/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11855591]

>Nietzsche vehemently opposed traditional Christian values, metaphysics and intrinsic morality
>he preached the Overman instead
>models for his Overman included: Socrates, Jesus, Shakespeare, Michaelangelo
>Jesus
What the fuck was he on about? Jesus was the embodiment of Christian values. Socrates loved metaphysics and intrinsic morality. Michaelangelo was deeply religious, Shakespeare was most likely Christian, protestant, etc...

Was Neetshit just a crypto-christian in denial?

[Anonymous No.11855640]

>>11855591
He was actually a proto-Muslim, Islam was much more in line with his values.

[Anonymous No.11855641]

Jesus is literally just Socrates-lite though. With some bullshit magical powers.

[Anonymous No.11855676]

Nietzsche admired Jesus as a leader, but hated people who would be foolish enough to follow him.

[Anonymous No.11855694]

>>11855676
a leader is a leader insofar as he leads people, without disciples or soldiers a leader isn't leading anything.

can't be a father without children.

[Anonymous No.11855701]

>>11855591
he argues for the intrinsic morality of early christians and argues against the external morality of the later christians.

[Anonymous No.11855718]

>>11855701
so he's interest in authentic virtue minus resentment, rather than moralists + resentment?

[Anonymous No.11855738]

>>11855676
This. Nietzsche would laud the courage and conviction of Jesus as a man to have influenced the multitudes of people but would slap him on the face with his dick for preaching self-loathing and denial of pleasure to people. It's the same with Plato. Nietzsche loved Plato for his intellect but despised him for what he ended up doing to the Western intellect. In one of his work, he calls for the 'Plato of the Dionysean'. My reading is that he was calling himself that.

>>11855694
Wow. You haven't read Nietzsche at all, have you?

[Anonymous No.11855741]

>>11855718
you got it on the point, that's where his interest in heraclitus comes from, but as a reminder his interest in resentment is actually conditional and quite complicated. If he is a slave it is his duty to resent if he is the master he should not resent. These dynamics have been switched is what Nietzsche argues and that's why his ideas on such are so meaningful.

[Anonymous No.11855954]

>>11855591
Read The Antichrist. He explains how St. Paul fucked with Jesus's teachings by psychoanalyzing the Bible and coming to the conclusion that it is full of tonal inconsistencies. tl;dr is: Christianity is essentially a Judeo-Pagan cult, Greek law and philosophy mixed with Jewish bullshit, and spread around by 1st century Jews so they could monetize Jesus's practice. Jesus, meanwhile, was really trying to serve the Jews a Buddhistic philosophy, which Nietzsche claims is "a hundred times" more hygienic and pure than Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11855961]

>>11855591
No, you should read his works first faggot.
>>11855640
No
>>11855954
kill yourself you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11855969]

>Jesus was the embodiment of Christian value
Jesus was the embodiment of mystic Judean radicalism, "Christian values" came later and were an invention of later "theologians"

[Anonymous No.11855975]

>>11855961
I bet u read deleuze and foucault and think nietzsche is a leftist lol loser

[Anonymous No.11855992]

You know when you see all the American liberals with hammer and sickle flags taking a break at the closest Starbucks after supporting some bourgeoisie thing? Imagine what Marx would feel like seeing that. Now replace the protesters with post-Paul christians. Nietzsche essentially thought Jesus would feel the same.

[Anonymous No.11855996]

Because nettche constantly contradicts himself and is a giant hack.

[Anonymous No.11856017]

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52914/52914-0.txt

167:

>Christianity is an ingenuous attempt at bringing about a _Buddhistic movement in favour of peace,_ sprung from the very heart of the resenting masses ... but transformed by _Paul_ into a mysterious pagan cult, which was ultimately able to accord with the whole of _State organisation_ ... and which carries on war, condemns, tortures, conjures, and hates. Paul bases his teaching upon the need of mystery felt by the great masses capable of religious emotions: he seeks a _victim,_ a bloody phantasmagoria, which may be equal to a contest with the images of a secret cult: God on the cross, the drinking of blood, the _unio mystica_ with the "victim." He seeks the prolongation of life after death (the blessed and atoned after-life of the individual soul) which he puts in causal relation with the _victim_ already referred to (according to the type of Dionysos, Mithras, Osiris). He feels the necessity of bringing notions of _guilt_ and _sin_ into the foreground, _not_ a new practice of life (as Jesus Himself demonstrated and taught), but a new cult, a new belief, a belief in a miraculous metamorphosis ("Salvation" through belief). [...] This is the humorous side of the question--tragic humour: Paul again set up on a large scale precisely what Jesus had overthrown by His life. At last, when the Church edifice was complete, it even sanctioned the _existence_ of the _State._

There is way more on this in Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, and Will to Power. He challenges Paul and the validity of the Bible RELENTLESSLY throughout these works. So gtfo.

[Anonymous No.11856019]

>>11855591
Yes.

NietzscheCuckedEternally.jpg
>resented Socrates so much that he turned him into the Third-Man argument against Ree
>resented greece so much that he turned it into the Antaeus of its own degrecoisation
>resented dionysus so much that he turned him into a maenad recovering addict of his own eternal cuckoldry
>resented christianity so much that he crucified himself as the last man incapable of being born again
>resented the flogged horse so much that he disgorged himself into the carcass of Salome
>and in the end resented himself so much that he became the slave morality of his own hubris

Now let us never speak of this dirty business again.

[Anonymous No.11856022]

>>11856017
for >>11855961

>>11855996
There's no contradictions in his work. You either have poor eyesight or you're spreading a meme.

[Anonymous No.11856024]

>>11855676
Uh, how could he be a good leader if he wasn't worthy of people following him?
Is there a quote for this?

[Anonymous No.11856029]

>>11856022
His entire work is a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.11856034]

>>11855591

You're utterly retarded. Don't ever post again

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11856035]

NIETZSCHE'S ESOTERIC doctrines are CHristic

[Anonymous No.11856036]

>>11856029
You haven't read anything besides Wikipedia and Goodreads so who the fuck are you to say?

[Anonymous No.11856038]

>>11856022
>There's no contradictions in his work
lol neetchfags

[Anonymous No.11856046]

>>11856022
the content of the post i replied to and N’s words aren’t the same, try again brainlet

[Anonymous No.11856047]

>>11856038
>the greatest mind of the 19th century and one of the greatest philosophers to ever live
>lol he's full of contradictions meng
You're a tool.

[Anonymous No.11856051]

>>11856046
You're an imbecile who has barely read Nietzsche, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11856069]

>>11856051
ive read every single one of Nietzsche’s books and think about what he has tried to convey frequently. The post i replied to said “pagan belief and jewish bullshit” except N does not characterize the true christianity like that at all, and this is the first thing stated in the post, its not clear whether the poster thinks Christ’s teachings are pagan, they aren’t at all, or if they’re Jewish (they are, N calls them the great chandala revolt and says Paul doubles down on this and negates it by reestablishing priestarchy) or if he thinks just the Church is Jewish bullshit. N repeatedly lauds Christ for his submission to fate and backhandedly complimets him for rejecting the pharisees while also praising the Jewish priests as the last vestiges of the old Israelite nobility. You either are not being cautious in your reading of the thread or are projecting onto me. either way you’re a faggot and N was not making an anti-semitic statement or renouncing the Jewishness of Christ’s behavior. If anything its the pinnacle of Judaic behavior to revolt against one’s own hierarchy and in both The Anti-Christ and Twilight he points out over and over the Jews were far more noble in the OT and during the Temple period and it was the last death blow against this aristocratic nature from Christ’s followers that smited them. Calling something buddhistic is a compliment from N in the most provisional sense, he chastized buddhism repeatedly and saw it as useful and preferable to christianity, not in itself higher than the old faith in one’s blood and right to rule.
>monetized Christ’s teachings
surely this isn’t as bald faced of a lying sneering rat faced anti-semitic canard as i think it is? or is it?

