'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:41 am

Genetic evolution doesn't lead to a species, it leads to a complex balance of life. It's not the chemical process of copying DNA, it is the process of the entire temporal-chemical history of DNA.

This process is compatible with advanced chemestry and physics, and in a way can be said to be acting in inanimate objects. It abides to the simple idea that there are forces outside of the psyche shaping the world of appearances and, more elementarily, the senses. In fact, it proves that the psyche itself is sensitive to those forces.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:42 am

I just realized what you mean that I'm providing no arguments or proof. I'll be back.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CosmicSelector



Posts : 7
Join date : 2012-08-30
Location : Lost

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:05 pm

Capable wrote:

Two different genetic codes would still compete with each other even if neither were subject to genetic mutation during reproduction. Natural selection just means that the organism better able to survive will beat out the organism that is less able to survive, in the long run. This survivability factor is, of course, based primarily on the conditions of the environment to which the organisms are subject.

I see. No problem. Alles klar!

Capable wrote:

I am only familiar with Sam Harris from a TED talk he did on "science can answer moral questions", which is in the References forum here. If you think he has any pertinent ideas on free will that shed light here, please elaborate them for me and indicate why you think they may be relevant.

Well, I have only seen his lecture, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the idea of free will not being free, there is a lot to consider. But, I wondered if anything that has been put forth from him and others had been considered when discussing the effects of evolution on the human mind. I understand as Parodites said, that evolution, as far as natural selection is concerned, has little affect on our brains anymore. I'm not sure if social evolution can be considered in the same category as NS (probably not), but i'm sure that does still have an affect. Random mutation is unavoidable, but has little affect, from what I understand.

I will lay out a general overview of the idea of no free will here, as I understand it:

The mind is crafted by your nature and nurture, and the idea of "no free will" has it that people have no choice of who they are, or who they become. They are subject to their environments and genetics. The idea is, that if you were to trade positions with a serial killer, atom for atom, you would be exactly the same person as him, your conscious mind IS your physical mind. And, as such, is susceptible to physical forces. This also, in his lecture anyway, raised the question of where thoughts came from, to us they just appear, there seems to be no cause. But as this effect is a physical phenomenon; we know there has to be cause, so what events, chemical, neural, environmental, etc are creating the effect? Now, if this thought is to be carried further, based simply on your physiology, as dictated by the above mentioned factors, all of your thoughts are not free creations. But, I do feel this is to be used at a more basic level of conscious thought. These simple thoughts could be committed to memory now they have arisen, and might play a role in the generation of more complex thoughts (along with the other factors discussed), and maybe even more complex philosophical notions. This might all give us the illusion of conscious and free authorship, but in fact, we had little control over the process.

Anyway, this is just the general idea behind the "no free will" notion I mentioned. I'm not sure where I stand yet, and I know you, or at least I believe, you don't like the oversimplification of the human consciousness. But, I thought it might be relevant to the discussion (maybe). It's interesting at least.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:19 am

What are your opinions on simulacra? I want to know because I'm going to use that concept in my argument.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:25 am

The only thing that has ever changed humans (the only reason humans exist and not only monkeys) is science. Discovery of natures knowledge (the principles and potentials of what exist), and the implementation of that knowledge.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3828
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:32 am

I disagree with that - I think that the main agent of human change has been "strong character".

Science does of course change human behavior and conditions, but it does not change its direction. It does not dictate values. Character does dictate values - I see religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism as expressions of a number of exceptional characters, who served as touch stones, marks of identity and standards of self-value for the general human, and I see great political military leaders in the same way. I even see the canonical scientists in this way - people like Copernicus, Newton, Einstein - these built their effort and resistance to nonsense and peer pressure largely on the strength of their character. A sharp mind alone isn't enough, a sense of truth isn't enough - one needs to be the type of entity that can enforce, influence, imprint.

What brings the most radical change is the possibility of new values. It's always a specific character that points out this possibility.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:12 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
I disagree with that - I think that the main agent of human change has been "strong character".

Science does of course change human behavior and conditions, but it does not change its direction. It does not dictate values. Character does dictate values - I see religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism as expressions of a number of exceptional characters, who served as touch stones, marks of identity and standards of self-value for the general human, and I see great political military leaders in the same way. I even see the canonical scientists in this way - people like Copernicus, Newton, Einstein - these built their effort and resistance to nonsense and peer pressure largely on the strength of their character. A sharp mind alone isn't enough, a sense of truth isn't enough - one needs to be the type of entity that can enforce, influence, imprint.

What brings the most radical change is the possibility of new values. It's always a specific character that points out this possibility.

It cant be disagreed with, my statement is true. My usage of the term Science is very (I believe appropriately) broad, but it includes everything from the harnessing of first fire, to the spear, to the bow and arrow, to the evolution of huts and homes, to the wheel, to language, to medicine, to food preparation and experimentation of meals, to the airplane and internet and cellphone and nuclear power plants. As I said, Discovery of natures principles and knowledge of how they work, their potential, and then implementing that knowledge into novel creations. That is the only thing that has ever changed humans, take it all away and we are slightly heightened monkeys again, though our physical and intellectual evolution went hand in hand with our recorded knowledge and stable physical environmental alterations (tools and clothing and methods of achieving what were strenuous labors with more ease, allowing more and more time for new intentions and improvements and discoveries).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:33 pm

Parodites wrote:
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.

