March 24th, thoughts on Nietzsche

Well, there are a lot of things I think about when I think of Nietzsche. First off, Nietzsche's views are very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of philosophers of his time. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme if taken out of context or misinterpreted. Also, if looked at from a different perspective, Nietzsche's work seems to parallel that of the Nazi ideology (not to say he was). For instance, Hitler and the other Nazi leaders did not to indulge in any act of independent creative thought in order to arm their movement with ideas. And in the first few pages of the assigned reading, or the preface, Nietzsche express how "we are necessarily strangers to ourselves" and we are absent minded. Then Nietzsche points out a few more things; firstly, the basis of Nietzsche's philosophy is the complete lack of authority. No God, no order, no rules, only the individual and their own short life. This in itself suggests anarchy which is generally chaotic and dangerous in itself, much like Hitler and the Nazi regiem. With this statement alone, he lays a treacherous foundation for one's thoughts and beliefs.

Next, this only occured about page 17; Nietzsche states that he has given honor to God, but then soon-there-after states that God is the father of evil. So here was my shock... as I have stated several times, I am not that biblically well rounded: but I was shocked when he refered to God as the creater of evil. How could he be? I immediatly thought... he created the heavens, Adam and Eve, all creatures, the Earth!! Then, when I actually stepped back and looked at the broader picture, Nietzsche is right... if God created good and moral, then he had to have created evil. It was just that I have never envisioned God to do such a thing, but as Nietzsche says, "as was only fair" to say such a thing.

And those are my thoughts for today, that I was going to express in class, and I was super pumped for class today- but after I sat there for about 10 minutes and realized no one was there, and that maybe I should check my email just to find out that it was cancelled, a little piece of my died inside... that is how much I love CIE! Alright, later class.

the idea of intellectual laziness

Early this class, Ed claimed that maybe people are using the bible incorrectly, and there is a lack of intellect when interpreting it. Yes, i am not as well rounded biblically as I would like, but I still have an opinion towards the matter. I think that there is no right or wrong way to interpret the bible. An opinion is just that, an opinion. Due to such, the world has such a religious diversity. I am very glad that there is not just one main religion, I would hate to be a part of global lemmings, all following one idea. Even then, I think someone would be rebellious enough to come up with their own idea. So, i do not agree at all that the bible was misinterpreted... I don’t think a belief can be misinterpreted. That is what it is- a belief. One’s own interpretation- Lots of intelligent thinking, with numerous ramifications.

Why does Darwinism matter? (creationism v. darwinism)

Why does Darwinism matter? In a sense, it shouldn't because it is a belief- there are so many religions, opinions, and beliefs that this "problem" should be just a fly on the wall. Never-the-less, humanity is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

There is a difference between Darwinism and Creationism, one is based on data and the other is based on belief. So why does it matter? Well in the earlier days of Christ, about 6,000 yrs. ago, the only belief was the of the lbreal interpretation of the bible. Everything that occured in the bible, was the actual happening of that time. The idea of “creation science” is derived from most religions that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past. Creationists say that creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution. There and then lies the conflict, the problem lies when Creationism argues that faith should take precedent over science, basing its beliefs on one book for guidance, the Bible.

My question is, what if you were not raised with this biblical guidence?! Darwinism concerns itself as a science, which is explained by scientific methodology. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Additionally, Darwinism greatly impacted the scientific world purely through its specific doctrine. The enlightenment had paved the way for rational thinking and observation. People were willing to accept scientific data as fact and they were able to objectively consider theories that went against the church.

Even with that biblical guidence, why does it matter which side you believe? Neither idea can be proven right or wrong. Yes, there is a certain realism that dictates over the other. Creationism is based primarily on ones interpretation of the bible. As opposed to Darwinism: which is based on data. But who cares! Why do people choose to believe what they believe?

I think it has a great deal to do with the way in which you are raised. If you are raised with the guidence of the bible, and attend church every Sunday, then you may leave towards the more mystical belief of Paley. If you are more individualistic and brought up as so, then you may lean more towards Darwinism. My theory comes to: which idea gives people more comfort?

Personally, I lean more towards Darwinism due to its data and realistic view. Yes i would live to live with a mystical view much like Paley, but I was not raised with the bible. In all honesty, I have only read the children's bible, and I only truely know the story of Christmas. Due to my lack of biblical knowledge, do I not have an appreciation for Paley? NO! Because of my lack of biblical knowledge, is it assumed that I will jsut surpass the biblical beliefs all together... no, thank you very much! I like the belief of evolution.

You can't tell me that the world is undergoing evolution even now as I type. Fact- Global Climate Change. The world is re-setting itself from humanitarian mistakes. Fact- babies have tails, until born. Why does it fall off? So yes, due to factual things (also I am an environmental major so that helps) I believe in evolution. On the other hand, I do not liek the idea that we are on the earth just to live, and our life comes to an end at the grave. I like the comforting idea that there is a life after death, because then what are we living for?

All in all, I lean more towards Darwinism, because I am a more factual person. And then I also support Paley, with his idea that everyone is here for a reason, and there is a life after death.

Darwinism thoughts

The text book version of Darwinism is said to be the descending from a common ancestor. However, in all honesty is is nothing more than a mutation (which are random on a microscopic level). More complex species evolve into simpler ones. There is also a need for species struggle, competition, and the manifest of reproductive success.

Branching off from Darwinism is the idea of natural selection. Again the text book version of the term is: it is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common. Additionally, as we have discussed in class: Natural Selection was key to Charles's understanding of the process of natural selection. Darwin realized that the most fit individuals in a population are the ones that are least likely to die of starvation and, therefore, are most likely to pass on their traits to the next generation.