[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 543 KB, 563x403, damn nigga im beautiful.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4829732 No.4829732[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Nietzsche was a Christian, prove me wrong.

>> No.4829736

>>4829732
And then he wasn't. Same as me.

>> No.4829744
File: 23 KB, 350x168, americanpsycho-christianbale-goofy-tsr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4829744

Christian was a Nietzschean, prove me wrong.

>> No.4829746

>>4829736
He was one until the day he died
>>4829744
I won't you're right

>> No.4829752

>>4829744

nice

>> No.4829779

okay well he spent half of his life condemning everything it stood for

>> No.4829785

>>4829779
He was condemning how people interpreted it, in reality

>> No.4829787
File: 83 KB, 345x512, Nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4829787

>>4829779
He was just being Tsundere

>> No.4829816

He wasn't a Christian, though he embraced Christian prose.

Despite what people say, he wasn't so much an atheist as an agnostic. His entire work is not that God doesn't exist, but it DOESN'T MATTER.

>> No.4829827

>>4829785
"the last christian died on the cross" or whatever. he hated paul and the christian religion, and his appreciation of jesus did not carry over into a religious devotion.

he was fascinated and disturbed by it, he was not a devout follower.

>> No.4829851

>>4829827
He was more than a follower, he was the creator Nietzsche was Christ reborn. He condemned Paul because Paul fucked up the New Testament by making it what it is today: hippy garbage. We really only see faint glimpses of Christs real teachings (I.E. the temple whippings and the sell cloak/buy sword warning) and they were mostly taken out of context, but would look much similar to Nietzsche's had it not been edited.

Nietzsche realized he was Christ reborn when he went insane, which is why he writes in his madness letters shit like "I've had Caiphas put in chains" and "God is on the earth...I have just seized possession of my kingdom"

http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1889.htm

>> No.4829873

>>4829851
Don't forget

>Luke 17:21
>Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

>the kingdom of god is the ubermensch

>> No.4829877

All Atheists are Christians

>> No.4829881
File: 9 KB, 125x96, IMG_0829.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4829881

>>4829851
this blew my mind

>> No.4829887

>>4829873
>>4829851
do you have more evidence or anything else written about this theory? it's fascinating

>> No.4829889

>>4829851
pretty much this

>> No.4829893

>>4829877

oh really?

>> No.4829895

I really hate how many people misinterpret Nietzsche.

>> No.4829899

Well Nietzsche did openly call himself the Antichrist at one point..

>> No.4829901

>>4829893
I actually agree with this. That autistic rust speech just goes to prove it. Atheists are the best christians. Anyone who says that they don't murder "because that's WRONG PERIOD." has perfected their faith. To them, the judeo christian framework is so permanent and unshakable that it can never possibly be challenged. Nobody who dresses up in a white frock or black robes can ever hope to reach that level of christianity.

>> No.4829910

>>4829901

thanks for elucidating

>> No.4829911

>>4829901
>muh spooks

>> No.4829914

>>4829911
too many levels of irony for me here, please be straightforward

>> No.4829916

>>4829911

how do i filter tripfags

>> No.4829917

>>4829901
>Atheists are the best christians
No, absurdists are the best christians.

“I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

>> No.4829920

>>4829744
Nietzsche please bless this man.

OP, have you read anything he wrote?

>> No.4829922

>>4829901
>Anyone who says that they don't murder "because that's WRONG PERIOD." has perfected their faith.
I agree that people who adopt a moral framework because they are terrified of eternal damnation are weak. But people who adopt their own do so out of a combination of creating their own moral framework and fearing government or social punishment. In both cases, the real reason is usually "I don't murder because social conditioning leaves me terrified of the consequences."

>> No.4829924

>>4829917
wow, that's a good point. Because they're not living for a heavenly reward.

>> No.4829927

>>4829916
settings -> filters and post hiding -> filter and highlight specific threads/posts [edit] -> copy/paste tripcode into bar, check hide -> save settings

>> No.4829928

>>4829922
but how will I craft a masterful zizekian about-face to your basic beliefs when I am fettered by such pragmatism!

my god

>> No.4829934

>>4829785
Are Christians really this fucking dumb?

>>4829816
It's possible to interpret either position from his works.
He was probably very agnostic about the actual existence of God, but he hated any and all significant understanding of the bible. He hated Christianity because of its effects and he certainly wasn't dumb enough to think a certain "interpretation" of Christianity would fix it, because he recognized that Christianity is nothing but a tool of oppression that got out of control, and began infecting the masters as well as the slaves

As for OP, no, Nietzsche did not think about god because the idea of god is a vacant, void, and vapid exercise of the mind.

>> No.4829937

>>4829928

*scratches beard*

*sniffs*

>> No.4829939

>>4829851
>taken out of context

WOO HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

>> No.4829940

>>4829914
I'm agreeing with you. Serving a metaphysical "right" is no different from serving God. If one does not murder, it should be based on serving an idea.

>> No.4829941
File: 59 KB, 311x720, NotClever.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4829941

>tfw I'm an atheist with a borderline mystical perspective, and I'd like to weigh in but I'm a lil' tipsy and not sure if I'd be tossing in drivel or dribble or diddle.
>Guess I should drink more

>> No.4829943

>>4829940
>should not

>> No.4829944

>>4829901
Nietzsche never said murder was wrong, so..

>> No.4829949

>>4829917
Um what? Pascal's wager was rhetorical and absurdism has nothing to do with ironic Christianity

>> No.4829950

>>4829899

stirner was the antichrist

>> No.4829957

>>4829922
You can't be terrified of contemplative consequences, you're only afraid of probable ones. Nice false analogy

>> No.4829958

>>4829922
>"I don't murder because social conditioning leaves me terrified of the consequences."
What's one less person on the face of the earth anyway? When war, started and controlled by supposedly sane men takes the lives of billions. Who is madder, the solitary individual who kills a dozen for is own subjective reasons, or the soldier, trained to kill thousands in the name of a cause he does not really understand?

>> No.4829961

>>4829950
God bless him.

>> No.4829963

>>4829957
They are talking about murdering people. The consequences are probable.

>> No.4829966

>>4829961

i hate stirner, but apparently god loves us all

>> No.4829969

>>4829961
Feminister, lets topple society and restore fascist male rule. This life is incredibly painful

>> No.4829971

>>4829949
Pascal's wager is about faith you fool. The absurdist doesn't have faith in God. He neither hopes for a God, neither despairs that there is no God.

The absurdist rebels against existence by being moral even though there is no reason to be moral.

>> No.4829976

>>4829963
Talking is contemplative. If you mean actually considering someone in a serious sense, yes, considering the consequences of that action is a factor of people's decision making. So is everything we do mostly. I don't get your point? There's only fear if the threat is REAL.

>> No.4829979

>>4829969
What's in it for me?

