Question for atheists who subscribe to Nietzsche: how have you

File: 1449795922906.png (42KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 240x240px

>>745953
>subscribing to such a thoroughly spooked person

Not an atheist but I find myself thinking about amor fati/eternal recurrence so goddamn much

>>746030

Please stop.

what even is nietzsche's philosophy
how do you subscribe to it

>>745953
24 year old virgin never even kissed a girl who hasn't held down a job for more than a month.

I am doing it right.

File: 20160224_014938.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>746030
I unironically love the Max Stirner memes

>>745953
Daily really.

I consider my understanding of Nietzsche to be one of the biggest steps in my life.

It completly changed how I saw all the other movements, politicals, and social trends, and interpersonal relationships. You can see the Will to Power at work in everything and the creeping force of ressentiment behind so much of what is wrong with the world. A lot of things I used to think were paradoxical are now easily explained.

It also cured my depression I used to have and allowed me gain back the spiritual aspect of life I had denied myself during my fedora days.

>>746082
If they're done Ironically, I can get behind them. It's the alternative where it gets weird.

>>746090
>spiritual
Metaphysical trash

>using philosophy
I thought you faggots studied oxymorons

>>745953
>how have you used his philosophy in real life?
I haven't because I am not an Ubermensch.

>>746090
What purpose have you found?

>>746097
Nietzsche was no meta-physician but Zarathustra is a highly spiritual book.

It's really hard to describe Nietzsche's secular spirituality to someone that is used to contextualizing spirtual matters from a Christian world view: secular spirituality should sound like a contradiction. But I'll explain it.

Monotheistic spirituality makes a dinstiction between the divine realm and the mundane or material world. The mundane or material realm is not spiritual, it only becomes spiritual when it interacts with the divine which is the source of all spirituality.

Nietzsche closed the gap entirely. What is called the material, the mundane, or the 'real' world is what is enchanted. Spirituality doesn't exist as separate from a person, from nature, and the environment but as being inseperatly bound to it.

He makes it explicit here

>"Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and those blasphemers died along with him. Now to blaspheme against the earth is the greatest sin, and to rank love for the Unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth! "

>>746146
this, well said bro

Nietzche didn't deny a higher perspective on life, he just didn't think it couldn't be found in the churches. Zarathustra reads like mysticism without the metaphysics

>>746119
All things have purpose. It's not possible for them to be in any other state. That's because all action is the manifestation of someone or something's Will. It's intent is it's own growth.

So the natural state of the world is growth and the 'meaning' of all things is growth. This growth is not deferred to some 'other' but for itself.

>>746146
>Orthodox Christians do not see a dichotomy between the body and the soul but rather consider them as a united whole, and they believe that what happens to one affects the other (this is known as the psychosomatic union between the body and the soul).[30][31] Saint Gregory Palamas argued that man's body is not an enemy but a partner and collaborator with the soul. Christ, by taking a human body at the Incarnation, has made the flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification.[32] This same concept is also found in the much earlier homilies of Saint Macarius the Great.

>>746163
Who gives a shit what Orthodox think?

>>746174
Since you paint Nietzsche as a reaction against Christianity, it's kind of important to have a proper presentation of Christianity, no?

File: how to understand our cheerfulness.jpg (156KB, 563x831px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 563x831px

>>746090
Reading Nietzsche was a big stepping stone for me as well. It injected vitality into my life and gave me the concept of self-overcoming, which I think gets too often neglected in discussions of Nietzsche. Also his critique of Christianity is pretty great.

>>746179
Christianity wasn't just rekt by Nietzsche, it was rekt with style. Nietzsche wasn't merely a philosophy, he was also a great prose stylist.
>Christianity robbed us of the harvest of the culture of the ancient world, it later went on to rob us of the harvest of the culture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish cultural world of Spain, more closely related to us at bottom, speaking more directly to our senses and taste, than Greece and Rome, was trampled down (—I do not say by what kind of feet—): why? because it was noble, because it owed its origin to manly instincts, because it said Yes to life even in the rare and exquisite treasures of Moorish life!… Later on, the Crusaders fought against something they would have done better to lie down in the dust before—a culture compared with which even our nineteenth century may well think itself very impoverished and very ‘late.’—They wanted booty, to be sure: the Orient was rich…. But let us not be prejudiced! The Crusades—higher piracy, that is all! German knighthood, Viking Knighthood at bottom, was there in its element: the Church knew only too well what German knighthood can be had for…. The German knights, always the ‘Switzers’ of the Church, always in the service of all the bad instincts of the Church—but well paid…. That it is precisely with the aid of German swords, German blood and courage, that the Church has carried on its deadly war against everything noble on earth! A host of painful questions arises at this point. The German aristocracy is virtually missing in the history of higher culture: one can guess the reason…. Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.

