/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14517770]

What is it with all these Christians acting like Nietzsche is compatible with religion lately? It's fucking bewildering

[Anonymous No.14517789]

>>14517770
He is.

He was a Christian at heart.

[Anonymous No.14517799]

>>14517789
in no way shape or form, none of you have read any Nietzsche and repeating these stupid claims aren't going to make them true

[Anonymous No.14517802]

>>14517789
He unironically wanted Christians to be killed, not just culturally discriminated against but murdered, killed and raped.

[Anonymous No.14517809]

>>14517770
Not a christfag but what’s this superstitious talk of compatibility? Nietzsche punch you in the head for it. I don’t know what you mean by it. Obviously Nietzsche has insights that religious thinkers can profit by, in the same sense that Kierkegaard influenced secular existentialists. Read about Bloom’s anxiety of influence. Very rarely are disciples ‘faithful’ to their masters. Deleuze’s metaphor of buggery is accurate

[Anonymous No.14517815]

>>14517789
I'm not so sure about that.

[Anonymous No.14517817]

>>14517799
>>14517802
Jesus was the Ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.14517827]

>>14517815
Doesn’t your quote vindicate what that anon said?

[Anonymous No.14517828]

Something that has failed should be honoured all the more jealously, precisely because it has failed—this is much more in keeping with my morality.—"God," "the immortality of the soul," "salvation," a "beyond"—to all these notions, even as a child, I never paid any attention whatsoever, nor did I waste any time upon them,—maybe I was never naif enough for that?—I am quite unacquainted with atheism as a result, and still less[Pg 29] as an event in my life: in me it is inborn, instinctive. I am too inquisitive, too incredulous, too high spirited, to be satisfied with such a palpably clumsy solution of things. God is a too palpably clumsy solution of things; a solution which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers—at bottom He is really no more than a coarse and rude prohibition of us: ye shall not think!... I am much more interested in another question,—a question upon which the "salvation of humanity" depends to a far greater degree than it does upon any piece of theological curiosity: I refer to nutrition.

From Ecce Homo: why I am so wise.

[Anonymous No.14517832]

>>14517809
I mean that you can't assent to both religion and Nietzsche, indeed anyone can be inspired by anything but that isn't saying much. Nietzsche's philosophy is essentially anti-religious. Just because a Christian can accept an aphorism or two, or enjoys some of his social critique, doesn't mean his philosophy is compatible with religion. It is characteristically not, and Christians lately are claiming that Nietzsche is a pro-Christian philosopher and an opponent of atheism, which is explicitly untrue.

[Anonymous No.14517833]

>>14517815
Isn't this just 'if you kill your enemies they win'?

[Anonymous No.14517839]

>>14517815
This is pretty stupid, Nietzsche precisely hates God, or the Christian one, because he symbolizes a desire for justice and equality. To him God's actual fault is his egalitarian character.

[Anonymous No.14517840]

>>14517789
Shut the fuck up nigger come on

[Anonymous No.14517845]

>>14517817
nietzsche admired christ, loathed christianity. this is basic

[Anonymous No.14517842]

>>14517817
Jesus was the antithesis of the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.14517856]

>>14517839
>To him God's actual fault is his egalitarian character.
Wouldn't that make God unjust and unmerciful according to Nietzsche's worldview?

[Anonymous No.14517858]

>>14517832
Where are Christians claiming that Nietzsche is a pro-Christian philosopher you schizo freak..

[Anonymous No.14517880]

>>14517845
>nietzsche admired christ
He didn't, he called him a Middle Eastern Buddah, iirc. That's not a compliment, from Nietzsche's perspective.

[Anonymous No.14517889]

>>14517880
>iirc
you don't

[Anonymous No.14517897]

>>14517856
No? What the fuck is wrong with your brain, the Christian conception of God IS just and merciful, two characteristics Nietzsche deems weak and life-denying and thus he rejects Christianity and sees it resulting from a slave-morality, which in turn stems from a caste of weaklings who engaged in metaphysics to compensate for their weakness.

Read the 14th aphorism of the Genealogy's first chapter (or the entire book): http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf

[Anonymous No.14518130]

>>14517858
Literally two threads today and they happen all the time pay attention dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.14518227]

>>14517897
You pseuds always cite Genealogy, because it's clear you were pleb-filtered by BGE, Zarathustra, and Will to Power.

Nietzsche treats with two kinds of Christianity-- the original "primitive" form, and the kind preached by Paul the apostle. He says the second type is slave morality, but the first type is a kind of positive nihilism which in his later years he struggled to wrap his head around, especially when he compared it to Buddhism. He was in the process of analyzing it when he went mad, you can see it in his Will to Power notes which discuss Christianity at length.