>> No.4829984

>>4829971
Pascal's wager is meant to show how weak-minded people who are only avoiding punishment are. It's not a literal strategy

>> No.4829988
File: 939 KB, 952x1024, 5003333213_21b5e3f396_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4829988

>>4829971

>> No.4829990

>>4829971
>The absurdist rebels against existence by being moral even though there is no reason to be moral
Did you read "The Guide to Absurdism" by The Dumbest Person Alive?

>> No.4829993

>>4829732
There is only one Christian and he die on the cross.

>> No.4830001

>>4829979
You get to have babies and grind up my food. I will rape you and maybe another man will kill me and rape you.

It will be awesome. You won't have to sit around creating a persona out of a slaves ideology anymore

>> No.4830013

>>4830001
No deal.

>> No.4830023

>>4829990
Are you calling Camus the Dumbest Person Alive?

>> No.4830024

>>4829901
I don't murder because I am not a murderer.

>> No.4830032

His coffin has a cross on it.

>> No.4830033

>>4830024
Murdering precedes being a murderer

>> No.4830040

>>4829732
Did he believe the Christian god existed? Yes. Did follow him. No.

>> No.4830042

>>4830013
Well too bad. I am working to make it happen. Women are really a drag when they go on and on about men. I mean really Feminister, you spend hours sitting on here talking about what men do. Which is really all feminism is, it's a huge complaint toward men. And this because women are weak. Women's only power is bitching until men do stuff.

And I mean, all most women really want is to feel superior to other women. They are disgusting. It would be better if women had their voice removed completely, and that will only happen if men oppress women. I think men should stop letting women have any power or sayso at all, but as Nietzsche understood, you don't really go from civil to uncivil without catastrophe. So I propose catastrophe and live in chaos. We burn the world and dance on the ashes, you and me, fucking in Dionysian ecstasy. This life is hell and we both know it needs to end.

>> No.4830045

>feminister cannot b definition be an ubermensch

>> No.4830050

>>4830023
Did you ever read the myth of Sisyphus? It's not about acting moral for whatever same, he says we act moral because its easier to be moral when you're attached. Literally, it means, the world is absurd, so go with be flow because it will ease your suffering

>> No.4830052

>>4829941
>an atheist with a borderline mystical perspective
You are gnotist. Still a theist, but not religious.

>> No.4830054

>>4830045
I think only a mother can be an Ubermensch if we are talking about woman.

>> No.4830056

>>4830045
Yup. Women can't be men. Fuck whatever happens in the brain, men have more muscles so we dominate. Women can't do shit about that. How can an overman be superior when he is strictly inferior?

>> No.4830057

>>4830050
The world wants you to suffer so do something to lesser suffering by being moral = rebellion

>> No.4830059

>>4830042
Well, yes, but the truth is that I would sooner kill you than sleep with you, because you irritate me.

>>4830045
>tfw

>> No.4830061

>>4830054
Mothers are nothing special. Billions of people have given birth. The obsession with honoring and glorifying femininity is disgusting.

>> No.4830064

>>4830057
The world doesn't "want" you to suffer because it does not act

>> No.4830067

>>4830059
Now you're trying to regain your manipulative control by shaming a man through his sexual prowess. Why don't you go suck another cock, slut!

Or are you too dense to realize that when people are heated, they speak to their true emotions? You dislike men, Feminister, because there is no man you respect. I want a man to truly oppress you so you learn what oppression truly means. I can fix you with a whip and a fist

>> No.4830071

>>4829887
Have you read Antichrist? It's pretty much obvious that he despised the manners of the contemporary Christian society, and wished that it hadn't degenerated so much.

>> No.4830073

>>4830061
Feminist please.

>> No.4830074

>>4830064
The world ipso facto causes suffering, even if it is not an explicit "want".

>> No.4830078

>>4830067
I'm not interested in manipulating or shaming you, those are pedestrian amusements.

When people are heated they speak their true emotions of when they are heated, that being heated.

Why should I respect anyone?

>> No.4830079

>>4830067
I think the irony is that just as a guy rates women "2/10 pointy elbows wouldn't bang", women do that too.

Fucking sluts want nothing less than 10/10 handsome 8 inch penis 300k starting salary, until they start to get old and worry and are forced to settle.

Until then they'll make up any excuse to ward you off if you aren't the above.

>> No.4830081

>>4830078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8

>> No.4830082

>>4830071
The only section of the bible he liked was the Old Testament where god commands the Jews to slaughter. Nietzsche would have loved the Nazi will to power and would have been disgusted by the Jews. The Nazis dominated with master morality, and the Jews refused to fight. He would maybe respect the Jews if they formed an army and fought to the slaughter. The Jews forgot how to die, because they became so enveloped in being oppressed that they forgot how to rule.

Nietzsche would probably like modern day Israel

As for the point at hand, Christianity has literally always been a slave religion, since conception, until Constantine made it into a master morality. Then you have a true master reign of Christianity, such like the golden age of Jewish power, until you get to where the church is weak again

>> No.4830086

>>4830078
You wouldn't have a choice if men acted on master morality.

>> No.4830091

>>4830082
Nietzsche respected the Jews in 19th century Germany, and at least considered them worthy adversaries. He also said that at any time they wanted to they could rule Europe, and was thankful they did not have the inclination.

>> No.4830100

>>4830082
You sound like you agree with him

>> No.4830101

>>4830086
It's a post industrial society, so I actually would because guns mean more than muscles.

Men do act on master morality--at least the ones scaring the others into not acting on it. It is not morality that stops men, but fear. The fear of god or an intermediary idea like morality only works because when someone tests it too strongly, they suffer action power from an actual force outside their head; if testing resulted in no repercussions but in immanence, the testing would grow more and more frequent and the gods would collapse. I do not owe my safety to morality, morality just saves those in power the trouble of having to kill and imprison a lot more people.

>> No.4830105

>>4830091
Certainly, there are aspects of Jewish history that command respect, but their mawkish surrender in WWII to starvation and hiding was pathetic.

I mean, you have to regard that literal historical events and religiously codified historical events are different. Like, the Jews weren't literally slaves in Egypt, but they created the idea that they had and based morality around this idea. Nietzsche often writes based on 19th century religious history so you have to view him in that light.

>> No.4830111

>>4830100
Of course I do. Any man who bends his will is despicable, and I include myself in that category. All men who contain themselves for moral reasons are self-loathing individuals. At least men who say "I do not murder because I will be caught" accept their own will and act reasonably despite it.

>> No.4830114

>>4830101
"Nice guys" don't act from fear, they act from a genuine attempt at moral conduct and they manage to be the most despicable of men.

>> No.4830117

>>4830101
Oh, and morality is worse for that reason. A life of servitude is worse than a life of glory and young death

>> No.4830123

>>4830114
"Nice guys" act from a quid pro quo standpoint

>>4830117
They are the same thing, except one is shorter.

