<p>I am not religious, thankfully. If I had to follow one I would follow Buddhism, because it has the least bull.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Way to misinterpret what Nietzsche meant when he said “God is dead.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, you quoted that before I had a chance. Phooey.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>It’s not quite a religion, but I definitely like Stoicism.</p>
<p>He’s talking about the fall of religion and dieies. Buddhism is not on the same wave length as other religions. Neitschze almost exclusively attacks chirstianity, and in some of his works gives a passive pass to Buddhism. Granted, I haven’t read all of his work, but I think the point of philosphy is being open minded and the fact that there are mutiple interpretations to just about everything. I’ve read a lot of existentialism this summer, predominately sartre, and I think god is dead means different things to different people. I think it’s pretentious to think anything in philosphy has only one definition. Then again, people on here like to act like they are qualfied to make factual statements about things hat are Open to interpretation.but then again I guess you are enlightened And are somehow more knowledgeable about things that are abstract than other people on here. Everytime people make those type of snippy remarks to try and make themselves sound more intelligent or to just feel better, I laugh at how pathetic it is. Especially when neither of you actually explain yourself. You just sound like an arrogant snob when you make those types of statements, just so you know. But I guess you have some special insight that qualifies you to act that way…wait nevermind. You’re probably younger than me and read far less philosophy than I did And have been around college education for fewer years. Telling someone they misinterpret something without being able to explain it doesn’t make you look smart. Sorry, but I’m sick of the attitude people on here exhibit- the whole I know more than you attitude is just so immature. I’ve found that people who feel the need to belittle others on here are just insecure social pariahs. If you don’t want to contribut to the discussion, don’t post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was a pain to read. Quite frankly, you could have gotten your point across with a sentence or two. Why did you go on rambling and repeating yourself?</p>
<p>And please, don’t misinterpret my statement or, I assume, ksarmand’s. It wasn’t a personal attack on you, but rather your philosophical misinterpretation. If you’re going to take it as an ad hominem assault, go ahead, but to respond with another ad hominem only qualifies you as a hypocrite, as you’d be doing little to contribute to the discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What would be the point of any discussion if all we ever did was appeal to relativism? I mean, if that were the case, I might as well dismiss everything you purport on the grounds that I interpret everything differently. Yes, there may be multiple interpretations to ambiguous aphorisms, but philosophers, insofar as making metaphysical and ethical assertions, aren’t about ambiguities, so to appeal to extreme relativism is to deny the purpose of philosophy altogether. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, misinterpretation. Yes, Christianity was the predominant religion in Nietzsche’s time and geography, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that he attacked ALL organized religions. Yes, ALL religions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does Sartre have to do with this particular discussion regarding your misinterpretation of Nietzsche? And if you’ve read (and understood) as much existentialism as you claim, then you probably would have picked up on the actual meaning behind “God is dead.”</p>
<p>Nietzsche’s infamous aphorisms was an attack on organized religion as an ethically prescriptive institution. If you’ve read Beyond Good and Evil or Thus Spake Zarathustra, you’d understand that Nietzsche railed against traditional morality and upheld individualism, insofar as tenets such as Will to Power are concerned, as the path to the Ubermensch. He quite unequivocal about this, so I don’t think there are very many interpretations you could draw from it.</p>
<p>@Sithis</p>
<p>Certainly Epicureanism is a challenge to Platonic idealism, but Epicureanism is not strictly materialist, nor does it reject Platonism entirely. As I’ve said, Epicureanism springs directly from the new paradigm introduced during the Greek classical age, primarily by Socrates/Plato (note that I don’t differentiate the two, as the “real” Socrates is impossible to divorce from Plato’s literary creation), which emphasized above all the analysis of the self. This is a trait shared by both Stoicism and Epicureanism, for despite the common equation of Epicureanism with hedonism, the Epicureans’ in fact recommended an intricate litany of exercises/meditations designed to enhance one’s self-control and self-understanding, which, as noted, comes directly from Socrates/Plato’s assertion that introspection offered the key to eudaimonia. The Epicurean lifestyle did not recommend the unfettered pursuit of pleasure, instead demanding a strict regulation of pleasures and pains, achieved through a careful and constant training of the self.</p>
