/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20053952]

>Christianity is a life-denying, feminine religion for weaklings and pacifists
>Islam is a life-affirming, masculine religion for passionate conquerors

Why did he think this?

[Anonymous No.20053957]

uhh, because he's german?

[Anonymous No.20053963]

>>20053952
based

[Anonymous No.20053975]

>>20053952
islam is some bullshit the jesuits made up

[Anonymous No.20053978]

He is absolutely right and you would see why if you could get past whatever biases you have here.

[Anonymous No.20053999]

His opinion was that of an educated Roman

[Anonymous No.20054014]

>>20053952
because the Catholic church let a bunch of horny roasties sculpt their mysticism for them. Teddy Roosevelt's muscular Christianity didn't have this problem. Neither did Constantine, Clovis, the Goths, the crusaders, etc. The Bible doesn't make you weak. Heresies do.

[Anonymous No.20054019]

>>20053978
>the reason people disagree with me is because of biases
>me? i'm a pure rational agent

[Anonymous No.20054031]

>>20054014
Imagine a Muslim Roosevelt wew

[Anonymous No.20054037]

Why the fuck are there so many photos of this guy? He didn't become popular after he died right?

[Anonymous No.20054062]

Because his view was shaped by orientalist attitudes that were common at the time.

[Anonymous No.20054068]

>>20053952
I've studied both religions. He's obviously wrong, there are warrior Saints in Orthodoxy, and warrior monks in Catholicism. To kill is a necessary evil at times, be it an offensive or defensive war depending on which side of the Schism you're in or what the context is.

At any rate, this is the philosopher who claims there is no truth. Everything is relative, but he's trying to set subjective standards of what is weak or strong? How redundant, contradictory, and meaningless.

[Anonymous No.20054069]

>>20053952
>It was a weighty feature of the Christian Church, that none but sound and healthy persons were admitted to the vow of total world-renunciation; any bodily defect, not to say mutilation, unfitted them. Manifestly this vow was to be regarded as issuing from the most heroic of all possible resolves, and he who sees in it a "cowardly self-surrender"—as someone recently suggested [Nietzsche],—may bravely exult in his own self-retention, but had best not meddle any further with things that don't concern him.

and again

>To what is the preacher bound fast in the pulpit, but to compromises between the utmost contradictions, whose subtleties must necessarily confound our very faith itself and make us ask: Who now knows Jesus?—Historical criticism, perchance? It casts in its lot with Judaism, and, just like every Jew, it wonders that the bells on Sunday morn should still be ringing for a Jew once crucified two thousand years ago.

Obviously a reply to the 113th aphorism of "Human, All too Human" with these very words:— "On a Sunday morning, when we hear the old bells booming, we ask ourselves: Is it possible that this should be for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was the son of God? The proof of such an assertion is wanting."

[Anonymous No.20054070]

>>20053999
>Jan Assmann
Holy fuck imagine that being your name lmao.

[Anonymous No.20054077]

>>20054019
What I'm saying is the facts are really simple here. Islam treats women as second class citizens and encourages war.

[Anonymous No.20054086]

>>20054014
Your larpist version of "muscular christianity" is as bad as the "virtuous pagan" argument of apologists. Early christers had no respect for that sort of might-is-right and practiced pure fideism, and suicide by Roman cop (martyrdom). You either follow the contract or you don't. Cargo cult opinions like yours around how based the Middle Ages were and the linkage with Christianity that rescues it from Nietzschean critique removes us from the Bible. It catholicizes, if you will, but the catholicized will always be tempted to inevitably read the book they were told they already agreed with in spirit, and when they do, they will become protestantized and CORRECTLY interpret that the texts are really covenant theology and not whatever else you are reclassifying Christianity as, and then attempt to make themselves Israelites in order to fulfill the contract. Consider the Taiping Rebellion. No doubt, dishonest christer missionaries had converted Chinese people using Taoist vocabulary, but as soon as the Chinese themselves began to read the Bible, they turned on China like the christers turned on Rome. It's the same playbook. You would have people believe Christianity is some robust and virile system when it has been seen for what it is many times before.

