/lit/ - Literature

ok

ok

>>9876010
>>9876040
It's a yes or no question, you bores. And if yes some namedrops would be nice.

>>9876005
The most embarassing thing and the thing no Christian would ever met is he understood the teachings of Christ better than any other Christian ever did. In fact until Nietzsche showed up the Christians had largely been learning from Paul, a guy who usurped and perverted Christ's teachings. I can't imagine how embarrassing that would be.

Even worst after all that Nietzsche holds no hatred for Christ while the Christians despise their anti-Christ.

The second biggest BTFO probably comes from Spinoza who basically invented biblical criticism and took all the centuries worth of medevil philosophy, turned it against itself, and destroyed it.

>>9876005
>Is there a person who BTFO'd Christians harder than Nietzsche did?
yes

cringe'd hard

>>9876068
>The second biggest BTFO probably comes from Spinoza who basically invented biblical criticism and took all the centuries worth of medevil philosophy, turned it against itself, and destroyed it.
I've only lightly read him, gonna check him out more. Appreciate the recommendation.

>>9876077
>jewish guy inverts christian philosophy and gets it to destroy itself

checks out

>mfw all the muh this-world shit doesn't apply in Orthodoxy

>>9876068
>The most embarassing thing and the thing no Christian would ever met is he understood the teachings of Christ better than any other Christian ever did. In fact until Nietzsche showed up the Christians had largely been learning from Paul, a guy who usurped and perverted Christ's teachings. I can't imagine how embarrassing that would be.

What a shitty, retard-tier meme.

>>9876098
He didn't "invert Christian" philosophy. He took the entire cannon of medevil works. The christians, the muslims, even other Jews. Oh he fucked with other Jews so badly that he had a death curse put on him by the rabbis.

He fucking nuked them and their entire philophical history from orbit. Everyone died except him. He is THE reason that medevil philosophy isn't studied anymore. He and him alone.

Than he gathered up the remains and built his own philosophy out of them. One of his titles was "the first modern man" because every single Enlightentment idea starts with him: from politics, the rise of democracy, to science, to ethics, and of course religion. We're still living in his world. Hegel said you can't even be considered a philosopher if you aren't a Spinozian. That's how badly he BTFO'ed the other guys.

>>9876188
Ah, so HE'S the source of the cancer. I always thought it was Luther.

>>9876188
So is studying Medieval philosophy pointless after him?

What did he do exactly?

>>9876195
If a healthy skepticism and honesty towards the limits of your own knowledge, which is enough to serve as the foundation for the crippling of Christian philosophy, is cancerous to you, then I've got news for you: you're projecting big time.

>>9876205
The cancer of which I speak is Modernity itself, the full rot of which we are seeing in our own time. I don't think it's a coincidence that there's been a corresponding revival of interest in Medieval thought in the last few decades.

>>9876188
Is Guide For The Perplexed still worth a read, in your opinion? (I'll still read it, I got the softcover as a gift from a dear friend in addition to a Spinoza anthology, but I'm curious about your thoughts.)

>>9876210
>there's been a corresponding revival of interest in Medieval thought in the last few decades
Has there? Where?

>>9876195
Cancer of what?

He's the reason the study of the natural started proggressing so much faster. He's the reason that we do not have religious wars that have 1/3 of the population being killed off in petty religious deputes. He'll he's the reason the religious texts are analyzed according to historical context rather than just shoving your own interpretation in there.

He invented the concept of "right to free speech".

In a way he also moved philosophy away from hot air metaphysical arguements to discussing how government and people should live.

Have you SEEN medevil philosophy? It's the most unprodctive period in philosophy's history. In a way Spinoza rescued the entire disciple.

>>9876213
>he doesn't know

>>9876213
Probably on some Dark Enlightenment Discord channel where they argue over whether it should be Musk or Trump who shpuld be appointed king between sealing themselves off from daylight.

>>9876201
A lot of medevil philosophy was about finding compromise between Greek philosophy and religious teachings. The general middling point was that the Old and New Testament actually contained Aristotlian and Platonic ideas. In fact some historians at the time would say the Greek philosophers learned their wisdom from the Old Testament.

Spinoza basically invented biblical critisism and declared that the philophical readings were just the Rabbis and Priests reading what they wanted and it was actually a book that was partially history and partially "creative imagination". He also argued that the origenal writers did not intend for the superstitious parts to be metaphors. He beleives the stories were made up to teach people morality because they couldn't learn any other way. Moses and Jesus were wise moral teachers but morality doesn't come from prophecy or divine revaluation but the need to have a functioning community and empathy.

This might sound something you would say "but of course" but Spinoza was the first guy to come up with this stuff and he had threats on his life for it.

So in a sense he kicked religion out of philosophy. Basically all that's left of medevil thinking that can even be called philosophy is a few language and logic advancements.

He also created the early arguements for democracy and unconditional free speech and religious rights.

He also created the last, most elborate, and in a way final metaphysics system. Which closed off the possibility of a god "outside the universe" and declared everything in the universe was connected by a single universal cosmic force called "Nature" aka "God". No miracles or magic either, no free will either, everything is done according to unbreakable laws of "Nature" and I do mean everything, no excpetions.

>>9876212
Only if you're a practicing Jew or deeply interested in Jewish history. Maimonides was one of Spinoza's biggest influences, but he does rip his own arm off and beat him to death with it.

>>9876252
This all sounds pretty ridiculous if you're not an atheist.

>>9876256
Christianity, Judaism, and a lot of religion sounds ridiculous if you are an atheist.

>>9876265
Well, then, we're doomed to disagree, aren't we?

>>9876252
>Which closed off the possibility of a god "outside the universe" and declared everything in the universe was connected by a single universal cosmic force called "Nature" aka "God".
Could you elucidate?

>>9876256
Not really. Maybe if you classify anyone who isn't from an Abrahamic religion an atheist.

>>9876256
He wasn't an atheist. He was a pantheist.

Think of Einstein. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.

>>9876271
Doesn't matter really since Spinoza was the guy that won. That's why we don't have theocracies anymore and we don't lose 1/3 of our population in a war over minor religious deputes....unless you are in the middle-east LOL

>>9876286
>We don't have theocracies anymore.
Not overtly, but the church is the bedrock of countless communities, and the voice of religion carries heavy weight in politics, especially amongst conservatives — but also amongst progressives.
Religion isn't gone, God isn't dead in the lives and minds of people, not yet, probably not ever.

Nietzsche was Christian you absolute tool. He attacks Paulines.

