First off, Nietzsche's big opponent is ressentiment...this is in fact very undesirable in Orthodox Christianity as well. To illustrate that Christianity is full of ressentiment, Nietzsche quotes two very Latin theologians, Tertullian and Aquinas, who talk about how those in heaven will be rewarded by watching the agony of those in hell. This is very different from Orthodox Christianity, in which hell and heaven are the same place; hell is different in that God's love, described as a light or fire, becomes painful, because one hates God or is ashamed of facing him.
Okay, next thing here, Nietzsche says love is "beyond good and evil", in fact his entire philosophy revolves around love, but he distinguishes that from Christianity because Nietzsche's love is "worldly" and in fact even sadism can be expression of loving the world. Nietzsche posits that Christianity hates the material--but this doesn't apply to Orthodox Christianity, which sees hating the material as very Gnostic--death in Orthodox Christianity is unnatural, no something to look forward to. The material is what makes man so special compared to angels, and religion is about harmonizing it with the spiritual, not with eliminating it, that is why Orthodox Liturgy is about worshiping with all five senses (smell in incense, touch in crossing oneself continually, eyes icons, taste in communion, and of course hearing in all the hymns and the liturgy being chanted and intoned).
Eternal recurrence: Nietzsche said life-affirmation was about living as you would if you hate to repeat it over and over in exactly the same way. Christians probably would do this, he thought, because they lived their life for the purpose of some other life, not for this one. But that's not how it is with Orthodox Christians. As Dostoevsky said, we already in heaven, all we have to do is realize and embrace each other; he also said even if Christ were proven to be outside the truth, he'd still side with Christ, so it's about being in it for the afterlife.
Heaven and earth are not separate places in Orthodox Christianity, they are both dimensions of reality, but were sundered by the fall. Through religion practice, we can work to place ourselves back at their intersection.
Good rebuttal. Classic misconceptions of the faith abound in weak arguments of the unfaithful like always.
>>7505899
In Nietzschean doctrine, there is ONLY the material. The spiritual for Nietzsche is only thought and thought is based on the material as it is a pattern modulated on the material world. There is no complementary spiritual world. The driving force of all religions is the longing for the spiritual, and Orthodoxy is no exception. Just a more humane form of christianity in the sense of appealing to the human mind. The mistake is the same as with other religions. There is no base to assume another world, here or somewhere else simply because we only see the material world. Emotion is a tool for motivation, not a sensor for the afterlive.
>>7506731
To be more precise, the driving force of religion is a human desire for Plato's "world of ideas" to be as real as the material world. By itself that idea is not so stupid, google "Mathematical Universe" but most religions with exception of some very abstract forms of Buddhism don't even approach Plato. Instead, they end in obfuscation for the intellectual and simplistic answers for the masses.
>>7506746
Will to Life is evolution. Will to power is the desire of sentient/semi-sentient beings to control evolution. Evolution is a self-replicating pattern of selection and annihilation, going against the entropy gradient of the universe (without braking thermodynamic laws, so it actually creates more entropy to lower it's own). With the coming of animals, neural processing allows the will to power to arise. Animals are sentient to some degree and fight the entropy on a very different level. Humans are aware of the nature of entropy and capable of hating the entropy gradient.
>>7506758
Allow me to simplify:
What is will made out of?
What is power made out of?
>>7506758
Also, Nietzzche's concept of will to power extends to all material bodies, not just sentient ones.
>My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on-- -
>>7506765
Life is the movement against the gradient of entropy. Power is the active/sentient movement against the entropy gradient. Will has no meaning outside of the pairing with life or power. Unless you want to define your god of the gap with the will, but that's not Christianity, more like purified Teilhardism. You sure you want to bring a Jesuit into this ?
>>7506777
There is no such movement, at least not in materialist physics. Every movement is toward entropy, speaking in the long-term.
Will is agency.
>>7506784
Life is locally decreasing the entropy, while at the same time creating much more entropy in general. So the gradient direction as a whole does not change. And if will is agency, then you ARE promoting Teilhardism. God awaits us at the end of the gradient. My point is you don't really need Christianity or any other religion for that. Teilhardism in pure form is not natural science, but it is a philosophy. And definitely not Christian.
>>7505899
>those in heaven will be rewarded by watching the agony of those in hell
Uh, what? Did Aquinas really believe that?
>>7506792
So you're saying power is just a figment of myopia?
Teilhardism isn't Christian, no. I'm not sure why you think Orthodox Christianity needs him to say will and agency are synonymous. The Orthodox Church sees will/agency as the entire driving force behind everything happening in reality, they see all events ultimately tracing back to someone's agency, be it God's, a man's or Satan's..
