>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won.... The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid.... Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth!
Can't impeach the Neech
>Islam, which originated among the Semitic races also consisted of the Law and Tradition, regarded as a formative force, to which the Arab stocks of the origins provided a purer and nobler human material that was shaped by a warrior spirit. The Islamic law (shariah) is a divine law; its foundation, the Koran, is thought of as God’s very own word (kalam Allah) as well as a nonhuman work and an 'uncreated book' that exists in heaven ab eterno.
> Islam presents a traditional completeness, since the shariah and the sunna, that is, the exoteric law and tradition, have their complement not in a vague mysticism, but in full-fledged initiatory organisations (turuq) that are characterised by an esoteric teaching (tawil) and by the metaphysical doctrine of the Supreme Identity (tawhid). In these organizations, and in general in the shia, the recurrent notions of the masum, of the double prerogative of the isma (doctrinal infallibility), and of the impossibility of being stained by any sin (which is the prerogative of the leaders, the visible and invisible Imams and, the mujtahid) lead back to the line of an unbroken race shaped by a tradition at a higher level than both Judaism and the religious beliefs that conquered the West
>It is a great shame for any one to listen to the accusation that Islaam is a lie and that Muhammad was a fabricator and a deceiver. We saw that he remained steadfast upon his principles, with firm determination; kind and generous, compassionate, pious, virtuous, with real manhood, hardworking and sincere. Besides all these qualities, he was lenient with others, tolerant, kind, cheerful and praiseworthy and perhaps he would joke and tease his companions. He was just, truthful, smart, pure, magnanimous and present-minded; his face was radiant as if he had lights within him to illuminate the darkest of nights; he was a great man by nature who was not educated in a school nor nurtured by a teacher as he was not in need of any of this.
>I respect, more than do the Mamluks, God, his prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur'an... we are true Muslims. Are we not the one who has destroyed the Pope who preached war against Muslims? Did we not destroy the Knights of Malta, because these fanatics believed that God wanted them to make war against the Muslims?
>benis
[gaya scienza intensifies]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgaIuA0kg-E
>>7382092
>What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle - real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy.
>>7382080
Nietzsche is talking about Muslims when they were making algebra, not the Muslims of today. I also recall an anon not too long ago who made a thread on /lit/ about Islam, viewing it through a Nietzschean lens and calling it a slave morality because it allows ugly men justified through abrahamic morals and arranged marriage to marry attractive women, like letting the ugly chandala/rabble justify themselves through the Qur'an.
>>7382417
I forgot to add, that anon was raised Muslim himself so I trust his analysis more than Netty's
>>7382080
Yes, perennialism is flawed. It has vitality, and some truth in its review, but it lacks a viable path forward.
>>7382080
Can one man be any wronger?
>>7382417
>Muslims
>making algebra
>2015
>>7382432
Even Jonathan Bowden admitted that most of the pseduo-pagan circles are occupied by cultural spastics, and that abandoning Christianity was to cut off 70% of what makes the west and shouldn't be attempted.
>>7382431
Calm down /pol/ -- Muslims didn't "invent" /al-jabr/ but al-Khwarizmi is responsible for making it a legitimate math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Compendious_Book_on_Calculation_by_Completion_and_Balancing
>>7382432
Have fun with your non-pictorial art lmao nerd
Muslims can't even paint their god, nor Muhammad and any kind of human form for that matter. Never mind approaching Michelangelo and Raphael in terms of ability.
Don't believe Nietzsche's aesthetic aristocracy would fair too well in such an environment.
>>7382417
A character in Houellebecq's Soumission speaks in a way that views Islam as rather Nietzschean since it rewards the strong and successful with with multiple wives whereas the weak can afford one at most, leading to a form of natural selection where the superior men spawn most of the future population. He also argues that while Islam commands charity, it does not glorify weakness and poverty like Christianity does.
Islam also forbids asceticism and makes marriage obligatory. It forbids monasticism. It's the most vitalist and world affirming of all the great religions.
>>7382452
That wasn't true until relatively recently - there are tons of paintings of Muhammad from the Golden Age, some of which have since been scratched out
>Guys look Christianity is bad, even Nietzsche thought so!
Is this how desperate fedoras are getting?
>>7382469
So again, you can't relate what nietzsche was talking about to the muslims of today
>>7382478
This tbqh
>>7382461
What are the arranged marriages grounded in though? I doubt attractiveness. Do you really know if marriage works that ideally in Islam? Then how come there are so many ugly Muslims? I could see it much more likely that marriages are arranged based on wealth or some arbitrary thing like "holiness."
And Nietzsche isn't only about strong vs weak. If a strong organism doesn't have culture, refinement, and theater with which it affirms life, then it is little more than a barbarian. And dumb brutes of prey have very little resistance to the clever spells of the slaves who will guilt them into the good vs evil slave morality all over again.
>>7382080
Islam is essentially anarchy where men have free reign- everyone and everything else to his expense. If Nietzsche had been born into Muslim civilization, he'd be rebelling against Islam and praising Christianity. He's contrarian by nature.
>>7382080
I've long suspected Nietzche was a crypto-kike hellbent on destroying the white race.
>>7382773
Nice redpill, wanna go BTFO jews with me?
>>7382080
>>7382481
The Hadith forbidding depiction of Mohammed wasn't written until hundreds of years after Mohammed died. Shi'a Muslims, while nominally acknowledging it, don't really care. They have Mohammed postcards in Iran.
>>7382928
Show me portraits on the level of European art tho
>>7382773
If you were to actually read The Antichrist, or even searched for the context of this quote, you would know that immediately afterwards he used Islam to criticize the Jews, comparing a Jew-instead-of-Muslim sympathizer on par with the lowest caste in Hindu civilization, the untouchable or "chandala."
>Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not.... “War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!”: this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick [Page 177] II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can’t make out how a German could ever feel Christian....
He wanted white Europeans to have friendship with Islam, against the Jews, much like your pal Hitler did with the president of Palestine...
If only /pol/lacks read books...!
>>7383069
it was a comment about something that happened 500 or more years ago. not a political statement.
also antichrist was written in the same year that georg brandes (jew) gave the first lecture about nietzsche and he himself negotiated with helen zimmern (jew) about translations of his books into english.
>>7382080
>taking anything ol' Notche says on Christianity seriously
He's as impartial a figure as the pope. The only difference between Nietzsch on authority figures and some edgy teen is the wording of their arguments.
>>7382087
I literally cannot fucking read this cunt. His sentences just go on and on.
>>7383284
>he has a strong opinion therefore his opinion is wrong
lmao you fucking muddlers
Reminder that God struck Nietzsche with madness to punish him.
>>7383491
Nietzsche killed God, brought him back to life out of literary irony, struck God with madness because he's Nietzsche, then absorbed God's chaos into himself to become uber-Nietzsche where upon he traveled back in time to write about himself in the first book written in the Fourth Tense - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>>7383524
So... Nietzsche is like Gurren Lagann?
>>7383524
And then he reincarnated into both icycalm AND all the people making fun of icycalm on the internet
>>7383100
George Brandes wrote in a letter to a friend that he found Nietzsche unsettling and didn't like all of his ideas. The only correspondence that he had with Nietzsche involved N-man apporving of Brandes' term "aristocratic radicalism" to describe his works, and Brandes recommending N to read Kierkegaard, which N ignored.
