Hello all. I have been reading Nietzsche lately. My current interest is Nietzsche's philosophy illustrated in his work the Anti-Christ. Fundamentally, perhaps I could best describe the man as a rather brilliant lunatic. Where his ideas are well developed, yet ultimately flawed by nature. In the Anti-Christ, Nietzsche’s assaults on the Christian God are driven largely by his attraction to the weak which, Nietzsche argues is against life. The Christian God favors the man bent on destruction: Perhaps, however, God takes the side of the weak not because they are indeed weak, but because the realm in which we determine relative weakness is relatively irrelevant by the tentativity of our might, by our finitude. I think that Nietzsche has introduced a fallacy I shall refer to here as a fallacy of practicality. While it is practical to contrast the strengths and weaknesses of individuals against other individuals (because this is all we know), christian doctrine there is indeed a supernatural realm in which there exist components of humanity. By Christian doctrine there are at least two classes of constituent parts which embody every individual—those that exist in nature (our bodies, minds, and our behavior as implied by or as is filtered through our minds and bodies), and those that exist supernaturally (eg. souls or spirits). When we die our natural components are shed and discarded, left within the natural realm within which it exists. Presumably, most if not all of our characteristics from which we might infer a persons ‘strength’ or ‘weakness’ can be classified as existing naturally (indeed if they were not natural we could not observe anything to critique). Thus, my question is, does not our methods of gauging an individuals weakness break down when we consider such supernatural characteristics? I also have problems with the way Nietzsche abuses evolutionary theory. Nietzsche philosophy as is illustrated in the Anti-Christ dictates that the preservation of the weak is the epitome of human decadence, a false-instinct, a depraved instinct. Inasmuch as Christian theology encourages such a moral posture, it is anti-power, anti-good, it is evil. Where this religion is a religion of pity, it is a religion set in the depravity of modern man. Nietzsche considers those evolutionary processes responsible for shaping life a good basis for distinguishing what ought to be good for life: “Pity on the whole thwarts the law of evolution, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends life’s disinherited and condemned…” As evolution has shaped life by preserving or selecting out the strong over the weak, we ought to also consciously favor the strong so as to continue evolution’s legacy. However, the arrival of humanity—a cognitive species exercising intellect and reason—from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary continuity has complicated the natural continuum of evolution. Minds are no longer controlled by nature, but minds control nature. I think, therefore, that it is not reasonable to consider such primitive instincts applicable to the behavior of modern man. Sorry it is almost 5 am and I have a serious adware problem (pop-ups after every sentance I write at least, frustrating as all hell) so I wouldn't be surprized if I woke up tomorrow and couldn't make sense of my post. Nevertheless, what do you think of these Nietzschean ideas? -Chris
Nietzsche was not a lunatic, the lunatic was the one nailed to the cross. What Nietzsche has done is brought to light the meaningless sacrifice of a man for the supposed sins of another. To believe such tripe as the claim of being the son of god, allegations of miracles, and his suppose resurection, is nothing more than a dellusion that has survived throughout the ages. And I quote Nietzsche: Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed? from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human, s.405, R.J. Hollingdale transl Where is the evidence of Christs existence? And which Christ, for there were many. click Thus and in conclusion, when a man makes such bold statements as Nietzsche did against the norm, he is considered a lunatic, or a mad man. Only becuase he has seen beyond the veil of deceit. Godless
Nietzsche was rebelling against Literalist Christianity, and his understanding of Dionysianism didn't include its essence--ie., the communal imbibing of 'Dionysos'--ie a psychedelic sacrament, where the celebrants--after drinking te 'wine' beCAME 'possessed' by the 'god of Nature'......as far as we know, Nietzsche didn't partake of such a scarament itis ESSENTIAL to be aware of this central 'secret' otherwise you may get lost in literalism The Nazis used, amongst other things, Nietzschean philosophy to justify their evil crushing of the 'weak' so as to be teir appalling idea of the 'ubermensch'/'superman'.......and we saw the outcome of such a LITERALIST interpreation in action, didn't we?? ANYone NOW an experience the REAL essence of myth by experimenting wit sacraments/psychedelics. What you can potentially feel with respctufl approach to this is PROFOUND compassion and interelation with Nature and people. and when you see suffering popleyou bypass your acculturized callousness and indifference--if thats what you are like, which has been inculcated in you since the schools got you
I don't think either of you really addressed anything of substance in my post, although duendy was perhaps closer than the complete tangent Godless took. Nevertheless, It appears to me that Nietzsche thinks very highly of Christ himself--let alone considers him a lunatic...--but is disgusted by how Christians wrapped a complete religion around Christ's doctrines and perhaps developed it far out of his intent. I don't think this is the case in reality, but this is what Nietzsche proposes and I must say I find it much more sophisticated than the (I think) stupidity associated with the first assertion of Godless' post. Does anyone want to address my critiques of Nietzsche's logic? I made two points, however perhaps my first one was less clear: Nietzsche argues that Christianity's attraction to the weak is absolutely decadent. However, by noted that Christianity supposes both natural and supernatural components to humans, our methods of gauging weakness are flawed because they are only applicable to gauge those natural components, whereas the Christian God might consider supernatural components equally or perhaps far more relevant. Also, duendy, I think that we should take Nietzsche's words for what he implies. Given this, I think that Nazi exterminations of non-Arians are a prime example of exactly why Nietzsche's philosophy does not work. Not because we can absolutely or logically characterize such actions as 'evil', but because it can be likened to a primitive behavior of dominating the weak which prevailed in the 3.5 billion years of evolution prior to the rise of humanity (from which Nietzsche draws some of his incite for what is 'good' to life). Extermination of non-arians was indeed an attempt at exterminating the weak. The problem is that by the nature of humanity, we complicate the logic of this situation--we understand that there are 'fields' of weakness and of strength. Einstein, for instance, was part of this group which was weak against Nazi powers. However, his interest and knowledge in physics would ultimately allow the US production of nuclear power, essentially ending the Nazi reign. The point is that, the non-Arian group was indeed weak to Nazi power, and yet within that group was a small bit of knowledge capable of completely altering the course of the conflict. Therefore Nietzsche's philosophy an enormous caveat. What do you think?
trying to work out what your asking........you presumetatwhat the Nzais were dsoing was simply following our species' bent??....ie., crushing the weak? well i feel that that idea is a myth. andthe myth is social darwnism. the idea tat evolution is about 'only the strong will survive'--i dont believe it actually IS that way, but rather a mindset has CHOSESthat as a means of propaganda so as to justify oppressive systems I have had a particular interest in researching about Dionysos, and it is clear that the 'god' Dionysos and religion very much influenced Cristianity, however it is more Classical Dionysiansm AFTER reform which influenced Christianity. The reformers were te Orphics, who tamed the original religion, and also created a dogma which was psychologically divisive. Ie., indoctrinatng the idea that hujanswere part 'gross' and part 'divine' and that only trhrough 'purification' could one get back to the divine world. Whilst originary Donysianism was more Earthy, and encouraged sensual abandon in teir rituals Wit Cristianity it's plain that sex is missing. it is centred round the literalist story of a 'human' sacrifice to 'God', rathe than the actual sacrifice of a sacramental/psychedelic god~man/plant so weakness is incited BY Chreistianity in that all of that is suppressed, and the folloqers become 'sheep' following a literalist dogma. NOT exploring DIRECT sirituality, but empty symbols and mere bread and cheap wine So for me, Nietszhe not knowing about this tends to render is musings somewhat superfluous Hiswritings also went very fascistic after his first book. And tis is what the nazis took on board as part of their evil inspiration
