Any Christfags here like Nietzsche?
How do you explain such dissonance?
Any Christfags here like Nietzsche?
How do you explain such dissonance?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
what dissonance are you referring to friendo?
the only dissonance for me are the anime-eyes on nietzsche in that pic
neetchee was not anti-christian desu
GOD IS DEAD LMAO
If Nietzsche was born today he'd 100% be a weeb
idk exactly but academic theologians today have to engage with nietzsche (and marx and freud) in order for their ideas to be taken seriously by their peers.
and if u could be more specific about what dissonance that would help
I think what he means by dissonance is that how can us Christians read & study or appreciate Nietzsche's works when he blasphemed our religion so badly
in that case, Nietsche should be the least of your worries. Christians must have to practice a form of doublethink in order to live in contemporary society and maintain their faith.
Everything he said was right though.
All he asked for were fundamental proofs needed to substantiate certain claims from Christians and pointed out that everyone was worshiping a kikekabob.
Yes, yes, well done Nietzsche, well done Nietzsche
HOWEVER
Lol
You haven't read him, have you? You sound like you read the wikipedia article about him and that's it. Read the Antichrist
>How do you explain such dissonance?
Read Heidegger's "The Word of Nietzsche: 'God Is Dead'"
>I seek God! I seek God!
How would they.
Most of them don't have the balls to read him, he has the strongest antichristian artillery
Yes, I do, but only if I approach him as a writer whose work is a cry for God and meaning.
If I approach him as I would other philosophers I would hate him because of his erratic views, unsupported claims, banal philosophy, no systematization. He's essentially a worse baby Schopenhauer without a pedantic approach for teenagers, so needless to say I like poodle Kant man much more as he wasn't just a sayer of claims, but a proper philosopher who starts ground up.
nietzsche operates on the meta-systematic level and blows out the so-called foundation under what some people call philosophy
criticizing nietzsche for lacking them as if it was a mistake he made and not a major point of his philosophy is nothing short of cowardly
Bullshit, he hated every single part of christian morality.
Hey guys, here's a nice video about Niezsche!
>it doesn't have to make sense if he didn't want it to make sense xd
>it has to fit into man-made logical structures or it doesn't make sense lol xd i am an autismal robot
This
His considerd Christians the greatest example of slave-morality, that does not seem very pro Christian to me.
I know a priest that LOVES him, he says that Nietzsche was really a catholic.
Lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I guess the habit of lying to himself became a compulsion! Dude just CAN'T STOP!
Yes. It's very simple. The death of God and nihilist weakening of the tradition in modernity marks exactly a unique historical clearing and a chance for thought to re-orient itself in a way that deals with and responds by incorporation to the experience of thought as a weakening force to not fall in the pit traps of the tradition; that is to build grand metaphysical structures in response to the question of faith.
It's simple. Read Nietzsche -> then Heidegger -> then VATTIMO.
That long and pretentious sentence of yours makes no sense if I'm not mistaken
It does if you have half a brain and any familiarity with aforementioned thinkers. I'm not the one pretending.
>If you got half a brain
No need to get mad, user
I was just saying that it doesn't make sense to me, don't take it so personal
I've read N and H and I have "more than half a brain". Your sentence could be waaay better written
Now attack me again if that makes you feel good
No offense taken and no need to calm down, in fact, my remarks weren't meant as particularly personal either.
I suppose I could have written more lucid and elaborated. But with a background in Nietzsche and H, I have a hard time seeing how it could be hard for you to get the point?
Anyway, it is basically just a paraphrase of Vattimo (who, in my view at least, gives one of the better Christian responses to the death of God).
Basically, the death of God and the nihilism of the modern age, as diagnosed by Nietzsche, is not taken as a problem that needs to be negated for Vattimo. Rather, it is a historical opportunity for re-orienting thinking on the question of faith away from the tendency to build grand universal metaphysical structures (substantiating God; here he has a similar critique to Heideggers critique of onto-theology). Vattimo views history, and herein also the history of christianity, as a process of weakening, and thinking needs to respond to this experience of weakening by incorporating it. Hermeneutically we can only make singular 'interpretations' marked by their contingent historicity, and we need to take the real consequence of this.
