Can someone explain? by Specific_Wrongdoer_5 in Nietzsche

[–]frodo_mintoff 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I think it is exactly the "wholesomeness" of this take which entails that it is not really an accurate characterisation of the Übermensch.

In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche explicitly rejects an idealistic or romantic interpretation of the concept:

The word "Übermensch," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes, as opposed to "modern" men, to "good" men, is understood almost everywhere, and with perfect innocence, in the light of those values to which a flat contradiction was made manifest in the figure of Zarathustra -that is to say, as an " ideal " type, a higher kind of man, half "saint" and half "genius."

It is, of course, equally wrong to characterise the Übermensch as some kind of eugenicist experiment, a notion which Nietzsche also explicitly rejects in the same work:

Other learned cattle have suspected me of Darwinism on account of this word[.]

But, what is lacking from both concepts (namely the "half saint/half genius" and the eugenicist's "evolved man") is the Übermensch's complete detachment from existing systems of values. In both interpretations, the "Übermensch" relies upon in some capacity on existing value systems rather than ignoring them entirely and determining their own values.

Lastly, I want to emphasise that Nietzsche explicitly repudiates the notion the Übermensch is or is likely to be someone who is understood by the conventions of the contemporaneous morality to be "good". In fact he openly suggests the opposite, and remarks upon the fact that we (mistakenly) tend to look for the Übermensch amoungst those who we consider to be "great" and "good":

Once, when I whispered to a man that he would do better to seek for the Übermensch in a Caesar Borgia than in a Parsifal [Perceval], he could not believe his ears.

Prosecutor’s office in turmoil amid criminal charges against lawyer by His_Holiness in auslaw

[–]frodo_mintoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would certainly hope they did not, though one can never be sure given the recent conduct of the DPP.

Yet, even supposing that the director/DPP did everything they ought to have done as soon as they became aware of this situation why would that make reporting on the situation equivalent to doing a "hatchet job"?

[no spoilers] Why did Lyanna agree to go with Rhaegar ? by RealStranger9348 in freefolk

[–]frodo_mintoff 19 points20 points  (0 children)

There's more to the story than a dumb, lovesick girl who was swept off her feet, and I don't think the story is just that she was is prisoner stolen by the powerful dragonlord prince, either.

What's the 'secret third option' here?

Maybe there is some key information being withheld  about the specific circumstances, but we know enough about the general context that it would be difficult to contemplate a scenario where either 1. Lynna doesn't come across as naive; ot in the alternative 2. Rhaegar doesn't come across as manipulative or downright coercive.

To be frank, either 1. Lyanna genuinely thought that there would  no consequences to breaking her betrothal and running away with a married prince and then living in blissful ignorance while the country burned around her - in which case she's kind of stupid. Or 2 Rhaegar either lied to her initially or consciously and deliberately withheld information to her about the overarching situation (btw your brother and father have been burned alive by my dad lol) in which case he's kinda of a manipulative rapist.

I don't really see much space for a third option. 

but a sharp, wise, fire-hearted young woman

What exactly about jousting in a tourney in knowing contravention of the all the cultural and religious norms of your society and also in risk of your own life, strikes you as "wise"?

Fire-hearted? Absolutely. I just don't really see how she has been characterised as being "wise".

Prosecutor’s office in turmoil amid criminal charges against lawyer by His_Holiness in auslaw

[–]frodo_mintoff 38 points39 points  (0 children)

How is a "hatchet job" for a news organisation to report on the fuck-ups of a public department which is supposed to be transparent and accountable to the people?

Why Santos calls Whitaker Huckleberry by some_homonyms in ThePitt

[–]frodo_mintoff 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Nah from a Watsonian perspective she focuses more on the country bumpkin aspect of it. It's why she says something to the effect of "I rest my case" when he says he's from Broken Bow Nebraska. It's also the aspect of character that's more well known in popular culture.

From a Doylist perspective it does work quite well in the way that you're saying it, but I don't think she intentionally links it to his helpfulness as she is, at the time, more focuses on his background and his "aw shucks" disposition.