You can't hold a grudge against Nietzsche simply for not being overtly racist to competent, literary Germanic-speaking Jews of his day.
>>7383491
pretty sure most of your prophets are mad and your savior is mad and your saints are mad. If you're a protestant, then your Luther was quite mad as well and was probably schizetypal.
>>7382417
>>7382421
As another anon raised in muslim tradition, i can tell you that islam has both moralities. It does not force slave morality but if you choose slave morality you will just fit in. Also most people will choose the slave morality as it is the most comfy morality..
Think of it as an rpg game. You can create any kind of character as long as it is founded on virtues like justness, trustworthiness, honesty etc. Islam does not limit character by showing the way. It just hints the possible ways one can take and etc.
I said earlier i was raised in muslim tradition but "muh scepticism" did not let me believe anything. So i try to be as unbiased as possible on this kind of subjects.
If anyone has any question related to islam i can try my best to answer or lead to the sources that can answer.
>>7383723
Christianism in the wider sense, the tradition that preserved pagan holidays and allowed princes to wage war and maintain hierarchies, is also mixed with both moralities. In "The Antichrist," Christianity is often poised against the Catholic church of the Renaissance, Nietzsche representing them as two opposing forces, the former being the true words written in the Bible, which he calls slave moralistic. When Nietzsche critiques "Christianity" he is criticizing the very essence of the Christian doctrine as written in the New Testament and especially as practiced by Paul and his follows: this is the religion he calls the religion of pity and ressentiment, not the Church proper and all of its pagan, warrior influences.
Now I ask you, when you say Islam has both moralities, do you mean in this sense that I have just stated?
The question depends on how much of Nietzsche's work and how well you know the Qu'ran.
If you have a fair amount of knowledge in both, I ask: could Islam insofar as it is true Islam -- the Islam of the Qu'ran and of its original priests without taint from warriors and polytheistic traditions -- truly be reconciled with Nietzsche's philosophy without any scruple? Or is Islam too a religion which drains the expansive energies of Life and whose God is also bunk and in need of a transvaluation of values?
>>7383561
>the only correspondence...
11 letters and cards from nietzsche to brandes throughout 1888 were preserved, not including the final card after mental breakdown
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1887,960
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,974
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,997
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1009
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1014
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1030
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1036
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1038
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1107
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1134
http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/BVN-1888,1151
>>7383766
Wow, never mind, you won. Clearly Nietzsche was a shill for the Rothschilds.
>>7383778
strawman3
there is no such thing as master morality / slave morality
what Nietzsche calls master morality is just immorality; never has a culture called pride and arrogance moral. Read Homer. He glorifies fortitude but not arrogance or pride. Read the Koran. The same disdain for pride and praise of humility. Read the Roman commentators in the time of the Caesars. They all are scathing about public immorality and pride of the emperors. I was reading Catallus yesterday and there was a section that could have been written by a Christian saying that the Father of the gods no longer talks to men because of their vain and impure thoughts.
Nietzsche was just a drugged-up German romantic high on Wagner
>>7383804
>never has a culture called pride and arrogance moral
look at chechens. look at any fighter culture.
>read homer
are you seriously implying nietzsche didnt get homer?
>>7383804
also, his so-called slave morality - most of it is a misanthropic impression of the majority of men who are just petty, self-seeking, and who just want comfort. Lukewarm people. There are plenty of Christian tracts against this very tendency, but Nietzsche's misanthropic delirium that the majority of men would rather live in comfy villages than go rampaging around the world raping and pillaging while singing Wagner is just the madness of a weakling. He complains that sometimes he feels nausea while surrounded by common people - this nausea is the nausea of an invalid who is too weak to be around common people.
>>7383814
> look at any fighter culture.
Homer's was a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance. Virgil's was still somewhat a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance. Beowulf is written in a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance. The Old Testament was written in a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance. The Koran was written in a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance. What are you talking about?
>are you seriously implying nietzsche didnt get homer?
Yes. He read him too romantically.
>>7383814
>look at any fighter culture.
Robust fighter cultures aren't like your average gang of posturing niggers. They have a solid moral code and laws of obedience and honour. If you tried to stick your chest out you'd be considered an idiot.
>>7383820
hey... what about [spoilers]chechens[/spoiler]?
>>7383804
You should read your Romans in Latin. They say bad emperors lack virtue, and virtue in Latin, before ecclesiastical Latin changed the definition to mean "meekness," meant manliness, the stem of virtus being "vir", or "man".
So much of this literature has been Christianized even unconsciously into modern times. Aristotle, for example, never thought the end goal of Ethics was "happiness," but literally "ensouled with a daemon," or like a god, aka human flourishing.
Homer has Odysseus pridefully call his own name out to the cyclops as he is leaving ... he subsequently gets his boat rocked by a thrown boulder and causes much tragedy... this much is true. But Odysseus, while an enemy to some Gods like Poseidon who dislike his arrogance, is at the same time aided by Gods who favor his pride, like Athena. He wins in the end, doesn't he?
Same as Orestes in Aeschylus's cycle. Yes, lust and lack of "virtue" plague the family in the beginning, but what happens at the end? Athena redeems Orestes' slaughter of his own mother.
Don't pretend civilization has not changed, don't pretend the ancient world is not lost. If it was the same morality, then why would it have converted to Christianity? Why the massive difference between the medieval and the classical? Why to the whole question of history as such?
Nietzsche was a reader and mouthpiece of the Classics, and the number one critique of the German romantic high on Schopenhauer that was Wagner.
>>7383820
>He complains that sometimes he feels nausea while surrounded by common people - this nausea is the nausea of an invalid who is too weak to be around common people.
Go to bed Chesterton. Come back after a long nap and a good dose of classical literature.
>Homer's was a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance. Virgil's was still somewhat a fighter culture. Did not glorify pride or arrogance.
see: >>7383841
>The Old Testament was written in a fighter culture.
The Old Testament was written by an extremely oppressed group of war torn people in the middle of the desert. Denying the harshness of life was their weapon against the pain, their sense of meekness before an angry God was their certitude for survival.
>He read him too romantically.
Oh, you mean the guy who called Romanticism a disease and stood as the foremost opponent to said movement and the foremost proponent of Classicism in his day? That guy read Homer too Romantically? Alright, Christian. I'll trust you. I trust that Homeric culture is identical to a medieval sepulcher.
>>7383827
No one is suggesting that warrior culture is barbarism. The very fact of forming the pre-requisites of war, nations and culture, requires obedience. This is not the same as wearing a white robe and chastising yourself for thinking about sex.
>>7383827
>Robust fighter cultures aren't like your average gang of posturing niggers.
great, how is that relevant to this thread or nietzsche. just more strawmen and frivolous bullshit.
noble obedience was the last thing nietzsche criticized, it's compatible with master morality. he praised the aristocratic tradition of obeying and commanding.
for example zarathustra:
>Ye shall only have enemies to be hated, but not enemies to be despised. Ye must be proud of your enemies; then, the successes of your enemies are also your successes.
>Resistance--that is the distinction of the slave. Let your distinction be obedience. Let your commanding itself be obeying!
>>7383841
>You should read your Romans in Latin. They say bad emperors lack virtue, and virtue in Latin, before ecclesiastical Latin changed the definition to mean "meekness," meant manliness, the stem of virtus being "vir", or "man".
