"lifes Nausea And Disgust With Life, Merely Concealed Behind, Masked By..."

crisaor, I don't know about your previous issues with censoring or deletions of `lesser stuff'.

I'd like to see this topic stay on topic if possible or else it will be locked.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by crisaor

It's funny. Since I'm a member of this forum, I've had several of my posts/threads censored and/or deleted because of much lesser stuff than this, and most of the times, I was simply expressing the truth, but it happened that 'it was offensive for other people'. It's not about the way you moderate the forums, but I don't like this order of things. Consider this my last post in this particular thread.

---

Oh well... I must say the quotes are indeed 'hard' on the matter, and I say that from the point of view of someone who's been raised in a catholic way and still feels guilt for some thoughts despite having chosen not to be religious...

But I think they're showing a point of view, that not only Nietszche might have had...I've heard similar stuff from the mouths of other 'atheists' who anyway have at least a slight religious background (as it's almost impossible not to have here...) It reminds me of reading about his theory of the Death of God, which was fascinating though not as much as other of his stuff... and I wish i still had my philosophy book from school cos I can't remember anything :(

And btw, apparently his words esp. about Ubermensch were changed by his sister to make it more appealing, and that's what got mixed with the nazi theories of a superior race... So he was just misunderstood in that, or at least that's what we were told at school (I remember clearly it was written on the book) so it's probably what critics think... I tend to believe that cos I consider him to have been a clever man...

Anybody interested in finding out what Nietzsche was really like, rather than the distorted image that Crisaor puts forward, might like to read Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography by Rudiger Safranski or Nietzsche in Turin by Lesley Chamberlain.

Kendall, don't let some people on this forum put you off posting such material. Those quotes are interesting and valid points. Much of Crisaor's criticisms just don't stand up to scrutiny.

Nietzsche was writing at a time when Christianity was starting to become as pointless as it is today. With the Copernican revolution shaking our anthropocentric feelings, and the steady rise of Darwinism, Nietzsche could see the logical conclusion to Christianity: a movement entrenched in its own old traditions, lacking relevance to the modern world and sustained solely by its appeal to traditional ritual and traditional community living. This is why many Christians feel uncomfortable about what Nietzsche says, because they know he is hitting them where it hurts most. They can easily defend logical arguments by appealing to personal experience. But when someone comes along and shows them an argument against their beliefs based upon empirical observation of their behaviour and their beliefs, well, its very hard to face up to such an attack. Which is why Crisaor has to resort to jibes about Nazism etc.

AP

He was a passionate athiest, just like others are passionate Christians. While I don't necesarily agree with his ideas about God and religion, I love reading his passionate writing. He puts alot of emotion into his denunciation of Christianity. And he makes some very valid points. I don't think its fair to assume that he would "love nazism", because he never saw it. He never (in my reading, although I haven't read his complete works) advocates violence to weed out the week. He advocates trying to inform the week. He also doesn't identify the Ubermench as Blonde haired, blue eyed, anglo-saxon, hetrosexual, prodistants. He would have thought Hitler's prodistant beliefs were stupid, just like anyother prodistant beliefs. He would never advocate a master-race that believed in God. That was one of Zarathustra's main messages for the underman, the Death of God. There is far more about religion in Thus Spoke then just about anything else. I don't think Nietzsche would have gotten along with Hitler at all.

As for being antisemetic, He was a German writing to other Germans. It wasn't specifically his literature that had antisemite undertones, it was his culture. Its the same as Twain's writings having racist undertones. It wasn't that Twain was a racist, it was that the culture he belonged to was racist. I don't think that N. was any more antisametic than any other writers of his time and place. If you want some antisemitism, check out Shakespeare or Marlow. They're blaitently antisametic, but thats not what they're remembered for. It's pretty effed up that Hitler cited Nietzche as his inspiration. That's what gave him his bad wrap. If you can look past that, his works are really really good. I'm a Christian (usually) and don't agree with about 90% of what the man said, but it was still a compelling, thought-provoking read.

I am exceedingly suprised at the strong reactions to this thread. Clearly there are some powerful opinions and judgments that are being made.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by emily655321

I didn't hear anything antisemitic, or anything against Christ or any other founding member of the religion. It seems to me he is merely expressing frustration with the Christian followers he had observed around him up till that point in his life. [/B]

---

That is a very potent observation emily, I don't have much experinece with Neitchze but from what I know he was mostly disgusted and upset the the followers of the christian faith. He was a questioner, not trying to destroy a religion and create a master race as blamed. As Kik belived he would not get along with Hitler for the very reason that Hitler thrived on followers while Nietchze felt that they needed to develope their own views. Also the view that Nietchze doesn't know what he's talking about is innacurate, wasnt' he raised a christain and it was through his observations of blind faith and belief that he began to develope his own opinions leading to existnetialism, and that philosophy isn't negative at all, just questioning and critical of people not hinkin gfor themselves.