>>7506808
It just followed out of the discussion that if you put will=agency and make minimum assumptions, it looks suspiciously similar to what Teilhard says. His god is like an inverse-time deity causing the universe from the end of time, which exists on the event horizon of the final supermassive black hole where, assuming time is continuous (which I'm told it's probably not, it is likely discrete) an infinite amount of time runs off in a finite amount of space driven by an infinite amount of energy, giving cause to an infinite amount of patterns. So sooner or later all thought is thought. That's his god, here, in this universe, bound by physics but breaking out into infinity at the same time.
Of course, Orthodoxy does not make minumum assumptions, because, like all other religions, they KNOW FUCKING EVERYTHING.
>>7506799
I don't know. Nietzsche quotes him as saying it.
>>7506825
I know what Teilhard said. Orthodox Christianity considers agency to be a spiritual capacity having to do with the soul, not some physical phenomenon.
>Orthodoxy does not make minumum assumptions, because, like all other religions, they KNOW FUCKING EVERYTHING.
You clearly don't know the first thing about Orthodox Christianity, which is that we don't know everything, and that even the Bible isn't the truth, but a description of the truth. I can't even count how many things are classified as "divine mysteries".
You've already posted this exact thread.
>>7506839
No, but I was brought up a catholic, and orthodoxy is not THAT different.
> The Universe was CREATED
> God is personal and you somehow can relate to him
> Humans are made in the image of God
> God is beyond time
> God is separate of humans
> Objective good/bad duality
Lots of assumptions
>>7506852
>God is personal and you somehow can relate to him
That's not an assumption, that is completely derived from one's personal experience.. Such personal experience in Orthodoxy is considered the foundation of "proof" for God, as opposed to Catholic reason.
If God precedes the universe, then we can assume he's beyond time.
>Humans are made in the image of God
Do you understand what this term means? It's very logically true from several viewpoints.
1. We can visualize complex things and create them.
2. We have dominion over our world.
3. We a trinitarian makeup, a soul, a spirit and a body (angels having only a soul and a spirit, animals having only a soul and a body).
4. We are capable of agape
>God is separate of humans
What do you mean by this?
Good and bad are approximately objective, but technically the Church has a more existentialist view of them, à la Kierkegaard. Even after the Apocatastasis. for instance, some people might still view God as evil because all the suffering that happened in the world, which would keep them in Hell (which they'd prefer).
>>7506867
>Do you understand what this term means? It's very logically true from several viewpoints.
Oh, and last but not least (in fact the central point of being made in God's image in Orthodoxy), we have agency.
>>7506867
>Such personal experience in Orthodoxy is considered the foundation of "proof" for God, as opposed to Catholic reason.
Both are Catholic "proof"
>>7506867
1) The universe may just exist because it is mathematically consistent. No creation necessary. Even if this bubble was started in a big bang, there was a "before" in the form of maximum entropy space.
2) Desire for god does not equal with "personally experiencing" it. That's the classic "jump into the well" - you just know and that's it.
3) If God precedes the universe, he is indeed beyond time. But "God precedes the Universe" is an assumption.
4) Made in the Image of God usually is understood that we are in our current form the apex of evolution when it comes to sentience which is unlikely.
When I said God is separate from humans I mean in the Pantheistic sense. Christianity is non-Pantheistic and that's another assumption.
You are operating in a very different framework of truth. Depending on the framework, you may end with something more or less usable to describe reality. Math is not different, it's based on axioms but on an absolute minimum. You can have three-valued logics like true, don't know and false, or interval logics in 0;1 like Fuzzy logic or probability logics, and they work to some extent but lead to paradoxes sooner or later. There is no truth. But less assumptions works magic when it comes to describing the universe. Complicated thing generally tend NOT to happen, and Christianity is pretty complicated, because the answers actually generate new questions.
>>7506878
Experience of God in Orthodoxy is generally a product of an existential affirmation of love, as opposed to some sort of immediately verifiable thing that can be recorded.
>>7506895
What is "existential affirmation of love" ? Doesn't it mean you feel good about the fact that you are able to love ? There are loads of pretty horrendous chemicals which can make you feel pretty good as well because they trigger the same neurotransmitters.
>>7506893
1. Something being mathematically consistent doesn't cause it to exist.
2. No, but I'd say desire for God is required to experience. See the story the Devil tells in the Brother's Karamazov about the atheist who refused to recognize God even in hell, because the very idea of God disagreed with his principles.
3. It's required for the definition of a creator God.
4. Sounds like some Western heresy, desu senpai
Concerning pantheism, God is *distinct* from humans, not separate. Pantheism is the idea that he is not distinct from humans or the material or whatever, whereas panentheism (the Orthodox doctrine) is the idea that he isn't separate (which is what communion is all about).