Well then did they never use the word virtue to describe women?
They attacked the emperor's for their sexual misconduct.
Virtue for them did not just mean manliness or fortitude. They had four cardinal virtues, one of which was temperance which includes meekness and chastity.
The first episode in the Iliad is the arrogance of Agamemnon causing a plague to fall upon the Greeks and driving their best hero, Achilles, out of the fight solely by his arrogant behaviour. You know the concept of hubris which made up the Greek tragedies. The Classical idea of Prometheus is that he was an arrogant rebel who deserved the punishment he got. The Romantic idea of Prometheus is that he was a bold liberator who practically rebelled for the sake of rebelling.
>Homer has Odysseus pridefully call his own name out to the cyclops as he is leaving ... he subsequently gets his boat rocked by a thrown boulder and causes much tragedy... this much is true. But Odysseus, while an enemy to some Gods like Poseidon who dislike his arrogance, is at the same time aided by Gods who favor his pride, like Athena. He wins in the end, doesn't he?
It's these very reasons that the Romans considered Odysseus a poor hero and glorified the Trojans and Hector above the Greeks and their heroes.
>If it was the same morality, then why would it have converted to Christianity?
It is the same morality only clarified. There is only one morality in existence. The Romans discovered a lot of it compared to most pagan civilizations. The Christians cleaned away the dirt that still stained Rome.
>>7383861
>Denying the harshness of life was their weapon against the pain, their sense of meekness before an angry God was their certitude for survival.
Nice unfounded theory.
>>7383861
>This is not the same as wearing a white robe and chastising yourself for thinking about sex.
Except this is part of strength. The Romans did have a concept of abstinence from pleasures, including sexual pleasures.
>>7383753
I do know fair amount of it but as it is more of a cultural thing and education on spirit of book than memorizing and studying quran verses i may have trouble citating efficiently.
master and slave morality in many times are intertwined in islam but not indistinguishable. all humans are slave to the god and must obey authority if they are just.
“O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable in the end.”
(4:59)
"refer it to Allah" part is the most important as it is kind of like "turn the other cheek" but it is only in minor differences. For example if your neighbour's dog digged your lawn and ruined it, then you will not bitch about it after talking with your neighbour about it. This way further aggression is prevented and a good community is formed. You dont sue the neighbour and make life hell for both of you like in USA.
"Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors."
(2:190)
In this part we got to question what is "way of Allah" and here you can interpret it in many ways. A Jihadist may find himself a reason to kill people in this part. But it would be totally retarded as it says "do not transgress" so you are entitled to defend yourself and in this defense, attack them without 'transgressing' until they stop.
I interpret it as any sane person in my position probably would. In the way of doing good, and protecting community one can and should fight those that oppose this.
Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.
(2:191)
Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.
(2:192)
Im citating most arguable ones to make my point in interpreting. these are some of the most "OMG MUSLIMZ ARE TERRORIZTST" tier verses, used by people with biased opinions to create more bias. kek.
Notice that this thing is about war and defense but it is kind even on an enemy that is the aggressor of war. "wrongful persecution is even worse than killing", "i they desist..."
Still on the other hand it has many Machiavellian aspects to be honest. When they attack you, you "KILL" them till they drop dead and/or stop attacking you. kek.
"Ask the Children of Israel how many a sign of evidence We have given them. And whoever exchanges the favor of Allah [for disbelief] after it has come to him - then indeed, Allah is severe in penalty"
2:211
Based verse mentioning Hitler.
i will return to topic in a second message. i strayed too far from subject.
>>7383877
>It is the same morality only clarified. There is only one morality in existence.
What a fuckin' laugh. Do you even know what morality means? You are implying all humans all over the world, with any code of behavior and action, did the exact same thing. What kind of robot-Chinese-Kantian world do you live in?
The hubris in the Greek plays is something to watch and something to get lost in aesthetically. Why do you think Socrates disliked the theater? Why do you think the theater festival was called the "Dionysia"?
What do you make of a Pythagoras amidst ancient Greek culture? Both sides had a code of ethics, and both were distinct. The former flowed quite well into form of the Christian. And please do not start linking me with Orphism.
>>7383880
Do you know anything about Jewish history?
>>7383891
No one ever implied the Roman republic nor the average imperial citizen was allowed to have insane sorts of sex. The emperors were criticized, you are right, but they weren't considered SINFUL and worthy of ETERNAL DAMNATION IN FIREEEEEE BY THE HANDS OF DEUSSSSSS. I think the point has been made.
>>7383919
Nobody denies the harshness of life.
>>7383926
"Denying life to withstand their unfair amount of harshness" would have been more accurate. Forgive me, anon.
>>7383912
>Still on the other hand it has many Machiavellian aspects to be honest. When they attack you, you "KILL" them till they drop dead and/or stop attacking you
Sounds interesting, I will read the Qu'ran in full as I have been planning to do for some time.
>Based verse mentioning Hitler.
kekel
>>7383753
>>7383912
It depends on what one understands from "Master morality" but really i do think it is about choosing your own way while being free from influences. Striving for greatness instead of accepting what is at hand and being grateful for it. You can find it in islam but it is limited to "good" deeds. What is good comes to question and to islam if it benefits you or someone while not harming others, it is good. Wealth is good in islam, a muslim "must" acquire currency and dress as nicely as he can. Not in a pompeous way though. A muslim must always work hard and achieve greater results.
On the other hand, one must always be grateful for what he has. Should not envy others but strive to get better and etc. Slave morality parts are very stoic to be honest and it is arguable if it can be called slave morality. Does it give the benefits of slave morality ? Yes. But it does not give the harm slave morality gives.
I've discussed about "values" of master and slave morality but master morality itself is not defined tightly and it can apply to many things. You just need to be able to have your own "good" derived not from society but from yourself. It really depends on the person in question.
>>7384004
>muh glorious rome maymay
>>7384004
>appealed
>past tense
>implying a Christian world could into greece and rome
>>7383530
Spiral Energy is the Will to Power.
Kamina is Nietzsche
Simon is icycalm
>>7383804
Nietzsche admits that most people and logic systems have aspects of both. The point is that Christianity is highly concentrated slave morality, especially the early church was worst the worst of all. Renaissance Christianity was the most master morality it ever reached, it was even reflected in the theology where they emphasized the divine nature of man.
>>7382520
Not the guy you responded to but your exact remarks are adressed in Soumission. Read it
Jesus is Lord and Savior
>>7382080
>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization
>mfw he wrote this unironically
I have no real problem with Islam, just with Muslims (who are mostly idiots).
>>7384636
do you have any argument as to otherwise or are you just posturing
>>7385064
god exists, do you have any argument as to otherwise or are you just posturing
>>7385078
The thing about Nietzsche's arguments is it doesn't even matter if God exists, his ways are directly against the nobility and growth of mankind. I think there is a passage where if he said if God did exist it would strengthen his case, we'd have to conclude that God did not deserve his title (ie God has already proven he is not powerful, not wise, not courageous, not a God at all, and not worthy of worship). If the demon Yawheh spent his whole existence trying to corrupt and destroy mankind it would only prove he is scared of mankind surpassing him (this is the true meaning of the garden of Eden story).