[Anonymous No.20054097]

>>20054070
He's the Assmann, egyptologist Jan Assmann

[Anonymous No.20054281]

>>20054068
>At any rate, this is the philosopher who claims there is no truth
he doesn't. he draws into question man's ability to detach himself enough from his own subjectivity to see it.

[Anonymous No.20054292]

>>20053952
>feminine
Didn't he say genesis was written by cowards who placed all men's best traits in women and called them sin?

[Anonymous No.20054294]

>>20054281
This is anti-nihilistic and contradicts his idea of the "will to power" being the pragmatic solution to replacing objectivity in the world.

[Anonymous No.20054315]

>>20054294
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.20054349]

>>20054315
Can someone expound on this or did I not get it? Pretty sure when Nietzche says "God is dead", he means the death of objectivity, hierarchy, and everything that comes with a worldview based on God. This would mean the death of Truth itself. Either that or this anon is coping or something.

[Anonymous No.20054354]

>>20054349
I think you read it correctly.

[Anonymous No.20054364]

>>20054354
I didn't even read his works. Just seems like common sense, really.

[Anonymous No.20054388]

>>20053952
>say something bad about islam or the prophet (pbuh)
>gets beheaded a few weeks later
>say something bad about christianity or Jesus
>?
>nothing
Yeah, he was correct.

[Anonymous No.20054390]

>>20054349
Not that guy, and I have no idea what Nietzsche actually meant as I have never read him, but that is the general interpretation of it and the same idea had expressed many times before. Nu-atheists love to deny this for PR reasons, but it is absolutely true that all of these concepts become unsupported and silly when you stop believing in God. Even if you accept Kantian or Platonist ideas of morals/ethics being 'le consistent xD' (which they aren't), it's totally optional for you to actually follow them and the whole thing relies on having some degree of autistic fixation on being """logical""" that most people lack.

[Anonymous No.20054391]

>>20054364
You should read them. They're actually enjoyable. Whenever I go back to find a quote or something I always end up reading a couple pages before or after it.

[Anonymous No.20054422]

>>20053952
Ayo this nigga spittin

[Anonymous No.20054457]

>>20054391
Why would I want to read a book authored by a nihilist? Wouldn't that be redundant if meaning has no objective truth in the first place?

[Anonymous No.20054492]

>>20054457
Assuming he's a nihilist (and he isn't) I already told you why.

[Anonymous No.20054518]

>>20054492
I don't understand how he can't be a nihilist unless he decided to say God isn't dead and everyone is retarded for trying to stray from objective reality and if we continued down this degenerate path we would eventually be lead into a world where men can become women and vice versa because there is no truth.

I don't read books for enjoyment either, although if I were to do that it would be with fictional classics written by good, Christian men with sane minds untouched by mentally ill Enlightenment philosophies.

[Anonymous No.20054544]

>>20054518
You're cute. Post your number so I can take you out for a coffee and explain it in person.

[Anonymous No.20054550]

>>20054457
You don't need objective truth to live and think. That's not even what nihilism is anyway, you can be a nihilist and believe in objective truth. Nihilism would only pertain to the value placed on that truth, as it means you don't believe in inherent value.

[Anonymous No.20054553]

>>20053952
>Why did he think this?
probably because he never met a muslim in his life

[Anonymous No.20054556]

>>20054544
based

[Anonymous No.20054559]

>>20054068
>To kill is a necessary evil at times
Christ is ashamed of you

[Anonymous No.20054564]

>>20053952
He never met Muslims. Islam is literally about submitting to God and Arab culture and believing you have no value outside of worshipping God.

[Anonymous No.20054572]

>>20054070
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Assman

[Anonymous No.20054585]

>>20054544
Coffee upsets my stomach, but thanks for the offer.
>>20054550
So what you're saying is that the value of truth doesn't matter to a nihilist even if it objectively exists? Why would you not hold any value to it if that's how you would understand reality and the way the world functions? (Yes, I know I'm making a metaphysical claim).
>>20054559
We live in a fallen world and the reality is wars happen and people die. It's not something we want to happen, but this is the way things are and we have to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.20054600]

>>20054390
>another thread for people who haven't read N to debate people who didn't understand him about whether it is based and redpilled to agree with him or not

[Anonymous No.20054631]

>>20054585
yes and the ones who make those wars are not christians simple as

[Anonymous No.20054659]

>>20054631
That's not for us to decide. Unless they're heretics or heathens, then we can decide that.