Neitzsche was a cuck that praised muslims

>>9876205
>>9876221
>criticize everything BUT SCIENCE IF YOU DO THAT YOU ARE RETARD
>SCIENCE IS GOOD BTW AND GOD IS JUST NATURE
>HISTORY MATTERS TO RELIGIOUS TEXTS FOR SOME REASON AND HISTORY IS OBJECTIVE AND IF YOU CRITICIZE THAT YOUR ALSO RETARD
so this is the power of spinozians...

>>9876312
Like I said above, it's all just the most ridiculous bullshit. "Paul corrupted Christ's teachings" is one of the dumbest memes in all of anti-Christian criticism. Especially because, thanks to study, we now know that Paul's epistles are the oldest things in the New Testament. They were written in the 30s and 40s AD, more than two decades before the earliest date of Mark, the earliest Gospel. How on earth is it possible, then, to say that Paul corrupted Christ's teachings? One could far more easily go the other way and claim that Paul, in fact, has the more accurate picture of Christ's teachings, and the Gospels are corruptions of that. It's just a shitty fiction Nietzsche made up.

>>9876275
>Could you elucidate?

Basically every single aspect of reality is connected to another point. Imagine reality as a big quilt. Individual people or places can be thought of as various points in the quilt. However they are not really isolated because the threads all connect at one point.

He wrote a proof for it in the style that medevil philosophers did their proofs: a monsterous web filled with foreign technical terms. Think stuff like stuff like the first mover argument. Only because Spinoza is a smug bastard and an asshole his proof makes the first mover argument look like a connect the dots puzzle made for 6 year olds. Also get this. The original text was written in Latin so unless you were an extremely educate man you couldn't even read his proof, you aren't good enough for it. Spinoza is probably the biggest bully in the history of the philosophy. Just look at his smug face.

Check it out LOL http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/spinoza1665.pdf

>>9876252
>This might sound something you would say "but of course" but Spinoza was the first guy to come up with this stuff and he had threats on his life for it.
>threats
Because he was a fucking moronic reductionist like every other fedoralord today.

>>9876304
You do realize you're only allowed to have your religion and vote in politics because of this smug, ass-hole Jew?


>>9876325
Any university worth it's salt will have a history program that teaches that Paul's Christianity was fundmentally different than Jesus's. They won't use the word "corrupt" because it hurts people's feelings. Like I said no Christian will ever admit how badly Nietzsche won, it's too humilating. Better to say all the history departments are run by evil Jews than to say Nietzsche was right.

>>9876265
Because atheists are braindead children.
>>9876286
Those in the right aren't always those that win.

>>9876343
History is on my side, Anon, not yours.

>>9876325
It's totally irrelevant if Paul's writings were the earliest, you tool. You do realize somebody can pervert events, before they are ever recorded, right? You're a fucking tool and a heretic too.
>>9876343
Nietzsche was Christian you tool, just not Pauline.
History departments are wrong, though. Glorified fictionalists pretending historicism is at all valid.
Goodness, you're a tool too.

>>9876354
History is irrelevant mythologizing.

>>9876356
>Nietzsche was Christian you tool
How do you reach this insane conclusion? This is some next level mental gymnastics.

>>9876366
>ANYBODY WHO DOESNT FIT MUH CONSENSUS IS LE CRAZY
Letzter Mensch

>>9876366
when he says he was a "christian" he just means he wasn't part of "the tribe" if you know what i mean

>>9876366
this, i don't get the impression from nietzche that he's a christian at all. christianity is the prime example of the slave morality

>>9876380
No, that isn't what I mean, you fucking tool.

>>9876380
Can you state your argument instead of beating around the bush?

>>9876387
>christianity is the prime example of the slave morality
Paul's Christianity. When he talks about Jesus in the Antichrist he's like "yeah that dude was a weirdo but he was one of Us".

>>9876378
what makes you think nietzche was a christian? i am genuinely curious here

>>9876394
he says some pro-catholic shit in that too, or maybe it was twilight of the idols, seems to me like nietzsche just hated protestants and ultimately maybe just hated his dad, maybe he was stuck in some weird oedipal phase which is why he was forever alone

>>9876356
But where's the evidence of it, then, if we don't have anything earlier than Paul's epistles?

>>9876399
Everything he actually believed in was Christian. Furthermore, he was extremely religious as a boy. He was resentful of Christian culture and rejected that, not Christianity itself.

>>9876394
He called him and idiot and praised the Pharisee and Pilate. He didn't hate Jesus but he found his thinking small and shallow.

>>9876402
I think in Ecce Homo, the only time he talks about his dad, he says he respected him. He attacks Catholic stuff like like when he shit on Aquinas. In Antichrist he calls Christianity mankind's one mistake. He didn't say Protestantism, he said Christianity.

As for his loneliness. All philosophers are alone. It's their nature.

Sanchuniathon

>>9876410
>evidence
Atheists are so fucking stupid, holy shit.

>>9876411
In Ecce Homo he said he never felt strongly about sin or salvation in all his life and that Zarathustra was his childhood idol.

I honestly think you just making shit up with no more thought than it takes you to type. The guy made it clear on many occassions he is not a Christian and he thinks their thinking is anti-life.

>>9876411
what? he was an egoist, he believed christianity distorted the nature of humanity and inhibited the ego. nothing he believed was christian

>>9876413
when i saw pro catholic i don't mean any of the philosophy or ideology, he just liked that it was a big ass hierarchy with one dude at the top with all the power, maybe i
ll try to find that part later, those are short volumes

>>9876424
You read like a woman.
>>9876430
Wrong. You don't understand him or Christianity. Denouncing Christian culture is not equivalent to denouncing Christianity.

>>9876432
Oh I see what you mean. He did say that Catholics were better than Protestants and the man loves hierarchy.

I also recall him saying that the one thing he liked about Christianity were it's holy wars because it gave people something to fight over even if it was just petty theological differences.

>>9876413
Didn't he call him a free spirit or something like that?

>>9876432
so that leads you to believe he was a christian? because he liked hierarchies...

>>9876446
i'm not the poster saying he was a christian

>>9876444
His view of Jesus was that he lived completely in his mind and was completely at peace with the world. So in that regard he was respectable and spiritual. Yet he was still a shallow person.

His New Testament analysis isn't just good guys vs bad guys. Almost every character except Paul he has something both good and bad to say. Paul is the only guy that really is a complete fuck up in his mind. In general he doesn't want you to think of people as "good guy" or "bad guy".

It's all complicated because he is trying to arrange them in an order of rank (with himself at the top). Plus he takes Jesus as seperate from the whole Christian movement.

