Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism

I have discussed this topic before with Capable. Nietzsche is still the true philosopher of today, with the small incongruence that he lived and wrote many years before today. This incongruence, a kind of historical error in computation, is yet a perfect example of the very premise of Nietzscehan thought: evolution.

The scientific progress theory basically posits that Nietzsche, even Nietzsche, is too old and outdated to be taken word for word, precicely by one of the areas he dismissed: science. It is the work of such theorists as Richard Dawkings that has helped the world of understanding inch daringly forward in the face of millenary traditions.

In this sense, I claim that Richard Dawkins is like the white/green Power Ranger to the cadre of relevant Nietzscheans: not quite part of the gang, but absolutely essential for the more important battles (and I don't mean that God Delusion bullshit, either).

Pezer wrote:

I have discussed this topic before with Capable. Nietzsche is still the true philosopher of today, with the small incongruence that he lived and wrote many years before today. This incongruence, a kind of historical error in computation, is yet a perfect example of the very premise of Nietzscehan thought: evolution.

The scientific progress theory basically posits that Nietzsche, even Nietzsche, is too old and outdated to be taken word for word, precicely by one of the areas he dismissed: science. It is the work of such theorists as Richard Dawkings that has helped the world of understanding inch daringly forward in the face of millenary traditions.

In this sense, I claim that Richard Dawkins is like the white/green Power Ranger to the cadre of relevant Nietzscheans: not quite part of the gang, but absolutely essential for the more important battles (and I don't mean that God Delusion bullshit, either).

Hello Pezer,

I'm new to this forum and to philosophy as a whole, so I may make no sense at all, but I do wish to discuss these ideas.

I have very little knowledge of Nietzsche's work, I find some of it a bit complex, and am taking a more gradual approach to philosophy, and trying not to get lost in things I don't yet have the philosophical chops to chew on. That said, I have always been interested in science. And, as such, I do enjoy the hunt.

Obviously science does play a key role in any idea of an "Uebermensch" science will be the force that advances the physical human to new heights. The moral and ethical human can be informed by the methods of science, but will remain the realm of the philosopher. I feel one without the other, if the superhuman is the goal, will be a waste of resources. So, and this question is a result of my own ignorance no doubt, why was Nietzsche Dismissive of science? I understand science has moved on from this point, as you said, he can't be taken word for word, but I do wonder what he meant. He had some great ideas, and the ideas of "evolution" of the human , do away with natural selection, and placing man at the reigns is an inevitable step forward.

Oh, and "God Delusion bullshit?" come on, that was just pointing out the obvious. Some people, myself included, need that from time to time.

But, from my limited understanding, I would like to tweak your Power Rangers metaphor. I would say that " relevant Nietzscheans" are more like Zordon to the science of today, guiding it, influencing it's ethics and it's goals. But limited to it's glass tube, and never able to venture out and touch the physical world. It's influence on the physical world is limited to what influence in can place on those that do influence the physical world.

Anyway, as I mentioned, my philosophy is lacking (to speak highly of it) but I do enjoy trying to make sense of the world. I hope to progress philosophically on this forum.

Cheers

One of the most important aspects of evolution for philosophical work is that aspect that completely extirpated God from reality: the most intricate, subtle, complex, manyfold yet outstandingly elegant interconnections of systems occur in our world, in the atheist sense, of their own accord. So, then, does the death of God not indicate by any means the death of human greatness or complex wonder.

To the primal philosophical question of "why?" we now have an answer: because it evolved that way. All other answers or conjectures at that level are false. In that sense, maybe, the original monotheists were pioneers; but we make a revision: instead of "no other Gods before me," "no Gods beside me."

Cosmic,

Nietzsche is by definition a historical philosopher. He can only be understood from the stand-point of historical processes. Basically, you can't approach him like science. In fact, the level of thinking you are venturing into is the level that included the birth of the true scientific process, not the other way around. The stuff of philosophy precedes science, there are no easy routes like "I want to understand." There are always traps and self-deception is easy-peacy.

Want my advice?

Dive into pre-greek philosophy. That is where the modern positivist mathematical-scientific ethos comes from. Read what they wrote, and realize that the will to understand that you have right now is not some pure instinct, but a construct that began with the (also not pure) instincts of those guys. Every philosophical opinion needs a reading history.

Ok, I admit I wrote that whole thing after just the first paragraph of your post. Now I read the whole thing.

Nietzsche wan't really against science, he was against the scientist ethos. He felt that science as they paracticed it was an unafordable distraction from very real threats. In fact, one of his good books is translated as "The Gay Science." The one that addresses the threats the most is called "The Antichrist."

Anyway, sorry for the snobby response. I think "The God Delusion" is a naive work written in a communist format, though.

The question "why?" doesn't make any sense. It's a moral question being posed to an amoral universe. Nietzsche was a moral philosopher. His questions were all concerning man. I would caution you from reading him into the world outside of man. He attempted to do that himself near the end of his life, and look where that got him.


