God is dead and we have killed him

[Old Tyrannia]

Like I've said countless times, thats definitionally impossible.

You can't have a scenario where you have a God (who according to every single Christian deomination) is immortal who can be killed just as you can't have a painting that's not a painting.

You really need to learn what sarcasm and metaphors are.

It amazes me that people still take Kefka's posts at face value.

[Mefpan]

We killed God? Well, in that case, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Like I've said countless times, thats definitionally impossible.

You can't have a scenario where you have a God (who according to every single Christian deomination) is immortal who can be killed just as you can't have a painting that's not a painting.

Fuck logic and causality. We are the human race. If it exists alongside us, we can kill it. If it has existed alongside us, we have killed at least one specimen of it. If it will exist alongside us, we will kill at least one specimen of it. We don't make exceptions for things that use godmode.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

One of them managed to singlehandedly slaughter the entire pantheon of Egypt.

So beat that.

Well considering that there's no evidence for such an event (or any events given for any deity), I would say that I could easily come up with a greater feat by a greater deity because this "My god is bigger than your god" neanderthal argument is purely theoretical.

You clearly don't know who the Neanderthals were otherwise you wouldn't use them as a insult.

[Infected Mushroom]

Like I've said countless times, thats definitionally impossible.

You can't have a scenario where you have a God (who according to every single Christian deomination) is immortal who can be killed just as you can't have a painting that's not a painting.

You really need to learn what sarcasm and metaphors are.

there should be no place for metaphor and sarcasm when we are engaged in the presentation of facts; if a person uses a metaphor in such a context, then he has a responsibility to explain it clearly and immediately (not to have others in future generations justify them by assuming things), otherwise, he's engaging in obfuscation and deception and its really very irresponsible behavior on the part of the writer

When someone says God is Dead, that is what he means to say UNLESS he is writing a completely fictional work or unless in his paper, he immediately and clearly communicates the exact parameters of his metaphor and why its a good one

[The Holy Therns]

You really need to learn what sarcasm and metaphors are.

It amazes me that people still take Kefka's posts at face value.

Impressively persistent, if it's the alternative.

[Genivaria]

You really need to learn what sarcasm and metaphors are.

It amazes me that people still take Kefka's posts at face value.

I've long forgotten who Kefka is, so I just blocked IM.

[Auroya]

Even if it was as you said, we ought to let him stay dead so that he wouldn't commit any more evil.

[Braberland]

God is dead? Good.

Time to open up everything: Morals shall not stop the market. Legalize everything from porn to homosexuality and let the market loose on it. Capitalism will be our church, and money our god.

Now we need to shoot a bullet through the idea of "Allah".

[Leviske]

People are arguing that Nietzche meant literal God when he said "God is dead"? Oh my G- WAIT.

Although Nietzsche was a god-fearing atheist

wut

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Even if it was as you said, we ought to let him stay dead so that he wouldn't commit any more evil.

Trying to define what is evil is about as useful as stubbing your toe.

Well unless you are a masochist then it might serve a purpose.

[Immoren]

God is dead? Good.

Time to open up everything: Morals shall not stop the market. Legalize everything from porn to homosexuality and let the market loose on it. Capitalism will be our church, and money our god.

Now we need to shoot a bullet through the idea of "Allah".

Holy Mammon(a)

[The United Countries of America]

Wouldn't him going to see an optometrist cause him to crash into said street lamps?

I mean... he could always have a friend drive and walk him there.

Good point. But what if he had no friends or family he could reach, what would he do then? Brave the dangerous landscape of the city to get his eyes checked with the risk of injury, or simply not get his eyes checked? That is the question.

[The Holy Therns]

You really need to learn what sarcasm and metaphors are.

there should be no place for metaphor and sarcasm when we are engaged in the presentation of facts; if a person uses a metaphor in such a context, then he has a responsibility to explain it clearly and immediately (not to have others in future generations justify them by assuming things), otherwise, he's engaging in obfuscation and deception and its really very irresponsible behavior on the part of the writer

When someone says God is Dead, that is what he means to say UNLESS he is writing a completely fictional work or unless in his paper, he immediately and clearly communicates the exact parameters of his metaphor and why its a good one

Is your next thread going to be a passionate stand against the corrupting evil that is figurative speech, hon?

