/lit/ - Literature

>>12818716
>>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. Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!" : this was the feeling, this was the act , of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently ? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian .

Nietzsche was a philosopher and lived in a Christian dominated society and wrote about it while also responding to previous philosophers: Hölderlin, Hegel, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Heraclitus and so on. That's all you have to know anon. Now go and read some Nietzsche.

>>12818716
Is the Antichrist christian?

I dunno m8

>>12818726
My breath bates as I wait for someone to reduce this to "I DON WANNA GO TO CHURCH, DAD!"

>>12818716
Strictly atheist, only possible option left as questionable deism

>>12818716
there is not a single person who has read Neitzsche's work that can proclaim this statement seriously.

>>12818752
that's literally all he's saying though, well except for his weird arab fetish i guess

I think so - in the sense closer to what Tolstoy was. He said that “the last Christian died on the cross”.

>>12818772
>Nietzsche says he hates christian?
>He must secretly want to be one but is too afraid to admit it!
You there are people out there who have read his work and genuinely believes this.

>>12818772
Evangelists don't stop at the dead

He's Christian in the sense that he wishes Christianity was better.

>>12818752
https://youtu.be/YKLpmjdMZTo

>>12819247
He isn't Christian you little cretin.
Stop projecting your shit.

>>12819278
Dude, the only person more retarded than op is you for getting so easily b8ed

>>12818921
Why would this be a bad criticism? His whole argument against Socrates is that his criticism of power was just resentment and that his logic was simply a replacement for that power he didn't have.
Same with Christianity. So why can't the Nietzschean argument be applied to Nietzsche?
If you reduce everything to a fallacy you can't turn around and claim that fallacies cannot be used against you. Your position is just calling out 'that's whataboutism.'

>>12819305
Excellent strawman, you will do fine.

>>12819294
There are people on this board who blame some Hebrew boogeymen for the fact that they are virgins, you act as if I was wrong to assume that there are fucking retards on this board.

>>12818763
This.

>>12818716
No, but he also recognized that the structure of the Church was instrumental in building the foundations of the society that he lived in at the time. With the structure of the Church crumbling, he was worried about how society would rebuild itself after its collapse. Instead having morals and values be given by the church, he thought that people would create their own values to live by, instead of being shackled by the chains of the church.

Obviously he was wrong considering that we're posting here.

>>12819323
You aren't wrong to assume their are retards on this board--because their definitely is, >>12819305, but bro, why argue with them? Let them squabble amongst themselves and save your energy for people like me and Aristotleanon when he was here.

>>12818780
>except for his weird arab fetish
Bog standard at the time, and it's not so much fetishism of Arabs so much as of Ottomans.

>>12818726
Was he fucking retarded?

>>12819315
How is that a straw man?

>>12819371
I have nothing to say to you faggot

>>12819349
>Aristotelian
>calling others stupid

>>12819378
>it just is
>because muh powuh
WOAH, YOU GOT ME! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!

>>12819345
I don't think people are comfortable with creating their own values. Most people want to be told what to do. Everyone is easily swayed into following whatever is popular at the moment (consumerism being the biggest one now). In a democracy it screws over the few who just want to adhere to their own values and not be forced to comply with whatever the masses deem important. This is just a rant, sorry for the lack of contribution to the main question.

>>12819379
>>12819386
What a delicious coping spectacle

>>12819315
>NEETchuh uses straw man against Socrates and Christianity
>point this out
>T-TH-THAT'S THE R-R-R-REAL STRAW-STR-ST-STRAWMAN-N S-STOP THAT O-O-BEY TH-TH-THE RULE-RULES OF P-P-POWUH!!!!
Nietzscheans are cancer.

>>12819420
>I'M RIGHT BECAUSE OF MIGHT
>WHICH IS MIGHT BECAUSE I'M RIGHT
WOAH!

>>12818716
It is if you'd believe any Christian that read (see: worships) Freddy Mustache.

>>12819305
brainlet and reductive reading of Nietzsche

>>12819549
See:
>>12819482

>>12819549
>>12819349
>>12819315
Why can't neetchfags make arguments? Are they afraid of resenting something?

>>12819560
did you miss the part where he talks about the noble virtues of Christ the man and explains that his animus is directed at the Pauline organization?

>>12819576
How does this prove that his core argument is not a fallacy?

>>12819586
because there is nothing logically invalid about relating the Pauline and Augustinian influence on Christianity to its growth into a "life-denying" philosophy. it's as valid as any other attempt at historical etiology.

>>12819617
But he says that it is life-denying from the very beginning.
And also, what I was discussing was Socrates, so please do post the quote showing how some academic bullshit about Nietzsche and Christianity proves that a fallacy concerning Socrates is not a fallacy.
Drop the pretentious shit.

