Nietzsche died as God and will rise as Christ. The summation of life is the return of matter to spiritual axis it was thrown from

Nietzsche worked towards giving the purest form and psychology of Christ(ianity) back to the people, in a secularized format, in a world after the "death of God."

Fyi that's not a literal claim either. The death of God is a metaphor... — DifferentiatingEgg

The death of god was just the preview. The death of man was what Nietzsche was after, a post-humanist world beyond a morality of blame.

Meh, we will have to disagree from nuance in perspective... Sure sure ...

The most careful ask to-day: “How is man to be maintained?” Zarathustra however asketh, as the first and only one: “How is man to be SURPASSED?”

The Superman, I have at heart; THAT is the first and only thing to me—and NOT man — Zarathustra

But what is Man to Nietzsche?

Zarathustra defines as strictly as possible what to him alone "man" can be,—not a subject for love nor yet for pity—Zarathustra became master even of his loathing of man: man is to him a thing unshaped, raw material, an ugly stone that needs the sculptor's chisel... — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Away from God and Gods did this will allure me; what would there be to create if there were—Gods!

But to man doth it ever impel me anew, my fervent creative will; thus impelleth it the hammer to the stone.

Ah, ye men, within the stone slumbereth an image for me, the image of my visions! Ah, that it should slumber in the hardest, ugliest stone!

Now rageth my hammer ruthlessly against its prison. From the stone fly the fragments: what’s that to me?

I will complete it: for a shadow came unto me—the stillest and lightest of all things once came unto me!

The beauty of the Superman came unto me as a shadow. Ah, my brethren! Of what account now are—the Gods to me!— — Zarathustra

What is the only time in which Nietzsche points directly to the Superman becoming reality?

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man.  — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Or more precisely "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet" to over come the animal compulsion to destroy but rather suffer with them from them... IE to "Suffer the fool," said Mr. Z "not pity the fool, Mr. T!"...

And the final nail in the coffin is from solving the riddles from The Vision and the Enigma within TSZ... we can clearly see the transformed being is one who overcomes their bad conscience, their shame and guilt...

And verily, what I saw, the like had I never seen. A young shepherd did I see, writhing, choking, quivering, with distorted countenance, and with a heavy black serpent hanging out of his mouth.

Had I ever seen so much loathing and pale horror on one countenance? He had perhaps gone to sleep? Then had the serpent crawled into his throat—there had it bitten itself fast.

My hand pulled at the serpent, and pulled:—in vain! I failed to pull the serpent out of his throat. Then there cried out of me: “Bite! Bite!

Its head off! Bite!”—so cried it out of me; my horror, my hatred, my loathing, my pity, all my good and my bad cried with one voice out of me.—

Ye daring ones around me! Ye venturers and adventurers, and whoever of you have embarked with cunning sails on unexplored seas! Ye enigma-enjoyers!

Solve unto me the enigma that I then beheld, interpret unto me the vision of the lonesomest one!

For it was a vision and a foresight:—WHAT did I then behold in parable? And WHO is it that must come some day?

WHO is the shepherd into whose throat the serpent thus crawled? WHO is the man into whose throat all the heaviest and blackest will thus crawl?

—The shepherd however bit as my cry had admonished him; he bit with a strong bite! Far away did he spit the head of the serpent—: and sprang up.—

No longer shepherd, no longer man—a transfigured being, a light-surrounded being, that LAUGHED! Never on earth laughed a man as HE laughed! — Zarathustra

So, I think, I'll have to go with the greater nuance of my understanding...

And by the way... WHO IS THE SHEPHERD?... Well none other than ...

A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound! — Zarathustra

He says this after hiding his "dead" "companion" or rather a metaphor for Nietzsche himself...the transformation of himself in his opposite. The following is a further example...

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist... Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Fatality § 3

I have in mind Deleuze’s reading of the transition from the death of god to the last man:

The reactive life strives for a long time to secrete its own values, the reactive man takes the place of God: adaptation, evolution, progress, happiness for all and the good of the community; the God-man, the moral man, the truthful man and the social man. These are the new values that are recommended in place of higher values, these are the new characters proposed in place of God. The last men still say: "We have invented happiness" (Z Prologue 5). Why would man have killed God, if not to take his still warm seat?