>>9876439
the mental gymnastics are too real, you're right man he was a pious, god fearing christian through and through

>>9876468
Goodness you are illiterate, and you put words into my mouth. Disgusting tool.

>>9876470
sorry i must have misread what you were saying. for a second there i thought you said nietzche was a christian

>>9876476
I did because that is correct. Everything else, you do not understand.

>>9876005
out of any atheist, nietzsche BTFO'd christians the most - because he understood them! instead of merely hating or resenting them or speaking in the name of science, as most (great) atheists (and i myself used to) do

>>9876479
so when he says that christianity has been the most fatal kind of self-presumption ever you put words in his mouth and say to yourself he's talking about the culture of christianity and not christianity itself? i'm not entirely sure but i think you might have misunderstood him just a little

>>9876005
reminder that nietszche was a profoundly sad, sickly, slight man,

poor guy.

>>9876487
how can one person be so fucking illiterate?

>>9876487
Christianity includes the necessity to cut out harmful trees from the garden. The fruits tell the good trees from the bad ones.

>>9876073
t. butthurt theist

>>9876213
You know, like game of thrones and stuff.

>>9876756
Finally, to show the downside of these religions as well and throw light
on their uncanny dangers: there is a high and horrible price to pay when
religions do not serve as means for breeding and education in the hands of
a philosopher, but instead serve themselves and become sovereign, when
they want to be the ultimate goal instead of a means alongside other means.
With humans as with every other type of animal, there is a surplus of failures
and degenerates, of the diseased and infirm, of those who necessarily
suffer. Even with humans, successful cases are always the exception and,

Beyond Good and Evil
since humans are the still undetermined animals, the infrequent exception.
But it gets worse: people who represent more nobly bred types are less
likely to turn out well. Chance, that law of nonsense in the overall economy
of mankind, is most terribly apparent in its destructive effect on the higher
men, whose conditions of life are subtle, multiple, and difficult to calculate.
So how is this surplus of failures treated by the two greatest religions,
those mentioned above? They try to preserve, to keep everything living
that can be kept in any way alive. In fact, they take sides with the failures
as a matter of principle, as religions of the suffering. They give rights to
all those who suffer life like a disease, and they want to make every other
feeling for life seem wrong and become impossible. Whatever merit we
might find in this indulgent, preserving care, which was and is meant for
the highest types of people (since these are the ones that, historically, have
almost always suffered the most), along with everyone else – nevertheless,
in the final analysis, the religions that have existed so far (which have all
been sovereign) have played a principal role in keeping the type “man” on
a lower level. They have preserved too much of what should be destroyed.
They have done invaluable service, these religions, and who is so richly
endowed with gratitude not to grow poor in the face of everything that, for
instance, the “spiritual men” of Christianity have done for Europe so far!
And yet, after they gave comfort to the suffering, courage to the oppressed
and despairing, a staff and support to the dependent, after they found people
who were inwardly destroyed or had grown wild and lured them away
from society, into cloisters and spiritual prisons: what else did they have
to do, to work in good conscience and conviction for the preservation
of all the sick and suffering, which really means working in word and
in deed for the deterioration of the European race?

>>9876850
Stand all valuations on
their head – that is what they had to do! And crush the strong, strike down
the great hopes, throw suspicion on the delight in beauty, skew everything
self-satisfied, manly, conquering, domineering, every instinct that
belongs to the highest and best-turned-out type of “human,” twist them
into uncertainty, crisis of conscience, self-destruction; at the limit, invert
the whole love of the earth and of earthly dominion into hatred against
earth and the earthly – that is the task the church set and needed to set
for itself until, in its estimation, “unworldly,” “unsensuous,” and “higher
man” finally melted together into a single feeling. If you could survey the
strangely painful, crude yet subtle comedy of European Christianity with
the mocking and disinterested eye of an Epicurean god, I think you would find it to be a constant source of amazement and laughter. Doesn’t it seem
as if, for eighteen centuries, Europe was dominated by the single will to
turn humanity into a sublime abortion? But if somebody with opposite
needs were to approach the almost willful degeneration and atrophy of
humanity that the Christian European (Pascal for instance) has become,
somebody whose manner is no longer Epicurean, but has instead some
divine hammer in hand; wouldn’t he have to yell out in rage, in pity, in
horror: “Oh you fools, you presumptuous, pitying fools, what have you
done here!Was that work meant for your hands! Look how you’ve wrecked
and ruined my most beautiful stone! Who gave you the right to do such
a thing!” – What I mean is: Christianity has been the most disastrous
form of arrogance so far. People who were not high and hard enough to
give human beings artistic form; people who were not strong or far-sighted
enough, who lacked the sublime self-discipline to give free reign to the
foreground law of ruin and failure by the thousands; people who were not
noble enough to see the abysmally different orders of rank and chasms
in rank between different people. People like this, with their “equality
before God” have prevailed over the fate of Europe so far, until a stunted,
almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something well-meaning, sickly,
and mediocre has finally been bred: the European of today .

>>9876850
>>9876853
Could I get a TL:DR?

>>9876859
He doesn't understand Nietzsche and still falls for the 'he's easy to read' meme.

>>9876859
he is saying christianity is the religion of the Übermensch and that it does a great job of getting rid of things that ought to be discarded

>>9876423
>Believing everything you see without doubt
Theists are so fucking stupid, holy shit.

>>9876853
It is well written and has several points that struck a nerve in the right way. Though it ignores Christian art and seems too bound to the contemporary. It ignores the Christian monarchies, the operas, the cathedrals.

>>9877248
>belief and doubt are the opposite
They are the same circle. One rules at a time, but they are both there.

>>9876312
>be Christian
>announce the human murder of God
>publish a book and call it The Antichrist
>call Christianity a nihilistic religion
>study the psychology of the savior and label him immature, and say if he lived longer he would have adopted Nietzschean philosophy
>call pity the bane of humanity
>encourage slapping back instead of turning the other cheek because the latter is an insult
>propose a moral metaphysics completely at odds with Christian moral metaphysics

Hmm. Well you could say he started somewhat Christian, young Nietzsche can talk like a man who had deeply religious experiences. But from Zarathustra on he is as anti-Christian as someone can possibly get. And he knew it, because he signed himself as The Antichrist in letters.

how has no one mentioned forehead man in this thread

>>9876188
>He is THE reason that medevil philosophy isn't studied anymore.
Medieval philosophy is studied, now much more so than a century ago and it wasn't related to Spinoza being a good critic of it- he had very little knowledge of actual Christian phlosphy.