[Anonymous No.20054692]

>>20054600
The idea is the idea and can be discussed for what it is, ot doesn't matter where it came from. We're not all homosexuals like you who think the purpose of this is to prove that your father figure it the coolest.

[Anonymous No.20054702]

>>20054585
You're really far from understanding this, honestly. I'm not going to try to respond to individual confusions you have, I'm just going to offer an extreme simplification of the big picture: nihilism is the rejection that there is a "meaning of life".

[Anonymous No.20054704]

>>20054564
Precisely. Islam means submission. Fanatical, total submission. You wanna talk about 'slave morality'? The Muslim is the slave of God, that is their ideal. Now that exists in Christianity too, Paul uses that phrase in one of his epistles, but it is entierly unemphasized in modern Christianity, never talked about, and the typical modern "Christian" would shy away from that word. 'Servant' is perhaps alright, but slave is too much. The only place where you can find that beautifully extremisist mentality of slavery to God is among the Muslims.
And Islam is obviously life-denying. Just look at the cult of martyrdom that arose, or, was revived in Islamist groups since the 70s. "We love death more than you love life" is their slogan.

[Anonymous No.20054745]

>>20054702
What if there objectively is meaning to life and you deny that fact? You can't have both positions at the same time.
>>20054704
It's because for Christians God is a Father you have a relationship with, not a slave master that predetermines whether or not you'll worship him in the first place so he can punish you.

[Anonymous No.20054748]

>>20054692
The idea is to read what is being discussed, tourist

[Anonymous No.20054752]

>>20054704
Slave morality is about inverting your values to belittle your master for being stronger than you and make yourself feel superior for being weak

Embracing death on the battlefield is not life denial, life denial is a phrase Schopenhauer used in a positive sense to mean denying your life and drives so they don’t intrude upon the needs and wants of others

[Anonymous No.20054758]

>>20054745
>not a slave master
The bible is very clear that you must keep his covenant or you will be punished. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable to obey your master

[Anonymous No.20054775]

>>20053952
>Christianity is a feminine religion for weaklings and pacifists
Is like Nietzsche didn't read a single book on Catholicism and the Catholic Church, and think that the Protestantism of Germany was the same shit as the Catholicism of Spain, Italy and Poland.

[Anonymous No.20054787]

>>20054775
>the Catholicism of Spain, Italy and Poland.
Is not the Christianity of the early church, which emerged as a reaction to the repeated military conquests of Israel and destruction of its sacred kingship

[Anonymous No.20054800]

>>20054758
Even if that were true, it's not predetermined that you will be punished. The relationship still remains as Father and child, as is referenced multiple times in the Bible and in prayers. As opposed to Abdul, or slave of allah.

[Anonymous No.20054812]

>>20054800
Abdullah means slave of Allah. Abdul just means slave of

[Anonymous No.20054821]

>>20054812
Yeah yeah, I get your towel head names mixed up.

[Anonymous No.20054827]

>>20054800
Predestination makes sense if you read the OT, since God chooses his people, and this is done arbitrarily from among all the peoples he could have chosen. In the NT, God has inexplicably become a universalist and all the connections to the OT are forced. The Hellenistic influence was evidently uncomfortable, going back to the Maccabean revolt, but triumphs in Christian synthesis. Since Christianity has seen fit to keep both covenants, that debate will always persist.

[Anonymous No.20054849]

>>20054821
Like Zizek says the fact that Islam doesn’t make God out to be a Sky Daddy makes it impervious to Freudian interpretation unlike other religions.

[Anonymous No.20054871]

>>20053999
>Jan Assmann
Our lord really does work in mysterious ways

[Anonymous No.20054886]

>>20054787
Thanks for completely evading my argument. First, Catholicism is true Christianity, let's get that clear. The Catholics took the Roman Empire and perfected it and built the Spanish Empire, a Catholic Empire, and in art they surpassed the Greeks and the Romans with the Baroque order, and in philosophy and science they had infinite contributions with the Scholastics and the Jesuits.