>>7385103
>his ways are directly against the nobility and growth of mankind
If God exists there is no way this can be proven. Nietzsche's ideas are totally subjective, as are any person's ideas. The only conception of human purpose which can be objective must come from the omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Even if God were a dick, WE'D never know, because there is no such thing as objective judgment of behavior apart from God's own rules.
This is also where Kierkegaard crumbles, by the way. Fucking Modernists, don't know shit.
>>7385078
This is about christianity, not its fabrications. "There exists a god (which cant be disproven) so we auto-win all arguments by default" isnt much grounds for discussion
>>7385125
Not as harmed as some might think. Let's not forget that Nietzsche doesn't quite criticize Jesus Christ. Indeed, Nietzsche shows a certain degree of admiration for Christ. What he criticizes are people who purport to be Christians but who really worship and act out of ressentiment, out of a disgust at the world around them.
I certainly don't think Nietzsche has a problem with people like, say, Francis of Assisi, whose imitation of Christ serves to make the world larger, not smaller. But I think Nietzsche's argument is that such Christians are rare, too rare to make the religion worth saving.
>>7385125
All of his writing is about the effects of Christianity which are almost universally negative. It takes a bit of historical knowledge to really appreciate his points in the anti-Christ, but once you see that you realize he is very right about early Christianity's behavior and it's terrible legacy. No one has really refuted his central points, in fact most Christian apologetic agree with Nietzsche's analysis of the religion but argue that the aristocratic nobility Nietzsche loves should be destroyed in favor of the meeker 'loving' Christian ways.
Have you actually read him?
>>7385122
Nietzche thinks atheism is an inevitable future, he gives almost no attempt to disprove God. He successfully predicted Christianity would become less and less influential and God harder and harder to believe (given that in his time virtually everyone was a Christian he was right).
His question is, what affect does believing in Christianity have? Does it make for a better people? In this regard it doesn't even matter if it's true. The affects will still be there even if there is no God. Nietzsche's conclusion is that Christianity is life-denying and promotes the weak over the strong.
>>7385185
>It takes a bit of historical knowledge to really appreciate his points in the anti-Christ, but once you see that you realize he is very right about early Christianity's behavior and it's terrible legacy.
give me a few examples senpai
>>7385180
He believed that the original Jesus's message was closer to Buddhism in that it was about finding peace and overcoming suffering. He thinks early Christians perverted the writings of Christ to the point where everything of value was lost. He also believes the idea of Christ being a God was invention of people like Paul. He believes concepts like hell and the last judgement were just revenge fantasies and accuses the writers of the bible of putting false words into Jesus's mouth.
He speculates a bit on what the origenal Christianity was like, he thinks "son of God" was a title that belonged to everyone, that everyone including Jesus were mortals who were God's adopted children. There is actually an early Christian sect that had this teaching.
>>7385202
The trinity and Christ's divinity were later additions.
>>7385185
Pretty much none of Nietzsche's criticisms apply to Orthodox Christianity.
>>7385199
The early Jews of Christianity were extremely hostile to pretty much everything Roman. They were like SJW, literally everything that the Roman culture was proud of they critisized and took the opposite stance on. For instance in Rome pride was a good thing so Christians said pride was a sin and humility was the good thing.
Saint Augestine was basically the ancient version of a leftist blogger. If Rome lost a war against it's enemies, had an earthquake that destroyed a city, if anything bad happened he would say Rome deserved it for all it's sins and for worshiping Gods other than Jesus.
Basically early Christians did everything they could to destroy morality, smash pride, tradition, and replace long held beleifs with their exact opposite. They also directly undermined the authority and beleif in patriotism by speaking against the divnity of the emperor and the religion. That's literally what united the whole country, the belief that the emperor had a connection to the Roman Gods.
For Christians that like to say "The liberals are destroying our religion and identity" that's how your religion got started.
>>7385216
Universal reconciliation isn't a heresy in Eastern Orthodoxy
Christ's death is not about paying off sins, because God doesn't need to die to forgive sins in Eastern Orthodoxy (he forgives them in the OT), it's about God communing with his creation.
Dwelling on the sins of others, such as thinking of them in hell, is considered a big no-no. In fact, you're supposed to consider yourself damned and all others saved, because salvation comes most likely to those who do not feel entitled to it, but to those would be surprised by it and would be the most grateful as opposed to expecting.
Orthodox Christianity is not anti-material at all, and considers the material to be required to complete the spiritual. That's why worship is done with all five senses (the tactile sense being frequently crossing oneself, the smell through the incense, etc.). Prayer itself is supposed to by physical as well as spiritual, that is why it is always done standing or kneeling, and breathing is coordinated with it.
Both of the theologians Nietzsche quotes (Tertullian and Aquinas) to show how spiteful Christianity is are considered extremely Western by Orthodox Christianity. Tertullian is even known as "the father of Latin Christianity".
>>7385233
>>7385207
Orthodoxy might be the most compatible with Nietzsche. As you described the real world is less condemned and there is less guilt and anti-life hatred for 'sinners'. A big part of this I think is the mysticism which directly connects humans to God and finds him through the 5 senses. This affirms the divine nature of man. Very good stuff, very classy. You are also correct that Nietzche singles out specific Catholic and Protestant theology that do not apply to Orthodoxy. For instance, Orthodoxy does not have original sin as a blood curse.
However Nietzsche's points still are relevant but to a lesser degree. There is still a huge emphasis on 'salvation' which is connected to the 'other world'. The idea of the 'fallen earth' is still there, and Nietzsche was directly opposed to the idea of sin in way. He thought all the terrible things in life should be embraced, if you can't embrace sin your denying a part of life. Since the whole of life should be embraced the earth cannot be fallen. The religion is still life denying.
And Nietzsche and orthodoxy still differ on morality. Orthodoxy is still slave morality and directly opposed to the higher men. Consider that Cesar Borgia is a model human for Nietzsche and a bad guy for the Orthodox. Pity for the weak is "worst than any vice" for Nietzsche but it's still a high value in Orthodoxy.
That said Orthodoxy is the most Nietzsche compatible version of the religion. It's about the same tier as Buddhism which Nietzsche has mixed feelings towards giving it both praise and scorn in about equal measure. I also know he respected Dostoevsky.
>>7385221
Greeks thought hubris to be a bad thing too. In fact, in Orthodox Christianity, sin doesn't mean "guilt", really, it means what it does in Greek: to miss the mark. It's a key concept in Greek tragedy, where it means a failing that brings about the downfall of a hero, the tragic flaw. Hubris is a pretty key tragic flaw in Greek tragedy, see The Persians.
Even though the Orthodox Church recognizes Augustine as a saint, her position is that his theology is often highly erroneous. Two key, points, for instance, being the idea that original sin is transmitted by conception, and "just war" theory.
None of the Jews thought the emperor was divine, what a silly thing to lay on Christianity. Christians were more supportive of the emperor's authority than any other Jews, as evidenced from Romans 13, and their refusal to take part in the Bar Kokhba revolt (which is what ultimately and finally separated them from Jews in general).
>>7385253
Compassion has a high value, yes, but not really "pity" in the condescending sense. And, contra Nietzsche, I'd say masters had more pity than slaves.
ITT: Christfags trying to convince themselves that they can reconcile their religion with Nietzsche.
You don't need to make these crazy justifications to link the two.
i like how islam is basically proto-protestantism because there is no real authority for interpretation of the koran since mohamed didn't really seem to care about who would succeed him.
at least jesus had the courtesy to tell his apostles what to do and even told them what exactly would happen when he died.