Here are two quotes of his that show how he would not get along with Hitler and how his intentions were not to harm the wrold but to intallate individuals in a world of conformity, something that remains a goal for some.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Friedrich Nietzsche

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Yay. Coincidentally, those are my two top favorite Nietzsche quotes, simon! :D I used to have them written on a couple of school notebooks.

Not to harp on this aspect of the conversation, but I think that in this case it is important to state the obvious: Nietzsche was not the first atheist. Especially at the time he was writing, and during the Enlightenment, and among the Romantics, there was an ever-growing number of people rejecting the concept of God, or at least the Judeo-Christian god.

Similarly, as Kik pointed out, Marx's Manifesto didn't advocate Communism as Stalin conceived it. He was also not the first to think of Socialism; the movement had been growing in Russia since the mid-1800's. But Marx is spoken of most widely because Stalin chose him as his poster boy, because he wrote the most famous work about it. For the same reason, Nietzsche shouldn't be branded the poster boy of atheism and blamed for the acts of Hitler, or any other acts or ideas proposed or perpetrated by those who use his name. It's as ludicrous as blaming the Venerable Bede for the Crusades, because he wrote about the Bible and the Crusaders used the Bible as an excuse for their actions. Or blaming Salinger for the murder of John Lennon, because Mark Chapman identified himself with Holden Caulfield.

If you are going to "hate" someone you've never met, hate his ideas for the context in which they were written. But don't make him guilty by association.

There. Rant over. :D

AP,
You say this ‘They can easily defend logical arguments by appealing to personal experience. But when someone comes along and shows them an argument against their beliefs based upon empirical observation of their behaviour and their beliefs, well, its very hard to face up to such an attack.’

You are of course referring here to the subject matter on the faith thread, where you and I and Iwilkiku were discussing these things and where this post originally interjected. . However, my reason for not contributing further to this discussion is not because of not wanting to face up to such an attack, but rather to watch the thread die more quickly by not contributing to it. Without an opposing viewpoint the thread will no doubt come to an end.

I didn’t join this group to have my faith attacked or to have to defend it nor did I expect to see the things that I believe insulted. However it seems that it is allowable to post whatever you like, however disrespectful to someone’s beliefs, so long as the words are not your own and you are quoting someone else. I would call that true hypocrisy.

I would also refer you back to my last post to you on the ‘ faith’ thread and wonder why it took you nine days to reply – and then not properly. Was this because you were finding it ‘very hard to face up’ to the things I said? I very much doubt it – and likewise you should not jump to the conclusion that Christians find it hard to face up to ‘such an attack,’ such as Nietzsche’s, when you have no proof as such.

‘This is why many Christians feel uncomfortable about what Nietzsche says, because they know he is hitting them where it hurts most’ Again, how do you know Christians feel hurt or uncomfortable about what N says? I for one am not hurt or uncomfortable and I can’t see any other Christians on this thread that are either, so to whom are you referring?

‘Nietzsche was writing at a time when Christianity was starting to become as pointless as it is today’ Pointless to whom? Just because Christianity may seem pointless to you doesn’t mean it is pointless and it certainly is not pointless to millions of Christians throughout the world today - and those of yesterday. N’s logical conclusion was wrong. Christianity is as relevant today as it was yesterday and is a still a worldwide, and constantly growing religion. Though the world has made great advances technologically, spiritually man is still the same, and still has within him the will to search for the meaning of life, which science cannot answer or satisfy – and never will.

Some of the things N says are not just opinion, but are objective and can be proved true or false. He infers that the Christian believes in a ’sage’ god that bids us not to work anymore, have no more courts, who orders his disciples to drink his blood and is someone who has ‘a fear of a beyond to which death is the portal’. N’s theology was wrong and I would like to see someone defend it if they believe what he is saying here is right. It is not for me to disprove him – but for those who say he is right to defend their view, since the quotes were posted first and are not accurate in their description of Christian belief.

This statement too is wrong ‘ the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross’. Not only is the function and ignominy of the cross remembered to this day, Mel Gibson just spent millions of dollars making it into a film that people are flocking to see. Why I wonder if this is such a godless age? N truly would be astounded. N was apparently amazed at the time he was writing, that ‘ such things are still believed.’ He would be even more astounded to find that belief in Christianity still continues to grow and is undiminished, despite all the advances in knowledge, science and technology.

From where does N get the idea that ‘essentially and fundamentally’ faith in Christianity is merely hiding ‘ life’s nausea and disgust with life.’ This isn’t true at all. Christianity brings purpose, a reason for living and joy into life and an explanation for all the evil things that happen. N has a very distorted view of Christianity.