>There is no truth
Is that a fact?
>>7506901
First of all, by "love", I mean agape.
Existential affirmation of love means affirming love as synonymous with truth.
>>7506902
1) Not inside of this universe. We are talking outside of our little space-time box here. All bets are on. Plato sure thought that. Lots of mathematicians think it as well.
2) Hard atheists are a religion, I accept that.
3) Creation is still unnecessary, see 1)
4) Pantheists don't make more sense than Christians.
5) Mathematics did not find truth in the classical sense. Most of the frameworks lead to paradoxes, unless you choose simple frameworks like Group theory. I'm not a mathematician though.
>>7506915
>1) Not inside of this universe. We are talking outside of our little space-time box here. All bets are on. Plato sure thought that. Lots of mathematicians think it as well.
Sounds about as supportable as theology.
>4) Pantheists don't make more sense than Christians.
Pantheism is just atheism with different semantics
can someone explain the ubermensch to me? I'm half way through zarathustra and I'm not sure I understand it
>realises god is dead, if not literally then at least acknowledges religion is on the way out
>isn't a slave to institution, does not seek to replace the dead higher power with anything but himself
I mean, is that it? He's just agnostic, independent and a critical thinker? I was expecting something a bit more revolutionary. I'm new to literature in general, so maybe a lot of it's going over my head. I do remember in one of Zarathustra's dialogues he says that the shortest path between mountains is it's peaks, just as the shortest path to the ubermensch is through aphorisms, but you need long (mental?) legs to reach those intellectual peaks?
Is Nietzsche just pointing out to me that I'm too stupid to understand his work?
>>7506939
>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
>>7506928
1) I never said Science is more supportable in terms of truth. I don't know what truth is, and there are signs that truth is not even a mathematical question. Science seems to fit the universe better, and then only some select frameworks of science. How much it fits outside of it is questionable.
4) No, it's a purefied religion. It knows that God = The Universe. Literally jumps into the well.
Ok my third bottle of beer is taking effect now, so farewell. I enjoyed the discussion. I did not try to convert you by the way. I just like to philosophize. Especially I liked your argument that will=agency.
>>7506939
Modern interpretation: Overman = Your bettered self
Real interpretation: Overman = the next evolutionary step of humanity which we should reach by any means possible - in the modern world this would be genetically engineering it
>>7506955
what is god?
http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=5552
Evola's take on Neitzche is more compatible with Christianity.
>>7506984
He was an esoteric crackhead. Why am I not surprised ?
>>7506956
I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about speculations concerning what is outside the space-time framework.
Pantheism is a politically correct version of atheism, that's why Spinoza subscribed to it. It's like saying I'm not an atheist, my dick is God.
>>7507036
if god is ineffable, what good is it distinguish between a non believer who believes in no god and a non believer who thinks he is the new god?
>>7507040
Ineffability.
>>7507042
jk
You do understand Dostoevsky is critiquing the idea of the superman, yeah?
>>7507036
Evola (like Guenon) only ever considered Catholicism when considering Christianity, and so was put off of Christianity by modern reforms and corruptions of Catholicism, preferring Islam in a way reminiscent of Soumission.
>>7507049
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZtbnaXuGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcOv4zPoVo
>>7507045
Oh, no, I hadn't realised at first. Is he trying to say that the superman is just an excuse to abandon morality?
>>7507033
Don't you get it ? At its core science is speculation about reality, trying to find a model with minimum account to axioms. Flying god dicks are an old boot, it's roman :)
>>7507064
He's saying that being le dynamite man can't be used to justify wickedness, and that the idea it can, leads to awful, awful things and there is nothing glamorous about them. But you have to understand the context of the respective works to see that. The second quote is literally from the Devil (or a schizophrenic apparition of him, anyway), and he's actually kind of making fun of the idea toward someone who holds it.
>>7507092
We aren't talking about science, irrespective of what science is.
>>7507060
Are you arguing or affirming my statement?
ITT: christfags still butthurt at Nietzsche
Amazing how you people manage to hold a grudge for more than a century, and then maintain that Nietzsche is somehow totally irrelevant
>>7507124
>I haven't read this thread.
>>7506773
The best way I have found to read Nietzsche is to stick in Schopenhaurian style metaphysics. So the physical world is a manifestation of a universal Will. This is why he's able to spend a lot of time focusing on and drawing from the physical as the material world is all Will and it can seem p materialistic in a lot of ways.
>>7506895
Yes, and?
Difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that orthodoxy has abandoned reason in theology almost entirely while Catholicism has different movements, some of which focus on the more philosophical experience of God and others on more existential.
Existential experience you like so much is an aspect and not the whole in Catholicism.