[Apollinis]

the problem here is that Mr. N isn't claiming to be writing poetry or classic fiction, he's writing what he wants us to treat as facts

It is at this point that I more or less gave up on the idea of you contributing anything of any use or interest to the thread, because you've obviously not actually read anything by Nietzsche and don't understand any of his key arguments.

Nietzsche did not solely and exclusively write facts. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a remarkable piece of literature as well as a piece of philosophy. Ecce Homo is, I've seen argued, at least in part a piece of satire. Many of his aphorisms are caustically humorous as well as/without being factual. Nietzsche is, as an author and a philosopher, and despite some aspects of his writing like his toe-curling misogyny (see the below point about prescriptive and descriptive Nietzsche), about so much more than just "facts".

I saw someone else recently neatly point out the difference between prescriptive and descriptive Nietzsche, which is also something that you have to bear in mind when reading his work.

Also, more generally, a lot of philosophy, from Aristotle to Hume, makes use of figurative language and is not exclusively concerned with facts. if you approach all philosophy with the aggressive incurious literalism of a pedantic 12-year-old, you won't get anything out of it.

[Old Tyrannia]

God is dead? Good.

Time to open up everything: Morals shall not stop the market. Legalize everything from porn to homosexuality and let the market loose on it. Capitalism will be our church, and money our god.

Now we need to shoot a bullet through the idea of "Allah".

Allah is just Arabic for God, you know.

[Jacobania]

...

Alright, all philosophy professors, throw away your books. Forget about all the painstaking translation and investigation into Nietzsche's life and letters because obviously the only logical conclusion is to take him literally.

I'm done with you, enjoy not understanding literature whatsoever.

If someone goes to court, being charged with conspiracy to commit a crime does he get away by saying... ''When I told X that I was planning to do Y... ACTUALLY I didn't mean Y, Y is a metaphor for Z instead?''

I don't think so.

So why do people who write contradictory phrases get a free pass if they are considered by some elites to be ''a great philosopher''? Shouldn't they first have to earn that title by communicating clearly what they say and mean? Why does someone get to write something that is evidently an impossible contradiction and a statement of ignorance (really? God is dead? That's like saying water is not water) and then get credited for it as though he's actually making sense. Its like someone built a damaged puzzle... years later scholars add other pieces to make the puzzle work, and then go... oh WOW he was a brilliant toy designer. Its completely artificial and pretentious.

The history of the bible in a nutshell.

On another note, the "God is Dead" statement is claimed by people who believe that god doesn't even exist aka atheists. Are the Atheists trying to prove that God, whom they profoundly don't believe is real, is dead?

The same kind of language atheists use here is the same kind of language when they say "God is bad", "God can't be all powerful", "God isn't great", etc. They aren't talking about an actual being, but rather an interpretation of that being as conceived by people who believe that being to exist.

The same can be said here. "God is Dead" is atheist speak for "Faith is dead", and can only be assumed so because everyone knows that atheists do not believe a god exist.

Therefore what they are implying must be allegorical. There is no other way to logically interpret this statement.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

God is dead? Good.

Time to open up everything: Morals shall not stop the market. Legalize everything from porn to homosexuality and let the market loose on it. Capitalism will be our church, and money our god.

Now we need to shoot a bullet through the idea of "Allah".

Allah is just Arabic for God, you know.

Given their previous posts established they had some nice xenophobic tendencies it would surprise me they didn't know this.

[Braberland]

God is dead? Good.

Time to open up everything: Morals shall not stop the market. Legalize everything from porn to homosexuality and let the market loose on it. Capitalism will be our church, and money our god.

Now we need to shoot a bullet through the idea of "Allah".

Allah is just Arabic for God, you know.

I'm talking about Islam, m8.

[Infected Mushroom]

the problem here is that Mr. N isn't claiming to be writing poetry or classic fiction, he's writing what he wants us to treat as facts

It is at this point that I more or less gave up on the idea of you contributing anything of any use or interest to the thread, because you've obviously not actually read anything by Nietzsche and don't understand any of his key arguments.

