How can one man be so based? I've been a Nietzschefag for

>>8333869
>>Lol Nietzsche sucks because no morals yadayada went crazy because of his thought etc.

Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard overlapped heavily with Neechee and they didn't go nuts.

Scheler's Ressentiment is the greatest "critique" on Nietzsche.

nice ad hom chesterton now try again

oh wait you're dead you fucking faggot lmao

>>8333869
Chesterton is fun, but aphorisms and the similar aren't something I will ever take as anything more than stylized fun.

>>8333938
>Kierkegaard overlapped heavily with Neechee
Not at all

>>8333869
>pseuds being impressed by this
>"Nietzschefag"

>>8333869
>The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility.
Low blow Chesterton.

Btw I think I'm on to something better in Nietzsche's impact on Lewis.

>>8333869
>but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it
fucking dropped

He is precisely the cancer Nietzsche hates.

>>8334136
Are you kidding?

Unless you're being particularly picky with your language (poor show if so), there are at least many parallels between the two to the degree Nietzsche was told by a few people he should at least read some Kierkegaard.

Anyone who dramatizes a person's illness like that to denonce their arguments is a scumbag.

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (21KB, 474x528px)

21KB, 474x528px

>>8333869

>Unironically arguing in favour of 'common' morality
>Dropping ad hominems

And this is coming from someone who loves Chesterbelloc and Nietzsche.

>>8333869

Chesterton was a wrong, fat, unfunny adherent of a false religion. His writings are sentimentalist garbage of the lowest order. The fucker looked like he looked, and wore a cape. As such, he was a fedora among Catholics.

Take his aphorisms. He does the same unwitty, unfunny thing, over and over again:

"It seems to me that the trouble with x and y, is that there is not enough y in x. Oh dear me I'm so fat and clever, darling fetch my muumuu I must run an errand now~"

Absolutely interminable. Happily, an above-average proportion of other anons ITT thus far also seem to hate Chesterton. Good.

>>8335404

Chesterton was obviously wrong about a lot, but still witty and occasionally valuable.

Chesterton's Fence is a great argument to have in your arsenal in an era of hyper-progressivism, for example. Very useful against "change is always good" faggots.

LMAO

if i hadnt read

>>8335404


i would have walked away from this thread thinking OPs pic was a fat Nietzsche

>lit triggered this hard by their hero getting absolutely BTFO

top kek lads

>>8335428
Listen I like Chesterton and feel neutral towards neitzche but he was not btfo here, this is just him sperging on someone he disliked with no content, like Schoppy and Hegel.

>>8333869
He is awful at writing essays. His "Orthodox" essay could have been easily minimized to 5-6 pages.

>>8335433

Except Schoppy was right to sperg on Hegel, because Hegel's work had no content.

the easiest way to ensure that nobody ever reads or likes Chesterton on this board is to open the thread with the assertion that Chesterton "btfo"d Nietzsche

For one, it's pretty obvious that Chesterton had not read much Nietzsche and mostly knew him through second-hand accounts. He also didn't combat Nietzsche in any formal or thorough way.

I think he was right and Nietzsche was wrong, but you'd have to be very stupid to think that his writings on Nietzsche are a compelling and complete refutation of Nietzsche's philosophy

>>8335438
You mean Orthodoxy?
He is well known as one of the greatest essay writers english language has ever seen.
The fact that you think he can be reduced could be said of half of philosophy, beacuse it doesn't account the way he reaches a point or the importance of structure or style.
>>8335455
I think this is correct. Chesterton was not engaged with Nee-Chan himself, but with his contemporary Nee-Chan dick sucking colleagues.
Aside from that, neither was a particularly systematic author and both relied on style as much as substance.

>>8335439
Not an argument faggot

>>8335468

Not a rebuttal faggot

>>8335389
>>dropping ad hominems
>implying that this doesn't constitute much of Nietzsche's """""philosophy""""

>>8335562

It doesn't really. Provide examples.

>>8333869
He looked like a massive child though.

>>8335574

Given his huge size/etc, I imagine he probably had Klinefelter's Syndrome or something.

>>8335587
>Klinefelter's Syndrome
His moustache looks quite thick.

He just looks fat to me. Fat increases estrogen (trufax not broscience)

>>8335574
And he was childishly cheerful.
I love his novels because he does something special, surrealist novels that are incredibly cheerful.

>>8335466
>He is well known as one of the greatest essay writers english language has ever seen.

If writing a 100 page essay where he says "St. Francis of Assisi was an impeccable man. An impeccable, extraordinary man. An impeccable, extraordinary, incredible man. An impeccable, extraordinary, incredible, amazing man. So amazing. So impeccable. So extraordinary... etc., etc.," ad infinitum indicates a good essay, then I would much rather read "terrible" essays.

>>8335252
And there are also immense, insurmountable difference. Kierkegaard was a moral realist, Nietzsche a moral non-realist. Considering that the whole point of both thinkers is ethical it's a pretty big deal.

>>8333869
>A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14. Essentially a writer for very young people. Romantic in the large sense.

>>8335774
>Kierkegaard was a moral realist, Nietzsche a moral non-realist.
I appreciate the sophomoric analysis bud.

You need to work on your compare and contrast skills if your response to "there are deep running similarities" is "there are also differences", and the differences are mostly based on secondary analysis (:^/)

>>8335633
I've read 6 of his books, but nothing on st. Francis.
If we can say anything about Chesterton, it's that he's a man who goes to the point without beating around the bush. He's brisk and never takes long to get to somewhere and when he does he moves away.
Maybe this particular essay was such, but none of his other more famous works is drawn out or repetitive.

>>8335404
Hey man, The Man Who Was Thursday was great

>>8335813
There is a difference between there are also differences and the differences are so great you can't reconcile them ethically.

Kierkergaard is a Christian, and no matter how personal a relationship it is, it acts as something to adhere to. Nietzsche's self striving, the self making of values is impossible if there is an external source of authority.

