If Nietzsche's ubermensch (or the "extraordinary man", in Crime and Punishment--by the way, the word for "extraordinary" here can also be translated as "transcendent") is someone, like Mohammed or Napoleon, who destroys all values to make way for values he created, then isn't Jesus Christ the greatest ubermensch who ever lived? Like with every "extraordinary man", Great bloodshed and pain were required to bring about his values (he predicted, "I do not bring peace"), but unlike with all the other ubermensch, this bloodshed and pain was wrought on his followers (starting with him). Yet more than any other man he destroyed all the old values and imposed his own.
But there is no substance to this assertion, it's just an empty assertion. If we accepted Nietzsche as a Bible and verses by him could simply be quoted an authority, that would be something else, but Nietzsche did not himself want that.
But that implies that one was once mere man, while Jesus Christ was PERFECT from the day he was born to the day that he died and rose again. To compare him as such to men, no matter how extraordinary is to denigrate him.
Jesus the man, was the platonic form of man on earth, a historical event entirely without parallel, neither preceding nor proceeding.
No, because Jesus Christ is the Word. He is the Law, the Reason. He did not abolish anything, except sin; but sin is a not something positive, but a lack of something, so it is not really abolished, just wiped clean. Christ is the order of the world incarnated into the world. He did not do anything except his Father's will.
Nietzsche's "Übermensch" is just his deranged vision of the antichrist.
This implies that Jesus Christ was wrong when he would have disciplines in all ages in whose souls He would live:
>If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.
If there are no Christians but Christ that would mean Christ had totally failed in His mission.
Jesus is the Word from Heraclitus.
>Christ is the order of the world
The word for "order" and "world" in Greek is kosmos, and it is ruled by Satan.
You trying to superimpose Greek philosophy onto Christianity.
>He did not do anything except his Father's will.
He and his Father are the same being.
>Jesus is the Word from Heraclitus.
And St. John.
>The word for "order" and "world" in Greek is kosmos, and it is ruled by Satan.
Satan only rules the world insofar as the world is seated in wickedness, in sin. To call Satan the ruler of this world is to emphasise how much sin has entered into it. Still, nevertheless, in the absolute sense God, Christ, is the supreme ruler of the world, and Satan is just an administrator used to try the saints.
>He and his Father are the same being.
>Satan only rules the world insofar as the world is seated in wickedness, in sin. To call Satan the ruler of this world is to emphasise how much sin has entered into it. Still, nevertheless, in the absolute sense God, Christ, is the supreme ruler of the world, and Satan is just an administrator used to try the saints.
God is certainly not synonymous with this order and world, no matter how you slice.
The order (which is what the word "kosmos" means in Greek) after the fall is not God's. To identify God with the order (which is what Greekboos do too much), is a massive mistake. Even the order before the fall is not synonymous with God.
"Logos" in orthodox Christian thought, as a theological term, does not mean reason or order. It means Word but in a sense that is synonymous with Truth itself (very different from, say the Bible, which is a description of the Truth, not Truth itself, which is God--but English only has one word for word, so it's a bit confusing). Logos is a righteous testimony, for instance, as opposed to a false one. The only time Logos is used in a less than objective sense, is with the Tower of Babel, where it says God changed the one Logos of the people into many.
Looks pretty dank.. Thanks much, brother
No problem. I don't communicate it very often but I actually consider myself a Christian. Dostoyevsky and the reality of my own suffering, as well as ultimately understanding the impotence of other philosophies, were all instrumental in revealing the truth. Now...if I could just *actually* renounce the world.
you're probably not still here but I have. it was a comfort to me for a long time, but was ultimately stolen from me. oddly enough, the scene in the book where the pilgrim loses his philokalia was similar, but sadly I did not respond in the same way as the pilgrim..i am truly a profligate and sinful person.
as is every other man, or at least potentially. jesus just achieved our potential because he was raised and educated by people who wholeheartedly believed he was the son of god, not realizing they were as well. because they believed themselves to be evil, and never gave thought to their potential for purity even after having done evil. jesus was just the outsider who was like dude u r whatever u wanna b.
and then authority, as with socrates, recognized him as redpilling the populace, saw the threat, and martyrd him, achieving exactly what they sought to avoid.
which isn't to actually say jesus was some transcendent ubermensch, he was just recorded as having been some transcendent ubermensch. think socrates. these are just people desu.