>>7385253
The of Christianity being "slave morality" ir ironically a 19th Century meme that originated with the anarchists Nietzsche hated so much. They saw Christianity as a tool to keep the proletariat in chains. No wonder leftists like Emma Goldman saw in Nietzsche so much of themselves.
>>7385262
Nietzsche is in 95% agreement with Dostoevsky.
>>7385262
>"Christfags"
Nietzschefags are doing that, like they do every time someone states something like "Nietzsche hates compassion" or "Nietzsche hates nationalism", they go "No, you don't understand".
>>7385253
>The idea of the 'fallen earth' is still there,
This is a theme in Greek paganism. They believed the ancient generation to have been a higher form of humanity, and their generation to be enfeebled.
>>7385260
Nietzsche does believe only the master is capable of genuine pity. The slave's pity is a weapon, it's sneaky and dishonest with the aim of revenging himself against a master. That said In Nietzsche philosophy pity should be something extremely rare and reserved.
But let's go back. Caesar Borgia he's a Nietzsche hero and the by any Orthodox standards he would be an "evil" sinner. A Nietzsche hero delights in war and conflict. Zarathustra has an entire chapter praising conflict with sayings like "may your peace be a short peace and lead you to another war".
Meanwhile Orthodox reject the Just War Doctrine. What was one of the few things Nietzsche actually praised the Catholic church for? Religious war because it preserved the masculine spirit.
>>7385254
It would be wrong to associate the Greek Hubris with the Christian hubris. The Greek Gods are not moral entities, hubris against them is a type of rivalry. Greek heroes are rivals to the gods all the time but they are still heroes. The stories of Greek gods are not moralized stories. So Hubris is not "evil" or "missing the mark".
Christianity's concept of humility is a moralized concept. The idea that the Greek stories are moralized stories "against" Hubris is a christian interpreation that is not consistent with the origenal culture.
>>7385267
>mohamed didn't really seem to care about who would succeed him
Read Madelung's The Succession to Muhammad
>>7385272
Nietzsche doesn't hate compassion at all, he only hates it insofar as it prevents someone from taking revenge without actually ameliorating the the sore. This theme is somewhat address in Notes from the Underground, when the narrators speaks of the highly conscious human as a mouse who cannot take revenge immediately in the way the "natural man" can, because he questions the justice of revenge itself, and so the resentment festers and he takes his revenge in incremental, petty ways, and the hatred grows ever more strongly as a result. Nietzsche said it is better to forgive completely as a gesture of magnanimity, or to take total and immediate revenge without pity and alleviate the sickness of resentment.
>>7385280
What does The Persians have to do with rivalry with the Greek gods?
>>7385280
>Nietzsche does believe only the master is capable of genuine pity. The slave's pity is a weapon, it's sneaky and dishonest with the aim of revenging himself against a master. T
Which is begging the question.
>But let's go back. Caesar Borgia he's a Nietzsche hero and the by any Orthodox standards he would be an "evil" sinner.
By Orthodox standards, no one is evil except yourself. That is why in the Jesus prayer, Greek uses the definite article: "the" sinner. From the perspective of the Jesus prayer, you are the only sinner. You are not supposed to think of others as evil or wicked.
>>7385276
If you really want to see where the Greeks and Christians stand on the state of earth. Consider this.
Promotheus and Satan are the same fucking character. Both "free" humanity from living in some sort of jungle by giving them divine intellict.
In the Greek religion the Fallen One is a hero, he is the great one who gave man his knowledge. The Olympic games celebrate his brave sacrifice by reinactign when he brought fire from the heavens with his church. The great Hercules free's the Fallen One from the punishment of the Gods and thanks him for his contribution to mankind.
In Christianity the Fallen One is the ultimate bad guy that ruined everything.
You don't see the Greeks going around whining at how they 'missed the mark' or talking about sin. That's not part of their theology. There is no fucking 'sin' in the Greek religion, literally everything is divine. As Nietzche said no matter what 'bad' thing you do, you can be assured it is pleasing some trickster or war God. It allows one to embrace life and affirm everything. It's one of the very few religions compatible with the eternal recurrence.
While the whole fucking point of Christianity is to escape the fallen world and distance one's self from their sins. No fucking Christian wants the eternal recurrence, they don't want to repeat this fallen world. They want to GTFO. They can't affirm their sins as something they want to repeat again!
love is better than power
>>7385302
>literally everything is divine
sounds primitive desu senpai
>>7385302
If that's the case, Christianity and Nietzsche are diametrically opposed.
>>7385308
was the book called "the anti-christ" not a big enough clue for you?
>>7385302
Prometheus could be compared to Christ as easily as he could be compared to Satan.
How can you say Greeks wanted to repeat it when Pindar said 2/3rds of life is suffering?
>>7385302
>There is no fucking 'sin' in the Greek religion, literally everything is divine.
Wow, have you even read the Oresteia?
>>7385316
Pindar was a philosopher
>>7385293
>You are not supposed to think of others as evil or wicked.
And Nietzche would agree here....
>By Orthodox standards, no one is evil except yourself.
And this where you show the religion is for losers. You arn't supposed to guilt trip yourself and deny your life. Nothing is sin, NOTHING go it, you are supposed to embrace every moment of life, and that means no moment can be sinful. Also you are supposed to make your own path. Doesn't matter what the fucking Patriarch says, you need to make your own choices and live with the consiquences.
"Sin" is life denying. Period! If you want to make the religion compatable with the religion than you need to get rid of the fucking cross. Jesus didn't die for your sins because nobody on the planet fucking sinned, we act according to the Will to Power and sometimes that means eating each other! (this is how nations grow). The world isn't fallen, it's fucking glorious.
>>7385303
Love is just a form of power. Literally everything is an expression of power in Nietzsche philosophy.
>>7385316
Pindar is a philosopher we were talking about the religion. The point is that everything in the Greek religion is meaningful because everything has at least 1 god or spirit that promotes it. Christians QQ at war, while the Greeks see it as a way to praise the war god.
>>7385316
He's far closer to Satan. Both are subjects beneath a higher divine form. Both give knowledge. Both are tricksters. Both allow humans to escape the jungle. Both are punished by the God.
Oh and the most importaint thing "Ye shall be as Gods" Prometheus said that and so did Satan. Do you see how vast the difference is. The Hero who gave men knowledge and made them like the Gods is the bad guy to the Christians!
If Christians cannot even worship Satan they have no chance of being connected to Nietzsche his Greek buddies =/
>>7385332
Do you just read English translations of the texts and then consider your ideologically-based interpretations of words as the intended meaning?
>>7385313
Sorry. I don't know that much about Nietzsche. Just lurking in this thread.
>>7385334
>Pindar was a philosopher
Pindar was a professional songwriter of athletic victory odes.
> Nothing is sin, NOTHING go it, you are supposed to embrace every moment of life, and that means no moment can be sinful. Also you are supposed to make your own path. Doesn't matter what the fucking Patriarch says, you need to make your own choices and live with the consiquences.
Yes, yes, all other human beings are nothing but objects, how glorious. If you feel like being a child molester then just go for it, bro, free yourself from those nasty shackles.
>"Sin" is life denying. Period!
