Do you younger guys agree with this article?

[greyforest]

Absolutely.

Here's a cute graph. This is what happens to the population of bacteria over time in a test tube:



And here's the population of earth:



We're gonna turn the corner soon, and nobody understands why.

[vy65]

Feel free to illuminate then. Speaking in your own words might make that easier.

Well, I wouldn't take it so literal.

I think his point is that those without power invent moral systems to castigate those with power. In the quote - the lambs decry the birds of prey as evil in order to restrict the bird's exercise of power. It's no different than Christianity's invention of evil as an adjective to describe the powerful. It's a moral economy used by the resentful to denigrate the powerful.

Nietzsche's point is to show that the powerful carry no such resentment to the weak: lambs are tasty. The last bit about strength manifesting itself as strength, I think, goes hand-in-hand with his notion that life is struggle, compe ion, war, etc...

As for the rape analogy, I think a fairly strong argument could be made that the rapist is animated by resentment of his own powerlessness and/or the woman he rapes - not the sort of thing Nietzsche would condone.

[vy65]

Nobody is saying we're not animals. But we're certainly above any other non-human animal. The fact that we're posting here, and that we're rationalizing Nietzche is just part of that confirmation.

I think that makes us different and not above them. But potato potato.

[LnGrrrR]

The point of the quote is that humans, and nature, has and will always be predatory.

That has nothing to do with the morality of said predation.

[Winehole23]

It's a moral economy used by the resentful to denigrate the powerful.

Pissants.

[vy65]

Nevermind

[greyforest]

That has nothing to do with the morality of said predation.

The quote tries to explain that the morality is ambiguous. Predators simply see it as their nature to eat prey. It's only the prey that feels it is immoral.

[LnGrrrR]

I think the error is in thinking that humans can act better than animals. Last I checked, ants never built little ant Auschwitz's.

We're animals. Thinking that we're somehow noble and "above it" is just naivety.

We can think rationally. Trying to say, "We're animals" and using it to justify any sort of action is nonsense and poppy . Humans certainly can act better than animals, and worse than animals. We wouldn't blame a chimp for raping another chimp; we'd think it was horrible, sure, but we wouldn't blame the chimp since he doesn't have the rational process to determine it as "right" or "wrong", in the same way that we don't blame mentally handicapped people from doing inappropriate things in public.

[ElNono]

I think that makes us different and not above them. But potato potato.

I disagree. I would say, on average, much, much far above them would be a reasonable description.

For example, I don't know that a non-human can stop being predatory out of their own volition. I know humans that opt to, can.

[LnGrrrR]

The quote tries to explain that the morality is ambiguous. Predators simply see it as their nature to eat prey. It's only the prey that feels it is immoral.

Again, bull . The predators in said example obviously don't understand morality, because they're ing birds.

Most people who do immoral acts realize such, and manifest it in various ways, whether psychological, physiological, mental, etc etc.

Humans that perform immoral acts and don't have realize it we call psychopaths/sociopaths, and we take them out of society, for good reason.

[vy65]

We can think rationally. Trying to say, "We're animals" and using it to justify any sort of action is nonsense and poppy . Humans certainly can act better than animals, and worse than animals. We wouldn't blame a chimp for raping another chimp; we'd think it was horrible, sure, but we wouldn't blame the chimp since he doesn't have the rational process to determine it as "right" or "wrong", in the same way that we don't blame mentally handicapped people from doing inappropriate things in public.

I wasn't using the whole "we're animals" bit to justify anything. I was just saying we're animals. My only point is that there's a lot wrong in thinking we're above animals/are somehow unique/etc..

And lol chimp rape.

[ElNono]

We can think rationally. Trying to say, "We're animals" and using it to justify any sort of action is nonsense and poppy .

This is exactly what I was pointing at. I don't know what non-humans can choose certain things. Humans certainly can. To try to justify our choice by saying "we just animals" is, frankly, intellectually lazy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Never known you to be one to pick up your ball and go home. I don't know if you read mine or not but I didn't mean any offense by it. I just don't think you really understood what the articles point was because what I got from it was completely different than what you did. If you read the le I think you'll notice its more in line with an idea that this generation has a moxy that has been absent from the previous one.

Hes just got mad and decided to play the i am a man because of X income game. Thing is that i am very aware of the industry he is talking about and I know he is full of . $50k with overtime on a 60 hour work week is about $13 or so an hour.

He just works them like dogs. He is responding to engineering students that go in asking for a salary of $40k to $50k which is standard and laughs at them. He claims he hires convicts and addicts well I have a notion that has more to do with his pay scale then his benevolence.

$80k for an engineering manager with any experience. Here are the payscales for the listed opening in Chicago which is close to Detroit.

http://www.careerbuilder.com/Jobs/Ch...ago%20Illinois

Its ing laughable.

[vy65]

Humans that perform immoral acts and don't have realize it we call psychopaths/sociopaths, and we take them out of society, for good reason.

Would you consider female genital mutilation an immoral act? Do you think those that condone/participate in the practice recognize it as such?

[vy65]

Again, bull . The predators in said example obviously don't understand morality, because they're ing birds.

Most people who do immoral acts realize such, and manifest it in various ways, whether psychological, physiological, mental, etc etc.