>> No.4830124

>>4829943
why not?

>> No.4830125

>>4830105
>but their mawkish surrender in WWII to starvation and hiding was pathetic.
They did little differently to what they were doing in the 19th century that Nietzsche was writing about. On the whole they preferred integration to trouble making (and gaining power). Unfortunately by the time WW2 rolled around they had neither succeeded at integration (which meant they could be identified and separated from the rest of the population) nor had the power to stop Hitler.

>> No.4830131

>>4830123
Exactly my point. "Nice guys" contain their wants and are afflicted by conflicting emotion. What self-respecting young guy wants to take a girl to a fancy restaraunt and pay for her to have some glamour? None. Most men really want a rough fuck in the sack and then a beer. But they don't bid themselves this high. They were trained in contractual slave morality.

I propose all nice guys should be compelled to be abusive and rape. Do you have any idea how therapeutic it would be for men to truly express their inner desire?

Of course, women have no such honorable will to power. Women seek comfort, happiness, and protection from strong men

We need to topple society and stop breeding this weak, despicable men. Any system where women lead more than children is haywire

>> No.4830133

>>4830125

I must say i laughed at how you described the jewish people being powerless to stop hitler, as though he was a great cataclysmic force bent on their destruction through his very being.

Behold the Hitler, bringer of elimination and breaker of cultures.

>> No.4830134

>>4830125
Right, and Nietzsche would say this is the result of slave morality. Incapability of fighting.

>> No.4830135

>>4830124
Because it is no different from serving a god. And it is often sustained by the same argument for its necessity:

>> No.4830141

>>4830131
>all men want
>all women want

This magazine-tier postulating. Even worse than humanism.

>> No.4830151

>>4830111
You give too much weight to the concepts of "will" and "power". The ordinary person has no idea of what they really "will" or of how to achieve it. A little guided introspection will greatly change what a person actually wants and will also help them achieve it much more effectively. A lot of guided introspection and discussion will help a person realize that their wants are not always rational and what they really ought to want lines up well with the interests of others.

>> No.4830153

>>4830133
>I must say i laughed at how you described the jewish people being powerless to stop hitler

Well they were at that point. Had the Jews taken steps to power more seriously at an earlier time, Hitler couldn't have emerged.

>>4830134
They deliberately chose slave morality, though they also had the option of becoming masters. I find this most interesting. Perhaps a strict adherence to their own culture? After all, they did create slave morality themselves.

Post WW2, it seems they have finally been forced to embrace master morality.

>> No.4830154

>>4830141
Shrug. You know you would never sleep with a man you had no respect for, and you know what makes you respect a man.

>> No.4830161

>>4830151
You've got it backwards. Emotions should guide your will, rationality should only make it clear how that emotion should be expressed.

Only a very stupid person does not recognize the immutable strength of emotions.

>> No.4830164

>>4830153
Well yeah, and the latter is why Nietzsche thought antisemitism was stupid. I mean, categorizing people on race is always stupid, the point is that the Jewish people are a race and a culture, and Nietzsche despised the culture. It's not hard to work out what he meant.

>> No.4830165

>>4830154
That's not true, I haven't respected a single man that I've slept with. I wouldn't sleep with a man who annoys me, though.

>> No.4830166

>>4830135
I would say it is different. Both reasons are asserting the metaphysical existence of something, but that thing is very different.

To assert the existence of God (especially "Judeo-Christian God") is to make a very bold and specific metaphysical claim that is almost impossible to defend coherently.

To assert the existence of robust metaphysical moral facts is much less hard to defend. Sure it is hard to defend, but it is a much more coherent view, which is why it is still popular today.

>> No.4830168

>>4830164
It's a grand historical change as well.

During the Roman era the Jews used slave morality to drag the Romans down to their level.

During the European era, they continued to embrace slave morality with everybody else.

Now they have embraced master morality, and use their old weapon slave morality as a bludgeon to keep their opponents down.

The circle is finally complete.

>> No.4830169

>>4830166
There is no such thing as metaphysical fact. A fact is something that is *directly* observable.

>> No.4830171

>>4830165
Sex for pleasure or reproduction? Lets say you were to have a child. I mean, put that thought into your mind, you are to get pregnant and give birth. Does your attitude change?

Fucking for pleasure is different, you will naturally have a lower tolerance.

>> No.4830174

>>4830165
>implying you aren't a permavirgin like the rest of us

>> No.4830175

>>4830168
Which will likely end with nuclear war. Or hopefully, at least.

>> No.4830177

>>4830171
Not really. If I had a kid, I would not see the child as mine or his; at the most we are consensual custodians.

>> No.4830186

>>4830177
Yeah, I mean, let's wait and see what happens in retrospect. Speculating over someone's future is pointless. Assuming you (Feminister) understand your own emotions and desires is pointless. In any
case, I'm going to go read. I won't be replying to anything else you say.

>> No.4830196

>>4830161
You are stuck in the dead-end path Hume started. Sure it is compelling at first, but a little thinking makes it false.

I might be with my boss and have a strong desire to punch him in the face. What I want, however, is the security the job and my reputation as a stable individual brings me. A passing desire, however strong, should really not give me a good reason to act on it.

Acting on present emotions without forethought is generally not a good idea. It is more important to understand what I want on broader terms, and aim to fulfill these wants. Once I look at how my relationships to others makes me also care for their interests, I can see that acting on a passing desire in a way that would satisfy my present self but hurt both myself overall and those I care about, I see I have little reason to act on it.

Obviously this is all laid out crudely

>> No.4830200

>>4830186
You also shouldn't assume you understand her desires and emotions. You seem overly confident for someone with such an unsubstantiated and archaic view.

>> No.4830202

>>4830196
Wherein self destructive behavior is only so because of the police. Take away outside influence. Does it change?

>> No.4830209

>>4830200
I can't speak to the individual, only to the pattern. What is archaic in this discussion are views of egalitarianism.

>> No.4830211

>>4830169
Well obviously it is something that is a topic of debate, but to reduce moral realists to theologists is unfair.

Plus many realists would say that moral facts are directly observable, and can be observed when a murder or a rape is witnessed. It isn't completely incoherent and they have some good arguments, but I wouldn't be inclined to agree with them. Still, I at least owe it to them not to dismiss their viewpoint as crazy

>> No.4830214

>>4830177
I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you.

Biology is pretty powerful. Not to say you'll pull a 180 and become a doting mother of your precious lil' babe, but you'll get yanked a few degrees closer to a maternal view whether you like it or not.

I observe this, anecdotally of course because 4chan, from both knowing couples who have children and having a child myself. It's not as if anyone's personality changes outright, but anything they don't believe wholeheartedly falls to ruin as soon as their child is in question.

