[quote]Wreckless wrote:
But mention that Bush might bear some responsiility in the Iraq disaster, and this guy starts foaming at the mouth.[/quote]
Here we go again. Another interesting thread shits the bed.
I’ll keep it going.
If you all don’t agree with me, you must be gay.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
What is interesting however is the crude attempt by HH to link a philosopher who’s ideas he doesn’t like to raping 2 year old babies.
[/quote]
This isn’t a “crude attempt.” Have you ever read Candide? Spinoza wasn’t Leibniz, but the problem that Voltaire was addressing was similar. Following the idea of a “clockwork universe,” that is, a universe that obeys natural laws and whose future could be known were we able to acquire enough information, Leibniz and others came up with “optimism.” Distorting it more than a little, Voltaire distilled the philosophy to the idea that we live in “the best of all possible worlds.” As such, the “philosopher” Pangloss ignores the horror and depravity of the world, and avoids involvement with it. After all, it’s the best possible world.
While I think HH may be overreaching with regard to Spinoza, he does so in the spirit of Voltaire (not shabby company, I might add). The question is whether Spinoza argues for complete non-involvement and moral indifference. If he makes those arguments, it is truly a pernicious philosophy. If one can accept that will is not truly free, yet that we are compelled, in spite of or due to the illusion of a free will, to act in the world in the best way we know, the philosophy is much less troublesome.
I’ve always been interested in the root cause of things, esp why people do what they do.
At every moment, we have to ask ourselves (subconsciously or at a low level, of course): ‘Right or wrong?’ Everything we do is determined by our answer to this question. Your life is a infinite sequence of answering this. “Should I work now, or loaf?” “Should I eat this food or not?” How we answer is determined by who taught us decision making, what IS right or wrong, and so forth. Your philosophy determines who and what you are.
So, when a philosopher comes up with an idea, such as ‘No Free Will’, there are consequences to that, especially if they become famous and widely read. One need only look at Nietzsche, the Pan Germanic mystical occultists, and the Nazis. The Nazis widely quoted the man.
All in all, as others here have said, I think it boils down to choosing a philosophy carefully. Of course, that a whole different topic! 
Headhunter
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
What is interesting however is the crude attempt by HH to link a philosopher who’s ideas he doesn’t like to raping 2 year old babies.
This isn’t a “crude attempt.” Have you ever read Candide? Spinoza wasn’t Leibniz, but the problem that Voltaire was addressing was similar. Following the idea of a “clockwork universe,” that is, a universe that obeys natural laws and whose future could be known were we able to acquire enough information, Leibniz and others came up with “optimism.” Distorting it more than a little, Voltaire distilled the philosophy to the idea that we live in “the best of all possible worlds.” As such, the “philosopher” Pangloss ignores the horror and depravity of the world, and avoids involvement with it. After all, it’s the best possible world.
While I think HH may be overreaching with regard to Spinoza, he does so in the spirit of Voltaire (not shabby company, I might add). The question is whether Spinoza argues for complete non-involvement and moral indifference. If he makes those arguments, it is truly a pernicious philosophy. If one can accept that will is not truly free, yet that we are compelled, in spite of or due to the illusion of a free will, to act in the world in the best way we know, the philosophy is much less troublesome.
[/quote]
I actually remember reading Candide many (many) years ago, and Voltaire was right on. It ends with Candide telling Dr. Pangloss, “Well, that’s fine, but now we have to plant our garden.” or something like that. So right! How would Spinoza resolve his ideas and quiet acceptance with a beast who harms a child?
I don’t have the time right now to contribute substantively to the discussion. However, I just wanted to interject with a thank you to HH and nephorm for providing the discussion thus far. This is the first interesting and thought provoking thread I’ve read today.
-Soup
p.s. BH6, your post made me laugh out loud. When my assistant came in and asked me what I was laughing at, it was a bit difficult to explain.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, when a philosopher comes up with an idea, such as ‘No Free Will’, there are consequences to that, especially if they become famous and widely read. One need only look at Nietzsche, the Pan Germanic mystical occultists, and the Nazis. The Nazis widely quoted the man.
Headhunter[/quote]
It still can’t see how Nietzsche would be responsible for the acts of the nazis. Presenting an idea or ‘philosophy’ is one thing, interpreting it is another. It’s an interesting question and I haven’t a clear opinion yet, just a gut feeling. It takes some time to ruminate it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I actually remember reading Candide many (many) years ago, and Voltaire was right on. It ends with Candide telling Dr. Pangloss, “Well, that’s fine, but now we have to plant our garden.” or something like that. So right! How would Spinoza resolve his ideas and quiet acceptance with a beast who harms a child?
[/quote]
I think it was:
“il faut cultiver son jardin” meaning one has to cultivate ones garden.
[quote]karva wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
So, when a philosopher comes up with an idea, such as ‘No Free Will’, there are consequences to that, especially if they become famous and widely read. One need only look at Nietzsche, the Pan Germanic mystical occultists, and the Nazis. The Nazis widely quoted the man.
Headhunter
It still can’t see how Nietzsche would be responsible for the acts of the nazis. Presenting an idea or ‘philosophy’ is one thing, interpreting it is another. It’s an interesting question and I haven’t a clear opinion yet, just a gut feeling. It takes some time to ruminate it.[/quote]
Nietzsche shouldn’t be held responsible. His sister, on the other hand, should be roasting in hell as we speak.
N’s sister was a fervent fascist, and edited N’s work extensively after his death so she could recast him as a fascist philosopher.