You posers haven't read more than Nietzsche’s most accessible works, and you feel entitled to act like an authority because other pseuds haven't read him at all. If people on this board had actually read nietzsche, you'd be talking about the metaphysical psychology of the will to power and the process of value creation, instead of bleating on and on about slave morality like the sheep you are.

[Anonymous No.14518240]

>>14517770
Nietzsche's analysis of the function of values and the elements of western culture are separate from his moral positions on these topics. You can accept the validity of his premise while rejecting the moral conclusions he derives from it, potentially yielding an understanding of reality which embraces Nietzsche’s vast insights while still allowing, if not necessity, a Christian scheme of values.

Christian in this case does not mean denominational. The people who think they can reconcile Nietzsche’s view of reality with catholicism or protestantism are just delusional or contrarian.

[Anonymous No.14518246]

>>14518227
This is the most pretentious post I've ever read. Good job

[Anonymous No.14518256]

>>14518227
>the process of value creation
This is the most important lesson in all of Nietzsche's works. It is the direct consequence of the Will to Power.
>the metaphysical psychology of the will to power
What do you mean about that?

[Anonymous No.14518257]

>>14517839
Nietzsche's objections are to the mediocre and threadbare morality which grew out of Judaism into Christianity, and from there into the Enlightenment. This has nothing much to do with "God" as a basic concept, and everything to do with "God" as a perspective on the utility of truth, etc.

Nietzsche doesn't just say "equality bad", because he's not a meme on an image board. He says "equality is bad for these reasons", which implies that equality is bad only when these reasons pertain.

Everything Nietzsche says is dependent on context and a certain understanding of how the universe functions. He doesn't make proclamations, and he doesn't give you anything you can use intelligently if you don't understand the depths and heights of his thought. That's what makes him so difficult, and so easily exploitable by every dick-waving 16 year old on this board.

[Anonymous No.14518275]

>>14518257
This. There is no simple interpretation of anything Nietzsche says. Only fags who haven't read much try to essentialize his views.

[Anonymous No.14518278]

>>14518227
I read BGE years before I read the Genealogy, same for Zarathustra. Never read "Will to Power" because it's not a book by Nietzsche. I've read all of his Nachlässe, which you're probably referring to as "Will to Power".

I'm certain by the way that you haven't read Nietzsche in the way you claim to have. His conception of will to power is anything -but- metaphysical, infact his whole enterprise was to take out metaphysics when dealing with value judgements and epistemology (Nietzsche collapses epistemology, be it the theoretical or practical kind, into a pragmatistic epistemology; see Habermas work on Nietzsche in the 1970's for more info on that). This is something you can still see in Heidegger, who many consider to be an extension of Nietzsche's philosophy. Here's a quote from Antichrist by the way, which is what you called "Will to Power", an illegitimate book which was later collapsed into its fragments, one of which is now called "Antichrist":

"Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God," "soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will" or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary effects ("sin," "salvation," "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginary beings ("God," "spirits," "souls"); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign language of religio ethical balderdash , "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginary teleology (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life"). This purely fictitious world , greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the latter at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of "abominable" the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural ( the real! ), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality. The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for decadence . "

I've read all of N's books except for the Wagner-related ones. Especially in his later work he starts mobilizing with violence against Christianity, against Jesus Christ himself.

[Anonymous No.14518281]

>>14518256
In BGE, towards the middle somewhere, Nietzsche says that the proper domain for philosophy going forward is psychology, because reducing all human endeavor down to the framework of the single impulse of power allows life to be evaluated according to a workable metric. The manifestations of the desire for power can be examined through a psychology of power, which will yield more meaningful and useful moral creations than any metaphysical naval-gazing ever could.

"Metaphysical psychology" is how I would describe the study of the relation of human beings to the fundamental impulses of existence, whether this is, as Nietzsche claims, just the will to power, or not.

[Anonymous No.14518285]

>>14518227
Incredible, half this post is insults and you haven't even made a point.

> but the first type is a kind of positive nihilism which in his later years he struggled to wrap his head around, especially when he compared it to Buddhism
Literally just making shit up. "Struggled to wrap his head around" what the fuck are you talking about
"He was in the process of analyzing it when he went mad" are you implying that Nietzsche went crazy because he couldn't handle the profundity of christianity? This is insane.

>you can see it in his Will to Power notes which discuss Christianity at length.
Cite something then. Because I think you're full of shit.