It's not for me to talk about the strength of your convictions, but having a child does cut the wheat from the chaff.

>> No.4830221

>>4830209
Well it really just comes down the conservative intuition that the differences are based in genetics and the leftist intuition that the differences are based in society.

>> No.4830233

>>4830202
No, it is so because we live in society with others. Say I don't care if the police arrest me, I care for other reasons. I care because I don't want to lose my job, because I don't want to be looked at as unstable by my peers, because I don't want to hurt those close to me, and I don't want to deal with the guilt of having hurt someone.

>> No.4830236

>>4830221
Of course, society is a product of biology so biologists are correct inherently. Which isn't to say sociology isn't worthwhile, it's to say that ideological ethics have worked their way into discourse.

>> No.4830240

>>4830211
Have your read Stirner?

A murder or a rape can be directly observed, but the wrong or right "essence" of it (for morality is simply a form of essentialism, regardless of whether it is action or result based), is not.

>> No.4830241

>>4830177
>I would not see the child as mine or his; at the most we are consensual custodians
Are you saying you'd have no moral requirement to take care of your own child?

>> No.4830245

>>4830241
No, I do not. I would take care of the child, or at least ensure someone did, because seeing the child suffering would displease me. I would not do this out of fealty to a metaphysical good.

>> No.4830246

>>4830233
You're missing the point. Without an external policing force, exactly what we have now wouldn't be possible. You would never be in a position where you would feel like punching your boss because society would work differently.

Would the cops hit you? Sure, they have the power, or at least the support of power. I'm not advocating you simply act on reckless impulse, I'm saying that denying your emotions and desires out of a commitment to a moral or ethical code is despicable. If you're angry at your boss, work to subvert him. Or quit. Or confront him. But biting the bullet and acting like you are not angry is nothing but contemptible.

>> No.4830254

>>4830240
The moral realist would argue that the essence of it is observed, and someone who misses it is simply missing it, missing something that is obviously there. This is really where my beef comes in against realism, because there gets to be a point where argument stops, and they seem to just demand. Christine Korsgaard has written a few things on this that have really driven me from realism.

I haven't read Stirner, but I am vaguely familiar with his views (much more in political thought than moral).

>> No.4830257

>>4830245
Just because it isn't a metaphysical moral requirement is it not still a moral requirement of some sort. It is possible to separate morality from broad metaphysics and still be responsive to some generalized form of conduct.

>> No.4830258

>>4830254
That's not realism. That's like saying there are ghosts and you can see them and if you don't you are simply missing it.

This is all his argument. The spook named "right" being no different than the spook named "God".

>> No.4830261

>>4830257
There is no requirement unless I suffer some external repercussion, in which case it is not a matter of morality but that of taboo or law.

>> No.4830263

>>4830245
You have no fucking clue what you would do.

Have you ever read Nietzsche? He despised your sort of mental exercise, I.e. I'm just going to think of a topic really hard and I will find out the truth.

There is no "truth" regarding what you will do. There is only strategy. Pretending you can abstractly understand yourself is what a moron does. So what does Nietzsche say? Write the book in blood. Have a child and then you can tell me what your are feeling, and what sort of man you ended up with. Until that happens, you are no better than any of the other idiotic philosophers that Nietzsche was bored about

>> No.4830265

>>4830261
What do you mean, external? Do you not accept that what you believe and think are controlled by your neurology? Assuming you're neurotypical, then you will think entirely differently after having a child

>> No.4830268

>>4830263
Truth in a honorific, as Rorty would say.

I didn't invent this scenario, someone else confronted me with it.

>>4830265
I mean a force outside my own head

>> No.4830270

You shall bear my child, Feminister. I have an IQ of 180. We shall create the most intelligent, but depressed philosopher the world has ever known.

He will go mad with an excess of sanity.

>> No.4830271

>>4830268
>is an

>> No.4830272

>>4830270
>I have an IQ of 180
You lyin' like Odysseus on meth

>> No.4830274

>>4830246
Ah, I see. I think you are giving the concept of a "moral code" too much weight. All it has to be is a standardized way of living in a society. We do and will always live in a society and be effected by it. Sure, I don't want to put myself in a situation where my emotions and desires are being disregarded in favor of someone else, but that isn't really what morality forces me into. Morality and social life can be remarkably compatible, especially if the society is set up in a way that fosters this. To try to limit social organization in favor of individual liberty is to misunderstand the problems, as we are still social creatures, but would then be living with more self-concerned morals, creating more conflict.

>> No.4830280

>>4830258
>That's like saying there are ghosts and you can see them and if you don't you are simply missing it.
This is pretty much the claim they are making in a caricatured way, actually.

God is still a much more specific and a completely different type of metaphysical entity.

>> No.4830283

>>4830270
You could just take any child and ensure he contracts syphilis.

Same result.

>> No.4830286

>>4830274
All morality is axiomatic and baseless, it is tempered by the senseless and manipulable sense of man, and all ethics encourage man to abandon intuition. In the end, we produce no happiness. It's a waste of time to moralize.

>> No.4830289

>>4830280
He needn't be.

>> No.4830290

>>4830261
law isn't a matter of morality (as you know)

taboo is limited to cultures, unlike morality

but morality can still exist and not be metaphysical. Morality is a useful human construct. It is a way of collectively organizing our interests and regulating our actions and it can be done well or poorly

>> No.4830294

>>4830286
Everything is baseless, all things axiomatic. May as well make a choice.

And yes, not making a choice is still a choice both being baseless and axiomatic like all other choices.

>> No.4830296

>>4830268
A force outside your head meaning what? This distinction is arbitrary, as the physical is a continuum, there is no clear point where the physical stops effecting your neurology in unnoticeable ways. For instance, your brain will respond to temperature changes that you aren't aware of. How can you be so foolish as to say what you would do in the hypothetical?

>> No.4830298

>>4830289
If God were morality then it wouldn't be God

>> No.4830299

>>4830290
In which case it cannot "restrain" you unless you personally pledge fealty to it.

>> No.4830308

>>4830296
Other people punishing me or stopping me.

>>4830298
Morality is generally action essence (sometimes object essence as well: cigarettes are "evil", this man is "good"); when you have God, an omniessence, morality is subsumed.

>> No.4830309

>>4830294
All understanding is axiomatic, but moral and ethical thought are ultimately fettered to epistemology in a one-way bondage. What is true effects our morals, our morals don't effect what is true. The only exception is a person who follows a strict pursuit of truth and disregards morals - of which, Nietzsche was one of the few to attempt - maybe Diogenes was similar. Remember, Socrates was in pursuit of virtue, an idea which overlies an ethical presumption: that virtue is to be desired.

What Nietzsche despised in ethics and morals wasn't necessarily that killing was good - it's that ethics are limits. Limits are bad. This isn't a case for destructive anarchy, it's for hyper humanism.