Sure there are similarities, there is a reason why they are both labeled as existential, but the point of both philosophers are at complete odds from each other.

>and the differences are mostly based on secondary analysis (:^/)
There is no reason to say this. It is pure conjecture.

>>8333869
>A Fat man with a lazy eye is somehow able to criticize the concept of the Ubernmensch

>>8335885
>Kierkergaard is a Christian,
Nietzsche is also a Christian.

>It is pure conjecture.
Unless I missed the parts where K explicitly said "btw I'm a moral realist" and N stated "I am most definitely a moral non-realist" those are your secondary interpretations and so an artificial distinction. There may be parts where one must choose Nietzsche or Kierkegaard but there aren't that many, they write about similar things (they travel in a similar way) but focus on different areas.

>>8335907
Nietzsche is most certainly not a Christian and was a moral relativist and Kierkegaard was a moral realist.
This isn't even up to debate, it's basic facts about them.

File: JUST.jpg (27KB, 472x472px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 472x472px

>>8335907

>Nietzsche is also a Christian.

>>8335907
So this is b8 right? Nietzsche 101 is that he doesn't believe in objective morality.
'There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena' Beyond Good and Evil, chapter 4.

>Nietzsche is also a Christian
Just no. Name a single philosopher who thinks this. Give me an aphorism that unequivocally shows his Christianity. What is his rejection of Christianity in his letters to his sister. His entire philosophy is how to act in a world without God to supply us moral truth.

>Unless I missed the parts where K explicitly said "btw I'm a moral realist"
He is a Christian, it is a definition part of it that he must be a moral realist. It's a simple a priori truth.

>>8335929
>Nietzsche is most certainly not a Christian
You got a pleb reading of the guy tbqph. Nietzsche is a radical Christian if anything who has his own view of Christ separate to the one created by St Paul. All his anti Christian writings are anti Paul writings
>The life, the example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter [that's Paul btw] in hatred had reduced it to his uses.

>>8335971
Yes, that's a non Christian. Christianity is a strictly defined religion.
Making up your own meme version is something other than Christianity, whatever it may be.
Also, read the Bible.

File: mfw.gif (1MB, 200x182px)

1MB, 200x182px

>>8335971

>You got a pleb reading of the guy tbqph. Nietzsche is a radical Christian if anything who has his own view of Christ separate to the one created by St Paul. All his anti Christian writings are anti Paul writings

>>8335971

I wouldn't go as far saying he's a radical Christian but he did have a weak point for Jesus and went on so far as decrying Parsifal for using the messiah in such a vulgar way. Anglo-American interpretations have a hard-on for leaving out anything that's not pure atheism, and it's a shame he's so corrupted by "modern" interpretations trying to make him into some kind of atheist liberal leftie.

File: frustration.jpg (43KB, 1012x848px)

43KB, 1012x848px

>>8335937
>>8335938
>mfw reddit plebs
Yeah, le god is dead that's Nee-chee right? Total atheist QED!

Nothing is so straight cut in Nietzsche m80s. As for that apriori bs, a much simpler argument in line with Kierkegaard's thought is put forward in a clockwork orange. Your way of thinking wouldn't be able to penetrate even that in any meaningful sense.

File: 1382575161863.jpg (217KB, 698x760px)

217KB, 698x760px

>>8336034

>>8336034
You still haven't named a single philosopher who considers Nietzsche a Christian. If you were able to decipher Nietzsche's Christianity from his text than surely so must plenty of respectable academics. Also you never mentioned his explicit break from Christianity he made in a letter to his sister.

>>8335984
>Christianity is a strictly defined religion.
Since...? You can have your own dogmatic opinions, that's fine, and yes that kind of dogmatism is incompatible with Nietzsche. But again it's you bringing your own baggage to the table "Kierkegaard's philosophy is only in line with dogmatists like myself [it really isn't tho, you forgo any need for choice or faith from your own self] and Nietzsche doesn't fit into my views so is incompatible". So it is not that the two philosophies themselves are incompatible, you lack (or refuse to develop) the ability to combine them.

File: I seriously hope you spooks don't do this.jpg (9KB, 238x211px)

9KB, 238x211px

>Nietzsche
>Christian

This board.

This fuckin' board.

>>8336064
>You still haven't named a single philosopher who considers Nietzsche a Christian.
He outright states in Antichrist that Jesus lived without ressentiment and that that way of being a Christian (living a life like Christ's) has been/will be/is still possible. He calls it genuine primitive Christianity. Covered by chapters 39 and 40.

>>8335971
>There is only one Christian and he died on the cross
translates to:
>There are two Christians, me and my homebody
?

>>8336175
Didn't even try to answer the anon's question.

>>8336072
Since the council of Nicea.
Christianity also isn't philosophy.

>>8336192
There's no way you're making sense of any of that chapter with that level of reading. You can't interpret Nietzsche in sound bites. It's not even a correct quotation, AT BOTTOM there WAS one Christian and he died on the cross.

He then goes on to say a kind of Christianity is always possible.

>>8336206
Nietzsche himself advocates what he calls a Christian way of life. He is by his own admission a Christian (although you could say he goes beyond being just a Christian).

If you are unfamiliar with the basics of Nietzsche's philosophy yes I guess it is not obvious, but if you know that Nietzsche is aiming for freedom from ressentiment, then if a life free from ressentiment is a Christian way of life (in Nietzsche's particular conception of an authentic Christianity) Nietzsche is advocating at bottom that Christian way of life.

File: really.jpg (20KB, 306x306px)

20KB, 306x306px

>>8336249

>He is by his own admission a Christian

File: Top fucking kek you pathetic faggot.jpg (18KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 258x245px

>>8336249

>Nietzsche himself advocates what he calls a Christian way of life. He is by his own admission a Christian

>>8336260
>>8336269
Enlighten me Pepe. Make sense of only C 39 of Anti Christ.

