"The Four Horsemen"

[Mudhammam]

Typical of mediocre minds. What else can I say?

What can you say? Probably not much. What will you say? Probably more than necessary.

[Pizza]

Typical of mediocre minds. What else can I say?

What can you say? Probably not much. What will you say? Probably more than necessary.

Mediocre minds quote dead philosopher instead of saying anything in their own words. Ironically Old Fred would hate him.

[Dystopia]

Arguably, Freud was greatly influenced by Nietzsche. He is considered by some as his heir, in certain ways. He[Freud] definitely admired the man and his thinking. This is why I brought him up.

Between Hume and Nietzsche, on the other hand, there is no such relationship to be found, though there are certain similarities between the two of them upon approaching some topics. At least some would have you believe so - I do not necessarily agree with this point of view.

Here's what Nietzsche makes of your prescious Hume and his kind of philosophy , in his Beyond Good And Evil[ as translated by Helen Zimmern and made available by The Project Guttenberg over at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm]
:

---

252. They are not a philosophical race—the English: Bacon represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally, Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do.—What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle—real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy. It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race to hold on firmly to Christianity—they NEED its discipline for "moralizing" and humanizing. The Englishman, more gloomy, sensual, headstrong, and brutal than the German—is for that very reason, as the baser of the two, also the most pious: he has all the MORE NEED of Christianity. To finer nostrils, this English Christianity itself has still a characteristic English taint of spleen and alcoholic excess, for which, owing to good reasons, it is used as an antidote—the finer poison to neutralize the coarser: a finer form of poisoning is in fact a step in advance with coarse-mannered people, a step towards spiritualization. The English coarseness and rustic demureness is still most satisfactorily disguised by Christian pantomime, and by praying and psalm-singing (or, more correctly, it is thereby explained and differently expressed); and for the herd of drunkards and rakes who formerly learned moral grunting under the influence of Methodism (and more recently as the "Salvation Army"), a penitential fit may really be the relatively highest manifestation of "humanity" to which they can be elevated: so much may reasonably be admitted. That, however, which offends even in the humanest Englishman is his lack of music, to speak figuratively (and also literally): he has neither rhythm nor dance in the movements of his soul and body; indeed, not even the desire for rhythm and dance, for "music." Listen to him speaking; look at the most beautiful Englishwoman WALKING—in no country on earth are there more beautiful doves and swans; finally, listen to them singing! But I ask too much...

---

Hume actually makes arguments as where Nietzsche just rants and insults people he doesn't like.

I missed you. Nice avatar

You must read The Anti-Christ. It is probably my favorite polemic.

Do you mean it literally or are just being sarcastic?

Typical of mediocre minds. What else can I say?

I'm so superior that I constantly need to shove my superiority down everyone's throat

[Mudhammam]

What can you say? Probably not much. What will you say? Probably more than necessary.

Mediocre minds quote dead philosopher instead of saying anything in their own words. Ironically Old Fred would hate him.

They also seem to think of themselves as qualified to compare writers whom they admittedly haven't read:

mostly Harris, since I didn't really read the other guys' books much) . . . Dennett, I don't know much about, but the fact that he's a philosopher is a definite plus for me.

The Discourses of Epictetus are brought to mind . . .

For indeed generally every faculty is dangerous when it comes into the hands of those who are without education and without real force, for it tends to exalt and puff them up. For how would it be possible to persuade the young man who excels in these arguments that he ought not to become dependent upon them, but to make them depend upon him? Instead of this he tramples under foot all we say to him and walks among us in a high state of elation, so puffed up that he cannot bear that any one should remind him how far he has fallen short and into what errors he has lapsed.

[Mudhammam]

I missed you. Nice avatar

I second that.

Do you mean it literally or are just being sarcastic?

No, I really meant it! I like Nietzsche even though he was wrong about a lot of stuff. See: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30055.html (#4)

[Excited Penguin]

I missed you. Nice avatar

I second that.

Do you mean it literally or are just being sarcastic?

No, I really meant it! I like Nietzsche even though he was wrong about a lot of stuff. See: https://atheistforums.org/thread-30055.html (#4)

What was he wrong about ?


I admit to being a Harris fanboy.

[Cato]

Typical of mediocre minds. What else can I say?

You can start by saying you're sorry. 

Science can help you build a nuclear weapon, but science doesn't decide whether or not you should build it or if built whether or not you should deploy it. Science, by its very nature, does not assign value. This is the job of philosophy, whether you recognize it as such or not. 

Harris and others that think otherwise are making a huge category mistake.

[Excited Penguin]

Typical of mediocre minds. What else can I say?

You can start by saying you're sorry. 

Science can help you build a nuclear weapon, but science doesn't decide whether or not you should build it or if built whether or not you should deploy it. Science, by its very nature, does not assign value. This is the job of philosophy, whether you recognize it as such or not. 

Harris and others that think otherwise are making a huge category mistake.

Sorry.

---

Science can tell you whether to build it or not by taking in all of the available information and following a simple guideline: general well-being.
You don't seem to understand what Harris means by science. Philosophy is somehow included - as far as it's helpful in establishing what morals we should pursue. As far as it's unnecessarily muddling the waters though, it's not welcome at all.

[Mudhammam]

What was he wrong about ?


I admit to being a Harris fanboy.

Just offhand, how about his moral egoism, for one, that what's right is what in one's self-interest . . . ? . . . Which led to his master-slave morality, where it is the master's obligation to command and the slave's obligation to obey. I would say that isn't really the ideal, i.e. what we should encourage others to strive towards, regardless if that is the nature of the world, the herd, etc. Or, his Will to Power, and that all action is borne out of a thirst for --- and ought to be done as an exercise of --- greatness and nobility, and never out of pity for the plight of others . . . seemed to me to be a little unsympathetic.

[Dystopia]

What was he wrong about ?


I admit to being a Harris fanboy.

Just offhand, how about his moral egoism, for one, that what's right is what in one's self-interest . . . ? . . . Which led to his master-slave morality, where it is the master's obligation to command and the slave's obligation to obey. I would say that isn't really the ideal, i.e. what we should encourage others to strive towards, regardless if that is the nature of the world, the herd, etc. Or, his Will to Power, and that all action is borne out of a thirst for --- and ought to be done as an exercise of --- greatness and nobility, and never out of pity for the plight of others . . . seemed to me to be a little unsympathetic.

He also implicitly suggested some degree of belief in the Eurabia conspiracy theory (that the sole purpose of muslim immigrants entering Europe is to conquer the territory and impose Sharia Law), which is a big letdown for someone who appears so "smart".