>> No.4830310

>>4830286
Intuitions are irrational, incoherent, and contradictory, but can be an acceptable way for the majority of people to carry on.

Morality isn't baseless and needn't apply in most of everyday life. Enough time spent with the subject will lead the wise person to live rather coherently and well.

>> No.4830313

>>4830299
>unless you personally pledge fealty to it
Which is rationally to do once you understand and accept it

>> No.4830314

>>4830308
Do you have no effect on the people around you?

Answer: you do. Implying that everyone but the feminist is acting on the world is a typical argument for hypo agency. Is feminism really just an inferiority complex?

>> No.4830320

>>4830310
Morality is an intuition. How can you even get close to an objective understanding of morality without arguing to the world of the observable? How does what we observe effect our moral intuition? We don't bridge the gap of is-ought.

All moral thought is quite baseless, such as "we should maximize human happiness". For now? If we were to make every person content, we could destroy the environment in a matter of decades. What happens to human happiness then?

Is antinatalism and the suffering it causes bad if it preserves the species?

>> No.4830321

>>4830308
an omnipotent, omniscient, conscious, omniessense.

Much bolder claim than an action essence (and I'm guess most contemporary realists would argue that object essence reduces to action essence)

>> No.4830324

>>4830309
>Limits are bad

This too, is an axiom. And as an axiom, baseless.

You want hyper humanism? How about the ability to limit? Why be limited to limitlessness? Why not create a boulder you cannot lift?

Anything is possible.

>> No.4830327

>>4830313
Like God

>>4830314
I didn't I had no agency; in fact I explicitly said I would ensure the child was cared for because seeing it suffer would displease me (or because raising it would please me); this is agency. When I ensure the child is cared for because it's "right", that is serving a spook. When I ensure the child is cared for to avoid social repercussions, that is fear.

>> No.4830331

>>4830321
In the sense that the anthropomorphized gods of paganism are a bolder claim than deism is.

>> No.4830340

>>4830324
Limits are bad is Nietzsches axiom, not mine. I am compelled against axioms, but I actively work to avoid ethics because there is no truth in them.

>> No.4830344

>>4830327
Yeah, you are stupid and don't comprehend your emotional fallibility.

>> No.4830349

>>4830320
>Morality is an intuition
To the intuitionist, yes, but the intuitionist is wrong.

>How can you even get close to an objective understanding of morality without arguing to the world of the observable?
The Christian would say through religion. I would say that we need to use our understanding of reality to guide our understanding of morality.

>How does what we observe effect our moral intuition?
Outright

>We don't bridge the gap of is-ought.
Only the robust realist deals with this issue. The constructivist can explain morality outside of this problem, as can the utilitarian.

>All moral thought is quite baseless, such as "we should maximize human happiness"
A pure consequentialist problem, no means touching all morality. But actually not really even a problem for the consequentialist

>For now? If we were to make every person content, we could destroy the environment in a matter of decades. What happens to human happiness then?
Any somewhat decent utilitarian theory takes future human happiness into account

>Is antinatalism and the suffering it causes bad if it preserves the species?
If we are going to assume a utilitarian position than yes it is bad, but not if it is the only way to preserve the species. It is a logistical issue, if it causes more harm than good, it is bad, if not it is goof.

>> No.4830353

>>4830349
>the intuitionist is wrong

Can you expand on this thought

>> No.4830355

>>4830327
>Like God
Yes, except it is much more reasonable to accept a form of morality than to accept God. Especially the much more naturalist constructivist picture of it.

>> No.4830357

>>4830344
I do comprehend it, I simply do not conflate muh feels with morality. To pretend that acting on feels is serving morality, is just a way of giving yourself a pat on that back because you're not comfortable doing something for yourself; you feel the need to think of yourself in a selfless term. If I have some sort of "biological reaction", then it is just that; it is not me rationally being oh so selfless and being compelled by an idea I'm in service to. One can conceive of feelings, but experiencing a feeling, and acting out of loyalty to a preconceived idea, are very different things.

>> No.4830358

>>4830331
Yes but even more so

>> No.4830362

>>4830355
Essentialism isn't reasonable. It is the same thing as believing there are spirits in things. It tries to justify itself with reason, but that's ultimately dishonest and pathetic.

>> No.4830366

>>4830358
Which is very little. Gods adapt, they're slippery little fuckers; when information is exposed that makes a form of gods impossible, these gods just change shape to still fit in some how. Morality is piety.

>> No.4830371
File: 22 KB, 319x500, Methods of Ethics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4830371

>>4830353
There is a wonderful demolition of intuitionism in this book that I would highly recommend (although he preserves that it is still useful)

Essentially our moral intuitions are arbitrary, often contradictory with each other, certainly contradictory across individuals, and not ultimately quite baseless.

>> No.4830372

>>4830340
Why are you accepting Nietzsche''s axiom? You say you are compelled against axioms yet here you are accepting an axiom. Ethics have no truth you say? Is this also an axiom?

Can't you create axioms for yourself? Why are you slave to axioms that are not your own?

>> No.4830375

>>4830357
If you understood your own fallibility, then you would at least say "I would probably", not "I would". I would probably act typical, you would probably act typical, simply by the reality of most people being typical to the average of humanity.

Why are you posting in a Nietzsche thread if you know nothing about his thought? He knew that most philosophers had already made up their mind and set out to prove themselves correct. He knew that the pursuit of truth wasn't real, because convictions of the sort of feminist morality and Christianity at convictions, which Nietzsche knew were more dangerous than bold faced lies. You operate on conviction, Feminister, which is why feminism is worse than classic sexism.

As far as your hypothetical child goes, I'll restate myself, go get pregnant an have a child. Your opinion on the matter is worthless until the event is witnessed

>> No.4830377

>>4830362
>Essentialism isn't reasonable
I wasn't arguing it was (although I'm not bold enough to claim it isn't). I'm not arguing for an essentialist view, I'm arguing for a constructivist view of morality.

>> No.4830378

>>4830371
Does this book posit a replacement for intuition? Some other guide? Or is it yet another fruitless book with no answers of its own?

>> No.4830380

>>4830371
Maybe I'm using intuition wrong because I don't disagree? When I say moral intuition, I mean the feeling that an action is "right" or "wrong" that was visceral, not one that was decided upon rationally.

>> No.4830381

>>4830375
>why are you posting in a Nietzsche thread if you don't thread Nietzsche like the Bible

>> No.4830384

>>4830377
Morality is essentialism, it's just of the most tenacious variety. If I say something is "wrong" then I am ascribing to it that essence; if I say the result is "wrong", the same applies.

>> No.4830385

>>4830372
I don't accept any axiom, I sped every day living in agony because I can't work out a starting point for how to think. Even tryin to figure out a starting point rests in the assumption that finding a starting point is a goal.