>>9876213
You have a number of aristotelians in the mainstream. MacIntyre (political philosophy and ethics), Anscombe (one of the most important analytics of the 20th century), Philipa Foot, Peter Geach, Edward Feser, David Oderberg, Garrigou-Larrange, Jaques Maritain, E. Gilson, V. Schall and probably a dozen more. Currently you have more aristotelian-thomist sources than ever before and you have more contemporary material than the source one.

>>9877480
You say that, but his actions do not reflect this. He didn't sacrifice children to Baal, rape them or lead a life of a pharisee, nor did he love lies. As such, he cannot be antichrist enough to justify his claim. Certainly an act of distancing himself from the contemporary and perhaps even Christianity.
This does not make him a Christian but perhaps a 'honorary Aryan', like the Chinese religions.

>>9877571
no he is a christian

>>9877494
Massive Cranium is all about rebellion though, I like him but he's super easy to paint as an edgy "fuck you dad" type.

>>9876005
Yeah cuz the post-Nietzsche world is soooo good now. Fuck Christianity with its white people and societies brimming with morality and industriousness.

>>9877571
>You say that, but his actions do not reflect this. He didn't sacrifice children to Baal, rape them or lead a life of a pharisee, nor did he love lies. As such, he cannot be antichrist enough to justify his claim.
Well that was some of the funniest shit I've ever read. Sorry, but being anti-Christian is more than just being a violent warmonger. We're talking a metaphysical antithesis to Christian morality. Nietzsche didn't have to be a savage, violent tyrant to be the Antichrist. He just needed a philosophy that was at TOTAL ODDS with it, which he did.

And he did NOT agree with Christ in the latter half of his life. He called him immature, underdeveloped. He may have understood the real Christ better than Paul or any priest ever did, but that does not mean he is a Christian.

>>9877655
Nietzsche didn't miraculously end Christianity or white people or white societies.

WE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scTew_MRGYQ

>>9877655
>the world is so bad

Read Rorty you shit bird

>>9877701
>he calls himself the black ponderer
why are black people so obsessed with being black that they include it in their usernames?

>>9877678
>Sorry, but being anti-Christian is more than just being a violent warmonger
You forgot the pharisee portion.
The letter kills.

>>9877722
Because we live in a culture where the only canonical elements of identity are race, gender, and sexuality.

>>9877571
>>9877431
>>9878220

Why do you people want to say this man is a Christian? Is there some youtube dude going around telling you this?

>>9876210
This is what happens when a retarded /pol/ ideologue tries to discuss the merits and influence of Spinoza.

>>9878220
Nietzsche does the discuss the Pharisee. They are heroes that defended their people with honor and virtue against he corrupting forces of the Christian religion.

You're fucking hilarious.

>>9876005
Most thinking people BTFO Christians, so it's a long long list.
Epicurus did it retroactively.
Stirner, Darwin, Ingersoll, Russell. There's nothing new about atheism laying theists flat on their back.

>>9878470
c-clean your room, b-bucko

>>9876210
Every period in history has people who think this kind of regressive shit and then get proven wrong in hindsight

>>9877520
And how influential people in regards to society? Does anyone care about their criticisms of politics and culture (if they even have them)? Are these guys making waves? You mentioned analytic which is not a good sign. Like I said Spinoza basically made it so the only thing people care about from medevil philosophy was their work in logic and language, which happens to be the only thing anyone cares about in analytics!

>>9878505
>Most thinking people
only in philosophy*

>>9876343
I wsn't advocating theocracy when I pointed out that Spinoza didn't abolish the church or religion as bodies that influence government.
I believe in secular government, but Christianity is still a political powerhouse.

>>9878534
I haven't seen JP even imply that Nietzsche was a Christian.

So if master morality is dedicated to that which is difficult and useless, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be other-worldly oriented (like Evola proposes) rather than this-worldly?

>>9877640
>[Stirner] is all about X
無

>>9876005
>Is there a person who BTFO'd Christians harder than Nietzsche did?
Muhammad (pbuh)

>>9880041
>difficult
I assume you mean hardship? I guess if you lack the head for it hardships are not for you?

>useless
Where are you getting this?

>wouldn't it make more sense for it to be other-worldly [thinking]
The basic rule for Nietzche is that if you are exhausted, as the Buddihists were, or if you just completely suck at life (as the Christians were) other-wordly things will appeal to you. It's your ticket of this place.

You seem to be making the mistake of assuming master morality is a type of universial ought rather than the path of a handful of tough-headed or ambitious people.

>>9880108
>I guess if you lack the head for it hardships are not for you?
Sorry what?

>Where are you getting this?
Well, it's not supposed to be utilitarian, is it? Isn't master morality all about it being for itself? That's what I meant.

>You seem to be making the mistake of assuming master morality is a type of universial ought rather than the path of a handful of tough-headed or ambitious people.
Not really, it just doesn't seem logical to me that something that delights in overcoming would necessarily be this-worldly.

>>9880557
You sound like you only know about his philosophy in passing which makes it difficult for me to understand exactly what you are thinking.

The one thing I can answer is that yes, his philosophy is this-wordly. His Zarathustra actually declares war on those who blasphemine the earth with phantasmal ideas of other worlds.

>>9878470
Because everything he actually believed was christian, you dont understand nietzche

>>9880597
Why don't you elaborate on this point? There's been at least a half dozen posts with people saying he is "Christian" and not one of you have has made a point, you just bleat that line like sheep. Nor has any of you addressed the very anti-Christian that an anon was nice enough to dig up for you.

Either put up or shut up.

>>9876005
People get really passionate when they read Nietzsche for the first time and he happens to strike them. Wait for a few years, let it sit in your soul, develop, mature, and come back to it later with different, more intellectual eyes. Even Nietzsche himself alludes to this possibility in Zarathustra (mentioning that he wants his "disciples" to not be his disciples, to even leave him and his ideas and remember themselves, and then come back to them with a new eye)

>>9880588
Well, I could keep asking questions but it'd be irresponsible of me and I don't think you want to bear with it.

No it wouldn't. Stuff like that creates a lazy community and pushes away those that want more meaningful discussion. Since you are nice I'll give you this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fTnEB_r_6Q

It's the best video on Nietzsche that there is. It can be understood with zero knowledge of philosophy. Takes about 3 hours to watch the whole thing but it's incredibly rewarding.

>>9880619
In antichrist he says jesus is one of us, you're just falling for the nietzche is easy to read meme

>>9880689
This. Brainlets thinking nietzche was an atheist is beginner interpretation

>>9880689
You haven't even told me what the hell you mean by "Nietzsche is a Christian". Can you explain your position like a functioning human being, assuming you are capable of doing it, which I'm starting to think you are not.