>>8336034
>>8336175
>>8336072
>>8336249
hi chiller

>>8336249
this is correct

File: tumblr_makrkihppW1rrjc3l.gif (475KB, 500x281px)

475KB, 500x281px

>>8336284

>>8336277

Don't tell me this mouth-breathing retard has a fucking reputation here.

>>8336310
I have no idea who/what chiller is, but I've been posting here semi reg since the start of /lit/. And quite a lot on Nietzsche.

It's interesting to see the waves of people who come in with really dumbass views on philosophy who then must either go away or develop. I wonder which you'll be.

>>8336334

You've yet to cite anyone of significance who shares your dumbass view.

Of course, you may well be the next in a long line of dumbasses who think they've figured out Nietzsche better than anyone else.

>>8336175
That isn't an admission of Christianity. He is merely stating that a) Jesus (as per his understanding of him) is a pretty cool dude and that b) it is possible to emulate this. Give me a direct quote from him that is unequally a positive affirmation of his Christian belief. Something along the lines of I believe in God. Jesus died for our sins on the cross for the sake of humanity. And you still haven't named a single philosopher who considers him a Christian. Or do I take it know know more about Nietzsche than all Nietzsche scholars?

>>8335506
Damn, nice. Im gonna use this

>>8336334
Kek admiring Jesus does not necessarily mean the admirer is a Christian

>>8336360
He didnt like the fact that Jesus martyrd himself though.

"They made signs in blood along the way that they went, and their folly taught them that the truth is proved by blood.

But blood is the worst of all testimonies to the truth; blood poisoneth even the purest teaching and turneth it into madness and hatred in the heart.

And when one goeth through fire for his teaching—what doth that prove? Verily, it is more when one's teaching cometh out of one's own burning!"

>>8336249
> "Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..."

>>8333869
>Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot.
He didn't think in isolation though. He read thousands of books and commented on hundreds of them, which is akin to having a conversation with other writers. Plus, he traveled Europe and roomed with several colleagues over the years.

>>8333869
>Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth.

ITT: Nietzscheans Nietzsching uncontrollably

>>8336377
Jesus didn't martyr himself. There's at least 3 Jesuss outlined in antichrist, the real life not god mortal, the transitional one based on a desire for revenge, and a psychological/theological one made up by Paul. Mortal Jesus just ended up being executed, Disciple Jesus was wrongly executed and is the basis for revenge revolution, St Paul's theological Jesus is the one who martyred himself and went about fulfilling prophecy/scripture willy nilly. Paul fucking martyred Jesus the shit.

>>8336379
Read Beyond Good And Evil (honestly it's chapter 1) and have a long hard think about quoting sound bites from letters. Tbf it's not entirely a terrible point, but even where it's not terrible, as above, the mortal Christ is rebellious. He just has no ressentiment.

The best reading I have so far as Christ is concerned in Nietzsche is as the person who made quite a way in the path the ubermensch. He is not ubermensch but he further than most others. So there are differences for sure in Nietzsche's path and his idea of Jesus.

>>8336360
>Something along the lines of I believe in God.
He categorically does not believe in God. But as put forward in the Parable of the Madman he thinks modern man in general does not believe in God (this is the whole God is dead and we have killed him schtick). We have enlightenment values, but we continue as if there is still a God at work at the centre of our belief system and this gets likened to seeing the lightning but not yet hearing the thunder.

So being Christian and bona fide belief in God in Nietzsche's philosophy are two separate issues really.

Plenty of people have talked about Jesus as ubermensch or something towards ubermensch (if anything this view is boringly orthodox). And finally there is no one right view. That was never my point. Simply that others have a severely lacking engagement with the philosophy we're talking about and (really this is the more fundamental) a very blinkered view of its application (like seeing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as compatible is crazy or verboten or whatever it was, and that they cannot have any meaningful overlap. Ridiculous tbpqh).

Part of the argument was that Kierkegaard is a christian (holy oil?) And Nietzsche is not (unholy water?) And as such the two are immiscible. I have a consistent interpretation of Nietzsche as a Christian anyway (it's hard to impossible not to view him as "culturally Christian" at least, and a very large part of his philosophy is one way or another to do with Christianity), so I can argue that point well: yes it is possible to take N as a Christian. He says as much himself. Whether we can form a kind of Nietzschean dogma is unimportant and somewhat anathema to his philosophy to boot. So even if you only want Christians to go with Christians hey guess what you can still do it.

I have a feeling tho this is lost on the original guy as I'm p sure he's posting the Nicean creed biz.

File: 5127YlvPGML._SX331_BO1_204_203_200_.jpg (35KB, 333x499px)

35KB, 333x499px

>>8336558
Jesus didn't martyr himself. There's at least 3 Jesuss outlined in antichrist, the real life not god mortal, the transitional one based on a desire for revenge, and a psychological/theological one made up by Paul. Mortal Jesus just ended up being executed, Disciple Jesus was wrongly executed and is the basis for revenge revolution, St Paul's theological Jesus is the one who martyred himself and went about fulfilling prophecy/scripture willy nilly. Paul fucking martyred Jesus the shit.

But isn't "standing up against the Romans" martyrdom either way? I havent read the Bible, but he died for his cause, what's the difference between that and martyrdom?

>THE MARTYR IN SPITE OF HIMSELF. There was a man belonging to a party who was too nervous and cowardly ever to contradict his comrades; they made use of him for everything, they demanded everything from him, because he was more afraid of the bad opinion of his companions than of death itself; his was a miserable, feeble soul. They recognised this, and on the ground of these qualities they made a hero of him, and finally even a martyr. Although the coward inwardly always said No, with his lips he always said Yes, even on the scaffold, when he was about to die for the opinions of his party; for beside him stood one of his old companions, who so tyrannised over him by word and look that he really suffered death in the most respectable manner, and has ever since been celebrated as a martyr and a great character.