I quote and argue Nietzsches view because I have nothing better to argue for. Nietzsche was contradictory and emotional himself. He was just vastly smarter and more self aware than most philosophers

>> No.4830397
File: 7 KB, 165x250, Moral Realism A Defence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4830397

>>4830366
In general I'd agree with you that strong metaphysical positions are overly metaphysical, but I find it somewhat partisan to dismiss them as religious wankery.

This book helped me respect realist positions more, along with the vague idea that there is a best way to do things

>> No.4830399

>>4830385
I'd suggest reading some Lev Shestov then. He was an... interesting 19th century Russian literary critic and philosopher.

The decision to accept no axiom rests itself upon the axiom that you should not accept any axiom. All things are possible, you are free to choose your own path.

But choose you must, you are a part of this game whether you like it or not. Just as making no choice is in itself a choice, accepting no axioms implies an axiom of rejecting axioms. Rather than blindly rejecting all axioms, realize you are free to choose or create any axioms you like.

>> No.4830400

>>4830378
Haha no it does have answers, but they are rather stunning. It puts forward a version of utilitarianism but isn't able to refute egoism

>> No.4830407

>>4830399
It's a fucking paradox, brother. This is why being human is a shit. The best thing is not to be born, the second best is to die young. Now you know why all I desire anymore is hedonism: but hedonism is dead. I can't just go rape Feminister and kill other men. I want to, but there's steep consequences. My humanity is robbed and now I live my life as a helpless servant to the wealthy.

>> No.4830409

>>4830380
Ah so like a presciptivist/neo-Humean/non-cognivist?

Yeah that's a whole nother can of worms, but it seems to me that you are dismissing intuitionism and thinking you've dismissed all of morality.

Utilitarianism, Contructivism, and Kantian views all provide morality outside of intuitionism

>> No.4830412

>>4830400
So, it does not give any replacement for intuition... It just tears it down, and posits some form of utilitarianism that like all other forms of utilitarianism cannot give even a half-baked answer for what the ultimate happiness is or how to assess our actions in relation to ultimate happiness?

And then cannot refute why one should follow their own egoism or, might I say, intuition of things?

Sounds anemic.

>> No.4830413

>>4830384
No, just categorizing it, as when you call something triangular or blue. Or when you call a play-call "good" or "bad". Or when you call a flying insect a bee.

>> No.4830418

>>4830413
Any essentialist could and would use that in his defense.

>> No.4830427

>>4830412
>cannot give even a half-baked answer for what the ultimate happiness is
No, he gives a very clear definition of that. He advocated universal hedonism and equates happiness with calls for the maximization of pleasure, not happiness.

>how to assess our actions in relation to ultimate happiness
No, he advocates that the general population act according to their intuitions and that the wise student of morality act according to what will most increase overall pleasure. We assess past circumstances based on the degree of general pleasure. This is all more thoroughly laid out in the book.

>then cannot refute why one should follow their own egoism or, might I say, intuition of things
No, he already dismissed intuitionism by this point. Egoism is personal hedonism, the view that one should maximize their own general pleasure. He gives some good arguments for why a person shouldn't be an egoist, but cannot refute the position itself. It isn't "they're own egoism", egoism is an objective position

>Sounds anemic.
You assume a lot about it for not having read it

>> No.4830428

>>4830407
Dude, the title of one of Shestov's books is literally "All Things are Possible". That's why I'm throwing him at you.

Besides, if you believed that shit about "the best thing is not to be born, the second best is to die young" then you'd have killed yourself by now. Because that in itself is an axiom, and if you believed it you'd follow it.

You're alive, you're here. You can create your own axioms. It's possible, all things are possible. You complain about steep consequences, but you also claim that life is a curse. Why do you then worry about consequence, or call life a curse?

In military terms, you need to un-fuck yourself. You are free to create your own axioms for belief, yet you cling to others and complain of it. Stop that, right now you're part of this game of life whether you like it or not; so either quit or play ball.

Or I guess you can just shuffle through life like Camus' Stranger. But that's pretty shitty, if you ask me.

>> No.4830433

>>4830418
You say essentialism asserts that things have a spirit, this very obscure metaphysical property.

You can't say that view that doesn't advocate anything of the sort is also essentialist, it's a completely different view.

>> No.4830443
File: 241 KB, 1104x1072, 1398669553590.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4830443

>>4830407
Not raping me does not per se make you a servant, and you seem to be completely ignoring the powerful possibility that the attempt would cost you your life.

>> No.4830447

>>4830433
What is "right" made out of it? what are its mechanics?

>> No.4830451

>>4830443
>the powerful possibility that the attempt would cost you your life.

>being this sassy

>> No.4830455

>>4830407
Overly Hobbsian conception of man. You don't want to rape and kill, you just think that the fact you can't sucks. You value the concept of liberty too much and have given it too much importance. But go on thinking that life sucks because you can't get everything you want or might want.

>> No.4830456

>>4830451

reow

>> No.4830459

>>4830427
I'm trying to set you up for a home run.

I've got a big book list, the top of which is working through Kant's Critiques front to back. I already don't want to read your book right now, because I've got other books to read. Why should I read it?

You say he's got a very clear definition of happiness, what exactly is it? Universal hedonism sounds very empty, as does pleasure. How should we all be thus pleased, and why shouldn't any one want a bit of pain?

You say he advocates the general population acts according to their intuitions, yet you posited this book as a demolition of intuition. This seems contradictory, does it not?

Also you say we assess past circumstances based on the degree of general pleasure, how is this reliable?

I'll give you the egoism thing though, I feel like I'm busting your balls enough as it is. So egoism is irrefutable, but there are good arguments against it? What's an example argument?

>> No.4830470

>>4830447
"right" is a word we use to classify a certain concept. It is generally understood as "the way a thing is or should be". Like "2 + 3 = 5 is right". In the moral sense of the word, it is to assert that it is something that ought to be done. We are much better off speaking in terms of wrong, or what ought not be done. The reason certain things are wrong are part in terms of their consequences, and part in terms of whether or not they would lead to a sustainable lifestyle.

>> No.4830471

>>4830451
>Implying it wouldn't cost him his life

Reminds me of the scene from Shawshank Redemption where the prisoners try to rape Andy. That scene always threw me off, I still cannot imagine why anyone would try to coerce a blowjob through violence. I mean, if you're threatening violence then I have no security against your actions even after the deed, so why wouldn't I just bite your dick off?

Also kinda like a quote from Bruce Lee, I forget exactly how it goes but it's something to the effect of:
>It doesn't matter if you will maim or kill me; if I want to break your leg, I will.

>> No.4830493

>>4830451
If you consider a penknife in your scrotum to be sassy.