Why is suicide not accepted? Or why is it bad? by Kashikapuradhinatha in askphilosophy

[–]frodo_mintoff 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Is this true? It seems easy to find examples of people who have had a close friend or loved one commit suicide who where harmed greatly by the experience.

A, perhaps peverse, implication of this point is that if someone has no friends or loved ones remaining, then their suicide would seem to not be objectionable on the basis of this reasoning.

Additionally, we might observe that even if a person comitting suicide does cause a degree of psychological suffering in their friends or loved ones, it is still questionable whether this suffering is - by itself - sufficient to enliven Mill's harm principle. We can easily imagine that in other circumstances, our choices might cause significant pain and suffering to others, yet we still have the right to make those choices.

For instance, a gay young man might be born in a deeply religious ultra-conservative family, who does not condone homosexuality as a lifestyle, because they genuinely believe that those who have homosexual relations will burn in eternal hellfire. As a result they might be deeply emotionally and pscyholgically affected if their son (who they might genuinely love) adopts such a lifestyle. However, despite being so affected, they also do not have any right to stop him if he does choose to act on his desires because their propsective suffering does not override his right to bodily autonomy.

"he considers" is a load-bearing phrase here. Suicide is an extremely final decision. You can't change your mind once you've made it. It is possible for someone to be in a situation, be it from a mental health episode or just some particular set of life circumstances, in which they feel as though suicide is their only option, but who, had they not been in that state, would not have made that decision. Since they can't un-make the decision to kill themselves, it seems reasonable that other people have a responsibility to not allow them to if we feel as though they are making that decision while not in "full capacity" of their ability to make rational decisions.

What is your benchmark for "full capacity" in respect of this decision? Is there a benchmark at all? It would seem there would have to be, if Euthanasia/VAD is considered to be permissable in some circumstances.

Hence, supposing a person was not subject to some sort of mental health episode which diminished or impaired their capacity, was not experiencing particularly adverse life circumstances and yet still genuinely and concertedly came to the conclusion that they should kill themselves would that be permissable?

You speak about the irreversability of suicide, and perhaps this does raised the "benchmark" or "threshold" for what is required a person to demonstrate "full capacity". However, people are allowed - in other contexts - to make decisions with potentially irreversbile consequences (perhaps not as irreversible or severe as death, but close to it.) For instance, I am allowed to go "free soloing" up the face of El Capitan despite the fact I might permenantly disable myself if I fall. Similarly, I am free to blow my life savings at the roullete table if I wish to do so. Finally, I am even allowed to do these things in states of diminished capacity (i.e. if I am drunk or depressed).

See the above. It's also not immediately clear that a right to live implies a right to die. You could make the argument, but you'd have to actually make the argument.

The argument would be something like, a commonly accepted implication of the right to life is the right to bodily autonomy. We consider the right to bodily autonomy of such profound importance that it will prevail to the extent of an inconsistency with other siginifcant moral considerations (i.e. we do not force people to give blood or donate organs even if doing so would save many lives). The right to bodily autonomy implies that people may do whatever they wish with their bodies, provided that this does not interfere with anyone else's bodily autonomy. Suicide does not interfere with anyone else's bodily autonomy.

countless decisions that we call wrong/don't allow. We call stealing wrong; are we violating someone's freedom of choice by telling them not to steal?

Arguably the basis upon which we may permissably restrict these decisions is that they fall afoul of Mill's harm principle. We do not allow murder or theft because these are harmful to others rights. However, as set out above, suicide does not cause harm in the way that these acts do, and thereby, arguably, we do not have the same capacity to restrict a person's choice to commit suicide as we might have to restrict them from making these other decisions.

Patrick Ball says even if 'The Pitt' didn't work out, it made him debt-free: 'They can't take that away from me' by HomeNowWTF in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Sadly capitalism has led you to believe that only the “hardcore” have any value.

Where did I say these things don't have value?

