Am I a naughty Mormon boy if I like Nietzsche?

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think so. I'm of course not saying Mormonism is Nietzschean. But I thought I was clear that the central problem is over selfishness and power.

A celestial world is only celestial because celestial people live there. It's their way of being. Ditto for terrestrial. And of course this is now a telestial world so we're familiar with that. Ideally our homes should be celestial spaces. The temple typically is. So to treat the kingdoms ontologically as degrees of platonic purity really seems alien to the Mormon mindset. Again an other of Joseph's quips captures the essence of this quite well. "I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society."

Zion is where the zion people are.

The very idea of the Mormon conception of heaven is much more a group of Übermensch, but one that recognizes love rather than just power. They're more than willing to help others overcome as well, to reach that point where they can laugh at all tragedies real or imagined. But you can't live it for someone. Thus the whole point of coming to a fallen evil world where we suffer yet overcome. If you think about it, the Mormon conception of the plan of salvation as a place where we learn overcoming is a very Nietzschean like take on Christianity transformed out of the slave mentality. Life is not something to be endured for a reward. The reward is only what we allow ourselves to be transformed into. Now that accepting Christ is of course not Nietzschean at all. But the overcoming is. And Christ sets the example by he first overcoming all after being subjected to all.

I think you miss the fundamental existential aspect of Mormonism. Life has meaning because we grant it meaning. It has meaning to God and he's willing to share that meaning. But it's not intrinsically meaningful except to the degree we are willing to participate in the process of creation. But creation itself is making meaning. Again the fundamental transformation of Christianity by rejecting creation ex nihilo remains key to Mormon thought as does our ontological uncreated state. God finds himself among the intelligences and asks us to come here. This life is a process of discovering for ourself how meaningful we want life to be.

Again, to be clear, Nietzsche's conception of the superman is fundamentally flawed by not understanding togetherness or love. By only conceiving of power he fundamentally misses how one overcomes.

So I'm not saying Mormonism is Nietzsche or vice versa. That missing of the ethical and being only able to see power fundamentally contaminates Nietzsche's conclusions. Yet in much else I think he's right. Live life so if you were told you'd live it over and over again you'd rejoice.

Not sure what you mean by mirror. This is a fallen world because people choose to be fallen and because God isn't here. Jesus is a mediator who shows us how not to be fallen. It's hard to take hold of grace though. Again, by design. But recall that the big difference between Mormons and the rest of Christianity is that we think the fall was a great thing, not a bad thing. Eve was the hero, not the villain. And why was it a good thing? Because we had to come to this fallen world to learn to overcome. And what is overcoming? Learning to love on our own when we weren't permanently in the presence of God.

Anyone who uses philosophy to pick and choose dogmas they like isn't doing philosophy. If you use it to think through problems then you're doing it right. The reality is whether you agree or disagree with Nietzsche he is thinking through issues that are pertinent to Mormons who reject creation ex nihilo. If God is not an ontological creation - if he is permanently cut off from being the God of the philosophers after Augustine merged Athens with Jerusalem - then many of the problems of meaning arise. Put an other way, without a first cause or ground of being, how does Mormonism avoid nihilism? As I said there are strong existential themes in Mormonism by necessity. Nietzsche is tracing through the logic of the death of God. But much of that analysis is completely pertinent to the ontological assumptions Mormonism bring with it.

Nietzsche is useful for thinking through his arguments (such as they are). Again, I think he analysis of truth is important to think through. It's incomplete of course, but made use of the science of the time quite adroitly. I think the pragmatists can answer his qualms, but there's a lot of truth in his analysis. Likewise how he repurposes the Stoic notion of eternal return as a kind of ethical test is very worth thinking through. If a demon came to you and told you you'd live your life over and over, how would you react? And how should you change to react with joy? Likewise while in some ways his analysis of slave morality as a critique of Hegel is worth thinking about. Particularly I think he analysis of charity as caught up in slave morality is important to consider even if incomplete and ultimately wrong. Yet if we aren't careful charity can lead to a kind of slavery if we don't allow people to become more than they are.

I come from the school of thought that thinking and questioning usually is worthwhile. Even if ultimately we disagree with Nietzsche, why we disagree is important to think through. Arguments matter.

Thanks for carrying on.

My Sartre disease with this guy  continues, but that was well said.

I see it also as a matter of self-determination. Literally determination of the self by the self.

One can voluntarily make Covenants which ultimately provide freedom, in the sense of Berlin's positive freedom. Thus the making of Covenants can actually be an act of overcoming.

As I said in my first reply on this thread one learns from Nietzsche's attitude and not necessarily from his prose.

[clarkgoble]

///

Edited July 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The above sentence leaves me flabbergasted. The above two items are central to everything Nietzsche had to say on the subject of self and will and to identify them as problems for aligning his views with Mormonism is basically noting they don't actually align.

