Buddha and Nietzsche are standing before God.
Buddha opens the argument by speaking of the lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scant nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death.
From all this load of sorrow, he says, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love....
Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, bursts out when his turn comes: "Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about snivelling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial peopple suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maundering of this wretched psychopath."
Buddha,who in the court of Heavens has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight inthe knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity:"You are mistaken Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quite as much that is positive as to be found in your doctorine. Through I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I, too, have my heroes: my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations, they are enough to fill the loves of the greatest men who have ever lived"
"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion,which is elicited by pain; your truth if you are honest, is unpleasant,and only to be known through suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we should all die of boredom."
"You might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is."
...
Did you write this?
no, its from bertrand russell history of western philosophy
Nietzsche wrote on the Buddha in TSZ
>His wisdom is to keep awake in order to sleep well. And
verily, if life had no sense, and had I to choose nonsense, this
would be the desirablest nonsense for me also.
>Now know I well what people sought formerly above all else
when they sought teachers of virtue. Good sleep they sought
for themselves, and poppy-head virtues to promote it!
>To all those belauded sages of the academic chairs, wisdom
was sleep without dreams: they knew no higher significance
of life.
>Even at present, to be sure, there are some like this preacher
of virtue, and not always so honourable: but their time is past.
And not much longer do they stand : there they already lie.
>Blessed are those drowsy ones: for they shall soon nod to
sleep.
>sleep
>not awake
>not liking something cos schopenhauer liked it
Nietzsche was the anti-shopenhauer
Buddha was fucking spooked
>not realizing the ego is the final spook
exactly, he didn't like buddhism cos shopenhauer did like it.
I think this confirms analytic philosophers are autists. I don't mean that as an insult or a mark against analytic philosophy. It's just autistic.
Happiness is the opiate of life- men pursue it without seeking to better themselves or the world around them.
>you have to be unhappy to better yourself and the world
The whole reads like bullshit anyway
>what if nietzsche was chatting with god and carryied on arguing as if there was no god, then buddha would win lmao
wtf russell
lol God being there isn't the point retard
>i rate nietzsche
he never said it was, but it's still autistic fanfic on the level of cwc sonic shit
But nietzsche's entire premise of using your experience as will to power to create meaning in a post-christian world relies on that premise.
If he met god, it would BTFO his entire philosophy to begin with.
these are the people calling others autistic ladies and gentlemen bwahaha
you win again, fellow rational gentleman
You don't but seeking happiness through pleasure and self-fufillment is exactly what Buddha preached against.
This whole thread sucks.
is everyone in this thread retarded
yes and now so are you
no one said to do that
I was going to write "OP knows literally nothing about Nietzsche": apparently I was right.
Nietzsche never said that God definetely does not exist, nor he condemned faith in God, nor he condemned believed in things which are not true, if that matters.
God existing would just mean that Nietzsche would have to rethink some parts of his philosophy, but that skepticism towards his own skepcticism was something that was mentioned in virtually everyone of his books.
Nietzsche is seen as a atheist sperglord cause of his "Antichrist" but that is not an attack on faith, rather it is an attack on the specific values that emerge from the Christian fate, and how they're percieved by all sorts of man.
What the fuck... is Russell actually respected by modern academics? That's a pretty pathetic reading of Nietzsche's works.
>what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we should all die of boredom."
This is fucking true though. Slave moralists don't seem to understand the logical necessity of the death of exceptional people through egalitarianism.
True egalitarianism literally must mean the annihilation of the individual.
"From my governor, to be neither of the green nor of the blue party at the games in the Circus, nor a partizan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiators' fights; from him too I learned endurance of labour, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to meddle with other people's affairs, and not to be ready to listen to slander.
From Diognetus, not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to give credit to what was said by miracle-workers and jugglers about incantations and the driving away of daemons and such things; and not to breed quails for fighting, nor to give myself up passionately to such things; and to endure freedom of speech; and to have become intimate with philosophy; and to have been a hearer, first of Bacchius, then of Tandasis and Marcianus; and to have written dialogues in my youth; and to have desired a plank bed and skin, and whatever else of the kind belongs to the Grecian discipline."