Also
>positive nihilism
>Christianity
1. What
2. Cite
3. What was confusing about it to Nietzsche and on what are you basing that statement

>If people on this board had actually read nietzsche, you'd be talking about the metaphysical psychology of the will to power and the process of value creation, instead of bleating on and on about slave morality like the sheep you are.
So what are the works of his that everyone has neglected, and can you share with us some content?
Why are you calling Zarathustra more accessible, when it's purposefully the opposite?

[Anonymous No.14518294]

>>14518278
I don't know if you're just wrong, or haven't read his note collection, or if you're not understanding why I'm saying. Do you deny that nietzsche differentiates between the Christianity developed by Paul which evolved into enlightenment morality? If you don't, have you read the passages in which he establishes that Jesus's self-sacrificing nihilism is of a different character than both buddhistic nihilism and the nihilism which results from rationality's destruction of values?

The passage you are citing isn't about Jesus, it's about later Christianity.

[Anonymous No.14518328]

>>14518257
No it has everything to do with "God" in the sense that you will apply it. Nietzsche often demands that new Gods ought to be created, clearly this is a semantical issue here. For most purposes, God will be synonymous with the Christian or Abrahamic God, which he considers a perversion of human creativity. There's nothing in the Abrahamic conception of God that Nietzsche seems to be able to respect.

And no, if anything his anti-egalitarian stance is a constant from "Birth to Tragedy" to "Ecce Homo". It might be -the- constant in his philosophical writings, again, let me cite one of his latest works:

"What is good? Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. What is evil? Whatever springs from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power increases that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu , virtue free of moral acid). The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice? Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak Christianity."

Stop acting as if you have fucking read the guy, you are a fucking pseudo-intellectual moron. Just because you're annoyed at edge-lords hailing Nietzsche as their atheist-overlord it doesn't mean Nietzsche didn't actually hate Christianity. Shut the fuck up or read a book.

>>14518294
What you're saying is evident, I just think you're confused about what Nietzsche meant when he talked of Paulus' act of "canonizing" or turning Christianity into a "myth": http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_ANTICHRIST_.aspx?S=42

Read the aphorism again, for you must have read it a long time ago or just poorly the only time you did. There is no "authentic first Christianity" that could avoid Nietzsche's criticism of it, that is not what this aphorism is about.

[Anonymous No.14518329]

>>14518285
You've made no more points than I have, other than asking for citations which I'm not going to give you, because this isn't reddit. The work I'm pulling from which I call "will to power" is just that, a book of his notes drawn from his "literary remains".

I never claimed he went crazy "because of" Christianity, I just said that he stopped working on it because he went crazy.

And I didn't say Zarathustra was easy, I said people HAVEN'T read it because it's NOT.

[Anonymous No.14518343]

>>14518329
By the way, the Will to Power isn't just his "remains", they are altered configurations of snippets he chaotically wrote down here and there + a bunch of shit his sister wrote. You read a fucking bootleg version of Nietzsche, shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.14518344]

>>14518328
OK, it's clear that all of your objections stem from you not reading the passages in the will to power note collection in which he differentiates primitive and later Christianity, and all of your vitriol and claiming I haven't read shit is because you, yourself, have not read the passage I was referring to. I vaguely recall him mentioning it offhand as a question in Genealogy as well, but it's been awhile.

There's not gonna be any arguing with you unless I cite the passage, and I'm not gonna dig through a couple semester's files to find it. So, I guess you just get to be satisfied that I don't know what I'm talking about, if it makes you feel better.

[Anonymous No.14518364]

>>14518344
But I just did you complete idiot, you fucking complete buffoon subhuman monkey. My last and final protip: Antichrist IS what you're referring to as "Will to Power", Nietzsche never wrote a "Will to Power", that was his sister. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14518368]

>>14518343
It was edited back into shape by Walter Kaufmann, check Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.14518384]

>>14518364
Ooh, now you're angry. Charming. Don't know what to tell you, dude, I read the fucking passage. Download a PDF of The Will to Power edited by Kaufmann, search for "Buddha" "Primitive" "nihilism" "Early" "pre-Paul"

[Anonymous No.14518391]

>>14517770
I don't understand the Nietzche hype

I read his books and he seems legit gay and retarded minus a few witty observations here and there. Birth of tragedy is one of the worst books I've ever read

[Anonymous No.14518398]

>>14517880
Actually that would be a compliment in Nietzsche's eyes.