>>9880709
This is correct, but he is also not a Christian. Nietzsche's God is the overman, who he thinks the Christians will probably consider to be satan himself.

>>9880678
Thanks Anon. I'll watch them when I do my daily work-outs since they give me some 30~ minutes of spare time.

But I can't wholly wrap my head around the this-worldly/other-worldly dichotomy. I mean wouldn't it throw out things like art out of the window? Isn't it kind of based on a scientific vision of reality in which another reality is impossible due to no proof? Is there even a need for proof in something like master morality?

>>9880779
The proof and whether it matters is in the video. Whole thing should make you understand his view on morality and it's history.

>>9880709
He wasn't an atheist, but he wasn't a Christian either.

>>9880788
Alright, thanks again.

>>9876068
>Even worst after all that Nietzsche holds no hatred for Christ while the Christians despise their anti-Christ.
What writings of his does he say this in exactly? Oh what I've read of him so far he has an utter distaste for Christianity because of its rejection of the will and for it's "turning truth on its head". If this is the case how could he have admiration towards Christ?
>>9876128
Please provide context or a source or hey even both if you want to be helpful

>>9880853
Because "the last Christian died on the cross". Christianity it is taken is an invention of Paul and later writers. This much is very much regarded as a historical fact although to my knowledge Nietzsche was the first to propose the theory.

What than does is speculate on the original teachings of Jesus, something which I will admit is impossible to prove since historians are not sure we have any text at all that represents what he taught. For instance he believed the historical Jesus did away with the concept of sin entirely and did not believe in an after-life, "heaven" was a state of mind and everything outside his mind was a illusionary and not worth pondering.

So Christianity and Christ are two different things entirely. One is the vengeful squealing of slaves, the other is a content slave.

>If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist [Jesus], it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as “truths” —that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the “kingdom of God,” and of the “sonship of God.” Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a “kingdom of God” that is to come, of a “kingdom of heaven” beyond, and of a “son of God” as the second person of the Trinity. All this—if I may be forgiven the phrase—is like thrusting one’s fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to world-historical cynicism.... But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols “Father” and “Son”—not, of course, to every one—: the word “Son” expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude), and “Father” expresses that feeling itself—the sensation of eternity and of perfection.—I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story[13] at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And a dogma of “immaculate conception” for good measure?... And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness— The “kingdom of heaven” is a state of the heart—not something to come “beyond the world” or “after death.” The whole idea of natural death is absent from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The “hour of death” is not a Christian idea—“hours,” time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of “glad tidings.”... The “kingdom of God” is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a “millennium”—it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....
t. The Antichrist

>>9881018
Reminds me of Wittgenstein and from what I understand, Tolstoy as well.

>>9876005
I have a suspicion that the anti-christ(logos) has to do with a worship, belief or some cultral spirit, or force of "determinism."

>>9881018
It still seems insane that the man wrote this in the 1800s. It's so far ahead of any other thinking at the time that it's like he's from another universe. The whole analysis of religion as psychological reality rather than metaphysical or historical from Jung to Campbell all trace back to this guy as it's origin.

It completely boggles the mind that he wrote all these books by himself. Just a chapter or 2 from one them would qualify him as a genius, but the fact that he has hundreds of chapters from dozens of books all at this caliber and density is downright super-human.

I read him almost 8 years ago and I'm still in awe of how ridiculously smart the guy was.

Incoming recently, angry replies to this post.

>>9881018
>Nietzsche as a sentimental Christian theologian/interpreter
What the FUCK, why did I ever skip The Anti-Christ?

>>9881085
If you want to treat Nietzsche in that way should probably check out Jung too. He picks up where Nietzsche left off. That whole text sounds like a proto-version of archtype theory and Jung's brand of Gnosticism.

>>9881074
Was he ahead of his time or did he change these times?

>But then here comes Nietzsche, a man whose father DIED literally as a child

lmao wat

>>9881129
The question asks as if "time's" had a mind of their own.

Nietzsche's influence is insane. The biggest comparasion I can offer would be comparing him to Plato or Socrates where a new era of thinking of begins with them and everyone else ends up as a foot-note to their ideas.

>>9877248
You do that, though.
>>9877480
Again, you read like a woman. Stop trying.

The Antichrist is Nietzsche's response to a Christianity perverted. Nothing he says is at odds.
>study the psychology of the savior and label him immature, and say if he lived longer he would have adopted Nietzschean philosophy
This line alone is proof.

>>9877480
>announce the human murder of God
Christianity began in true with the Death of God. The second death is the point by which Christianity will be reformed.

>>9881202
So there's no real distinction between prophecy and project?

>>9880597
>>9880689
Stop strawmanning me, niglet.

>>9881213
>Nothing he says is at odds.
What the fuck is your definition of Christianity? I can assure you that no other so-called Christian shares it, if you think nothing he says is at odds with it. Or, you haven't read a damn thing by him. The concept "good and evil," just to start, is abandoned by Nietzsche, and right there you already have a massive divide between him and anything ever associated with Christianity.

>This line alone is proof.
Proof that he doesn't share Christ's point of view.

>>9880748
I am not capable yet, of explaining myself coherently. I've made an attempt, but this is a life's work that has only begun in the past year.
>>9880892
This is what I mean by Nietzsche being a Christian. I do not mean a Christian as has been described for two millennia, I mean a Christian as will be known in the future.

>>9881232
There doesn't exist more than a handful of Christians as I describe them. Not yet.
Christianity is beyond 'good and evil'. Evil is defeated, 'good' is meaningless without it. God has always been beyond 'good and evil'. Blame Platonists for that perversion.
>Proof that he doesn't share Christ's point of view.
Proof that humanity's ignorance prevented Christianity from reaching its maturity early. It has taken two millennia for it to even begin to recover.

Christ was the Overman to come but was murdered too soon. The Second Coming will change that.

>>9881238
no you don't understand nietzche or christianity

>>9881270
'no'

>>9881033
What about Wittgenstein? Which books are you referencing?

>>9881255
>Evil is defeated
If it even recognizes evil, it's not beyond it. Nietzsche disposes of the dichotomy entirely and instead acts under the notion of "good and bad." "Evil" is a depersonalized uglification of antagonizing forces, while "bad" alludes to the conscious recognition that it is you who deems those forces as such. No more is the antagonizing force demonized, resented, or even seen as antagonistic; it is now seen as simply not preferable, not desirable. These are diametrically opposed moralities.

