Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (66140)	2/23/2000 1:41:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I think one can maintain an allegiance to very many things without religion. The issue concerns maintaining the character of our civilisation. Our particular civilisation is to a great extent sustained by religion, Judaism and Christianity in particular. Remove religion, and what we know to be "Western Civilisation" ends. This is not to say the world would fall immediately into formless anarchy, but rather that it would change into something far different from (and I think worse than) what we now know and love. I do not understand what you mean when you say the values on which our culture is based are sustained by individuals claiming a stake in affirming the meaning of human life and endeavor. Such claims in themselves do not necessarily normalise and integrate humans into a harmonious society. (Not to be obtuse, but is a harmonious society even a certifiably universal truth? I understand what consensus says on the matter, but is that it then?) Surely you might argue for certain archetypal needs and experiences that unite us, and then claim on the basis of these needs and experiences that humans might endeavor to affirm the meaning of life. But the thing at this level is yet so broad and undefined I fear it allows too much variety of opinion and action. Many people simply will not have the wherewithal to recognise what the "basics" are and that they have been forsaken. Others will not care, but will seek comfort wherever it promises to be, even if the promise turns out to be empty. Others will sincerely perceive the basics differently. Still others will perceive them as you or I might perceive them, but think them unacceptable regardless of the outcome. Now how is it that nature can integrate all these various perceptions into a harmonious whole? We might say emotional health depends upon "right living," returning to "the basics," but our sincerest ideas concerning what is best for the human organism can differ to such an extent that bloody conflict becomes inevitable. * Agreement * I do not deny and in fact agree that Nietzche produced major contributions to the philosophical milieu. But whether he sufficiently nailed down reality is not simply another question, it is the question. Yes, he in my view moved forward toward escaping simple nihilism, but claiming he in fact escaped is to claim he had ultimate knowledge. I may yet validly ask "why not simple nihilism?" I tell you sincerely, I could not accept relativism or even the promotion of cultural health as the ultimate criteria for how man should live and die, for even were a philosophy to be implemented worldwide such that all wars ceased and mankind everywhere united in love and harmony, I would still probe, question, doubt, challenge and eventually attempt to overthrow it. Were a magnificent being to descend from the heavens and work wonders, manipulating matter as if it were nothing, and were it to act in the precise manner even of my idea of God, and were it to claim itself God, I would enjoy it perhaps only for a day, after which time I would be compelled by nature to doubt and question its origin, nature and authority. I would eventually begin to study it with the purpose of circumventing, modifying, playing with and ruling it. Anything, and I mean anything, including gravity, death, life, God Almighty Himself (and so certainly relativistic philosophy), that aims to tether my will in any way, begs me to circumvent and use it. My doubting, self-centred nature would be the germ that would bring trouble to any paradise. I say all this because those who have aimed for systematic philosophies, Nietzche, Ayn Rand and the like included, have tended to start somewhere in the middle of the thing, looking myopically (and I think in some cases dishonestly) for what they think is feasible according to their very limited views of the world. Having said this, I have respect for Nietzche's attempts, and I do not think one should avoid him because of his wretchedness (anymore than one should avoid Wagner because of his). No one can seriously deny his influence upon world thought, and so I think he should be read (preferably after the reader has reached middle age, as youngsters tend to get carried away with him).