Nietzsche was so dogmatic and a liar, that in his books he doesn't talk about any of this, he avoids it because he knows he has no arguments against it and it is preferable that his readers don't know it because then his arguments would be strawmans. In his books, what he does is praise the Renaissance (which occurred in the most Catholic nation in the world), but he does not talk about the Baroque, which was infinitely superior to the Renaissance and even more Catholic. Nietzsche also occasionally praises non-European cultures, such as the Moors, Incas and Aztecs, claiming that they were superior to their European conquerors, but if you investigate you realize this is false and Nietzsche is a liar, the Spanish were fucking superior and they built hundreds of universities around America.

[Anonymous No.20054887]

Because he is a literal retarded person. All the "life denial" Christianity is guilty of is present in Islam too with the sole exception that Islam is more liberal with its application of violence

[Anonymous No.20054889]

>>20054745
>What if there objectively is meaning to life and you deny that fact? You can't have both positions at the same time
Completely hypothetical situation, has absolutely no relevance. No one is under any obligation to be "consistent" with facts that are not known.

[Anonymous No.20054902]

>>20054886
Spain is pretty indebted to Andalusia. Even the name Omar is popular in Spamming

[Anonymous No.20054910]

>>20054827
He chooses his nation for a reason, there is a plan and to some extent there is a sense of determinism in this plan, but it is more of a compatibilist position. Nothing like the Islamic or Calvinist idea of predetermination.
>>20054849
Who cares about what Zizek or Freud says? As far as I'm concerned they're mentally ill hacks like all psychoanalysts and humanists.

[Anonymous No.20054914]

>>20053952
Because he was a fucking idiot with a surface level understanding of a broad range of topics. Nietzsche should not be read as a serious philosopher. For example he also took his 2nd hand understanding of Buddhism as a serious basis for writing about it.

[Anonymous No.20054917]

>>20054748
The idea is whatever the fuck I want, faggot.

[Anonymous No.20054932]

>>20054037
He was a narcissist and commissioned a lot of selfies.

[Anonymous No.20054942]

>>20054910
Freewill as Christians invented it was simply to absolve God of everything they didn’t like and as a result lead inexorably to Deism

[Anonymous No.20054944]

>>20054889
You have to be consistent in your own philosophy that immediately collapses when given this situation. Either you believe that life has objective meaning and abandon nihilism by necessity of this fact or choose to abandon any potential for objective meaning in your philosophy to remain consistent. Again, you can't have both and be consistent, and it is a requirement for any coherent philosophy to be consistent.

[Anonymous No.20054977]

This dumbass realized only too late his mental masturbation created a void that was quickly filled with the worst humanity has to offer.

[Anonymous No.20054995]

>>20054886
>the Spanish empire is proof that Christianity did not originate from slave morality and an inversion of Roman values
It's not though. It has nothing to do with the context Nietzsche is talking about. Christianity did not invent the caravels and gunpowder that enabled Spain to conquer. And most importantly, you will never be an Israelite, no covenant has been made with you by Yahweh, and no amount of larping will make Spain relevant again

[Anonymous No.20055001]

>>20054995
Are you a protestant zionist or a Jew?

[Anonymous No.20055005]

>>20054917
Why are you here if you don't read? What is even the point? You have to go back

[Anonymous No.20055011]

>>20055001
It's literally not about you. The entire OT is someone else's scripture, and those same people wrote the NT because they were butthurt that they'd been subjugated and their leader was executed.

[Anonymous No.20055027]

>>20055005
I read other things, retard.
>You have to go back
No, actually, I don't. If this is the sort of belief that your philosophy has lead you to, it is not a very intelligent philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20055032]

>>20055027
You literally have nothing to contribute if you haven't read the author

[Anonymous No.20055034]

>>20055011
Answer the question, you dirty, low IQ kike.

[Anonymous No.20055045]

>>20055034
>Kike
>Low IQ
Anon...

[Anonymous No.20055047]

>>20054559
It is written that thou shall not kill. And that if we are to be stricken, we are to offer the other cheek. And that if our brother has betrayed us, we are not to forgive until seven times, but seven hundred times.