The Philokalia is really, really good too. You can read it here, if you want: https://archive.org/details/Philokalia-TheCompleteText
But it is not a work to go through quickly. You should read it a little bit at a time and carefully contemplate it. You should also pray for understanding before you do.
You might also enjoy the Orthodox New Testament. You can find it only by googling "Orthodox New Testament PDF" and clicking the first result. It has very good commentary, but it's also based on the Orthodox NT, which has a slightly different Greek text than than the Western NT.
God bless you.
t. the only sinner
Great trips, but there is a tremendous differences between Socrates and Christ, besides the overtly Christian issue. Socrates opposed the material, that is why he wasn't very concerned about dying, and even thought facing death without concern was what mattered most. Christ, on the other hand, begged the Father to please save him, Christ did not *want* to die, he was not even neutral or okay with death, he actively *did not want* to die.
I have to sincerely thank you for taking time to suggest those and I will definitely put them on my phone. I actually live a lot like the pilgrim, I have been hitchhiking and hopping trains since last spring. I make money by doing day labor and begging to. Lately, I have given up a lot of vices which were holding me back. I think I will have to get a physical copy of the Philokalia it doesn't seem like something to read on a tiny phone screen but maybe that is just splitting hairs.
God bless you as well!
No. You somehow manage to fuck up Nietzsche even worse than the postmodernist marxists. First of all, the actual person who was influential was Paul, not Jesus. The gospels were written after Paul lived; they would not have existed if Paul did not exist. The Jesus Christians know and love only exists because of Paul.
Second of all, the ubermensch isn't the person who creates new values but is a new race beyond man. Nietzsche speaks of the greatness of creating new values all the time, but only as a going-across, the ubermensch is not just any creator of new values, but a new species. This is very clear. The ubermensch not embody all new values, but specifically Nietzsche's new values. Last men create new values all the time.
>Once did people say God, when they looked out upon distant seas; now, however, have I taught you to say, Superman. God is a conjecture: but I do not wish your conjecturing to reach beyond your creating will. Could ye CREATE a God?—Then, I pray you, be silent about all Gods! But ye could well create the Superman.
>Never yet hath there been a Superman. Naked have I seen both of them, the greatest man and the smallest man:— All-too-similar are they still to each other. Verily, even the greatest found I—all-too-human!— Thus spake Zarathustra.
>"Man must become better and eviler"—so do I teach. The evilest is necessary for the Superman's best.
I mean seriously, read the Sermon on the Mount, then read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and please shut the fuck up. Your mental gymnastics are embarrassing.
Oh no argument there, a very shrill Trilby in fact. I wasn't OP and I wouldn't try to reify Nietzsche into a pro-Christian writer, that would be idiotic. I do agree with OP in the sense of Dostoevsky's reading of Nietzsche, though. Also, since Nietzsche does address Christianity and religions generally very often, I think he is someone that Christians should really pay attention to...I believe his disgust for the faith was spurred on largely by the cultural trappings it had acquired in his day...the bloodclottedness of it...the resignation towards authority that Germans tend to blend with every thing (even with Nietzsche lol)
>First of all, the actual person who was influential was Paul, not Jesus
Aren't you begging the question, here? And isn't it all the more presumptuous to do so when Paul's Epistles are peppered with him making a sharp distinction every time he says something that's purely his opinion, and didn't come from Christ?
>the ubermensch is not just any creator of new values, but a new species
Not literally. They are a new order of humanity that is created by the ubermensch. The ubermesnch Nietzsche is hoping for in Zarathustra is one who completely destroys all Christian genealogy of values, and imposes his own, completely self-created values to create a brand new humanity that has no ties with the Christian legacy.