I agree. Sin is a clutter to our capacity to love.
>>7385337
Are you seriously disputing that matricide is something metaphysically wrong in the Oresteia?
>>7385334
>He's far closer to Satan. Both are subjects beneath a higher divine form. Both give knowledge. Both are tricksters. Both allow humans to escape the jungle. Both are punished by the God.
Prometheus gave knowledge to man to save them from destruction that Zeus intended for them. Satan brought death unto humans because he was jealous of God's favor toward them. As for "escaping from the garden", the word "paradise" comes from the word for garden.
>"Ye shall be as Gods" Prometheus said that and so did Satan.
So did Jesus
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)#Patristic_writings
>If Christians cannot even worship Satan they have no chance of being connected to Nietzsche his Greek buddies =/
The Greeks didn't worship Prometheus, I don't think. They worshiped Zeus though.
>>7385334
>Both are subjects beneath a higher divine form.
Jesus is subject to the father, iirc
>Both give knowledge.
I believe Jesus did too.
>Both are tricksters.
There are definitely some trickster elements to the Christian conception of Jesus. They're most prominent in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas).
>Both allow humans to escape the jungle.
Isn't Christ about allowing humans to escape from the jungle?
>Both are punished by the God.
Jesus is as well
>Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
>>7385364
No they didn't worship Promotehus, that was just to say something shocking. They did honor Prometheus.
The character of Satan is associated with negative things in his story because their Prometheus is a bad guy. Comparing Promotheus to Jesus doesn't make much sense. Other than the fact that there is some saving going on they don't have much in common. While the Satan comparasion has a lot more in common. Both for instance promised knowledge, both are associated with trickery (the snake lies, Prometheus steals).
The Greek understanding has humans being rivals with Gods. Zeus see's humans as his children and he knows that he has killed his own father. He suspects his children will try the same thing to him so he is afraid of them being strong. The genesis story could very easily be itnerpretted as God being afraid of humans getting too strong.
Nietzsche believes this is the true version. God is afraid of humans being too smart because than they would stop believing in him (he reasoned this was the secret message the Jewish priests had. They were afraid of people questioning their story so they had a warning against knowledge).
Both garden stories have a God that does not want competition. If humans use their science to become as strong as a God they can over throw him (funny enough that's sort of what is happening. People are saying our science can do what God's miracles cannot). Thus the God tries to keep humans in a state of weakness.
The link you posted was very interesting. As i said some versions of Christianity are compatible with Nietzsche than others but there is a limit to how much they can co-exist.
>>7385339
To be honest you can really throw a lot of Nietzsche into just about any system as long as you selective about the ideas you incorporate. There are Christians that borrow his philosophy but that involves not taking the whole package. Orthodoxy and Nietzsche are compatible...to a point. If you try to say they have no points of disagreement that's just fucking retarded.
>>7385352
I don't know how to put this any more bluntly. Not all cultures are like yours, especially ancient cultures. The idea of a moralizing religion is actually something uncommon in the past. You can kill a person in cold blood and there will probably be at least one God that thinks you are awesome. This is why Nietzsche says the older religions allowed you affirm everything in life, because everything in life had a God associated with it.
>>7385403
>The idea of a moralizing religion is actually something uncommon in the past.
What are the Delphic maxims?
>>7385405
>pulling at straws to christianize Nietzsche
>>7385403
>You can kill a person in cold blood and there will probably be at least one God that thinks you are awesome.
Uh, so? There's a reason why those sorts of gods weren't worshiped. I don't think anyone worshiped Ares, for instance, except Sparta, and Homer clearly derides him. Saying, "Oh but Ares would like it," isn't going to stop you from going to Tartarus if you slaughter your parents.
>>7385411
Why would I need to Christianize Nietzsche when Dostoevsky says the same things only without the edginess like what's in OP?
>To recognize that there is no God, and not to recognize at the same time that you have become God, is an absurdity, otherwise you must necessarily kill yourself. Once you recognize it, you are king, and you will not kill yourself but live in the chiefest glory. But one, the one who is first, must necessarily kill himself, otherwise who will begin and prove it? It is I who will necessarily kill myself in order to begin and prove it. I am still God against my will, and I am unhappy, because it is my duty to proclaim self-will. Everyone is unhappy, because everyone is afraid to proclaim self-will. That is why man has been so unhappy and poor up to now, because he was afraid to proclaim the chief point of self-will and was self-willed only on the margins, like a schoolboy. I am terribly unhappy, because I am terrible afraid. Fear is man's curse...But I will proclaim self-will, it is my duty to believe that I do not believe. I will begin, and end, and open the door. And save. Only this one thing will save all men and in the next generation transform them physically. for in the present physical aspect, so far as I have thought, it is in no way possible for man to be without the former God. For three years I have been searching for the attribute of my divinity, and I have found it: the attribute of my divinity is--Self-will!
-Demons
>the new man is allowed to become a man-god, though it be he alone in the whole world, and of course, in this new rank, to jump lightheartedly over any former moral obstacle of the former slave-man, if need be.
-The Brothers Karamazov
>>7385414
>Dostoevsky says the same things
>doesn't understand Dostoevsky
>doesn't understand Nietzsche
>>7385423
>>7385411
>Nietzsche was le atheist genius! He wasn't a cheap plagiarism of Emerson and Dostoevsky, I swear!
>>7385423
>>7385419
The first argument is kind of cheesy "How can you be free if you are controlled by yourself?"
The second argument is actually decent. It is true that Nietzsche's philosophy makes one remove themself from the herd and 'be alone'.
>"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
If being part of a group is more important than self-ownership you probably should stay the fuck away from Nietzsche. Sheep can always fit into the herd very easily.
>>7385433
kek shut the fuck up
>>7385430
1. Hegel IS an idiot.
2. In the end, Schopenhauer got the last laugh because he was right and Nietzsche knew it. Procreation and all its rationalizations are the ultimate slave morality, and the individual laying himself prostrate before the biological imperative is to sacrifice the individual to the Will of DNA, and is thus slave morality made flesh. Nietzsche's entire GLORIOUS LIFE AFFIRMING MUH POWER philosophy is the delirious death-rattle of a man trying desperately to find a quantum of dignity in a profoundly undignified world.
3. Stirner is the end of philosophy.
>>7385433
I suggest you read Notes from Underground
http://serious.freeonsciencelibraryguide.com/view.php?id=608710
I was also afraid to the point of illness of being ridiculous, and therefore slavishly worshiped routine in everything to do with externals; I loved falling into the common rut, and feared any eccentricity in myself with all my soul. But how could I hold out? I was morbidly developed, as a man of our time ought to be developed. And they were all dull-witted and as like one another as a flock of sheep.
Atheism is not a new concept, and I don't know why it's become the argument that it's natural progression to abolish spirituality, when humans fundamentally need spiritual connectedness, or else religiosity wouldn't even be a concept.
>>7385334
Jesus came to spread that we have it in us to overcome the animalistic slavery to physical desires and pleasure-seeking that you speak so highly of. By "embracing every moment of life" you're actually fulfilling a sequence of desires which aren't your own -- but instead the most primeval of urges, against your own faculty of choice. You're deluding yourself into thinking you're making your own decisions.
>>7385419
Did this anon forget that The Demons is literally about godless amoral atheists? The diatribe you quoted is from a character whose actions are to be condemned, not championed. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Dosto (or Nietzsche, although I like aspects of both of their works), but Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche are fundamentally incompatible.
