Fear is the root of All suffering

[Karl]

You keep bypassing my direct questions Karl, I have reasons for asking them , mainly to keep us on the same page.

You are creating an artificial division between the relevance of rational concerns and fears vs the twisted rationale of phobias, which is unwarranted because the OP is that the root of ALL suffering is fears, which I am contesting ,, in favor of suffering being caused by mental state and fears being a projection into the future about that suffering.

That the lady overcame the circular reaction scheme of her phobia ,( a mental state promoting fear which compounded the undesirable emotional state ) is fine and good , yes she resolved her conflict enough, but it wasn't because someone pointed out to her the silliness of her bird fear. I'm sure a hundred other folks told her it was stupid as well long before this trip came up.

Suffering may indeed sometimes be due to upset over the appropriateness of ones thoughts ,, but that doesn't prove or disprove the idea that the suffering is due to a fear with no cause VS fear being allocated to associations of suffering which happen due to External cause.

Yes, I agree that there is something not right about it. I think this is because we haven't sufficiently defined the what of suffering and have gone straight for the why of suffering. There was a point at which I was going to add something so sufficiently confusing that I refrained from doing so at the beginning of the thread because of the complexity it introduced. I admit I stuck to the 'simple is best' over anything else.

 

So fear is a necessary and not a sufficient condition for suffering. You might see why I refrained from adding complexity. Two conflicting concepts will create constant tension which have the capability to turn into fear once the future is introduced. Fear can manifest without conflicting concepts being present, but in a similar way there is fear of the future and fight/flight. So, is suffering simply an artificially created synthesis ? If that is correct, then this accords with suffering being a modern phenomena, unlike fear which is a natural response.

 

A phobia is a learned response to a trigger.

 

I'm mulling this around because the definition for suffering hasn't been clarified and so this is a first attempt at it. You can add or subtract as you see fit because I'm just as interested to see where this goes.

 

Read this by Rand on happiness:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html

 

 

Having read it I have a dimly perceived notion that my thesis is close to being correct, but it will take a while to digest it. Something fits in a compulsion to do something against our internal values. The conflict is therefore not between two internalised concepts, but between something hard wired as a value ? Even then I'm not exactly certain until I can define 'value' ( where is it acquired ?).

Edited August 24, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

... unlike fear which is a natural response.

I would like to remind us all that many of our fears are instinct based.  Thing is, most of these no longer apply to life in the modern world.  The need for the fear no longer exists but the instincts still remain.

 

Understanding will nullify most of these fears.

 

And then there are the fears we learn throughout our life.  These can be troublesome.  And yes, they will, in the most part, cause suffering.

[Karl]

I would like to remind us all that many of our fears are instinct based. Thing is, most of these no longer apply to life in the modern world. The need for the fear no longer exists but the instincts still remain.

 

Understanding will nullify most of these fears.

 

And then there are the fears we learn throughout our life. These can be troublesome. And yes, they will, in the most part, cause suffering.

And then comes the six million dollar question : define suffering. Certainly it's a mental aberration. Rand compares it with pain on the physical side which means death. Suffering is the mental state which also means death.

 

We are getting there I think but this a heck of a grind.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Karl

[Tibetan_Ice]

The root of the weeds are in the soil.

Except for an epiphytic bromeliad.

[Marblehead]

Except for an epiphytic bromeliad.

I just knew that someone would catch me on that one.

[Brian]

Except for an epiphytic bromeliad.

I am reminded of how MPG became nearly apoplectic when someone brought air plants into that conversation about earth energy a couple years back...

 

[Marblehead]

And then comes the six million dollar question : define suffering. Certainly it's a mental aberration. Rand compares it with pain on the physical side which means death. Suffering is the mental state which also means death.

 

We are getting there I think but this a heck of a grind.

Yep.  I have already stated that it is my understanding that suffering is a mental (psychological) attribute.  It will prevent inner peace and harmony.  And this will prevent harmony with our exterior world.

 

I will leave the defining to someone else.  I have never associated suffering with death.  That seems contradictory to me.

 

Even associating pain with death seems to me to be a contradiction.  I have old age pains all day long but it has nothing to do with a fear of or a desire for death.

[Karl]

Yep.  I have already stated that it is my understanding that suffering is a mental (psychological) attribute.  It will prevent inner peace and harmony.  And this will prevent harmony with our exterior world.

 

I will leave the defining to someone else.  I have never associated suffering with death.  That seems contradictory to me.

 

Even associating pain with death seems to me to be a contradiction.  I have old age pains all day long but it has nothing to do with a fear of or a desire for death.

