>god is dead, we have killed him
What did he mean by this
>>66727693
why don't you read what he says immediately following that and find out
>The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self
What did he mean by this?
>>66727693
>god is dead
Nietzsche is dead.
t. God
>>66727693
>world is 13 billion years old
>god waited until two thousand years ago to make humans
k
>>66728069
jews
>>66728256
Wasn't a suitable environment before
He meant that scientific explanations had obviated the need for fairy tales. But more importantly, any basis for moral absolutes is also dead.
>>66727693
He meant he was a nihilist cocksucker.
He was saying that Western society had lost interest in Abrahamic religion, and didn't give it importance.
>>66728256
>time would exist for the omnipotent
k
>>66728441
>god made an unsuitable earth
would make sense, seeing as though he forgot to make the other planets in our solar system suitable for human life. what a silly god!
>>66728441
dude...
>>66727693
Fuck you, that's what.
>>66728618
Wrong, pleb. His entire masterwork TSZ preps his disciples for the coming dark age of Nihilism. Try again.
>>66728960
>>66728969
Believe what you like but know it doesn't really matter Jesus will cave you
That the West had turned its back on piety in favor of secularism? I've never read Nietzche but that quote has always stuck with me even though I don't know the context.
>>66728514
>He meant that scientific explanations had obviated the need for fairy tales. But more importantly, any basis for moral absolutes is also dead.
No he did not. Read it why don't you.
>>66729159
why would he?
>>66727693
He was being edgy
>>66727693
>What did he mean by this
I am provocative, I need attention, buy my books, give me money, I need more attention
>>66727693
That society doesn't need a god, but we should not replace him with nothing and instead devote ourselves to becoming übermenschen.
>>66729361
I said cave, you're going to hell for heresy
>>66727693
Religion was becoming seen as a direct connection between the person and God instead of through a stable and objective conduit. This ultimately means that God takes on whatever the individual thinks God is, since God is purely of his own device.
So saying God is Dead is acknowledging the beginning of identity and self as being more important.
>>66727693
literally just said
>slippery slope + religion = disaster
>>66728069
Parodying Hegel.
>>66727693
GOD IS DEAD
>>66729531
oh okey
>>66729402
>He was being edgy
This is actually the best answer. He believed the will of man was the greatest force in the universe and abhorred a corny tradition obfuscating man's natural instinct and potential.
>>66728069
More like Kekagaaard
>>66729159
>Jesus will cave you
what did he mean by this
>>66729358
Ah ok.
>>66729267
Nope. He was a deconstructionist at the core. He attacked all systems claiming absolute truth, including Western religious morality. However, he was not a nihilist. He left open a potential path for teleology or absolute truth through individuation. This is what separates him from the shit tier Marxist philosophers.
>>66729572
Why did we let Luther do this shit and promote his usury
>>66729686
DA DANANANA NANANANA NANANANA NANANANA
>>66729755
It's a euphemism. He's gonna bum you
The advent of Nihilism and the coming of horrendous genocides.
He was right.
>>66730131
thanks for joining us tonight, reddit ;)
>>66727693
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_os-ysZJM_I&t=26m38s
skip to that time
>>66727693
I thought it was something along the lines of "If we stop believing or question the legitimacy of God, he is already dead."
>>66729716
Edginess has nothing to do with it. He was attacking the Cartesian/Christian view of the "I" or human soul as an innate natural entity. For Nietzsche, a man was the sum of his actions. God is dead because it is up to the most powerful man to valuate the world and impose his will upon it. "If the all the gods are dead, it is because they died laughing at the man who declared it." You're just falling for the common misunderstanding of Nietzsche.
>>66730582
Nietzsche is just desperate denial of schopey tbqh
>>66727693
Could be anything.
Imo, he refers to secularism, meaning to say that western society purged religion from statal powers, thus, "killing god".
>>66731005
it's always overlooked that he didn't really think that the death of god was a good thing. He was an anti-Christian but he thought that materialistic nihilism was far worse
>>66728514
pretty much this. everyone else in this thread is a bunch of edgy faggots
>>66731395
if you think Nietzsche was a Dawkins-esque atheist you are sorely mistaken
>>66731395
... said the naïf, thinking he understood a philosopher he never read.
>>66728069
That is fedora worthy but Fear & Trembling is a work of brilliance. I'd encourage.
If anyone is curious to actually read the passage, it's quite beautiful.
>>66727693
The cat is dead, we have killed the cat.
Now I say this because we know what a cat entails. This is a very easy thing to understand because a cat we are above through our control over them and their dependency on us. (household cat to be specific).
In this light, we have lost something under our control. Whether that is a loss you mourn or rejoice, this is a comprehensible loss as we know what the cat takes from us, and what the cat gives us, our relationship with the cat is known and we ascertain a comfortable, complete understanding of the cat from this, thus our losses, liabilities and potential consequences which we can account for.
But we killed the cat. So this factors in additional things. Our motives, the intent... Perhaps the cost of the cat was too costly, perhaps the cat burdens us or became an obstacle to us.
(I am now using we in the sense that we came to a group conclusion, united decision to kill the cat for our needs/desires). Having killed the cat may we understand our life without the cat, how it might be harder or could we find the uses in having a cat. Can we know understand better what the cat gave to us? Do we invest in a new cat? Or is a cat relevant to our interests at all?
With these principles in mind...
We are the cats, and we rid ourselves of a vague definition of a figure that we depend on. As this figure is vague, so are our dependencies but given the nature of God we can assume it is largely of guidance and to provide for vulnerabilities...
I conclude further elaboration here. I now leave this thought train for open thought (source) development.
>>66727693
Humans have 'outgrown' God. He is speaking on the overwhelming triumph of human achievement especially in the 19th century. I wouldn't interpret it as whether he is saying this is 'good for humanity' or not. Darwin would seem to have particular influence here but I wouldn't want to narrow it down. It is an all-encompassing statement.
>>66727693
if we abandon god,god abandons us
>>66735965
This.
Everytime I see an atheiedgelord post "herr derrr God is dead!" I shudder that they have no understanding at all of the statement.