[Anonymous No.11856083]

>>11856036
Wait? I thought God was dead...
>>11856019

[Anonymous No.11856094]

>>11856047
>greatest mind of the 19th century
Easy there, bucko. Let's not turn the NPCs into statistics.

[Anonymous No.11856110]

>>11855591
Jesus created his own set of values. Then sheep followed him. That's why Neech likes him but not his followers.

[Anonymous No.11856112]

>>11856069
>The post i replied to said “pagan belief and jewish bullshit” except N does not characterize the true christianity like that at all
I wasn't referring to true Christianity i.e. Jesus's original teachings, I was referring to the Christianity we have today, i.e. its institutional form. Nietzsche DOES characterize it like that:

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/WILL_TO_POWER_.aspx?s=25

>Jesus goes straight to the point, the “Kingdom of Heaven” in the heart and He does not find the means in duty to the Jewish Church; He even regards the reality of Judaism (its need to maintain itself) as nothing; He is concerned purely with the inner man. Neither does He make anything of all the coarse forms relating to man’s intercourse with God: He is opposed to the whole of the teaching of repentance and atonement; lie points out how man ought to live in order to feel himself “deified”, and how futile it is on his part to hope to live properly by showing repentance and contrition for his sins. “Sin is of no account “is practically his chief standpoint. Sin, repentance, forgiveness, all this does not belong to Christianity — it is Judaism or Paganism which has become mixed up with Christ’s teaching.

>The concept "sin," "forgiveness," "reward"— all quite unimportant and virtually excluded from primitive Christianity— now comes into the foreground. An appalling mishmash of Greek philosophy and Judaism; asceticism; continual judging and condemning; order of rank, etc.

>At bottom, the problem was once again, how to make a certain kind of soul prevail: it was also a popular insurrection in the midst of a priestly people a pietistic movement coming from below (sinners, publicans, women and children). Jesus of Nazareth was the symbol of their sect. And again, in order to believe in themselves, they were in need of a theological transfiguration— they require nothing less than “the Son of God” in order to create a belief for themselves. And just as the priesthood had falsified the whole history of Israel, another attempt was made, here, to alter and falsify the whole history of mankind in such a way as to make Christianity seem like the most important event it contained. This movement could have originated only upon the soil of Judaism, the main feature of which was the confounding of guilt with sorrow and the reduction of all sin to sin against God. Of all this, Christianity is the second degree of power.

Throughout those books, Nietzsche makes these distinctions. He is very adamant in separating Jesus from Paul, and in asserting the idea that the form of Christianity known today is a tainted mixture of philosophies. There's nothing inherently anti-Semitic about this, yet Nietzsche is more philosophically anti-Semitic than any other philosopher for sure.

[Anonymous No.11856120]

>>11856069
>>11856112
Also:

http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/WILL_TO_POWER_.aspx?s=25

>The symbolism of Christianity is based upon that of Judaism, which had already transfigured all reality (history, Nature) into a holy and artificial unreality which refused to recognise real history and which showed no more interest in a natural course of things.

>Among the powers that have mastered Christianity are: Judaism (Paul); Platonism (Augustine); The cult of mystery (the teaching of salvation, the emblem of the “cross”); Asceticism (hostility towards “Nature”, “Reason”, the “Senses”, the Orient—).

>“Christianity” has become something fundamentally different from what its Founder wished it to be. It is the great anti-pagan movement of antiquity, formulated with the use of the life, teaching and “words” of the Founder of Christianity, but interpreted quite arbitrarily, according to a scheme embodying profoundly different needs: translated into the language of all the subterranean religions then existing. It is the rise of Pessimism (—whereas Jesus wished to bring the peace and the happiness of the lambs): and moreover the Pessimism of the weak, of the inferior, of the suffering and of the oppressed. Its mortal enemies are (1) Power, whether in the form of character, intellect, or taste and “worldliness”; (2) the “good cheer” of classical times, the noble levity and scepticism, hard pride, eccentric dissipation and cold frugality of the sage, Greek refinement in manners, words and form. Its mortal enemy is as much the Roman as the Greek. The attempt on the part of anti-paganism to establish itself on a philosophical basis and to make its tenets possible: it shows a taste for the ambiguous figures of antique culture and above all for Plato, who was, more than any other, an anti-Hellene and Semite in instinct— It also shows a taste for Stoicism, which is essentially the work of Semites (“dignity” is regarded as severity, law; virtue is held to be greatness, self-responsibility, authority, greatest sovereignty over oneself this is Semitic. The Stoic is an Arabian sheik wrapped in Greek togas and notions).

And by "Nietzsche is more philosophically anti-Semitic than any other philosopher" I mean non-Semitic / antithetical to Semitic philosophy, and not that it is focused specifically on the elimination of the Semitic.

[Anonymous No.11856166]

>>11856112
that wasn’t clear at all in what you said, it came off as if you were saying that Christ’s teachings are pagan, which they aren’t and that the Jewish additives are bullshit, which makes no sense to me since Buddhism and Greek orphism are also bullshit. I’ve read all of the passages you’re citing and in my previous post admitted, and never protested, that Paul and Christ are distinguished by N.

Again, N compliments the old Israelite kingdom and also the Jewish priesthood and is speaking with a forked tongue in every passage. He calls the “Jewish Church” a will to power while condemning it for corrupting Christ’s will to power which was a rejection, a chandala rejection, of the Jewish priestarchy. Its not clear at all whether he actually admires Christ beyond his being an overwhelming instance of nobility in the face of an ignoble and dying social institute and his embrace of fatalism.

If you wrote the reply i was talking about then its unclear how Pagan values+Jewish bullshit squares with N’s disdain for Platonism which most of Twilight and huge sections of his notes in WTP are dedicated to, or the passage cited in your follow up reply below. What it seems like is N is making a rather specious, and as a strong admirer of his i say this reluctantly, ahistorical and esoteric distinction between Christ the Chandala aristocrat and Christ’s followers the slavish souled would-be hierarchy of the New Faith of Christ the mutilated lamb. I don’t know that this is really what you meant when you said Jewish bullshit+paganism, since he characterizes Plato as anti-pagan, which he demonstrably was considering Socrates’ God was Apollo, the absolute Unity, which N abhorred as the root of psychotic metaphysics ranging from rationalist sperging to theism and humanism. There are no aspects of the Christian faith which resemble the old Greek religion, but they are close in kind to the Platonists and Hermeticists which are ofc slave cults for and by priests of the soul.

I think you chose insidious words which you should have thought carefully about and are backtracking now because you did not mean what you thought you did or didn’t faithfully imply what you meant. I agree wholly that christianity is flavored Semitic and that Platonism and Stoicism are as well, idk how you can really call christ some WTP revolt since he sort of gives ambiguous instructions for the formation of a church/cult, it seems like useful romanticism to prove a point and fuel N’s habit of associating himself with great figures which he does with Socrates who he both condemns, and likens himself to subtley (both sardonically and affectionately). I guess i agree that christ embarrasses his followers endlessly but ultimately can’t really admit the whole of N’s analysis as being consistent or convincing.

You should try to hear out the critique before you accuse another of not knowing the work. I told you to an hero because anti-semitism is gay

[Anonymous No.11856236]

>>11856166
>that wasn’t clear at all in what you said
You misread me then. The passages I copypasted here from Nietzsche make what I said clear as day, and don't require that I rephrase myself at all. Christianity is, I repeat from my original post, the byproduct of St. Paul fucking with Jesus's teachings, and a Judeo-Pagan cult that mixes Greek law and philosophy with Jewish (i.e. Paul's) bullshit, spread around by 1st century Jews so they could monetize it (i.e. turn it back into its seedy institutional form which Jesus had rebelled against). Jesus was a Jew, and his teachings show that with the historical revisionist approach working behind them, but he was working against the Jews in power (i.e. the priests) and they subverted his message to maintain that power. And it WAS for monetization — the Jewish priestly class was dominated by greedy moneychangers, and by usurping the momentum of Jesus's teachings, Paul was able to make yet another business, backed by the state, for the continual pursuit of priestly greed. Nothing fucking changed with them, they just tweaked their methods a bit; the Jewish priestly class has always been utter trash and Paul made sure that it would seep into and come to dominate Christianity as well.

