Chris,
Of course there is no agreed myth until you "buy in". Do you not understand what a myth is? You must, since you go on to suggest that we "analyze which moral assumption(s) are best" when no such thing is possible, unless you buy in to a myth telling you how to determine what is best! And no, Nietzsche was not an asshat. He simply stated what all analytical philosophy refused to admit: that they were no more than making up a new religion--just like you. At least religious people will admit that they take a leap of faith, as opposed to smug, self-satisfied intellectuals who are doing the same thing, but lack the backbone to admit it.
"affirming nihilistic views": sorry Chris, but as a nihilist, it would be impossible for them to even affirm a nihilist view, as that would require meaning/value which, by definition, a nihilist doesn't have.
So tell me, which myth do you believe in? Say you don't believe in a myth? Then tell me, which is better/worse: (a) sexually abusing a child (b) making a 35-yard field goal? It is impossible for you to provide an intelligible answer to that questions that is not based in myth. Go ahead and try, and fail. Its just a preference; a choice; just like the one Stalin made in his show trials, and I make about which toppings to put on my pizza here in Brooklyn.
Back to my point, you won't address: you either choose nihilism, or take a leap of faith into a religious myth. No other choice exists.
E.D. , hope you understand I am not calling you a fool personally :).
My point is that every one has only two rational positions: myth or nihilism. Hitchens and Dawkins preach nihilism, but in truth, it is aesthetically to disgusting for them to embrace, so they keep singing nonsensical words over Christian melodies.
No disrespect intended, but your essay misses the point completely. And is from an intellectual standpoint, fundamentally dishonest. You are right that a bestseller awaits the person that can articulate the interminable conversation that currently exists around god/myth. The multiple errors you labor under being rather strong evidence. I have never written a single published word, but am so compelled by the confusion surrounding this argument that I plan to quit my job this later this year to finish a manuscript addressing it.
No culture has ever established a functional system of communication that is not based on a supporting myth. For the first time, Western civilization is trying to do it. No agreed myth = no value = no communication. Nihilism. Hitchens and Dawkins are nihilist. The only way you can even begin to comprehend their language is that it is spoken with a thick Anglican brogue. They have left the church, but have not gone any further than the church yard (insert small essay on cowardice here; which of course, is a word defined on a myth).
"Crazy, screwed up world?" Really? Says who? Backup your claim that its crazy or screwed up. But first of all you will have to define those words, which you obviously can't do. Any response that comes from your mouth, or your pen, is based on complete myth. Everything else is grappling for power (survival).
Alas, your essay is just another tale, told by another fool.
(just doing you the favor of critiquing you with your own tools, a la Nietzsche)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
"non-ridiculous inner-space lifestyles"?
Your ridiculous inner-space post suggests the possibility that you have been educated beyond your intelligence.
okay, now I must leave this page of juveniles and return to the adult world. but it was fun for a few minutes. :)
"
Chris,
Of course there is no agreed myth until you "buy in". Do you not understand what a myth is? You must, since you go on to suggest that we "analyze which moral assumption(s) are best" when no such thing is possible, unless you buy in to a myth telling you how to determine what is best! And no, Nietzsche was not an asshat. He simply stated what all analytical philosophy refused to admit: that they were no more than making up a new religion--just like you. At least religious people will admit that they take a leap of faith, as opposed to smug, self-satisfied intellectuals who are doing the same thing, but lack the backbone to admit it.
"affirming nihilistic views": sorry Chris, but as a nihilist, it would be impossible for them to even affirm a nihilist view, as that would require meaning/value which, by definition, a nihilist doesn't have.
So tell me, which myth do you believe in? Say you don't believe in a myth? Then tell me, which is better/worse: (a) sexually abusing a child (b) making a 35-yard field goal? It is impossible for you to provide an intelligible answer to that questions that is not based in myth. Go ahead and try, and fail. Its just a preference; a choice; just like the one Stalin made in his show trials, and I make about which toppings to put on my pizza here in Brooklyn.
Back to my point, you won't address: you either choose nihilism, or take a leap of faith into a religious myth. No other choice exists.
"
E.D. , hope you understand I am not calling you a fool personally :).
My point is that every one has only two rational positions: myth or nihilism. Hitchens and Dawkins preach nihilism, but in truth, it is aesthetically to disgusting for them to embrace, so they keep singing nonsensical words over Christian melodies.
"
No disrespect intended, but your essay misses the point completely. And is from an intellectual standpoint, fundamentally dishonest. You are right that a bestseller awaits the person that can articulate the interminable conversation that currently exists around god/myth. The multiple errors you labor under being rather strong evidence. I have never written a single published word, but am so compelled by the confusion surrounding this argument that I plan to quit my job this later this year to finish a manuscript addressing it.
No culture has ever established a functional system of communication that is not based on a supporting myth. For the first time, Western civilization is trying to do it. No agreed myth = no value = no communication. Nihilism. Hitchens and Dawkins are nihilist. The only way you can even begin to comprehend their language is that it is spoken with a thick Anglican brogue. They have left the church, but have not gone any further than the church yard (insert small essay on cowardice here; which of course, is a word defined on a myth).
"Crazy, screwed up world?" Really? Says who? Backup your claim that its crazy or screwed up. But first of all you will have to define those words, which you obviously can't do. Any response that comes from your mouth, or your pen, is based on complete myth. Everything else is grappling for power (survival).
Alas, your essay is just another tale, told by another fool.
(just doing you the favor of critiquing you with your own tools, a la Nietzsche)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.