Intellectual Integrity

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   They regard "beautiful feelings" themselves as arguments, the "heaving breast" as the bellows of divinity, and conviction as the CRITERION of truth- Friedrich Nietzsche
   
   What an apt summary of the intellectual life of the majority of "thinkers" today, especially of the theological variety.  Faith as CONVICTION, and this makes it so.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Who then is innocent.....
      
      Both those who are  pro "faith" and those who argue against it based their arguments on ignorance.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         What?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Sooner, a lot of people do that with Kess' posts.

            replyreport
         2. 80

            pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            lol

            replyreport
   2. 80

      pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No wonder he had a mental breakdown.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Too much genius contained in one person

         replyreport
         1. 80

            pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, he was quite paradoxical in his verses. Some might say hypocritical but I am not sure that it was hypocrisy.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Hypocrisy is okay.  The truth or falsity of views is not dependent on the person living up to what they say.  Their views must be evaluated on their own merits.  If an adulterer claims it's wrong to cheat on your spouse, their claim is not negated by the fact that they are hypocritical.  It's just hard, as human beings, to take someone seriously who contradicts in their actions what they claim to believe in their heart.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes agree.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  integrity is the issue here....Where is it in such a view?
                  For if it not in the person, then we may safely say it does not exist.
                  Then does it not stand to reason then, that the person without integrity also ceases to be?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     integrity is not in the person, it is how that person behaves - which requires understanding of what is what in the universe, how good and bad is created and applied and the honesty to sometimes go against that person's own self to behave in ways that benefit others and say what we think is true even when it does not benefit oneself

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        What then is integrity?
                        
                        How can you, being a person, reference integrity without involvement of your person?
                        
                        How Can you judge the integrity of any one thing by referencing something external it?
                        
                        I tell you Truly.....The integrity of a thing is judge by the thing itself....and of a person by the person himself.
                        
                        To forsake this is to be lost in the confusion of falsehood.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           the only posible judge is external, a rock is nothing until it affects something by 'being' a stepping stone or falls down a mountain - and a person is nothing except in relation to everyone and eveyrthing around it.  I guess I might agree with what you say in that integrity is being 'true' to yourself, but this is an empty and pointless thing without the effect it has on others.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              What's this? An ' I think, therefore you are' philosophy?
                              
                              One can only be true to oneself. We can't define ourselves by other people's perception of what we are. How other's perceive it is another conversation entirely.

                              replyreport
                           2. 60

                              kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Is this response based on answers to my former questions?
                              You seem to have wander far and wide as expected.
                              
                              Remember integrity is the issue here....
                              What I think is irrelevant in regarding your own integrity...
                              For whether I speak for or against it, it remains what it is,,
                              It benefits you to know if it is intact and no one can take it away from you....
                              
                              There is no benefit to you If is not,and you would forever be ignorant of this fact,even if one (external) tells you, your lack of integrity will cause you to deny...... always.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 I am not sure, or care much,  what you 'expect' -  and what you say is obscured in the rambling manner of your trying to explain - I used concrete examples to try to explain a point of view. 
                                 
                                 Maybe this illustrates the difference between old and new thinking after Nietsche - i try to explain something by logic and example in an attempt at an explanation that stands up to reason - and you offer some random bits of your own thinking.
                                 
                                 This does not make me or you right or wrong - it just illustrates that relying on beautiful feelings is useless as Nietsche says, as is arguing emotionally  "on the heaving breast" , and having convictions as the CRITERION of your truth - is just pure BS.

                                 replyreport
                           3. 80

                              pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              A rock does not have consciousness as we know consciousness. If thoughts are energy it would not depend on whether anyone is present or not. Thoughts are energetic in nature and therefore affect most if not all things that are energetic in a nature.

                              replyreport
   3. 60

      recommend1posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Nietsche was a genius, and slightly bonkers I suspect - but this was the turning point of modern thinking that showed up the fallacy of the old style way of thinking that relied on self proclaimed experts who pontificated on what was right and wrong,  a way of thinking that descended from religious thinking, shtterd, blind and self proclaiming with no foundation or rationale.
      
      I admire the man for pointing out that god is a construct of human thinking and then proclaiming that "god is dead" and commiting suicide to back it up with conviction LOL

      replyreport
      1. 80

         pennyofheavenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         He committed suicide? That's taking conviction a bit too far!
         Can't have been that much of a genius unless the bonkers far outweighed the genius.lol

         replyreport