Says Christianity is about escapism from *the* truth

The "shadow of God" has nothing to do with religious fanaticism, it means left over values from Christianity, but without belief in God.

That's fine.

Keep in mind, too, that Nietzsche's assertion that Christianity is driven by sour grapes, is armchair psychology, or would be if he were talking about Christianity per se. Which he isn't, so it isn't necessarily bad, Nietzsche's version of Christianity is more a literary idea; just like you wouldn't use Shakespeare's reading of historical characters to understand the actual historical character, but his readings are important from a philosophical and literary perspective.

>to initiate progress and that humanity now has to face the harsh reality of creating their own morality and "utopian" sort of society without that drive.
This isn't a sad thing though. As a matter of fact to Nietzsche the fact that it's significantly harder is only a good thing to Nietzsche on the count that only the worthy will actually make it this far thus proving themselves to be a truly elevating force.

He's sad because this also comes with the implication that perhaps people will never be able to meet this challenge and so western civilization is doomed forever.

Truthfully, I haven't read anything of Nietzsche. So I should consider myself an idiot for saying anything at all. I have a bunch of his books on hand, but I want to finish reading the Bible and Spinoza's Ethics (no reason for that last one, I've just been putting it off for a while) before I do so.

He always wanted to be a Jesuit and if he was of the 4th vow only the Vatican archives would know.

Jesuits of the 4th vow are Catholic priest who do not actually believe in God but recognize the power inherent in such an enormous cult and use that to their advantage. They are organized in a tightly compartmentalized hierarchical fashion headed of by a clever General and were in fact the very first prototypical terror cell formed up to fight the Reformation by any and all means including infiltration, which they still do among many other things. In fact they educate a great deal of Catholics and crypto-Catholics in their prestigious universities who go on to take very powerful positions such as president of US. Trump went to Fordham for example.

Anyone who got that much attention and still does to this day should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Dostoevsky, plz

>He always wanted to be Jesuit
No he didn't his family protestant and so was he until his early 20s.

also
>Jesuit conspiracy theories.

His review of the inception of Christianity was not based in polemics, he clearly defines the psychocultural climate that precipitated Christianity in the second essay of the Genealogy, sections 20-21

Not in any analytical fashion or using any academic methodology.

See

I think you should realize that in Nietzsche's time psychology was about as rigorous as what we'd call armchair psychology and his assessment is more cultural criticism than that.

No, I'd say Hegel's approach to psychology is quite rigorous, albeit obviously nothing like the methodology we'd use today.

Nietzsche's psychological portrait of Christianity, should be understand in the same sense as Shakespeare's psychology portrait of Richard III. Saying, "It's purely analytical, not polemical," would be ridiculous.

In the preface of the genealogy he states his intent to lay out an alternative viewpoint, regardless of its correctness. The entire book is the logic behind it, not polemics, but point by point logic. He admits it may be flawed, but his flawed logic does not equal hatful slander against Christianity.

>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!… The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich…. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won…. The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid…. Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious…. Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.

Seems extremely hostile to me, desu senpai

#
Nothing you quoted is evident of Neitchze hatred for Christianity. The first quote was preceded by a qualifier, the second shows christianity as the result of a decline in morality. Neitzche was far to intelligent to hold a grudge against something he routinely portrayed as the result of the rise of slave which he did not object to, only observed to be an inhibiting societal force

That was responding to this

Nietzsche doesn't actually employ any form of logic in the work, not deductive, inductive, or abductive.

Is "extreme not-likeyness" a preferable term to you?

I'll grant that he is not favorable to Christianity but his points are not rooted in opinions and polemics but rather observation and deduction.
His personal feelings towards Christianity are seperate from the argument he lays forth here, and saying he his logic was clouded by hatred seems to be ignoring his very real points.

I'm pretty sure you don't know what deductive reasoning is.

>says Christianity was a turn away from the old order by revolving around fear of God
Where did he say that? He only criticises Christianity for it being slave morality and based on resentment.

He does not criticise Christianity just for being based on fear but for having a certain attitude towards fear. So no contradiction between the two last points of your first post.

>listening to a philosopher that says objective truth doesn't exist

>seriously being this ignorant of the principles of uncertainty

>there is no real world force that could match the influence of an otherworldly force in the mind of a believer
nonsense

And what if he says so? Why is it so important to say "Absolute truth exists!"?

>waaaaaaaaaaah I want the moral high ground
ok

>that says objective truth doesn't exist
Read him more carefully. He doesn't say that.