>Christ was the Overman to come but was murdered too soon.
Chris is not the Overman. Nietzsche even suggests this when he criticizes the assertion that Jesus was a hero, pointing it out as absurd, because Jesus's "glad tidings" referred to something that everyone could equally obtain. All throughout The Antichrist book, he is dissecting the psychology of Jesus and the church, while inserting his own counter-philosophy to both of them, one founded on inequality. He criticizes Jesus as having no care for the world and using everything in it as sign and materials for allegory. The Overman is more like Goethe, Napoleon or Byron's Manfred, psychologically conceived as drastically different from Jesus.

>>9881290
Evil isn't recognized, it's irrelevant. There are no 'antagonizing forces'.
I did not say Christ was the Overman, I said he was the Overman to come. He died in his spiritual and intellectual infancy.

>>9881301
In other words, Judaism is dualistic, Christianity is monistic.

>>9881301
>I did not say Christ was the Overman, I said he was the Overman to come. He died in his spiritual and intellectual infancy.
Well, you can talk all you want about potential. The fact is it clearly did not happen, and we can't identify something with an event that never even happened. So the claim "Nietzsche was a Christian" is too absurd. Also rather pointless, since by the time you reconcile all the differences between the "perversions" and Christ, and then between Christ and Nietzsche, you end up with Nietzsche's philosophy still being incredibly distant from Christ.

>>9881312
It will happen, though. I am speaking of the future, Anon. You're missing my point.

>>9881318
Not him but I want something clariffied. Do you actually beleive that Jesus is going to come down from the metaphysical realms and "fix everything". Because if you're in that thought process you're just the same garden variety Christian Nietzche takes as his enemy.

Also do you get that Nietzche's philosophy opposes the entire New Testament? The man said there is not a single line of kindness or wisdom in it. The Old Testament is still slave morality but it's way better.

So where the fuck are you getting this "Christianity"?

>>9881431
You don't understand what I am saying. Please stop trying.
Only pr*testants think the Bible has unquestionable authority and is a dictating text.

Christ will not instantaneously 'fix everything', He will orient the world to Him, and those that still reject Him will be cast out. He was born to rule.
Also, why do you think I care if Nietzsche is my enemy? He was merely a step in the proper direction, a direction that would have been the norm if Christ weren't murdered before His maturity. Now is the time for its maturity.

>>9876005
yes

>>9881463
Ok you're a typical Christian that is still stuck in middle ages thinking but you've learned to sprinkle in a reference to Nietzsche to seem profound.

Re-read this guy's post.>>9881018

Particularly this part

>The “kingdom of heaven” is a state of the heart—not something to come “beyond the world” or “after death.” The whole idea of natural death is absent from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The “hour of death” is not a Christian idea—“hours,” time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of “glad tidings.”... The “kingdom of God” is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a “millennium”—it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....
If you're "expecting" the kingdom of heaven you don't have the faintest clue what Christianity OR Nietzsche is talking about.

All that stuff about a "final judgement" "the second coming" these are doctrines of Paul. The stuff Nietzsche is trying to fight against. It's hopeless. You went right back to the corrupt teachings with renewed vigor. Even worst you go ramble on about how Nietzsche is a "Christian"

>>9881523
Again, you miss the point. Worse, you're presumptive.

>>9881523
>All that stuff about a "final judgement" "the second coming" these are doctrines of Paul. The stuff Nietzsche is trying to fight against. It's hopeless. You went right back to the corrupt teachings with renewed vigor. Even worst you go ramble on about how Nietzsche is a "Christian"
I don't approach or view Dies Irae the way Paulines do. Try again, without making presumptions.

>>9876005
>Is there a person who BTFO'd Christians harder than Nietzsche did?

>>9876221
>He's the reason that we do not have religious wars that have 1/3 of the population being killed off in petty religious deputes.

A) "we" do still have those, look at the middle east, also the great secular religions Fascism and Communism killed hundreds of millions before, during, and after the second world war.

B) The reason christians stopped killing one another over sectarianism was because the thirty years war was so brutal that it convinced the Catholic kings of Europe to tell the pope to shove his opinions up his infallible ass and keep his spiritual authority out of their temporal authority (viz. Peace of Westphalia).

If you asked Cardinal Richelieu and King Philip IV whether Spinoza influenced their decision to ignore the pope and agree to peace, I think they would say something along the lines of "Who?"

>>9881548
The reason we don't have theological wars is because Spinoza's descendants literally took away the political power from the churchs. Spinoza wrote the early arguments for democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and no theocracy. Voltaire, Rosseu, and a few other dudes expanded his arguments and eventually a few wars happened.

As for the middle-east. These guys never got Spinoza, fuck they so far behind. Which is ironic since Avveroes was a major influence on Spinoza, from what I've gathered the middle-east doesn't like that guy either!

Man the middle east is fucked. The only way we could save them is to colonize them and shove our value system up their ass with a big red white and blue dildo.

>>9881573
That had nothing to do with Spinoza. Why are you so bent on sucking his dick, when there is no reason to suppose any of the political players not only read him, but saw him as an authority of such power that they went against their faith?

>>9876460
Why was Jesus supposedly a shallow person?

>>9878236
Don't forget that political ideology too is a big part of someone's personally nowadays.
Whole families have been torn apart because of this election.
It's truly fucking insane.

>>9881531
christianity and nietzche are irreconcilable- christianity will always be a morality with external dogmas, you're deluded if you don't believe this. even if you say that christ was going to be the overman and so on, his followers, aka christians, aka followers of christianity, would be lezte mench. you're an ideologue desperate to conflate the two antithetical ideals projecting his own lack of understanding of nietzche and/or christianity onto everyone else in the thread

>>9881784
Irony is beyond you.

>>9881801
you haven't made a single dignified response in the entire thread. you go on and on about nietzche being a christian, saying everyone who disagrees 'doesn't understand nietzche' without providing evidence for why you believe he was what you claim. you've just changed the religion in order to conflate the two conflicting ideas in your mind and are desperate to throw an ad hominem at anyone who calls you out

>>9881822
I've changed nothing, you tool.

>>9881018
im now convinced he read stirner

>>9876188
His whole work literally can't stand without Anselm's argument.

>>9880041
>So if master morality is dedicated to that which is difficult and useless, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be other-worldly oriented (like Evola proposes) rather than this-worldly?
You're being a little unclear friend but I'm going to reply to what I think you're trying to say. A big issue Nietzsche had with different religions is their rejection of Will; an example of this is chastity and fasting, two qualities found in many religions. Many critics who do not understand Nietzsche use this sort of point as an attack against what him but they do not understand. Just because Nietzsche is an existentialist who believes in the power of subjectivity doesnt mean everything falls under a supreme veil of unknowns and interpretation. What Nietzsche recognizes as real is very important to his philosophy and one of the things that is real and true to him is will and desire. The funny thing about your post is that youre actually on the dot about what Nietzche argues, though not in the way you mean to say i suspect. By recognizing objective qualities of the Will, like lust and the will to power, as unreal the religious man creates these qualities into something which IS other-wordly. But for Nietzche this is promblematic, according to him we should only direct our attention on that which is apparent in this world.

