Has Christianity been able to recover ever since this Frenchman

>>8759385
Voltaire took down a strawman of Christianity. Any person with any sort of grounding in Platonic/Aristotelean philosophy alongside a decent education in Patristics, supplemented by Aquinas, can see that Voltaire did nothing in the grand scheme of things, except sway the uneducated and unrefined. Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is a very long way from being 'destroyed' by any modern ideological adversary.

Hell, Kant probably did more to 'destroy' Christianity, and that was unintentional.

The only man who had the vitriol of Voltaire, as it wouldn't be difficult to have a finer philosophic mind, would be Nietzsche. He did more to 'destroy', but Nietzsche only addresses that which is noble to fight against. His attack on Christianity is his praise.

>>8759393
How did Kant hurt Christianity?

>>8759476
well he did cut off Wolffian Metaphysics, so the imaginary basis of the ideas of God and the Soul in science was gone.

Wasn't a deliberate attack, or might not even be considered 'hurting', but it definitely is an inconvenience.

>>8759393
>He did more to 'destroy', but Nietzsche only addresses that which is noble to fight against. His attack on Christianity is his praise.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here?

>>8759480
What separates Christianity from the other major world religions is that idea of the Word (logos) must become flesh in order for humans to attain knowledge of God in Himself. Hence why Christ is a Savior. Christianity makes more sense if you adopt a Kantian framework.

i feel like the hinduisms beat every other religion the fuck down. highly stylized and metaphorical but boiled down a lot closer to reality than the paternal bullshit from the middle east.

>>8759385
nah, religion and virtue suffer heretics and scoundrels all the time and keep right along. that's why the attack has to be continually sustained throughout time.

>>8759393
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Aquinas
>good

Top meme lad.

>>8759516
where u get this from i wanna read it

>>8760382
Coleridge via Fichte

>>8761878
>Coleridge

This board might be redeemable afterall

>>8760365
hahaha yeah bro who even is Plato bro? Aristotle? literally who? fukn rek those plebs bro

>>8759499
Philosophically, Nietzsche saw himself clearing the ground of, for lack of a better term, spooks.

Nietzsche saw that there were central figures in the canon that came and haunted everything that proceeded from them. Plato, Stoics, Paul, Kant.etc He sought to counter, argue, or assert the inverse of many of their claims and propositions.

Usefully, we can look at the aphorism:

>He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

The important part being do not fight with monsters. If Nietzsche saw himself as a hero - in Zarathustra, his 'proof' that there are no gods, runs along the lines of, if there are gods, why I am not one; I am not a god, therefore there are no gods, - this hero should not spend time kicking the butts of small time criminals. Batman should not beat-up pickpockets, only supervillans.etc

A good modern example is how the four horsemen of New Atheism have essentially debased themselves in fighting the lowest rung of Christianity. You do not 'destroy' Christianity if you can theologically or philosophically out argue a member of Westboro, you do it when you prove Aquinas is wrong. The champion is the one who has beaten the previous champion - Ali, Tyson, or Forman are only seen as boxing champs because they fought in their own cohort, not simply trouncing the amateur and minor leagues.

Thus, Nietzsche fully understands that to clear the philosophical grounds for the future of philosophy, he must combat those of the greatest philosophic prowess and those of the greatest import and influence. This means that the greatest attack that Nietzsche can have is to omit and not write about someone. That fact that Nietzsche obsesses over Christianity shows that Christianity is a very serious opponent, an opponent that requires time, deliberation, and assault.