 

Not quite what I meant. I was paraphrasing because I'm making leaps which I will eventually have to revisit.

 

I'm seeing a bridge here, something fundamental that connects things but I need some help: can you explain the 'flow of Tao' ?

 

I had a look at Rands explanation of value and it's beginning to form the basis of conceptual integration which spans more than just one area. It seems the question of what is suffering ? Is potentially THE question.

 

I asked what it was people were trying to achieve with spiritual liberation. Isn't that the freedom from suffering/happiness ?

[Marblehead]

I was, a while back, in a discussion directly related with what you are speaking to here and I got to a point where I could go no further because following the logical processes of my thinking lead me to a conflict with my understanding.  This may well happen here again but I will again go as far as I can.

Not quite what I meant. I was paraphrasing because I'm making leaps which I will eventually have to revisit.

I know that in your discussions with Stosh you are looking for answers to questions you have not yet well established in words yet.  (AT least, that the impression I am getting.)

 

I'm seeing a bridge here, something fundamental that connects things but I need some help: can you explain the 'flow of Tao' ?

All things are connected, even if only at the unobservable level.

 

Here is the biggest problem.  What is "the flow of Tao"? 

 

If it happened (whatever) and if it exists (whatever) then it falls within the natural flow of Tao.

 

But how can the rape and murder of an eleven year old girl be a natural flow of Tao?  But such a thing has happened.  It could not have happened if it were not possible within the natural flow of Tao.

 

Therefore we must conclude that anything that is possible is within the natural flow of Tao.  Such things can be viewed only objectively thought.  As soon as we get subjective we destroy the logical flow of Tao.

I had a look at Rands explanation of value and it's beginning to form the basis of conceptual integration which spans more than just one area. It seems the question of what is suffering ? Is potentially THE question.

I know nothing of Rand so I cannot speak to anything said unless you reference a specific quote.

 

From the point of view of all living things perhaps the elimination of suffering is "the question".  I say "all living things" because I believe plants also suffer when they do not get enough of what they need for a productive life.

 

I asked what it was people were trying to achieve with spiritual liberation. Isn't that the freedom from suffering/happiness ?

From a Buddhist POV I would agree that the elimination of suffering is the primary goal.  I would even agree in most part that it is at least an important concept in Taoism as well.  We do not have inner peace while we are suffering.

 

Happiness?  Well, I think that's something that might be found after suffering is eliminated.  But I don't place a lot of importance on happiness.  Of more value, I think, is the concept of contentment.

[Kubba]

A nice docummentary that is related to fear of death:

http://youtu.be/QgOBfCrxS3U.

 

I remember that Adyashanti once being asked how the awakenning feels like - answeared - it feels like dying.

 

Intelectual understanding of suffering and fear, and actually experiencing bodily responces to mental fears are 2 different things. Intelectuall understanding is okay, but it ends up at some point, cause it gives no fruits, just intelectuall understanding thats all. But since the body is within the mind and not the other way aroun...

One can actually see it through simple experiment. through letting go of the throath breathing. When one will let go of sensation that suggests that we breath through our throath or nostrils using our willpower then breathing will happend through natural abdomen movements, observing this will lead to slowing down metabolic processes, and moments of subsiding the breath. There one can start to be affraid that one don't breath or that one don't controll the breath (which is more true). You can really start to sweat and feeling as if your heart will stop in a moment.. Intelectuall understanding at this moment wont have any meaning. But it is a good thing to start with

Edited August 24, 2015 by Kubba

[Marblehead]

Yes Kubba, fear of death would cause suffering.  I can't argue with that.  And I think that again Buddhism speaks well to this regarding the concept of permanence.  All things (the Ten Thousand Things) will pass.

[Kubba]

 

Yes Kubba, fear of death would cause suffering. I can't argue with that. And I think that again Buddhism speaks well to this regarding the concept of permanence. All things (the Ten Thousand Things) will pass.

And since one belives that one is a thing, limited to the body, then one will die:)

[Karl]

I was, a while back, in a discussion directly related with what you are speaking to here and I got to a point where I could go no further because following the logical processes of my thinking lead me to a conflict with my understanding.  This may well happen here again but I will again go as far as I can.

 

I know that in your discussions with Stosh you are looking for answers to questions you have not yet well established in words yet.  (AT least, that the impression I am getting.)

 

 

All things are connected, even if only at the unobservable level.

 

Here is the biggest problem.  What is "the flow of Tao"? 

 

If it happened (whatever) and if it exists (whatever) then it falls within the natural flow of Tao.

