Possible Ph.d Thesis

Beer Baron wrote: People are predominantly self-interested. Self-interest can run amok and be harmful to society and the individual when people use appeals to tradition or higher authority (i.e. Religion) to justify their actions and hide (from both society and themselves) that their motivations are actually self serving.

In my casual study of religion this is what I've observed as well. Humans are generally pretty vile creatures historically and the role of religion has been to enforce "because GOD says so" rules, which carried more weight with the ignorant and uneducated that "because the chief/king/lord/etc says so".

Combine that with the general misery of life throughout history (short, hard and brutal) which makes a message of "this life may be hard but in the afterlife you'll get heaven/virgins/riches" sound to tempting. One can begin to see the appeal of "faith" on keeping the masses in check and placated else they rise up and take the riches they see concentrated in the hands of the few.

Marx had something to say on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

In reply to KyAllroad:

I do not believe "self interested" is inherently vile. Self interested can lead people to decide they would rather abide by societal rules, because everyone will benefit if they are able to devote their energy to producing things, rather than worrying that they need to defend what they've produced from someone who just wants to take it by force.

A big part of religion and social structures is to enforce the good of the community over the desires of the individual. Humans are communal, tribal animals. We need a group to survive. So making choices to sacrifice or take risk for the sake of the community improves the likelihood of survival for all individuals. Religion is a great way of maintaining social cohesion and enticing people to take necessary risks that remains stable as leadership changes. (E.g. the promise of heaven makes a man more willing to risk death or injury by going into battle to defend the tribe. But if he is not willing to take the risk, tribe could almost certainly be wiped out completely by an attack.)

Our technology and society have evolved to the point where we have different needs. We started to see more advanced, individualist philosophies as our society had done a good job of first making us relatively safe against nature. Then they advanced further as we'd made ourselves relatively safe against brigandry. Now, we've evolved to the point where our lives our safe and secure, that we are figuring out how to protect ourselves and ensure personal safety and liberty from the institutions that were created to protect us from the older threats to safety.

Just a few thoughts:

This doesn't really sound like an ethical exploration. It sounds more like a secular analysis of religious development. That is, it sounds more like sociology or a historical analysis than philosophy. To me, anyway.

I think you're fundamentally missing a key component of Christianity in your thinking, free will. Underlying the admonitions of love your neighbor, etc. is the understanding that the person has to act freely. Love in a Christian understanding is an act of the will, and doing good things freely is loving, but being forced by a political construct is not. So, by having the state forcibly redistribute wealth, the state is trying to assume the role as the primary moral actor over and above the persons in the state. Many of the religious staunch opposers of governmental welfare will often freely give/volunteer to charitable organizations.

What the previous paragraph is trying to get to is that I posit that many of the people you might place in the "B" camp are actually in the "C" camp. (The C camp being those faithful to Christ in both worship and action.) Religious orders are a prime example. They don't work in the context of the government or societal structures, but are directly feeding the poor, housing the homeless, teaching, etc. The men and women joining the orders are freely choosing to give their lives to the work.

Ultimately, what you need to keep in mind in this discussion is, "What is justice?" Is wealth inequality fundamentally wrong? Should a person who works diligently or is of more expertise be compensated for that excellence? Should a person who is able but unwilling to work get a living wage? Should a person who is willing but unable to work get a living wage? Should a dependent get a living wage? A second question to keep in mind is "Is it the government's responsibility to go beyond justice? To be a moral actor?"

Not that I need to write one, but these have been going through my mind and it would be cool to see some hard data and hypotheses as to why it is what it is.

Human Behavior 1 - Executives vs Working class - No offense to any executives. Sitting in the cafe at work, I noticed some interesting behavior. I can not draw any hard conclusions as the Executive sample was much smaller than the working class sample (most executives dont eat in our cafe), but percentage wise, it seemed executives are 2 or 3 time more likely to not push their chair in when they leave. But wait there is more, but this part is an assumption, I went to Dallas for a wedding, and made it a mini vacation also. The room we got was a t a higher end hotel, we had executive lounge privileges and took advantage of it quite a bit. I noticed, that some people picked up their plates, cups, and soda cans and put them on the trays provided at several spots around the room and pushed in their chairs, others just left everything on the table they sat at for hotel staff to clean up and left their chairs out. Now, in this case, I dont know who the executives were, but you know where the assumption is going.

Human Behavior 2 - Harley(style)riders vs All others Motorcyclists When I road on the street, and I continue to notice this of bikes are in front of me, that most Harley riders will only do the bike wave, or wave back to other Harley riders, while sport, adventure, dresser.... riders seem to wave at most all other bikes regardless of type.

Beer Baron wrote: My biggest critique, is that I do not buy the absolutism that this is *the* dominant paradigm in western ethics/politics. It would be easier, and more accurate to argue that this is a major paradigm, but not the dominant one. I also do not buy that either of the groups in this paradigm are following the ethics of Jesus.

Hmm, I'm fascinated by this. Could you explain why you think we don't have, basically, an ethically Jesus-like group that finds nobility in sickness, diesease, etc and an ethically more self-regarding group that finds nobility in success, power etc?

Beer Baron wrote: I'm not totally versed in non-western history and philosophy, but I suspect you would have a hard time proving the negative that this is a paradigm that exists exclusively in Christian philosophy. Nor do I believe this paradigm stems from Christian philosophy so much as stemming from... probably enlightenment philosophy. If you dropped the Wall Street banker and BLM activist into 15th century England, people would be just as confused.