So Vattimo views the Death of God as a result of the continuous weakening force of history (herein Christianity moving towards secularization) and he sees it as a positive opportunity to re-orient thinking towards a post-metaphysical dealing with the question of the Christian faith, following Heidegger's critiques of metaphysics. This is done through 'weak thinking', a hermeneutics that is aware of its own nature as singularly historical and works to dismantle universalizing structures instead of building them up.
Most theology that takes the death of God seriously is post-metaphysical. I don't really see this type of theology as 'untimely', rather I have a lot of respect for the theologians that respond to the question of faith in a way that is on the premises of the times.
Making more sense, or?
Yes, thank you for clarifying
Start with Richard Wagner. Search the archive to see why.
Why?
he loved Jesus but hated the state of the church
Yeah I do, you don't have to agree with what he says in order to appreciate his writings. He has great ideas and writes beautifully. I think you have to be emotional stunted if you think you must not like a person you disagree with desu
>Yes. It's very simple. The death of God and nihilist weakening of the tradition in modernity marks exactly a unique historical clearing and a chance for thought to re-orient itself in a way that deals with and responds by incorporation to the experience of thought as a weakening force to not fall in the pit traps of the tradition; that is to build grand metaphysical structures in response to the question of faith.
I want reddit pseudointelectuals to leave.
more like he disliked jesus but respected him for infecting so many people with his beliefs.
The "DEUS VULT" Christians on /pol/ are mostly Nietzschean Christians desu.
>more like he disliked jesus
>Disliking a literal, prime example of an historical Übermensch
so? he disliked socrates too
underrated
He called jesus naive, just like he himself had been naive when he fell for the schopenhauer meme
I do. I think Nietzsche is one of the greatest thinkers of all time, despite disagreeing with him.
He explained the way humans think in a manner like no one else before, or after him. In fact, I will go as far as saying that you can't really know human thought without having read Nietzsche
true but he loved Jesus.
>he loved Jesus
No. A guy like Nietzsche doesn't just "love Jesus" and "hate every part of Christian morality". Read him, it's not about love and hate
good post
Christian morality is actually pauline morality. This is reinforced with "the last christian died on the cross".
i read a book by a priest who seemed to really love Nietzsche. He argued that Nietzsche is the only intellectually honest atheist in the sense that he recognised that the death of god means automatically that all value will be lost eventually= decend to nihilism (he didn't say anyhing really about the coming of the übermensch and creating a new set of values). He argued that that's why he dislikes people like dawkins who act like there was still a morality which was obvious and to be lived after even though proclaiming there was no god. He hated those atheists the same as christians who acted as if there was no god.
Basically he used Nietzsche as a way to tell atheists to stop hiding behind a false sense of morality and start facing the facts that they can't ground that morality in any real sense/way in a methaphysical framework other than mere whim.
t. atheist
This thread just produced the profound realisation in me that what we call the short-lived 'analytic' movement was the modern equivalent of a scholastic period. Read Nietzsche and you'll find this uncanny. He explicitly singles-out the Anglo nations for their unrelenting clutching-at whatever remnants of Christianity remain, to compensate for their lack of philosophic spirit (pragmatism being a passivity in matters philosophical). And naturally, the Analytics would be the 20th century equivalent, in their secularised, unphilosophical society. thanks.
Look up the (probably homosexual, lel) reverend Giles Fraser's articles in the Guardian, any that contain the keyword 'Nietzsche', if you want to see a Grotesque recent specimen. I liked 'The fantasy of the beautiful nomad is morally bankrupt' one just because it makes you self-conscious of just how enjoyable the things he hates actually are compared to his preferences.
Isn't this just Pascal but with a historical-sense (so basically, less intense and therefore healthier *in a negative* way?)
IIRC he imagines him to be a Buddha-like figure (Christianity might have been as good as Buddhism if the Romans/church hadn't commandeered it), The Idiot being so selfless that he freed himself from ressentiment and therefore his only problematic elements are his original reaction to evade suffering and his idiocy. Possibly his rebellion against the Jewish laws too.
/thread
Heidegger is exactly the kind of obtuse German barrier to European enlightenment Nietzsche described past figures as being (right down to personal inclinations towards romantic nationalism nazi volk shit).
>Nietzsche is not actually the overcoming of nihilism, he's just the completion of it, ya gotta know Being first :^)
>will to power and overman are metaphysical/otherworldly
>the true Nietzsche is not found in the published works ;)
>the Being, not becoming!
