Einstein exposed.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (107)
sorted by:
I was huge on Nietzsche in my 20's, red all his work, but outgrew him and became a Christian. He has some great and relevant ideas but he's not a systematic philosopher for a reason - his views are not consistent and many of them are based on unjustified assumptions. He has passion and rhetoric though which makes his stuff convincing, and yes he has genius.
His biggest fail is his materialism, naturalism, determinism and denial of absolute truth (which is a self refuting claim). If he were consistent with those his whole Ubermensch raving loses epistemic ground - why should anyone care about his subjective preference of what man should be? And since he's a naturalist and determinist why do ethics (what should one ought to do) matter at all?
He also ignored Hume's destruction of naturalism and basic bitch empiricism ("You can't get an "ought" claim from an "is" claim"). Even if we grant Nietzsche the world is in constant flux and organized around master/slave dialectic (which he got from Hegel), that wouldn't give us any reason to affirm such a world or system as good or desirable just on account of it being natural. In the end, he writes about his subjective preferences and makes a case why someone should care about them any more than someone else's preferences ("I like banana therefore banana good therefore everyone should eat banana"). No attempt at justified true belief there.
Is that what you are aiming for?
I don't think having a system prevents your worldview from being full of shit but at least it keeps you consistent in your bs.
If I'm given a choice to either be perceived as pessimistic by someone who I consider to have an inconsistent personal philosophy or being labeled as inconsistent by a pessimist, I choose the latter.
Not a pessimist here although I've had a short lived but edgy Schopenhauer phase years ago.
I think a one stop philosophy shop isn't realistic. I've been drawn to philosophy since I was a child the way I currently view the world is an amalgamation of the teachings of Jesus, Albert Camus, Marcus Aurelius, Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, Viktor Frankel, Voltaire, Kafka and a bunch more To subscribe to one thinkers view of the world is to surrender your own thinking to someone you believe was right, but they're all dead aren't they? That aren't in the here and now
That's what Huxley called perennialism. This "wisdom of the ages" philosophy was also heavily promoted by the Royal Society, Tavistock, SRI and CIA (also through eastern influenced theosophy, new age and the hippy movement) as a new world religion of the future man.
The common critique of it would be that there's a limited set of moves one can make in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (and all three branches of philosophy are interrelated). For example you either believe the world is purely physical and matter in flux or you believe in a metaphysical realm beside it. Or that everything is either ultimately one (monism), two (dualism) or many (polytheism and multiplicity). Here we have a third option which is the trinitarian doctrine of Christianity. It's an either/or binary and your position on it will lead to other consequences down the system. That's why people who choose the pick-and-choose preference based approach for their worldview often hold contradictory ideas. Consistency in the worldview is the lack of such contradictions.
Jesus is at odds with the worldviews of both Voltaire and Camus. Voltaire is obvious because he's very much an atheist and a poster boy for liberal progressivism and secular humanism. Camus, being an existentialist, holds that the life is meaningless, but in spite of that we must struggle to find our own made up meaning, which leads to embracing absurdism. Maybe there's a false image of Jesus reinterpreted as a zen hippy boyfriend type who's all about love and peace, man, but that's a recent invention and an apparent heresy to anyone familiar with Christian theology.