The Diffidence of a God among Men

 Is diffidence next to godliness?

What does the phrase to be a god among men even mean? Is it having power and authority over other people? Does it entail being wise and knowledgeable? If so, can a god among men be kind and compassionate? But what if we got the job description all wrong? What if allowing yourself to be degraded, robbed, deceived, and exploited was the true indicator of the strength needed for this position?

Friedrich Nietzsche in his book Beyond Good and Evil argues that the traditional concept of god is one of power and domination. In his writings, he theorizes that this concept is harmful and destructive. But is there another way to think about godliness?

In Nietzsche's  (1886) writings, he suggests that we should think of godliness as a kind of diffidence and that the truly godly person is one who is not afraid to be vulnerable. They are the ones who are willing to allow themselves to be hurt because they know that they are ultimately indestructible.

Nietzsche (1886) suggests that this kind of diffidence is not weakness but it is actually the strength that comes from knowing who you are and what you believe in. 

"The tendency of a person to allow themselves to be degraded, robbed, deceived, and exploited might be the diffidence of a god among men" (Nietzsche 1886).  It is the willingness to be vulnerable, to be hurt, and to be exploited, in the name of something greater than oneself.

Nietzsche (1886) believed that this path was ultimately rewarding and the path of the truly godly 

References

Nietzsche, F. W. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil. Hayes Barton Press. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/L-999-71494

 

The Waiting Place

 

The waiting place is a metaphor for a state of limbo or uncertainty. It is a place where we feel stuck and unable to move forward. We may be waiting for something specific, such as a job offer, a medical diagnosis, or the birth of a child. Or, we may be waiting for something more general, such as a change in our circumstances or a sense of purpose in life.

The waiting place can be a difficult place. It can be frustrating, lonely, and even depressing. We may feel like we are wasting our time or that we are not good enough to move on. However, the waiting place can also be a time of opportunity. It can be a time to reflect on our lives, to learn and grow, and to make changes that will help us move forward.

• Accept your situation. The first step is to accept that you are in the waiting place. This does not mean that you must like it, but it does mean that you must take it as your reality.
• Identify your goals. Once you have accepted your situation, you can identify your goals. What do you want to achieve once you move from the waiting place?
• Take action. Even though you may not be able to move forward immediately, you can still take action. This could mean setting small goals, learning new skills, or changing your life.

Be patient. It takes time to move on from the waiting place. Don't expect everything to change overnight. Keep taking small steps forward; eventually, you will reach your goals.

The waiting place is not a destination. It is a journey. It is a time to learn, grow, and prepare for what comes next.

 

The Psychology of Dogmatism

Dogmatism is the attitude of holding one's beliefs as true regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Dogmatic people are often unwilling to consider other viewpoints or to change their minds in light of new information. They may be intolerant of opposing views and may try to force their beliefs on others.

Dogmatism is a complex phenomenon with a number of psychological underpinnings. Some of the key factors that contribute to dogmatism include:

• Need for certainty: Dogmatic people often have a strong need for certainty and predictability. They may be uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, and they may be drawn to beliefs that offer a sense of order and control.
• Fear of change: Dogmatic people may fear change and uncertainty. They may believe that their beliefs are the only way to live a good life, and they may be reluctant to consider alternatives.
• Low self-esteem: Dogmatic people may have low self-esteem. They may believe that they are not smart or capable enough to think for themselves, and they may rely on external sources of authority to tell them what to believe.
• Need for social approval: Dogmatic people may have a strong need for social approval. They may be afraid of being rejected or ostracized, and they may conform to the beliefs of their in-group in order to gain acceptance.

Dogmatism can have a number of negative consequences. It can lead to conflict, intolerance, and stagnation. It can also prevent people from learning and growing.

There are a number of things that can be done to combat dogmatism. One is to encourage people to be open-minded and to consider other viewpoints. Another is to teach people how to think critically and to evaluate evidence. Finally, it is important to create an environment where people feel safe to express their own beliefs, even if they are different from the majority.