>>746163
You are kind of proving my point. Your Orthodoxy is still viewing the divine and mundane as seperate things. The soul and body still constitute different things.

In Nietzsche's philosophy the distinction is destroyed. The body, the brain, the physical world is not inhabited by spirituality: it IS spirtuality. If you need to believe your body is inhabited by a soul to make it spiritual all you are saying is that it is not spiritual by itself. The holy spirit is only needed to make things spiritual because they are not already spiritual.

So Gods, souls, holy spirits, and the like are not needed. Because everything and everything is already innately divine. It can't be tainted by sin because there is no sin (what is called sin too is spirtualy).

>>746194
>The body, the brain, the physical world is not inhabited by spirituality: it IS spirtuality.
So, idealism?

>>746194
What does "spiritual" even mean in this case, it's a superimposed duplicate reality of everything, or it is redundant.

>>746197
No even more direct than that. Both the world of ideas and the world of material things are spirtual.

That tree outside is literally, materialistically, spiritually divine. So is the concept and idea of the tree.

The closest thing I could describe it as is something like animism where everything has a divine soul. Although it goes even deeper because the divine thing isn't a transcendent soul but the thing itself.

>>746211
Seeing everything as spiritual in a Nietzsche sense is the opposite of nihilism. Everything has meaning and purpose. It's source of the attidue of amor fati

>>746219
So it's basically not spiritual at all. It's like how people say Spinoza believed in God, even though his pantheism was the same as atheism except with just a different definition of God.

>>746272
if you define spirituality as metaphysics and will hear nothing else, why even both having this discussion?

>>746272
That is, Nietzsche hate spirituality, but loves the *idea* of spirituality. So he redefines spiritual to mean material.

>>746276
>bother

>>746276
The point here is that Nietzsche isn't offering any new application of spirituality at all, he's literally just redefining the term, just like Spinoza redefines God.

>>746179
>>746184

>not reading the middle section of the antichrist more closely. he beleived in jesus.

>>746284
If we could imagine god to exist, if we could imagine a spiritual, metaphysical layer to reality, why couldn't we imagine that we exist on that layer of reality? I don't really see how that redefines the term.

>>745953
>2016
>People still think Nietzsche was an atheist

People really should read Nietzsche before talking bullshit about him

>>745953
I once transvaluated an entire value.

>>746272
We have been conditioned by Christianity and Platoism to beleive that the real world is mundane and cannot be spiritual, it must have some sort of Form, Supernatural, or Other element in order to this.

Read Nietzsche and stop believing this crap.

File: christian.jpg (57KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 850x400px

>>746287
He believed that he existed and he did not really attack Christ himself very much. Nietzsche said Paul and other "Christians" corrupted Christ's message, and nietzsche certainly did not believe that message. I don't really know what you're trying to say.

>>746306
>challenges the consensus of literally everyone and does not even back up his assertion

>>745953
only the eternal return changes your life since it means that as soon as you accept dukkha over and over as in a samsara, as soon as you stop despising life, as soon as you stop being a nihilist, your existence changes in accessing a different perspective on existence. the eternal return is a surrender, an abdication of your self before your sufferings and joys stemming form your failure to fulfil your wish to live in hedonism, in avidity towards pleasures and aversion towards pains. once you abdicate, you destroy (mundane) hedonism.

File: 4.jpg (783KB, 950x1307px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 950x1307px

>>746330
>we've been conditioned to believe the material world is material and can't be incorporeal

This is what you are saying. The spiritual is, by definition, in contradistinction from the material. If you believe everything is spirit, Geist, you are an idealist, if you say everything is material, you are a materialist. To say, "The material is Geist," is incoherent, it's like pic related

>>745953
Started viewing moral conflicts as conflicts of interest.

Became more politically right, esp where realpolitik is concerned.

Got in shape.

Became more proud and self-confident.

Don't entirely subscribe to his philosophy, but his master morality is a good starting place ethically.

>>746393
Did you create your own values, or did you adopt ancient Greek values?