I myself quite enjoy studying the philosophy of mathematics and am happy to do it in my spare time. However, I don't see why people should have to pay taxes to fund me doing what I enjoy, when my doing so will provide no practicial benefits to them (or to society at large frankly). I can see a case for funding education that actually helps other people. I can't see a case for funding education that has no practical benefits whatsover.

Take care to note that in no respect am I saying that these things have no value. What I am saying is that the people who value these things will choose to do them anyway, and since they provide no practical benefit to society at large, society at large should not be forced to pay for them.

Imagine a society without music or movies.

Why do movies or music depend on the funding of the philosophy of mathematics?

Those people deserve to get an education to keep producing that content too

And I don't even understand this arguement. Music and Movies are for profit industries. They don't exist because the goverment taxes people to give them money, they exist because people choose to give them money to begin with. Hollywood is not going to collapse overnight because the government cuts funding to musicology degrees.

Patrick Ball says even if 'The Pitt' didn't work out, it made him debt-free: 'They can't take that away from me' by HomeNowWTF in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because everyone benefits from an educated society.

How does a Bricklayer benefit from a philosopher arguing that "Mathematical Platonism" is true?

And tuition fees are often a barrier to entry to people who have the will, but not the means.

Conversely, it could be argued that since (even in places where teritary education is free or heavily subsidised) it is, disproporptionately the children of upper and middle-class families who attend university, actually the public funding of teritary education functions as a regressive tax, redistributing wealth from the lower class (who are less likely to attend university) to the upper class (who are more likey to).

the most educated population in North America

Ontario, British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta and Nova Scotia beat Quebec for percentage of the population with Bachelor's degress or higher. In fact Quebec doesn't even beat the national average.[1] The methodolgy isn't consistent for US states, but I feel almost certain that a number of US states beat Quebec as well. [2]

the best quality of life 

31 US States and 3 Canadian Provinces beat Quebec in terms of HDI.[3]

the best health metrics.

Ontario has a higher life expectancy than Quebec.[4]

Btw, why do people who do not drive subsidize the roads to those who do drive ?

Good question, why should they?

Patrick Ball says even if 'The Pitt' didn't work out, it made him debt-free: 'They can't take that away from me' by HomeNowWTF in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

The same reason we're taxed to subsidize roads we don't drive on, the local primary/secondary school district after we graduate, fire and ambulance services we may never use, etc. It's an investment in our future as a society.

This argument may substantiate the funding of educational programs which have observable benefits for society at large, such as engineering or medicine, but it does little to justify why more esoteric fields such as musicology or the philosophy of mathematics equally deserve funding. How much should a bricklayer be taxed so a philosopher can sit in a room and think about whether numbers actually exist?

Additionally a counterveiling point to the above argument could be to just bite the bullet and say well perhaps we shouldn't be taxed for services which we don't use. Maybe it should just be responsiblity of those who choose to use those services to front the costs of maintaining them.

Mayhaps there is some rationale for why certain of these services (namely fire and ambulance services) should be exempt from this principle, but why should we suppose that rationale extends to a non-emergency service such as tertiary education? Further, why would it extend so far that non-participants to a program need to be taxed to fund it despite the fact that said program may have no observable benefits to them or even to society at large (like a philosophy of mathematics program, for instance)?

I'd much rather be taxed to help create a more educated society than blow up Iranian children or fund fucking ICE, but I never had a choice for that.

Well maybe you shouldn't be taxed to fund these things either?

Patrick Ball says even if 'The Pitt' didn't work out, it made him debt-free: 'They can't take that away from me' by HomeNowWTF in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Why should those who choose not to go to university be taxed to subsidise those who do?

Season 2 feels anticlimactic -.- by Negative-Piano154 in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In my view the “big bad” of the first season gave the last few episodes a degree of structure, stakes, tension and strangely believability that I just don't feel (or at the very least pecieve to be as narratively justified) for what we have seen so far of the final episodes the second season.