>>4830470
2 + 3 = 5 simply is. If I harm you and that is "wrong", it still *is* just as much as 2 + 3 = 5. It's more like saying, "2 + 3 should be ten, it is "wrong" that it is five."

>> No.4830501

>>4830459
>I've got a big book list, the top of which is working through Kant's Critiques front to back. I already don't want to read your book right now, because I've got other books to read. Why should I read it?
I'll start off by saying it isn't a viable position imo, and it has problems, but that it is an interesting a influential position, and every position has problems. Also that I've learned a lot from it and I appreciate how clear of a writer he is (unlike Kant)

>You say he's got a very clear definition of happiness, what exactly is it? Universal hedonism sounds very empty, as does pleasure. How should we all be thus pleased, and why shouldn't any one want a bit of pain?
The crux of his argument for hedonism is the power of pleasure. If every being felt only pleasure and no pain, the world would be perfect. Pursuing pleasure in the cyrenaic sense is not what he is after. It is an average of the pleasure one experiences in life. We are pleased by living sustainable lives that allow us (and everyone else) many opportunities to feel pleasure. Pain as pleasure is obviously a strange cases, but it would probably be a calculation of the overall pain of the experience versus the pleasure gained from it.

>You say he advocates the general population acts according to their intuitions, yet you posited this book as a demolition of intuition. This seems contradictory, does it not?
Although their intuitions aren't necessarily rational, they are the best way to produce general pleasure. If people didn't act according to their moral intuitions, this would many times lead to more pain than pleasure. Since not everyone has the time to study utilitarianism and morality in depth, it wouldn't be plausible to ask people to abide by it's rules. It is useful only for leaders and moralists.

>Also you say we assess past circumstances based on the degree of general pleasure, how is this reliable?
It is obviously a somewhat inexact science, but it is generally easy to do. The holocaust resulted in more pain than pleasure. Increases in technology have helped produce more pleasure than pain globally, ect.

>I'll give you the egoism thing though, I feel like I'm busting your balls enough as it is. So egoism is irrefutable, but there are good arguments against it? What's an example argument?
Basically he says we can look at things "from the point of view of the universe" or "from the point of view of the self". If you do the latter, there isn't much argument can do to touch you (according to Sidgwick). But there is the paradox of hedonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_paradox_of_hedonism)), the general effects on the psyche, and arguments from rationality (although he concludes these don't really speak to a certain form of egoists)

>> No.4830508

>>4830493
>If you consider a penknife in your scrotum to be sassy.
If I burst through your window right now, do you have a penknife right now within your reach?

Bearing in mind I'm 7 foot tall and built like young Schwarzenegger and can rape you from a foot away.

there are actually people writing fanfiction about these sorts of thing

>> No.4830518

>>4830493
Math was a bad example, since morality is a human construct and math isn't. But say sports. It is wrong that football is played with a basketball. If you play football with a basketball you aren't playing football, but rather something else. It is wrong to rape an innocent girl. If you rape her you've done something that is counter to morality (whether is be based on what is sustainable, what maximizes happiness, what is justifiable to others, what is virtuous, what could be willed to be a universal law, what an ideal agent would do, or what is human) and you are not doing what you should be (based on whichever of the above portrayals of non-realist morality you choose).

>> No.4830519

>>4830508
Yes, it's on the nightstand right next to my bed.

>> No.4830522

>>4830508
>can rape you from a foot away
You probably have 2 inches on you internet guy

Besides, we got guns now homie

>> No.4830525

>>4830522
>Besides, we got guns now homie
Not if this is Conan.

>> No.4830529

>>4830518
> If you play football with a basketball you aren't playing football, but rather something else.
That's nothing deeper than terms. Soccer, for instance, is called football in most countries, but in the U.S. it ceases to be football and becomes soccer. That is not a matter of reality but the nature of terms for rules.

>If you rape her you've done something that is counter to morality
Which doesn't exist except insofar as it is conceived of.

>> No.4830537

>>4830518
>math isn't a human construct
bahahaha all the way to insanity and back.

>> No.4830541

>>4830529
>except insofar as it is conceived of.
Exactly, but it is conceived of.

>That's nothing deeper than terms
No no no no no. It isn't the terms that matter it's the concepts they refer to. Whether or not you call it football or soccer, it refers to a certain game played with a round ball and net and a certain set of rules. Morality also entails a certain set of rules, but they are guided by human rationality and we are inclined to follow them (if they are presented correctly)

>> No.4830545

>>4830537
Math exists outside of human existence. I can't believe people are so dumb on here sometimes.

>> No.4830554

>>4830525
Why would you wish for that world

>> No.4830556

>>4830541
>Exactly, but it is conceived of.
And that is it. You can either show fealty to it, like a god which is conceived of, or not, but beyond that it is impotent.

>>4830545
Do you think the square root of negative one exists outside of human existence?

>> No.4830560

>>4830518
>Math was a bad example, since morality is a human construct and math isn't.
Forget 'human'. Morality and mathematics are semantic constructs invented by humans to describe and play with reality.
>But say sports.
Another semantic construct.
>It is wrong that football is played with a basketball.
Football, basketball and wrong are all semantic constructs.
>If you play football with a basketball you aren't playing football, but rather something else.
you are taking the construct 'football' and refusing to overlay it over certain empirical actions; much like a British person refusing to label the version of rugby that Americans play with 'football'. If you want to cal it football, you can, though it makes it difficult to communicate aspects of reality with others
>It is wrong to rape an innocent girl.
If you can follow the pattern here, you should see that you are choosing to label certain things as 'wrong'.
>If you rape her you've done something that is counter to morality
Even in a society that holds rape as virtuous?
>Morality: (whether is be based on what is sustainable, what maximizes happiness, what is justifiable to others, what is virtuous, what could be willed to be a universal law, what an ideal agent would do, or what is human)
These are the semantic constructs you have chosen to tag the construct 'morality' with. To you, abiding by them makes one moral within that particular framework.
>and you are not doing what you should be (based on whichever of the above portrayals of non-realist morality you choose).
Now your version of morality has become prescriptivist.

>> No.4830566

>>4830545
>Math exists outside of human existence.
Do you mean trees and cows do differential calculus? Humans use mathematics to DESCRIBE reality. Reality doesn't run on laws of physics, or abide by the frameworks we create. Our frameworks attempt a description of reality.

>> No.4830567

>>4830556
Yes. Just because a person hasn't drawn the symbols or given words to mathematical concepts doesn't mean that they do not rule our universe.

>>4830556
Well duh, it is just much more rational to accept than the existence of God

>> No.4830569

>>4830545

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

It's not as simple as you think it is.

>> No.4830582

>>4830567
>Well duh, it is just much more rational to accept than the existence of God
That's funny, seeing as how it is both irrational and purely imaginary.