 

But how can the rape and murder of an eleven year old girl be a natural flow of Tao?  But such a thing has happened.  It could not have happened if it were not possible within the natural flow of Tao.

 

Therefore we must conclude that anything that is possible is within the natural flow of Tao.  Such things can be viewed only objectively thought.  As soon as we get subjective we destroy the logical flow of Tao.

 

I know nothing of Rand so I cannot speak to anything said unless you reference a specific quote.

 

From the point of view of all living things perhaps the elimination of suffering is "the question".  I say "all living things" because I believe plants also suffer when they do not get enough of what they need for a productive life.

 

 

From a Buddhist POV I would agree that the elimination of suffering is the primary goal.  I would even agree in most part that it is at least an important concept in Taoism as well.  We do not have inner peace while we are suffering.

 

Happiness?  Well, I think that's something that might be found after suffering is eliminated.  But I don't place a lot of importance on happiness.  Of more value, I think, is the concept of contentment.

 

Rand said something about values that is maddeningly difficult to comprehend and you are saying something similar for the flow of the Tao. I see an integration struggling to get out and my mental gears are grinding trying to connect the dots.

 

I don't believe plants suffer because they don't hold values.

 

Rand says life has value of itself it needs no reason, therefore our key value is life and therefore all other values are derivative. She adds moral code in which if we operate against our principal value-the primacy of life- then we get suffering. So we have people who are going against that value by murdering someone. For the impotent observer this is also against their values, but there should be no suffering if prevention was an impossibility.

 

I came to a similar conclusion for guards in death camps who were compelled to carry out orders under pain of death. Do you sacrifice yourself for principle ? That issue is also in the Gita and is resolved by God telling the hero that those he shall kill are already marked for death ( but this is in direct contradiction to the law of identity, free will and therefore morality which doesn't work for me as it creates a law of predetermination ). How does the Tao cope with that issue ?

[Marblehead]

A person being "marked for death" is taking the easy way out for avoiding responsibility.

 

I don't talk much about death in war because it can be argued either way.

 

Taoism teaches that we should conduct our self is such a manner so that we live to our maximum potential.  That would mean avoiding the tiger and the rhino.  And the enemy's sword too. 

 

Note that I said "avoiding".  I'm not suggesting that the tiger, rhino, or the enemy's sword couldn't do us harm just because we are a Taoist.

 

 

Regarding Rand, when we include values in consideration we will distort an honest discussion because most every one's values will be different.  That is what I meant about remaining objective and not becoming subjective.

 

And Camus says that life is absurd.  (But it is still worth living.)

Edited August 24, 2015 by Marblehead

[Karl]

This is what Rand says about values as its objectivist she doesn't get into subjective values and states them explicitly. In other words you cannot have any values if there is no one to whom values can occur. Interestingly she also talks about 'full potential'. I'm wondering if these things aren't that far apart.

 

 

To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

 

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.

 

I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”

 

To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

¶

It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

 

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

 

Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of “value”? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of “good or evil” in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation.

 

The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.

 

 

 

 

Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it.

 

 

 

 

Material objects as such have neither value nor disvalue; they acquire value-significance only in regard to a living being—particularly, in regard to serving or hindering man’s goals.

 

 

 

 

Values are the motivating power of man’s actions and a necessity of his survival, psychologically as well as physically.

 

Man’s values control his subconscious emotional mechanism that functions like a computer adding up his desires, his experiences, his fulfillments and frustrations—like a sensitive guardian watching and constantly assessing his relationship to reality. The key question which this computer is programmed to answer, is: What is possible to me?

 

There is a certain similarity between the issue of sensory perception and the issue of values. . . .

 

If severe and prolonged enough, the absence of a normal, active flow of sensory stimuli may disintegrate the complex organization and the interdependent functions of man’s consciousness.

 

Man’s emotional mechanism works as the barometer of the efficacy or impotence of his actions. If severe and prolonged enough, the absence of a normal, active flow of value-experiences may disintegrate and paralyze man’s consciousness—by telling him that no action is possible.

 

 

 

 

The objective theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by force. Capitalism is the only system based implicitly on an objective theory of values—and the historic tragedy is that this has never been made explicit.

 

If one knows that the good is objective—i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man’s mind—one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one’s mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a man’s life, needs, goals, and knowledge.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

I won't argue with any of that.  However, a couple of comments:

 

To place value is to remain in the realm of the dualistic.

 

To place value will prevent one from reaching the point of being "beyond good and evil".

 

Sure, we place value.  Even my "useful/useless" uses value as a measurement.