I confess to finding myself mystified by your complaining about two sentences saying Nietzsche and Mormonism aren't aligned by effectively saying I really should believe they aren't aligned. I'm sure there's some reading of what I wrote which what I say means the opposite of what I said. But alas I'm missing how to get there. You're arguing against something but it's not what I said.

Quote

Mormonism absolutely defines the state of things as aspiring to perfect forms of the same thing.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Nor how it relates to Abra 3:16-19. Nothing I said entails a platonic conception of perfection. Abr 3 I think is a bit messier in that regard, but technically it merely talks about greatnesss not platonic perfection of the sort you are talking about. i.e. logically there's nothing in that passage that couldn't be read as greatness in a more Nietzschean sense even though that's not what I think the passage means.

Quote

The Mormon religion tells you what the meaning of life is, and this is the same for all people as dictated by the Church which claims it comes from God. It isn't about creating meaning out of the self which would include countless meanings, countless expressions of self.

The church gives you exceedingly vague guidelines with the goal being living by the spirit. John 3:8 "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

To say this entails platonic ideals of sameness again seems just plain wrong.

Quote

Central to the meaning of existence for Mormonism is the idea that justice must be satisfied.

And what is justice? You are acting as if that is self-evident when it is not.

Quote

The modern shift has been away from socially defined roles to ones where the individual is responsible to do things, learn things, go places, etc., and build identity capital on their own. There's no script. But there is still a very real sense of capital value in the social market. I think one thing many ex-Mormon's discover is that much of their efforts in building identity capital as Mormons has turned out to be as valuable as a Kirtland Anti-Bank Note. There was a reddit thread a while ago that served as a great example where a woman who had chosen motherhood and passed up her dreams of pursuing advanced education and a career in that field felt betrayed by having done what she thought she was supposed to do only to find out the foundational reasons for believing the authorities who said this were deeply flawed and being hidden from her by them

I have zero idea of what you are attempting to say. I think you're trying to say that Mormonism is pre-modern in say Taylor's sense[1] of having defined places and roles fully given by society. I completely disagree with that if that is indeed what you're saying. Indeed the very structure of the church where we switch roles rather regularly argues strongly against it.

[1] Here meaning Taylor's Secular Age.  But while there's a lot valuable in Taylor's analysis, fundamentally he's contrasting a medieval Christianity with modernism whereas I think Mormonism doesn't really fit in either category.

Quote

Suffice it to say it appears to me that for the Mormon to attempt to make Mormon thought conform to Nietzsche's philosophy or align Nietzsche's philosophy to Mormonism requires distorting or hacking away at both to the point they are not recognizable.

Fortunately no one is arguing along those lines. Although clearly you are completely ready if they do.

Edited July 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

///

Edited July 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi Clarkgoble,

The above sentence leaves me flabbergasted. The above two items are central to everything Nietzsche had to say on the subject of self and will and to identify them as problems for aligning his views with Mormonism is basically noting they don't actually align. I am not sure how someone familiar with him could argue this and not see the conflict that single sentence contains. Power is derived from the realization of self through exertion of the will, the Will to Power being about selfishness and realization of being/power as virtue...I'm serious when I say it leaves me flabbergasted. It's somewhat like saying one enjoys football except for the passing and running of the football. So...you like just like to tailgate then? Again, my impression is that Mormonism may derive some satisfaction from stealing a quote here, repurposing a phrase or concept there from Nietzsche but it absolutely cannot take what he says seriously and in total. And by total I mean aligning with foundational arguments that form the support for his philosophy.

A true world theory with N. is a belief in any concept of existence that takes the place of the one in which we find ourselves, a cold, indifferent, not-created-for-us cosmos. Mormonism absolutely is built on a true world theory. Again, I'm finding it flabbergasting that you can be familiar with Nietzsche and assert that Mormon cosmology is not in conflict with central aspects of his views.

Tangential to this, Mormonism absolutely defines the state of things as aspiring to perfect forms of the same thing. Your comment above also reconfirms this. A world that is telestial isn't something completely different in form from a celestial one. The celestial world is the perfect or "good" if you will world. Resurrected Gods and resurrected telestial human beings are different only by degree of perfection. I am not sure why that is inconvenient to accept?

Abraham 3 is explicitly noting this, for example -

16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it.

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

I can't agree less with this. The Mormon religion tells you what the meaning of life is, and this is the same for all people as dictated by the Church which claims it comes from God. It isn't about creating meaning out of the self which would include countless meanings, countless expressions of self. The true world theory of Mormonism is central to explaining this meaning. Mormonism has a name for this shared purpose to life and how the fallen world we are in fits into the true world theory - the plan of salvation. If a person intuits that there is something off with this approach they are not encouraged to look into their own will to reason and find out why, instead they are taught to conform and recognize truth is confirmed by being aligned with the leadership and scripture.

