The other day I was thinking how annoying it is to have to eat and sleep. My needs often create conflict between me and those around me, and it waste my time. But God... well... God doesn't need to worry about eating. He doesn't need to worry about sleeping. God has no needs- not even one. That's why "he" is peace. Since God has no needs, he doesn't get into conflict with the universe. Therefore, the lack of need is the essence of who God really is- that is, absolute peace. :itold:
So you start with the premise that god is physical. And you conclude that he has no conflicts with that which surrounds him (the universe) because he has no needs. So you jump back to god has no physical needs. How practical.
This post has a lot of assumed assertions about the nature of God. Like 'he' is peace, for example. How do you know that God does not experience conflict, pain, frustration, etc? And who'd want this dull Buddha god anyway. You'd think God would be a very interesting dinner guest. Some guy who smiles and is satisfied. I mean I love my dog when he sleeps, but I also love him awake. And he's far more interesting than smoething that is simply at peace. There are those religions that have passionless gods. I do understand the appeal. Peace would be nice. But passion and creativity and striving if not struggle and war are things I would miss.
Where did I say God is physical? Did I miss something? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The purpose of the post is to make a simple connection between needs and peace. An abscence of needs result in peace. That's the whole point of the post, I suppose... I don't think that's part of the discussion I set forth... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not saying that's not true. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You link need with physical appearances (rest, hunger). To display an adequate supply of those betokens peace. So, if God is peace… Also: you allude to God as the Universe's room mate.
I think a more clear reasoning would be not that you're implying God has a physical appearance, but that he even exists in the realm of needs such as hunger, rest, etc. Are you assuming that God has the ability to have human emotions like peace? An existence of a relaxed state of mind can be explained evolutionarily, so too me it seems queer to give such qualities to some supposed unfathomable superior. Plus, if God were always at peace why would he even bother creating the universe, the world, etc? Was it a simply mechanical action, or did he need something to soothe his boredome or satisfy his curiousity? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I never suggested appearance as being anything but what you implied: the appearance of fatigue and the appearance of hunger as symptoms of, uh, inadequacy, hence not being at peace with one's self. And, pray, what brings on fatigue and hunger?? But if you wish to re-examine your analogy, by all means.
Nietzsche equates a form of nihilism with Buddhism, which is interesting because its description—passive nihilism— addresses and confronts Truthseeker's topic-thread straight on: Nihilism. It is ambiguous: Nihilism as a sign of increased power of the spirit: as active nihilism. Nihilism as decline and recession of the power of the spirit: as passive nihilism. Nihilism as a normal condition. It can be a sign of strength: the spirit may have grown so strong that previous goals have become inadequate. Or a sign of the lack of strength to posit for oneself, productively, a goal, a why, a faith. It reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction—as active nihilism. Its opposite: the weary nihilism that no longer attacks; its most famous form, Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness. The strength of the spirit may be worn out, exhausted, so that previous goals and values have become inadequate and are no longer believed; so that the synthesis of values and goals dissolves, and the individual values war against each other: disintegration—and whatever refreshes, heals, calms, numbs, emerges into the foreground in various disguises, religious or moral, or political, or aesthetic, etc.
He probably did it for no reason... Or maybe he wanted to satisfy his need of belonging? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How can a philosophy (buddhism) which has as its highest ideal and goal the redemption of all humanity from the suffering of unenlightened existence, be nihilism? One of the most basic buddhist principles is to develop compassion, which is an inexhaustible source of humanist goals. Where specifically does Neitzsche speak of buddhism as nihilism? This is a similar argument to those which speak of christianity as evil because many of those who claimed ownership of the religion have done evil things specifically prescribed against by the religion itself when interpreted reasonably.
Nietzsche is speaking of an immediate condition of a flagging spirit—embodied as a disguise. You speak of Buddhism here as a proponent of certain ideals—mass compassion, humanism, enlightenment—ideals not targeted towards the individual and certainly not towards the will to power—compassion towards all of humanity as though every man woman and child were on an equal footing, or should be? Come on, you should know Nietzsche better than that. What can be more goddamn condescending and boring than to be accosted by a self-styled holier-than-thou from some sort of high-end plateau that I can not see, turning round to face me and daring me to step forward in line with the rest of his mute and hanging comrades? Exhibiting compassion for not being as "enlightened" as they are? Yeah, right. My eye. I don't need a group of bores in unison telling me what my goals should or should not be thank you very much. He peppers references to Buddhism throughout a wide range of writings, but I'm currently going through The Will To Power. Again, Nietzsche, here, is referring to a state of being—he is not panhandling nor giving a criticism.
What you have said makes a lot of sense but how do we truly know if God is all about "absolute peace"? True, he does not get involved in a lot of things (that can be debated) but I'm positive God has at least SOME needs. For example, every book written on God (although I personally feel the Bible is a whole bunch of fucking lies) details how God feels the NEED to create and destroy. I feel you are right in saying a human will only achieve peace by eliminating as many needs as possible (sex, desire to become rich, etc) but I'm skeptical that God feels the same way. The simple fact God has created so many species of animals with 6 billion people roaming around the Earth speaks volumes as to the need God has to create a lot. This includes meaningless creatures such as the mosquitoe...I mean, what NEED did God have to create such a devilish creature?
Are you seriously suggesting Nietzche was a nihilist? Exhistentialist maybe, but no nihilist, unless they changed the meaning of that word recently...
The persecutor of God. -- Paul thought up the idea and Calvin rethought it, that for innumerable people damnation has been decreed from eternity, and that this beautiful world plan was instituted to reveal the glory of God: heaven and hell and humanity are thus supposed to exist - to satisfy the vanity of God! What cruel and insatiable vanity must have flared in the soul of the man who thought this up first, or second. Paul has remained Saul after all - the persecutor of God. from Nietzsche's The Wanderer and his Shadow, R.J. Hollingdale transl.
Again not nihilism(the opposite - the making of our exhistence! Not Nothing!): After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too. from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.108, Walter Kaufmann transl.
Here's one quote about Nihilism: (exactly what i'm talking about - it really bugs me people think he is a nihilist!) A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists. – Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585, Walter Kaufmann
This is a nihilist?? "Plan for an unfinished book: The Eternal Recurrence My philosophy brings the triumphant idea of which all other modes of thought will ultimately perish. It is the great cultivating idea: the races that cannot bear it stand condemned; those who find it the greatest benefit are chosen to rule... I want to teach the idea that gives many the right to erase themselves - the great cultivating idea... Everything becomes and recurs eternally - escape is impossible! - Supposing we could judge value, what follows? The idea of recurrence as a selective principle, in the service of strength (and barbarism!!)... To endure the idea of the recurrence one needs: freedom from morality; new means against the fact of pain ( pain conceived as a tool, as the father of pleasure...); the enjoyment of all kinds of uncertainty, experimentalism, as a counterweight to this extreme fatalism; abolition of the concept of necessity; abolition of the "will"; abolition of "knowledge-in-itself." Greatest elevation of the consciousness of strength in man, as he creates the overman. from The Will to Power, s. 1053,1056,1058,1060, Walter Kaufmann transl.