Here are some tips for reducing dogmatism in yourself and others:

• Be open to other viewpoints: Be willing to listen to and consider other people's beliefs, even if they are different from your own.
• Evaluate evidence: Learn how to think critically and to evaluate evidence. Don't just accept things at face value.
• Be respectful of others: Even if you disagree with someone, it is important to be respectful of their right to their own beliefs.
• 
  Create a safe space: Encourage people to express their own beliefs, even if they are different from the majority.

Dogmatism is a complex phenomenon, but it is one that can be overcome. By understanding the psychology of dogmatism and by taking steps to combat it, we can create a more open-minded and tolerant world.

 

Nietzsche on Knowledge and Ignorance

Nietzsche (1886) writes that we humans live in a simplified and falsified world and that we make everything around us seem clear, easy, and simple. To enjoy life we indulge in superficiality and our thoughts play wanton pranks.

From this passage, Nietzsche (1886) believed that knowledge is built on the foundation of ignorance. We want to know things, but we also want to stay ignorant. We want to be free, thoughtless, and happy.

Nietzsche argues that we need both knowledge and ignorance to live a full life. Language should not limit our thinking. Language often forces us to think in terms of opposites,when there are many gradations between them (Nietzsche 1886).

Again, Nietzsche argues that morality can limit our thinking by telling us that we should be truthful and avoid making mistakes, but sometimes mistakes are necessary for us to enjoy life.

Nietzsche's theories on knowledge and ignorance are very thought-provoking:

• His views force us to juxtapose truths and things that are not true.
• His views also challenge us to embrace the complexity of life and to understand that knowledge and ignorance are both necessary to fully enjoy life and get the most out of it.

Here are some additional thoughts on Nietzsche's views on knowledge and ignorance:

• Our thoughts and language create our own reality and they also can limit it.
• We simplify and falsify the world to make it comfortable and manageable
• Knowledge can sometimes be dangerous leading to rigidity and rendering some people to believe that their truths are always truths regardless of the evidence. This can lead to suppression of creativity and spontaneity.

Should we be wary of people who claim to know everything? Are such people only motivated by power and control?

Do uncertainty and ambiguity fuel our creativity and growth?

When we answer these questions honestly and weigh the evidence they open us up to a unique perspective on the relationship between reality's nature and the role that knowledge plays in our lives.

Nietzsche's views on knowledge and ignorance are very complex, and this blog post is a good start for anyone interested in learning about Nietzche.

References

Nietzsche, F. W. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil. Hayes Barton Press. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/L-999-71494

Virtues

 Our Virtues

Nietzsche argues that we, the Europeans of the day after tomorrow, have our own virtues. These virtues are not the same as those of our grandfathers, who were more sincere and massive in their moral character. Our virtues are more complex and nuanced, reflecting our own unique values and experiences.

Nietzsche believes that we should search for our own virtues in our own labyrinths. This means that we should not blindly follow the moral codes of our ancestors, but should instead create our own moral code based on our own needs and desires.

Nietzsche also argues that we should believe in our own virtues. This means that we should be confident in our own moral compass, even if it differs from the moral compass of others.

Nietzsche's views on virtue are controversial. Some people believe that he is advocating for a kind of moral relativism, where anything goes. Others believe that he is simply pointing out that there is no one right way to be moral, and that we should all create our own moral code based on our own values.

Regardless of one's interpretation of Nietzsche's views on virtue, there is no doubt that he was a profound thinker who challenged us to think critically about our own moral beliefs.

Take some time and self-reflect:

1. What are your own virtues?
2. Are they different from your parents or even your grandparents?
3. Do you believe in your own virtues or are you just going through the motions?

References

Nietzsche, F. W. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil. Hayes Barton Press. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/L-999-71494

 Socratism and the Morality of Plato

Nietzsche (1886) writes that Plato's philosophy there was an element of morality that did not originate from himself. This element is the presence of Socratism which is the belief that all evil is done unwittingly. Plato did not believe that entirely. Socrtatism theorized that man is only evil because of ignorance, but if someone frees him of this ignorance he will not do evil. Nietzsche (1886) writes that this mode of reasoning is simplistic and appeals to the masses. He also states in his writing that any system of utilitarianism can be traced back to the theory that it is stupid to do wrong and that good is synonymous with "useful and pleasant" (Nietzsche 1886).