Very few people are arguing for absolute egalitarianism, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people would justify any sort of power structure if that granted food, water, shelter, education, free speech and medical assistance to everyone.
Also notice that Nietzsche was an aristocratic, not an oligarch. While he was talking about aristocracy, he was still trashing the actual aristocracy he had to live under. In that sense he was closer to Aristotle rather than Rand: he really wanted a society governed liberally but deliberately by the most excellent men available.
>I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people would justify any sort of power structure if that granted food, water, shelter, education, free speech and medical assistance to everyone.
Which is an essential dialectical problem with liberalism.
You can't at the same time demand that the state be a God, while expecting to be free.
>You can't at the same time demand that the state be a God, while expecting to be free.
It's not, you pay it through taxes. It's not like we have no examples of such a state: the richest European countries are the direct proof that such a system could work.
Well I live in one of those countries, and while it's probably a fun spare time imagination for American bi-coastial liberals to circle-jerk about, it's not as perfect as you imagine.
I've lived in Italy, France, Germany and Sweden (I've visited the last 3 while studying abroad), and I honestly find difficult to find a better set of countries to live in than this one.
What I hear from my fellow American and Asian anons is deeply disturbing, stuff that would bring us to revolt in a few days. And what about the third world? And what about the past? Has there been a society that worked as efficiently and ethically as the Swedish one? Is there really anyone in Sweden suffering cause of these benefits granted to the entire population? I mean, who can really complain about that?
Also please, don't bring immigration in this discussion, since it's not related to the phenomena we're discussing.
>>From all this load of sorrow, he says, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love....
>love
this is what white Buddhists believe
>and has mastered science
the more you write the more it is ridiculous
OP has a extremely poor grasp on Nietzsche and Buddha.
Buddha was fundamentally against seeking beauty and pleasure, because both come with pain and suffering. So he decides to abstain, to flee from beauty so that he may never know pain.
Nietzsche is the very opposite of Buddha. He affirms both beauty and suffering.
Also, Buddha is a glorified stoic, but since his worldview is focused around never tasting pain, he is unable to invest himself in anything.
Nietzsche affirms life, Buddha denies it.
Buddha refuses ascetism, and adopts certain phisiological standards that he thought necessary for the peace of mind. In that regard he was one of the main opponents of Brahmanism.
>Also please, don't bring immigration in this discussion, since it's not related to the phenomena we're discussing.
It's directly related to the phenomenon. Below replacement birthrates, corruption that would make Italians blush, and a government that's trying to turn the populace into grey disposable blobs to be used by corporations and politicians and thrown away when no longer useful are direct results of the system that Sweden has created.
You can't sit there jerking off about how great the system is and then say "W-W-WAIT, JUST IGNORE THE BAD THINGS THAT COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF IT!". Maoism works great if you ignore the inevitable famines and mass purges. Heroin isn't so bad if you ignore the inevitable withdrawal and crippling addiction.
Sweden crashing and burning are a direct result of the policies it has enacted, the very same ones you support.
Stoicism is not just "Western Buddhism", stop it with this silly memery. The two are vastly different.
He does, but only to a certain degree. He still teaches detachment from passions in fear of pain.
There is a old Persian proverb: "He who dares not grasp the thorns deserves not the rose."
>he really wanted a society governed liberally but deliberately by the most excellent men available
Who gives a fuck what he wanted? Why should the mediocre kowtow to the great?
I'm not saying that you should hold his opinion as sacred, I was just correcting another user who was misinterpreting his works.
I know. It just irks me how so many fans of Nietszche ignore the part about following your own morality and just hop on his dick by following his. Not accusing you of this btw.
Do you think Nietszche would have affirmed life and embraced an enternal recurrence if he knew what was going to happen to him?
I can imagine him cursing life in his last lucid moments, full of agony and despair desu
He was in great agony across his entire life. He still affirmed life through his work.
>Do you think Nietszche would have affirmed life and embraced an enternal recurrence if he knew what was going to happen to him?
he said no due to his sister and his mom, which speaks to very few men.
Him bashing a decaying aristocracy wasn't a refutation of that system of governance itself, you utter moron.