Actually, in my reading of history, I think you could drop a BLM activist into a 2nd century Christian community and he would get along more or less fine. I think you could drop that banker into 15th century London and she'd be fine as well. 2nd century Christian communities were really ethically Christian. 15th century London was really formally Christian.

Athens wouldn't work and, in my experience, even modern South Korea wouldn't really work.

I don't think I have to prove the negative, mostly because I'm paraphrasing Nietzsche with regard to the divisions. Nietzsche is already established (and has been dead for 116 years) so ...

That said, one of the things I've noticed living in South Korea is that a lot of the things we take as very serious ethical issues in the States/Canada/Western Europe simply aren't things here. I think a huge part of it is that there isn't a tradition of fetishizing suffering in East Asia. Like, people feel sorry for the poor and the malformed etc, but there simply isn't the idea that being poor or oppressed or handicapped is anything but a bit of E36 M3ty luck and it certainly doesn't make you noble or more acceptable for God.

I do think we can call that elevation of suffering/sickness a unique part of the Abrahamic tradition.

Beer Baron wrote: I could be ill-informed in my understanding of theology/philosophy, but I'm not sure that the sort of people who seek to overthrow oppressors are actually following the ethics of Jesus. My understanding is that he was less "overthrow the oppressors" and more "blessed are the peace makers" and "turn the other cheek". I know less about Mohammed than I do about Jesus, but "Overthrow the oppressors" sounds more like Islam.

This is an excellent point. I had to think this over for a while before I answered because I didn't want to sound excessively stupid.

I really shouldn't have said overthrowing the oppressors because one of the early Christian outlooks, and something that's shared with the people I'm calling ethical Christians today, is this idea that being a victim is good.

I think Islam and Judaism share this, btw. The glorification of martyrdom is much less prevalent outside the Abrahamic tradition, as far as I can tell.

But yes, certainly, Islam is a lot more active when it comes to facing oppression. Early Christianity is more about waiting to die and deal with things in heaven.

scardeal wrote: Just a few thoughts: This doesn't really sound like an ethical exploration. It sounds more like a secular analysis of religious development. That is, it sounds more like sociology or a historical analysis than philosophy. To me, anyway. I think you're fundamentally missing a key component of Christianity in your thinking, free will. Underlying the admonitions of love your neighbor, etc. is the understanding that the person has to act freely. Love in a Christian understanding is an act of the will, and doing good things freely is loving, but being *forced* by a political construct is not. So, by having the state forcibly redistribute wealth, the state is trying to assume the role as the primary moral actor over and above the persons in the state. Many of the religious staunch opposers of governmental welfare will often freely give/volunteer to charitable organizations. What the previous paragraph is trying to get to is that I posit that many of the people you might place in the "B" camp are actually in the "C" camp. (The C camp being those faithful to Christ in both worship and action.) Religious orders are a prime example. They don't work in the context of the government or societal structures, but are directly feeding the poor, housing the homeless, teaching, etc. The men and women joining the orders are freely choosing to give their lives to the work. Ultimately, what you need to keep in mind in this discussion is, "What is justice?" Is wealth inequality fundamentally wrong? Should a person who works diligently or is of more expertise be compensated for that excellence? Should a person who is able but unwilling to work get a living wage? Should a person who is willing but unable to work get a living wage? Should a dependent get a living wage? A second question to keep in mind is "Is it the government's responsibility to go beyond justice? To be a moral actor?"

Thanks for the comment. I'm continually surprised and delighted by how well this forum handles my out of nowhere questions. You guys have now successfully helped me with a) plotting a novel b) understanding different theories about the end of the universe and now c) Nietzschean ethics.

I'm starting to think that people who enjoy re-engineering a 1987 Yugo for drag racing tend to be pretty intellectually curious in general.

So ...

I feel like I should explain the Nietzschean stuff underlying my possible thesis.

Nietzche's ideas all stem from the observation that ethics are not absolute. I actually don't totally accept this, but for the sake of this discussion we'll just assume I'm a Nietzsche clone. So, for the sake of argument, we have to just play along and believe that ethics are whatever we say they are. We could, theoretically, make an ethical system around the enjoyment of bbq human and it would be no more or less valid than whatever you and I follow now. Validity only comes to an ethics through its acceptance by a society or individual. Basically, through a popularity contest.

If you accept this, then there's the question of our ethical system's genealogy. According to Nietzsche, the original morality was a master's morality. In this morality, there is good and there is bad, but there isn't an evil. Good is that which pleases the master. Sex is good, money is good, power is good, boldness and bravery and beauty are good. Bad is that which displeases the master. Celibacy is bad, as is povety and weakness. Sickness is wrong and timidity is a sad mistake. Evil, with its connotations of hatred and revenge, isn't a concept at all. Bad things just suck, and that's the end. There's no more point in hating "evil" uglyness than there is in hating "evil" crappy weather.

The more I read about pre-Christian Rome, ancient Greece, ancient China, the Mongols etc, the more I think Neitzsche was on to something with his master morality.

According to Nietzsche, master morality is the first morality and it is also the morality most in tune with our "state of nature" existence. It is what we naturally do when we get rich or powerful. It is what our instincts demand of us. However, with the rise of civilization, we also saw the rise of the slave class. And, unfortunately for the masters, their morality is by its nature unavailable to the slaves. Telling a poor person to celebrate wealth is just cruel. Telling an ugly and awkward person to "get your game on" in a nightclub isn't very helpful.

