How did one atheist, in a matter of a few short years, manage to write the most spiritual and uplifting work of the modern period, exceeding every religious thinker by miles?
I just can't get my mind around how Nietzsche supersedes all religious thinkers, given they know the glory of God and all.
Christianity is dead and stale, the Greeks had some good insights on life, equality and democracy are shadows of God's presence on the west and need to be eradicated, we need to creatively synthesize a new spirituality so the west doesn't decline into nihilism.
When you look at how many people replaced Christianity with religions of social equality, and how stale and dead the Christian religion is, you realize he's right. And western society is largely plagued with nihilism.
Read "American Nietzsche".
American Protestants flipped the fuck out when Nietzsche was translated. It's amusing, actually, they tried to interpret Jesus as Nietzsche's Ubermensch among other oddities. Protestantism is deader than a fish out of water, you're just behind the curve.
see that is how petty shit-flinging contests between atheistic and theistic zealots begin. don't burn down another thread ona board that demands high level discourse.
you're discounting a genius mind because of one phrase. actually look into his works and understand the context of his thinking.
You might be interested to know that many Christians use Nietzschean idead to expose New Atheists for their arrogance, and ignorance.
>Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.
You can find all kinds of examples of people using Nietzsche to show how irresponsible and short sighted New Atheism has been. Many Nietscheans despise New Atheists.
>they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.
The most obvious way this expresses itself is with the people who want to "smash patriarchy", "end white supremacy", etc., they found a new religion in these ideas.
Don't be a sad cunt, be a sick cunt.
It's hard to criticize Nietzsche when he's been proven absolutely right about everything. Literally everything he said was going to happen has happened and people STILL ignore this man.
It's also worth noting that given his personal life he should be a 4chan hero.
Yeah, he more or less said, I think in "Human, all too human", that Positivism, e.g. his days´ scientism, was a thing for "slaves and factory workers which suits this uninspired times".
>the most spiritual and uplifting work of the modern period, exceeding every religious thinker by miles
Does anyone have that picture of a kid doing a sweet skateboard jump with Nietzsche's face and sunglasses photoshoped on his head and other philosophers like Plato underneath him?
Kinda like this.
I want you to reread what you just asked for and slap yourself
His writing is filled with vitality, and life-affirming ideas. It is certainly depressing if one ONLY hears his critique of Judaism/Christianity, or his predictions for a post-Christian civilization. Nietzsche doesn't depress me, the actualization of the society he predicted his what depresses me. Nietzsche's view of an alternative that is uplifting for anyone who doesn't desperately hold on to their desire to salvage something that is already doomed.
Nietzsche is a philosophical syringe of adrenaline.
Not many "religious figures" come to mind who suffered 'mental breakdown'. Nebuchadnezzar imagined he was an Ox for 7 years spawn, but that was probably just the side-effect of consuming too much grass of the arabs.
>Tfw you realize Gott ist tot
>You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star
>What does not destroy me, makes me stronger
>Whoever does not know how to find the way to his ideals lives more frivolously and impudently than the man without an ideal
>He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how
1 google search and 4 minutes of my time going through the ones that are just copies of the previous.
>I´m no man, I´m dynamite!
>If you gaze into the abbys, the abbys also gazes in you!
>There is lightning bolting out of the clouds, this lightning is the Übermensch.
>You go to women? Don´t forget the whip!
Do you also feel a shiver running down your spines reading his one-liners?
Why is nihilism a bad thing? If it's an outcome of all the variables in today's world, why oppose it? You onloy wish to indocrtinate the masses in order to mobilize them? Why not forge a nihilistic society, where people live for themselves and cooperate for each other's benefit? Spirituality is just man's wishes to seek a meaning in absurd world, when he could just aknowledge the truth and live his life as he wants. Just accept there is no absolute, and where there is no absolute, there is no good and evil, no right and wrong and we there may even not be an objective truth.
Because such a society will always be subject to conquest by stronger groups that are unified by common ideals. One cannot simply declare oneself immune to the realities of human group competition.
A barbarian race of wandering Orcs that has no higher culture, and no intellectual tradition, but has the power to enact its will is superior to a culture of nothing but genius artists and scientists, but which has no strength to defend or assert itself.