I believe that the only reason Jesus was so special is because he was basically just the first nice person in the world or at least the first to stand out and become influential
Think about it up until that point, and still for a while after it, humanity was in a constant struggle for mere survival
There was no room for being nice or any morality at all
You just did what you had to in order to survive and human society itself was also a product of that
At the core of human nature is selfishness and Jesus was nothing more than a man who created a system of morality for himself which allowed him to deny that
And this is really the central idea that Nietzsche was being so critical of
What he was against was not religion or morality itself but the deeper roots of those things
Of people lying to themselves burying themselves under layers of obfuscation in order to become "better" than what they were born as
The Ubermensche is not a human who has transcended morality it is a human who has accepted themselves in their most base state before morality took hold of them

>>9881463
>Now is the time for its maturity.
His maturity is just Nietzsche, you flake. Just fucking read Nietzsche, he did what Christ apparently failed to do.

>>9876321
>criticize everything BUT SCIENCE IF YOU DO THAT YOU ARE RETARD
Science gives data based on empyrical proof, so most of the time can't really be criticized
> SCIENCE IS GOOD BTW AND GOD IS JUST NATURE
I would like to hear your opinion about why Spinoza was wrong about God
> HISTORY MATTERS TO RELIGIOUS TEXTS FOR SOME REASON AND HISTORY IS OBJECTIVE AND IF YOU CRITICIZE THAT YOUR ALSO RETARD
History matters to religious texts because they were written in a certain time and they were influenced by that zeitgeist. Also, even if history can be bent by ideology, how can the simple act of recostructing the past by documents be subjective?
I know this is probably b8, but I'm seriously interested in debate

>>9876210
Please do tell me about why do you think modernity is cancer and, most importantly, why are you using a website which is theoretically filled with people you would call "degenerates" and, to visit this website, you are using a computer or a cellphone which are instruments of modernity

>>9881463
>Only pr*testants think the Bible has unquestionable authority and is a dictating text.
The Bible is free of error and infallible, as per the dogmatic proclamations of the Vatican council.

>>9881463
1786 [ The necessity of revelation].Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that those things, which in divine things are not impenetrable to human reason by itself, can, even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error.* Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him" [ 1 Cor. 2:9 ; can. 2 and 3].

1787 [The source of revelation].Furthermore, this supernatural revelation, according to the faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy synod of Trent, is contained "in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves, and have thus come to us" [Council of Trent, see n. 783]. And, indeed, these books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council, are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself (can. 4).

>>9882933
> The Bible is free of error and infallible, as per the dogmatic proclamations of the Vatican council
So are you one of those guys who stone women and doesn't eat all kinds of meat? One of those who believe god made the Earth in seven days?
You'll probaly say something like "muh metaforical parts, muh zeitgeist influence". Now, let me ask you (and this is a question) isn't finding metaforical or zeitgeist-influenced parts in a book which is supposed to be inspired by God (eternal being, yadda yadda) kind of wrong?

>>9882970
No, why would it be wrong?
God speaks to man in a way he understands and a way that moves his spirit, which often involves parables and metaphors.
As for meat and stoning, was that ever a part of Catholic practice? As far as I know it was not. Interpretation is always understood in the context of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, their unanimous agreement on any topic is necessarily correct.

>>9881544
>Uses a Christian fundamentalist as an example
ok retard

>>9882320
No, his maturity is far beyond Nietzsche.

>>9882917
Empirical proof doesn't exist by definition. Proof cannot be empirical, it's a rational construct of something empirical.
Ideologue
Spinoza is wrong because deism and pantheism are wrong.
History doesn't matter to religious texts. Stop regurgitating ideologies like a tool.
There is no past to reconstruct, anyway.
>ANYBODY WHO CRITICIZES MY AWFUL JEW IS LE FISHY MEME
Fuck off, tool.

>>9882188
You don't understand Christ, clearly. Stop posting. Christianity is not about being 'nice'.

>>9882933
c*tholics have been sucking off pr*testants for a while now mate

>>9882970
Exclusion of meats is a Jewish thing you imbecile. Christians just (arguably) cannot eat sacrificed meat, as what would be cheaply available in Greece and Rome.
Regularly slaughtered meat is clean, regardless of the animal. We aren't Jews, the OT is based upon a Jewish text, you know this right? You understand Christians are distinct from Jews, right?

>>9884261
Nietzsche reached his same understandings and then beyond that.

>>9881018
That sounds like something the Milkman would totally say.

>>9881033
VERY Tolstoy

>>9884850
>the milkman

>>9876859
>needing a tl;dr for aphorisms
Why are you on /lit/?

>>9884272
> Spinoza is wrong because deism and pantheism
Could you elaborate?
> There is no past to reconstruct, anyway.
This kind of stuff is what made me think your post was b8
> Proof cannot be empirical
Elaborate

>>9884288
> You understand Christians are distinct from Jews, right?
Yes, I just don't get why some parts of the OT are considered canonical and some aren't, it looks arbitrary to me.
Also, about the meat thing,
> TheLordsaid to Moses and Aaron,“Tell the Israelites: These are the animals you can eat:If an animal has hooves that are split into two parts, and if that animal also chews the cud, then you may eat the meat from that animal.“Some animals chew the cud, but they don’t have split hooves. Don’t eat these animals. Camels, rock badgers, and rabbits are like that, so they are unclean for you.Other animals have hooves that are split into two parts, but they don’t chew the cud. Don’t eat these animals. Pigs are like that, so they are unclean for you.Don’t eat the meat from these animals. Don’t even touch their dead bodies! They are unclean for you.
and, about shrimps:
> These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.Deuteronomy 14:9-10

>>9876005
Celsus, and after Celsus, Louis Rougier writing on Celsus.

>>9876005
Spinoza...

>>9886797
Easy on the rabbis.

>all these gnostic retards think neitzsche was a christian because he rejected paul and had sympathy with the historical character of jesus

>he was actually a muslim

>>9887482
There are two good things the Muslims have done which Nietzche gives them credit it for.