>N compliments the old Israelite kingdom and also the Jewish priesthood and is speaking with a forked tongue in every passage.
Where does he "compliment" the Jewish priesthood? He acknowledges their immense will to power, but he does not heap any real praise; it is clear that he despised them overall. Not as a resentful priest despises, but as a warrior despises his enemy: the difference being that the priest is deceptive in his despising, deceiving himself into believing that he is not merely despising but delivering divine judgment, while the warrior is honest about his despising, recognizes why he despises, and is not ashamed of it in any way. The priest comes to acknowledge the enemy as something beneath him then, while the warrior acknowledges the enemy as something merely different from himself. Nietzsche is thoroughly, 100% against the priesthood, and stands fully for the warrior.

My original post was short, yet you responded with "kill yourself you fucking retard". You call me insidious when you really could have just asked me to elaborate, or expanded on it for me, so as to clarify for the other people itt. You come across way more insidious. If you had read Nietzsche, you would have at least realized what I was on about, even if I was brief with my statements, and not some other thing that may have the intention of confusing what Nietzsche was on about.

[Anonymous No.11856289]

>>11856166
>>11856236
>I agree wholly that christianity is flavored Semitic and that Platonism and Stoicism are as well, idk how you can really call christ some WTP revolt since he sort of gives ambiguous instructions for the formation of a church/cult, it seems like useful romanticism to prove a point and fuel N’s habit of associating himself with great figures which he does with Socrates who he both condemns, and likens himself to subtley (both sardonically and affectionately). I guess i agree that christ embarrasses his followers endlessly but ultimately can’t really admit the whole of N’s analysis as being consistent or convincing.
You're missing something crucial from Nietzsche's viwepoint and critique of Christianity here, which I alluded to in my previous post: that of the difference between the priest and the warrior. It is the difference between the resentful man and the spiritually healthy man. The priest, in warping his viewpoint to be that of a divine judge, an infinite and perfect and absolute judge, utterly corrupts the world and himself, because he ends up confusing himself to be infinite and perfect and absolute — that is even the whole point of even talking about divine judges to begin with, and what Nietzsche was getting at. The priest does this subconsciously because the priest is resentful, and the resentful man wishes to place himself over his perceived oppressors, and he does this by talking about divine judgment, i.e. by convincing himself subconsciously that he is the mouthpiece of said judgment, and consequently the same as said judge.

Christians today are confused, because Christianity today is a tainted mixture of the Jewish priesthood and paganism. Christians see contradictions in Nietzsche's assessment because they are confused this way, and are unable to properly grasp Nietzsche's notion of the warrior vs. the priest. There are many things Christians hold dear that Nietzsche also held dear, and of these things they all relate to the pagan warrior culture; it is when the Christian starts talking about divine judgment that Nietzsche starts denying them. When a Christian speaks of God and divine judgment, the Jewish priest is coming out of him — understanding this point alone should help you realize why Nietzsche made the distinctions he made.

[Anonymous No.11856311]

>>11856236
except Christianity is Platonism and Jewish law and religious practices and directly stems from the teachings of the original christian communities extrapolated through the medium of Roman cultural institutes. So, what you’re saying now seems like it indeed was exactly deserving of an encouragement to an hero. Idk why “Greek law” (which laws? from what institutes? the laws of athens, the laws of the bullshit Greek religious cults? or Platonism which N condemns many times) is normal and good and Jewish law which was the Will to Power of that race is somehow bullshit as in illegitimate and untrue, when all religious thought is nonsense and N over and over condemns even the things he praises. He is full of progressive contradictions that lead back to exalting basically pure Thumks and Will to Power over Nomos of all kinds, all cultural institutes for him emanate from an aristocratic elite who give the law and names and are above all law.
>Nothing changed with them
well except for the fact that christ wasn’t real and it was founded by rabbis who met Greeks that were more than happy to accomodate “Jewish bullshit” and Romans who took to it like flies to shit.
>where does N compliment the priesthood
By calling it the chandala aristocracy and by speaking backhandedly about the revolt against it, he’s not upholding Christ as actually higher than most men he specifically admires nuances in his legend and is making an example of him for the sake of owning Christfaggots you dull witted nigger. Every compliment is a critique with N he isn’t actually praising most things he seems as if he is and is almost always weaponizing a person or movement against another. He praises them as the last vestiges of the old Jewish aristocracy which again he called venerable and relatively hygienic since its an actual racial instinct to conquest and dominion and self affirmation.
>gives undergrad explanation of N’s distinction between kshatriyas and brahmins
yes thank you faggot ive read Genealogy of Morals too, im well aware of the difference between conceited and surreptitious hatred and the open adiaphoric will to oppress and appropriate of the warrior castes of the ancient world.
>N is 100% against anything
No, he really isn’t as he doesn’t hold to any absolute truths you one sided snake eyed nigger. And i was not saying he actually held the pharisees as laudable. He only ever gives them passing BACK HANDED praise just as he does for Buddhism which he calls a revolt against Brahmanism which was the first unhygienic departure from the old Aryan codes. Manu’s law is spoken of as the peak and downfall of ancient peoples and if you were not a midwit faggot you’d notice N doesn’t even like the Brahmins and their caste law which is an explicit and neurotic expression of the old order of extreme differentiation of types based in domination and enslavement.
>my original post was short
it was blatantly ressentiment filled and oafish fag

[Anonymous No.11856341]

>>11856289
No you completely ignored what i said and just repeated yourself, N at no point says Christianity is paganism+jewish bullshit, he says its PLATONISM+Jewish thought+Stoicism since it is Greek, Jewish and Roman in origin you massive pseud. I know the fucking difference between them brainlet, i wasn’t affirming the Church, Christfaggotry, Platonism or Judaism or the kike race, i was saying that it is NOT pagan at all, it is the absolute antithesis to paganism and Platonism is its ideological origin, Judaism is racial origin and Roman decadence its cultural milieu it sprouted within among the White race. Stop lecturing me like you have any idea what N’s work is about, you display the most ugly kind of nearsighted, lack of dexterity in your retorts, you blatantly ignore or don’t get the strata and intricacy of N’s polemics and clearly do not understand N did not actually hate anything at all, he praises and condemns the Jews, Germans, Christ, Socrates and Plato as well as the Orient and Brahmins, Wagner and countless other things. Its not clear at all exactly how he felt about much of anything other than strongly erring towards the master morality yet at the same time be denies the old codes because he constantly criticizes barbarism and coarseness of thought and manner, hence not he Scythians, not the Sarmatians or Chimmerians or Persians but the GREEKS are the great type of history and even the Romans, and he makes light of and constantly lacerated tbe Greeks for their immaturity and there are whole sections of Twilight, WTP and the Gay Science that go into his disappointment and amusement at the immaturity of the Greeks and the subtlety and grand style of the Romans. He also does the exact same thing with the French. Being honest here i think N was an inveterate sophist and about the only thing he’s clear regarding is his spite towards the eternal perfidious goblins of albion. He affirms a headless and soulless universe and yet still we find a subtle evanescence of pantheism and of a mechanistic power behind all things all the while important passages in his notes lambast the mechanistic and empirical views. That is artful and productive contradiction, he is at heart the successor to Heraclitus and views the agon within all things as dynamic and fruitful. If you were the one above critiquing his being a contradicting contrarion you’re a fucking retard.

Again, kys nigger

[Anonymous No.11856347]

Nietzsche opposed nothing because he thought nothing.