These people cannot have sex, money, power or beauty and so they resent the masters. They invent the concept of evil and perform, as Nietzsche says, "the inversion of all values." That is, they make (good) wealth into (evil) greed. They make (good) sex into (evil) fornication. Likewise, the things that are bad to the master become virtues to the slave. Humility is now admirable. Suffering is a sign of goodness. Read the beatitudes and you can see exactly how this inversion of everything we naturally desire informs the morality of slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

So, when I talk about a formal Christian (a Nietzschean master), I'm really not talking about people who don't want to support socialism. I'm talking about people who like themselves, like their instincts and want to fulfill their natural desires. This applies as much to mega church millionaire pastors as it does Richard Branson or Pablo Escobar. Likewise, when I talk about an ethical Christian (a Nietzschean slave), I'm really talking as much about stuffy old women who pooh-pooh "kids these days" as I am about BLM activists or Marxists.

This is all just Nietzsche ^

My project (if this doesn't end up being a thesis, it will end up being a book) is to build on Nietzsche's master slave paradigm to do two things:

1. Show how both master and slave morality leads to decline.
2. Propose an alternative third way.

If you really want to dig into this, here's a sketch of what I propose. https://bengarrido.com/ethics-that-dont-suck/

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: My biggest critique, is that I do not buy the absolutism that this is *the* dominant paradigm in western ethics/politics. It would be easier, and more accurate to argue that this is a major paradigm, but not the dominant one. I also do not buy that either of the groups in this paradigm are following the ethics of Jesus.

Hmm, I'm fascinated by this. Could you explain why you think we don't have, basically, an ethically Jesus-like group that finds nobility in sickness, diesease, etc and an ethically more self-regarding group that finds nobility in success, power etc?

I am not arguing that the two groups you are describing do not exist. I am challenging your argument that the two groups you describe define the dominant ethical paradigm(s) of western civilization.

My counter argument that I believe more accurately describes the phenomena you are looking at comes from a couple key principles:

1. People are predominantly self-interested. Self-interested is not necessarily self centered or selfish - although it often becomes that through short-sightedness.
2. People want to be valuable and will see themselves and others like them as valuable. They form their values based on their actions, rather than basing their actions on their values.

For the above ethics are a form of value. Or rather, balancing competing values are what define ethical dilemmas.

So, what people do is that they take whatever it is they do or are, and they find a way to define that as the noblest thing. This is not necessarily master/slave as exists in your model. People with money and influence define that as noblest. People who work and labor define that as noblest. People who create art define that as noblest. People who suffer hardship define that as noblest.

You come back to suffering and slavery as the counter to the "master" morality. You originally said this was the ethics of Jesus, but really it's not, you've established that it's more Abrahamic. So, what was the tribe of Abraham doing when they began codifying their ethics? Well... book one of the Bible is about creation, and book two is about... being slaves who toil and are freed from bondage because their God is more powerful. Yes, that would explain why traditions stemming from that would develop a system that believes a group struggling under oppression is the noble one.

Now, although this strain of ethics is woven into our culture, people continue to develop their own ethics. Once again, those ethics are defined by their actions, rather than defining them. People will act based on desire and self-interest. They will formulate ethics to justify those actions and enoble themselves. They will fabricate authority to strengthen their certainty.

It is not that people are actually following the ethics of Jesus. It is that, in a predominantly Christian nation, Jesus is sort of the ultimate Appeal to Authority/Appeal to Tradition. So, they will find a few points where their decisions align with their understanding of the Bible, and then infer that since they agree on Points A, B, and C, the Bible/Jesus also agrees with them on Points D, E, and F. Then they will act out of self interest and feel justified and noble.

Before you go much further, I suggest you take a look at the book "Technopoly".

DaewooOfDeath wrote: My project (if this doesn't end up being a thesis, it will end up being a book) is to build on Nietzsche's master slave paradigm to do two things: 1. Show how both master and slave morality leads to decline. 2. Propose an alternative third way. If you really want to dig into this, here's a sketch of what I propose. https://bengarrido.com/ethics-that-dont-suck/

Okay, I'm going back to my thing about self-interest. It's the difference between Enlightened and Unenlightened Self-Interest. Most people just do what they want out of self interest and then find ways to justify it. Developing a code on how to interact with people to genuinely benefit yourself in the long-term - even if that means sacrificing some short term power or luxury - and then using that to guide behavior, is pretty rare.

Fundamentally, convincing people to do that is noble, but it's not human nature.

I mean... that's what the constitution was all about. That's what the Federalist Papers describe. The vast majority of people are selfish, and you need formal systems that balance the selfish wills of opposing factions against each other to prevent any one faction from gaining enough power to completely enforce it's will on the others. Then, you try to allow enough flexibility so that individuals who actually exhibit enlightened self interest can gain traction to convince people to join together to resolve an issue rather than just struggling in stalemate.

(Example of enlightened self interest: Henry Ford - built a hugely successful business because he realized he'd gain more if he treated employees well. Give them time off and pay them enough to afford the vehicles they helped build. Although that diminishes short-term profits, it enhances long-term health of the company and he ultimately benefitted more than someone more selfish than him might have.)

If you were in the field of physics, I would have suggested the elasticity of various canned meats, but your thesis probably has more merit.

In reply to DaewooOfDeath:

(If any of this is "out of bounds", please let me know. It's not really the intention, I'm just talking out of my expertise.)

