C.S. Lewis vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the benefit of altruism. Consider the following link about Game Theory and altruism. Although it delves into a lot more math than I can follow it does say this:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063761
Although we explicitly integrated kin selection and reciprocal altruism, with matrix model, we note that other mechanisms besides the synergistic conditions generated by kin selection and reciprocal altruism may influence the evolution of cooperation [34]. The introduction of spatial structure via nearest neighbor interactions, for instance, may act to cluster co-operators together [35], [36] promoting cooperation (analogous to non-random interactions, r). Such game theoretical models show a transition from models that consider well-mixed populations to spatial grids and complex networks [34]. The extension of these models to coevolutionary strategies, together with the main strategies (cooperate or defect), suggests that the networks themselves “evolve” or “adapt” [37]. In this way the probabilities of assortative interactions and/or familiarity with opponents may change as well and become potential behavioural or evolutionary strategies. Such contributions may help us understand social dilemmas more accurately and push theoretical underpinning to more realistic conditions [


Bottom line: I see logic in this behavior but nothing divine or supernatural.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed on the benefit of altruism. Consider the following link about Game Theory and altruism. Although it delves into a lot more math than I can follow it does say this:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063761
Although we explicitly integrated kin selection and reciprocal altruism, with matrix model, we note that other mechanisms besides the synergistic conditions generated by kin selection and reciprocal altruism may influence the evolution of cooperation [34]. The introduction of spatial structure via nearest neighbor interactions, for instance, may act to cluster co-operators together [35], [36] promoting cooperation (analogous to non-random interactions, r). Such game theoretical models show a transition from models that consider well-mixed populations to spatial grids and complex networks [34]. The extension of these models to coevolutionary strategies, together with the main strategies (cooperate or defect), suggests that the networks themselves “evolve” or “adapt” [37]. In this way the probabilities of assortative interactions and/or familiarity with opponents may change as well and become potential behavioural or evolutionary strategies. Such contributions may help us understand social dilemmas more accurately and push theoretical underpinning to more realistic conditions [


Bottom line: I see logic in this behavior but nothing divine or supernatural.
Click to expand...
I do not necessarily think moral consciousness is supernatural.

I also don't see any demonstrated evolutionary mechanism or genetic benefit to the kind of ethics illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan.

I think it is either a gap in our scientific knowledge, or it is something innate in the human condition which is beyond the reach of our scientific experiments and cognition.
 
Cypress said:
Thomas Jefferson and the authors of the Declaration of Independence unequivocally believed in a universal, transcendent natural law bestowed on humanity. That is not too far from Lewis' assertion of a transcendent moral consciousness.

The thing I like about Nietzsche is that he seeks to transcend the slavery of guilt and repentance, and to take control of one's own life and make it a work of art
Click to expand...

Nietzsche ended up talking to his horse!
 
Sock Sockinski said:
Nietzsche ended up talking to his horse!
Click to expand...
Not his horse, but the horse of a carriage driver in Vienna

I know, he ended up going nuts, bat-sh*t crazy.

It doesn't mean his ideas aren't worth considering.

Cypress said:
Nietzsche's rejection of any higher reality or spiritual truth must have been pretty shocking at the time, but I am beginning to see why many have found Nietzsche worth considering - there is a lot to be said for the premise of making one's life a creative work of art, rather than investing energy in a socially/religiously constructed and conformist approach which dominated the 19th century.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
I know, he ended up going nuts, bat-sh*t crazy.

It doesn't mean his ideas aren't worth considering.
Click to expand...


BidenPresident said:
More lying bullshit.
What I would expect from people who never read philosophy.
Click to expand...


"The neurological illness of Friedrich Nietzsche"

"In the second half of his life he suffered from a psychiatric illness with depression. During his last years, a progressive cognitive decline evolved and ended in a profound dementia with stroke. He died from pneumonia in 1900."

"Conclusions: Friedrich Nietzsche's disease consisted of migraine, psychiatric disturbances, cognitive decline with dementia, and stroke"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/185...red from migraine,died from pneumonia in 1900.
 
Cypress said:
"The neurological illness of Friedrich Nietzsche"

"In the second half of his life he suffered from a psychiatric illness with depression. During his last years, a progressive cognitive decline evolved and ended in a profound dementia with stroke. He died from pneumonia in 1900."

"Conclusions: Friedrich Nietzsche's disease consisted of migraine, psychiatric disturbances, cognitive decline with dementia, and stroke"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/185...red from migraine,died from pneumonia in 1900.
Click to expand...

He had an illness. Talking to a horse is a lie.
 
Cypress said:
I am a seeker,
and apparently one of the few on this board who does not have all the answers.

That is precisely why my posting record on this subforum routinely looks to a spectrum of atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, animist, Confucian, Deist, Stoic thinkers and intellectuals.
.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you would be so kind as to better define what you seek from this thread ?

I get that those two guys had their particular views of the world, are you wondering what "we" think in regards to their thoughts ? I'll take that assumption...

Lewis picks up on the obvious similarities found in the various moral codes that have sprung up around the world. That is pretty much a given as most societies are basically on the same page where it comes to right and wrong. And so that pushes one to consider where things do not align and perhaps even why they don't.

So theft is pretty universally bad. Fair ? But then comes what to do about it when it happens despite everyone agreeing its not the right thing to do. I would suggest that we have crossed a line at this point that is no longer moral but social. And, for me, this is where Jesus got it so right. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's , render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's". The Lord will guide you to what is right and what is wrong but your society will establish what to do about failure. God is offended by the sin.

But I do not believe that there is some other source of right and wrong nor does there need to be.

So not sure if this is what you were after but there it is for you to chew on if you like.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Each Individual has the opportunity to view Reality as they see it. The Humans on Earth have been warring with each other since before recorded history. The only 'natural law', is 'law' that we can all agree upon through mutual benefit. There is nothing 'special' about coming to a common consensus.
The War in Ukraine is a good example. Another Tribal Alpha Dog attempting to expand it's Territory. The only 'natural law' here is the Strong dominating the Weak. The 'Common Consensus' was that each 'Tribe' stay within the Borders agreed to after WW2.
I see 'Man' as just another Life Form.
 
Celticguy said:
Perhaps you would be so kind as to better define what you seek from this thread ?

I get that those two guys had their particular views of the world, are you wondering what "we" think in regards to their thoughts ? I'll take that assumption...

Lewis picks up on the obvious similarities found in the various moral codes that have sprung up around the world. That is pretty much a given as most societies are basically on the same page where it comes to right and wrong. And so that pushes one to consider where things do not align and perhaps even why they don't.

So theft is pretty universally bad. Fair ? But then comes what to do about it when it happens despite everyone agreeing its not the right thing to do. I would suggest that we have crossed a line at this point that is no longer moral but social. And, for me, this is where Jesus got it so right. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's , render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's". The Lord will guide you to what is right and what is wrong but your society will establish what to do about failure. God is offended by the sin.

But I do not believe that there is some other source of right and wrong nor does there need to be.

So not sure if this is what you were after but there it is for you to chew on if you like.
Click to expand...

Right, I offered the views of C.S. Lewis and Nietzsche as just a springboard to a conversation about ethics and moral consciousness to anyone interested in the topic, so thanks for chiming in.

Things like theft and murder are criminal acts, and sanctions against them barely raise the moral bar above the floor.

The more complex ethical topics of justice, mercy, equality, charity, etc are a little harder to explain by way of a criminal code or evolutionary mechanism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top