[Anonymous No.11856403]

>>11856311
>Idk why “Greek law” is normal and good and Jewish law which was the Will to Power of that race is somehow bullshit as in illegitimate and untrue
Because you don't grasp what I said here >>11856289

You see these "progressive contradictions" because you don't understand Nietzsche and you take his will to power to be something absolute in form. Will to power can't work in an absolute form; just read Nietzsche's musings on the thing-in-itself to understand why. Also, you sound as if you think Nietzsche regarded all cultures as equal, although the opposite stance is ubiquitous in his work; just because they are all rooted in his will to power does not mean they are all equal; in fact, in his will to power, equality is impossible.

>well except for the fact that christ wasn’t real and it was founded by rabbis who met Greeks that were more than happy to accomodate “Jewish bullshit” and Romans who took to it like flies to shit.
It was accepted by the pagans because the Jewish priesthood was already ingrained into society and Paul added just enough paganism to Christianity to make it deceptively acceptable.

>By calling it the chandala aristocracy and by speaking backhandedly about the revolt against it
Okay, that may be a compliment, but it isn't praise; it's simply the acknowledgement of the enemy's power. The warrior, Nietzsche notes in TSZ, should celebrate the victories of his enemies; doing so is healthy for the warrior, and promotes the warrior culture further. So you shouldn't be taking Nietzsche's compliments of Jewish priesthood to mean that he was on their side, more-so because nothing in his philosophy compliments theirs in any way.

>No, he really isn’t as he doesn’t hold to any absolute truths you one sided snake eyed nigger.
Your understanding of Nietzsche is rough around the edges. Do you not see the contradiction YOU just added into Nietzsche's work, that isn't actually there? "Not holding absolute truths" would be an absolute principle. Just because he is against absolutes doesn't mean that he is against being absolute in himself, the self being a non-absolute thing; this is in fact all we can be — we can't be someone else, we can only be ourselves. We are always absolute in ourselves. He states in his notebooks:

>To stamp Becoming with the character of Being—this is the highest Will to Power. The twofold falsification, by the senses on the one hand, by the intellect on the other, with the view of maintaining a world of being, of rest, or equivalent cases, etc. That everything recurs, is the very nearest approach of a world of Becoming to a world of Being, the height of contemplation.

>There are no facts, everything is in flux, incomprehensible, elusive

Nietzsche is going deeper than you're acknowledging here. This is why you see contradictions.

[Anonymous No.11856425]

>>11856341
>N at no point says Christianity is paganism+jewish bullshit
Are you fucking stupid?

>>11856017
>Christianity [was] transformed by Paul into a mysterious pagan cult

>>11856112
>[Christianity is] an appalling mishmash of Greek philosophy and Judaism

>>11856120
>Among the powers that have mastered Christianity are: Judaism (Paul)

Read my posts before responding to me, you frothing retard.

[Anonymous No.11856468]

>>11856403
>regurgitating quotes like you understand his meaning
ok, idk what you mean to accomplish here i said he was Heraclitus’ successor, going beyond him even.
>not holding absolute truths would be a contrariction of itself
yeah, that’s why logicians think N was a bad philosopher. N baits and switched this constantly in the most taciturn and sometimes unconscious ways, he often dances on one foot while eluding to the negated other and so on. Its why his writing resembles sophistic and schizophrenic screeds.
>you seem to think he holds all cultures in the same regard
he doesn’t you just are very very stupid and suffering dunning-kruger so you don’t understand nuance at all, and you don’t see how i too am trying to affirm and deny multiple things. every “aha” you’ve levied, you slow cognitive tempo suffering shell dwelling mutant, is a retarded self owning failure to see what im saying which ill restate for you;

the only paganism in christfaggotry which is not literally mithraism, which btw no one perniciously added it was literally in the milieu and natural since the following also holds (watch closely nigger), was PLATONISM which is so close in spirit to the other pagan cults their fashion and nomenclature could be cribbed to marry platonism to Jewish law. I was not saying that Christianity was good at any point, i was not affirming the priesthood at all.
>you don’t understand N so he wasn’t contradictory, this despite GS and B&G and WTP all praising men who can contradict themselves without lying about their spirit.
you’re retarded, he is contradicting himself near constantly when discussing socrates and christ and his views on the Greeks. You don’t know what you are talking about and i now firmly believe you are a poor reader since you’ve quoted WTP the very book where many of the things ive mentioned are lying in wait for your tender brain to contemplate.
>Jewish priestarchy was ingrained
not really man, they had a negligible presence in Syria and Alexandria which rw’s overstate because they’re insane genocidal retards. They were known and had some influence over certain cults but they really weren’t that ingrained among the Greeks and Romans proper.
>the enemies power
yeah i said it was a backhanded compliment, N constantly talks about artful contradiction, the fascile nature of truth worship and the WTP’s association with poets who he calls liar’s brothers who stole their milk and spirit, GS in the aphoristic interlude/preamble section which im sure you’re familiar with.
>he wasn’t on their side
he wasn’t even on the side of the Greeks or Germans he wanted a revaluation of all values and a marriage of the Greco-Romans to the French and Italians with German ferocity, Aryan power, Jewish WTP and resilience and unheard of poetic sense of fate. It still hasn’t come into existence aside from the weak attempts by the German fascists.
>we can only be ourselves
retarded nonsequitor

[Anonymous No.11856498]

>>11856403
in nearly all of his mature works he assails the idea of an absolute truth, its a contradiction to deny all things-in-themselves and also to affirm that one can have absolute values in oneself or anything else, i mean this outside of N’s self serving explanation for this, don’t be an insipid cock slave to him, it is simply inconsistent and retarded to assume he was always being consistent when AGAIN he affirms contradiction and deceit and masking as good and healthy.


You over and over miss NUANCE and subtlety which he explicitly both affirms and asks for from both his readers who he admits he’s concealing things from and his new philosophers who asks to dance with him, an invitation to move and battle with him on new terms foreign to rationalistic consistency and moralistic guardedness.

I am basically unclear now why you keep bringing up kshatriyas and brahmins when i already told you N errs towards master morality but also often sees the slave revolt as useful to furtherances of that power. The WTP is a nuanced and incomplete notion he never properly formalized, maybe for the better; he saw many times its presence more in slaves than masters but always reserved it for he natural elite, born above the slave peoples.

The crux of my issue is: N says christianity is pagan, this is not true unless you mean by this Platonic and Stoical which he viciously lacerates as badly as Pharisaical thought. You say jewish bullshit, i have no idea why this is good but Mithraic nigger dualism and Platonic idealism which are both very insane metaphysics are not bullshit. You allude impotently to Pagan law but don’t state what it is, perhaps you mean like Mithraism and Roman codes and Stoicism and Platonism friend?

Why would i call you oafish and conceited, because you’re pontificating witht be tact and skill of an undergrad at a bad school, you seem relatively low comprehension which implies you don’t remember much without looking at notes, your style is poor, your arguments very sloppy and repetitious and you fail over and over to get N did not want to be misinterpreted by idiots and sycophants and political warriors. He despised Jews and loved them all the same, and this goes for Germans too. He viewed the Ancient Aryans romantically but does not put them above the Greeks, N enjoyed somewhat barbaric and dynamic civilization not open tribal warfare on the steppes. His critiques of Germanic behavior evidence this.

If you reply again to me think very carefully about what you want to say if you desire an actual conclusion to this.

[Anonymous No.11856516]

>>11856468
>yeah, that’s why logicians think N was a bad philosopher.
And you're saying these logicians understand Nietzsche? They don't. They misunderstand him as much as you do; they can't move outside the barriers of their language and re-enter primitive humanity in order to grasp Nietzsche's fundamentally incomprehensible universe. Because of this, they draw erroneous and pointless conclusions about his work, like "his writing resembles sophistic and schizophrenic screeds."

>so you don’t understand nuance at all
That's a good one coming from you, the person who impulsively lunged for my throat with insults like an animal once I posted.