[Anonymous No.20055048]

>>20055034
Your religion comes from the people you hate. You couldn't be more of a brainlet

[Anonymous No.20055053]

>>20055011
This. It really just shows an extreme ignorance that they can't understand that Judaism is an exclusive ethnic religion and the whole point of the OT was to give them a ridiculous claim that they are special (every culture has something like that but theirs is the most shameless, "the chosen people"). The rules in it are not meant to be seen as universal morals, they're a code of conduct for dealing with other Jews.

Yet, filthy evangelicals keep reading the OT thinking "wow, this is literally me" and hang an Israeli flag outside of their church.

[Anonymous No.20055059]

>>20055032
We're not talking about the author, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20055063]

>>20055045
They're spinning chickens around their heads and snipping the tip of their penis off in their rejection of Christ.
>>20055048
No it doesn't. We consider Moses to be a Christian saint, he spoke with Christ at the burning bush. The Christians are the real "Jews" in the sense that we have kept in covenant with God just under another set of laws since the previous ones were fulfilled by Christ. Why call others brainlets when you don't know what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.20055076]

>>20055063
>We consider Moses to be a Christian saint, he spoke with Christ at the burning bush. The Christians are the real "Jews" in the sense that we have kept in covenant with God just under another set of laws since the previous ones were fulfilled by Christ.
holy shit you can't make up just how retarded and Jew'd you guys are

[Anonymous No.20055078]

>>20055053
Once the Bible is in the vernacular you can finally read it and carry out the instructions. So it's always funny when people start praising Catholicism for being the real or original Christianity, when it is really just the second sons of the nobility rebuilding the older religion after the fall of Rome. While it did have to be compliant with the Bible, since they were also the only ones who could read it, they more or less interpreted in alignment with more noble values. But once everyone can read it, once Protestantism happens, it returns to its genuine roots and allows you to reenact the entire slave revolt the gospels promise

[Anonymous No.20055083]

>>20055076
Why are you seething so much? Maybe it's time to stop getting your theology from /pol/ before you completely fry what's left of your brain.

[Anonymous No.20055086]

>>20055063
>Jesus was there when Yahweh spoke to Moses
so some fanfiction tier oc is being retroactively shoved into canon storylines? kek

[Anonymous No.20055097]

>>20055078
> So it's always funny when people start praising Catholicism for being the real or original Christianity, when it is really just the second sons of the nobility rebuilding the older religion after the fall of Rome.
This is a good thing. It is my personal interpretation of history that Christianity was basically just the name chosen for the movement to modernize Roman religion and political philosophy. It was never really about 'Jesus' (let alone the Jews), it was a vessel for Neo-Platonism, progressivism, and universal thinking.

[Anonymous No.20055098]

>>20055078
The Bible isn't self-interpretting, jackass. You reek of someone who sniffs his own farts while being completely unaware of how stupid he looks. Dunning-kruger in display.

[Anonymous No.20055101]

>>20055083
Where are you getting your theology from? The catholic church doesn't say anything like that

[Anonymous No.20055102]

>>20055098
It’s best interpreted by men who can’t even read Hebrew?

[Anonymous No.20055111]

>>20055086
Jesus was the Logos/Word that spoke to Moses. This has always been the case and understood by early Christians. I don't know why I'm teaching you this, I should let you be ignorant.

[Anonymous No.20055113]

>>20055097
It becomes about him with Protestantism, and all their critiques are essentially correct from the textual perspective, that Catholicism is a bad interpretation of the manual.

[Anonymous No.20055116]

>>20055063
They are litterally one of highest IQ groups, along with trannies. So there may be a correlation with genital modification and intelligence. Anyone itt have some studies on the subject?

[Anonymous No.20055122]

>>20055113
Of course, but the text is retarded.

[Anonymous No.20055123]

>>20055098
Yes I agree, someone has to interpret it. That someone may be right or wrong.

[Anonymous No.20055134]

>>20055111
That's obviously wrong from an outside perspective. You needing to reconcile your religion with the older one is proof enough you have no leg to stand on without accepting their beliefs. And if you are the same poster from above who was being anti-semitic this is all the more hilarious. You need them to have been chosen by God for your theology to even be argued for.

