C.S. Lewis vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

[BidenPresident]

The Problem of Socrates

Judgments, value judgments about life, for or against, can in the final analysis never be true; they have value only as symptoms, they can be considered only as symptoms—in themselves, such judgments are stupidities. One absolutely must reach out and try to grasp this astounding finesse, that the value of life cannot be assessed. Not by the living, since they are parties to the dispute; in fact, they are the objects of contention, and not the judges—and not by the dead, for another reason.

https://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_za...ith-the-Hammer-Translated-by-Richard-Polt.pdf

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am not confident in what the answer is, but it seems reasonable to believe there are some ultimate truths which our scientific equipment and our cognitive limits will never allow us to penetrate.

I like the idea that, by virtue of us being human beings, we are imbrued with some type of universal moral consciousness. I really don't think it can all be explained by natural selection and genetic drift.

I am also struck by the fact that all the major world religious traditions basically independently landed on the same core of binding moral values, within a margin of error.

IMO, if it exists in the Natural Universe, it's knowable. The problem is that, compared to the mysteries of the Universe, human beings don't know a whole helluva lot.

Animals have a moral code, often genetic, that developed evolved over the eons. Not all animals are the same. Pandas are individualistic, the female kicks out the male after mating because the male would eat the babies. After a new male lion takes over a pride he'll kill all the cubs. Law of the Jungle.

Humans came from a simian line and our murderous tribal instincts are clearly based along those lines compared to other species of critters.

Agreed on the universal core of major religions. However, none of them evolved independently of human beings; all evolved within the limitation of human behavior.

 

[Cypress]

IMO, if it exists in the Natural Universe, it's knowable. The problem is that, compared to the mysteries of the Universe, human beings don't know a whole helluva lot.

Animals have a moral code, often genetic, that developed evolved over the eons. Not all animals are the same. Pandas are individualistic, the female kicks out the male after mating because the male would eat the babies. After a new male lion takes over a pride he'll kill all the cubs. Law of the Jungle.

Humans came from a simian line and our murderous tribal instincts are clearly based along those lines compared to other species of critters.

Agreed on the universal core of major religions. However, none of them evolved independently of human beings; all evolved within the limitation of human behavior.

nice work.

My two cents...

Animals practice altruism, I don't think that is really the same as an ethical code as articulated in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

Last week I read about some biological field research demonstrating that squirrels and birds will practice altruism, but generally only among closely related family members.

The theory is that altruism will assist in passing down the genetic alleles of closely related individuals almost as much as procreation will. When the researchers studied groups of animals which are not closely related, the degree of altruism was far less.

That is why I don't think altruism is really exactly the same thing as charity or mercy, which according to most religious traditions is supposed to be practiced regardless of the genetic relationship between individuals..

 

[Cypress]

I really don't care what he believed.

You said only Rightwingers invoke natural law

I don't think Jefferson was a Rightwinger, and his preamble of the Declaration of Independence directly invokes natural law as the basis of universal natural rights.

 

[BidenPresident]

You said only Rightwingers invoke natural law

I don't think Jefferson was a Rightwinger, and his preamble of the Declaration of Independence directly invokes natural law as the basis of universal natural rights.

ok

 

[Jack]

So you feel you are just nothing more than a collection of quarks and electrons.

I have never been totally sold on that kind of strict mechanistic reductionism, but I encourage you to make the case.

I said 'Organism'. A Life Form. I'm sure there are many in the Cosmos, considering how large it is.

 

[Jack]

America was founded on natural law.

Like ... we have guns, you have bow & arrows, thanks for the Land?

 

[BidenPresident]

Like ... we have guns, you have bow & arrows, thanks for the Land?

Natural law is what conservatives refer to when they have no argument.

 

[Jack]

You said only Rightwingers invoke natural law

I don't think Jefferson was a Rightwinger, and his preamble of the Declaration of Independence directly invokes natural law as the basis of universal natural rights.

If I beat the shit out of you and make you my Slave, is that 'natural law'?

 

[Jack]

Natural law is what conservatives refer to when they have no argument.

Yeah. Some kind of 'mystical gift' that is handed out. Usually used by Religious Quacks.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

nice work.

My two cents...

Animals practice altruism, I don't think that is really the same as an ethical code as articulated in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

Last week I read about some biological field research demonstrating that squirrels and birds will practice altruism, but generally only among closely related family members.

The theory is that altruism will assist in passing down the genetic alleles of closely related individuals almost as much as procreation will. When the researchers studied groups of animals which are not closely related, the degree of altruism was far less.