I have nothing else to really add because you keep going on about these dumb fucking "contradictions" you think you see in his work when it's no more than your own limitations in parsing what he meant. Brainlets like you turn Nietzsche into some clueless metaphysicist retard full of paradoxical statements to give out since you can't grasp how opposites are emergent properties of one another and can't think outside of the polarizing effects of language without clumsily carrying said effects with you in your subconscious when attempting to interpret notions that go beyond language. Your understanding of his will to power and his warrior culture is consequently weak as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11856542]

>>All
If you don't want to read Nietzsche then you should at the very least read Camus

[Anonymous No.11856594]

>>11856047
>>the greatest mind of the 19th century

[Anonymous No.11856607]

>>11855640

Islam means "submission"

[Anonymous No.11856651]

>>11855992
>good comment, anon
but in a roundabout way would this not itself be a rather overt style of 'ressentiment'? Of course the deconstruction of this notion in the Genealogy (which really does have the feel of a resentful text) would consist of the locating of such passages to undermine his 'position' there which, of all his texts, at least seems the most 'positive' so far as a definite 'message' is concerned. Nietzsche's wild perspectivism (consistent switching up of his points of view) generally keeps him immune from such enterprises, however, and this is a major reason why he's been felt to be so far ahead of his time..

[Anonymous No.11856664]

>>11856498
>in nearly all of his mature works he assails the idea of an absolute truth
Nietzsche doesn't assert absolute truths so much as he asserts truths which he is aware are absolute in himself, the self by nature not being absolute. There is a serious difference in consciousness here; he acknowledges the limits of himself and the lack of Being in things; he perceives the universe's state as neither an absolute NOR a non-absolute one.

Like I said here >>11856516 opposites are emergent properties of one another. We see opposites thanks to our reason; we also see contradictions thanks to our reason. Reason and paradox are a contradiction, no? — both reason and paradox are emergent properties of one another. Neither reason nor paradox ever touch upon reality at any point. Both of them are impossible in reality; reality is outside the circle of reason and paradox. Reality is thus incomprehensible.

But what is not incomprehensible is the reason we create. It may not touch on reality at all, but we don't touch on reality at all; our perspectives are only a slice of reality. Reality has nothing to do with us. Our reason is the ultimate culmination of ourselves. Nietzsche shifted gears later in life, once he began writing TSZ, once he realized this: once he realized that to be a Yes-sayer he had to be a great No-sayer; once he realized that Yes and No were emergent properties of one another, and that neither had anything to do with reality, and that life was about will to power, i.e. about the individual striving to champion itself over other individuals.

In the priesthood though, in the adherence towards God (i.e. the absolute), will to power can't exist; life can't exist. This puts Nietzsche in the SEEMINGLY paradoxical situation of wanting to affirm life, which is will to power, and having to deny priestliness, which denies life. He only writes more about the slaves than he does the masters because they concern him more; they stand opposed to his message more than the masters do. He doesn't ultimately side with the masters either because they don't understand him either, and would gladly force their wills onto everything if given the chance. But what Nietzsche understands, because he is a philosopher, is that by doing that, you consequently kill yourself; if the only thing that exists is you, if you force yourself onto everything like that, then there is no Other upon which you can contrast against yourself and form your identify from. To feel yourself as powerful then, you need the weak; you need to not be absolute.

I may not be as scholarly as you, but I regard the scholarly as being dangerous past a certain point when trying to understand philosophy, especially Nietzsche's. It's not possible to fully understand Nietzsche or any philosopher for that matter solely through the scholarly.

[Anonymous No.11856677]

>>11856664
Damn, anon. Have (you) been reading Vico?

[Anonymous No.11856695]

>itt: we all posture having read a few Wikipedia summaries
pathetic

[Anonymous No.11856697]

>>11856468
Also, to answer your questions as to what is pagan in Christianity and what isn't, what is good from it and what isn't:

>the only paganism in christfaggotry which is not literally mithraism, which btw no one perniciously added it was literally in the milieu and natural since the following also holds (watch closely nigger), was PLATONISM which is so close in spirit to the other pagan cults their fashion and nomenclature could be cribbed to marry platonism to Jewish law.
Nietzsche identifies Plato as being less pagan and much closer to being Semitic and he is right. What is pagan in Christianity is not its relations to Plato but its admonitions on beauty, achieving higher self, achieving cleanliness of mind, body, and spirit — its aspects which reinforce inequality as opposed to its aspects which reinforce equality (the latter being anything tied to God and the divine infinite). The Greeks (not the un-Greek Plato) held similar views on beauty; they understood the importance of discipline and restraint on the body in the pursuit of achieving a higher culture. These aspects of Christianity are fundamentally pagan.

[Anonymous No.11856699]

>>11856017
Isn't this what Girard says too in so many words, the movement towards a revival of violent ancient religion in Christian trappings

[Anonymous No.11856718]

Based.

[Anonymous No.11856744]

>>11855591
The values of Christ are not the values of Christians, and they're not the values of the Bible. If you look at the words of Jesus in isolation they paint a different picture than the Bible as a whole, and instead they represent an actually meaningful moral guide.

[Anonymous No.11856751]

>>11855591
>Was Neetshit just a crypto-christian in denial?

This is exactly what underrated Brazilian philosopher Mário Ferreira dos Santos said about Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11856830]

>>11856751
I wouldn't say he was in denial. He was just using a definition of Christianity that no one else did.

[Anonymous No.11856840]

>>11855591
Nietzsche is actually a big dummy and the Christian values he opposes have never existed in the real world.

[Anonymous No.11856854]

>>11855969
This.
Also the church is a pervasive and authoritarian beast, very much against Jesus.

[Anonymous No.11856892]

>>11855591

I think context matters. Nietzsche grew up in post-reformation Europe. Much of the Europe's calamities and skewed logic stemmed from Europe (diezation of Napoleon, Crusades, Catholics vs Protestants, etc.)

Think about Transcendentalists in the USA. Most of them had the same grievances and goals of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11857041]

>>11856744
I bring sword not peace

[Anonymous No.11857190]

>>11855591
Nietzsche didn't even get Christianity right.
>was northern German
>received Lutheran education
>son and grandson of Lutheran pastors
>was a loner, didn't understand the communal necessity of man
>literally didn't understand that love is sacrifice
but yeah, muh Antichrist

[Anonymous No.11857198]

>>11856607
aka amor fati

[Anonymous No.11857225]

>>11857190
upset that he dismantled your weak slave belief?

[Anonymous No.11857294]

>>11857225
Read Max Scheler's Ressentiment; Nietzsche got it wrong, champ

[Anonymous No.11857320]

>>11857225
>>11857294
http://www.mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contempor%C3%A1nea/Scheller/Ressentiment.pdf

[Anonymous No.11857695]

In the end Nietzsche is a disgusting materialist who denies the Resurrection, so fuck him.

[Anonymous No.11857718]

>>11855591
Yeah neetszhe is a fag

[Anonymous No.11857728]

>>11855969
babby's first philology

[Anonymous No.11859068]

>>11855738
>denial of pleasure is bad
If I see one more unironic post like this I'm losing faith in most /lit/izens

[Anonymous No.11859077]

>>11856854
>the christian church is against christ
do you live in california? nyc, perhaps?

[Anonymous No.11859117]

>>11855641
Literally this.

Jesus caught own because the promise of eternal paradise just for worshiping a dead jew sounds pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.11859118]

>>11855738
and what good will self love and pleasure be at the end of your life?

[Anonymous No.11859168]

>>11855975
Nietzsche was a leftist though.

[Anonymous No.11859194]

>>11855591
Jesus was the embodiment of JEWISH values. He lived and died to fulfill the JEWISH LAW so that the blood contract the Jews had foolishly bound themselves to under Moses could be broken. They had boasted (in Exodus) that they could please God by their works, which is impossible as only perfection can satisfy God. This was why Israel constantly got BTFO by God for their failure in obedience. Jesus came to fulfill the law on their behalf and offer himself as the sacrifice for sin so that belief in him would give salvation. Faith, not works (Ephesians 2: 8-9). The believer, covered by the blood of Jesus, is justified in the sight of God, who sees him/her as righteous - thanks to the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf.
Jesus seems so harsh in his teachings because he was reminding the Jews that if they wanted to be justified by their works, they would have to be perfect (like the good Samaritan in the parable). This is impossible - and was intended to make the Jews cry out for a Savior from the burden of the law - but they didn't get it.