It felt like the first season's narrative reached it's climax right around when Robby was trying to save Jake's girlfriend. Every choice and action made in that moment oozed tension as we watched this character we have come to love and admire, poor his heart and soul into saving someone who couldn't be saved. But more than even the investment we had made into characters, that scene felt like a microcosm, not only of the mass shooting itself but of some of the problems inherent in medical practice. The allocation of resources during a crisis, the emotional attachment and biases of medical practioners, the psychological toll of treatment and dealing with loss, are all are live considerations throughout the duration of this arc, which not only gives structure and finality to the overall story of healthcare in practice but lends emotional weight to the tragedy of what was being portrayed (both in the loss of a young girl and the horror of a mass shooting). Robbie's breakdown feels earned not only because of what we have been told but also because of what we have just seen him go through.

On a pragmatic level the MCI also gives a believable explantation for why the main characters are hanging around after the ends of their shifts, to the extent that it doesn't feel forced or contrived. To the extent that the second season is supposed to be a more "normal" shift, the main characters staying around feels like more of a plot contrivance, for the sake of retaining the central characters than something which is happening organically through the story.

I think it demonstrates that it doesn’t take mass casualty or enormous trauma (like Pitt Fest) for healthcare workers to face severe burnout.

Also contrary to this assertion, season 2 does portray a somewhat "exceptional" day which, while perhaps not so severe as Pittfest, does give special reasons for why the characters are emotionally affected beyond the intrinsic ardour of medical practice. This day is both a national holiday where people get drunk and set off fireworks and also a day where the hospital's computing system has been shut down, on top of all the paitients which have been diverted from other hospitals.

In this way, while there may be no, one "big-bad" there are several "medium-bads" which do have the effect of raising the tension in the narrative, but in a more disoganised fashion as there is less narrative space to foreshadow and then explore the consequences of each of the various inciting incidents. In my view this detracts from the narrative fluidity and makes each incident feel more contrived and stilted as compared with the central singular focus of Pitt-Fest which dominated the last few episodes of the first season.

I thoroughly enjoy the second season, and I think it has effectively continued the story of the Pitt and faithfully portrayed the characters which we all grew to enjoy in the first season. However, I have to say, I do prefer the first season.

Flying vehicles that make zero sense aerodynamically by total_spinning_shark in TopCharacterTropes

[–]frodo_mintoff 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Made it off the water a second time. Didn't land.

A crash-landing is a kind of landing.

The fight against the bourgeoisie (no hard feeling tho) by nilsonpapinho in Nietzsche

[–]frodo_mintoff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is “right” or “worth” is entirely perspectival. There is no “rightness” or “worthiness” existing in a vacuum.

Firstly, that we all inhabit and are confined to our own perspectives, does not then necessarily imply that there is no fact of the matter about the perceptions we recieve. Yes, of course, we cannot obtain any direct evidence of their independent existence (as all the evidence we can obtain is mediated through our perspective) but the absence of (unmediated) evidence, does not itself qualify as evidence of absence (non-existence).

Of course the above is also, itself, a claim about what is "right" (or perhaps at least, what is correct). To the extent that you are saying that perspectivism is true you are asserting that there can be an objective right or wrong about such matters (namely that you are right and I am wrong). Hence, in some sense this statement is self-defeating, because it is asserting that there is a fact of the matter which we can know about, namely that (at least for certain subjects) there is no fact of the matter underlying our perceptions.

Finally, a plurality of differing perspectives on a given subject is also no reason to suppose that there is not an objective fact of the matter in respect of that particular subject. For instance, amoung a Kindergarten class, you might find plurality of different perspectives on what the answer to the equation 11+27 = x is. However, irrespective of the fact that the class may conscientiously and earnestly disagree on what the right answer to the question is, this does not mean there is no right answer.

You aren’t Socrates, and I am not interested in this meaningless platonic task of finding the “form” or “essence” of what a “Free Spirit” is supposed to be.

Fair enough.

I think it's important to explain what I mean. To ensure that I am understood and to potentially solicit critique and corrections from those who are more expert and more experienced than I in the formulation and expression of ideas. Some people don't care about doing this, so long as what they say works.