Nietzsche did not solely and exclusively write facts. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a remarkable piece of literature as well as a piece of philosophy. Ecce Homo is, I've seen argued, at least in part a piece of satire. Many of his aphorisms are caustically humorous as well as/without being factual.

I saw someone else recently neatly point out the difference between prescriptive and descriptive Nietzsche, which is also something that you have to bear in mind when reading his work.

as far as I'm concerned, that makes him an irresponsible academic

when you are writing something that is meant to provide factual insight into how the world works, you have a duty to avoid inserting misleading/unclear caustic/nonsensical phrases here and there just because you can. To do so is to engage in deliberate obfuscation, which is contrary to the scholar's mission to bring truth. You can't clearly say what you say and get people to understand the truth of what you are saying, unless people understand what you are saying and aren't mislead.

For this reason I strongly advise against mixing poetry with an academic paper/treatise. The two should basically remain separate unless you are very very cautious. And Mr. N has not been diligent or responsible.

[Risottia]

I was not aware the dead could hate.

By your logic, he is literally dead.

Jesus is dead. Jesus is God.

Hence God is dead.

Simple syllogism.

Corollary: God cannot affect me or anything else in the universe.

[Risottia]

Jesus is dead. Jesus is God.

Jesus is the SON of God, not GOD himself. Learn 2 Christianity, brah.

Oh look, an Arian!

[Mefpan]

It is at this point that I more or less gave up on the idea of you contributing anything of any use or interest to the thread, because you've obviously not actually read anything by Nietzsche and don't understand any of his key arguments.

Nietzsche did not solely and exclusively write facts. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a remarkable piece of literature as well as a piece of philosophy. Ecce Homo is, I've seen argued, at least in part a piece of satire. Many of his aphorisms are caustically humorous as well as/without being factual.

I saw someone else recently neatly point out the difference between prescriptive and descriptive Nietzsche, which is also something that you have to bear in mind when reading his work.

as far as I'm concerned, that makes him an irresponsible academic

when you are writing something that is meant to provide factual insight into how the world works, you have a duty to avoid inserting misleading/unclear caustic/nonsensical phrases here and there just because you can. To do so is to engage in deliberate obfuscation, which is contrary to the scholar's mission to bring truth. You can't clearly say what you say and get people to understand the truth of what you are saying, unless people understand what you are saying and aren't mislead.

For this reason I strongly advise against mixing poetry with an academic paper/treatise.

Philosophy doesn't explain how the world works, it is meant to make you think about how your brain works. And by brain I do not mean the physical slab of grey ooze, I mean your consciousness, your thought processes. In philosophy, you are allowed phrases like Nietzsche demonstrated.

Because it's a tidbit of philosophical stuff.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

Sorry, I've already had my dose of crazy for the day.

[Genivaria]

Jesus is dead. Jesus is God.

Hence God is dead.

Simple syllogism.

Corollary: God cannot affect me or anything else in the universe.

Hence OP just accidentally became an atheist.
Oops.

[Dyakovo]

...

Alright, all philosophy professors, throw away your books. Forget about all the painstaking translation and investigation into Nietzsche's life and letters because obviously the only logical conclusion is to take him literally.

I'm done with you, enjoy not understanding literature whatsoever.

If someone goes to court, being charged with conspiracy to commit a crime does he get away by saying... ''When I told X that I was planning to do Y... ACTUALLY I didn't mean Y, Y is a metaphor for Z instead?''

I don't think so.

So why do people who write contradictory phrases get a free pass if they are considered by some elites to be ''a great philosopher''? Shouldn't they first have to earn that title by communicating clearly what they say and mean? Why does someone get to write something that is evidently an impossible contradiction and a statement of ignorance (really? God is dead? That's like saying water is not water) and then get credited for it as though he's actually making sense. Its like someone built a damaged puzzle... years later scholars add other pieces to make the puzzle work, and then go... oh WOW he was a brilliant toy designer. Its completely artificial and pretentious.

Nietzsche did not write contradictory phrases.
Though I must say it's cute that you're trying to maintain the pretense that you're a law student given that the reading comprehension ability you routinely demonstrate suggests a vastly lower level of education.