[Anonymous No.11859525]

>>11859168
That’s gonna be a no from me dawg

[Anonymous No.11859531]

>>11855954
This is true

[Anonymous No.11860898]

>>11857695
Nietzsche was not a materialist. TWP:
>The two extremes of thought—the materialistic and the platonic—are reconciled in eternal recurrence: both are regarded as ideals.

[Anonymous No.11862552]

>>11860898
The eternal recurrence is based on on science-ism though, Nietzsche was a hardcore believer in determinism.

[Anonymous No.11862661]

>>11862552
>Nietzsche was a hardcore believer in determinism.
No, he wasn't. He was a hardcore believer in power; belief in determinism was second to that, and he only held that belief when it meant an increase in power, and stopped holding it as well for said increase. N made the same case for determinism as for materialism in that it is merely an ideal in the face of eternal recurrence, and all idealism is mendacity in this face.

[Anonymous No.11862849]

>>11862661
Nothing is secondary to determinism by definition. Power still exists within that framework, the very demon he contrives to expound upon the eternal recurrence is Laplace's demon.

[Anonymous No.11862887]

>>11862849
You're arguing with me now on whether he was right or not, but I was just correcting you on what he thought. And I can give you quotes to confirm it:

>To combat determinism and teleology.—From the fact that something happens regularly, and that its occurrence may be reckoned upon, it does not follow that it happens necessarily. If a quantity of force determines and conducts itself in a certain way in every particular case, it does not prove that it has "no free will." "Mechanical necessity" is not an established fact: it was we who first read into the nature of all phenomena.

>The dire necessity of the same things happening in the course of the world, as in all other things, is not an eternal determinism reigning over all phenomena, but merely the expression of the fact that the impossible is not possible; that a given force cannot be different from that given force; that a given quantity of resisting force does not manifest itself otherwise than in conformity with its degree of strength;—to speak of events as being necessary is tautological.

>Determinism: the attempt to rescue the moral world by transferring it to the unknown. Determinism is only a manner of allowing ourselves to conjure our valuations away, once they have lost their place in a world interpreted mechanistically. Determinism must therefore be attacked and undermined at all costs: just as our right to distinguish between an absolute and phenomenal world should be disputed.

[Anonymous No.11862906]

>>11855694
You can still be a leader alone.

[Anonymous No.11862958]

>>11862887
All that does is corroborate my statement. Nietzsche recognized determinism, he's just cautioning against the very typical reaction to the idea, a sort of guiding impotence. He's stating determinism is descriptive rather than normative.

[Anonymous No.11862973]

>>11862958
>He's stating determinism is descriptive rather than normative.
No he isn't. If so, he wouldn't have said that there are no facts and only interpretations. He is giving his interpretation and is fully aware of that each step of the way.

[Anonymous No.11863063]

>>11862973
>he's stating
>somehow other than Nietzsche's view
what a non answer lmao

[Anonymous No.11863092]

>>11863063
The descriptive vs. normative dichotomy doesn't apply to Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, the is and the ought are equally idealism. What matters is the power of an interpretation, not its supposed truthfulness.

[Anonymous No.11863106]

>>11863092
>The descriptive vs. normative dichotomy doesn't apply to Nietzsche
Of course it does, people think the world is one way, and people think the world should be a way.

[Anonymous No.11863117]

>>11863106
It doesn't when Nietzsche thinks that the world is incomprehensible. Incomprehensible means you can't assign anything to it; not even a label of negation.

[Anonymous No.11863132]

>>11863117
>Nietzsche thinks the world is incomprehensible
>Nietzsche thinks the world is
And yet you describe him as comprehending it in some way. Unimpressive sophistry, friend.

[Anonymous No.11863141]

>>11863132
You're just pointing out the limit of language which I'm already aware of. Language and reason never touch upon reality because they can't.

[Anonymous No.11863221]

>>11857320
Thanks for this. Looks to be a development of things I myself have thought about. Very helpful for explaining my positions.

As you noted, he gets Christianity wrong. His aphorisms and condemnations are strong, but ultimately meaningless if his assumptions are unfounded.

[Anonymous No.11863412]

>>11855738
Nietzsche litterally told people that denying pleasure is a good thing, as long as it's for the right reasons. What Nietzsche hated about christianity is that it preaches people to be soft, and not fight.

[Anonymous No.11863443]

>>11863412
>What Nietzsche hated about christianity is that it preaches people to be soft, and not fight.

Weird because the Catechism of the RCC literally states it is not only a right, but sometimes a duty to fight aggressors.

[Anonymous No.11863500]

>>11863221
Yeah, his arguments are valid in my opinion—his premises logically lead to his conclusions—, but some of his major premises are wrong. So I find his arguments are unsound.

Scheler's evaluation of Ressentiment is ingenious. Christian love stems from an abundance of self-love and security (security in one's own strength); it gives to the lesser, the weaker, even the equal. The strong is the lover and the weak (or the equally strong) is the beloved. Nietzsche subscribed to the Grecian form of love. This was always described as the weak being the lover and the strong being the beloved. The noble feared to lose nobility if "tainted" by the less noble (kinda like how the Jews thought the unclean lepers would make them unclean). This is even why Plato thought that God (as a unitarian ultimate being) could not love anything. But, with Scheler's description of love in the Christian sense (higher to lower action, "love your neighbor as you love yourself," "I have loved you even as the Father has loved me," descending love from an abundance of love and security) and God as a Trinity, the problem is nonexistent. Each person of the Trinity loves their equals, the other two persons. I'll also add, Jesus was the first of the Jews to not be afraid to be touched by the unclean lepers; He even actively sought them (abundance of love, secure in His strength). This is why we are called to do the will of God. We align our will with His, we become unified with Him, and we too then become abundant in love and strength, security in our strength. When we become strong, it's not that we are becoming God, but we unify with Him.

I wish I could say more and be more precise, but Scheler's work on Ressentiment and love is crucial to understanding Christian love and what Ressentiment really is. It is also very crucial to understanding how Nietzsche's critique of Christianity is really wrong.

[Anonymous No.11863580]

>>11863141
Taking plato to his extremes we must acknowledge that all speech is creating poetry. And thus we should kick out everyone who speaks from the republic.

You platonists make me sick.

[Anonymous No.11863609]

>>11863500
Great post. I mean it. Thanks. Reading Nietzsche in my teens left me forever wondering if he was onto something. It didn't dissuade me of my Christian convictions, but it became this thing at the back of my mind.

But yes, I think you're right. It seems that Nietzsche was to a great extent projecting his own neuroses onto the bogeyman he called Christianity.

I downloaded the Scheler PDF. Seems great.

[Anonymous No.11863698]

>>11863609
no problem man.

[Anonymous No.11863942]

>>11863500
>Nietzsche subscribed to the Grecian form of love. This was always described as the weak being the lover and the strong being the beloved. The noble feared to lose nobility if "tainted" by the less noble (kinda like how the Jews thought the unclean lepers would make them unclean). This is even why Plato thought that God (as a unitarian ultimate being) could not love anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

[Anonymous No.11863950]

>>11863500
>Nietzsche subscribed to the Grecian form of love
Which one?

[Anonymous No.11864116]

>>11857294
>implying Nietzsche was trying to get it "right"
You really don't understand Nietzsche, do you? He's not concerned with this religious sect, that religious sect, etc. He's not concerned with getting to the real bottom of the matter. Scheler seemingly missed this as well. He is concerned with dismantling a philosophical viewpoint which he deems as threatening to his own, that viewpoint being God's. Because when God is in the picture, Nietzsche is not—none of us are. In the arms of the infinite, everything perishes. We become powerless. Nietzsche wanted to rule the universe or at best breed a man who could.