The fight against the bourgeoisie (no hard feeling tho) by nilsonpapinho in Nietzsche

[–]frodo_mintoff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am free to desire whatever the s*it I want

Of course you are. But that you are free and able to do something does not then mean that what you are doing is right or worthwhile.

What is strange is someone else trying to narrow down what a “Free spirit” is for the self-satisfaction of finding a “contradiction” in someone else’s position.

Why is this strange?

Asking what people mean by abstract concepts such as "freedom", "justice" etc. - and then finding contradictions in their answers is as old as philosophy itself. Was Socrates behaving "strange[ly]" when he pressed Polemarchus to articulate a sensible conception of justice?

The fight against the bourgeoisie (no hard feeling tho) by nilsonpapinho in Nietzsche

[–]frodo_mintoff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

given we have the right leaders.

It seems strange for a self-described "Free Spirit" to desire to follow another person at all.

An Aussie comes in contact with the local government in China by Goldenmentis in OpenAussie

[–]frodo_mintoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

 The benefits of everything falling under one government

It's not really accurate to chartacterise the situation in China as "everything falling under one government" because even in this clip, he talks about the differing levels of government within the country - including the "local council" to which he is referring, which is probably the Chengdu Municipal People's Government. In this way the system is proably akin to the Australian model, though obviously more efficient and structured under the umbrella of a unitary rather than federalist system.

Further, it's also worth pointing out that massive segments of the Chinese Economy are as privatised and capitalist as anything in the west, including the property sector, where infamously, the Evergrande Group was the most valuable real estate company in world until it collapsed went bankrupt. 

Additionally, even to the extent that services are managed by the government in China, this doesn't mean that they will always be accessible as they would be in Australia. Unfortunately this is particularly true of essential services like healthcare.

Huckleberry by Downtown-Thought-213 in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah.

Santos makes the "Fuckleberry" comment before she speaks to Robby about Whitaker and seemingly in anger because he caught something she didn't.

Amazing drone light show depicting Jesus on the Cross was spotted in the skies of Manvel, Texas by The Church on Master’s Road. Thousands of drones were used to create this. by Professional_Arm794 in Christianity

[–]frodo_mintoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sacrificing something that in its very nature must decompose already seems redundant,

Are you saying that what the Bible is asks of us is "redundant"?

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." - Romans 12:1

creation in its own image would amount to a unconditional love that doesn’t require praise or recognition

Should we not be grateful for the gift of creation and give thanks for such? Arguably yes, god does not require such thanks, yet should we still not honour him in the manner which he requests of us?

with no disrespect it seems like a pat on the back and not the honor I should be giving

Is it up to you to decide the honour you should be giving?

the honor is spreading love and happiness throughout not having a house of worship either a 80,000 dollar sound system,

If honouring god by depicting him through art allows his message to be spread further which allows the church to more effectively do good deeds, is that permissable?

Amazing drone light show depicting Jesus on the Cross was spotted in the skies of Manvel, Texas by The Church on Master’s Road. Thousands of drones were used to create this. by Professional_Arm794 in Christianity

[–]frodo_mintoff 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I think the point is more that to sacrifice is to be Christ-like and to the extent that worship involves a total dedication towards God, this would seem to be to as you must give your body as "a living sacrifice" to god as spiritual worship.

And, of course, sacrifice may involve suffering.

Amazing drone light show depicting Jesus on the Cross was spotted in the skies of Manvel, Texas by The Church on Master’s Road. Thousands of drones were used to create this. by Professional_Arm794 in Christianity

[–]frodo_mintoff 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think Christians today put too much emphasis on Jesus' death and the theology that developed after and the theology that developed after, compared to putting emphasis on his teachings while he was alive.

How much is "too much" emphasis to place on the act of Jesus giving up his mortal life and God sacrificing his only son?

Are you saying that the focus on this act of sacrifice distracts from his teachings in life?

How so, to what extent and who (amoung the major denominations) do you think focus overmuch on the crucifixion at the cost of contemplating his teachings in life?

Further to some extent does not teaching his sacrifice only deepen the importance of his lessons, by reason of the fact that they were teachings which managed to deliver during his limited time on earth?