First they did work with philosophy when they had their empiore. The best Arab philosopher was Averroes who was sort of the proto-type to Spinoza. Critical of holy book's historical accuracy, believed the world was run exclusively by natural laws, didn't believe in an afterlife, mono-psychic, and believed all material was reducible to a single component.

Random factoid to any Catholics reading this. Averroes and his buddy Avicenna was also a huge influence on your theology.

Second the Muslims at least had a warrior culture of some kind. You see this same respect for warrior cultures when Nietzsche praises the Old Testament for it's cut-throat lifestyle.

That said you should keep in mind that just because Nietzsche praises something doesn't mean he is head over heels for it. It would be like saying he is a Hindu because he praises their caste system.

>>9885683
>Yes, I just don't get why some parts of the OT are considered canonical and some aren't, it looks arbitrary to me.
ALL parts of the OT are canonical, if they weren't they would not be in the Bible. What you probably meant is why some of it is considered binding across time and something else is not.
There's divine positive and divine eternal law, certain parts fall into one, others into the second category, depending on the phrasing, the principle involved and how the apostles saw it. Adultery and sodomy being intrinsically immoral is eternal divine law because it involves a principle, but the sanction is divine positive law. Arbitrary would imply someone without reason decided it was so, but the process was not so stupid not so simple. Honestly, read a book on it.

>>9887786
>Random factoid to any Catholics reading this. Averroes and his buddy Avicenna was also a huge influence on your theology.
"Huge" is false and entirely incorrect. They were influential in their understanding of Aristotle and in things related to reason, but averroists were condemned a number of times.
So it is correct that they influenced some theologians and Aquinas in his philosophy, but their ideas were spoken against by the Magisterium, as opposed to finding a place in the proclamations.

>>9887843
Probably had the wrong tone there. His influence was a negative type of influence where they reacted against him and went in the opposite direction.

There's a painting somewhere of Avveroes groveling at Aquina's feet. Which basically means they really hated his guts.

Averroes thinking is more in line with the Resistance heretics and Spinoza.

>>9887877
Catholic philosophers always react to what they see as errors of the discipline, the two of them are no different. Aquinas based his anti-pantheism on the implications from Averroes I believe. It's why Spinoza wasn't actually anything particularly new, most of his ideas were somewhere before and the post Spinoza theologians such as Garrigou-Larrange didn't have to look far in terms of countering him.

>>9887890
I really think Spinoza's victory was total and absolute. There's no Catholic theocracies anymore but democracies as he envisioned. Freedom of speech and religion, what he promoted are cornerstones of our world. Religious books are analzed according to historical settings. Divine revalation as truth isn't taken seriously by any social or physical sciences. The semi pantheistic idea about a collective unconscious are huge in studies or myth. And his metaphyiscs, with my little knowledge of them, seems to be the one most accepted by science. Einstein and Hawking aknowledge Spinoza's "Nature" as their God.

Than there's the philosophers that proceeded him. Hegel and Nietzsche, arguable the two biggest philosophers claimed them-self as descendants of Spinoza. Hegel went as far as to say you aren't even a real philosopher if you aren't a Spinozian. Likewise the big cheeses of the last century all were far, far more alligend with Spinoza than the theologians whom he defeated (are theologians even considered philosophers at all anymore?)

Overall it's a little too late to "counter him". It's like saying that you're going to counter the American Revolution, the war already happened and the winner was already decided.

>>9876188
Nice job rephrasing the introductory paragraphs on Spinoza's wikipedia page.

>>9884272
Your immaturity is what makes you fishy.

>>9887993
>I really think Spinoza's victory was total and absolute.
If it was total and absolute there would be no Catholicism anymore. 1 billion people are official members, but if we say that 1/3 of that is Church going that's 300 million people.
>There's no Catholic theocracies
The only Catholic theocracy that still exists and that ever existed, albeit in a very reduced manner is the Vatican itself.
> Religious books are analzed according to historical settings.
And to the theological as well
>Divine revalation as truth isn't taken seriously by any social or physical sciences.
Social and physical sciences aren't monolithic entities that would even deal with the divine revelation. The first and final causes are in the domain of theology and philosophy. Expecting anything else is as absurd as expecting chemistry to see legal theory as anything related to the work it does.
>And his metaphyiscs, with my little knowledge of them, seems to be the one most accepted by science.
Pantheistic monism? Eh, not really. It rests on realism for epistemics, I'd even say that there's more of Aquinas' ontological realism than anything from Spinoza.
>Hegel and Nietzsche, arguable the two biggest philosophers
EXTREMELY ARGUABLE, to the point Nietzsche can be ruled out outright for if anything Kant.
>Likewise the big cheeses of the last century all were far, far more alligend with Spinoza
Umm some were, but not because they'd agree with him. I can't think of a single spinozist, but I can think of a dozen of very big thomists.
>are theologians even considered philosophers at all anymore?
Theologians were not considered philosophers since Aquinas himself because they are two different sciences. There were plenty of theologian-philosophers on the other hand.
>Overall it's a little too late to "counter him".
In arguments? No. In influence? He was in terms of political philosophy unimportant. For america, Locke was bigger, for Europe it was the French enlightenment. I'm not sure why you assume he was this all encompassing authority on everything, he had no influence on a large number of the authors who were instrumental to modernity and nobody will trace anything you attribute to him to him at all. Some points sure, but you seem to attribute everything to him for to me obscure reasons. His pantheism and stoicism had their influence in the renaissance, Bruno, Mirandola, Machiavelli and so much more had far more influence on the views of your important learned man in the political sphere than him. In European law, which mentions as important figures an extensive number of authors (especially important for constitutional and criminal law) you'll never even see his name mentioned,

>>9887831
Ok, I get it. Thanks anon

>>9888081
Immaturity is a meme made up by those drowning in Ressentiment.

>>9887482
I'm not Gnostic, I am the last remaining Christian.

>>9887786
>best arab philosopher
>logical positivist
so this is the magic of the East....

>>9885683
Laws are for Jews because it's the Old Covenant, any parables or whatever else is valid.
It's not arbitrary, it's the fact that Christians are a different people from Jews. They are not bound to the Old Covenant.

It is still canonical, but irrelevant to anybody who isn't Jewish (reformed Jews are not Jews, they're (dubiously) ethnically Jewish protestants, with their ethnic culture.

>>9884798
Incorrect, Christ died young, Nietzsche did not. By the end of his life, Nietzsche reached realizations that would seem immature to Christ a mere 5 years later, if He had lived.

>>9878236
>>9881666

agree

>>9876005
>who wrote The Antichrist out of pure PASSION for the earth
Gotta stop you right there senpai. Christians are against loving the earth.

First John 2:15-16 says, "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world."