Central to the meaning of existence for Mormonism is the idea that justice must be satisfied. It's the core message of Alma 42, and is so compelling a force in Mormon cosmology that even God would cease to be God if justice were not fulfilled. Mosiah/King Benjamin confirms how indebted we are to Christ/God. Modern prophets remind bi-annually the importance of listening to them and coherence as a group found through shared morality, shared belief in life's purpose which was dictated to them not self-fulfilling.

Within sociology there is a theory called "identity capital theory", including theories about a shift in the role of society vs. the individual in terms of how one's identity gets defined.

Painting very broadly and coarse, the roles a person played in life have traditionally been provided to that person by the society, and one's identity capital (kind of like how much social currency one has accrued and how others respond to that currency) was largely based on how one behaved within those roles. In Mormonism one basically still finds this model. One has social milestones throughout life that one "hits" and others within the culture often view a person not solely as an individual but also in how one fulfilled or is fulfilling one of these roles. The easiest to grasp example is that around missionary service and marriage. Anyone familiar with LDS culture will ken how the first plays into the second and has an influence on outcomes within that are seen as part of one's identity even though to an outsider it has practically zero social currency.

The modern shift has been away from socially defined roles to ones where the individual is responsible to do things, learn things, go places, etc., and build identity capital on their own. There's no script. But there is still a very real sense of capital value in the social market. I think one thing many ex-Mormon's discover is that much of their efforts in building identity capital as Mormons has turned out to be as valuable as a Kirtland Anti-Bank Note. There was a reddit thread a while ago that served as a great example where a woman who had chosen motherhood and passed up her dreams of pursuing advanced education and a career in that field felt betrayed by having done what she thought she was supposed to do only to find out the foundational reasons for believing the authorities who said this were deeply flawed and being hidden from her by them.

This is getting long, and I doubt most people will read it in it's entirety anyway. Suffice it to say it appears to me that for the Mormon to attempt to make Mormon thought conform to Nietzsche's philosophy or align Nietzsche's philosophy to Mormonism requires distorting or hacking away at both to the point they are not recognizable. One only assumes one is still talking about Mormonism or about Nietzsche's philosophy because one began from that premise not because they remained consistent.

Nope.

Moroni 10, ask God and find out for yourself

James 1:5, same thing

"Prove every principle "

Joseph hated creeds.

DC 93 truth in spheres

Obedience is dependent on testimony.

No blind obedience 

Intelligence is light and truth.

Form your own world from matter unorganized as Father did.

Nobody said we were Nietzscheans, it's the attitude of creating one's own destiny.

What do you think the pioneers did?  But for us it includes The Other.  Big difference 

Edited July 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

ha! alright.

Ok, let's begin with one of your particular arguments regarding Mormonism, here:

"Life has meaning because we grant it meaning. It has meaning to God and he's willing to share that meaning."

Three general questions:

1) How does the Mormon grant life meaning? Specifically, is this an act of acceptance or an act of creation? And please explain how whichever it is works.

2) Does the meaning God assigns to life a universal meaning shared by humankind? Varies by categories of people? Or something other?

3) How does God share meaning?

Edited July 2, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope.

Moroni 10, ask God and find out for yourself

James 1:5, same thing

"Prove every principle "

Joseph hated creeds.

DC 93 truth in spheres

Obedience is dependent on testimony.

No blind obedience 

Intelligence is light and truth.

Form your own world from matter unorganized as Father did.

Nobody said we were Nietzscheans, it's the attitude of creating one's own destiny.

What do you think the pioneers did?  But for us it includes The Other.  Big difference 

Uh, nope...? (eternal mirrors of nope?)

God is dead.

To obey is better than to sacrifice.

D&C 88 that which will not obey law seeks to be a law unto itself and cannot receive glory and remain filthy

D&C 88 I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound (a true world theory if ever there was one)

I'm glad we agree that Mormonism isn't compatible with Nietzche's philosophy at its very roots.

Frankly, I don't believe Mormonism has an orthodoxy so in a sense that is irrelevant. But it very much has an orthopraxic social order of ritual and form. You're free to think what you want at very great odds from those who share the pews with you. But stray too far in action and there will be repercussions. It lacks a certain integrity of thinking which is why one sees so much free lance and "just so" explanations, borrowing from Christianity, unholy marriage with materialism the god of western civilization...IMO, of course.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Honorentheos

[USU78]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Where I think Nietzsche goes astray in that aspect of his existentialism is by not understanding togetherness nor love. Perhaps a character flaw from his personal life.