Calculations off moral superiority or inferiority are made moot by physical destruction. The strong will naturally dominate the weak, and a moral society comes to terms with this reality and does not try to change it--if it does so it will inevitably destroy itself. Try to imagine a society that is both individualistic and hierarchical. We have convinced ourselves that this is an oxymoron, when it is actually the natural human system.
Okay, but then what's the point of individualism when your society depends on such camaraderie?
As a matter of fact, it sounds an awful lot like they've just subscribed to a new higher meaning.
This is true, the strong triumph over the weak. But there is no point in living in such a society no matter how strong you are when all there is to life is living like a fantasy Orc.
This is why people should be both conquerors and philosophers. To both exert their will in the material will, and to exert their will by creating great art.
I would be even more broad and simply say that people should be what they ARE. Some race on some other continent, or some other planet may BE something else--perhaps they are Orcs, and the highest expression of their being is conquest and destruction.
Obviously, humans (or most or all human groups) are more than this, and so indeed should be more than mindless violent brigands, but also more than economic units and atomized selves--not because of what is "right" or "wrong" but because it is what we are.
This is the point at which you need to consider what is inalienably part of being human, and what you've simply been conditioned to do as naturally as breathing and deprogram yourself from it.
Perhaps humans really are atomized individuals and nations really are abstract nonsense. The only person who can make that call is you.
It's not Christian. It's post-Christian. It espouses Christian moral principals of human equality, and the need to rectify past moral wrongs (sin), takes these concepts, and strips them of their supernatural elements, and the belief in a God. It is secular Christianity.
Ha, no wonder why your ignorant! Your character flaw is showing.
Nietzsche was not Darwinian. As a matter of fact, he was highly skeptical of Darwins conclusions on natural selection.
He was not one of the first conservative atheist, so try not to generalize him.
Got it, kiddo?
It's not use explaining this to anyone who takes Christian moral principals as "common sense" rather than the revolutionary departure from the classical human morality that came before it. It is very difficult for most people to step outside of their own culture and history to see these things as particular and counterpropositional rather than default universal beliefs.
It's ironic of course, because the idea that these things are intuitive or normative in human history completely contradicts the idea that Jesus was revolutionary or pivotal in any meaningful way.
My school has a philosophy department that specializes in Nietzsche and I've taken classes on him under a world class Nietzsche scholar.
Uplifting was the first word she used to describe him.
Odds are you haven't read him at all.
Nietzsche understands nihilism a little differently than most people.
Nietzsche himself recognizes the lack of universal or absolute truths. So he's a """"nihilist"""" if you interpret that naively. What he's against isn't some sort of abstract nihilism, but rather a practical nihilism, the thoughts that make people deny life and hide in their holes versus living like Oedipus.
Right, but what I have in mind is the ancient Greeks , specifically Plato and Aristotle on natural rights. These natural rights include freedom and equality. Although they did not directly seek to order society, as direct as Jesus's actions and demagoguery, but he was not a revolutionary in the sense of doing something new.
Literally, against all forms of social equality. He simply believes things are different and trying to make them equal is like trying to make a banana an orange. You can't do it, but will lose the banana and the orange in the process.
Reading his works was one of the most important things I ever did.
I don't know where I would be without him.
That comic is a pretty poor understanding of Nietzsche
Nietzsche's argument would rather be that, investing emotion into winning and instead losing is itself a superior life than not participating at all. To not participate is to voluntary enter hospice early. You're seeking death.
So Epictetus, the Buddha and Schopenhauer are wrong not to play, not because losing is inevitable, but because rejection of the board game is death itself.
Of course, but that's almost a priori knowledge. But the point of The Birth of Tragedy is that strength in losing is superior to nothing.
Have you read Oedipus Rex? Oedipus tried to resist his fate as much as Epictetus could, and the Greeks found that just as uplifting as The Iliad.
>But the point of The Birth of Tragedy is that strength in losing is superior to nothing.
except that your phrasing with losing is attached far more to hedonism than anything else: you lose because you fantasize and fail to accomplish whatever you want to accomplish. the point is that once you stop fantasizing, you escape your systematic hedonistic misery and you start gaining more or less mediocrity.
but of course, the hedonists call this attitude ''losing'' since they are the ones who claim that we must ''live our dreams more than dreaming our lives'', and they are right if you must choose to dream beforehand. the point is to stop dreaming. then there is a spontaneous will to be intransigent on the will to gain [gain of radical happiness] and to stay away form mediocrity, aka mundane or non-mundane hedonism.