[Anonymous No.11864127]

>>11863942
>assuming pre-Christian Greeks thought love was the superior virtue.
Agape is primarily Christian; it's virtually nonexistent in pre-Christ Greece (and rome), especially in the Christian sense. Sorry I wasn't more specific about what I meant by "Greek," but you would be retarded to think I suggest N affirm's the Christian Agape

>>11863950
The one where love flows upward, less noble to nobility, imperfect to perfect. Plato and Aristotle describe it well in Plato's Symposium and Aristotle's Methodos. Yeah Nietzsche hated post-Socratics, but you can't deny that the post-Socratics were consistent with the pre's in regards to love, different forms of eros, but all still describing an upward flowing of love.

[Anonymous No.11864164]

>>11863580
>my fallacy proves power is power
Why are Nietzscheans always the biggest plebs?

[Anonymous No.11864282]

>>11864116
> In the arms of the infinite, everything perishes.
>We become powerless.
>>11863500

>He's not concerned with this religious sect, that religious sect, etc. He's not concerned with getting to the real bottom of the matter.
Yeah, N is just using Christianity as a surrogate for understanding slave morality, especially because it's mainstream (which makes him such a pragmatist). What Scheler and I are getting at is that Nietzsche shits on Christianity for being this quintessential form of slave morality and the result of ressentiment, but he incorrectly sees Christianity as such.
>He is concerned with dismantling a philosophical viewpoint which he deems as threatening to his own, that viewpoint being God's
yeah this is where he's a retard. He started slave revolt against God, objective value. Go against the Divine Logos, you're a revolutionary, not in a good way. Besides, the philosophy of God's is unity with God. You only become a slave when you revolt against God (ie, a slave to sin).

[Anonymous No.11864310]

>>11855954
Crazy gymnastics there mang..

[Anonymous No.11864319]

>>11856542
Where to start with the camus's

[Anonymous No.11864349]

>>11855694
Nietzsche preached that one should be a camel, then a lion, then a child. The camel accumulates knowledge and learns about different thoughts, the lion breaks them apart by finding their flaws, the child builds his own system of thought that will actually be his own.
Jesus was an overman, but people following him remain incomplete camels, very often until the end of their lives. That's what Nietzsche hated.

[Anonymous No.11864375]

>>11864282
>You only become a slave when you revolt against God (ie, a slave to sin).
This is the viewpoint of God at least. However, God has no real appreciation for mortal existence; he corrupts it at every turn, rejecting every bit of its value in favor of the immortal. Nietzsche did not revolt against God so much as he stood in opposition to Him, like a duelist would.

[Anonymous No.11864382]

>>11864375
>This is the viewpoint of God at least. However, God has no real appreciation for mortal existence; he corrupts it at every turn, rejecting every bit of its value in favor of the immortal.

Nah.

[Anonymous No.11864409]

>>11864382
Sure. You said it yourself: standing in opposition to God makes you a "slave" and makes you sinful. God doesn't accept anyone who does so, much less as want to even contend with such a position; He immediately disregards it as beneath Him. And the philosophy of God's really is unity with God, which means the complete compromise of yourself to His will. All of God's talk is about the immortal, the infinite, and the beyond; the mortal existence is devalued, valued only as servicing the immortal one. Everything in the mortal existence becomes a means to the end rather than an end to itself. If you value the mortal existence above all, and consider it an end to itself, God cares not for you besides the service you can do Him.

[Anonymous No.11864461]

>>11864409
lmao

[Anonymous No.11864462]

>>11864409
We don't lose our selves when we surrender to God. He is a loving father and we wants his children to develop into their full potential. He doesn't want us to be stunted, robotically obedient slaves. He gave us free will. He wants us to be free. His commandments are walls protecting us from falling into a precipice, as Chesterton said. He wants us to play, and he wants us to be safe as we do so.

God is the Creator. We are his children. That's why we love creating. That's why making art gives us pleasure. There is an element of whim, of capriciosness, to the act of creating, and there is nothing naughty about that. This freedom, this arbitrariness, is divine. We are free.

At my healthiest - healthy diet, vitamin supplements, no polyunsaturaded fats - I seem to feel a taste of heaven. A sense of how man must have felt before the Fall. Remember, we will have bodies in the next life, just as we have in this one. The immortal is not this ghostly, sickly thing you seem to conceive of.

These is a tentative sketch, a different way of looking at the things you're talking about. You strike me as a neurotic guy. You seem to be prone to think about thing in an excessively negative light. I'm a bit like that too. It's something I need to consciously resist.

[Anonymous No.11864529]

>>11864409
>God doesn't accept anyone who does so
It's actually that people deny God
>And the philosophy of God's really is unity with God, which means the complete compromise of yourself to His will.
sin is a compromise of our will, made it less free. God's will is purely free, unity with God would mean we have true freedom.
>All of God's talk is about the immortal, the infinite, and the beyond.
God sustains all His creation and is active in all change, which, not to mention, stems from His freedom and sincerity towards us.
>the mortal existence is devalued, valued only as servicing the immortal one.
The Heavens show forth the glory of God and the skies proclaim the work of His hands. "mortal existence" is hardly devalued if God freely sustains His creation and freely created it.
>If you value the mortal existence above all
I value pure existence, which is God. All His creation reflects His essence which is existence.


Bud, you clearly don't know Scholastic philosophy. You just projecting some shit tier objections to God lmao
Love God as He loves you, champ

[Anonymous No.11864544]

>>11864462
>We don't lose our selves when we surrender to God.
Perhaps you don't, because you share His viewpoint (or rather, because you are wholly subservient to it through faith). But those that don't share it certainly do. They literally go to the Devil for it, according to God.

>He doesn't want us to be stunted, robotically obedient slaves. He gave us free will. He wants us to be free.
And yet does everything in His power to prevent us from being free. Freedom that I care about requires that we die, and stay dead; an afterlife means we are stuck in a covenant with God.

>These is a tentative sketch, a different way of looking at the things you're talking about.
If I didn't acknowledge that, I wouldn't be in opposition to it.

>>11864529
>I value pure existence, which is God.
Then you don't value anything which I call existence.

[Anonymous No.11864576]

>>11864544
>Then you don't value anything which I call existence.
Yeah, because you don't understand metaphysics lol

besides, as I said before
>All His creation reflects His essence which is existence.

If I value pure existence, which is God, and creation is a reflection of that existence (where actuality, existence is present in all beings), I clearly value your pithy definition of existence (which seems to be the material one). Forgot to mention "being is synonymous with goodness." Something is good insofar as it is fully actual.

[Anonymous No.11864589]

>>11864576
Life is that which ends and knows the joy of death. Your metaphysics doesn't know anything about life.

[Anonymous No.11864612]

>>11864589
>Life is that which ends and knows the joy of death.
But Christians are so wrongfully infatuated with dying (you know we don't affirm life apparently) as Nietzsche would posture.

You're right though, we love death insofar as the evil of death—which is a result of sin—is allowed for a greater good, eternal life.

>Your metaphysics doesn't know anything about life.
God created us. Pretty sure my metaphysics knows about life, especially when it describes eternal life, but you small head can't comprehend anything that you can't see, hear, touch, sniff, or feel. And apparently you brain cant comprehend that beings and change in a material world can logically lead us to metaphysical realities.

[Anonymous No.11864742]

>>11864612
>You're right though, we love death insofar as the evil of death—which is a result of sin—is allowed for a greater good, eternal life.
This has nothing to do with the joy of death, which is the joy of killing and the joy of being killed.

>Pretty sure my metaphysics knows about life
Life is not eternal, so no, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11864787]

>>11864742
>Life is not eternal, so no, it doesn't.
So the root of our divide is metaphysical, yes? I think Aquinas, the Scholastics, and I have you beat on that...

