There can be little doubt that Nietzsche is the most important figure in modern atheism...

Except he liked jews. He didn't like Christians, I'm not sure he knew any Muslims. But he loved jews.

Stroke

What does liberal mean for whoever wrote the article?

>im 12 and like philosophy
Nietzsche ^

Secular Christianity.

Whores

he always was. just lost his grip, as brilliant but insane men all inevitably do.

HE DIDNT HAVE SYPHILIS, WHEN WILL THIS MEME DIE:

telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nietzsche-was-cancer-not-syphilis.html

>he thinks Nietzsche meant "atheism" by "God is dead"
>he thinks he criticised the Jews for believing in God instead of being slaves to people
>he thinks Nietzsche didn't criticise his form of atheism
wew lad why is this babby so butthurt his church is dead? he could at least have the decency to say he's christian

That's right. "Durr, Locke hated atheists!"
So? Fuck off.

an excerpt from zarathustra.

He admired Jews for their intelligence and "priestly" behavior, but disliked Jewishness and Judaism, especially because of their relation to Christianity. He wasn't an anti-Semite in the sense that he believed their presence was undermining the national culture or contributing to a secret world order, and he of course opposed herd behaviors like pogroms, but he subscribed to some stereotypes about their character and felt that only the best of the Jews should be assimilated into a new European master race. He believed they had an incredible amount of power and desperately wanted to be European.

>He didn't like Christians
He used his book money to buy his clergyman dad a nice tombstone. He didn't like a lot of things or people in christian communities tho for a number of reasons..

>but he subscribed to some stereotypes about their character and felt that only the best of the Jews should be assimilated into a new European master race. He believed they had an incredible amount of power and desperately wanted to be European.
He tried to thwart an anti-jewish conspiracy in one of his delusions once. I also wouldn't take Nietzsche's work as some kind of political project. That's a very shallow reading of his stuff on master/slave and aristocracy, and often coincides withh such shitty interpretations as "Nietzsche HATED slave morality and LOVED aristocracy" that are simply incompatible with his work.

Then how do you explain him describing the painful symptoms of syphilis in his letters? Last time I checked brain damage doesn't make your cock hurt.

>He used his book money to buy his clergyman dad a nice tombstone.
This has nothing to do with Christianity. It's obviously a son paying respects to his father.

Through a set of christian rituals within a christian value system.

A better question would be why you think he hated Christians.

Psychosomatic. In fact you probably get itchy genitals sometimes (assuming you have some), but don't think twice about it. But if you believe it's part of a disease it suddenly seems like it's meaningful. Bit like hypochondria.

The abyss stared back.

>Through a set of christian rituals within a christian value system.
And if he was Chinese it would have been through Chinese rituals. His father were a priest, to give him some sort of weird non-christian Indian sky cage funeral would have been really weird and not what he (the father would have wanted). Engaging in some token act out of respect says nothing about his attitudes towards Christianity as a whole. Is it respect to go against what you know you father would have wanted?

>Psychosomatic
There is a difference between and ich and unbearable pain. I'm not saying that it couldn't have been brain damage but in the same way people love to speculate about why Van Gogh was ill you can find five different causes which all sound sort of plausible when they are pushed hard enough by someone opinionated. And I don't think a single article from the telegraph is enough by itself to make me believe something most people don't and actively contradicts evidence we have to the contrary.

>And if he was
If he were... it's a rare example of subjunctive mood in English.

His father was dead and buried already. His parishioners (is that even the right word in lutheranism?) didn't bother to sort it out either, nor anyone else in the family. For someone that hates Christians and didn't believe in universal value systems it's damn weird.

Psychosomatic goes beyond that example, it was just illustrative. Pain isn't always based on physical sensation. The arguments for an inherited brain tumor are convincing considering his dad had something very similar.