Ah, but like Nietzche himself, OP tactically chose the ground not of what's true or correct but which is "most spiritual" and "uplifting".
And Tolstoy makes Nietzsche seem positively mundane in that regard.
Depends what you are interested in. Birth of tragedy is heavy on like, historical philology, rather than philosophy, but osme people think it is vital to understanding his later works. Those people are obsessives, you should probably just skim a curated collection of his works and go hunt down the work's whose snippits you liked best.
Mostly, I just want to try and understand Nietzsche. I made it through starting with the Greeks, I made it through Stirner, and Nietzsche is next on the table.
Honestly, the impression I get of Nietzsche from what summaries I've read is that it's basically substituting one external moral structure for Nietzsche's. Taking the conclusion of a meaningless universe without the possibility of meaningful understanding of truth, and suggesting that the way around it is to engage in Nietzsche's proposed brand of self-delusion to deny this fact. I want to read the body of his works to better understand them, because I'm wagering that this is a bad impression.
That's a safe wager, I'll wager. I think he is aware that he is only proposing one potential alternative to nihlism, but mainly he wants to impress upon the reader that they ought to try to beat nihlism.
WHAT IS BASED NIETZSCHE WAY OF LIFE?
I want to live like a Nietzsche. Enjoying my life to it's fullest.
The basic most basic principles of his ideology, pls share.
>I liked Stirner, and it sounds like Nietzsche shares some similarities.
There have been claims made that Nietzsche knew about Stirner intimately actually, and borrowed a lot of concepts from him.
Thought, whether it's true or not is impossible to know, since Nietzsche didn't write a single word about him.
I want to try! I already have high enough self esteem!
That's why he should be the patron saint of this website.
A social autistic genius, born too late to shitpost...the bantz....the bantz....o how I wish for those bantz, like him chatting with an Aussie cunt
>I just can't get my mind around how Nietzsche supersedes all religious thinkers, given they know the glory of God and all.
>clearly never encountered Soren Kierkegaard
At the end of the day "The Knight of Faith" trumps the "Overman" every time
Christian existentialism is an absolute absurdity. There is no nihilism to overcome in a Christian worldview, only truth. So Kierkegaard's concept is just bog standard Christianity wearing a fancy new coat.
>It's another bait thread where OPs post rests on a bizarre foundation that he phrases triumphantly as obvious.
Yep, Nietzsche is the absolute über patrician and anyone saying otherwise has simply not understood him.
There are so many baits ITT that I lost count.
Case in point : >>569089
What is this stuff? Skeptics, cynics, ..., have been Christians. There is no "Christian worldview".
I know this is a Siamese origami imageboard, but /tv/ has better standards of discussion.
That there is an all-powerful, all knowing God, from which objective truth and goodness stem. Which combined mean that nihilism isn't a thing, and existentialism fundamentally without purpose.
>That there is an all-powerful, all knowing God, from which objective truth and goodness stem.
With such a "definition", William Blake, Meister Eckhart and Bossuet aren't Christian.
Neither are required to be Christian.
>nihilism isn't a thing
Nihilism would be a thing even with the "objective truth and goodness".
Launched and perpetuated by Christians. Gabriel Marcel is a good example.
That's because he was ...kind of self-exhiled since the way he was seeing the world was completely different than the rest of the people.
In fact,once Nietzsche is said to have seen a driver beating his horse. He then,ran over to embrace the driver beating the horse telling him "I understand you".
Nietzsche didn't drink alcohol and he had terrible relationships with his family. His books didn't sell and he couldn't find love.
I think all of these unfortunate events had evolved Nietzsche into the adept thinker we all know and love.
Abrahamic Religions: Kneeling, domesticated, unfree, servants, have to be told what to do.
Nietzsche: Standing, questioning everything (skeptic), proud, free spirited, does what he likes, adapts in his own way, overcomes, believes and respects merit.