Dawkins isn't worth much at all. I don't know why he is so venerated. Even in his own fields he has made very little original contributions. Real research in genetics requires entire teams of individuals working for month on end. Sciences can only grow from the flower-bed of a philosophy, Darwin provided that to our biological sciences. I don't see what's so great about that twit Dawkins.


The death of God means nothing to human dignity. The only problem is, we have lost any philosophical concept of what a human being is, owing to the fact that we have no image of God in which to behold ourselves. That's the area of a new philosophy.

Pezer wrote:

One of the most important aspects of evolution for philosophical work is that aspect that completely extirpated God from reality: the most intricate, subtle, complex, manyfold yet outstandingly elegant interconnections of systems occur in our world, in the atheist sense, of their own accord. So, then, does the death of God not indicate by any means the death of human greatness or complex wonder.

No, I would say that any "intricate, subtle, complex, manyfold yet outstandingly elegant interconnections of systems" that do occur in our world and still "intricate, subtle, complex, manyfold yet outstandingly elegant interconnections of systems" no matter the source. I find them to be more astounding the more we do learn about them, no omnipotent being simply wished into existence the spiral galaxy, the stars, the human brain and it's fruits. Instead we can trace back the breadcrumbs through time and pull back the curtain on the world, instead of standing in awe of the giant face on the wall. We see, through the violent and cold persistence of nature, glorious order. And, of course, dreadful disorder, chaos, and loss. But I don't need to look up at the sky, like a child looking up at the face of it's abusive mother, your heart breaking as you try to make sense of what should be, by your understanding, sensible. Instead, we know the universe is a violent place, we have the death of star to thank for our existence, and any planets that may have been in it's clutches. So, no I don't see this as "the death of human greatness or complex wonder".

Pezer wrote:

To the primal philosophical question of "why?" we now have an answer: because it evolved that way. All other answers or conjectures at that level are false. In that sense, maybe, the original monotheists were pioneers; but we make a revision: instead of "no other Gods before me," "no Gods beside me."

Most answers won't always be answered "because we evolved that way", sure, if you hack away with the "why?... why?... why?" then we will reach the end of our understanding, and have to accept that conclusion. But, at least the hunt for the answer to that question is being made, and not assumed, based on your geographical location.
I would say no, the monotheists aren't the pioneers. I find the beliefs of the polytheists to be far more complex and far more human. Instead of the monotheistic all encompassing "He dunnit" we get far richer and more subtle constructs, stories and legitimate attempts at explaining the origins of the, then mysterious, wonders of our world. I'm not saying the monotheists didn't make legitimate attempts to explain the world, they were just lazy about it.

EDIT* Ok, didn't see the new posts, will address them shortly.

Richard Dawkins is great for clearly pointing out the very thing you are blind to right now: that the space left by God is not some empty field for us to sow, but a set of pre-existing realities whose basic mechanism of change we now understand. Our image as humans? The very concept of image evolved to where it is in tiny, incremental yet sustainable upgrades.

Morality is a fine example. Is it a single thing? What is it? Is it a non-thing? Is this nihilism I smell?

Cosmic

Those answeres were exactly what I was getting at. About the pioneer stuff, I meant of a very specific kind: pioneers in the field of answering the question "why?" In terms of human greatness, I agree, they set us back what seems like an eternity.

Pezer wrote:

Richard Dawkins is great for clearly pointing out the very thing you are blind to right now: that the space left by God is not some empty field for us to sow, but a set of pre-existing realities whose basic mechanism of change we now understand. Our image as humans? The very concept of image evolved to where it is in tiny, incremental yet sustainable upgrades.

Morality is a fine example. Is it a single thing? What is it? Is it a non-thing? Is this nihilism I smell?

I reject the idea that philosophical ideas evolve. They emerge completely formed in their fullness and vitality from the soul of the individual philosopher, as expressions of his daemonism. The philosophical ideas are generated daemonically: https://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t41-the-daemonic They are not built piece by piece and evolved from one another.


The abyss of God may not, as you say, be a field for us to sow, but we have other fields to tend to now.



Morality is the following. It is the moment when you have to take off your fucking mask and tell us who you are.

Pezer wrote:

Cosmic,

Nietzsche is by definition a historical philosopher. He can only be understood from the stand-point of historical processes. Basically, you can't approach him like science. In fact, the level of thinking you are venturing into is the level that included the birth of the true scientific process, not the other way around. The stuff of philosophy precedes science, there are no easy routes like "I want to understand." There are always traps and self-deception is easy-peacy.

Want my advice?

Dive into pre-greek philosophy. That is where the modern positivist mathematical-scientific ethos comes from. Read what they wrote, and realize that the will to understand that you have right now is not some pure instinct, but a construct that began with the (also not pure) instincts of those guys. Every philosophical opinion needs a reading history.

Ok, I admit I wrote that whole thing after just the first paragraph of your post. Now I read the whole thing.