<p>The fact that the Epicureans rejected other fundamental aspects of Plato’s thought, especially and as mentioned the ideal world of “forms” as one existing above and beyond the material world, does not change the fact that their philosophy derives directly from the even more radical (at the time) glorification of philosophical introspection and the training of the “self.” The creation of the “self” laid the foundation for the entire Western philosophical tradition, and thus Epicureanism, along with every other school of philosophy in antiquity, owes a great deal to Socrates/Plato.</p>
<p>As for Nietzsche, I think we should note that despite his at times strident attacks on religion, he also professed profound concern over the consequences of God’s “death.” Because he does not reject morality outright, while perceiving the social necessity of moral (i.e. religious) doctrine, his overarching, and most controversial, goal was his attempt to develop a moral code with no need for God. Ideas such as the overcoming of the self and the Ubermensch are obviously central to his thought and represent an attempt to entirely transform human morality.</p>
<p>That this attempt has proved utterly unsatisfying to nearly everyone underlines our inability to find any satisfactory alternative to “God” as both moral arbiter and as a fulfilling answer to our deep spiritual needs. The persistence of organized religion attests not, as some atheists would argue, to the stupidity of a large portion of the population, but rather to its unmatched power as a unifying and satisfying worldview for millions of people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To equate religion to morality is a fallacious claim. After all, the historical moral derivations are both eclectic and diverse. Was it not the authoritarian state for Plato, logical teleology for Aristotle, tyranny for Hobbes, practical reason for Locke, human dignity for Kant, communal benefit for Bentham, self-affirmation for Nietzsche, and the veil of ignorance for Rawls? </p>
<p>The death of religion doesn’t result in existential nihilism at all. To make such a claim would be to assume that religion is the source of morality, when, in fact, it itself may have been an outgrowth of natural social instincts born to man. Biologically intuitive morality probably gave rise to religious morality. Of course, a claim like this is difficult to substantiate, but there’s no difference, logically speaking, than asserting that religion is the source of morality.</p>
<p>You’re quite right, religion does not necessarily equal morality. My real point is that no alternative to organized religion has ever succeeded in stitching together a cohesive society. A community requires shared values, and those who ignore them must face consequences. This is where God becomes vital as the one acknowledged absolute. Maybe the death of religion does not inevitably result in nihilism, but it has always seemed to me that those who advocate any number of moral systems without God (and, quite consistently, along with God the idea of a life after this here on earth) have no answer to relativism. And, in practice, is there any difference between nihilism and relativism?</p>
<p>This is a question the West continues to grapple with ever since Nietzsche, and I’ve seen no satisfactory solution as yet - only the dead end of Post-Modernism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the philosophers BEFORE Nietzsche did a good job of tackling that issue (Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc.) Morality emerges from reason, political institutions, communal values, pragmatism, etc. If the church disappeared tomorrow, we would would hardly feel the effects, morally speaking. </p>
<p>In fact, to argue that our sense of morality now is strictly religious is to make a foolish argument. There are many satisfying moral codes which are completely independent of religion.</p>
<p>@JanofLeiden</p>
<p>While I don’t deny the importance of Plato/Socrates in the rise of the Western philosophical tradition I was simply pointing out the definite ontological differences between Platonism and Epicureanism. I mean, I am not saying they are utterly contrasting philosophies in every way. Could you clarify your assertion of Epicureanism not being strictly materialist, please?</p>