>HOWEVER
HOWEVER
>Any Christfags here like Nietzsche?
yes
>How do you explain such dissonance?
i don't
i'm also a taoist
i.e. i don't give a shit
>Nietzsche basically tells Kierkegaard to kill himself
>Nietzche was the one to actually do it
The absolute madman
great man
By interpreting Christ as an uberman himself, dedicated to overthrowing the absurd God and related superstitions of his culture.
By being a Christian Anarchist, which is a faith/philosophy empowers the individual, rather than a christian who yields to the authority of any Church.
We reject the traditional interpretation of Christ's crucifixion as a sacrifice God made so that we don't have to. Indeed, Jesus set an example for us all to follow, to struggle valiantly against the powers that be so that the thoughtful and the righteous might be free to act according to their own will and not the will of fools who claim the authority of God.
wrong, he disliked Plato
He vaguely respected that one man could cause such massive change in the world, that's about it.
Nietzsche was all about the power of the individual to change the world around them, so it makes sense he'd have some vague respect for christ himself. But he hated every part of christianity and believed it had made the world lesser. It was slave morality.
wrong, he did also dislike Socrates
You read or are you just another /pol/ plant?
No, read Ecce Homo again
Isn't Nietzsche basically a Gnostic?
It sounds like that priest didn't really understand Nietzsche. And honestly, it sounds like he didn't really understand morality either.
Its not like modern morality is based on the bible to any degree. A lot of the 'moral' stuff that happens in the bible would get you arrested today. And a lot of it would get you labelled unchristian.
Modern christians almost always think they base their values/morals on their religion, but really just use however they've been raised combined with their society's standards and then claim its christian somehow, using god as a justification.
If atheists lose something fundamental in the defense of their morality, its not something that 99% of christians are actually using themselves. So it really cannot be that important.
And honestly, i can't respect anyone who goes for the 'without a god, all morals are a lie!!!' bollocks. While i understand their basic logic, the immediate implication to me is that if their God suddenly killed himself that day, they'd consider it fine to start their murder-rape rampage. After all, there is no god and therefore no morals.
Since thats unlikely to be the case, the obvious result seems to be that 'mere whim' is a stronger source of human morality than god is.
congratulations, you've gone from christian morality to humanistic morality to uuuhhhh just dont be a dick morality
How can you read any book without changing your views radically? If it were so simple we could just give people a bible and everyone would be Christian, would they not?
FUCK YEAH
Makes a hell of a lot more sense now
Nietzsche is a dead-on analyst of post-Christian, unChristian Western civilization, which was already in place in his own time and has fully flowered in ours. Like the poison that kills the snake, he is a useful weapon against those who purport to follow him, but in reality are trapped in their groundless moral frameworks. Notice how effective he is against Sam Harris, for example. Everyone who claims to build or follow a purely secular moral system is vaporized by Nietzsche.
His complaints about Christianity would also make sense if Christianity were a totally human invention. But it's not, so they don't. The exorcist and the faith healer answer Nietzsche's complaints perfectly well.
>>Nietzsche is not actually the overcoming of nihilism, he's just the completion of it, ya gotta know Being first :^)
>>will to power and overman are metaphysical/otherworldly
>>the true Nietzsche is not found in the published works ;)
>>the Being, not becoming!
i swear to Gott that i wrote some of these sentences on lit 2 years ago
>But it's not
lol
XD
>But it's not
[citation needed]
*tips*
fedora memes automatically make you look like a moron and an autistic reactionary
You did, my regards.
No-one could possibly be this stupid.
Say more about this?
His complaints about Christianity would still hold even if said religion was true. He doesn't start his critique with "If Christianity is false, then ..." but with an analysis of the Christian mind, it is more about psychology than about theology.
THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN1!! HE DID THE FEDORA MEME. ATHEIST ETERNALLLY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT.
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
He wasn't against Christian sentiment just against the position it arose out of, that of weakness and sickliness. He very much praises universal love, kindness and benevolence but out of a position of strength. Nietzsche is far more subtle than people give him credit for and you should never take him out of context.
Was Neetch Veeky Forums? You'd think he was, considering how much he rejected abstract concepts such as the soul and consciousness and highlighted the power of the human body.
he was too sick to be Veeky Forums
You're completely retarded
You want a citation for the supernatural?
He would have definitely cultivated his physique if he was in the condition to do so
Don't let buttmad scrawnyanons tell you otherwise
I guess Tolstoy is this stupid then?