>>8336653
>standing up against the Romans
You can stand up for shit without martyring yourself. And Nietzsche sees it more as standing up to the pharisees in the gospels. Pilate is the face of Rome and is super sympathetic to Jesus, whereas the Jewish upper classes bray for his execution in the Gospels, and N takes that whole thing as the after the fact ressentiment of the disciples.

There is currently a historical interpretation that has Jesus being a rebel against the Romans, that seems to be more to do with who the early Christians were and how they acted (all Jewish and still went to temple). I don't know how much mileage you'd get out of that with N. It's possible I guess, mortal Jesus wanting a new revised Judaism and Paul turning Christianity into something more like traditional Judaism.

And note in that quote he is described as "a martyr *in spite of himself*". It is not Jesus who wishes to be a martyr in reality. Everybody else turns him into one.

>>8336713
I forgot to put as well, there is a view of Jesus as someone acting instinctually. So it's like he just did what he did and died. But like Socrates I guess.

ITT edgelords fail to bester the Chester

>>8336722
No way Socrates was instinctual, that guy had to think everything out. I know he was 70 and finished with his body of work, but come on, no way youre going to stay in jail if running on instinct.

Your other post was very clear and insightful though. Cheers

>>8336558
>I can argue that point well: yes it is possible to take N as a Christian. He says as much himself.

Source?

>>8336558
>Read Beyond Good And Evil (honestly it's chapter 1)
I have. In no way does it reject him being an atheist as he himself claims in a letter to his sister.

>I have not come to know atheism as a result of logical reasoning and still less as an event in my life: in me it is a matter of instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too high spirited to be satisfied with such clumsy answers. God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers

>>8336770
Read what you posted and reread chapter 1 of BGE (major handhold: it deals with the will to truth).

>>8336746
Socrates was able to unpick arguments with his natural abilities. And his drinking of hemlock wasn't so much him being a martyr as being true to who he was iykwim.

Was it the inconsistency between antichrist and human all too human Jesus? I take that sort of thing as being Nietzsche's reconstruction of real Jesus (for certain reasons I'm unhappy with this part of my reading but it's academic more than anything). So if you know if Hegel's Philosophy of History there are 3 different kinds? I find that Nietzsche's idea of there being a theological Paul Jesus fits (surprisingly) well as a philosophical history. And there is no "written" (as in contemporary at the time reports) history of Jesus. The gospels were written well after the death of Jesus and are as such spirit. It's not a fully formed idea desu.

Anyhow, this becomes less problematic in a general sense, Nietzsche seems to assume there are elements of truth in the gospels and unpicks what's what (and so reconstruct a written account of the man Jesus). There is no correct answer to this of course. So look at it one way, Jesus is the ubermensch like guy that goes around and shakes the foundation of a belief system and his followers get upset when he dies. Look at it another way and he's a miserable guy that actively bends to the will of the group and that's how he fulfills scripture etc etc.

File: 1468174207253.jpg (264KB, 940x658px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 940x658px

>>8336902
Nah, Hegel was a problematic cuck. Agreed on the rest though, I suppose when youre Socrates-smart (INTP) (INFJ here lols) breaking down arguments comes naturally to you. I can see that.

>>8335468
"Not an argument faggot" is an apt rebuttal to literally everything Hegel wrote

>>8336969
It's an inversion of Hegel if it's there. I know there's some other similar shit out there that does link Hegel and history with Nietzsche but it just seems weird tbph. Like out of character weird.

On the one hand maybe it's because we're talking Nietzsche as a philologist that that framework pops up. On the other hand it's fucking Hegel.

>>8336992
Idk Hegel, I just take Schop's word for it. I did read (and understand) 3 pages from an Intro to Philosophy selection (non-biz class I took as accounting major), and felt that he was long-winded and worthless to interpret further as he was barely saying anything. But Ive heard about that 3 things you were talking about (thesis/antithesis/synthesis)

>>8337055
>But Ive heard about that 3 things you were talking about (thesis/antithesis/synthesis)
That's different bro. That's the dialectics he borrows from Fichte (but with some subtle differences so they become Hegel's) and that's like Hegel's thing that causes history. What I'm talking about are different categories of history that have different timespans and motives p much.

>>8333938
>Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard overlapped heavily with Neechee and they didn't go nuts.
They were actual thinkers though.

>>8335243
>Low blow Chesterton.
Nietzsche's own work is full of that shit
>>8335244
That makes him twice as respectable. Nietzsche's philosophy is asinine
>>8335428
Nietzsche attracts the peasants by taking the brilliant ideas of great thinkers and simplifying them for pseuds.

>>8335571
>his criticism of spinoza
>of kant
>of carlyle

File: Hellens01.jpg (9KB, 142x234px)

9KB, 142x234px

>>8336783
>delicacy towards us thinkers
>has never had an original thought
>his only non subjective work was trashed

>>8335971
By that definition Gandhi was a Christian.

Just fuck off you idiot.

>>8336558
Holy shit you are retarded.

>Nietzsche
Simpleton hacks general?

>>8336558
>I have a consistent interpretation of Nietzsche as a Christian anyway
Consistent doesn't equal true.

>Plenty of people have talked about Jesus as ubermensch or something towards ubermensch
Has nothing to do with whether or not Nietzsche is a Christian.

>it's hard to impossible not to view him as "culturally Christian" at least, and a very large part of his philosophy is one way or another to do with Christianity
By this logic Gibbons would be a Christian, or Richard Dawkins. It's completely irrelevant to what we are asking you to prove.

>So being Christian and bona fide belief in God in Nietzsche's philosophy are two separate issues really.
Yes they are, except you are claiming he is a Christian. That makes it the point at dispute.