Interesting. I'm not sure if I can be of much more help, as my experience is far more in Christian (specifically Catholic) theology moreso than in philosophy. I pretty much reject Nietsche's understanding of ethics out of hand as I see ethics rooted directly in human nature. That is, ethics (what we often call "natural moral law") as a Catholic would see it, is the rational analysis of the nature of humanity and the resulting evaluation of actions as it pertains to the good, both individually and collectively. There are some pretty big assumptions there which some modern philosophers reject, and I'm probably not well-equipped to argue in favor of them.

Another big thing is the inherent brokenness of humanity, ie Original Sin. Most Christianity believes that our nature is broken to some degree by Original Sin, and you have a range of beliefs of its seriousness. Catholics are somewhere in the middle. Perhaps this understanding of original sin might map to the inversion of values you speak of.

One important thought that might be of note to your studies/thesis is that modern notes that most (but not all) choices don't directly intend evil, per se, but they tend to choose evils in pursuit of lesser good. For example, an adulterer chooses the temporary thrill/pleasure of that double life despite the probable fallout of hurting his spouse/family, lack of integrity (breaking vows), financial fallout of divorce (alimony), further dilemmas if a child is conceived, etc. Whether it's for the thrill or connection or whatnot, the adulterer needs to ask himself if the same scenario will redevelop later for the same reasons.

I'm pretty well familiar with the Beatitudes, and should probably study them more. However, your stated interpretation of them and Christian theology in general seems a little overly simplistic. One reason that people spend their whole lives studying the Bible and theology is that the Bible is far from a simple document and it's not a straightforward manual or treatise. I do think you're doing good in researching Church Fathers in addition to Scripture proper because it reveals how they approached and understood Christianity. If you want a list of "the essentials", I have contacts to help me compile a list, but a good start might be Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Athanasius, Origen and Tertullian in no particular order. You might want to also look at someone like Thomas Aquinas too if you're interested in seeing how the thought developed further.

Going a little back on topic more, I'll need to check out your website.

After thinking about it, I really think you can't cleanly cut up Christianity into establishment (or power) vs anti-establishment (or slave). It doesn't really operate on those lines. It's got a specific goal, and people who are viewed as anti-establishment in one age often wind up looking like establishment in another. Or vice versa. If you look at it through that lens, then many Christian heroes (Catholic ones, at least) make little or no sense. I'll have to expand later, though.

Beer Baron:

"People are predominantly self-interested. Self-interested is not necessarily self centered or selfish - although it often becomes that through short-sightedness.

People want to be valuable and will see themselves and others like them as valuable. They form their values based on their actions, rather than basing their actions on their values.

So, what people do is that they take whatever it is they do or are, and they find a way to define that as the noblest thing. This is not necessarily master/slave as exists in your model. People with money and influence define that as noblest. People who work and labor define that as noblest. People who create art define that as noblest. People who suffer hardship define that as noblest."

I think Nietzsche would agree with this. This idea that you act first and then make up the morals to justify whatever you already are or do." The difference is where those actions begin. If they begin the "yes," that is to say if the persons actions or nature comes about because that's what the person's instincts dictate, that person is a master. If the actions begin in impotence, if they begin in "no," if they are counter to natural instincts, that person is a slave.

Actually, a lot of the masters don't even bother with the justification part. I recently read a book called Floating City about hookers and drug dealers in New York. It was amazing how little time the rich hookers spent justifying their prostitution. "I want to do it, I want the money, end of story." That's a total master mentality. Contrast that with the lower class hookers, who fell over themselves justifying the unavoidable sin and corruption of their sad lives. "I only do this horrible, evil stuff because I have no other choice and, btw, aren't I noble for how much I suffer?"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/12/floating-city-sudhir-venkatesh-review

scardeal wrote: In reply to DaewooOfDeath: (If any of this is "out of bounds", please let me know. It's not really the intention, I'm just talking out of my expertise.) Interesting. I'm not sure if I can be of much more help, as my experience is far more in Christian (specifically Catholic) theology moreso than in philosophy. I pretty much reject Nietsche's understanding of ethics out of hand as I see ethics rooted directly in human nature. That is, ethics (what we often call "natural moral law") as a Catholic would see it, is the rational analysis of the nature of humanity and the resulting evaluation of actions as it pertains to the good, both individually and collectively. There are some pretty big assumptions there which some modern philosophers reject, and I'm probably not well-equipped to argue in favor of them. Another big thing is the inherent brokenness of humanity, ie Original Sin. Most Christianity believes that our nature is broken to some degree by Original Sin, and you have a range of beliefs of its seriousness. Catholics are somewhere in the middle. Perhaps this understanding of original sin might map to the inversion of values you speak of. One important thought that might be of note to your studies/thesis is that modern notes that most (but not all) choices don't directly intend evil, per se, but they tend to choose evils in pursuit of lesser good. For example, an adulterer chooses the temporary thrill/pleasure of that double life despite the probable fallout of hurting his spouse/family, lack of integrity (breaking vows), financial fallout of divorce (alimony), further dilemmas if a child is conceived, etc. Whether it's for the thrill or connection or whatnot, the adulterer needs to ask himself if the same scenario will redevelop later for the same reasons. I'm pretty well familiar with the Beatitudes, and should probably study them more. However, your stated interpretation of them and Christian theology in general seems a little overly simplistic. One reason that people spend their whole lives studying the Bible and theology is that the Bible is far from a simple document and it's not a straightforward manual or treatise. I do think you're doing good in researching Church Fathers in addition to Scripture proper because it reveals how they approached and understood Christianity. If you want a list of "the essentials", I have contacts to help me compile a list, but a good start might be Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Athanasius, Origen and Tertullian in no particular order. You might want to also look at someone like Thomas Aquinas too if you're interested in seeing how the thought developed further. Going a little back on topic more, I'll need to check out your website.