>>746030
their philosophies were basically the same. you can use spooks to your advantage you know

>>746355
Because 90% of this board is autistic teen spillovers form /pol/
Read >>746346
Nietzsche basically said the God of Abraham was dead, the God of the old testament and instead of a God of Justice we were left with a version corrupted by the apostles and the church.

File: Robed Man.png (329KB, 426x541px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 426x541px

>>746396
Created my own, mostly out of a combination of things I believed to be strong, aristocratic, and masculine. Aesthetically I actually favor a lot of stuff from the near-east. Babylon and Sumer and the like.

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr24202.htm

Could easily be my manifesto.

File: um.png (11KB, 1201x119px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 1201x119px

>>746416
Well this is awkward.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but Nietzsche did not believe in any gods. Nietzsche liked Old Testament God better than New Testament God, but he believed in neither, just like how he liked master morality over slave morality, but still wanted something better.

>>746429
Hm, I take it you're a solider?

>>746090
Serious question: how did you glean the need for spirituality in your life from Nietzsche?

>>746447
No, thats more my aesthetic ideals than my occupation. The idea of being strong, intelligent, cultured, and well-liked without compromising on the principles that made me so strong, intelligent, etc, and to base it all not on any objective moral reality, but my own strength of will and love of life.

I read old praise poems like that because they seem to live in a world very much like the post-Christian one we live in.

The gods are only barely on our side, death is essentially the end since the underworld sucks and has no 'life' there, and we're at the mercy of natural forces over which we have minimal control.

And yet these old kings constantly sing about how great they are, and how strong they are, and how great life is, and how they do not fear descending into the pit.

Nietzche's aesthetic ideal was very greek, but mine is more Babylonian. I love the will to power and life that breathes through these poems.

>>746384
This is again a Christian/Platonic perspective. If you look back at the very old religions, the one's Nietzche seems to have the most respect for, the material and the spirtual were one.

Here's a Harvard professor ancient religion. One of things she mentions is that in the old polytheistic, tribal religion nature (as in the material nature) and the divine realm were indistinguishable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVFoMiOEUY

The idea of spiritual stuff as some transcendence first comes from Plato which was later absorbed into Christianity. There are multiple systems of spirtuality.

>>746527
>If you look back at the very old religions, the one's Nietzche seems to have the most respect for, the material and the spirtual were one.
Nietzsche has the highest respect for Islam.

>>746527
>The idea of spiritual stuff as some transcendence first comes from Plato
What a bunch of silliness. Are you being serious, or are you completely unfamiliar with the old testament?

>>746576
Judaism was originally a polytheistic religion, the Gods were not transcendent but literally lived on earth. There wasn't even a concept of heaven or life after death.

The nature of God as a transcendent being can be traced back the Hellenistic Jews who fused Platoism with the Old testament. The final step in doing so was the work of Maimonides who used Aristotle to argue that Old Testament God was completly trascidient (and this was not a universally accepted idea at the time, it was very controversial and banned for asserting this in many places)

We really can trace the idea of a super-transcendent God back to Plato and his kin, his ideas were later absorbed into the 'official' reading of the books by various cannonical figures.

Any good professor who studies critical analysis of ancient texts will tell you that the original Judaism had a pantheon of Gods that had a physical presence. You can still find traces of it in the bible such as when in descriptions of rituals it describes God's nostrels being pleased by the scent of burning cows at offerings.

>>746562
He had respect for it relative to Christianity because it "at least assumes we are dealing with men". He doesn't consider any religions equal and there is a clear rank. Christianity is at the bottom, Buddhism and Islam are middle tier. It's clear that he considered the Greek religion the highest of all, that's why he calls himself a disciple of Dionysus

>>746603
>Judaism was originally a polytheistic religion
You mean the Jews originally followed the polytheistic religion. Worship of YHWH was never polytheistic.

>>746608
It's genuinely believed the Yawheists believed in other Gods but exclusively worshiped Yahweh. Eventually the existence of other Gods would be entirely denied and Yahweh would absorb all their other functions.

>>746644
What are demons

>>746603
>. It's clear that he considered the Greek religion the highest of all, that's why he calls himself a disciple of Dionysus
No, he considers Islam superior

>Christianity robbed us of the harvest of the culture of the ancient world, it later went on to rob us of the harvest of the culture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish cultural world of Spain, more closely related to us at bottom, speaking more directly to our senses and taste, than Greece and Rome,

>>746735
I don't blame you for taking that quote out of context. Nietzche frequently talks about how the Romans, and doubly the Greeks, feel like something we cannot relate to. This is not a good thing, this is a bad thing.