Heidegger remarks, commenting on Nietzsche, "if God . . . has disappeared from his authoritative position in the suprasensory world, then this authoritative place itself is still always preserved, even though as that which has become empty. The now-empty authoritative realm of the suprasensory and the ideal world can still be adhered to. What is more, the empty place demands to be occupied anew and to have the god now vanished from it replaced by something else".

Moreover it is always the same type of life which benefits from the depreciation of the whole of life in the first place, the type of life which took advantage of the will to nothingness in order to obtain its victory, the type of life which triumphed in the temples of God, in the shadow of higher values. Then, secondly, the type of life which puts itself in God's place, which turns against the principle of its own triumph and no longer recognises values other than its own. Finally, the exhausted life which prefers to not will, to fade away passively, rather than being animated by a will which goes beyond it.

This still is and always remains the same type of life; life depreciated, reduced to its reactive form. Values can change, be renewed or even disappear. What does not change and does not disappear is the nihilistic perspective which governs this history from beginning to end and from which all these values (as well as their absence) arise. This is why Nietzsche can think that nihilism is not an event in history but the motor of the history of man as universal history. Negative, reactive and passive nihilism: for Nietzsche one and the same history is marked out by Judaism, Christianity, the reformation, free thought, democratic and socialist ideology etc. Up until the last man.

Nietzsche became Zarathustra's Opposite to act as a saoshyant. This was part of his chosen purpose in life. To become the Anti-Saoshyant aka the "Anti-Christ."

And certainly not because he hated Christ, he modeled the Ubermensch based off his psychological evaluation of the account of the life of Christ based off the Gospels. (AC 33 & 39) — DifferentiatingEgg

Deleuze interprets Nietzsche as viewing Christ as offering a passive nihilism comparable to Buddhism.

He gave passive nihilism a certain nobility where men were still at the stage of negative nihilism, when reactive nihilism had hardly begun. Beyond bad conscience and ressentiment Jesus gave the reactive man a lesson: he taught him to die. He was the gentlest of the decadents, the most interesting (AC 31). Christ was neither Jew nor Christian but Buddhist; nearer the Dalai Lama than the Pope.

Nietzsche discusses Christ in AC, and regardless of the madness of Christ he discusses... we can see from AC 33, all the qualities of Jesus that Nietzsche utilized in his equation of the Ubermensch. So with Jesus as the basis of the Ubermensch and Amor Fati as a style of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ. Can compared AC 39 with GS 276 or is it 271 (the one ob Amor Fati). I can't say I agree with Deleuze on that.

Yes Jesus was a decadent for Nietszche, extremely kind and consistently caring but ultimately a compromized Jew. Nietzsche admired strength above all else, much like Trump. Nietzsche's was free falling down the same hole Hegel set for himself and him, the idea that in a sense everything is itself and it's opposite. Everything becomes a game of statistics, and there is no ground of being because everything is relative. THE hardest thing to grasp in philosophy may be that everything is relative and that this is not refuted by saying " well is it relative that everything is relative". But some things are more true than others. Loving your neighbor is better than hating him, although hate has it's place at times. Descartes's dream of finding the ground that sits forever unmoved was a false dream

I disagree. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what will to power is... yes Nietzsche admires strength but for Nietzsche strength is formed by overcoming oneself, not domination, and most certainly not resentful or divisive like Trump.

The will to power is a sensation, it is that electricity that rushes down your spine, that feeling that fills you when you overcome some struggle or another... could be you discovered a new artistic technique that allows you to overcome and create your artistic vision in reality...

We can clearly see from Nietzsche's Amor Fati that waging war with what you find ugly is of no interest to Nietzsche, not even saying No. GS 276 And we can see that Nietzsche details this Amor Fati style of life by Jesus Christ and his Glad Tidings in AC 33. Furthermore from 33 we have several ways that Jesus transvaluates values to live towards his own evaluations, rather than that of the Semites, he lists several of these psychological evaluations and they're all found within the psychology of type who emulate an Ubermensch (EH § 1 of Excellent Books[refrencing Ubermensch as a type]).

The only time Nietzsche ever even points to the superman becoming a reality is in Ecce Homo, and he states it's when Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and treats even his adversaries with sincere kindness while suffering with them from them ..."Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet" (EH § 6 on Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

if God . . . has disappeared from his authoritative position in the suprasensory world, then this authoritative place itself is still always preserved, even though as that which has become empty.