<p>I don’t think they did a good job at all. The Enlightenment, despite its pretensions toward achieving truth through “reason,” remained entirely beholden to Judeo-Christian morality. You say that if the church disappeared tomorrow we would hardly feel the effects, and I agree. But this is because the Judeo-Christian moral system has so permeated society that it grounds, in a way that appears almost instinctual now, the worldview of everyone born in the West. I can almost guarantee you were brought up with Judeo-Christian morals, even if your parents were atheist. The real test of any moral system without God would be to turn anarchy into order, and this seems impossible to me without an absolute. Religion is by far the most important, most engrained, and most effective tool yet devised to create civilizations.</p>
<p>^I think this is a very interesting point.</p>
<p>Sithis - you’re entirely correct about the ontological divide between the Epicureans and Platonic philosophy. Sorry to cause confusion earlier - I did not mean that the two traditions were in agreement on all questions, only that they shared certain fundamental assumptions.</p>
<p>As for Epicureanism not being entirely materialist, to be honest I’m not sure I was correct to say that. I was thinking of the Epicurean emphasis on using reason/Nous as the means for developing oneself. The idea of “reason” seems to me an immaterial one, and thus the Epicurean use of reason as a tool makes them, to my mind, not strictly materialist. On the other hand, you’re very much correct in that the Epicureans focused strictly on the world of the here and now, what we can see and touch, and the pleasures and pains that can be derived therefrom. It’s in their reliance on reason as a means for determining and controlling the intake of pleasure and pain that I see hints of a contradiction. Wouldn’t a true materialist rely on the senses alone to guide his actions?</p>
<p>Thank you for your clarification, I had been initially confused at your assertion that “Epicureanism (and Stoicism) ‘descended’ from Platonic thought.”</p>
<p>Hmm…I think that a true materialist would say that all mental phenomena are the product of the material world. Also, I think it has much been debated (in the old rationalism vs empiricism debate) whether reason stands alone or whether it it the product of experience. I haven’t delved too much into that though, I’ve only been studying philosophy for about 6 months on-and-off, and it’s not all light reading haha.</p>
<p>@tiff90: I think a lot of your annoyance at the CC community is probably stemming from your annoyance at our pm discussion. However, I would suggest that you look into reading philosophy from the analytic tradition as well as the continental tradition if you really want to discuss philosophy. If you’ve only read Sartre and Nietzsche you’ve only really been exposed to the continental tradition and not the analytic, which is now the “predominant” approach to philosophy.</p>
<p>Not to worry, I’m not even a philosophy student! Although I find it exceedingly interesting and read what I can when not occupied with history.</p>
<p>Me too! (except I’m an engineering student and not a history student)</p>
<p>EDIT: I did take an Intro to Philosophy course, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the point of our apparent disagreement. What makes you assert that the morality upon which I was raised was Judeo-Christian? I’d argue that the morality upon which I was raised was innate, as prescribed by the natural social instincts of man.</p>
<p>You’re treating religious morality as the origin of ethics, when, in actuality, religion itself probably manifested from these social instincts. There have been many convincing arguments, biologically speaking, asserting that humans are naturally altruistic (to a certain extent), as such behavior conveys evolutionary benefits onto a species. As such, religion merely emerged as an institution to crystallize these ideals, but it isn’t the ONLY institution with the ability to do so. For example, we can, in terms of philosophical pragmatism, agree that meaningless murder is wrong. Then our parents, our schools, our communities, and our laws, all of which are completely independent of religion, teach our children this basic tenet. If we were to extrapolate this idea to all of the ethical tenets which appear useful and universal, we can very easily implement morality without religion.</p>
<p>So, to that end, religion is completely unnecessary, a mere vestige, insofar as morality is concerned, of the primal human need for certainty.</p>
<p>Jewish by heritage. My grandparents were: Jewish, Catholic/Buddhist (“converted” to Buddhism), Unitarian Universalist, a pagan religion kind of like Druidism, and an unnamed Roma religion. </p>
<p>My raising was eclectic to say the least. Personally, I identify with Wicca, but heavily influenced by Buddhism and my Roma heritage.</p>