You've brought up love twice, and I think that's highly significant.

G-d places us in a painting inside a frame. Why? Nietzsche's aesthetics never addresses the question of why humanity must be subject to time and framed fore and aft by eternities they cannot see.

Love answers that question: we can only learn to love as He loves if we learn to value as He values those who have entered into covenant to become as He is. In eternity there is no scarcity. We value the mundane but little. What we can and must lose is precious, of great value.

Like that Pearl.

The frame forces us to value, and what and whom we value, we love ... as G-d loves.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Frankly, I don't believe Mormonism has an orthodoxy so in a sense that is irrelevant. But it very much has an orthopraxic social order of ritual and form. You're free to think what you want at very great odds from those who share the pews with you. But stray too far in action and there will be repercussions. It lacks a certain integrity of thinking which is why one sees so much free lance and "just so" explanations, borrowing from Christianity, unholy marriage with materialism the god of western civilization...IMO, of course.

The protestant god IS dead and has been since the Restoration

No orthodoxy and "follow the spirit" are exactly the keys.  So is orthopraxy.

Yes you are free to think what you want at great odds from those who share the pews with you.  THANKS that is exactly the point!!!

Repercussions?  What repercussions?  Will you be incarcerated?  Will you lose your head?  You may be excommunicated- SO WHAT if you do not believe it anyway.  What repercussions are there to changing from Democrat to Republican??

It is called "CHANGING YOUR MIND" and you get transferred from one mailing list to another.  You decide with your feet.  I have been excommunicated from Catholicism.  Do I ever even think about it?   Of course not- who cares??  I do not believe such excommunication has any effects on my spiritual life whatsoever!

And Mormons ARE materialists- you really need to study what we have of doctrine.  THAT is pretty clear.

And certainly you are free to your opinion but watch out for those nasty "repercussions"

I am sure you live in fear of being excommunicated  

Yes that was sarcasm, something you generally do not understand.

"Lack of integrity of thinking"?????  Precisely what is that???  "Just so" explanations????  Yes that is making your own world from matter unorganized- cobbling together your own worlds from unworking fragments of other worlds.  THAT IS THE GOAL.

So essentially this post is an admission that you do not have a case.

1- no orthodoxy, yep that is the point

2- your beliefs can vary from those around you- yep that is the point

3- you can follow your "gut" - ie "the spirit"- same thing different words

4- you can get kicked out of a club you don't want to be in anyway.  HORRORS!- that is no repercussion at all

5- yes the goal is to cobble together your own beliefs AS NIETZSCHE DID from Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Hegel and a bunch of other German boys so apparently Nietzsche also also lacked integrity of thinking.   Do you think he just sprung from the ground having never read philosophy or been influenced by it??

And you find this whole business "unholy""?

Good - I suggest you do not belong in the club.  Here's the door....  Off the mailing list with you!!

Edited July 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You've brought up love twice, and I think that's highly significant.

G-d places us in a painting inside a frame. Why? Nietzsche's aesthetics never addresses the question of why humanity must be subject to time and framed fore and aft by eternities they cannot see.

Love answers that question: we can only learn to love as He loves if we learn to value as He values those who have entered into covenant to become as He is. In eternity there is no scarcity. We value the mundane but little. What we can and must lose is precious, of great value.

Like that Pearl.

The frame forces us to value, and what and whom we value, we love ... as G-d loves.

N does not understand the importance of The Other in all this

He was a recluse.

I don't want that and few do.

The essence of our church is community.  We essentially worship the apotheosis of the human family.  That is not reclusive obviously

Our goal is "overcoming the world" as a team effort through LOVE

So yes there is a very basic difference.  But we are also individuals, and within that point of view, his views and attitudes can be very useful, again as I said in my first post on the thread

This whole "Mormons do not understand Nietzsche" is just blowing smoke.  

Kantian categorical imperative- if all humanity followed Nietzsche exactly there would be no humanity.  No love.  I do not find that desirable, odd duck that I am.

And this whole idea that you cannot take bits and pieces is just wrong- that is what N did himself, as you know well, Mr. Mensch !

This self-creation stuff goes back at least to Kant, N just makes it more romantic and dramatic than rational.  But man, he sure could write catchy one-liners!!

Edited July 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Uh, nope...? (eternal mirrors of nope?)

God is dead.

To obey is better than to sacrifice.

D&C 88 that which will not obey law seeks to be a law unto itself and cannot receive glory and remain filthy

D&C 88 I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound (a true world theory if ever there was one)

I'm glad we agree that Mormonism isn't compatible with Nietzche's philosophy at its very roots.