N speaks of a revengeful God, but a Christian’s view of God is of a merciful and forgiving one. Election by divine grace is essentially a Catholic dogma, not one accepted throughout the whole of Christendom… but maybe N was ignorant of this fact. The danger of eternal damnation was/is not an ever present one, since accepting Christ’s forgiveness for our inherent sinfulness instead brings the certainty of heaven. So as the premise from where N starts off is a wrong –everything that follows is nonsense. Even if you take it as right…the rest that follows is still nonsense. He is saying - supposedly all this is true…and this is what Christians accept…then to not become a priest, apostle or hermit, shows weakmindedness and lack of character. What rubbish!

Yes, it is senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort, but there’s nothing in Christianity to say that a person should not be comfortable or enjoy life – and still go to heaven.

Still supposing his incorrect premise is correct, the rest of what he writes is still rubbish - since believing those (incorrect) dogmas doesn’t in any way impact on a person’s happiness to make them miserable, or define his intelligence. According to him, those Christians who are not priests, apostles or hermits ie the every day Christian, cut a miserable figure and can’t really count to three. And because the everyday Christian is none of these three things, Christianity will punish him for not being so – though this is entirely undeserved because he is spiritually stupid. I wonder who the imbecile really is.

It’s been inferred that N formed his opinions/arguments from empirical observation. Not being very clever, nor pretentious, I looked up the word ‘empiric’. My dictionary defines it as ‘one who makes trials or experiments; one whose knowledge is got from experience only: a quack.’

Strangely’ empiricism’ would seem to be, according to this definition, based only on experience – rather like faith isn’t it, subjective, based on personal experience rather than universal knowledge.

Miranda

This is an interesting thread, and it would be a shame if it went the way of others. After reading some charges, and rebuts, here is my interjection:

Strong language can generally only hope to incite strong emotion, rather than rational discussion, especially when it puts down what people hold dear.
It reminds me of what I heard recently, that if one sees only in green or red (opposite ends of the visible color spectrum - try with only green or only red colored shades), when something is presented in the other opposing color (i.e. view) only black will appear.
I think it is important to remember that if a religion is pointless, there would be no followers of that religion, even one person.
When we start to denigrate beliefs, it detracts from the points we wished to make.

bah, nevermind ... :(

I agree, az. I've been trying to keep this thread calm and in friendly-debate form because I find Nietzsche a very interesting person and want to know what others have to say about him, before I delve into his writings myself. I really like that thing about seeing the world in red or green.

Miranda, I also agree with you when you say that discussion would die without opposing viewpoints, but I hope you understand that in attempting to shout down the viewpoint with which you disagree, you aren't very persuasive in your case for the freedom to speak your own. Also, the viewpoints involved in a discussion need not be so extremely polar as yours and mine, for instance. Sometimes discussion is more interesting, and educational to those involved, when it is between those who agree on the main point, but disagree with smaller aspects therein -- such as, what exactly did Nietzsche mean by specific phrases, how did his own religious upbringing form his understanding of Christian dogma, etc.

I understand that religion is a highly emotional issue, since it is -- as you pointed out -- based essentially on the emotional experiences of the believer. But everyone has something they're passionate about, and perhaps in your fervor you haven't realized that others participating in this thread are doing their own personal best to keep their strong emotions from influencing the discussion. If it's too painful for you to read views which oppose your own on the subject of Christianity, you might consider not continuing to read the thread. I know I don't ordinarily participate on the religion forums simply because some strong religious statements touch the wrong nerve in me too, and I know I wouldn't be an asset to the conversation. I'm afraid this might be the case if I was to try responding to specific statements you made in your last post, so forgive me for not doing so. I'm just hoping to give you pause to consider the delicacy of the issue, and the efforts being made here to keep the discussion as impersonal and inoffensive as possible, before you respond to anyone else. I think it would be a shame for this discussion to die before it even started because we got bogged down in personal differences and hurt feelings.

Thanks and Peace,
Em*~

Emily
I have a right to defend false accusations and representations made against my faith.

I am the only person on this thread to have commented directly on the 'interesting comments' posted by Kendall.

If your feeling have been hurt or you have got bogged down in personal feelings, then you must sort this out for yourself. My feelings certainly are not hurt, nor bogged down in anyway and the things I written are in answer to points raised by others - and I have exactly the same right as you to discuss them.I have remained on topic in my post and everything I have said is relevant to the topic.

If you address any more personal comments to me on this level, I will not answer them, since they are 'off topic' You have no right at all to say things like this to me - quote 'If it's too painful for you to read views which oppose your own on the subject of Christianity, you might consider not continuing to read the thread.' You could always take your own advice though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by emily655321
I agree, az. I've been trying to keep this thread calm andin friendly-debate form because I find Nietzsche a very interesting person and want to know what others have to say about him, before I delve into his writings myself. I really like that thing about seeing the world in red or green.