The New Idol fills that spot. The problem with saying "Christianity" as Christ in the negative sense for Nietzsche comes in at AC 39...

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, AC 39

This is in part why Foucault discusses Nietzsche as giving Christ back the image of the ultimate in life affirming grace. (Madness and Civ pg. 78-79). Because the Earthquake at Port Royal was all omg it's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again ... for the next 200 years.

Great thread. I'm in the middle of reading Beyond Good and Evil for the 4rth time. His several pages on the female race is priceless. Trump is having too much fun to give up power; Nietszche wanted to be a bully, i think, but in the end just gave a kiss, even if to just a horse

Read it more carefully.

86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman"

You'll see quite clearly Nietzsche knows how to differentiate between women and this "woman" that women have scorn for...

The same "woman" Nietzsche discusses in BGE 232-239. I always found it weird that readers cant differentiate between the two... he literally uses an A instead of an E. The trick is noticing when he says woman is blah blah blah it's not women are it's about "woman." The Semitic ideal of woman...

The human brain has its mammal structures, and fish and reptilian strucures too i believe, from evolution. It is also divided into two sides, although they work in combination, and it uses the chemical neurotransmiters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephren to create time-space experiences. Dopamine is what fun feels like. Natural satisfaction. Serotonin and norepinephrin have spiritual potential in them, i would argue. Literally these chemicals the rest of the brain uses to help us live quality lives. Furthermore, females and males use their brains differently. Even female scientists think differently with different categories than their male counter-parts. This is what i like about Nietszche: he makes women seem so different from men, putting emphasis on their different bodily neural ontologies.

Have you ever subjectively notices that your right eye is worked by the left brain, while the left eye is controlled by the right brain. At least that is how it feels. This is how we can make facial expressions. I don't know if men and women can expressed the same number of face expressions. I read somewhere or other that the human face can make like 7000 different kinds of microexpressions. I might be getting that number wrong, but it was in the thousands. It is often said that women think with their emotions. The right brain or something...

Every morality is a shadow cast by power. What matters is not the shadow, but whether the light behind it warms life or withers it.

How would you have heard of the ones that withered life? The morality that endures is life-giving. Lashing out is lashing in.

Reactive fury is a counterfeit of power: it shouts, it strikes, and all the while it gnaws its own heart.

Reactive fury is a counterfeit of power: it shouts, it strikes, and all the while it gnaws its own heart — praxis

yep.

Nietzsche was a literary artist whose personal interactions were no more remarkable than other literary artists of his day. His special value lay in his ability to create. He was only an immoralist in terms of a kind of fantastical advocacy he left almost entirely on the page.

i mean surely you can see Nietzsche's own ressentiment searing off the pages of Ecce Homo when he talks about Germans...

Behold Wagner, who would have made the world a temple of sound — yet his temple became a tomb. The German herd bowed to incense, not fire. Nietzsche was dynamite, and walked among the ruins of his organ, planting stars where bells once rang, with a style that dances.

↪DifferentiatingEgg

Nietzsche was a literary artist whose personal interactions were no more remarkable than other literary artists of his day. His special value lay in his ability to create. He was only an immoralist in terms of a kind of fantastical advocacy he left almost entirely on the page. — Baden

Does ‘literary artist’ mean he was not also a philosopher? I don’t know about you, but when I develop a philosophical insight and validate it to my satisfaction, it becomes a guide for my interactions with others. I can’t go back to seeing the world the way I did before the insight. Do you think that after producing his evolutionary account of the origin of species, Darwin persisted in perceiving animals in his daily surroundings as having arose out of independently founded lineages?

Ye be a necromancer, reviving dead threads! Or perhaps you're a God?(Which I will come to address after rubutting Baden's posthumous betrayal in slighting and slandering Nietzsche as only a literary artist, something very common for Platonists to do as they cannot go beyond their generic representations of what a philosopher is)

Your quite dated, and common all too common, veiled insult aside: Nietzsche was a philosopher, but more importantly, Nietzsche was a psychologist, the first modern psychologist before Freud. This is what differentiates Nietzsche above and beyond all other philosophers before him.