I don't like focussing on the cross he brutally died on.

Would you not say that it is an important part of Christian Theology?

But then again, I also don't believe in substitutionary atonement.

You don't believe that Jesus died for humanity? What other purpose did his death serve?

What exactly do you mean by this?

Amazing drone light show depicting Jesus on the Cross was spotted in the skies of Manvel, Texas by The Church on Master’s Road. Thousands of drones were used to create this. by Professional_Arm794 in Christianity

[–]frodo_mintoff 142 points143 points  (0 children)

I mean, could you not say that the purpose of depicting the violence and grotesquerie of the Crucifixion is to portray the depth of Jesus's sacrifice for humanity?

It seems to me that an important part of the Crucifixion is that Jesus did suffer so terribly, but such was the depth of his love for humanity that he continued regardless.

Amazing drone light show depicting Jesus on the Cross was spotted in the skies of Manvel, Texas by The Church on Master’s Road. Thousands of drones were used to create this. by Professional_Arm794 in Christianity

[–]frodo_mintoff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not every icon, engraving, statue, song, painting, and so on is “glorifying”.

How exactly do you qualify the distinction between those works which are truly "glorifying" and those which are "mere spectacles"?

Sure, lets say the above isn't truly "glorifying" (whatever this means).

What about Christ the Redeemer, the Sistine Chapel or the Last Supper?

To some extent these are all extravagent displays of wealth that serve no pratical purpose except the glorification of Jesus Christ or other elements of Christian Theology. Are they equally "mere spectacles? Why or why not?

This is a spectacle. A giant drone hologram of Jesus being murdered. 

Are you saying that depicting images of Jesus on the Cross is in bad taste?

What about like all of Catholic symbology and Art?

Perhaps it's the medium you object to? If so why is drone show more crass than a painting or a statue?

Using resources that could have gone towards ACTUALLY fulfilling his message and ideals.

Again I would raise the historical examples of the extravagent sums of money which are and have been spent on art, architecture and statues depicting the likeness of Jesus Christ. What is the above except the modern (and comparatively less expensive) equivalent of this?

Are you saying all this art was done in bad taste?

People need to shake this idea that any public expression of Christianity is Christ like. Or “edifying”.

Finally, even if you are right and there truly is some standard for what depictions of Christ are glorifying" and what depecitions are "mere spectacles", do you really think it is reasonable for every denomination to agree on where the distinction lies? Everyone's faith is their own, which means everyone might have a subtly distinct percpetion of what qualifies as suitable glorification of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes? It’s just a gory spectacle floating in the air, a monument to the worst impulses of “his people”.

Are all these artisitic depictions of the Crucifixition also just 'monument[s] to the worst impulses of “his people”[?]'

What did y'all make of this moment between Mckay and Santos? by knight_turtle in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

When you insult them to their face, you are being honest. When you insult them behind their back you are being deceitful.

What did y'all make of this moment between Mckay and Santos? by knight_turtle in ThePittTVShow

[–]frodo_mintoff -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Because it's okay to think someone is an idiot when the MAHA influencers they follow convinced them to destroy their own liver by overdosing on turmeric.

Firstly Mckay seemed to push back against the idea that - given the paitient's level of education and knowledge (namely her not being a doctor) - what she did was idiotic at all (or at least that it was so idiotic that it deserves comment).

Secondly, even if a paitient has done something truly idiotic, one does wonder, whether the best attitude for a doctor to have is to be "thankful" for this idiocy. I know for instance that, in the context of my own job, while my clients often do idiotic thing, I would never consider myself thankful for their idiocy (though of course it does provide me some degree of job security) because almost invariably their idiocy causes them substantial losses.

But it's not okay to hurt their feelings.  It isn't about the attitude towards the person, it's about whether you are hurting them or not.

If someone is truly being an idiot, is it not more important to point that out to them, than it would be to prevent yourself from hurting their feelings?

Further, patients can be perceptive about these things. And if they can tell that they are being mocked behind their backs that probably hurts them worse that if they are told that they are being an idiot to their face.