If it is out of bounds, I very much don't mind.

I'm probably coming across as a fire breathing anti-Christian atheist in this thread. I promise I'm neither. One of my strongest beliefs is that strong beliefs are generally unwarranted. In other words, I'm willing to seriously entertain almost anything and certainty, rather than impressing me, makes me suspicious. I'm messing around with Neitzsche because I think he was a rare genius, I find his ideas fascinating and I admire the sheer scale of his originality. Like for example - he makes the best argument I've seen yet for atheism.

I generally find atheist arguments from people like Dawkins or Hitchens pretty stupid. They basically have a bunch of unexamined assumptions and a predetermined conclussion and then paper over everything with several layers of certainty and this goofy idea that science somehow implies things like ethics, ontology or teleology. In other words, I think they're crappy intellectuals.

By contrast, Nietzsche's atheism is aesthetic. You read that correctly. Just incredibly original thinking. I don't accept his conclusion, but the thinking is so striking it kind of doesn't matter if I agree or not.

http://aestheticstoday.blogspot.kr/2013/10/nietzsches-birth-of-tragedy-and.html

Speaking of rare geniuses whose thinking is so original I kind of don't care about the conclusions, you mentioned Tomas Aquinas. I admire that man immensely. I find his proofs for deism very persuasive and his idea that there's a direct relationship between abstraction and knowability is serving as the backbone of my current novel project. If you aren't familiar with this idea, I'll sketch it here quickly - pure abstractions like mathematics are knowable to a basically infinite extent. Things like cats, which are far less abstract are likewise much less knowable. God, which Aquinas defines as the ultimate reality is likewise the least abstract thing possible and thus completely unknowable. Once again, I'm not sure if I believe this, but the idea's so cool I don't really care.

I'm also a huge Kierkegaard fanboy, if you're interested. Fear and Trembling is one of the most amazing books I've ever read. It's so incredibly original, mysterious and deep. It's violently beautiful and profound. If Nietzsche offered the most convincing atheistic argument I've ever seen, Kierkegaard offered the most convincing theistic argument. Ironically, he was a rough contemporary of Nietzsche and is considered, along with Nietzsche, co-father of existentialism despite the fact that he and Nietzsche would agree on roughly nothing.

So, I hope I didn't go too far out of bounds here.

To address the specific things you brought up, orignal sin. The idea that humanity is inherently dirty/broken/bad is, for Nietzsche, absolutely a case study is slave morality self-hatred. He would contrast this with the master morality of something like the Greek Dionysian cults where human beings are inherently cool and should celebrate the awesomeness of life. Nietzsche probably wasn't overly familiar with Confucius, but I would add at this point that the Confucian tradition is very different from a Dionysian cult but still holds that people are naturally good. Original sin is one of the reasons Nietzsche considers early Christianity the ultimate slave morality. It's also pretty unique to the Abrahamics.

(Although I should point out that he considers Jesus a relatively benign ethicist for the slaves. His real problem is with Paul, whom he clearly detests.)

As for the beatitudes and Tertullian, they seem to me pretty clear examples of resentment. I mean, Tertullian getting off imagining monarchs, philosophers, dancers etc "liquifying" in eternal flame seems pretty resentful to me.

Lastly, I don't really think there is a clean division between establishment Christians and anti-establishment Christians. It's pretty clear my ethical Christianity and formal Christianity terms are just confusing everyone. My apologies.

Would it make more sense if I said instinctual and counter-instinctual? As in, people who love their instinctual desires and people who reject/fear/resent their instinctual desires?

You don't sound fire-breathing to me. Far from it.

The interesting thing I see about the Catholic approach to Original Sin (OS) is that it is balanced and nuanced. It's also why I find John Paul II's discussion of "Theology of the Body" fascinating. There are definitely people claiming to be Christian that essentially deny OS (and sometimes sin entirely), and there are others who claim that OS essentially corrupted man's nature such that there is no good in him at all. The Catholic approach is that mankind was created good, perfectly good. At the time of Original Sin, humanity's nature was damaged. It wasn't completely broken beyond repair, and it it still inherently good, just not perfect as it once was. What are your thoughts on concupiscence? Concupiscence being that we have desires that are contrary to our good.

I look at instinctual desires and I clearly see that some of them are have good results and some of them have bad results. That's even when I condense it down to "does it achieve what I think or desire it to achieve?" Addictions are the classic case where pursuing desires only leaves one less fulfilled. Yet, other desires, when pursued, bring more fulfillment. How would traditional Christians vs Marx, etc. slot into this instinctual/counter-instinctual balance?

I don't think Neitzsche really had a stand on OS. I'm not sure he thought it was important if people were naturally good/bad/perfect - they kind of just are.

For me personally, I actually don't know what to make of that question. Good and bad are relative terms so if you ask me if people are naturally good or bad my first question is simply "relative to what?" My second question is "by what standard?"

I get the feeling that most people mean "relative to my ideals" and "by the standard of my personal tastes." Some others would seem to say "relative to God" and "by the standard of scripture." I'm not sure that second approach is actually an improvement. One of the Kierkegaardisms I find really interesting is that any relationship to God will be, by its nature, "absolute rather than universal," meaning it won't ever be something you can share with other people. That's awesome, but it also makes generalizing humanity's goodness or badness a pretty tall order.