>Part of the argument was that Kierkegaard is a christian (holy oil?) And Nietzsche is not (unholy water?) And as such the two are immiscible
That is not what is being said at all. What is being said that Nietzsche's philosophy requires moral non-realism to be true. You could have an ubermensch that looks like some Kierkergaard ideal but that would only be a superficially since the reasons why they would act similarly would necessarily be different. Nietzsche is about arbitrary self willing because there is no higher authority to appeal to. Kierkegaard is that God is beyond human understanding so one must place a trust in Him beyond reason.

>(like seeing Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as compatible is crazy or verboten or whatever it was, and that they cannot have any meaningful overlap
Literally what I just said before. It's your inability to comprehend properly what the people in this thread means that is making this discussion go on.

>He says as much himself
You still have given no one any reason to believe he is a Christian. To say you think it is compatible is not an argument. To say that it is obvious is not an argument. So please, save everyone's time and give is the smoking gun evidence from his works or letter which prove he is a Christian (and not like the poor example you already chose that showed nothing to that extent). Also you still haven't named a single philosopher who shares your opinion. I'm only asking for one. There are thousands of them. Just give me one!

Serious question. Have you just personally reasoned your way to this conclusion? Have you actually read any scholarly opinions on the Nietzsche's supposed Christianity? Also how do you reconcile the ontology of the Will or Power with God?

>>8336783
>I have not come to know atheism as a result of logical reasoning and still less as an event in my life: in me it is a matter of instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too high spirited to be satisfied with such clumsy answers. God is a too palpably clumsy answer; an answer which shows a lack of delicacy towards us thinkers

BTFO to the Christian Nietzsche guy. Couldn't get blown out more than this very late era Nietzsche quote.

>>8333869
Chesterton is my favorite writer, and most of this board is missing out by not reading his fiction. That being said, philosophical and social critiques have never been his strong point. He was so prolific he was bound to write some crap; I don't see how focusing on that fact is productive.

>>8337085

>and that's like Hegel's thing that causes history.

Wow, I'll be honest, I didnt know those 3 things (that I was talking about) outside of true, rigorous science. But that cleared a SHIT load up for me lmao

I read Being&Time in an Existentialism class (thought about a Philosophy minor, but discovered it too late, and didnt need any more credits), but Heidegger was pretty legit when it came to historicity (also difficult to interpret, but assigned reading, and worthwhile (friggin ISTJs like Heidegger with their shit).

What else is cool about Hegel?

>>8337323
>(friggin ISTJs like Heidegger with their shit)

utter madman

>>8336783
I guess he really was fedora.

>>8336969
>(INTP) (INFJ here lols)
kill yourself

>>8337261
He wrote it, so he thought it. Unless he was trolling so that one day, decades later, it would pay off ITT when everyone thinks he didn't approve of Nietzsche, all so he could have a ghost kek.

Chesterton thought Nietzsche was a hack. He was not alone in this. It's ok to still like the hack though.

>>8337930
no u

File: IMG_408819098947574.jpg (32KB, 750x799px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 750x799px

>>8337261
>father brown is an anglican liberal in the tv show

>>8337229
>Consistent doesn't equal true.
Eh, yes in a broad sense, but it's not important here. Questioning the importance of capital T Truth is a big part of Nietzsche's philosophy, and it's not how philosophy is done (at least in this time and place and this is in part thanks to N). Part of why we continue to be able to discuss and talk about philosophy in new ways is that there is no Truth but we can construct ways of looking at ideas and so on that have validity.

>Richard Dawkins
He's argued for having reverends on the village green and all that jazz. So I don't think this is as good an argument as you'd like, Dawkins wants Christianity without Christ p much. Thinking about some other stuff he's said (like the Reverend's penis in a child is not as dangerous as indoctrinating the child into a belief in God) he's a massive church apologist.

A lot of the neo atheists fall into this trap of "religion without religion", so no surprises.

>That is not what is being said at all. What is being said that Nietzsche's philosophy requires moral non-realism to be true. You could have an ubermensch that looks like some Kierkergaard ideal but that would only be a superficially since the reasons why they would act similarly would necessarily be different. Nietzsche is about arbitrary self willing because there is no higher authority to appeal to. Kierkegaard is that God is beyond human understanding so one must place a trust in Him beyond reason.
Not fantastic 2bh. "requires moral non-realism to be true"? I think you'd have a hard time building any defense of this, not as hard as why you think K is a moral realist tho. I don't think this is terrible tho, you've already conceded that they look the same, I would say that they quack the same in this case (both N and K require radical morals, you must act in a way you think is right). Walking the same there's maybe a way through, I think that would depend on having a place for God (that does in a sense exist in N) and having a place for Will. Screw it, go full Schopenhauer say they're the same thing and work out how the hell grace figures into that.

But this is ignoring that the moral realism/non-realism distinction is problematic in both philosophies for much the same reason, it's a label you've artificially imposed on them. If you or whoever wants to go more down this particular route elaborate on why you think that (and be honest if the answer is just "teacher told me", tho more than that would be nice). They're big ideas and you can have them in a bracketed sense in either, and in some ways it's enlightening to think of K as "anti-moral-anti-realism", but this whole thing so far is systematic abuse of the terms on the scale of God indoctrination.

>>8336783
N was pretty ardent about not believing in god, but there's no problemo.

>>8338013
He's a catholic in the TV show. They have him on the reg btfoing CoE Reverends

>>8338092
>Dawkins wants Christianity without Christ p much
Without any other social doctrines either. What kind of an idiot are you to have a definition of Christianity so wide anything with "mercy" or whatever is Christian?

>>8337323
>What else is cool about Hegel?
The core thing to why he's influential as far as I could ever work out were his metaphysical views esp on objectivity and subjectivity and how they're p much the same thing. This is no doubt going to annoy someone now, but it's so pedestrian and basic a point... look up something like Hegelian objectivity in google books or something and there's bound to be a good snippet to explain it if you want a quick fix.