 

Valuing is linked to awareness.  Sure, to pleasure and pain.  We value pleasure but not so much pain.

 

And sure, the survival instinct will direct us toward valuing things.  If it enhances our survival it will be considered useful.  If not, then it is useless.

 

Of course, survival has many different levels so what is useful/useless will vary through time and amongst different individuals.

[thelerner]

Read this by Rand on happiness:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html

 

 

Having read it I have a dimly perceived notion that my thesis is close to being correct, but it will take a while to digest it. Something fits in a compulsion to do something against our internal values.

Reading that tells me why she often wasn't a happy person and gives insight on why she left friends and close admirers miserable and at times betrayed.

and

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/10_insane_things_i_learned_about_the_world_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/

 

 

(must admit I didn't like Atlas Shrugged but did like Anthem.  I think she's good to read, but good to grow out of too)

Edited August 24, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

I won't argue with any of that.  However, a couple of comments:

 

To place value is to remain in the realm of the dualistic.

 

To place value will prevent one from reaching the point of being "beyond good and evil".

 

Sure, we place value.  Even my "useful/useless" uses value as a measurement.

 

Valuing is linked to awareness.  Sure, to pleasure and pain.  We value pleasure but not so much pain.

 

And sure, the survival instinct will direct us toward valuing things.  If it enhances our survival it will be considered useful.  If not, then it is useless.

 

Of course, survival has many different levels so what is useful/useless will vary through time and amongst different individuals.

 

I think being 'beyond good and evil' is abdication. It's the giving away of individuality to the collective and thus accepting the arbitration of a greater power. Hegel proposed the state as God on Earth serving that purpose. It's the difference between God as individual, or God as the collective, or at least one group of men who will decide morality for all the rest. This is precisely what Hitler was doing- total sacrifice to the state.

[Karl]

Reading that tells me why she often wasn't a happy person and gives insight on why she left friends and close admirers miserable and at times betrayed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5YWTFW5WMw

and

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/10_insane_things_i_learned_about_the_world_reading_ayn_rands_atlas_shrugged_partner/

 

 

(must admit I didn't like Atlas Shrugged but did like Anthem.  I think she's good to read, but good to grow out of too)

 

She didn't strike me as a happy person either. It's why I'm careful not to fall down the objectivist tunnel-it could be of course that she didn't live up to her own philosophy and so suffered the worst conflict with reality.

[Stosh]

Yes, I agree that there is something not right about it. I think this is because we haven't sufficiently defined the what of suffering and have gone straight for the why of suffering. 

Ok so then we define it and see where we stand, I vote to elect that suffering is an emotional experience of , being in a state in the present ,  which we have aversion to experiencing. EX.  Sadness, boredom ,pain, hunger, confusion, loneliness, fear etc. 

 

If you can abide that definition , temporarily , then it should be consequential that fear is not the only response to suffering. It also presupposes that fear is not prerequisite for an experience of suffering either.  

 

Fears such as phobias may not have a precise origin corresponding to suffering. I have never been bitten by a shark ,but I have felt pain and imagine that a shark bite would hurt. The 'suffering' is a generalized basis for fears based on any suffering I do know about ,( but the specific associations which prompt fear are in my subconscious.).. that's my premise.

If its possible to have fears with no source whatsoever ... well,  that would be hard to know for sure since I cant define my entire subconscious directly to ascertain that there was indeed no suffering source material whatsoever involved .

I suppose its possible, but the same issue of incomplete knowlege of the subconscious would apply to everyone ,, and so no one could assert positively that there was no required basis of suffering, to prompt fear. 

 

I have no idea what internal values have to do with the issue, you could clarify on that. But if you are circling around a 'lack of acceptance for a current mental state' as being suffering or fear, well then the original statement might properly evolve to ... lack of acceptance is a thing which causes us much suffering and fear.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Stosh

[Karl]

Ok so then we define it and see where we stand, I vote to elect that suffering is an emotional experience of , being in a state in the present , which we have aversion to experiencing. EX. Sadness, boredom ,pain, hunger, confusion, loneliness, fear etc.

 

If you can abide that definition , temporarily , then it should be consequential that fear is not the only response to suffering. It also presupposes that fear is not prerequisite for an experience of suffering either.

 

Fears such as phobias may not have a precise origin corresponding to suffering. I have never been bitten by a shark ,but I have felt pain and imagine that a shark bite would hurt. The 'suffering' is a generalized basis for fears based on any suffering I do know about ,( but the specific associations which prompt fear are in my subconscious.).. that's my premise.