>>7385441
>If he simply wanted to offend me with this senatorial air, it was not so bad, I thought; I'd be able to get back at him somehow. But what if indeed, without any wish to offend me, the little idea had seriously crept into his sheep's noddle that he was immeasurably superior to me, and could look at me in no other way than patronizingly? The supposition alone left me breathless.
>Their sheep's noddles will finally be forced to grasp the tragic in it all! As they're dragging me to the door I'll cry out to them that in fact they're not worth my little finger.
>>7385412
The romans did
>>7385427
Nietzsche and Dostoevsky are both existentialists neither plagiarized the other one. Existentialism came around before either of them were even writing.
>>7385430
Philosophy actually needs to be read. Do you honestly think you can learn something as complicated by skimming 4chan posts? After 2-4 books you should have a firm grasp on the basic points, any serious study is going to involve a lot of reading and re-reading and re-re-reading.
Philosophy scholars today still discuss the nuisances of Plato. The fact that they still have something new to teach us after hundreds of years is a good thing. You can spend a life time learning.
>>7385441
Notes From the Underground is literally about the debilitating effects of narcissism.
>>7385454
>the nuisances of Plato
>>7385441
Notes doesn't represent Dostoevsky's thoughts
>>7385460
Neither does The Demons, yet you quoted it as such. Both Notes and Demons are morality plays, aka Dosto saying "This is what you shouldn't do".
>>7385441
I actually have that book but haven't gotten around to it. Looks beautiful.
The quote you gave is kind of pathetic "Wahh there's no way someone can be 'above' the the masses. It's just self-delllusion. We're all sheep but some black sheep think they are better than us!"
On a more serious criticism I think different personality types require different philosophers.
http://www.celebritytypes.com/intj.php
Nietzsche's philosophy is INTJ, that's the personality type that is most likely to reject the herd.
>Nietzsche, Heraclitus, and the Unabomber all INTJ master-race
>>7385466
Who is the INTP philosopher?
>>7385460
It does, partially. He developed it from an essay he wrote. Chapter 7, for instance, is very clearly near to Dostoevsky's heart.
But overall, you're right, and that was why I was quoting it. As a critique of, "You're all sheeple". That, in fact, is a major expression of resentment.
>>7385461
I quoted Demons to show that Dostoevsky already explores most of Nietzsche's ideas. Of course he doesn't support those things...the quote from The Brothers Karamazov is an apparition of Satan talking to Ivan.
>>7385466
It's supposed to be pathetic.
>>7385477
>Chapter 7, for instance, is very clearly near to Dostoevsky's heart.
You can read the beginning of it here
http://biblehub.com/library/dostoevsky/notes_from_the_underground/chapter_7_but_these_are.htm
>>7385480
The P&V translation (previously linked) is far superior though
>And it is then – this is still you speaking – that new economic relations will come, quite ready-made, and also calculated with mathematical precision, so that all possible questions will vanish in an instant, essentially because they will have been given all possible answers. Then the crystal palace will get built. Then . . . well, in short, then the bird Kagan will come flying. Of course, there's no guaranteeing (this is me speaking now) that it won't, for example, be terribly boring then (because what is there to do if everything's calculated according to some little table?), but, on the other hand, it will all be extremely reasonable. Of course, what inventions can boredom not lead to! Golden pins also get stuck in from boredom, but all that would be nothing. The bad thing is (this is me speaking again) that, for all I know, they may be glad of the golden pins then. Man really is stupid, phenomenally stupid. That is, he's by no means stupid, but rather he's so ungrateful that it would be hard to find the likes of him. I, for example, would not be the least bit surprised if suddenly, out of the blue, amid the universal future reasonableness, some gentleman of ignoble, or, better, of retrograde and jeering physiognomy, should emerge, set his arms akimbo, and say to us all: “Well, gentlemen, why don't we reduce all this reasonableness to dust with one good kick, for the sole purpose of sending all these logarithms to the devil and living once more according to our own stupid will!”
>>7385477
>It's supposed to be pathetic.
What I'm saying is the argument itself is pathetic. It's a statement that herd conformity is a natural state and anyone who speaks against must be faking it or fighting their instincts. Although I don't know if Dostovsky is referring .
I think there is some nobility in being strongly connected to the 'group' even if beyond one's own individuality. But that only works for certain situations, certain roles. The reason we have so many different personality types is because there are different roles. So there are people that are born to be 'above the herd', their brains are wired that way, and they don't feel lonely or sad when they are separate. Also they don't 'hate the herd', they just see it as a different type of species.
I also think this is why no philosophy or theology can be for everyone.
That said there are edge-lords that Dostvsk'ys message is relevant to. I don't know if he is talking about specific people are trying to say something universal.
>>7385494
Dostoevsky is referring to ressentiment against the herd, which seems to have been a blind spot for Nietzsche.
>>7385500
>Dostoevsky is referring to ressentiment against the herd, which seems to have been a blind spot for Nietzsche.
That's actually a pretty good point. It's very difficult trap to avoid. I don't think it was entirely unaddressed by Nietzsche but it's a concept that only appears in brief subtext.
An even harder thing is not having ressentiment for the 'weak', I think even icycalm couldn't avoid that one!
>>7385500
Is that not the subject of the part with the great city and zarathustras ape?
>>7385510
I think it is a trap Nietzsche feel into. Looking at the OP of this thread, alone. Nietzsche identified the herd with Christianity, the socialist, the slaves, the base, those who wrecked everything beautiful and noble.
Nietzsche loves the world, but does not love humanity. He loves those who subjugate humanity and twist it as a plaything.
>>7385515
Nietzsche was Zarathustra's ape, friend.
>resentment against the herd
This is what I don't understand about Nietzsche. He rails against resentment but the work of a man who writes the kind of things Nietzsche did - a self-described ubermensch wailing in the wilderness - is not the work of a man who isn't resentful. It's the work of a man who is trying to convince himself he wasn't resentful.
Say what you will about Dostoyevsky but at least he realized the pathetic nature of his situation and anyone who thinks Notes From the Underground isn't written just a little bit sympathetically is deluding themselves. The only problem is Dostoyevsky found solace in Christianity and it was an empty battle, just like Nietzsche's proto-YOLO philosophy was an empty battle that ended in a very intelligent, sickly, and sensitive man going insane and succumbing to his physical ailments.
Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky were idealists. Schopenhauer and Stirner were realists, although your mileage may vary concerning which worldview you end up subscribing to. The writings of Schopenhauer and Stirner aren't sunny philosophies by any means and I think deep down they were both as neurotic and despondent as Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky, but at least they were honest.
>>7385519
wait. he didnt see herd mentality as invention of christians.
free men could have herd mentality too.
the new special component from christianity is slave morality. it's not the same as herd mentality or permissiveness.
>>7385519
>He loves those who subjugate humanity and twist it as a plaything.
If humanity itself is a plaything to be subjugated and twisted, doesn't that negate the nobility and dignity in Nietzsche's humanity as an individual?
Are we all just animals then and anything is permitted? Where is the value in anything?
>>7385103
>the demon Yawheh spent his whole existence trying to corrupt and destroy mankind
>he is scared of mankind surpassing him (this is the true meaning of the garden of Eden story)
Marcion shitposting on /lit/ in 2015. It's more likely than you think.