Nietzsche was brainwashed by Schopenhauer so he didn't take the time to understand dialectics so he could never grasp the real essence and significance of Christianity... all he had was his own subjectivist whining and psychological ailments to put on paper in the end

>For someone that hates Christians and didn't believe in universal value systems it's damn weird.
No it isn't. Just saying it is doesn't make it so. I don't think it's weird so you are going to have to explain why. Do you think that atheists just stop having funerals? These are things that while co-opted by religion have other purposes in peoples lives. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they won't name their children with names from the bible, or bury them or be buried. As I said before that if Nietzsche were Chinese he would have honored his father in an equivalent Chinese way. There is important overlap between social mores, social customs and religious practice. Ishiguro's family went to church every Sunday even though there weren't Christian because they thought it was just something that English people did.

As for the brain tumor all I am saying is that a single news article isn't going to convince me since a) these are the kinds of things that are rife with speculation as to the cause so having someone talk about one more isn't surprising, b) it does nothing to combat contradictory evidence and c) it comes from a source that makes money out of sensationalism (and also that journalists always seem to misrepresent medical and scientific things). I'm not saying it wasn't a brain tumor but I am far from convinced.

>I don't think it's weird so you are going to have to explain why. Do you think that atheists just stop having funerals?
You're not reading the posts bro. Again daddy Nietzsche was buried already, Freddy bought him a nice tombstone.

I think you actually read what you're replying to and explain why you think he hated Christianity then we have a possibility of conversation.

Who was it that truly grasped Christianity, then? Hegel?

He thought Muslims knew the proper way to handle women.

I never said anything about him hating Christianity, that was a different user.
>Freddy bought him a nice tombstone.
And as I said twice if he were Chinese he would have done some equivalent Chinese token. He didn't do it because of Christianity. Nietzsche just wanted to honour the memory of his father. He has to actually do something. So the question is rather why wouldn't he do something that would be completely normal for a German of his time to do?

>for the prevailing notion that atheism and liberalism go together.
liberalism is the faith in the human rights which are exactly the promotion of atheism through their faith in ''''''''''''''''''property'''''''''''''''''''' and ''''''''''''''''''''''''''liberty''''''''''''''''''''''''

this guy is total moron

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/06/adventures-in-old-atheism-part-i.html?m=1

literally this

Again it wasn't perfectly normal. Only Fred did it. For someone quick to cry thay "saying it doesn't make it so!" you yourself are at least as quick to do it.

Might also be an idea to read some Nietzsche. A big part of it is about blindly accepting value systems.

Rights are given to you by god, without god given rights you would just be a subject to arbitrary man made social arrangements based upon mere power relations

>Rights are given to you by god
Not necessarily. There are arguments for various natural rights.

Never heard that one before.

There is nothing inconsistent about what he did with his philosophy. Getting his father a new tombstone is not inconsistent at all with what he says about Christianity and the act itself doesn't have to have anything to do with Christianity. I still don't understand why you think this one act, which doesn't contradict his ideas in any way is so important. A very big part of Nietzsche is arbitrary willing. What's so hard to believe that about this being an act of such willing?

He wanted to honour his father, which means he has to do something to honour him. This is a something. He thought it was fitting. Why make it out that this act is some clear revelation upon his ideas and character when it fits within those ideas?

>There are arguments for various natural rights.
none of them are convincing, just pure ideology to forward interests

>A very big part of Nietzsche is arbitrary willing.
Huh? Where are you getting that from?

It's the core of his ethics. We are free to create the new rules in which we engage in much as artists do (with their restrained arbitration's of willing to make art). Nietzsche extends this to all men so that all men are artists and that life is our art. So for Nietzsche an ubermensch is something like a Beethoven of Shakespeare except for their whole life and not just to art.

I mean it's fucking stupid but it was his view.

>Except he liked jews.

He absolutely did not. It shows what kind of a Kaufman secondhand knowledge of Nietzsche you have. His comments on Jews and Judaism are absolutely antisemitic, Cosima Wagner of all people told him to tone it down with the jew hatred. You'll find references to Jews, though admiring their cleverness, throughout his work, and his thoughts on the Jewish threat that would fall on Europe are clearly described in Twilight of the Idols. Adding to that, his comments on Jews in his private notebooks without fail are absolutely filled with animosity towards them. Even the purported break with Wagner over the issue of antisemitism was not at all the cause, not even a reason for it. He agreed with antisemites in all but its loud expression, which is the reason why he developed an anti-antisemitism because he knew the problem would only get worse should they get louder, and alongside his proclamation of having all antisemites shot you can clearly see in the notes and in the Antichrist what Nietzsche really meant with it.