Zizek has interesting views on Hegel that while often really straightforwardly true cause even more uproar than itt. Like the idea that one can have a kind of low or useless synthesis (the famous example of Hegel regards philology "the spirit is a bone" iirc, but also empty phrases like "blue is not red" or something like that. In some ways this feeds into Wittgenstein and his tautologies later on too).

>>8338098
>Without any other social doctrines either.
I'm not a fan of Dawkins, he has said he's a cultural Anglican and would go to church and so on. I wasn't holding my breath for the guy to be consistent over his thinking, but I'd be surprised if he'd totally moved from this view
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/09/interview-richard-dawkins-on-what-hed-miss-if-christianity-vanished/

He had something similar on his Dawkins website but I have little desire to trawl through all that crap.

>>8333869
There are seven sentences in this supposedly damning paragraph, and each are as empty and meaningless as the last. Whether the author of this sentence actually went through a concise and well-constructed criticism of any other person at any point in his life, this is most certainly not it. I would forgive this man for making such a boring observation if he went on to provide examples of what he was talking about, go through contradictions and detail absurdities, so on and so forth. I don't really know if he did, but if he did you evidently decided to include the weakest structural link of his supposed damnation. This all reflects a lot more about you, the person who posted this thread, than it does on either Nietzsche or Chesterton. The fact that you can see something so bland and vague as this short paragraph as having some sort of magical inherent powers, and the fact that your opinions were actually swayed by something like this, shows you to be embarrassingly easily swayed. On an unrelated note, why does my peepee come out yellow?

>>8338104
"Cultural anglican" is a pretty ambivalent term. It could mean a lot of things.

>>8338121
He does get more specific, but I think I'd have a hard time working out how no social doctrines (of Christianity) and cultural anglicanism could fit together in general.

It's not something I've spent any real amount of time thinking about tho.

>>8336558
the first genuinely intellectual post i've read on this board

File: cheers.jpg (212KB, 1440x1080px)

212KB, 1440x1080px

>>8338145

>>8338121
you can say the same thing for "Anglican"

>>8336558
I have never seen any evidence that Nietzsche accepts the truth of the Incarnation, and without that one cannot call him a Christian.

Whether that bars him from being held similar to Kierkegaard, I won't reach far enough up Philosophy's asshole to find out. But if it's true, it only means that Kierkegaard was not orthodox.

>>8338684
>But if it's true, it only means that Kierkegaard was not orthodox.
You could make a decent narrative out of claiming both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were something like super protestants, what with the enlightenment narrative that often goes with that vs orthodox Christianity (I'm guessing you mean that in the sense of Eastern Orthodoxy AND Catholicism). They were both very much Lutheran, and both took values often associated between enlightenment and protestantism to their logical (sort of) ends.

It's kind of odd to look at some of the former Lutheran powerhouses (i.e. Scandinavia) as well and see just how incredibly atheist they've become, in many ways Nietzsche was right on the money there.

>accepts the truth of the Incarnation
You either (again) have a sense of Christ as ubermensch-ish, or I've also known people to argue around this area with the old "Nietzsche bought that tombstone for his dad" thing, although that doesn't really say anything that specific. For me the tombstone emphasizes N not being a dogmatist and having an affinity for that kind of sentimental aesthetic blah blah blah.

A thought: you could say that the genuine Christianity mentioned above is almost like a reversal of the incarnation, it is not that Jesus should be thought of as the incarnation of the creator, but rather we the created become a kind of incarnation of Jesus, and that is genuine Christianity. I can't think of anything that particularly goes against that idea, although that particular wording is problematic. Could be an interesting jumping off point for looking at Dionysus again too. Nice post

>>8336783
Was this AA Lewis or Nietzsche?

>>8338873
Nietzsche.

>>8338092
The anon asked you some pretty simple questions and you side stepped them all. Utter shit posting. Still unable to name one philospher who agrees with you.

>>8338092
>Eh, yes in a broad sense, but it's not important here...
No. If Nietzsche were a monkey, and all monkeys have tails then Nietzsche has a tail. This is a consistent and logical valid argument. It also happens to be wrong.Asides from the fact that I think everything else you said there is completely wrong I don't want to get into it because it has nothing to do with what's being discussed, which is the supposed Christian belief of Nietzsche.

>Richard Dawkins
None of what you said about Dawkins changes why I used him as an example. But it's really not important. It was a throwaway comment to show how stupid that criteria is for Christian consideration.

>I think you'd have a hard time building any defense of this, not as hard as why you think K is a moral realist tho.

As has already be said before Nietzsche's whole ethical philosophy is how do we act in a world without objective morality. The ubermensch is one who can live joyfully by the arbitrariness of his own willing. This is pretty basic Nietzsche. This is the tl/dr Nietzsche. And when you don't believe in any higher moral authority beyond the self, and believe that no action is moral or immoral you are a moral non-realist. Everything in his philosophy points to this. It isn't ambiguous. It's his whole philosophy. The Death of God has left mankind with a huge burden, and we must learn to live a life where we transmute it to joy and dancing.
His whole ethical philosophy doesn't work and makes no sense if moral realism is true. If moral realism is true there can be no trans-valuation, and without that there can be no ubermensch.

Kierkegaard as a Christian must be a moral realist. His existential tendencies makes a codifying and illumination of what this morality is (which may be subject to change or paradox by the power of God) impossible. He talks about Abraham because he is a figure who goes against society norms and ethical considerations (because they are only ethical due to God) to kill his son in the name of God. There is no way of verification if you are right or not. So while in practice it is a set of ideas that allow people to do anything, no matter how inconsistent, it still appeals to God as an authority. If God is not the source of moral authority for Kierkegaard then why kill your son? Why do anything that God commands?

>>8339648
shut up

File: CnfyiiBWYAEaOqL.jpg (139KB, 719x725px)

139KB, 719x725px

>Jesus
>an ubermensch

>Nietzsche
>a Christian

no

>>8338098
Yes, it has penetrated every facet of modern life.
>>8338092
K says acting in such a way that you think is right lacks the virtue of acting in such a way that is right (by God's will).