That is why I don't think altruism is really exactly the same thing as charity or mercy, which according to most religious traditions is supposed to be practiced regardless of the genetic relationship between individuals..

An example of evolution in action. If more squirrels survive with the altruist trait, it's passed down. If less, then less chance of that mutation surviving.

Humans are still animals. What makes us different is a clearly superior ability to reason...and the heart to do mayhem with it.

While many religions point out the sudden appearance of mankind by a deity, evolution proves those stories are fables and myths. The evidence indicates mankind rose among other intelligent species who died out...or were killed off....over the course of time.

Mankind is extremely bloody with his fellow man. I fail to see why our ancestors would have been kinder to other species.

In short, while mankind is clearly special among other lifeforms, I see nothing godlike in man.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I said 'Organism'. A Life Form. I'm sure there are many in the Cosmos, considering how large it is.

So you believe. BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You said only Rightwingers invoke natural law

I don't think Jefferson was a Rightwinger, and his preamble of the Declaration of Independence directly invokes natural law as the basis of universal natural rights.

Agreed. Still, as enlightened as Jefferson was, he was still a man of the 1700s. Reference: Sally Hemings.

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-j...-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

That said, the statement of unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence is a belief, not scientific fact.

 

[Jack]

So you believe. BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA!

Yes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes.

Yet you hate Christians, Jack. You hate them above all over religions. Along with women, I think your hate goes back to your mom. You've always ran from questions about why you hate Christians, women and, most especially, Christian women. Why, Jack? Why do you run from those questions?

 

[Matt Dillon]

No such thing as natural law. Just something right wingers say,

"No such thing", she says.

"Now we will address the law’s origin. According to Aquinas, every law is ultimately derived from what he calls the eternal law (ST IaIIae 93.3). The “eternal law” refers to God’s providential ordering of all created things to their proper end. We participate in that divine order in virtue of the fact that God creates in us both a desire for and an ability to discern what is good (he calls this ability the “light of natural reason”). According to Aquinas, “it is this participation in the eternal law by the rational creature that is called the natural law” (ST IaIIae 91.2; Cf. 93.6)."

"The natural law functions in a way that is analogous to the aforementioned principles. According to Aquinas, all human actions are governed by a general principle or precept that is foundational to and necessary for all practical reasoning: good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. "

https://iep.utm.edu/thomasaquinas-moral-philosophy/

Is "Alphabet's" motto still "Don't be evil"?

Or did they change that?

 

[Cypress]

I said 'Organism'. A Life Form. I'm sure there are many in the Cosmos, considering how large it is.

Organisms are just made from quarks and electrons like all other matter, and there is no animating principle to them, in a strictly materialistic sense. You clearly insinuated you are a strict materialistic reductionist.

I have never quite been sold on the propositions that you or I are just meat puppets, but I am giving you the opportunity to make the case.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Still, as enlightened as Jefferson was, he was still a man of the 1700s. Reference: Sally Hemings.

https://www.monticello.org/thomas-j...-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-a-brief-account/

That said, the statement of unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence is a belief, not scientific fact.

Yes, true. But I would say given the time he was living in, Jefferson was a true radical. He was one of the few Anglo-American intellectuals who was really enthusiastic for the French Revolution, which even by American standards, was truly radical.

 

[Cypress]

An example of evolution in action. If more squirrels survive with the altruist trait, it's passed down. If less, then less chance of that mutation surviving.

Humans are still animals. What makes us different is a clearly superior ability to reason...and the heart to do mayhem with it.

While many religions point out the sudden appearance of mankind by a deity, evolution proves those stories are fables and myths. The evidence indicates mankind rose among other intelligent species who died out...or were killed off....over the course of time.

Mankind is extremely bloody with his fellow man. I fail to see why our ancestors would have been kinder to other species.

In short, while mankind is clearly special among other lifeforms, I see nothing godlike in man.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

The main difference field biology studies seem to be showing is that altruism practiced among closely related individuals has a genetic benefit. An individual can ensure the transmission of it's alleles through sexual procreation, or by practicing this kind of kin-based altruism.

I am not sure there is an evolutionary mechanism or genetic benefit to the parable of the good Samaritan --> practicing mercy on complete strangers with no obvious benefits to one's self.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, true. But I would say given the time he was living in, Jefferson was a true radical. He was one of the few Anglo-American intellectuals who was really enthusiastic for the French Revolution, which even by American standards, was truly radical.

Agreed Jefferson was ahead of the curve. If he was alive today, where would he be? Small government, isolationist and focused on the wealthy in the country?