>Nowhere nor in anything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that God or Christ founded anything like what churchmen understand by the Church.
en.wikipedia.org
He was Veeky Forums if by Veeky Forums you mean he was careful about nutrition, and kept active, aesthetically and spiritually (he hiked for several hours, daily).
But if you mean someone that doesn't care about health or science and instead just wants the appearance of health by going to sweaty, noisy, crowded places after work everyday in order to skirt-chase, or to achieve "self-help", then no:
>Would you spend the night hanging out with a weight lifter or a D&D player? That's the only aspects of their personality you know: one lifts weights, the other plays D&D. To me there'd be no question. Weight lifting is boring, D&D is awesome: the D&D player, please! Or a master PUA or someone who's been playing games since Pong? The gamer without a moment's hesitation! The PUA will be a moron who can't go five minutes without thinking of girls, scanning the room etc., while the gamer will be a genuine individual with a passion for art! It doesn't matter that women would have chosen the other option in both cases! Women are stupid! And the fastest way to become stupid yourself is to adopt their stupid values! Which is precisely what "alpha PUAs" end up doing in their quest to understand them and sleep with them! Which is certainly a necessary prerequisite to being good at what they do, but that doesn't make it a valid strategy for everyone! And especially not for those who expect something more out of themselves and of their lives than to become good at ejaculation!
But the psychology flows from the theology. I don't understand how you can dissociate the two. Christians act the way they act because of the morality they are taught.
There are esoteric interpretations of Christ that are in line with a Nietzschian view.
you know that icycalm is a weightlifter right
Not for those reasons. And he probably has a home gym.
>Christ is a spook!
Le christfags btfo amirite?
Yeah, but mainstream, Nicene Christianity decidedly is not. That's not what any of the Apostolic Churches teach, for example.
Yeah, so we're heretical Christians. It's amazing how often Neitzche is quoted in Gnostic Christian books.
Yes, Christians act so because of said reasons, but I don't see how one needs to deny the validity of Christianity to study it as it shows itself through Christians. Nietzsche's critique is more like a diagnosis, "What makes someone become a Christian? What is behind Christian morality?". His critique must not be confused with our humanist atheists' critique, which is more centered on morally condemning Christianity and trying to prove its falsity. Nietzsche, for what I remember, never addressed Aquinas's five ways, nor talked about refuting any kind of cosmological or onthological argument, such things did not matter so much for him.
Nietzsche explicitly points out that if you reject God you reject all claims to Christian ethics. (the golden rule)
It's not that they would start pillaging and raping, it's that there would be no reason not to. 'I'll feel bad' is the only reason you wouldn't do those things, if you knew you could get away with them. This leads to some dark places. Not everyone has a lot of empathy. I'm the only thing that's sure to exist, why the hell should I worry about others? Why shouldn't I just overdose on heroin and die in unimaginable bliss right now? There's not a good reason not to besides fear of God.
He had chronic migraines and stomachaches and he got sick whenever bad weather was coming (like a monkey). But he loved Ralph Waldo Emerson and probably would have been a macho outdoorsy dude if he wasn't spending all his time getting well at the 1800s equivalent of spa retreats.
Important extra detail, though: Accepting the responsibility and suffering of this new godless world is the only way to become a truly great person. It isn't just about immorality; it's an opportunity for human exceptionalism.
Why bother being great? In Nietzsche's terms you need to pick one of the wills inside you to dominate the rest. You sublimate the rest of your impulses in service of this will. What framework do you have to pick egoism over avoidance of suffering? It's an aesthetic choice, there's a lot of flowery language he uses. But at the end of the day you're just doing it on a whim. Because your ego was stronger than your fear. That's not inherently a bad thing, it's not anything. It doesn't matter. There's no framework to pick between them without God.
I think, in addition to everything else, God is Will.
Also, in his conception of morality, all human life exists just to serve these great men. The odds of any of us reading him being one of a handful of exceptional men who can create their own values is pretty low. In fact, I'm pretty convinced it's impossible. You're just going to be servicing biological impulse. It's a pretty ridiculous morality in that light.
he setup a dummy Socrates as a punching bag, yeah, but he never criticizes the historical Socrates (who was a total BAMF) in any way.
Plato ~ Paul in Nietzsche's corpus
also
>le pol bogeyman
have a different hat then
why is it so easy to trigger an atheist?