>>8336558
N is Christian, just not culturally or verbally.

>>8341117
>>8341124
Christianity and Liberalism are inherently incompatible; and by Christianity, Liberalism is inherently immoral as is Christianity immoral by Liberalism.

Stop posting your freshman essays here.

>>8341140
>Christianity and Liberalism are inherently incompatible

no, they're not

>>8341146
Yes they are, I'd suggest you study up on both because they have even at the most basic level, qualities that contradict completely.

>>8341159
>Yes they are

no, they're not, and I'd suggest YOU study up on both before trotting around the no true scotsman "only my individual version of Christianity is the real one" meme like one anon did earlier in the thread. I also suspect you are using the term liberalism incorrectly


ps: I can tell you're a butthurt Christian

>>8335404
This anon is under the unfortunate impression that being able to imitate a writer's style is a sign of deficiency- on the contrary, it is a compliment.

When children are taught to write, it is in a rudimentary manner- individual style, expression, and idiosyncrasies are rightly discouraged. It is the rudimentary thinkers that write in-distinctively. It is the advanced writers that write particularly. Being able to imitate Chesterton doesn't make him formulaic, it makes him anti-formulaic. Formulaic writing is in the rudiments of writing- the essentials- grammar, sentence construction, punctuation. If nobody else writes like Chesterton, and you see he always seems to repeat himself, it is not because Chesterton lacks imagination, it is because you lack imagination. You are not daring enough to enjoy his repetition. For it is the brave man who greets the dawn of the day as a fresh start- it is the cowardly man, the depressed man, the melancholic, who cannot bear the repetition of the sun coming up.

Chesterton is pleased to write like himself, because he is not formulaic. Nobody else has to read his writing as much as he does in rewriting it, and living it, and his repetition is a sign that he is very well pleased to do so. On the contrary, it is the restless hack who feels to need to change- like a man constantly changing lines on the highway, totally unsure where he wants to go.

>>8333869

>"criticizing" a philosopher whose whole work is to liquefy the category of morality for not being moral enough.

no one could accuse Chesterson here of being poor reader—only an unimaginative one.

>>8341167
No true scotsman fallacy is a fallacy

>>8341167
All this deflection.

Entirely false, Christianity is distinct from all other living religions in that it is a measure of faith rather than identity. One can call themselves Christian until Judgement Day but in the end will still be judged as the fraud they are. Your ignorance, and pride in said ignorance, is astounding. Did your professor also see through your bullshit and fail your essay? Did I strike a nerve?

>>8341175
you're right! your singular, individual interpretation of the fundamental principles of Christianity is the correct one. there was no council of nicea, no council of trent, no orthodox church, no numerous protestant denominations, and there has not been a single instance of dispute over core theological values. you are right that ideas are fixed objects in space instead of a constantly-evolving dialectical conversation, and you are right that the dominant religion since the puritans landed just went extinct completely and in no way could have culminated in the kind of kantian secular Christianity espoused by people like Richard Dawkins. everyone but you is stupid.

>>8341193
>le professor essay

the only nerve being struck here is that of a Christian getting butthurt that he doesn't understand his own religion

>>8341201
You keep saying this, yet are wrong. Maybe you should stop posting, you know nothing of Christianity and take pride in claiming otherwise.

>>8341193
>>8341201
I have no particular dog in this fight, but I will say that it is not the man who is weak nerved whose nerves are easy to strike- it is the man who is strong-nerved that is willing to have it done. The man whose nerves are easy to strike is the man who does not mind it happening- it is the man afraid of it who tries to suppress and hide his nerves, his emotions, his natural reactions.

A rich man cares not when he drops a shilling, a poor man guards his shilling carefully.

An emotional man is a logical one- he does not let fear of his emotions cloud his judgement. Sensitivity is prowess. Insensitivity is clumsiness.

>>8341201
Other poster has a point. Orthodoxy vs orthopraxis and all that.

File: eccehomo.jpg (143KB, 686x1303px)

143KB, 686x1303px

>>8336783
>>8338873

It's from kaufmann actually, my translation (2003) is completely different (see pic)

>>8341193
>Entirely false, Christianity is distinct from all other living religions in that it is a measure of faith rather than identity

no, it's not

>>8341208
>you know nothing of Christianity

you keep saying this, yet you are wrong

>>8341214
>no, it's not
Yes it is, just because your +1 Fedora of Knowing tells you otherwise does not make it true.

>>8337097
don't forget his criticism of the stoics, though it makes good points

File: The-Flying-Inn-Illustration-660x350-1418113217.png (283KB, 660x350px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 660x350px

One of the things I love about Chesterton is how ahead of his time he was. We've all read about how Chesterton predicted a Hitler-like figure would arise out of Nietschze's cult of the strong man- you can see it in his arguments with George Bernard Shaw. But in Heretics, he also predicts the rise of SJW's. And he also wrote this:

>The Flying Inn is a novel first published in 1914 by G. K. Chesterton. It is set in a future England where the Temperance movement has allowed a bizarre form of "Progressive" Islam to dominate the political and social life of the country. Because of this, alcohol sales to the poor are effectively prohibited, while the rich can get alcoholic drinks "under a medical certificate". The plot centres on the adventures of Humphrey Pump and Captain Patrick Dalroy, who roam the country in their cart with a barrel of rum in an attempt to evade Prohibition, exploiting loopholes in the law to temporarily prevent the police taking action against them. Eventually the heroes and their followers foil an attempted coup by an Islamic military force.

The novel's main source of satire is liberals who are so tolerant that they tolerate intolerance- they tolerate everything except English traditions and English ideals.

>>8341219
no, it's not. Christianity does not have a monopoly on the term "faith", your undergraduate understanding of theological history does not make it true

it's apparent that your blustering about freshman essays was just undergraduate projection

>>8341228
Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world especially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognised an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible
as an army with banners.