>>12819641
no, he doesn't. he says Judaism is life denying and that it obviously influenced Christianity, but Christ was a maverick Jew who sought to affirm life and was misinterpreted. but you seem to have made up your mind. i doubt you've even read Nietzsche

>>12819617
Are you saying that Nietzsche was the first 'Not real ____' poster?

>>12819650
Post the quote, faggot.
So some mental cripple claims that he has a better understanding of Christ the Man than 2000 years of theology and you just believe him?
Imagine offering to suck the madman's dick as a way to become worthy of it...

>>12819305
>If you reduce everything
Huh, I don't think you should be giving out this advice for some reason. Yes anon, Nietzsche was resentful that Christianity was founded out of resentment lol

>>12819692
Is that what I said? Learn to read, cunt.

>>12819669
the point is not that i believe him, the point is that you're talking about writings that you haven't read. i don't agree with Nietzsche's obsession with history and the future, i think talking about what Socrates and Christ "were like" is about as fruitful as talking about what Clifford the Big Red Dog would do if he were with us now. history is a fiction. as for a quote, which you could have easily found yourself with a cursory google search, had you bothered to put even that much thought into your inane drivel:
>What are the 'glad tidings'? True life, eternal life is found—it is not promised, it is here, it is within you: as life lived in love.... 'Sin', every kind of distancing relationship between God and man, is abolished - precisely this is the 'glad tidings'. The 'glad tidings' are precisely that there are no more opposites...."

Nietzsche was a pagan

>>12819735
>logic is inane drivel
KYS
>You didn't read
>and this is nothing at all like speculating about history
KYS
I didn't even know what book or author you were referring to (seemed like some academic reference), so a simple google search wasn't possible.
So now we have a Nietzsche quote. Great, but how does this in any way prove anything about Socrates and that fallacies against him are impossible? It does not even seem to have anything to do with what you are claiming (and any reference to Paul is 5 and then 12 sections away). Instead, it is Nietzsche's autistic insistence on having the story read through his eyes, through the eyes of politics and psychology.
I must ask, if you are so in opposition to Nietzsche then why are you defending him so furiously? You are enacting the same methods: insisting that I am nothing more than a product of what you want to imagine, that I am nothing more than a problem for your contrarian solipsism. But in reality, even if I had not read Nietzsche I understand him better than you do. It is clear you do not even understand the passage you quote from.
Nietzsche had no concern with understanding Christianity as it was. He is creating a counter-theology out of the historian's fallacy, and he insists that unless everything is a complete recurrence of the form then the form is impossible (and obviously the form is just a representation of one's self-interest, a theory of forms for those who read the first chapter of The Republic and sided with Thrasymachus). His ego is so huge that he cannot even entertain the thought of another, even when they are clearly more powerful than he. And so he creates an image of Christ which is in complete opposition to the true meaning - in doing so Nietzsche undermines his own position even more than that of his opponent.
It's really just a mess of solipsism and contradictions. A product of his times, and too much so, that's the problem. Same with you, so please learn to make a basic argument before talking down to others.

>>12819789
You can't be a pagan if you're baptized.

>>12820112
this took you two hours? are you sweating right now? i didn't even contextualize the quote, except to use it to show that Nietzsche didn't have an entirely negative view of Christ, and it does show this. i don't set myself "in opposition" to philosophers unconditionally because i understand that one can take what ideas one likes from another's philosophy. and to think Nietzsche undermines the "true meaning" of Christ, one has to already agree with your position on that meaning. you're running around in circles with yourself and you screech "fallacy!" when you see something you don't like

>>12819735
Also interesting that you use a wikipedia quote while claiming that I am the one who has not read him...
Those are two separate passages, and when we add this important connector we see the retardation building:
"In the entire psychology of the 'Gospel' the concept guilt and punishment is lacking; likewise the concept reward."

>>12820163
Yes, my life is sitting on the computer responding to some fucking undergrad. I literally have nothing else going on but pretending that I read and seething over a pseud's non-arguments.
Fucking solipsist faggot.
You used a colon, do you not know what that means?
And clearly you did not get the irony in your quote.
No, to get the true meaning one has to at least consider the original position, or not insist upon a contradictory reading based upon solipsism and opposing modes of thought.
You are a pseud faggot. How's that for a fallacy? Maybe come back after you finish your basic education.

>>12818716
Who gives a shit? Wagner was better.

its so weird that he fetishized muslims but never met one
what a retard

>>12820187
You’re both gay niggers

>>12820222
Checked.
Frogposter of his time.

>>12818716
He recognized how blue pilled Xtianity is.