If its possible to have fears with no source whatsoever ... well, that would be hard to know for sure since I cant define my entire subconscious directly to ascertain that there was indeed no suffering source material whatsoever involved .

I suppose its possible, but the same issue of incomplete knowlege of the subconscious would apply to everyone ,, and so no one could assert positively that there was no required basis of suffering, to prompt fear.

 

I have no idea what internal values have to do with the issue, you could clarify on that. But if you are circling around a 'lack of acceptance for a current mental state' as being suffering or fear, well then the original statement might properly evolve to ... lack of acceptance is the thing which causes us much suffering and fear.

Where I differ in the definition is that all the sadness, hunger, pain can be linked directly of the fear of something and then defined. Sadness doesn't exist of and by itself so in case of grief it might be the fear of loneliness. Fear then is primal. It is a warning that there is a threat to existence. That threat-loneliness-is something we don't enjoy if we have been close to the deceased.

 

By internal values, these (with reference to Rands assertion that the primary value is predicated on life itself ). I've done some work on value elicitation and- if I may call them this way-secondary value hinge around security, respect. This does back up Rands assertions from security, but being respected clearly indicates a need for relationships being important to that survival and raw economic reality confirms this to be true.

 

Still adding : let's say loneliness is a concept buried in the subconscious and the death of a partner kicks off a conflict with a value ( loneliness-I don't want to be alone threat to existence ), this fires off fear which makes the person delve into the subconscious, select the concept and then move the emotion into a conceptual response. 'I fear I will be lonely' becomes sadness.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Karl

[C T]

"There are three types of practitioners - practitioners of small capacity, who die without fear; practitioners of middling capacity, who die without regrets, and practitioners of the utmost capacity, who die happily." ~ Tanya Piven

[Stosh]

Where I differ in the definition is that all the sadness, hunger, pain can be linked directly of the fear of something and then defined. Sadness doesn't exist of and by itself so in case of grief it might be the fear of loneliness. Fear then is primal. It is a warning that there is a threat to existence. That threat-loneliness-is something we don't enjoy if we have been close to the deceased. By internal values, these (with reference to Rands assertion that the primary value is predicated on life itself ). I've done some work on value elicitation and- if I may call them this way-secondary value hinge around security, respect. This does back up Rands assertions from security, but being respected clearly indicates a need for relationships being important to that survival and raw economic reality confirms this to be true.

I understand where you're coming from , but the thing I believe you're not recognizing , but do see, is that one has a fear OF SOMETHING , in your example you list fear of loneliness , well that makes the loneliness the causal agent , and is therefore, primal, and only secondarily to having felt loneliness , would we have fear of repeat in the future.   Yes people say fear is 'primal' because theoretically rational logical  behavior is more advanced ,  but we are looking just beyond the -fear in the present about the future- and we see that there is a "cause". Fear , like anger and happiness has causes which prompt  emotions. So our actual needs are that which is primal, Our basic emotions are fungible  behavioral adaptations which (hopefully ) predispose us to appropriate behaviors , (which are actually secondary and aim at the future ),,Anger at a threat we can defeat, fear at a threat we cannot resolve, love at a person intimate, etc 

The look of things we would see if fear was primal , would be walking around with fears loves angers over nothing whatsoever and the adaptive connection to our future well being would be lost.  You would be fearful, horny, angry, without prompt .. like a teen.  

[Marblehead]

I think being 'beyond good and evil' is abdication. It's the giving away of individuality to the collective and thus accepting the arbitration of a greater power. Hegel proposed the state as God on Earth serving that purpose. It's the difference between God as individual, or God as the collective, or at least one group of men who will decide morality for all the rest. This is precisely what Hitler was doing- total sacrifice to the state.

On the contrary.  Okay.   What do I say now?  I just needed to disagree with you.

 

Beyond good and evil, Nietzsche, didn't talk much about gods.  Afterall, how does an Atheist talk about something that doesn't exist?

 

There is a world of difference between the philosophy of Hegel and Nietzsche.

 

Good and evil are, after all, man made concepts.  Rules for the common people who are unable to think for themselves.

 

Nature is beyond good and evil.  The processes of the universe are beyond good and evil.

 

As long as we act/react consistent with the processes of Nature we are basically beyond good and evil.  But then there is that attachment that requires us to take responsibility for our acts and reactions.

[Marblehead]

"There are three types of practitioners - practitioners of small capacity, who die without fear; practitioners of middling capacity, who die without regrets, and practitioners of the utmost capacity, who die happily." ~ Tanya Piven

And then there are we immortals who never die.