Which god?

This is because of the ascendancy of Anglo-American power, which is more likely to cite liberals like Locke and Mill. Anglos are more conservative than continental Europeans, and distrust intellectuals, so more likely to accept a degenerate version of the old status quo than revolt entirely.

The art thing is Schopenhauer. Art frees you from servitude to the Will to Life and allows true choice. Nietzsche argues against this with his whole Apollonian-Dionysian dialectic in line with Will thing.

The making your own rules thing is also only the second metamorphosis of the soul (Lion). It isn't the same as willing what you want, and neither of those things is "arbitrary willing" anyway.

I assume you've sort of skimmed over his work from this. Not that any of that has any bearing on Nietzsche fulfilling his father's wishes or just being German and not Chinese or whatever else is up there. That isn't "arbitrary willing" either.

The Judeo-Christian of course

Are you reading his sister's edits again?

That's the thing though. The liberal theorist don't need to appeal to divine or even natural rights. They just say that every individual has a regard for his own interest, and that individuals can come together to form a mutually beneficial "social contract" for the sake of their individual interest. So that guy above is right in the sense that liberalism makes the individual and his own self interest the beginning and end of all things, without any reference to God, unless one can enter into a contract with God that will prove to benefit one's self interest.

I think what the man in the OP meant though, was not liberalism so much as humanism/humanitarianism, the idea that human beings have any inherent values or rights, and that individuals owe any amount of care or respect to other human beings except insofar as they serve one's interest, once one has discarded God as the Father of the universal family of mankind and left in His place only the individual and his self interest.

lmao

You are wrong about lion. Lion tears apart camel (representing acquisition of external values), keeping what is life-promoting and leaving what is life-denying. There is no creation in this stage.

They are arbitrary.

Now you're making shit up.

I'm as fedora as it gets, but if I survive my parents I'm going to contribute to their Christian funeral, buy them a nice casket and a tombstone to honor them and their religious views. Not just because it's something they would have wanted, but because other surviving loved ones are likely to believe themselves Christian as well. As for myself, I don't really care. Funerals are for the living, at most I'll just save up the money for it when I have a surplus in order not to be a financial burden to those who succeed me.

Nice blog post bro. Please keep us updated on your headwear and funeral arrangements.

Thanks. Where's the upvote button, I'd like to acknowledge you further.

Schopenhauer's aesthetic view of art is not what I refer to when I talk of Nietzsche trying to turn your life into a work of art. You mistake what I refer to as willing as something akin to the automatic and reflective will to power of master morality. The arbitrary willing doesn't mean you just do what you want because you are free from the constraints of moral realism, for if it were so he would have no arguments against the last man.

The reason why I talked of art (asides from the fact the people Nietzsche admired most were Goethe, Shakespeare and Beethoven) is that to create great art like them requires insight, skill that is acquired through great amounts of intelligent effort and suffering and (perhaps most importantly) that they do so mostly because they can. For Nietzsche art has no ontology. Beethoven doesn't create great music because of some universalised aesthetic good or (let us just assume this for the sake of the hypothetical) that because someone told him to. He has endevoured upon this difficult task for the joy that comes from the challenge and the power of real accomplishment. For Nietzsche this isn't just how you create good art but is how one should create value in their life.

But you are right, this has nothing to do with Nietzsche and his fathers grave other than for me to say there is nothing unNietzschean about what he did and we don't need to reconsider anything about him because he did so.

moralizing atheists are literally the most retarded ideologues of all time.

Bird worshipping mud hole fucking savages and nation of Islam pedophiles look like rational people in comparison

What is this talk about "self interest"? It's not even a coherent term.

he means necessarily jackass. as in, sure, the logical conclusion of liberal humanism might be atheism, but certainly the converse is not true.

Are you saying that atheism inherently proposes moral non-realism? If you do I think academia would like to have a word with you.

>Awkwardly, Nietzsche pointed out that liberal values derive from Jewish and Christian monotheism

But this is the part that Nietzsche got wrong, and it's the part that the Neo-Reactionaries also got wrong.