Frankly, I don't believe Mormonism has an orthodoxy so in a sense that is irrelevant. But it very much has an orthopraxic social order of ritual and form. You're free to think what you want at very great odds from those who share the pews with you. But stray too far in action and there will be repercussions. It lacks a certain integrity of thinking which is why one sees so much free lance and "just so" explanations, borrowing from Christianity, unholy marriage with materialism the god of western civilization...IMO, of course.

I could write a whole treatise on how each one of these is taken out of context

Here is a test for TBM's, your final exam for the thread

Please take each quote and show how the context shows it is quite different from the words quoted.

Hints:

"God is dead"- applies to secular gods

to obey is better than sacrifice- attitude is more important than killing cattle

That which does not obey law is filthy- we never said one should obey law- law is a means of overcoming- this misunderstand Mormonism and how obedience to law makes us free- if you drive on the wrong side of the street, no one will go anywhere because of a wreck on every corner

"True world theory"?  So what?  We are not slaves to Nietzsche and pick and choose.  But I would argue this is not a true world theory anyway.

And no, we are not compatible with N at our roots and neither did anyone say that.  

Oops I gave the answers to the test!

Off to church to surrender my agency so that I can learn to overcome the world, back later if anyone cares.....  I love the new self reliance program..... uh oh sounds like it helps others to overcome the world...... 

 

 

[Honorentheos]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes that was sarcasm, something you generally do not understand.

Or you do it wrong.  

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So essentially this post is an admission that you do not have a case.

Uh, no. We're resolving that despite some tendencies to treat Nietzsche superficially Mormonism can't be considered compatible with Nietzsche's philosophy. This abuse of concepts about overmen and self-realization is superficial treatment. Like your posts.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Or you do it wrong.  

Uh, no. We're resolving that despite some tendencies to treat Nietzsche superficially Mormonism can't be considered compatible with Nietzsche's philosophy. This abuse of concepts about overmen and self-realization is superficial treatment. Like your posts.

You have hurt me to the quick, but no refutation I see....  No I do not accept N hook line and sinker

Edited July 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You have hurt me to the quick, but no refutation I see....  No I do not accept N hook line and sinker

Mark, when you say this -

"True world theory"?  So what?  We are not slaves to Nietzsche and pick and choose."

- there's nothing to refute. We agree. Mormonism isn't compatible. Carry on.

[USU78]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

N does not understand the importance of The Other in all this

He was a recluse.

I don't want that and few do.

The essence of our church is community.  We essentially worship the apotheosis of the human family.  That is not reclusive obviously

Our goal is "overcoming the world" as a team effort through LOVE

So yes there is a very basic difference.  But we are also individuals, and within that point of view, his views and attitudes can be very useful, again as I said in my first post on the thread

This whole "Mormons do not understand Nietzsche" is just blowing smoke.  

Kantian categorical imperative- if all humanity followed Nietzsche exactly there would be no humanity.  No love.  I do not find that desirable, odd duck that I am.

And this whole idea that you cannot take bits and pieces is just wrong- that is what N did himself, as you know well, Mr. Mensch !

This self-creation stuff goes back at least to Kant, N just makes it more romantic and dramatic than rational.  But man, he sure could write catchy one-liners!!

Yep. All his cogitating on mind vs heart is right out of Schiller, but he appears to lack heart. Reclusion will do that to you. Which is prior, I wonder, the reclusion or the nasty disposition?

[Honorentheos]

Hey Mark,

It may help other readers to see how much smoke you are blowing. So, here's a couple of counterpoints for you.

"God is dead"- applies to secular gods

I think that Nietzsche was wise to your argument when he said, " 'God himself cannot exist without wise men", Luther said and was right. But "God can exist even less without unwise men", this good old Luther did not say."

You can say that the LDS God is not dead. But that's just a saying, too. If Nietzsche believed that our need to understand the world and modern scientific tools has revealed such an understanding of the world to satisfy our need for explanation then God - God as the object of sublime fear and trembling in worship as described in the Book of Job - is not the same God as worshipped by Mormons. So, granted there is a difference. But as Nietzsche also did well to point out, "God is dead: but given the way men are, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown." The concept of a divine, loving Father is truly but a shadow of the God feared and worshipped in the past by humankind groping in the dark to make meaning in a meaningless universe.

to obey is better than sacrifice- attitude is more important than killing cattle

The event from which from which this scripture comes serves as it's own counter to your claim.

1 Samuel 15

18 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel? 18And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?

20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

God spoke and was to be obeyed. It was an act of rebellion to not obey. One can have any attitude one wishes...so long as they obey.

That which does not obey law is filthy- we never said one should obey law- law is a means of overcoming- this misunderstand Mormonism and how obedience to law makes us free- if you drive on the wrong side of the street, no one will go anywhere because of a wreck on every corner

Nice story, bro.