Concupiscence, the imp of the perverse, the death drive - yeah that's a good question. For Nietzsche, embracing concupiscence is a type of master morality, but it's a vulgar version. I should point out that Nietzsche didn't think master morality was the answer. I mean, he went after slave morality a lot harder than master morality but I get the feeling that is mostly becauase he thought the slaves were winning. This is where we need to add the concept of the ubermenschen.

So let's say we instinctually desire unprotected intercourse with drug addicted street prostitutes. A slave decides that sexuality is evil (inverts values) and spends all his time suppressing his desires (denying life). A master taps that ass (acts naturally) and gets AIDS (suffers vulgarity and ugliness). An ubermenschen understands and loves his instinct but has also achieved mastery over those instincts. The ubermenschen would change the rules of the game until he can both get what he wants and do it in a beautiful way - marrying Michelle Pfiefer or something like that.

I'd say that a typical Marxist is very counter-instinctual. After all, they revolt against a ton of the things we naturally desire like power, prestige, wealth, status and luxury. A nun-type Christian would also be counter instinctual what with the vows of poverty and celibacy. A mega church pastor who drives a Rolls Royce and lives in Beverly Hills is instinctual.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: I think Nietzsche would agree with this. This idea that you act first and then make up the morals to justify whatever you already are or do." The difference is where those actions begin. If they begin the "yes," that is to say if the persons actions or nature comes about because that's what the person's instincts dictate, that person is a master. If the actions begin in impotence, if they begin in "no," if they are counter to natural instincts, that person is a slave.

I would disagree on two points of definition:

1. Self interest is not the same as selfishness.
2. Our natural instincts are not necessarily selfish.

Look at what would have helped humans survive in pre-history or early civilization. Look what people do when faced with disaster or survival situations. The natural state is communal tribalism. We seek to benefit our tribe, because we will die without it. People will naturally share resources and care for the sick/injured. Although it is not selfish, those actions are self-centered because it means that when the person is well, there will be more bodies to provide for and protect the tribe. If you get sick or injured, you will be cared for.

In a tribal state, you can survive as a leader, but not really a "master". The leader gets benefits of status, authority, and resources, but is also expected to do more to ensure the survival of the tribe. If the leader does not carry their weight, they will be challenged and potentially ousted. This could mean death or exile (which is essentially death).

Similarly, a tribe needs followers. As the saying goes, you don't want "Too many chiefs, and not enough indians." You need most people to seek to be quieter workers, and only a small number of people to seek to be leaders to allow for a natural selection of the best in those roles. You'll see that structure in most successful businesses.

The "master" mentality you describe can only come from an unnatural situation of people being able to gain power, but with the consequences of their actions removed.

I see the problems arising not from a diametric struggle of two opposed philosophies, but through naturally symbiotic states becoming unbalanced and unhealthy.

(I'm sure I can find a similar analogy on how "slave" morality is really an unbalanced version of "follower" morality. I'm just going to have to think on it.)

DaewooOfDeath wrote: For me personally, I actually don't know what to make of that question. Good and bad are relative terms so if you ask me if people are naturally good or bad my first question is simply "relative to what?" My second question is "by what standard?"

Yes, I agree that the evaluation of good and bad are only relevant when compared to a standard. (Aside, that's why Progressivism doesn't make sense. There's usually no defined ideal that it's actually progressing towards.) I'm reminded of a line from GK Chesteron's Orthodoxy:

We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have) a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death. But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse, he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all. He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first. Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment on the cat by keeping him alive. Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence, so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing in the cat the torture of conscious existence.

Going on...

Concupiscence, the imp of the perverse, the death drive - yeah that's a good question. For Nietzsche, embracing concupiscence is a type of master morality, but it's a vulgar version. I should point out that Nietzsche didn't think master morality was the answer. I mean, he went after slave morality a lot harder than master morality but I get the feeling that is mostly becauase he thought the slaves were winning. This is where we need to add the concept of the ubermenschen. So let's say we instinctually desire unprotected intercourse with drug addicted street prostitutes. A slave decides that sexuality is evil (inverts values) and spends all his time suppressing his desires (denying life). A master taps that ass (acts naturally) and gets AIDS (suffers vulgarity and ugliness). An ubermenschen understands and loves his instinct but has also achieved mastery over those instincts. The ubermenschen would change the rules of the game until he can both get what he wants and do it in a beautiful way - marrying Michelle Pfiefer or something like that.

Last night, I was listening to the first of a 4 CD set of talks by a theologian/speaker named Christopher West whose focus is somewhat decompressing or making accessible concepts from John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and one of the key takeaways sounded something similar to this ubermenschen. That concupiscence is a twisting of good desires such that they become evil. He posited that we can react to these concupiscent desires in one of three ways: Stoicism (repression), addiction (indulging the desires as-is) and mysticism (getting to the good root of the concupiscent desire and essentially untwisting it). He used the analogy of a rocket engine pointed downwards. The stoic would simply fight the rocket engine and view it as evil and try to destroy it. The addict would let the rocket engine drive him into the ground. The mystic would turn the rocket so as to assist him rather than hinder him.

One of the upshots of this is that you don't really wind up too happy as the addict or the stoic. If you try to be the stoic, it's a rather unstable position, as you are fighting just to stay still, and you'll see people who vacillate between the stoicism and addiction.

I'd say that a typical Marxist is very counter-instinctual. After all, they revolt against a ton of the things we naturally desire like power, prestige, wealth, status and luxury. A nun-type Christian would also be counter instinctual what with the vows of poverty and celibacy. A mega church pastor who drives a Rolls Royce and lives in Beverly Hills is instinctual.

