past out, what would you say a spear having to have gone through the heart in order to hit a water sac that caused the whole blood and water gushing out? Or and dont get me wrong, I am not saying what we know to be the religion of Christianity is right. I am saying that if Christ raised from the dead, then He was Gods way of getting to us and should be followed based on His teaching and not the teaching of man that started many of the religious organizations we see today. I am sure I will get a whole bunch of people coming up to rebuttal me. Probably asking, why bring up God in a Nietzsche debate. Well pretty much his whole quote, not mentioned above, God is dead is what brought on the debate. Be wary of teaching that were used by Nazis (whether in perversion of Nietzsches teaching or not). His concept of the uberman is what sparked that whole Arianism propaganda that lead to the slaughter of millions of people in the Holocaust. It is his thought on this that causes class and race division. Christ taught equality, which sadly, has been ignored in past and present by many who claim to follow Him. Hopefully those that truly follow Him will be able to better follow in His character and example and show it as a light on the world as He commanded instead of the BS we have seen in the past that is so easily thrown up in our faces every time when His named is mentioned as someone to follow. For example, the crusades. Again religious man misusing His name for own personal gain. Or the opposition to the Civil Rights movement; lets not forget Dr. Kings profession as a pastor and declaring that God created all men equal. Hopefully this rant has caused some interesting thoughts in each persons mind. I look forward to anyones response and take on this. Oh by the way, dont try to say the Nazis movement used Christianity in it, because when they looked upon Hitler as a messiah, it proved they were not even close to even being called a sect of Christianity since their main focus wasnt on Christ. Reply
Jon September 9, 2010 at 2:36 am Im just going to go and say this. Its been on my mind for a long time now and I dont speak about it with much people for fear of misunderstanding. I
work with my hands, I am a guitar builder and I like things to (in my general life) be as minimal as possible. I guess Im fairly connected with nature and my natural surroundings, I really nd solice in it. Well, Im not religious and havent been for 10 years now. Im not going to go into why Im no longer a believer but I suppose it came about after science took hold of my imagination. Well, I do a lot of inner thinking since ten years have past and I have found that my morals come from within, almost in a sort of transcendent way. I guess I feel that I looked within to nd how I should behave and act towards others. I sometimes think that Jesus found within himself the same thing. He worked with his bare hands, he lived a very minimal life (by choice or not I think he preferred it) and ultimatly had been listening to himself I suppose he was also connected with nature as well. In his time and age this could be thought of as maybe god speaking through them because it was just too hard to believe that a single carpenter could posess such self enlightment, his thoughts had to have come from A god or a judge. His ways made sense to his followers and were eective in dealing with life and lifes trials. He became a product, a son of what all at that time thought of as a man in the clouds. I think any man is capable of looking inward and plugging-in to his inner being. I dont think a book or a daily ritual needs to mold how I live my life. As long as I remain pure in mind and use my intuition Im good, how liberating was it to entually nd out that there was no god, no judge, no born-sinner, and that I like all men posess this godly mentality and reasoning? I can only tell you its been the smartest Ive ever done, I feel like Im a better person than when I was religious. Either your crazy and are disalusioned (Nazis) or you are in touch and thought full(Ghandi) or somewhere in between. I think Nitzsche felt this way although he seemed a little too passionate about some things. Id like to hear if any one else feels this way or not. Thanks for reading. Reply
Josh September 9, 2010 at 3:19 pm I continue to get e-mail relating to this topic every time somebody posts a new response. It has taken a great deal of self control to not personally respond to everything Ive read. I feel like what Ive already said will continue to be what I wanted to say but I would like to add this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1994#comic Facts vs. Interpretations: We may never know for sure why the darkness shot that guy, what we can be sure of is that we cant be sure of anything but you just said
and Ill say it again, We can be perfectly sure that we cant be sure of anything. Reply
Katrina September 11, 2010 at 2:57 am Fact: This got long and deep and almost out of hand. Interpretation: It got convoluted pretty quickly. Fact: People have a tendency to over-think things so much it goes from simple to complicated, back to simple, and straight to complicatedly-simple. (Like women) Interpretation: Things would be much easier if people stopped trying to figure out the meaning of everything. It doesnt matter. Enjoy the ride. Fact: Im totally doing this just to entertain my sense of humor. Interpretation: Someone is going to find this stupid/annoying/pointless and try to talk some shit. Fact: I dont care! (followed by lots of loud manic laughter then a conscious repeating of what I wrote here, ending with a shake of the head at the self.) Reply
fivi September 12, 2010 at 12:08 am nietsche was a big fan of music and dancing, huh? http://www.fireviews.com spread the word for your creative content Reply
Bryolvn2Q September 13, 2010 at 10:58 pm Indeed it is all relative.
104 of 108
Reply
darrell September 15, 2010 at 11:19 pm none of this matters Reply
David May 31, 2010 at 6:13 pm Well put brother Reply Leave a Comment Name * E-mail * Website
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Submit
Previous post: How to Make Mindfulness a Habit With Only a Tiny Commitment Next post: This is Your Lifes Work
105 of 108
Welcome to Raptitude
Quality of life is what we all want, but our cultures and instincts often undermine it for us, routing us into conformist lifestyles and self-defeating habits. By understanding ourselves and our species -- what makes humans tick -- we can become more skillful at creating a better quality of life for ourselves. Be sure to get Raptitude updates via RSS so you don't miss anything. Two clicks and you're good to go.
What is RSS anyway?
Get Raptitude Emailed to You

Enter your email address:
Subscribe
Delivered by FeedBurner
Recent comments
David on Who You Really Are (Pt. 2) David on The Art of Showing Up David on The Art of Showing Up Ambiguity on Six Amazing Songs That Illustrate What it Means to Be Human 88 | on Theres Nothing Small About the World 88 | on The One Ingredient Necessary for Accepting Yourself 88 | on 4 Brilliant Remarks From Historys Wisest American
106 of 108
Subscribe Most Popular Articles

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist 88 Important Truths Ive Learned About Life Six Amazing Songs That Illustrate What it Means to Be Human Why Happiness is Such a Struggle The Secret to Connecting With People How to Always Have Something Better to Talk About Than the Weather How to Keep Bad Moods From Taking You Over This is Your Lifes Work The One Ingredient Necessary for Accepting Yourself How I Found the Secret to Happiness While Totally Naked How to Make Mindfulness a Habit With Only a Tiny Commitment 4 Brilliant Remarks From Historys Wisest American How to Deal With People Who Frustrate You This Will Never Happen Again How to Make a Life List Youll Actually Do: A Comprehensive Guide
Recent Posts
The Art of Showing Up Who You Really Are (Pt. 2) Who You Really Are To My Fellow Skeptics (and Believers Too) Five Useful Headless Resources Headlessness FAQ The Decapitation of Douglas Harding
Read posts about:
ambitions arts attention civilization communication death emotion evolution experiments goals
addiction
gratitude habits history humanity individuality insights internet love meditation mindfulness moments moods music politics
presence productivity purpose quality
of life
relationships respect science self-esteem senses skills thinking travel wisdom

Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes. WordPress Admin
108 of 108

Quotes by Nitshze

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Quotes by Nitshze

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Nonconformist

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Josh March 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Stephen Browne March 31, 2010 at 8:40 am There are no facts.

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) April 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm ~phew, Im a woman Reply

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Gary September 9, 2010 at 2:24 pm hahawhat a tool! Reply

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Chris F. March 26, 2010 at 7:33 pm

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Aden August 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Drew Tkac March 28, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM

40 Belief-Shaking Remarks From a Ruthless Noncon...

Sunday 19 September 2010 11:06 PM