Section 88 tells us that every kingdom, all things under God are governed by law. His house is a house of order. You can obey the law (drive on the correct side of the road) or choose not to, that is your freedom. But you become the law you obey, the kingdom to which the law is given which you can abide is the one you inherit.

[Honorentheos]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yep. All his cogitating on mind vs heart is right out of Schiller, but he appears to lack heart. Reclusion will do that to you. Which is prior, I wonder, the reclusion or the nasty disposition?

"Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I like much of what Nietzsche had to say...  And if one really wants to take from him, it requires understanding him in whole rather than superficially. The idea one must begin with accepting the world, the cosmos, as it is rather than appealing to escape is necessary for much of his thinking that is being appropriated under the guise of "conquering the world" or realizing one's true self as overman/overwoman. That is so clearly a type of true world theory it should have been a non-starter yet here we are, page 3 and just barely coming to terms with this reality.

Anyway, glad to lend a helping hand.

[Honorentheos]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 0:37 PM, boblloyd91 said:

So I recently read Nietzsche's work "The Birth of Tragedy". I actually quite liked how he discusses living an authentic life and embracing the chaotic reality of struggle and suffering. However he also strikes me as a German Korihor with his discussion about relying completely on the self. I was curious what those here on this board who are philosophically inclined think of Nietzsche. Is he hazardous to spiritual health? Or can something be gained from studying him?

Boblloyd91,

I wanted to come back to your OP to tie up a point.

As a community with shared beliefs, scripture, and a certain lack of elbow room when it comes to authority, there is still something in Mormonism's belief that bears a resemblance to what Nietzsche had to say. Perhaps in the language of the germ of god being within each of us one might hope to find the path to true realization of one's self. Because of this, some LDS faithful tend to walk an interesting line with thinkers such as Nietzsche or, as another example, Ralph Waldo Emerson whose essay on Self-Reliance is also similarly cited where calls to find one's true self, one's true voice get quoted and massaged into something that kinda looks like seeking exaltation. But something the varied thinkers on this share that the faithful cannot is the necessity at some point to walk out on one's own and leave the herd behind. And as much as those like MFB tell you this is the heart and soul of Mormonism, I assume you've been a member long enough to have your own thoughts on that so I'll leave them to you.

If you want to take thinkers such as Nietzsche seriously, then do so. Take them seriously. But take them seriously in sum not in part. I was impressed with your OP capturing one of the most fundamental aspects of the necessary grounding - that of embracing the chaotic reality of struggle and suffering as you put it.

My own experience is if one takes Mormon theology seriously, one will have to come to a crossroad in life where one will be asked to follow the crowd or find out for one's self what is true, what is meaningful, what is real. And down that road is chaos, struggle, and a lot of nihilism. One finds mirrors down that road, too. But one finds in it something like this from T.S. Eliot -

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the aged eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?

Because I do not hope to know again
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is nothing again

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessed face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

Nietzsche once noted that those who understood him know that he could have no disciples. And, as a very young man, he told a family member, "If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire."

Whichever road you find yourself on, I wish you well on your journey.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Honorentheos

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

If you want to take thinkers such as Nietzsche seriously, then do so. Take them seriously. But take them seriously in sum not in part.

Lots of comments since I last commented. So I'll just touch on a few of the more important points as I see them.

This is a comment I think I fundamentally disagree with. There's no doubt Nietzsche's ideas are related. But as philosophy what counts are the arguments. As we work through the arguments we need not agree with each step. That is one can fruitfully engage with philosophers without taking them in sum. That's not to say understanding their thought as a whole isn't worth doing. It is. Yet we should also note that most people ideas change with time. Often there are significant changes in thinkers over time even while there are often common threads. This is obvious in figures with distinct periods to their thought such as Wittgenstein (his period of logical positivism and the Tractus versus his post-positivist phase), Heidegger (lots of divisions but the main ones are before and after the "kehr"), etc. I think that's as true of Nietzsche as anyone. While we can point to major changes in some perhaps superficial aspects (say how he viewed Wagner) I think one can see distinct differences between say before his illness and later. I also mentioned the problem of the works published by his sister. 

Which is all a way of saying that perhaps "sum" is not a fruitful way to think of a thinker as if there were no contradictions. 

Second, I'd say you still seem to see the only value in a thinker being their conclusions and not their thinking. I can but say that seems a barren approach to philosophy.

Quote

How does the Mormon grant life meaning? Specifically, is this an act of acceptance or an act of creation? And please explain how whichever it is works.

Can't it be both? If an artist paints a picture in which something is shown in a truthful way I've not understood before, is my appreciating the thing as shown by the artist not simultaneously an acceptance and a creation?

But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves since we need to unpack many different senses of meaning. I assume by "grant life meaning" you mean give it value and make it meaningful for me. That is makes it of concern and attention. It's not merely meaning in the sense of being able to generate words about it. Although of course that's an important sense of meaning too. 