There is literally nothing about liberalism that can be traced to Christianity or Judaism, unless you think capitalism, homosexuals rights, a woman's right to be equal to men and the rule of law under rational legislation, is in any way shape or form Christian or Judaic(which it isn't).

>academia is correct
Atheism is inherently amoral.
Oh look, another Redditor that knows nothing about Christianity. Shouldn't you go to reddit9001? There have been so many of you trolls there as of late.

>Schopenhauer's aesthetic view of art is not what I refer to when I talk of Nietzsche trying to turn your life into a work of art.
100% it is. Schopenhauer inspired the Appollonian, and that might be where you're getting stuck a bit. That isn't the totallity of Nietzsche's aesthetics, it isn't even half really because not only is there the Dionysian it should be aligned to the Will to power. That's quite clearly put in The Birth of Tragedy (tho it's maybe lacking finesse of later work).

>You mistake what I refer to as willing as something akin to the automatic and reflective will to power of master morality.
Will to power you would do better to think of as actual willing in this case. Master morality can be born from Will to power but does not intrinsically or internally produce it. It actually undermines itself a la Daybreak.

>For Nietzsche art has no ontology.
I don't think this is arguable. Appolonian and Dionysian take differing ontological positions on aesthetics. You also get Nietzsche writing about differrent claims to artness in Nietzsche Contra Wagner.

>Oh look, another Redditor that knows nothing about Christianity.

I know enough about Christianity to know that it has nothing to do with political liberalism.

nietzschecircle.com/nietzsche4.html

> As for the question of whether or not Nietzsche actually had syphilis, these claims have been vigorously disputed, in particular and at length by Richard Schain. It is improbable that Nietzsche ever had syphilis, but more likely suffered from "endogenous" psychosis (a schizophrenic disorder originating within the body, not from an outside agent); in a short paper, Dr. Leonard Sax argued that nearly all of Nietzsche's symptoms correlate in particular with meningioma (eye cancer) of the right optic nerve. Schain states that a "final diagnosis of chronic schizophrenic disorder . . . is perfectly compatible with all of the manifestations of mental disorder and physical dysfunction exhibited by Nietzsche" (The Legend of Nietzsche's Syphilis, Schain, p. 103).

kys

Great argument fagtron.

Whenever Nietzsche says anything about Wagner it is sublimated jealousy

Different user. You are so retarded you made me reply to you. The roots of an ideology/system of ideas not being important in considering its current form and how we should evaluate them?

So really what you are saying is that you are smarter than almost all moral philosophers and you spend your time on Veeky Forums?

>That isn't the totallity of Nietzsche's aesthetics
I'm not talking about Nietzsche's aesthetics at all. I'm merely talking about art for its analogous qualities in regards to Nietzsche's ethics.

>Master morality can be born from Will to power but does not intrinsically or internally produce it.
I meant that the masters do what they will and believe it to be good because they do it. This is why I called it automatic and unreflective (Ed: I noticed that I said reflective in the other post, I meant unreflective). When I used will to power in that sentence I meant it is what is being manifested when they act in such a way. Even if you draw issue with this it is beside the point so I was only making the point that I did not equate the ubermensch with the master and that the ubermnesch requires an interiority impossible with the master.

>>For Nietzsche art has no ontology.
It has been a very long time since I engaged in his first book but I don't remember getting the impression that the Appolonian and the Dionysian had any ontology and were just two of the better approaches (among many others that Nietzsche doesn't deem worthy talking about) that man had of engaging with the world.