Nietzsche wan't really against science, he was against the scientist ethos. He felt that science as they paracticed it was an unafordable distraction from very real threats. In fact, one of his good books is translated as "The Gay Science." The one that addresses the threats the most is called "The Antichrist."

Anyway, sorry for the snobby response. I think "The God Delusion" is a naive work written in a communist format, though.

Ok, well I certainly will read Nietzsche's work, but judging from what you did say, before you edited it, I might not grasp it, especially in any historical context. Though I still imagine it will be a worth while exercise.

A "communist format" what does that even mean? I don't feel it was "naive" he knew his audience. But, I can only view this (currently) from my own point of view.

More to the point: Men like me refashion the world in sum, as a philosophy. Scholars and petty little men of science cannot touch philosophy. Philosophies are eternally separated- just as the individuals that authored them. The word evolve has no meaning here.

The very thought that a philosophy could be pieced together or extrapolated and evolved from existing knowledge provokes laughter in me. Pezer, if you truly believe this, then go do it- author a philosophy.

Pezer wrote:

Cosmic

Those answeres were exactly what I was getting at. About the pioneer stuff, I meant of a very specific kind: pioneers in the field of answering the question "why?" In terms of human greatness, I agree, they set us back what seems like an eternity.

I see what you meant now. And yes, I suppose in that sense you could view it like that.

No, seriously, I'm overly sensitive about misusing some terms. The ubermensch is not the same as the communist new man or the ideal modern man, it's a complex philosophical structure. You should definetly read, but you can easily participate without that and be of use both to yourself and us.

By communist formula, I mean that it is pretty much propaganda. The Selfish Gene is a comprehensive philosophical-scientific treatice. The God Dilusion is a moralistic condemnation using catchphrases and crowd-pleasing sophist logic.

Naive because communism is naive by definition. Or maybe I'm wrong to say communist, maybe republican (in the original sense) is a more appropriate label. I would still consider him naive, but less.

" The Selfish Gene is a comprehensive philosophical-scientific treatice. "



Hahaha, thank you my good man. And it's treatise.

Evolution isn't done, fool.

Indeed, treatise. Have you read it?

I have read all the major literature that has been written in Latin, Ancient Greek, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and of course, English. So not only have I read it, I have many real works of philosophy and literature in mind to which I might compare it and, inevitably, to whose stature I must find it unable to live up to. Evolution may not be done- but in quite a few people, such as yourself, it seems to have come to a dead end.

Let's hear some of those comparisons, big man.

Pezer wrote:

No, seriously, I'm overly sensitive about misusing some terms. The ubermensch is not the same as the communist new man or the ideal modern man, it's a complex philosophical structure. You should definetly read, but you can easily participate without that and be of use both to yourself and us.

Fair enough. I will certainly read further, and post what I can. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to straw-man any key philosophical constructs.

Pezer wrote:

By communist formula, I mean that it is pretty much propaganda. The Selfish Gene is a comprehensive philosophical-scientific treatice. The God Dilusion is a moralistic condemnation using catchphrases and crowd-pleasing sophist logic.

The selfish gene is a great book. And I can understand your point concerning the God delusion, but like I said before, he knew his audience.

Pezer wrote:

Naive because communism is naive by definition. Or maybe I'm wrong to say communist, maybe republican (in the original sense) is a more appropriate label. I would still consider him naive, but less.

Right, gotcha, kinda.

You had annoyed me with your small-minded conception of philosophy and plebeian honor of Dawkins, in case you were unclear as to my motive in aggressing upon you. And your use of that meme has disturbed my opium calm and now managed to genuinely irritate me. Take your five sentence long posts and get the fuck off of my internet. But before you do, I will oblige your curiosity: basically every other work of philosophy that has ever been written.


But you are right, I am in fact a badass, at least when it comes to matters of intellect. Physically I am rather weakened, due to the fact that I have severe nerve damage in my face and can't really eat, plus I'm a drug addict. Philosophy, its noble task, is to provide an image of the world, as a totality, to unite aesthetics, morality, ethics, science, etc. Philosophy moves by leaps, in circles- spirals of circles, not a straight line of evolution to use the words of Goethe. The Selfish Gene does not do that. I, too, have a problem with people misusing words, you see. It isn't a work of philosophy, the Selfish Gene.

I knew you were full of shit with the comparison thing.

Either/Or, The Gay Science, Spinoza's Ethics, Plato's Republic, Schiller's Letters, Unamuno's The Tragic Sense of Life. Those are works of philosophy. In those works stand united all the many regions of the human intellect, from art to morality. Those works are mirrors of human existence, as a totality. The Selfish Gene is a mediocre scholastic work. It does not accomplish the same.

I will forever place even the poets above scholars and scientists on the social ladder. We could, after all, do without the later.

The only thing that has "evolved" as far as the human intellect goes is the psychological impact of philosophical ideas, and the way in which man integrates, psychologically, those ideas. The ideas themselves as I have said are generated as insoluble unities.