I can't really speak too much of mega church pastors or Marxists, but I know lots of priests and nuns (and a few in formation). Continuing the thought above about how we react to those desires, the unhappy ones are the ones who are reacting to those desires in a repressive way. The happy ones don't feel like they're really repressing anything. They (the happy ones) see that they are embracing a particular desire that really transforms their other desires to align with that primary desire.

And, perhaps more on point, amongst adults, we really don't see anyone who is purely instinctual or purely counter-instinctual. I'm not sure if anyone really is purely counter-instinctual. The only purely instinctual people that I've seen are small children or handicapped with the mind of a small child. I do think there are a few people who would be considered pure mystics (according to CW's definition) where concupiscence is essentially eliminated in their life.

Beer Baron wrote: I would disagree on two points of definition: 1. Self interest is not the same as selfishness. 2. Our natural instincts are not necessarily selfish. Look at what would have helped humans survive in pre-history or early civilization. Look what people do when faced with disaster or survival situations. The natural state is communal tribalism. We seek to benefit our tribe, because we will die without it. People will naturally share resources and care for the sick/injured. Although it is not selfish, those actions are self-centered because it means that when the person is well, there will be more bodies to provide for and protect the tribe. If you get sick or injured, you will be cared for. In a tribal state, you can survive as a leader, but not really a "master". The leader gets benefits of status, authority, and resources, but is also expected to do more to ensure the survival of the tribe. If the leader does not carry their weight, they will be challenged and potentially ousted. This could mean death or exile (which is essentially death). Similarly, a tribe needs followers. As the saying goes, you don't want "Too many chiefs, and not enough indians." You need most people to seek to be quieter workers, and only a small number of people to seek to be leaders to allow for a natural selection of the best in those roles. You'll see that structure in most successful businesses. The "master" mentality you describe can only come from an *un*natural situation of people being able to gain power, but with the consequences of their actions removed.

I certainly agree with you that selfish desires are not necessarily bad. I think Nietzsche would agree with you as well. One of his big things is that it's pointless to be ashamed of the things you naturally want/are/feel.

I'm not sure a master morality requires being a dick. It's simply an acceptance of what you want and a belief that the things you want/do are good. It's an attitude that comes from having enough power to get what you want.

Also, slave morality isn't bad, per se. One of the reasons Nietzsche seems to like Jesus and view him as a worthy opponent is because Nietzsche freely admits that there will always be slaves and those slaves need morality too. For a slave, then, Jesus style Christianity is fine. Paul-style Christianity certainly isn't fine, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Beer Baron wrote: I see the problems arising not from a diametric struggle of two opposed philosophies, but through naturally symbiotic states becoming unbalanced and unhealthy. (I'm sure I can find a similar analogy on how "slave" morality is really an unbalanced version of "follower" morality. I'm just going to have to think on it.)

What are these naturally symbiotic states?

P.S. you know have me thinking about Heraclitus and his idea that tension and struggle are the actual stuff nature is made of.

scardeal wrote: We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have) a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death. But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse, he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all. He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first. Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment on the cat by keeping him alive. Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence, so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing in the cat the torture of conscious existence. Going on... *** Last night, I was listening to the first of a 4 CD set of talks by a theologian/speaker named Christopher West whose focus is somewhat decompressing or making accessible concepts from John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and one of the key takeaways sounded something similar to this ubermenschen. That concupiscence is a twisting of good desires such that they become evil. He posited that we can react to these concupiscent desires in one of three ways: Stoicism (repression), addiction (indulging the desires as-is) and mysticism (getting to the good root of the concupiscent desire and essentially untwisting it). He used the analogy of a rocket engine pointed downwards. The stoic would simply fight the rocket engine and view it as evil and try to destroy it. The addict would let the rocket engine drive him into the ground. The mystic would turn the rocket so as to assist him rather than hinder him. One of the upshots of this is that you don't really wind up too happy as the addict or the stoic. If you try to be the stoic, it's a rather unstable position, as you are fighting just to stay still, and you'll see people who vacillate between the stoicism and addiction. *** I can't really speak too much of mega church pastors or Marxists, but I know lots of priests and nuns (and a few in formation). Continuing the thought above about how we react to those desires, the unhappy ones are the ones who are reacting to those desires in a repressive way. The happy ones don't feel like they're really repressing anything. They (the happy ones) see that they are embracing a particular desire that really transforms their other desires to align with that primary desire. And, perhaps more on point, amongst adults, we really don't see anyone who is purely instinctual or purely counter-instinctual. I'm not sure if anyone really is purely counter-instinctual. The only purely instinctual people that I've seen are small children or handicapped with the mind of a small child. I do think there are a few people who would be considered pure mystics (according to CW's definition) where concupiscence is essentially eliminated in their life.

I'm curious about the theology of the body. Could you give me a quick summary or point me towards a good source. I would just do it by myself, but being the internet, it's probably better if you point me in a thoughtful direction.

I think Nietzsche's slave is pretty analogous to West's Stoic, though I'm not sure a real stoic such as Marcus Aurelius would recognize himself in that portrayal. The master doesn't necessarily have to be an addict, but certainly can be. Probably a better example of a master is a Mongolian Steppe barbarian or a Richard Branson type. People who aren't ashamed of their desires. People who haven't even thought to be ashamed of their desires.

The mystic idea does seem roughly analogous to an ubermenschen, but I should point out that an ubermensch is intensely creative. There's an element of revolution and certainly an idea that you should wholesale reject "the rocket" and the values it represents and make your own rocket.