>> No.4830584

>>4830545
Sir we'll just have to disagree who's dumb and who is not

Ps. It's you. You're the dummy

>> No.4830590

>>4830560
It isn't an arbitrary tag, rather it is based off a certain positive argument that should incline one to accept it's truth (vague examples in the parenthetical). Dismissing these arguments might pave the way for prescriptivism, however. I never really gave a positive argument, I was simply asserting that it isn't a choice between either non-cognitivism or superdupermetaphysical realism.

I gotta go to sleep now, night everyone

>> No.4830592

>>4830584
;)

>> No.4830596

>>4830567
>more rational to accept than the existence of God
That explains it
Talking to one of these retards again

What concept of God are you talking about you uneducated, hive mind, egotistical, internet know it all, piece of shit?

>> No.4830652
File: 296 KB, 615x459, ito-dreamer2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4830652

>>4830596

FURY

>> No.4830730

>>4829732
Christianity has enough faggots who believe in it without adding edgy Freddy.

>> No.4830740

Nietzsche was just another jewish sympathiser, who became lost in his own pretensions.

He's an irrelevant dickwad.

>> No.4830756

>>4830740
You on the other hand are heaps relevant m8

>> No.4830766

>>4830756
Relevant enough to get a response out of you, yes.

>> No.4830786

>>4829816
>His entire work is not that God doesn't exist, but it DOESN'T MATTER.
While you're right, he was a strong atheist. He was so much an atheist that the conception of the church's God never took hold of his consciousness. He walked right over the silly idea; to him it was a trivial matter. THAT is why his entire work had nothing to do with explaining why the church's God didn't exist.

>Nietzsche realized he was Christ reborn when he went insane
Antichrist you mean. He was the polar opposite of Christ in essence.

>> No.4830800

>>4830786
There's a difference between God and religion. Nietzsche doesn't concern himself at all with God's actual existence and never did. His criticisms of religion however are most poignant.

>> No.4830801

>>4830786
meant to quote >>4829851 for the second line.

>> No.4830809

wait so is thus spoke zarathustra the third book in the bible which discounts the slave morality of the beatitudes kinda like the new testament got rid of all the yucky stuff from leviticus, et al?

>> No.4830811

>>4830800
>Nietzsche doesn't concern himself at all with God's actual existence and never did.
Do you forget the whole "God is dead" part? Or here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

Parts 48 and 49, where he brings up what he meant by the whole "God is dead" thing once again.

>> No.4830821

>>4830811
That link isn't working for me but anyway...

God Is Dead is a very much misunderstood term. It's not talking about God's actual existence, but rather that the values (e.g. morality) that humanity has received from religion are dead because science had made a literal interpretation of religious values impossible. It's a strictly anti-religious term.

>> No.4830836

>>4830519
Thanks for giving me my rape weapon ;)

>> No.4830839

>>4830821
It's talking about both. Here's the pastebin of that link:

http://pastebin.com/BfwAgr4J

You should read Nietzsche more, specifically his Antichrist book, but anything from Zarathustra on. Nietzsche understood the church's God to be the psychological outgrowth of fear and pity. Psychological. God is a mere symbol to him. To him, God was a symbol to Jesus too. Jesus wasn't even talking about what the church was talking about.

>> No.4830857

>>4830839
Thanks for the link, I haven't comprehensively read the Antichrist, only excepts because I've found it hard to source the book.

In that link it still seems in line with his criticism of religion which uses the concept of God to assert control over mankind (and to prevent people from asserting control over themselves).

I remember reading that Nietzsche's famous English translator Kaufman said he was very much uncertain about Nietzsche's beliefs in God, other than that he did not think any religions were correct.

>> No.4830960

Feminister is such a badass

>> No.4830975

>>4830857
Kaufman was just a translator and scholar, not a genuine philosopher like Nietzsche. So it's no surprise he didn't fully understand Nietzsche. If you read Nietzsche more you'll come to realize there is absolutely no way he considered God anything other than a poetic symbol erected by the psychology of desperation, especially when he understood all truth to be physiological; "we have no organ at all for knowledge, for 'truth'."

>> No.4831053

>>4830975
You've got to be kidding. Kaufmann is a philosopher and wrote several books about philosophy. He's famous because he understood Nietzsche's material very well. How the fuck can you translate something as complicated as Nietzche's writing without understanding it?

>> No.4831067

>>4831053
>He's famous because he understood Nietzsche's material very well.
Apparently not. I've read some of his forewords to Nietzsche's books, they were nothing special. He had a limited understanding.

>> No.4831089

>>4831067
Most of your own understanding of Nietzche's works will have likely been filtered through his own understanding since he wrong the English text.

You should also note that Kaufmann is one of the only reasons Nietzsche isn't regarded as a load of Nazi shit. He recognized that his work was actually really good and sought to revive interest in it.

>> No.4831096

>>4831089
*wrote

>> No.4831118

>>4831089
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to disrespect the guy. He had a much better understanding of Nietzsche than most can claim to. But going by what I have read by him and believing what was said before about him not being sure about Nietzsche's stance on God, I still say that there was only so much he must have been able to grasp.

>> No.4831155

>>4829816

Read it again, but first read all those shit comics that you disdain about superman and then a heavy dose of christian allegory.

You don't write 4 or 5 books on the subject because god and Christianity doesn't matter.

Consider it more of a attempt to salvage what hasn't been ruined by hypocrisy out of the whole deal.

>>inb4 the shortest and most accurate responce to all things Nietzsche is 'your wrong'

>> No.4831215

>>4831118
He just didn't know if Nietzsche was an atheist or agnostic.

>> No.4831243

>>4831215
Which is a major thing to not know when the evidence is all over the place in his writing.

>> No.4831249

>>4831243
Maybe you're the one that needs to look more closely. Kaufmann noted that Nietzsche would occasionally lapse back into his Lutheran way of thinking which would muddy the waters. That and Nietzsche never actually states there isn't or isn't likely to be A god out there somewhere.

>> No.4831255

>>4831249
Nietzsche never explicitly stated anything which is why there's so much controversy over his works. But for those of us that can read what was implicitly stated, it's clear as day what his stance on the matter is.

>> No.4831272

>>4831255
My interpretation of Nietzsche is indifference (which is in line with agnosticism rather than atheism) and anti-religion.

>> No.4831804

>>4830809
Somewhat, I'd say the Qur'an is actually the true successor, though it's still slave shit

>> No.4832600

I never understood why Jews like Kaufman and Harold Bloom worship Nietzsche so much.

He was a Muslim (Shi'a).

>> No.4832608

>>4831272
You know indifference = apatheism; not knowing = agnosticism

>> No.4833919

>>4830501
Thanks for the solid response.

Seems like a decent book to read, I doubt I'll be convinced but I think I'll learn from it.

And I hear you on Kant and clear writing, that's why I've put off reading his Critiques for so long.