Nietzsche understood that the desolation of the real world offers little to no consolation to man. He details this fact quite succinctly in the opening aphorisms of Birth of Tragedy where man is confronted by the Titans, aka those titanic forces of nature that reign hell down upon a people before they have developed a way to contest these titanic forces. This contesting of the titanic forces of nature was achieved through the very same impulses which calls art into being. This allowed the Greeks to overturn that life denying Silenian wisdom that they suffered from for so long. Furthermore, we see this time and again throughout Nietzsche's philosophy that it is through suffering and long obedience in the same direction that one begins to transfigure nihilism into something always worth living for:

that out of the original Titan thearchy of terror the Olympian thearchy of joy was evolved, by slow transitions, through the Apollonian impulse to beauty, even as roses break forth from thorny bushes. How else could this so sensitive people, so vehement in its desires, so singularly qualified for sufferings have endured existence, if it had not been exhibited to them in their gods, surrounded with a higher glory? The same impulse which calls art into being, as the complement and consummation of existence, seducing to a continuation of life, caused also the Olympian world to arise, in which the Hellenic "will" held up before itself a transfiguring mirror. Thus do the gods justify the life of man, in that they themselves live it—the only satisfactory Theodicy! Existence under the bright sunshine of such gods is regarded as that which is desirable in itself, and the real grief of the Homeric men has reference to parting from it, especially to early parting: so that we might now say of them, with a reversion of the Silenian wisdom, that "to die early is worst of all for them, the second worst is—some day to die at all." — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy § 3

Reflect the above passage with the below passage and you'll come to understand why Nietzsche actually lamented the concept that "Gott ist tot."

The essential thing "in heaven and in earth" is, apparently (to repeat it once more), that there should be long OBEDIENCE in the same direction, there thereby results, and has always resulted in the long run, something which has made life worth living; for instance, virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, spirituality—anything whatever that is transfiguring, refined, foolish, or divine. The long bondage of the spirit, the distrustful constraint in the communicability of ideas, the discipline which the thinker imposed on himself to think in accordance with the rules of a church or a court, or conformable to Aristotelian premises, the persistent spiritual will to interpret everything that happened according to a Christian scheme, and in every occurrence to rediscover and justify the Christian God:—all this violence, arbitrariness, severity, dreadfulness, and unreasonableness, has proved itself the disciplinary means whereby the European spirit has attained its strength, its remorseless curiosity and subtle mobility; granted also that much irrecoverable strength and spirit had to be stifled, suffocated, and spoilt in the process (for here, as everywhere, "nature" shows herself as she is, in all her extravagant and INDIFFERENT magnificence, which is shocking, but nevertheless noble). — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil § 188

That said, what this means is that man turns away from the world, to find consolation and comfort within their systematic modalities which merely occult the world and betrays it.

If one gives philosophy and philosophers half a chance, they almost invariably tend toward the worst excesses. More specifically, the probability is very high that they will devise an approach to reality and the world which in fact turns away from the world, occults it, and replaces it with a representation that supplants it and supposedly expresses its higher truth. This is a betrayal of the real world. — David F. Bell, Translator's Intro to Clément Rosset's Joyful Cruelty

Nietzsche was interested in the approbation of life OUTISDE of these systems, that's why Birth of Tragedy details that ART is the proper metaphysical activity of man. Because art springs forth from nature itself....

It was through psychology that Nietzsche discovered that all philosophers and priests before him had it ass backwards (except maybe Spinoza, and Montaigne [yeah, I know I know, "Montainge only wrote essays!" :nerd: —settle down]).

Nietzsche shows this fatal error in their thinking by detailing man creates the values of opposition and is inextricably intertwined with and fundamentally one in the same as any two heterogeneous and parallel values that bridge over their mutual term. When we apply this to the archaic psychology of yestermillenias the value of the Beast and the value of Gods is bridged over by their mutual term "man." Because they come from man's valuations which are all internalizations; God(s) being an ideal version of man's desires. However, the fatality occurs with the archaic psychology that projects God(s) outwardly and demands subordination to their ideal(s). In this sense, man creates a false antithesis of values by destroying the bridge for one to cross over into "becoming."

But for Nietzsche, as stated a moment ago, the opposition of values comes from within, this is why "man is the rope between the animal and the superman" and is fundamentally one in the same as these two values. Nietzsche's new psychology brings God inside of us such that we may now aim towards our ideal self without the idolatry of "whorshipping" ourselves out to external values that necessarily deny the fundamental condition of life: perspective.

