Morality & Supermorality - The Initiate in the New World

a reply to: tridentblue

Nietzsche's ideas shaped 20th century movements like Communism, but they didn't work.
People need old fashioned morals to work together.
Many great people in history were quite moral.
Lack of morals makes you weak.

On a side note: It was Marx and Engels who shaped communism. Nietzsche was anti-state, anti-nationalism and anti-collective. It could be said that Nazism influenced by Nietzsche's thought, but only insofar as his work was mis-interpreted by nazi philosophers, and misrepresented by Nietzsche's own sister, as proven by Kaufmann's work on the subject. Nietzsche was critical of socialism, of nationalism (state-worship), and despised anti-semitism, which is antithetical to Communism and Nazism.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Sacgamer, the way I see it, being moral is like building a house, and your moral code is like the blueprints. There are many blueprints you can choose - Christian, Buddhist, secular humanist. Once you've chosen your blueprints, other people in your community (Like your church) can help you on your way, and work well together, because they are all building from the same blueprints.

Once you've picked your blueprints, its important that you stick with them. However you don't need to think the house you are choosing to build is THE DIVINE house design, and that every one else is wrong, you just need to stick to building your own house, being the person you want to be. It also helps to have some core standards like laws, to ensure that the houses are up to "code".

The problem with the super morality concept is that there are no blue prints, no standards, no codes. Its moment by moment. That doesn't make for easy house building.

a reply to: Words

Yeah, I knew someone was going to nail me on that oversimplification. What you are saying is correct, of course Marx is the philosopher behind Communism, with ideas very distinct from Nietzsche. But my point is that Nietzsche and Marx were both part of a broader, humanist movement of the period that shaped the coming centuries, that was about turning away from religious worldviews, and trying to improve the world from from taking a here-now stance in which man dictated his own destiny. This stance, in both philosophies, requires someone to step in and fill the God-as-the-source-of-moral-guidance slot, left empty since "God is Dead". For Nietzsche, that was the job of the ubermensch. For Marx, it was the job of the emerging communist movement. The uniting theme in both is the need for humans to rise up and assert created moral authority in a material and godless world.

a reply to: tridentblue

But their is a moral code that can be known by carefully observing yourself. If man was the owner of his own conscious than he can justify anything and find peace.

But our conscious, the moral compass that lies within man belongs to the father. This is why a man who follows desires contrary to his conscious remains empty and becomes lost in the actions against the spirit, always believing someday he will overcome his own conscious.

Nietzsche went insane trying to prove that he owned his moral compass.

If we were in ownership of self, why do we suffer at the hands of ourselves? One who owns oneself should never be at war with oneself.

But we remain at war in our own minds. Addicted to things that are poison to our spirits. Doing things that our own souls know to be untrue.

The thing referred to as conscious is the Holy Spirit, but few listen, and thus are stuck in states of mental war with thier own minds, leading many to depression.

And all the religious text say the same thing about the Holy Spirt. Love lives in us. This love is the Holy Spirit, sent from God to be our moral compass, leading down the path to perfection.

a reply to: sacgamer25

I hear you. I think that's a good point about conscience, and it's got to a play a role in making the choices about building/becoming the person we want to become. I think at the end of the day its a personal process as well. We can talk to others till we're blue in the face about how things SHOULD be (the house we want to build) but at the end of the day, the people who are really convincing are those who've built their house, who are walking their path, who are being guided by their moral compasses. Good words, sacgamer!

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: sacgamer25

I hear you. I think that's a good point about conscience, and it's got to a play a role in making the choices about building/becoming the person we want to become. I think at the end of the day its a personal process as well. We can talk to others till we're blue in the face about how things SHOULD be (the house we want to build) but at the end of the day, the people who are really convincing are those who've built their house, who are walking their path, who are being guided by their moral compasses. Good words, sacgamer!

Absolutely, religion teaches you to go to a man, listen, give him some money and go home. It is supposed to be much more personal than this. I don't believe I have to climb a church pyramid to understand.

Understanding is available to anyone who actually follows the doctrine that they claim they received from God. You would think if someone was going to claim a book is from God that they might actually become deciples of the teachers, rather than lost listeners, following the lost leaders.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Its definitely a process. For me, a good starting point is working to have the humility to say "I don't know", and wisdom to recognize that other people don't necessarily know, though they may still have a lot to teach. There's a Gandhi quote I like:

"A votary of truth is often obliged to grope in the dark"

Gandhi said the core of his spiritual principles was Truth, but he admitted to not having it, having to grope along in the dark just to try to get a little closer to it. That's how it is I think: like you say, we all have this moral compass. But its a struggle on a daily basis to really follow it, and that struggle is often a lot harder than just showing up to church on Sunday.

Well, all that is there is a paragraph in three posts...actually three in OP...which didn't really say much...not sure if that's the whole thing, or if the 'mod edits' just totally destroyed the thread.

a reply to: TheJourney

Feel free to read the articles at the link. The OP was basically filling the page with one long quote, T&C problem.

I don't happen to be much for occult philosophies saying things like "You don't have to be bound by the same morals that the sheep are bound by." Sounds like a cult to me. But look if you want.