My answer for both is that we are given practices that allow us to see entities as they relate to those practices. Those practices are tied to deeply meaningful things in our life such as parental relationships, struggle, religion and so forth. All of those practices give unique aspects to the entities we encounter in life. They become meaningful and close to us to the degree we can see them continually in new light. When we turn to life in general, I think from a Mormon perspective it is the veil of forgetfulness and the encountering of death as a kind of absolute that gives quite a lot of meaning to death. Yet those are things that can be given yet can only be encountered on a personal and unique fashion. To apply the common Heideggarian refrain, no one can die for me. Even when it appears like someone does (say Christ) I still need to die. And because I am in this world in a finite fashion, all the knowledge in the world of life after death still isn't enough. I encounter death as an end that comes to me unavoidably in a fashion that radically shapes how I encounter life as meaningful.

So life gets it's meaning precisely from my choice to enter this fallen world with a veil not remembering what came before. I can encounter life only on the finite terms I encounter it here, thereby making it valuable in a fashion it wouldn't before. More or less, life becomes meaningful to the degree I appreciate and internalize the lessons of the temple.

Quote

Does the meaning God assigns to life a universal meaning shared by humankind? Varies by categories of people? Or something other?

That assumes the meaning of life is the meaning God assigns to it. I think that an incorrect view. God doesn't command values, as if that were even possible. He might give explicit laws and templates, but ultimately meaning can only come from within ourselves. The meanings we give will be wrapped up with the rituals, lessons, and laws God gives but are not purely defined by it. At best they can provide a clearing where we can find meaning directly.

Quote

How does God share meaning?

By giving finititude and opportunities.

That is meaning of the sort we're talking about can't be directly shared. It can be pointed to and prepared for at best.

Quote

D&C 88 that which will not obey law seeks to be a law unto itself and cannot receive glory and remain filthy

D&C 88 I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound (a true world theory if ever there was one)

Could you explain what you mean by "true world theory?" My sense is you mean it somewhat in the Nietzschean fashion as a fable designed to explain the real world by taking its place. 

If that is your view I honestly am flummoxed at how you can take D&C 99 as teaching that.

Quote

You're free to think what you want at very great odds from those who share the pews with you. But stray too far in action and there will be repercussions. It lacks a certain integrity of thinking which is why one sees so much free lance and "just so" explanations, borrowing from Christianity, unholy marriage with materialism the god of western civilization...IMO, of course.

Speaking as someone trained in physics, someone can deny the laws of physics, but if they jump off a cliff they fall regardless of what they think. In general it's wise not to associate with such people or let them lead your kids away. What's odd is saying an anything goes philosophy represents lacking a certain integrity of thinking. But alas that is unfortunately a common misreading of Nietzsche. The idea that his perspectivism entails solipsism.

 

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

You've brought up love twice, and I think that's highly significant.G-d places us in a painting inside a frame. Why? Nietzsche's aesthetics never addresses the question of why humanity must be subject to time and framed fore and aft by eternities they cannot see.

What do you mean by "in a painting inside a frame?"

Nietzsche doesn't address why the world is the way it is. He just accepts that it is - which seems a reasonable thing to a degree. (We'll again ignore Will to Power and texts that appear to take literally Stoic metaphysics) 

Ignoring Nietzsche I can but say there is time and it seems unavoidable to probe the implications of that. I don't buy for a moment the more platonic takes on God where God is atemporal. Rather I think we have to take seriously what science tells us of the nature of the universe.

Quote

Love answers that question: we can only learn to love as He loves if we learn to value as He values those who have entered into covenant to become as He is. In eternity there is no scarcity. We value the mundane but little. What we can and must lose is precious, of great value.

I think finitude lets us understand love in a fashion we couldn't before (even though I think in some ways we were very finite before as well). Here in this world there's no obvious person watching over us at all times. We have to decide what to do out of ourselves and not because someone is watching. We don't do it to please an other person but because it's what we want to do. This enable us to try lots of things.  Hopefully we'll discover the value of loving by loving. Not everyone does of course. But God doesn't force people to be what they don't want to be.

[Honorentheos]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think one can see distinct differences between say before his illness and later.

Are you referring to the last decade of his life when his sister was using his name? Or something other illness. to refer to "his illness" evokes his final decade or so when he wasn't writing himself. At least as I recall it.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Are you referring to the last decade of his life when his sister was using his name? Or something other illness. to refer to "his illness" evokes his final decade or so when he wasn't writing himself. At least as I recall it.