It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps! — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil § 2

This is why the Noble typeology for Nietzsche doesn't whore themselves out to others. Because all noble types affirm the demands of their life, rather than play a subordinate back seat role that sickens on lazy peace and cowardly compromise. The Noble type understands that freedom comes at the cost of laying down their own lives for their own cause.

Wagner contributes to nihilism by advancing the motif of the death of God, hence Nietzsche slaps a B. Wagner also whores himself out to ascetic values because he himself hated who he was in his later years. His ascetic ideals were idolatry in worshipping the antithesis to himself, "the antithesis to ruined swine."



All humans experience resentment, Nietzsche details this. The Noble type simply doesn't dwell within their resentment to the point of it becoming venomous and turning around on the self.

When the resentment of the noble type manifests itself, it fulfils and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction, and consequently instills no venom: on the other hand, it never manifests itself at all in countless instances, when in the case of the feeble and weak it would be inevitable. An inability to take seriously for any length of time their enemies, their disasters, their misdeeds—that is the sign of the full strong natures who possess a superfluity of moulding plastic force, that heals completely and produces forgetfulness: a good example of this in the modern world is Mirabeau, who had no memory for any insults and meannesses which were practised on him, and who was only incapable of forgiving because he forgot. Such a man indeed shakes off with a shrug many a worm which would have buried itself in another; it is only in characters like these that we see the possibility (supposing, of course, that there is such a possibility in the world) of the real "love of one's enemies." What respect for his enemies is found, forsooth, in an aristocratic man—and such a reverence is already a bridge to love! He insists on having his enemy to himself as his distinction. He tolerates no other enemy but a man in whose character there is nothing to despise and much to honour! On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!

11

The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred—the former an imitation, an "extra," an additional nuance; the latter, on the other hand, the original, the beginning, the essential act in the conception of a slave-morality — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 10, First Essay

Keep up lads, I know it's hard to follow along when you're so used to being told how you ought to think in straightforward, but ever so awkward, platonic representations. And to be fair, our language is used in such a way that it is irreducibly platonic. So I get why you're so glued to Platonism. But Nietzsche's not a Platonist so you'll have to scrap that method of thinking to see beyond your Mayan veil and into Nietzsche's.

That is, after all, one of the great powers of the Dionysian: to be able to don the masks of other great minds.

Yes, Nietzsche was a philosopher and I am a great admirer of his writings, which have influenced me greatly and contributed no doubt to my own cleverness, wisdom, and inscrutability. If you follow my drift...

Nietzsche could write about fishing and make it interesting.

Do you think that after producing his evolutionary account of the origin of species, Darwin persisted in perceiving animals in his daily surroundings as having arose out of independently founded lineages? — Joshs

I think he continued to feed his dog Pedigree Chum.

I mean, this is on my profile as a favourite quote:

"Once we reject lyricism, to blacken a page becomes an ordeal: what's the use of writing in order to say exactly what we had to say?"

Cioran

Need I say more? Who is the Nietzschean here? Who is pirouetting and who is stamping around in clogs? Who is the fresh daisy and who, the rotten egg?

Burn your friggin' idols.

Thus Spake Badenusthra

still toying with Platontic representations of a "True Nietzschean?" Cute, hehe.

Where as I do enjoy a good joust with Nietzsche's philosophy, I also don't desire to leave an overly bitter aftertaste with Badenusthra on the lesson Nietzsche teaches in the 65th Aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil... that is that "the charm of knowledge would be slight were there not so much embarrassment to overcome on the route to knowledge!"

But if you desire...

Who is the Nietzschean here? — Baden

Armless violinist Carl Herman Unthan.



I will seize myself with an iron fist to get everything out of myself.

At some stage one might grow to recognise oneself as a member of a community, to acknowledge the need in others to also overcome themselves.

And then one might begin to consider ethics. One might become an adult.

At some stage one might grow to recognise oneself as a member of a community, to acknowledge the need in others to also overcome themselves.

And then one might begin to consider ethics. One might become an adult. — Banno

Or one might recognize that the subject is not pre-given; it is produced historically, socially, and psychologically through morality, culture, and power networks. Ethics isnt discovered at adulthood but inscribed through practices of subjectivation from the start.

Sure. "Discovered" is not my word. After rejecting of the rule of others, one might look to rule with others. Who we are is also who they are. I'll accept a Foucauldian correction.