Plato tried to interpret something refined and noble into the tenets of his teacher, but he was ultimately unsuccessful. He was too far removed from the common people to understand their way of thinking. As a result, his interpretation of Socrates was distorted and unrealistic.

The Platonic Socrates

• The Platonic Socrates is a fictional character created by Plato. He is a wise man who uses questions and logic to help people learn and grow. He is always changing his approach, depending on the person he is talking to. This ability to shapeshift is what makes him so powerful. He is able to get inside the minds of his interlocutors and help them to see things in a new light.

• The Platonic Socrates is a reflection of Plato himself. Plato was a complex and multifaceted thinker, and he was always searching for new ways to understand the world. The Platonic Socrates is a manifestation of this search, and he represents Plato's attempt to capture the essence of human wisdom.

Nietzsche's critique is insightful and thought-provoking. However, it is important to note that it is just one perspective on Plato's philosophy. There are many other ways to interpret Plato's work, and not everyone agrees with Nietzsche's assessment.

For example, some scholars argue that Plato's morality is not simplistic at all, but is instead complex and sophisticated. They point to the fact that Plato's dialogues often explore the nuances of moral decision-making, and that he does not always offer easy answers.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether or not they agree with Nietzsche's critique of Plato's morality. However, the blog post you have provided provides a useful starting point for thinking about this issue.

Some additional thoughts on Nietzsche's critique of Plato's morality:

• Nietzsche's critique of Plato's morality is based on his own philosophy, which is often critical of traditional morality. Nietzsche believes that morality is often used to control and manipulate people, and that it can be harmful to individual freedom.
• Plato's philosophy is often seen as being more optimistic than Nietzsche's. Plato believes that it is possible to achieve a just and harmonious society, and that this can be done through education and reason.

The debate between Nietzsche and Plato is still relevant today. There is no easy answer to the question of whether or not morality is simplistic or complex. It is a complex issue that has been debated by philosophers for centuries.

References

Nietzsche, F. W. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil. Hayes Barton Press. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/L-999-71494

 

Nietzsche and "Fasting"

Nietzsche (1886) wrote that industrious races often find it difficult to be idle. He also mentions that the English made Sunday a day of rest to look forward to the work week ahead. Nietzsche saw this as a fast similar to those found in ancient cultures. He felt that a fast was defined as "powerful habits and influences were controlled through periods of restraint" (Nietzsche 1886). Nietzsche (1886) saw fasting as not being limited to food and that it also referred to abstaining from certain impulses or habits, which purified and sharpened them.

Nietzsche also wrote that fasting had been practiced by religious and philosophical groups throughout history as a way to control impulses and purify the mind. He believed that fasting could help to reduce cravings and distractions, and provide an opportunity for introspection and reflection. He mentions the Stoics in ancient Greece who believed that the key to happiness was to live in accordance with nature, and how they believed that fasting could help to strengthen their willpower and discipline.

Nietzsche (1886) also wrote that this fasting concept could be applied to love and the sexual impulse. He writes that during the Christian period of European history, because of the pressure of Christian sentiments, the urge for sex was modified into a more socially acceptable form called love. Nietzsche (1886) wrote that this was a form of fasting, where the impulse is controlled and refined. In other words, he was saying that by fasting from instant sexual gratification, the impulse would be more refined in the form of love. This fasting of instant sexual gratification would lead to a deeper and more meaningful relationship between two people.

In conclusion, Nietzsche was claiming that fasting could be a powerful tool, not just in relation to eating. By taking a break from certain behaviors, we actually have time to reflect and sharpen our minds.

References

Nietzsche, F. W. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil. Hayes Barton Press. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/L-999-71494