[Anonymous No.20055135]

>>20055101
That's because I'm not Catholic. Look up St. Moses the Prophet and Godseer.
>>20055102
The OT was translated into Greek...

[Anonymous No.20055140]

>>20055122
Indeed Celsus and Porphyry thought it was too dumb to even be allegory

[Anonymous No.20055151]

>>20055123
I'm the one who interprets it, AMA.

[Anonymous No.20055154]

>>20055134
You're not comprehending what I'm saying. It's the same religion, the same God, just different covenantal laws. Those that rejected Christ after the prophesies were fulfilled aren't the "chosen people" anymore, they just call themselves Jews even if it's no longer relevant.

[Anonymous No.20055155]

>>20055140
It's just a bunch of random shit stuck together. This is the real redpill, it's not coherent enough to even have a point that you can choose to accept or reject.

[Anonymous No.20055186]

>>20055135
Imagine if your professor of classical studies can’t read Greek or Latin

[Anonymous No.20055193]

>>20055154
You say it is the same religion and that they are the apostates. They would say the same of theirs, and that you are the wrong. But to an outsider, it's clear you are both from the same root, and your intrasectarian squabble has no value. As Nietzsche correctly observed.

[Anonymous No.20055199]

>>20054037
>He didn't become popular after he died right?
He was pretty famous in his 20s, it was basically unheard of in the intellectual world for one to attain the position he did so young. Nietzsche was a sort of celebrity in academic circles.

[Anonymous No.20055230]

>>20055193
That's because Nietzche, like you was a midwit that grew up in a post-Christian, nu-protestant society that didn't understand basic Christian theology. I never denied the Jews were of the same root, they simply apostasised from the faith. It's importance is for the adherents of the religion, I don't expect a Hindu or atheist to understand or care about what's going on.

[Anonymous No.20055239]

>>20055230
>they simply apostasised from the faith
So you are an anti-semite who believes he is the true Jewish person. Thank you for your service

[Anonymous No.20055276]

>>20054995
>the Spanish empire is proof that Christianity did not originate from a slave morality and an inversion of Roman values
>It's not though
The Spanish Empire was proof that Catholicism surpassed primitive Christianity and Roman values. The Catholics took the best of both worlds and optimized it. Catholicism is Christianity, Roman Law and Greek Philosophy.

>It has nothing to do with the context Nietzsche is talking about.
Nietzsche used to say that he was a radical aristocrat but as soon as he discovered that the Spanish Empire was fucking Catholic he went on to support the Aztecs and the Incas, how convenient for him! To supports indigenism! This is the pseudo-aristocrat that Nietzsche believed himself to be and who in reality never was, because he was poor all his life and lived on what his friends gave him before he fell into madness! Isn't it curious that he didn't support Isabella the Catholic? Perhaps because she had the jews under its control and decided if they could remain on her land and forced most of them to convert to Catholicism, it is also not very convenient for Nietzsche who supported Judaism and thought that this was the master morality, that the jews were below the Catholic kings...

>Christianity did not invent the caravels and gunpowder that allowed Spain to conquer.
The Jesuits contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes, and microscopes, to scientific fields as diverse as magnetism, optics, and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the bands of colors on the surface of Jupiter, the Andromeda nebula and the rings of Saturn. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, the introduction of plus and minus signs in Italian mathematics: all were typical achievements of the Jesuits. Do you want me to go on? With the countless Christian scientists?.

>And most importantly, you will never be an Israelite, Yahweh has made no pact with you
Kike

>no amount of larp will ever make Spain relevant again.
Like the rest of your post: Pure seething. The Roman Empire will never be relevant again but that doesn't mean it wasn't glorious.

GTFO GOY

[Anonymous No.20055322]

>>20055276
>wewuzism
cargo cult cope

[Anonymous No.20055331]

>>20053952

[Anonymous No.20055354]

>>20055322
Not an argument, I accept your concesion

[Anonymous No.20055358]

>>20055322
Yep
>The Roman Empire will never be relevant again but that doesn't mean it wasn't glorious.
This was such a fucking pathetic and reddit-tier statement. It completely destroyed any doubt in my mind that this guy might be somewhat sincere in his religious views rather than a "We will retake Constantinople, Deus Vult!" crusader kings playing manchild.