Looking back on this thread, this was the only post of importance. Ah... What beautiful days those were!

I do, and I will.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Archer
Archer


Posts : 1246
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:32 pm

I am almost fearful of posting in this thread thinking that someone will jump on my ass. Hehehe.

That's not true, of course, but things did get a bit testy.

Anyhow, yes, Nietzsche was a moral philosopher. The morality of man, especially the morality of his day in Europe.

Sad that he became too sickly to finish his work. Yes, he had much work still to do.

Nothing wrong with tearing down old walls if they no longer serve their purpose. Nietzsche did that. But he only started at building new walls. Maybe he couldn't find a good reason to build new walls at all?


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3828
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:06 pm

Parodites wrote:
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.  

This is now the moment to understand the implication of this.

We can not anylonger theorize the whole of the world from the top down, from Man, let alone God.

We must start with the stuff that we consist of.

Bacteria need to be properly sanctified; our sanitary culture is insane, it is a direct rift between us and our ground and our self-valuing. We don't exist in this paradigm, where man supposedly leads, even if he is fully dependent on anything from algae to bees.

We have looked for our gods in the wrong direction, at least the desert religions have.

It has become clear to me that a tree-less culture is necessarily wretched. This is why the Hebrews work so hard to cultivate the land.

But we must indeed form an image of the world, each of us - mine begins with trees. They are the center of Earthly life. The superman will live in trees with the apes. He will also erect massive temples to Jupiter, cities fit for gods, but that is not his main concern; the Earth is his main concern. This is obvious, but it has been too harsh of a task until I came around. I am cynical, romantic and destructive enough for it.

Let the Storm come; men of Thor are gathered in dark psychic clouds... everywhere.

Time for some Elements.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Archer
Archer


Posts : 1246
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:40 am

I think it would be almost fair to suggest that Nietzsche was a tree hugger.

One can be properly inspired by being in contact with the living, not with the dead.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3828
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:00 pm

Indeed very much so.

I do believe the story that he collapsed at seeing the horse flagellated.
Personally I feel some of the same type of delicacy and loving dedication to reality when I read Nietzsche, as when I see a squirrel preparing for winter.


What Nietzsche was very easy in dismissing, as waste, is the human type that does not value the Earth or its own roots. He saw in this what it now proves to be - a risk to the entirety of life. It seems inevitable that great purging fires of hatred must now rage over the continents, as finally those whose ancestors fought against the priests now see their childrens lives compromised with a new horde of priests. The religion fo the Last Man - the Media - will battle with the religion of the otherworldlings, and together battle against mankind, who will be represented by the philosopher, and who will be happy in this battle, as it will finally be a battle where indeed one of the sides deserves to be extinguished - as it fights for and in the name of oblivion.

Otherworldly Religion always commits suicide-by-humanity. An otherworldling will always seek the minimum experience of existence, in going to fight those that are in fact alive - in the violence of his own end, he catches a glimpse of life. or so is my reading of the monotheistic mind

A great human struggle of all against all was always coming. The very act that organized religion, be it islam or the media, exists is absolute proof of the necessity of such a great struggle.

The aim is to frame this struggle in advance, so that all know the sides they are on, and it can all be dealt with quickly, so that the butterfly of the will may emerge from the cocoon of religion.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Archer
Archer


Posts : 1246
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:38 pm

Nice response. More detailed than I expected but I'm getting used to that from you. Smile

All living things are to be respected. Granted that most become food for others but that's the way of nature.

I don't know where the present day disrespect for the Earth will take man and other species. I know that man is causing the extinction of many species. When we start killing our food supply there will be chaos.

Have I mentioned that I am an Anarchist as well as an Atheist? This will explain why I view governments with the same distain as I view religions. They are nothing more than efforts to control the life of the people.

If the population of humans continues to increase there will soon be a great struggle. Yes indeed. I'm pretty old so I doubt I will see that day but many will have to deal with the damage others have done and created.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3828
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:35 am

Science is originally the product of a value: consistency of result.
All of scientific method and theory is grounded in this axiomatic standard.

We could extrapolate: if it is consistent, it is true, and if it is true, that is good (to know) -
because if gives control.

What it does not give, is understanding, or peace of mind.

The obstacle between method and understanding here, is that the method pre selects, it filters.
The method is not universal, as it only 'eats' those situations that lend themselves for isolating into stone-cold identicals repeating in hermetic patterns.

Rain does not form like this. Nor does earth, or man.
All science is still science-fiction.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sisyphus
Archer
Archer


Posts : 1246
Join date : 2016-08-06
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:40 pm

Well, I will still rely mostly on the scientific method and the processes of nature.

True that oftentimes we observe something and understand what we are observing but have no idea why it happened. This is beause of our ignorance of the facts and causes.

Nietzsche was a nature lover. Went walking all the time. I'm sure that while he was walking he was observing the processes in nature.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   

Back to top Go down
 
Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Interpretation :: Nietzsche Campfire-
Jump to: