The Antichrist

[libernaut]

Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes (“God,” “soul,” “ego,” “spirit,” “free will”—or even “unfree”), and purely imaginary effects (“sin,” “salvation,” “grace,” “punishment,” “forgiveness of sins”). Intercourse between imaginary beings (“God,” “spirits,” “souls”); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings—for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash—, “repentance,” “pangs of conscience,” “temptation by the devil,” “the presence of God”); an imaginary teleology (the “kingdom of God,” “the last judgment,” “eternal life”).—This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the latter at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of “nature” had been opposed to the concept of “God,” the word “natural” necessarily took on the meaning of “abominable”—the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (—the real!—), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality.... This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality.... The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for décadence....

-nietzsche


Any thoughts? Please counter or agree with your own opinions. I'd love to discuss.

[G L Wilson]

Nietzsche being right again, is he never wrong?

[The Atheist]

Nietzsche being right again, is he never wrong?

You again!

:D

Yes, he is sometimes wrong, and this is an excellent bit to look at, because he's fallen into my favourite philosopher trap - being brilliant, then going from rooster to feather-duster in an instant.

He is 100% correct in what he says about christian beliefs, but then he gets to this bit:

But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality.... The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for décadence....

That part, I disagree with entirely.

I don't buy the "botched reality" argument, because I think the pain/pleasure aspect is ridiculously at odds with the same reality he's trying to preserve. I've argued against that point many, many times over the years and while I agree that some people feel that way, the vast majority of people do not.

Accordingly, I don't think it's that pain of life that causes religious belief. I would even go as far as saying it's selfishness at the joy of life more than the desire for something better.

As to first calling for a denial of sin and morality I find it laughable that one would then immediately start on "decadence".

Philosophers, love 'em!

[G L Wilson]

"Music rots when it gets too far from the dance. Poetry atrophies when it gets too far from music." Ezra Pound

Is this not what Nietzsche means by a botched reality, to be without dance, music and poetry?

[The Atheist]

"Music rots when it gets too far from the dance. Poetry atrophies when it gets too far from music." Ezra Pound

Is this not what Nietzsche means by a botched reality, to be without dance, music and poetry?

Possibly, but it would be no less nonsensical. Those things, while often enjoyable, are hardly essentials for pleasure/reality.

[G L Wilson]

Possibly, but it would be no less nonsensical. Those things, while often enjoyable, are hardly essentials for pleasure/reality.

Dry philosophy is hardly an essential for reality, I say.

[The Atheist]

Dry philosophy is hardly an essential for reality, I say.

Dead right. While I might be a-theist, I am anti-philosophy.

[G L Wilson]

Dead right. While I might be a-theist, I am anti-philosophy.

You are anti-science too, are you not? How can that be?

[The Atheist]

You are anti-science too, are you not? How can that be?

Absolutely not. You've got me mixed up with someone else - I am 100% pro-science.

[G L Wilson]

Absolutely not. You've got me mixed up with someone else - I am 100% pro-science.

The absence of evidence is no proof at all, scientist. Do I have you right now?

[The Atheist]

The absence of evidence is no proof at all....

Clearly. Note that I am not, and have never been, a scientist.

[G L Wilson]

Clearly. Note that I am not, and have never been, a scientist.

I have never been much of a philosopher but it doesn't stop me philosophising.

[libernaut]

I do quite agree that Nietzsche seems to sort of ramble off in the last few sentences there. He was definitely on to something though...as you've said.

[Freudian Monkey]

As to first calling for a denial of sin and morality I find it laughable that one would then immediately start on "decadence".

Philosophers, love 'em!

To my understanding, for Nietzsche decadence is a result of the realisation that there are no higher moral values. Therefore it's only logical that he speaks about decadence after first denying the values of the mentioned causes and effects. I'm not arguing that he's right with his statements, but he's definitely logical.

[Darcy88]

To quote Tolstoy - "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."

[G L Wilson]

To quote Tolstoy - "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."

Tolstoy would say that, wouldn't he?

[The Atheist]

To my understanding, for Nietzsche decadence is a result of the realisation that there are no higher moral values. Therefore it's only logical that he speaks about decadence after first denying the values of the mentioned causes and effects. I'm not arguing that he's right with his statements, but he's definitely logical.

Lots of what passes for logic is laughable.

It only works if you stick to his limited premsies. Funnily enough, Richard Dawkins does exactly the same thing in reverse.

[G L Wilson]

Who would say that the twentieth century wasn't entirely the Devil's? Nietzsche felt beneath him the ground shifting, slipping away into the abyss. He felt the dying of the light. And, in the dark, he shivered.

[JuniperWoolf]

This forum talks about Nietzsche a lot. You know, there are other philosophers.

[G L Wilson]

This forum talks about Nietzsche a lot. You know, there are other philosophers.

If you pick a philosopher and post a thread on him, I will contribute if I can.

[Theunderground]

For i guy like me brought up with religion the 'antichrist' is a tremendous book. A lot of the stuff he says about christianity and Jesus is spot on. Of course Nietzsche takes a fair bit of poetic licence in some of his logic. His general arguments about the natural origin of morality are correct and he states his case with panache,logic,pathos and great humour. My main objection to Nietzsches brilliant psychological analysis is his somewhat reductionist approach (which he is aware of.) and the fact that he is obviously trying to sell you 'noble morality'. Ecce Homo clarifies a lot of Nietzsches work,his upbringing,aims etc. I dont feel that there is a dichotomy between slave and noble morality,and i feel that i have the existential right to either accept or reject religion without branding other as decadents. Nietzsche was a fabulous intellect just like Dostoevsky but neither really offered a realistic humanistic solution like Shakespeares Lear.

[G L Wilson]

For i guy like me brought up with religion the 'antichrist' is a tremendous book. A lot of the stuff he says about christianity and Jesus is spot on. Of course Nietzsche takes a fair bit of poetic licence in some of his logic. His general arguments about the natural origin of morality are correct and he states his case with panache,logic,pathos and great humour. My main objection to Nietzsches brilliant psychological analysis is his somewhat reductionist approach (which he is aware of.) and the fact that he is obviously trying to sell you 'noble morality'. Ecce Homo clarifies a lot of Nietzsches work,his upbringing,aims etc. I dont feel that there is a dichotomy between slave and noble morality,and i feel that i have the existential right to either accept or reject religion without branding other as decadents. Nietzsche was a fabulous intellect just like Dostoevsky but neither really offered a realistic humanistic solution like Shakespeares Lear.

Lear is God in person, right? Hmmm. I thought that he was a daft old bastard.

[Theunderground]

I mean Lear the play shows actual ways of being. Lear,cordelia and the immortal Earl of Kent...Not to mention the 'decadent' goneril,regan and the Nietzschean b'stard...

Oh BTW,Tolstoy had it all figured out with the final chapter of Anna Karenina,and then became a complete basket in his later years. It takes one to know one hey?

[osho]

To quote Tolstoy - "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."




I may agree with Tolstoy. I too agree that religion has been misinterpreted and Church people have done immoral things, and given today's fear around the world we can think that we are more under threat by religious beliefs. However I still think that without religion the world will not be a better place to live in and human situation will worsen if there is no religion and it is the source of our ethics and code of conduct.

Some atheistic people have their logical statements against religious ideas, a form of bigotry. Religion in all cases is not something that harms humans. I agree if we read the history of the world we have so many cases in which some fundamentalists have stood as threats to humanity but this does not mean that the entire idea of religion is trash and the Bible is totally hogwash.
This is a form of extremism and some extremists are prejudiced.

I have been reading currently the God Delusion and though Richard Dawkins have written against the existence of God I yet cannot say the idea of god or belief in God does not help mankind.