I'd agree that real adults aren't entirely instinctual or counter-instinctual, but don't you think people tend to be inclined one way or the other?

DaewooOfDeath wrote: What are these naturally symbiotic states?

Leader and Followers. Or Leader and Workers.

A good leader needs to have the best interests of the people they lead as their highest priority. Their responsibility is to care for the members of their tribe. If they don't care for the people they lead, they will not have the trust necessary for the group to succeed. They take advice and counsel from the people they lead, but make the final decision of what direction to go and take the ultimate responsibility for success or failure.

The mass of workers needs a good leader to have a single direction and vision that can make executive decisions quickly in times of crisis. They need a head to be able to act as a unit, because they will be stronger unified than as a collection of individuals working at odds with each other. If the group works well together, everyone receives more reward. The leader will get the largest cut of resources, because they take on the most responsibility and risk, but everyone benefits.

In ancient or prehistoric times, it would be the tribe leader or shaman and the hunting or warrior party that follows them. In modern terms, it's the relationship between a good manager or company owner and employees, or a good officer and enlisted personnel.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: People who aren't ashamed of their desires. People who haven't even thought to be ashamed of their desires.

Who's to say that followers are ashamed of their desires? Maybe their desires are just more modest.

The flaw is assuming that all humans desire the same things, in the same ways, to the same degrees, with the same order of priorities.

Many people don't actually desire glory and the nicest things. They just want comfort and stability. They would rather work 40 hours a week, earn enough, go home, and not stress about work rather than take on the stress of constant focus on running a business in the hopes that they can strike it rich.

Maybe they want sex, but would genuinely prefer to focus their energies on a single romantic partner rather than try to juggle the emotions of a dozen partners.

This isn't even binary. People exist all across the continuum. I don't want to own a company, nor do I just want to be a grunt floor worker. I want the responsibility, status, and reward of taking care of a single division or aspect of a larger group.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: I'm curious about the theology of the body. Could you give me a quick summary or point me towards a good source. I would just do it by myself, but being the internet, it's probably better if you point me in a thoughtful direction. I think Nietzsche's slave is pretty analogous to West's Stoic, though I'm not sure a real stoic such as Marcus Aurelius would recognize himself in that portrayal. I'd agree that real adults aren't entirely instinctual or counter-instinctual, but don't you think people tend to be inclined one way or the other?

The "master work", so to speak, would be the collection of John Paul II's homilies delivered over the course of several years. https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Human-Divine-Parish-Resources/dp/0819873942/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1468854791&sr=8-2&keywords=theology+of+the+body+john+paul+ii

You might also appreciate his earlier work, Love and Responsibility, which is a work of philosophy, rather than theology. https://www.amazon.com/Love-Responsibility-Karol-Wojtyla/dp/0898704456/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468855445&sr=1-3&keywords=love+and+responsibility

Christopher West has written several books trying to unpack the original for a broader audience:
https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Body-Explained-Commentary-Created/dp/0819874256/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468855502&sr=1-8&keywords=christopher+west

https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Introduction-Revolution/dp/1934217859/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468855502&sr=1-1&keywords=christopher+west

I'd agree that West's stoicism is different than formal Stoicism.

Finally, yes, I also agree that adults still tend to fall one way or the other in instinctual vs counter-instinctual. Would it also bear any relationship to the Meyers-Briggs T/F axis in personality?
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm

Beer Baron wrote: Who's to say that followers are ashamed of their desires? Maybe their desires are just more modest. The flaw is assuming that all humans desire the same things, in the same ways, to the same degrees, with the same order of priorities. Many people don't actually desire glory and the nicest things. They just want comfort and stability. They would rather work 40 hours a week, earn enough, go home, and not stress about work rather than take on the stress of constant focus on running a business in the hopes that they can strike it rich. Maybe they want sex, but would genuinely prefer to focus their energies on a single romantic partner rather than try to juggle the emotions of a dozen partners. This isn't even binary. People exist all across the continuum. I don't want to own a company, nor do I just want to be a grunt floor worker. I want the responsibility, status, and reward of taking care of a single division or aspect of a larger group.

Have you ever met a 6 year old with modest desires?

I think this modesty is, at least a little bit, an admission of defeat and a learned strategy for coping with that defeat.

Beer Baron wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: What are these naturally symbiotic states?

Leader and Followers. Or Leader and Workers. A good leader needs to have the best interests of the people they lead as their highest priority. Their responsibility is to care for the members of their tribe. If they don't care for the people they lead, they will not have the trust necessary for the group to succeed. They take advice and counsel from the people they lead, but make the final decision of what direction to go and take the ultimate responsibility for success or failure. The mass of workers needs a good leader to have a single direction and vision that can make executive decisions quickly in times of crisis. They need a head to be able to act as a unit, because they will be stronger unified than as a collection of individuals working at odds with each other. If the group works well together, everyone receives more reward. The leader will get the largest cut of resources, because they take on the most responsibility and risk, but everyone benefits. In ancient or prehistoric times, it would be the tribe leader or shaman and the hunting or warrior party that follows them. In modern terms, it's the relationship between a good manager or company owner and employees, or a good officer and enlisted personnel.

I'm not sure I agree - I'd argue that leadership is the art of sacrificing others for your goals and then hoping those goals are worthy enough to justify the sacrifice - but even if I do, I'm not sure master and leader are the same thing. Nor am I sure follower and slave are the same thing.

A playboy who does whatever he wants and has no responsibility would seem to disrupt the parallels, for example. As would an artist who is okay enough with the starving part of the starving artist trope to quit whenever he disagrees with his clients.