Miranda, I also agree with you when you say that discussion would die without opposing viewpoints, but I hope you understand that in attempting to shout down the viewpoint with which you disagree, you aren't very persuasive in your case for the freedom to speak your own. Also, the viewpoints involved in a discussion need not be so extremely polar as yours and mine, for instance. Sometimes discussion is more interesting, and educational to those involved, when it is between those who agree on the main point, but disagree with smaller aspects therein -- such as, what exactly did Nietzsche mean by specific phrases, how did his own religious upbringing form his understanding of Christian dogma, etc.

I understand that religion is a highly emotional issue, since it is -- as you pointed out -- based essentially on the emotional experiences of the believer. But everyone has something they're passionate about, and perhaps in your fervor you haven't realized that others participating in this thread are doing their own personal best to keep their strong emotions from influencing the discussion. If it's too painful for you to read views which oppose your own on the subject of Christianity, you might consider not continuing to read the thread. I know I don't ordinarily participate on the religion forums simply because some strong religious statements touch the wrong nerve in me too, and I know I wouldn't be an asset to the conversation. I'm afraid this might be the case if I was to try responding to specific statements you made in your last post, so forgive me for not doing so. I'm just hoping to give you pause to consider the delicacy of the issue, and the efforts being made here to keep the discussion as impersonal and inoffensive as possible, before you respond to anyone else. I think it would be a shame for this discussion to die before it even started because we got bogged down in personal differences and hurt feelings.

Thanks and Peace,
Em*~

---

Oh dear. I've debated saying this for days for fear that it would hurt rather than help the situation, but at this point I really feel it's a key point to be made:

This thread is NOT regarding our own personal feelings on Christianity. It is to discuss NIETZSCHE's views of Christianity as put forth in the three quotes posted. Whether we agree or disagree with his feelings is completely irrelevant to the discussion. To reiterate, this is a thread about NIETZSCHE, not Christianity.

So, that's the last comment of that nature from me. I'm really disappointed this thread has gone the way it has. :(

Okay, well. I don't see what's wrong with this thread, really. If it upsets you ; then it is probably best that you stop reading and posting about it.
The purpose of this post was to provide a good discussion, I can see that it is doing it ; but not in the way that was intended.
I would LOVE for this thread to stay open and available for debate, but not debate on how it hurts you, or how you shouldn't read it if you don't like it.

So, please - continue to comment about the original post.
I appreciate the fact that some people have managed to stay on topic, thanks for that!

Oh, again. As always seems the case, I'm realizing too late that appeasement usually only tends to draw out the argument. Sorry, everyone, for adding to the trouble. :(

Now I'm really really wishing I had read some Nietzsche! I have no material to work with here. I'll definitely take you guys' advice, AP and Den, and check out a biography before I do, though. That's a good suggestion.

Well, working with what I do have here, I can at least contribute my own philosophical opinion of what he's written. In other words, going piece by piece. The first point he makes is pretty much summed up in the line, "...the fact that the claim [Biblical account] is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this [Christian] heritage." Otherwise called faith -- believing without concrete proof; trusting in what you can't see. It's considered to be the very greatest virtue among Christians -- the First Commandment. All you need is love...for God. :p

Especially growing up in the Catholic Church, which has a centuries-long history of intellectualism and promotion of learning, I understand Nietzsche's point. When it gets to a certain point in the conversation, a probing question is asked by a young Christian, and the priest instantly turns 180 degrees from urging the scholar to analyze further, to the blanket statement of, "God works in mysterious ways. Have faith that it is true." It always seemed to me that questioning and analysis was all right, as long as you came to the same conclusion as the Church (in which case, why is one asking in the first place?). Nietzsche sees a world where this attitude either drives inquisitive people like himself away from all religious belief, or lulls them into a habit of false trust in very human leadership, and an overall pattern of non-questioning in other aspects of their life. He certainly seems to have come to a conclusion as to which side is correct, but essentially what he's saying is, "If the atheists are justified in being repelled by a faith based on non-questioning, how are these religious beliefs to be validated in our modern world of facts, figures, and science? But if the believers are correct, those who are comforted and drawn closer to the religion by the allure of trust without personal analysis, how then is the entire modern system of the human world, of scientific proof and concrete logic, to be validated? How can there be two realities, two bases of fact, for one universe? And just how and who is responsible for deciding where that line is drawn?"

Um, that doesn't sound like a real conclusion as such, but I hope everyone else gets the general point of it, cause I can't answer his questions. :D I just kind of... expounded on what it seems to me he was trying to say. Is there anything in his other writing that backs up/counters that analysis?

[edit] Okay, I admit it, this is just an attempt to get the old Nietzsche talk started again. I didn't really say anything new, but.. hey, anyone else want to? :D

And BTW, I'm heading to the library today to pick up some Nietzsche-related bedtime reading. :) (There's my updated answer to "What has this forum inspired you to read?")