His sister didn't write the books but the assumption is she may have modified them or at least redacted them. There's also the assumption that many of the texts, especially those compiled into Will to Power represented him thinking through ideas but not the conclusion of that thought. In other words that they represent mistakes or steps in thinking and are thus misleading as a guide to what his views actually were. But not all the works are equally problematic. I think Will to Power is the one everyone agrees you have to be cautious with. You don't hear those complaints about say The AntiChrist even though it was published well after his death.

But even outside of the works published and possibly contaminated by his sister there is a big difference between the works of say 1885-1887 and those from before 1883. In some ways his later works are rethinking through the logic and ideas of earlier works. So for instance Beyond Good and Evil is often taken as a reworking of Human, All-too-Human. It's been a while since I last read these but I recall liking Human All too Human much better.

As I said though I tend to see Nietzsche primarily valuable in shaking people out of their complacency in thinking. He's extremely fruitful to use for undergraduates. I'm not sure he's as worthwhile overall since I think there are far more valuable philosophers who engage with many of the same ideas in more fruitful fashions. Here thinking of the pragmatists or Heidegger and the phenomenologists.

Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Honorentheos]

I'll jump back into your responses to my questions shortly, but I have to argue there is a difference between the idea of accepting a person's total body of work over a lifetime and acknowledging the groundwork for there thinking is necessary for the subsequent thought. As you point out yourself, the arguments matter. And they build upon one another. One does not simply graft a conclusion on one's own biased views and claim kinship. If you wish to claim kinship, you have to build your argument upon some foundation. What I've seen so far is the grafting of some general ideas to at least two versions of Mormonism. Mark's is more a vanity project than a religion, speaking from what is now easily 6 or 7 years of experience. Your views I've only briefly seen in relation to Neoplatonism elsewhere. What I see here with Nietzsche isn't building on arguments but grafting a concept onto your argument for what Mormonism might be understood to be. What appears to be left are vague shadows of the original.

My take - Mormonism was established in a mash-up of egalitarian restorations theology in the 19th century that failed to grow it's own foundation because the thinkers came in phases that were discarded by the charismatic leader whose seems to have bleed a form of narcissism into Christian theology that by fate or fortune came under the leadership of a non-philosophical logistics theocrat away from the world allowing it to survive and gain a critical mass of adherents with such mutative flaws when it was reintegrated back into the Christian west the majority of what made it unique came off in thick layers leaving essentially a culture more than a religion that seems to be unsure whether to fully reintegrate with Christianity or double down on the proud label of being a peculiar people.

There are no roots onto which you are grafting Nietzsche's thinking. You are borrowing from other sources but all still doing damage as they require a fundamental and mortally wounding condition: What it means to become exalted is not authentically found within but must be taught, trained, and conditioned. It's almost the opposite of the concepts' original foundation. It's just...yeah. It's just wrong.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

"God is dead"- applies to secular gods

I think that Nietzsche was wise to your argument when he said, " 'God himself cannot exist without wise men", Luther said and was right. But "God can exist even less without unwise men", this good old Luther did not say."

In the world Nietzsche was writing in the personal interventionist God really was no longer believed except by the uneducated masses that Nietzsche looked down upon. I think it's undeniable that he'd have rejected the idea of an anthropomorphic interventionist God. But his main target seems undeniably the "de-mythologized" God of the philosophers he critiqued such as Descartes, Kant and Hegel. 

Where I think Mormons find common ground is in also rejecting those aspects even if we accept something Nietzsche wouldn't have (without evidence). Most importantly though unlike most appeals to God, Mormonism is fully embraced to an evidentialist view of God. 

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I'll jump back into your responses to my questions shortly, but I have to argue there is a difference between the idea of accepting a person's total body of work over a lifetime and acknowledging the groundwork for there thinking is necessary for the subsequent thought. As you point out yourself, the arguments matter. And they build upon one another.

To the degree an argument requires understanding other aspects of thought then I agree. The question to what degree that is necessary. It seems clear that many of Nietzsche's arguments can be made without needing to deal with the whole of his work. I even gave a few such as his eternal recurrence thought experiment. 

Further, as I'm sure you know, lots of other philosophers have utilized Nietzsche without accepting all his thought. Other philosophers as well. So this is common practice.

Quote

One does not simply graft a conclusion on one's own biased views and claim kinship.

Yes, but again, no one that I can see was doing that. Rather we started out responding to whether it was problematic to read Nietzsche. I said no and gave a few places where reading him is valuable for understanding Mormonism. But the assumption was that the people asking the question would actually read Nietzsche (since that was what I was advocating) and not just select positions without understanding them and their grounds.

Quote

What I've seen so far is the grafting of some general ideas to at least two versions of Mormonism.

What I've seen so far are very bad readings of other peoples comments. In some cases reading them the exact opposite of what they say.

Edited July 3, 2017 by clarkgoble