[Anonymous No.20055405]

>>20055354
Nietzsche discusses the genealogy of Christianity. It's expression in Spain a thousand years later is not really relevant, nor are your value judgments about how based and redpilled imperialism is

[Anonymous No.20055842]

>>20055405
>It's expression in Spain a thousand years later is not really relevant
>The fact that Catholics achieved a synthesis of Roman and Christian values is not relevant
How?

>nor are your value judgments about how based and redpilled imperialism is
Nietzsche supported Imperialism, this is why I think it's relevant, he just didn't support the Imperialism of Spain but the one of Napoleon and the Roman Empire.

[Anonymous No.20055876]

>>20054388
>say something bad about christianity or Jesus
John lennon

[Anonymous No.20056036]

>>20055842
If we are discussing the origins of Christianity, what has Spain to do with it? They turned it into a warrior religion in the middle ages because the Arabs compelled them to in order to survive?

[Anonymous No.20057365]

>>20053952
>for passionate conquerors
Yeah, about that...

[Anonymous No.20057385]

>>20054069
based

[Anonymous No.20057401]

>>20054886
Yep, neesh fags are utterly unbearable, redditors every last one. praise Christ and fuck an atheist

[Anonymous No.20057404]

>>20054281
>he draws into question man's ability to detach himself enough from his own subjectivity to see it.
You mean like every philosopher who has existed since Socrates? This statement you made is so vague as to be meaningless.

[Anonymous No.20057420]

the thing is... Nietzsche's entire philosophy is a cope he wrote to make him feel like his life was utter shit because he was a neurotic syphilitic faggot.

[Anonymous No.20057422]

>>20056036
Ok, I understand that, but what is the use of criticizing the origins of Christianity when in the future it became something based?

[Anonymous No.20057450]

>>20057422
Because it returns to its roots

[Anonymous No.20057451]

>>20057450
no it doesnt lol,

[Anonymous No.20057476]

>>20053952
>goes into a mental breakdown because a man was riding a horse
>praises and begs for the pope's approval in his final schizo ramblings before becoming a full-on vegetable
>(he also signed such letters as a pagan god and Jesus like an edgy high schooler)
the more I learn about N the less I respect him. People have spent over a century going on about how genius he was but I start to think more and more it's an emperor's clothes situation

[Anonymous No.20057604]

>>20057450
Now I see why no serious philosophers today take Nietzsche seriously

[Anonymous No.20057619]

>>20053952
One thing never sat right with me in christian lore. God fucks josephs wife and joseph is to just sit there and get cucked.

[Anonymous No.20057648]

>>20054704
>And Islam is obviously life-denying.
Theres verses in the Quran that say this bluntly. Life is only temporary and for serving allah and showing your faith and anything that moves you away from that is a vice. Even children are said to be only a temporary desire

O ye who believe! Let not your riches or your children divert you from the remembrance of Allah. If any act thus, the loss is their own. 63:9

"O my people! This life of the present is nothing but (temporary) convenience: It is the Hereafter that is the Home that will last. 24:39

[Anonymous No.20057653]

>>20057401
Reddit fag

[Anonymous No.20057660]

>>20057476
Well he literally went insane because he had some kind of illness it’s not like he was completely sane doing this shit. Cut him some slack

[Anonymous No.20057666]

>>20054914
> he also took his 2nd hand understanding of Buddhism as a serious basis for writing about it.
To be fair didn’t most western philosophers do this back then?

[Anonymous No.20057731]

>>20053952
Why does he look like he just got cleaned up in a barbershop in Brooklyn? Why all these writers pictures looking like they? Just? Out a fashion magazine lmao. Niggers.

[Anonymous No.20057749]

>>20057666
Schopenhauer did which makes sense since most of Nietzsche's later works were in some way an argument against Schopenhauer. There were western authors who had better interpretations of Buddhism at the time, Nietzsche's library even contained a few, however Nietzsche for some reason omitted their opinions from his works.