[Anonymous No.14518417]

nietzsche critiques unconditional atheism as the last form of christianity in the genealogy (i think). he proposes a new mythology fashioned after greek religion which affirms rather than denies life. i don't think it is at all controversial to say that nietzsche's thought is compatible with religion - in fact I would say it is more controversial to argue that nietzsche's thought is compatible with atheism. there's a constant engagement with forming a new mythology and religion in nietzsche's texts which informs his critiques - all the folk who characterize nietzsche as a simple atheist either have a silly interpretation based off of the whole "god is dead" shtick or focus too much on the destructive aspect of nietzsche's genealogical critique. "only as creators can we destroy", nietzsche says, and I don't think atheism is at all the solution that nietzsche proposes. pantheism maybe, as nishitani argues, god as a question, perhaps, as heidegger argues, polytheism, as klossowski argues, or a return to greek religion, as julian young argues. but atheism? i highly doubt that

[Anonymous No.14518420]

>>14518398
No it wouldn't, Nietzsche fucking hated Buddhism. But he differentiates the kind of nihilism present in Buddhism and the teachings of Jesus in the notes I've been citing which no one seems to think exist.

[Anonymous No.14518423]

>>14518329
>You've made no more points than I have
First of all, it's hilarious that you're admitting this. Second of all, I can't counter an argument that isn't there. That's why I'm asking you to provide something of substance, or to back up any of your claims. But you can't, because you were entirely full of shit.

>The work I'm pulling from which I call "will to power" is just that, a book of his notes drawn from his "literary remains".
So you're choosing his least reliable work.

>other than asking for citations which I'm not going to give you, because this isn't reddit.
Surreal.

[Anonymous No.14518425]

>>14518417
going on from this - i don't see how one couldn't refashion christianity or other abrahamic religions to fit more with the life-affirming nietzschean paradigm desu. traditional christianity absolutely does not survive nietzsche's critique - but perhaps kierkegaard's christianity, which focuses on immanent possibilities and an unconditional life-affirmation, can pass through nietzsche's critiques. similarly, paul tillich's or altizer's christianity with their focus on immanence could possibly pass through nietzsche's critiques too

[Anonymous No.14518426]

>>14518417
>he proposes
You can't propose a religious system

Anyone who thinks like this is legitimately low IQ

[Anonymous No.14518431]

>>14518420
He didn't "fucking hate" Buddhism. He thought it was ultimately unhealthy and disagreed with it, he also drew a lot of inspiration from Buddhism and Hinduism, as did Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche explicitly expressed respect for Indian philosophy as a whole.

[Anonymous No.14518433]

>>14517842
That's not what Neechayayay said.

[Anonymous No.14518435]

>>14518426
he doesn't propose a religious system, his philosophy is about preparing those special individuals that CAN institute new values, new mythologies, and new religions. nietzsche knows he can't do this himself, he just wants to initiate the broad strokes, the skeletal paradigm of a life-affirming religion if you will

[Anonymous No.14518451]

>>14518433
Claiming something doesn't make it true

[Anonymous No.14518468]

Talking about about nietzsche and his conception of God, and none mentions the anti christ..
Read that first you ignorant fucks

[Anonymous No.14518472]

>>14518435
Religion can't be instituted by humans you absolute fucking mong

Nietzcheans are the brainlet wojak of philosophy

[Anonymous No.14518540]

>>14518391
read Beyond Good and Evil.

[Anonymous No.14518560]

>>14518468 can you read? people have referenced it, retard.

[Anonymous No.14518588]

>>14517833
Christianity started off that victory, just as Western civilization with Socrates.

[Anonymous No.14518590]

>>14518472
except that it has been.

[Anonymous No.14518623]

because i decided to throw it all away, become a neet, disavow my friends, disengage from the system and reject it, and retreat in order to create my own values and meaning in quiet study and meditation...

what did i come up with?

the same as jesus

[Anonymous No.14518628]

>>14518368
>>14518384
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power_(manuscript)

How about you do some basic research? It's the Förster Nietzsche version, which Montinari and Colli rightfully fragmented. Antichrist = The passages you're referring to when Nietzsche discusses Christianity and Buddhism. I fucking LINKED the part you're talking about. Nietzsche doesn't re-evalute his stance on Jesus or Christianity, he accelerates his polemic against them.

Never did Nietzsche in any of these fragments re-evaluate his stance on Christianity's fundamental life-denying principles. You're really fucking stupid and an anti-intellectual, I hope you know that. The reason why I'm angry is because it's evident that I'm the only one who's actually read the dude sufficiently and can cite the relevant passages, whereas you just repeatedly mention how poor of a reader you actually are. Read the passage from Antichrist again I have linked, infact just read the entire first 30 aphorisms of that work again. These are some of his last writings: http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_ANTICHRIST_.aspx?S=40

[Anonymous No.14518645]

>>14518451
Which is exactly what you did. And the übermensch is just a concept, not the truth. Neechay said Jesus was a übermensch.