It's probably just that you haven't researched Aquinas's metaphysics though or challenged yourself with it

[Anonymous No.11864804]

>>11864787
>So the root of our divide is metaphysical, yes?
No, it goes outside of metaphysics. When you live in the heat of the moment, you take your metaphysical baggage with you, but it perishes in the flame; in that flame is life. Our flames are different.

[Anonymous No.11864883]

>>11855954
St. Paul is the best part about the Bible. Highest IQ of all the authors. Also hated fags and was a big fan of dat ascetic ideal. What's not to like?
Only people who hate Paul are fags or protash*ts.

[Anonymous No.11865192]

>christians still assblasted about ol' Neet

This is why Christianity has been in a steady decline since the Industrial Revolution and has been replaced by either charismatic meme cults, atheism or Islam in the West. You guys never learn, literally have no one but yourself to blame for this.

[Anonymous No.11865199]

>>11864883
Why do you think Protestants hate Paul? Dont be a pseud

[Anonymous No.11865239]

>>11865199
yeah prots don't hate St. Paul; odd that he said that

If anything, they hate St. James lmao

[Anonymous No.11866631]

>>11865239
Tbh I wouldn't say we hate him either, just that lots of his points are outsidd the normal speculative part of protestant faith, and Imo is a good thing, it creates discusion and discourse which generates life among faith.

[Anonymous No.11866658]

Honestly best thread on Neitzches we've had in quite awhile. Bravo dear anons.

[Anonymous No.11866682]

>>11866658
thanks doode

[Anonymous No.11867427]

How come that, when it comes to Nietzsche, people seem to disagree on the most fundamental things, and claiming that Nietzsche held completely contradictory positions? There's no other philosopher that seems to be so controversial.

[Anonymous No.11867466]

>>11867427
They often compare books written in different moments in his life without factoring changes in opinion. It doesn't help that Neechee doesn't write in any systematic way or states his positions clearly. It's not even clear WHO he is attacking.

[Anonymous No.11867470]

>>11864742
>which is the joy of killing and the joy of being killed.
You have to be a teenager, a psychopath, or (most likely) indoctrinated by an evil culture to believe this.

[Anonymous No.11867492]

>>11867470
I know a girl who named her bastard daughter after Arya Stark because she shought it was a strong female role model

[Anonymous No.11867805]

>>11867470
>To live alone one must be either a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both - a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11867864]

>>11855640
This is true but people here will reject out of ignorance and muh gott is dead

[Anonymous No.11867896]

>>11867427
See-
>>11856651

[Anonymous No.11868124]

>>11867470
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a psychopath. We label certain frames of thought as such when it is efficient for society to do so.

[Anonymous No.11868131]

>>11868124
What an original and interesting notion. I’m sure you’ve thought about this a lot and have something to contribute to the fields of psychoanalysis and sociology. Maybe you could get a PhD in abnormal psychology and then burn it to prove your point.

[Anonymous No.11868146]

>>11868131
Get out of the Nietzsche thread if you don't like my statement. It's not as if his philosophy was intended to be read by just anyone. And I would never bother trying to "prove my point" to real doctors or psychoanalysts because it would undermine their specializations, which are useful for society to continue functioning. But due to what philosophy is concerned with, it can't simply stop at inquiring about what is good for society.

[Anonymous No.11868157]

>>11868146
What is philosophy concerned with?

[Anonymous No.11868160]

>>11868157
Wisdom

[Anonymous No.11868169]

>>11868160
Hmm

[Anonymous No.11868181]

"traditional"

[Anonymous No.11868203]

>>11867470
We do seem to live in a degenerate culture where life is cheap and we act out bloodshed for entertainment. Better than real bloodshed I suppose. We've come far in practice but so little in mindset.

[Anonymous No.11868208]

>>11868124
Fucking idiot. Even if the term is meaningless, a person who has all the properties associated with psychopathy would still be what is denoted by the word.

[Anonymous No.11868222]

>>11868208
>here is what it means
>but I admit it's meaningless
Who's the idiot again? And my point was that there is more to life than just "the good," and there is still value to be reaped from what lies on the outskirts of society.

[Anonymous No.11868245]

>>11868222
I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand the concept of denotation

[Anonymous No.11868305]

>>11868245
I never disregarded that. My original response was to a post that disregarded a way of thinking simply because society does not approve of it.

[Anonymous No.11868320]

>>11855591
I have a feeling this was bait and can't be assed to read through the whole thread. Instead, I would just add that Nietzsche had enormous respect for that Jew Jesus of Nazareth who preached against the priestly class of first-century Palestine, and who was a near-perfect Overman because he had such full control over himself.

Saul (alias Paul) invented the Christianity that Nietzsche despises. It's a continuation of the Jewish slave morality that inverts everything Jesus stood for.

[Anonymous No.11868323]

>>11868305
I don’t care, you’re retarded and your point wasn’t made very well.

[Anonymous No.11868351]

>>11868323
I think you do care, and I think you dislike the idea that no one is factually a psychopath, and that disregarding what is commonly denoted as psychopathic for being denoted as such is all fine and good but has no place in a philosophical discussion, unless you want to mentally stunt yourself for your "feels".

[Anonymous No.11868382]

>>11868351
t. pseud

[Anonymous No.11868438]

>>11855591
tfw people are still going on about the ramblings of this deranged incel 150 years later

[Anonymous No.11868449]

>>11868382
Says the guy who doesn't understand what "strictly speaking" means. What is a disorder or not remains subjective.

[Anonymous No.11868659]

>>11868449
natural law theory stems from eternal which stems from the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.11868708]

>>11856718
>lol the respectable intellectual said strong words
Using "abnormal" as an insult is ridiculous and it's obviously false to say that Nietzsche was stupid.

[Anonymous No.11868719]

>>11868708
>it's obviously false to say that Nietzsche was stupid

[Anonymous No.11868742]

>>11868659
If anyone is psychopathic it's natural law theory's proponents.

[Anonymous No.11868765]

>>11868719
I don't appreciate Nietzsche at all. But clearly what was wrong with him was not that he had mental deficiencies. He could write, and develop intricate and influential stuff. That's not the case of the vast majority.
One could rather say, for exemple, that Nietzsche was weak nevrotic bitch.

[Anonymous No.11869874]

>>11855640
fuck you nigger he only amired barbarian agression if you want to categorize him in terms of main religions he allines closely with Judaism

[Anonymous No.11870267]

>>11855591
By Overman he means that part of us that resists imitation or following, the aspect of the will that gives immunity to received doctrine, the allure of cults, the praise and censure of peers, fashionable notions of prestige, dread of solitude, hypnotic manipulation, etc. To discover or invent, even if all one is is an artist of the self, the will must first clear away a whole lotta hindrances. There's more to it than skepticism, particularly as an -ism or methodology. Nor is it the same thing as the opposite of subservience, since any old general or executive can exactly repeat the old pattern of conquering others without making the slightest difference to human mastery over inhuman natural circumstance. It is something more like the opposite of complacency.

[Anonymous No.11870485]

>>11868449
Strictly speaking you’re a homosexual

[Anonymous No.11870527]

>>11856718
it's telling that tolstoy, who was pretty much an ubermensch himself (much like goethe) had this opinion of nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11870548]

>>11870485
Dif anon
suddenly it occurs to me that Latin homo (man) is used in homo sapiens, and Greek homo (same) is used in homo sexual, which makes the latter an awkward hybrid like television (tele, Greek far; video, Latin I see). fwiw

[Anonymous No.11870553]

>>11859531
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.11870566]

>>11857294
>>11857320

Just when you thought NEETzsche could not be any worse.

[Anonymous No.11870570]

>>11870553
t. didn't read The Antichrist

[Anonymous No.11871118]

>>11870566
Nietzsche was smart to develop the idea of Ressentiment, but he couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Scheler does say that Ressentiment did poison Christianity in the 13th century, through the Scholastics (he was influenced a lot by Augustine), but he also got that shit hella wrong. Scheler says the real result of Ressentiment is bourgeois morality, but that comes from the nominalists in the 13th century imo.