What's the meaning of life?

Just think: what's the thing more important to you? then you will have your answer. If the most important think to you is your life, then your meaning will be survive. After you reach or fail your goal, then you will/should die. If you don't, then it was not your goal. Ther's no living without goal.

Can we choose the life were living?

I belive we are just organic processors that react to the world, so if you have two twins that born and grow in two separate small rooms with every thing controled and every thing the same, then these two persons should act and think exactly the same and at the same time. If you could put in a big computer the whole world and simulate in programs the minds of peoples and start the program with every thing the same with the real word at a given time, and then speed up the computer, you could see every thing happening and see the future. Wow! It's hard to put a simple thing in words! :help:


How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?

see above

Is there such thing as "free lunch"?

Every thing is relative. In a restaurant, if the guest pays the launch, then it was, at certain poit, free for the restaurant. If the restaurant gives the launch to the guest, then the restaurant pays the launch, but it was free to the guest.

How big is the universe?

It's big enough to we never reach it end, so we will not know nor afect ours lives. So why to think about it?

Is there a live after dead?

I can't say. I never seen it.

Something else.

sometimes what looks difficult is easy and vice-versa.

When I was refering to you I didn't have materialistic as a philosophical category in mind.

That's not true! You're only judging by some people that actually claimed to do so. It's like judging the bible (As a christian philosophical basis) by the lifestile of Torquemada (the grand inquisitor). Just because Nazis tried to use Nietzche's works as a justification for their own genocidal philosophy, doesn't mean that Nietzche actually intended it that way. It was misused.

It's almost like the Alfred Nobel and the invention of dinamite! He made an explosive, but when he saw how people misused it, he was ashamed.
Or the earlier researchers of the nuclear energy (after Hiroshima they felt guilty for it).

You're right, it doesn't! But tell me then, how come people were able to use the Christian religion to justify so many wars? How could they with the very same bible (that doen't advocate going to war) in one hand and a weapon in the other hand, go slaugthering, butchering, slashing and even raping (which has nothing to do with war even) other fellow men?
They were clearly breaking the "Thous shalt not kill!" commandment. Yet they found justification in the bibile itself for their actions.

So the bible must be an evil book, no mater what you say... OR were maybe those people the ones who misenterpreted it? Misused the words? Broke the very rules that are in the bible?

Same with Nietzche - he never states: go and start a genocide, because it's in your power.

I'd also like to say that the whole "übermensch" (I have no idea what the Alt code is for a capital 'u' with an umlaut) idea was not intrinsically racist/anything to do with Aryans.

It was actually just Nietzsche's idea of what the best form of person could be.

Having a serious discussion in english is so frustrating... why don't you all start to write in Italian?... Well, let's continue...

I was just saying that some moral conventions could agree with church principles, but they are different things (you know, human principle<-->God revelation...)
God is a bit more powerful than us, so I think that we can't force Him to send someone to hell just without baptizing that one ;) He knows what way we have chosen in our heart :angel:
And I'm sure you know that Dante's Inferno is not a "religion book", and in any case it reflect an old (and passed) way to intend the religion...

Are you seriously judging the catholic/christian religion, looking at fanatics, ignorant and the ones who promoted wars for economical and political reasons? :blink:
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you...
Anyway, Bible was misinterpreted. Jesus teached how to intend the Bible.

I think he meant that noth Bible ad Nietzcshe got misinterpreted, and that neither of them are the cause of genocide and wars, but human stupidity...

Because Rlbell states that atheist made genocide because Nietzsche's writings, explicitly told them too, unlike the Bible which is supposedly misinterpret, that is of course a pretty hypocrate point of view...

Thank you Tulac, for explaining it.

Yes - I don't judge the christians by some fanatics that misused christianity. In fact, I don't judge other people at all, I'm only stating my opinion about institutions. When I'm talking about christianity I'm not talking about people - I'm talking about institutions (including saints and pedophilics priests alike). And if there are negative sides to the institution of christianity - it's only a part of it, just like fanatical dictators are only one part of what atheist world is.

That's right, guys!
That's what I was suspecting :ok:

1. What is the meaning of the life?
To enjoy life to the fullest

2. Can we choose the life were living?
Hell yes!

3. How/why does fate/karma/whatever control our live?
It doesn't

4. Is there such thing as "free lunch"?
No

5. How big is the universe?
Smaller then human stupidity

6. Is there a live after dead?
Not life as such, but something - yes

7. Something else.
You can't make popcorns without corn LOL

I am not so sure. To quote the man, himself (from "Beyond Good and Evil" [translated by Helen Zimmern]):

Nietzche only advocates what we would consider moral behavior among your equals, and your superiors. He also advocated a stratified view of society with slaves at the bottom and covered with layers of nobility of increasing worth as one approached the top. Anyone below you can be treated as a slave and anyone above you can treat you as a slave, there is no necessity for malice, it is just an imperative of the Will to Power.

Also in "Beyond Good and Evil", he explains how the nobility are usually the descendants of successful conquering barbarians, and that these conquests are necessary for the success of the human race.

Nietzche also wrote that sympathy and compassion should be held in low regard, as they are nothing more than necessities of a slave mindset, so he either had little regard for his own intellectual musings, or would not care a farthing for how anyone applied his philosophy.

Alfred Nobel is in another category, altogether. The amazing thing about dynamite is that it is every bit as explosive as the nitroglycerine that went into its manufacture, but it will not explode at the drop of a hat. His discovery of dynamite saved many lives of people who would otherwise have had to carry nitroglycerine around blasting sites or transport it from the manufacturer to the job site. Nobel made huge pots of money, while saving people's lives. He has my respect.

People who misused the bible to justify their actions, unlike nietzchean supermen, actually felt the need to justify their actions. Not all wars are unjustifiable. From the allied perspective, WWII was very much a just war. They were defending against a known evil and the pain and suffering inflicted by fighting the war were proportional to the evil being fought, and final victory was very likely, if not certain. The christian doctrine of a just war can also explain France's surrender, as France had little means of continuing the fight, after the blitzkrieg of spring 1940 put their army in such disarray.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL is a misinterpretation. However, that interpretation really gets the point across and does it in a mere four words. The less impressive, but more accurate, interpretation is thou shalt not murder. It is important that the jewish faith was something to live by, not die by, so killing in self defence is allowable. That interpretation of the commandment carried over into christianity. It is also allowable to kill in the defence of others and there is still room for accepting capital punishment.

All you proved thus far is, that Nietzche is describing the human society the way he found it (meaning the society was that was before his philosophy - not because of it) and he's still not telling people to go and commit mass murder.

He's saying people are doing such things are trying to explain reasons why. He's describing the society, explaining it and trying to figure out the theoretical basis why the society is the way it is (or better yet - was the way it was).


And about: Thou shell not KILL - the first bible was written in Greek. If you wish to go back to Thou shalt not murder, you're not quotin the bible, but the Tora, so you're not christian, but jewish! Bug difference! Or are you suggesting the bible should be re-written?