[Anonymous No.14518919]

>>14518472
?????? lol

[Anonymous No.14519296]

>>14518645
>Neechay said Jesus was a übermensch
No he didn't and you're cringing the fuck out of me with "neechay", it's not whimsical it's weird

[Anonymous No.14519318]

If you don't think he is then you misread him.

[Anonymous No.14519339]

>>14517802
This is taking it a bit far.

[Anonymous No.14519340]

Jesus: thesis
Nietzsche: antithesis
Jung: synthesis

[Anonymous No.14519377]

>>14519340
based

[Anonymous No.14519384]

Guys I want to masturbate but I don't want to go to hell. Any advice?

[Anonymous No.14519467]

>>14517770
I'm a Pagan, so I don't care.

[Anonymous No.14519547]

[Anonymous No.14519669]

>lately
Appropriating Nietzsche into neo idealism has been a thing since Nietzsche died. Fascism is literally built on it.

[Anonymous No.14519707]

no fucking clue how christ/mohammed is still a meme in the age of info. either you believe in the scientific method or you're a makebelievefaggot

[Anonymous No.14519730]

>>14519296
He didn't exactly say that but he did say that Jesus (along with Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Buddha, and Goethe) came the closest to being an übermensch.

[Anonymous No.14519830]

>le god ded whoa
beginner understanding of religion will 'bewilder' you to a lot of things. its not paper and ink anymore.

[Anonymous No.14520081]

>>14519340
Jung disliked christianity from a young age. Not an intellectual misgiving, it just gave him a bad vibe for various reasons

[Anonymous No.14520583]

>>14520081
Campbell wasn't keen on the various flavors of Abrahamism either.

[Anonymous No.14520587]

>>14517842
Jesus was one of the few men nietzsche considered close to an ubermensch -- BUT STILL NOT

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN UBERMENSCH

[Anonymous No.14520608]

>>14517770
Nietzsche was a rare beast. An honest atheist. He wasn't a Christian but the implications of atheism terrified him and he searched for a solution. I respect him for that. Same with Camus. If atheists spent more time thinking about the implications of their atheism and less time trying to score cheap points against Christians they'd be far more tolerable. Instead they're all braindead hedonists, barely conscious above the level of an animal. They take materialism as a given and are not in the slightest bit interested in rising above their animal urges. The modern atheist is the last man, the exact type of person that Nietzsche was so afraid would populate the nations when God is out of the picture.

>The Last Man is the individual who specializes not in creation, but in consumption. In the midst of satiating base pleasures, he claims to have “discovered happiness” by virtue of the fact that he lives in the most technologically advanced and materially luxurious era in human history.

>But this self-infatuation of the Last Man conceals an underlying resentment, and desire for revenge. On some level, the Last Man knows that despite his pleasures and comforts, he is empty and miserable. With no aspiration and no meaningful goals to pursue, he has nothing he can use to justify the pain and struggle needed to overcome himself and transform himself into something better. He is stagnant in his nest of comfort, and miserable because of it. This misery does not render him inactive, but on the contrary, it compels him to seek victims in the world. He cannot bear to see those who are flourishing and embodying higher values, and so he innocuously supports the complete de-individualization of every person in the name of equality.

[Anonymous No.14520890]

>—we still feel it, the whole need of the spirit and the whole tension of its bow.

[Anonymous No.14521010]

>>14517770
Its Jordan Petersons fault. Hes been promoting Nietzsche through a Christian/Jungian lens.

Its just as bad as Deleuzians promoting Nietzsche through a Marxist lens. Neitzsche is compatible with neither, atleast if you want to be true to "orthodox" Nietzscheanism.
You can however, adopt many parts of Nietzsches Philosophy into your own worldview.

Christians for example, Nietzsche makes Christians think about the question:
"Is the only reason you follow your religion because you believe it will get you a good afterlife? Or do you genuinely think the Christian moral system is good in itself."

Especially in the Book "The Antichrist", Nietzsche lays out the teachings of Christ in their purest form, a type of Buddhism that focused on non-ressentiment. Although Nietzsche himself disagreed with Christs moral values, he understood what Christ actually wanted more than most Christians, which is why Christians can read Nietzsche to gain insight on how to be more like Christ, rather than being like what the Pharisees of the Church want you to be.

[Anonymous No.14521576]

>>14519384
Where in the Bible does it say masturbation is a sin?

I must have missed that part

[Anonymous No.14521606]

>>14520608
>If atheists spent more time thinking about the implications of their atheism and less time trying to score cheap points against Christians they'd be far more tolerable.

Exactly this.

>Hurr everything would just be so rational and peaceful once religion disappears

Yeah, no