We had a teacher here who used to say to his students, if they made a bad grade, “You suck at life. You should go home and kill yourself today!!” Luckily, noone ever did that, but if someone did, should the teacher be held responsible?
In the same way, if Nietzsche says (paraphrasing) that a new type of man is rising up, who is ‘beyond good and evil’, and then fanatics grab onto that to justify what they do, is he then in some way responsible? Probably not — but someone prepared the German people to accept National Socialism. Nietzsche may have helped make the soil ‘more fertile’.
There certainly comes a point early on where perpetrators are responsible for their actions. Did Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Chamberlain (historian), Nietzsche, Marx and Engels, and a whole litany of others contribute? I really don’t know.
This thread is REALLY making me think! Ouch, that hurts!! 
[quote]nephorm wrote:
karva wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
So, when a philosopher comes up with an idea, such as ‘No Free Will’, there are consequences to that, especially if they become famous and widely read. One need only look at Nietzsche, the Pan Germanic mystical occultists, and the Nazis. The Nazis widely quoted the man.
Headhunter
It still can’t see how Nietzsche would be responsible for the acts of the nazis. Presenting an idea or ‘philosophy’ is one thing, interpreting it is another. It’s an interesting question and I haven’t a clear opinion yet, just a gut feeling. It takes some time to ruminate it.
Nietzsche shouldn’t be held responsible. His sister, on the other hand, should be roasting in hell as we speak.
N’s sister was a fervent fascist, and edited N’s work extensively after his death so she could recast him as a fascist philosopher.
[/quote]
Now THAT I did not know. Great tidbit. I’m left with two questions now, 1, is there a source for his original unedited work, amd 2. what is your source for this?
[quote]knewsom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
karva wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
So, when a philosopher comes up with an idea, such as ‘No Free Will’, there are consequences to that, especially if they become famous and widely read. One need only look at Nietzsche, the Pan Germanic mystical occultists, and the Nazis. The Nazis widely quoted the man.
Headhunter
It still can’t see how Nietzsche would be responsible for the acts of the nazis. Presenting an idea or ‘philosophy’ is one thing, interpreting it is another. It’s an interesting question and I haven’t a clear opinion yet, just a gut feeling. It takes some time to ruminate it.
Nietzsche shouldn’t be held responsible. His sister, on the other hand, should be roasting in hell as we speak.
N’s sister was a fervent fascist, and edited N’s work extensively after his death so she could recast him as a fascist philosopher.
Now THAT I did not know. Great tidbit. I’m left with two questions now, 1, is there a source for his original unedited work, amd 2. what is your source for this?[/quote]
I’ve read that as well. His sister took care of him after he became insane and made use of his growing fame. The author is a famous translator of Nietszche’s whose name simply escapes me. I’ll hunt it down.
I think Nietzsche would be a great read in German, if you can. Mine is minimal. Furchtbar!!
Walter Kaufmann
This is a classic work and a good clear read (though its been a while since I’ve read it.)
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Now THAT I did not know. Great tidbit. I’m left with two questions now, 1, is there a source for his original unedited work, amd 2. what is your source for this?[/quote]
Nephorm’s Big Damn Book of Knowledge.
As far as unedited sources, yes. Nietzsche did publish during his lifetime, so it isn’t as though the original work was completely unavailable.
My guess is that you’d have to look pretty hard to find the versions his sister fabricated in an english edition.
Of course, that said, poor translations abound.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
It depends. How many of Spinozas books did the rapist read?
[/quote]
Red herring.
The influence of philosophers is not limited to those who read their original works. Ideas are repeated; woven into other written works and spoken utterances; influence families’ and governments’ methods for dealing with problematic behavior; etc.
I will admit that in the case of the rapist in question, all of the above might have had no influence on what he did anyway, which might make my paragraph above another red herring.
But sometimes those red herrings are like potato chips. Can’t have just one.
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
It depends. How many of Spinozas books did the rapist read?
Red herring.
The influence of philosophers is not limited to those who read their original works. Ideas are repeated; woven into other written works and spoken utterances; influence families’ and governments’ methods for dealing with problematic behavior; etc.
I will admit that in the case of the rapist in question, all of the above might have had no influence on what he did anyway, which might make my paragraph above another red herring.
But sometimes those red herrings are like potato chips. Can’t have just one.
[/quote]
Hey Neal,
Good point, and I think you said it better than I did. Famous philosophers set the tone and initiate ideas within a culture. If they say: “Free will is a fantasy.” or “Community before self!” (this is actually a slogan used by the Nazis), people listen and then, what happens if the whackjobs take it seriously?
Look what Hanbali Islamists do, with a few phrases from the Quran. Do we blame the whackjobs or the guys who gave them the ideas in the first place?
Probably enough blame to go around…
The irony is, that in blaming the philospher you make it sound like some people don’t have a choice. They justhave to rape a 2 year old baby because this famous philospher (who’s name they never heard) infected them with this idea that they don’t have a choice in life.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The irony is, that in blaming the philospher you make it sound like some people don’t have a choice. They justhave to rape a 2 year old baby because this famous philospher (who’s name they never heard) infected them with this idea that they don’t have a choice in life.
[/quote]
That contains a very good point: it would be ironic to claim that somebody’s bad action is entirely the fault of somebody else who philosophized lack of free will. But I claim that Person X’s bad action can be caused by a combination of Person Y’s bad influence and Person X’s own free will.