Humans that perform immoral acts and don't have realize it we call psychopaths/sociopaths, and we take them out of society, for good reason.

Also, I think you're taking that quote a little too literal.

[vy65]

Hes just got mad and decided to play the i am a man because of X income game. Thing is that i am very aware of the industry he is talking about and I know he is full of . $50k with overtime on a 60 hour work week is about $13 or so an hour.

Actually that was me

Lol 3x your salary

Lol critical thinking

[greyforest]

Again, bull . The predators in said example obviously don't understand morality, because they're ing birds.

The lambs and birds actually represent humans. It's like Animal Farm!

people who do immoral acts realize such, and manifest it in various ways, whether psychological, physiological, mental, etc etc.

Humans that perform immoral acts and don't have realize it we call psychopaths/sociopaths, and we take them out of society, for good reason.

Bull . Nearly every single CEO and world leader is a psychopath or sociopath. It's been that way for ing millenia. Our system rewards psychopaths and sociopaths unless they break the law and get caught.

[LnGrrrR]

I think his point is that those without power invent moral systems to castigate those with power. In the quote - the lambs decry the birds of prey as evil in order to restrict the bird's exercise of power. It's no different than Christianity's invention of evil as an adjective to describe the powerful. It's a moral economy used by the resentful to denigrate the powerful.

Evil has existed before Christianity; it is not fundamental to either the rich or poor, strong or weak. But the strong have a greater ability to do greater evil in some instances, because having greater power means having greater resources/ability to effect changes.

Again, is a man raping a woman evil because it denies the woman her liberty of self, or is it evil because a bunch of people without power decried it as evil?

Nietzsche's point is to show that the powerful carry no such resentment to the weak: lambs are tasty.

That's a Capt. Obvious statement right there... why would the rich be resentful of those beneath them, which does not threaten them, which they gain resources from? It would make no sense.

As for the rape analogy, I think a fairly strong argument could be made that the rapist is animated by resentment of his own powerlessness and/or the woman he rapes - not the sort of thing Nietzsche would condone.

That's just bull s -games. Strength is strength; you can't take one form of strength and put it up on a pedestal, then take another form of strength and claim it's not REALLY strength. If you want to say "might makes right" then you have to subscribe to all that entails.

[LnGrrrR]

Would you consider female genital mutilation an immoral act? Do you think those that condone/participate in the practice recognize it as such?

From the limited amt I've read, it seems to be somewhat immoral, since there are no benefits to the procedure. Also, it's usually done without any sort of anesthesia.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually that was me

Lol 3x your salary

Lol critical thinking

Quoting Nietzche and then using money as the basis for the will to power is pretty ing sad.

Yeah critical thinking. Being able to read something and then apply it is a facet of that. You deriding the notion is not surprising.

And what is really funny is how fixated you are on trying to guess my income so you can denigrate it. You are a sad little man.

[Borat Sagyidev]

[ElNono]

Nearly every single CEO and world leader is a psychopath or sociopath. It's been that way for ing millenia. Our system rewards psychopaths and sociopaths unless they break the law and get caught.

But the red herring is to justify them by saying "well, we're all animals". I can understand a lion thinking "I'm hungry" and going out there and eating 5 people. The lion doesn't have rational thinking. He doesn't understand that those 5 people have families, and they're not coming back home.

We're light years away from raw animals. Trying to justify our choices by some link to the animal world is patently lame.

[Winehole23]

And lol chimp rape.

Our resident overman apparently finds non-consensual simian courtship amusing.

Since distinctions between human beings and other animals are ersatz and bad philosophy, isn't the distinction between rape and animal rutting artificial as well?

[vy65]

Evil has existed before Christianity; it is not fundamental to either the rich or poor, strong or weak. But the strong have a greater ability to do greater evil in some instances, because having greater power means having greater resources/ability to effect changes.

What makes you say that? The whole Pre-Socratic/Dionysian tradition the Greeks had suggests the opposite (in the terms we're using here)

Again, is a man raping a woman evil because it denies the woman her liberty of self, or is it evil because a bunch of people without power decried it as evil?

I never said it was "evil." I said we can criticize rape as an act of resentment.

That's a Capt. Obvious statement right there... why would the rich be resentful of those beneath them, which does not threaten them, which they gain resources from? It would make no sense.

I think Foucault said something like the work of the philosopher is to make facile gestures seem difficult. You're right that it's obvious. But the point being made here is that people espouse the opposite belief system - rather than recognizing the mentality of the powerful, the mentality devoid of resentment, people instead invent terms like evil and systems of morality which use these terms to castigate the powerful.

That's just bull s -games. Strength is strength; you can't take one form of strength and put it up on a pedestal, then take another form of strength and claim it's not REALLY strength. If you want to say "might makes right" then you have to subscribe to all that entails.

You saying that it's bull doesn't make it so. I explained why the rape example doesn't really fit here. I think you're point is turning into "you can't say that because there will always be someone more powerful." So what?

[vy65]

From the limited amt I've read, it seems to be somewhat immoral, since there are no benefits to the procedure. Also, it's usually done without any sort of anesthesia.

The prac ioners of FGM certainly don't think that they're acting immorally. In fact, they think quite the opposite. Are they sociopaths?