muh utilitarianism makes me so profound

You're literally an idiot. Probably low iq. Your parents should be put to death for raising such a sickening husk of a human. I can't bear to imagine what you look like, or what other depraved and draining opinions you've got loping around in your tiny squashed little head. Sitting around in your cheap baggy jeans with no socks on wearing some off-brand zip-down hoodie. It may be unzipped completely, or maybe only one third of the way leaving that v shape so we can all see what comic book character you're sporting today, but one things for sure, you're a fucking dope. You've got that wet-lipped mongoloid expression and your hair is either buzzed down or completely unkempt. You're not fat but to imagine your misshapen battered body would be just as upsetting. Ooooh what games are on sale on Steam this week? Any new apps on the app store? Is Gamestop open? These are the banalities that float around behind those plain beady little eyes of yours. You're folded out on your couch wondering what tiny piece of enjoyment you can squeeze out of your miserable life today. You'd be depressed if you weren't so fucking stupid. OOOOH you're going to play your video games on the bus today? That sound fun. Maybe some more during the day? Maybe a movie, one of the classics? Minority Report? I'm going to fucking kill you. I'll find you one day and I'll come to wherever you live and I'll shoot you through your heart. I'll leave you dead in your fucking driveway, sprawled out and tangled in your headphones. You were up all night watching Netflix and drinking energy drinks, so fitting the jack into your Nintendo DS is difficult, and then you'll look up and you'll be dead. I will freeze you in that fucking moment for forever and ever.

There is more to moral realism that utilitarianism. And please go ahead and publish your brilliant ideas to show that you are one of the greatest philosophers ever, I'm rooting for you!

Well, i suppose God it's alive after all.

>if anybody calls my ideological nonsense stupid, they are clearly arguing for their own ideas

what a gross moustache

>mfw a modern atheist has read trash like Dawkins and Hitchens but not based Fritz

book one of Genealogy of Morality is worth more than all the atheist literature written in the last 100 years put together

GOAT book

slaves gonna slave

Realized the last step of the 3-Way Metamorphosis: From Lion to Child. He didnt go insane, he merely reached radical subjectivity

Moral philosophers are realists in the same way that theologians are theists. They possess no special knowledge, it's purely a matter of ideology.

Unless they can actually show me a moral fact they can fuck off.

>Unless they can actually show me a moral fact they can fuck off.
So you are saying that anything that isn't directly accessible to the senses is hogwash?

>rationalist in damage control

it hurts that your mental proliferation is cancer, does it not?

>Unless they can actually show me a moral fact they can fuck off.
It's almost like that isn't what a moral fact is.

because of siphilis

>but I don't remember getting the impression that the Appolonian and the Dionysian had any ontology
There are very clear ontological aspects to both.

>I meant that the masters do what they will and believe it to be good because they do it.
I'm tired right now so my Nietzsche recall is on the fritz, but I would suggest it's more like that they appear to do as the will but cannot (this is established in Daybreak for sure), and that it is generally recognised to be moral because they promised or commanded it (this is where I'm hazy but it's probably is genealogy of morals if anywhere).

This isn't really much of a revelatory comment. The majority of any group of people will always be ignorant of their roots.

But, I don't see how this is accurate either, or even meaningful. Plenty of capitalists and business men, scientists and engineers, artists and writers, etc. are atheist today, and many of these people are running society. The entire upper cultural hemisphere of the world is still hierarchical and elitist in its ideas and attitude, it has to be, because master moralists are the ones who climb the social ladder and are the ones that sustain the lower rungs.

The type of people I think of with this comment are fairly irrelevant to society anyway and not worth commenting on. So there are people who are against religion and are either atheist or sometimes a skeptic (which is just an indecisive atheist) and they also carry a liberal attitude. Whatever. People carry disharmonious ideas with them all the time. Why do you think "free will" is still a problem for so many people? Because they don't bother doing the work that is thinking, and try to hold onto ideas without knowing their origins.

reading pic related right now, it's pretty fucking good
it contrasts the liberal and marxist traditions of the late 1900s with an individualist one as read in the three writers mentioned in the title

make that the late 1800s...

In calling himself the "antichrist", he affirmed his deep longing for Christ.

If they're not accessible in any way, then they might as well not exist.

If they are accessible in some way, build a moral fact detector and settle the debate forever.

But no, realists want to have their cake and eat it too. They include facts in their ontology but then come up with preposterous excuses about why they're not "directly" accessible, but somehow magically accessible through intuition or some shit like that. It's ridiculous.

Looks interesting. How does Dostoevsky fit into that trio?

whitehead

>So really what you are saying is that you are smarter than almost all moral philosophers and you spend your time on Veeky Forums?
yes

>le Nietzsche was right wing

reminder that Nietzsche was making a cultural analysis by the statement God is dead and not a statement of fact.