>>7385521
So Nietzsche wrote a section implicitly condemning counter-ressentiment and placed himself on the side of the condemned, while being unaware of the problem of counter-ressentiment?
>>7385529
>a self-described ubermensch
I don't think Nietzsche saw himself as an Übermensch, he saw that as the next "step" of society (Goethe, or maybe Wagner sometimes were examples, not himself)
>>7385519
Well the herd would fit into those categories though. Not all at once but they are definitely groups that are prone to being herds. I don't think he personally resented them. You can want to destroy or control something without resenting it. You could even genocide a group without ressenting them.
So for example Hitler had ressentiment towards the Jews but not the cripples and homosexuals. He holocausted both of them. Ressentiment does not restrict action only perspective.
>>7385953
He uses a lot of examples of people that are admirable but he never uses himself. He thinks himself very clever and wise (literally chapter titles), he see's himself as more of a teacher.
>>7386013
>he see's himself as more of a teacher.
I also get this vibe. And if you are a teacher, despite wanting to "walk by" or "not say no", do you not have to squeeze out every drop of criticism against what you teach against?
>>7385440
You sound like death rattle, go get a job and have a family you miserable twerp. The average man is superior to you, simply because his testicles are more fertile how does that make you feel.
>>7385529
Dostoevsky was hardly pathetic.Before he went to prison he was a womanizer, incorrigible gambler, impoverished writer (he gambled on debt), and part of a circle of socialists, did several years hard labor for it with his feet and hands shackled the whole time, his wife died in prison, he got out, got married again and had kids (in addition to the two children from his previous marriage), but first he wrote The Gambler at breakneck speed to pay off his massive gambling debt from before prison. Then his brother died, and he assumed his brother's debts, and had to fr\lee to Europe to avoid going to debtor's prison, wrote The Idiot there and brought it back and used it to pay off his brother's debts.
Dostoevsky did not lead a pathetic life at all, neither did he escape his life with religion, he was raised very religious, he learned to read from religious literature; he just became much more serious about it in prison, but even before he went he wouldn't hang out with the atheist socialists and specifically joined a Christian socialist circle after feeling repulsed by the atheism of his previous experiences with socialists.
>>7382417
You could, but Islam, more than Christianity, is closer to Roman war values.
This is why Nietzsche thinks "Islam deals with men" because it's all about power. Christianity denying power is un-human, Nietzsche thinks.
>>7383804
BASED. Hit the nail on the head.
>>7385427
>He wasn't a cheap plagiarism of Emerson and Dostoevsky, I swear!
I've been saying this all along.
Even Borges admits "Zarathustra" is unreadable. It's pure cringe.
>>7386383
>I'm a Christfag and Nietzsche's ideas make me uncomfortable!
If you're a believer, then nothing should induce doubt in you.
>>7385519
>Nietzsche loves the world, but does not love humanity. He loves those who subjugate humanity and twist it as a plaything.
This. Which is exactly why Hitler didn't "misread" Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is not Kant, he is not a moralist. He is a provocateur.
>>7386405
Max Scheler BTFO Nietzsche and Heidegger and he's completely unread.
Arguing over interpretations of Nietzsche is so fucking retarded and cancerous. It's not deep.
>>7386405
>secularists don't think doubt is a major part of faith
BTFO should honestly be a bannable phrase on this board
>>7386013
>Hitler had ressentiment towards the Jews
No more than Nietzsche did.
>>7386441
Being Nietzschean isn't about agreeing with him on politics.
>>7386436
Nietzsche distinguished between proper Jews and the 'weak' Jews. Hitler's allowed his ressentiment of Jews to get the better of him. For instance he set his countrys science growth backwards by wanting to purge "stupid Jewish science" like Einstein's. That isn't to say he was obligated to love the Jews or even not kill some of them but he made bad decisions about them out of spite.
>>7386417
Isn't this guy's entire argument trying to say that war and conflict are unnatural? He basically tries to say "no dude slave morality is totally the higher one! People that win are actually jealous of the losers!"
>>7386463
Sure it does. Hitler's criticism of the Jews is essentially the same as Nietzsche's from The Genealogy of Morals.
>>7386484
>Nietzsche distinguished between proper Jews and the 'weak' Jews. Hitler's allowed his ressentiment of Jews to get the better of him. For instance he set his countrys science growth backwards by wanting to purge "stupid Jewish science" like Einstein's. That isn't to say he was obligated to love the Jews or even not kill some of them but he made bad decisions about them out of spite.
German science was so backward we had to get Nazi scientists to head our space program.
Hitler caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering for Jews and, well, everyone else. Causing a ton of suffering is, according to Nietzsche, a feature of the higher man. And he doesn't feel any compunction about it. Hitler's mass murder is perhaps the epitome of this, he didn't stop to pity or worry if he was killing "the good Jews" along with the bad, and to do such would not be Nietzschean. Nietzschean morality praises the Athenian morality expressed in the Melian dialogue.
>>7386307
t. mad as fuck nerd lmao
Why does Nietzsche attract so many fedora tippers if you guys insist he's not a fedora tipper?
>>7386562
What does fedora tipper mean? Atheist? No one here's saying Christians are a bunch of degenerate idiots. They're saying that Christianity and Nietzsche cannot be reconciled no matter how much you want it to happen.
>>7386536
>German science
was backward enough to lose the fucking war in the case of cryptography, radio/radar and nuclear research. advantage in rocket research is contingent with this.
>Hitler was ruthless and caused suffering blabla
not enough to call somebody nietzschean. in that case stalin and lenin could be considered more nietzschean than hitler. hitler was a populist, constantly afraid of the atmosphere at home, fearing a second rebellion like in 1918. he only dared to be sadistic towards those who couldnt fight back.
>>7386559
>nope, you are essentially ignoring
You ought to re-read the Genealogy of Morals.
>>7386569
>you can't accept Nietzsche's ideas on ressentiment or the last man if you're a Christian because Nietzsche was an edgelord who actually bought into "the Christian Dark Age" myth
>even though Dostoevsky, an extremely Christian thinker, formulated the same critiques before Nietzsche did
>>7386569
Not necessarily atheists but people with clerar grudges against Christianity (like yourself, for instance), like spitting on 'weakness' like humility, kindness and forgiveness, being contrarian for the sake of it, and generally wanting to feel superior.
>>7386598
>You ought to re-read the Genealogy of Morals.
it's adhominem tiem
>>7386607
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>>7385476
Kant.
INTP is basically the same as an autism diagnosis, right?
>>7386622
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtext
>All thaLhas been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful," "the masters," "the rulers:' fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge.
>Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait?
>>7386642
>Kant, Dawkins, Descartes, Aquinas, Lock, Jimmy Wales, Einstein
yep it's the autism personality. Good news is all the good economic philosophers were INTP
>Adam Smith and Hayek.
http://www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php
>>7386718
>"But why are you talking about nobler ideals! Let us stick to the facts: the people have won-or 'the slaves' or 'the mob' or 'the herd' or whatever you like to call them-if this has happened through the Jews, very well! in that case no people ever had a more world-historic mission. 'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a hlood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together)-I shan't contradict; but this in-toxication has undoubtedly been successful.
>>7383804
>high on Wagner
He only liked wagner in his younger years
>>7386598
BANE?