The Greek Paganism he called "The highest type of man". When describing his philosophy he says he did not call it Muhammidian, or Islamic. It's Dionysian. The general themes of Birth of Tragedy make it very clear he is more allied with their culture than any others.

Nietzsche praises many ancient cultures: the ancient Jews, the Hindus, the Moorish Islamic, even the Buddhists to some extent. But his highest praise is for Greek culture. It's the one culture he is constantly referencing again and again, always in a postive light. While Islam is mentioned only briefing, with no more than 10 sentences in his entire text devote to it.

>>746608
>>746644
You mean monolatrism?

File: NietzscheonSJW4.jpg (130KB, 690x667px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 690x667px

>>745953
im a sexy asshole

>>746791
Nietzsche refers to himself as Dionysian, but he hates alcohol as much as Christianity. And while you're here talking about how the material and the spiritual are not distinct in primitive religion--well, if we apply that to Dionysus, his form was literally wine, as we can see from the Cyclops, by Euripides

CYCLOPS
And who is Bacchus? some reputed god?

ODYSSEUS
The greatest god men know to cheer their life.

CYCLOPS
I like his after-taste at any rate.

ODYSSEUS
This is the kind of god he is; he harmeth no man.

CYCLOPS
But how does a god like being housed in a wine-skin?

ODYSSEUS
Put him where one may, he is content there.

CYCLOPS
It is not right that gods should be clad in leather.

ODYSSEUS
What of that, provided he please thee? does the leather hurt thee?

>>746806
That's not the best example and you know it, anon. Wine is simply an aspect of Dionysus, as he represents all fleeting mortal pleasures

>>746806
He takes Dionysus as a God of passions. You can see him make a dichotomy there with Apollo who who casts as a God of reason.

So Nietzsche is telling us his philosophy is passionate, which is necessary to embrace and affirm all of life. It's the opposite of the fedorism that seeks despises all spirituality and wants Vulcan-like impassion in the name of reason.

But yes the Cyclops dialogue is good, it shows how older, polytheistic societies saw spirituality. Dionysus is literally a physical thing, as are all spiritual things. And with hundreds of Gods and spirits the world is fully enchanted as everything in it is some sort of spirit. You do not get a dichotomy between divine and mundane, everything is divine and the spirit world and the maternal world are one.

I believe this is what Thales of Miletus was trying to communicate when he said "Everything is full of Gods", that everything in reality is spiritual.

>>746819
So Dionysus is Aphrodite as well?

>>746837
>He takes Dionysus as a God of passions. You can see him make a dichotomy there with Apollo who who casts as a God of reason.
These are metaphysical things, not material.

Why is it necessary for a human being to have some sort of stance when it comes to religion?

People ask if I am Christian, I say no, people ask if I am Muslim, I say no, people ask if I am into any other religion, I say no, people ask if I am atheist, I say no. And reason I do that because not only I don't want to give an uneducated answer, I don't understand why am I obligated to give answer. My mother is Christian, my father is Muslim, how can I make a choice without offending any side of the family? So I make no choices, and no complaints have been received from the family. But there are still people who claim "one day you will have to make a choice, everybody do", so, why can't I choose to be out?

>>746837
>Dionysus is literally a physical thing, as are all spiritual things.
Which Nietzsche clearly rejects.

>>746850
You mean apatheism?

>>745953
Well frankly I kinda want to kill myself so that's a start.

>>746856
It's still a stance.

>>746040
me too. it just really bugged me, the thought that no one could prove me wrong..
I actually found a little solace when i was reading a philosophy general book in some library and i saw a short paragraph on a school in crete i think that just focused on disproving eternal return.
I think they summarized that 'it doesnt exist because if we lived the same life over for eternity, that would like just turn into one full, complete life that ended because infinite return was some sort of wierd paradox anyway.

i dunno if this helps you, but it kinda chilled the thought out in my brain. Like dont sweat it, because we can't know if we keep returning anyways? idk..

>>746876
In the same way that apolitical is a stance.

>>746876
>not being an apathetic agnostic

>>747016
>not caring about the question with greater implications than any other question which could be concieved

>>747020
It doesn't matter to me in the greater scheme of things, nor does it have any effect on what I do.