All the same, it will be as well if Jones does not worship the sun and moon. If he does, there is a tendency for him to imitate them; to say, that because the sun burns insects alive, he may burn insects alive. He thinks that because the sun gives people sun-stroke, he may give his neighbour measles. He thinks that because the moon is said to drive men mad, he may drive his wife mad. This ugly side of mere external optimism had also shown itself in the ancient world. About the time when the Stoic idealism had begun to show the weaknesses of pessimism, the old nature worship of the ancients had begun to show the enormous weaknesses of optimism. Nature worship is natural enough while the society is young, or, in other words, Pantheism is all right as long as it is the worship of Pan.

>>8341230

>Chesterton predicted a Hitler-like figure would arise out of Nietschze's cult of the strong man

this never happened though

>>8341234
Yes it is, stop presuming your self-confidence makes your nonsense true.

>>8341258
I have some bad news for you, anon...

You see, in 1931...

>>8341260
No it's not, stop presuming your self-confidence makes your nonsense true.

>>8341170

You're sniping about one small detail of my rhetoric in lieu of refuting my central point: that Chesterton is a shit author whose ideas deserve to die.

Chestertion is dogshit. Everything about him is dogshit. His historical person, his writings, everything that he holds dear is false, and garbage. One hundred percent get fucked and don't get back up.

>>8341316
well I think Chesterton is delightful, and it's a shame you got hung up about his use of rhetoric and his love of repeating similar-sounding words, but it's really just his sense of humour and not actually essential to his line of reasoning. maybe you hate style but essays would be quite dull without it

>>8341210
Good ass post. Damn.

>>8341230
Why are there people who want to pretend that islam is more influential than it is?

Look, Chesterton was a good author and witty enough, but a mediocre philosopher.

In the same way, Chomsky is a decent linguist but a shitty political commentator.

Not everyone has to be good at everything. He bit off more than he could chew in going after Nietzsche. I wonder how he'd have responded if Nietzsche addressed his occasionally weird ramblings.

>>8342052
>He bit off more than he could chew in going after Nietzsche.
He wrote relatively little on him. From what I remember, an aphorism here or there in Orthodoxy.

>>8341263
Hitler arose and then revision ed the shit out of his work. Nietzsche's sister had been very much into the very far right ideology of which Hitler belonged for quite some time. She also inherited the rights of editing and publishing and so on, so for a long long time (early 20th century) you have an incomplete N corpus that also is adultured to sound right Nazi.

Iirc his shit of a sister bankrupted herself and nearly died after trying to prove how strong willed and viking she was after trying to start up a kind of right wing neo liberal might makes right commune on a shitty island somewhere. So not only was she already up for editing from her beliefs she also needed the money.

>>8341121
>think is right
It's the thinking that's the problem as far as I could ever make out. K doesn't seem to believe that all moral actions can/should be justified and recognizes that immoral actions can be argued to be moral. Sometimes faith trumps all, I think the closest modern ethics is that ethical intuition although that isn't quite right either.

>>8339648
I think the first thing to get out of the way is that Kierkegaard doesn't think Abraham sacrificing Isaac can be properly read by like the communities ethics/social mores/etc. There is no way for an outsider to judge if Abraham is doing the Will of God or has actually gone mad. Nor is it parseable in ethical terms as "wishing to kill your son is good" or variations thereof, there is no imagining yourself as Abraham it's an ethical paradox etc etc, and this I think is your fundamental stumbling block on K as something like a moral realist.

Now N isn't setting aside all morality either, he's quite aware about moralizing on moralizing. The opening of Daybreak has him explaining his criticism of morals as being moral. He also doesn't claim that something like herd morality is bad or unjustified or whatever. If it works for them, great, but he argues against universalizing. I haven't got a clear picture on how anti-universalism would work with him as a moral anti-realist or a moral realist on the face of it, but I tend to put him in as more similar to someone like Foucault, and that sort of moral perspective (often called something like postmodern) seems to me to be more about looking beyond objective universal facts rather than outright denying them. Insofar as they might exist they are, to maybe put it overly simply, real real hard to talk about.

Anyway, in TotI when N talks about Italian diet man, he doesn't simply go "well that was just like his opinion so no morals", he says that the guy was mistaken and didn't take into account "other bodies" and how they'd react. And this fits in with his point about the numerous "herd mentalities" in BGE, that while they are one of many there ought to be a universal higher morality. So yes he doesn't believe in universal laws that place a judgement on an action, but he does seem to think there is some kind of higher morality, and in Antichrist I think we get the objective end result of his reasoning on these moralities:
>What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power increases that a resistance is overcome.
But the bulk of his work, leading up to this, IS criticism of other often thought to be objective moral values. So he often does look like a anti-realist, non-cognitivist, naturalist etc but I don't think you can categorize the entirety of his project as one label or another.

1/2

>>8342454
>>8339648
2/2
Back to K, his Knight of Faith actually goes beyond the universal ethics, he says something like ethics is where the particular is subordinate to the universal, but faith is what allows the universal to be subordinate to the particular and is a transcendence of any ethical. So while he often reads as a moral-realist, his supreme morality is where one undermines the very notion of universal ethics.

So both N & K do not really work as one or the other in the realm of anti-or-pro-realism or whatever you want to call it. And so to just go "they don't mix" for that reason is poor. It funnily enough even fits in with Nietzsche's thinking of evaluation in moral terms, you subjugated yourself to past conceptions and lost an opportunity for Will.

>>8342031
Let me guess, you don't live in the EU or the UK?

>>8342528
>Let me guess
You don't need my permission.

>>8342557
Does anybody know what he meant by this?

File: mol.jpg (37KB, 321x447px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 321x447px

>>8333869
NOT

>>8333938
not at all

nietzsche is a butchering of dostoevsky

>>8344005
Dostoevsky is a poorly remembered Dickens.