Nietzsche sometimes has brilliant insights, but it is necessary to be a bit dazzled not to realize that his philosophy contains an equally remarkable dose of grotesque childishness. When he projects his own inner mechanisms to compensate for the feeling of inferiority over the whole of civilization, it is impossible for any reader with an IQ above 12 not seeing the little slender and frightened boy there, wanting to be a strong man.

Positive nihilism, proposed by Nietzsche and other philosophers, denies the Christian morality by pointing out that Christian morality is slave morality, which is meaningless, undesirable and devastating to individuals. — xinye

Can you expand on this? Why did Nietzsche feel that Christian morality is slave morality? Why did he label it "meaningless, undesirable and devastating to individuals"?

Nietzsche turns his own personal (neurotic) experiences into philosophical theories. So, we read some pathetic pages where Nietzsche expresses his misogeny with ridiculous arguments, only to discover that all of that was a reaction to his failure in the love field with Lou-Salomé - the same woman who appears in the famous photo as a driver of a buggy that has Nietzsche like the horse that pulls her. In other words, the previously easily dominated Nietzsche tries to pose as superior after being dumped.

Not to mention his whole attempt to create a "superior morality" based on strength, when this is just a mask to hide his own personal emotional weakness (which we know today from the access we have to his letters). In other words, Nietzsche's books are a mere self-help made for himself.

I mean, as a theory, that sucks. As a testament to a subject with talents for psychology living in a time of madness, his books have some value. If they were written with the essence of the Confessions, losing their neurotic character, in fact the books would be much better. In that spirit, Ecce Homo would have less megalomaniacal titles.

What he writes about resentment would have a much greater validity if it had the confessional component, as he hides, it becomes a comedy. Nietzsche's work is tragicomic.

Not to mention his whole attempt to create a "superior morality" based on strength, when this is just a mask to hide his own personal emotional weakness (which we know today from the access we have to his letters). In other words, Nietzsche's books are a mere self-help made for himself. — gaules

It often seems true that it is ourselves that we are writing to, and that we often don't quite realize who our intended audience really is.

So to sum up, my argument may have this form:
1, If positive nihilism is true, in face of everything, one should and will completely honors freewill and seeks things that are meaningful to him/her.
2, Eternity is part of the beliefs of positive nihilism.
3, Positive nihilists should and will seek things that are meaningful to them in eternity.
4, No perspective other than having faith with eternity can bring what a positive nihilist need.
5, Therefore, if one accepts positive nihilism, he/she might as well accept that there is a God. — xinye

I enjoyed the read and this idea is quite thought provoking. Although, I didn't follow the argument you made as well as I wish I could have. After a little bit of thought I feel as though this argument may get the point you're trying to make a little more understandable.

1. If positive nihilism is true and it includes the idea of eternity, then a positive nihilist should be a theist.
2. Positive nihilists seek only what is meaningful to them.
3. Theism gives the kind of optimism and meaning that positive nihilists seek.
4. Therefore, if one is a positive nihilist, they should also be a theist.

You bring in the sense of eternity, and, like you, I think this idea of eternity has a big impact on the argument being made. Theism, most of the time, revolves around what is inherently good and how performing or doing "good" deeds benefits each individual in the sense of eternity. Although "good" is not something a nihilist, in general, would agree with, the benefits that come along with a good deed are something that they would agree with. When searching for their own meaning and what has meaning to them I'm sure many positive nihilists have stumbled across the benefits of religion and have asked themselves whether it is truly worth it to delve into. As we know, religion brings about many different social benefits, monetary benefits, in specific cases, and the benefits of the afterlife as you mention. All of which spark interest in search of meaning for a positive nihilist.

Before posting, I was reading through once again and I realized this kind of argument falls apart in specific scenarios. If a positive nihilist doesn't find meaning in the search of religion or doesn't find meaning in the benefits of religion, then said positive nihilist would never become a theist. This goes against premise 3 as theism would not be giving a positive nihilist what they seek and the argument falls apart from there. In this case a new argument could be formed perhaps relating the fact that a positive nihilist does find meaning in the benefits of religion and therefore should be a theist.

If anyone is interested, the video here explains positive nihilism in an easy to understand way.

Derived form nihilism, positive nihilism is atheistic and it agrees that the world is a place that’s chaotic and void of meanings, so any kind of social development or progress is just an illusion. — xinye

This suggests that Nietzsche was advocating for nihilism. Much of his work ventures to describe why it is happening rather than promote a proposition in the style of Aquinas.

From that point of view, it has multiplicities of meanings developed over a long time. The situation is not so chaotic that one has to throw up one's arms in surrender to the task of deciding what limits to observe or disregard. Nietzsche argued to support orders of rank in some breaths and asked you to tear down the walls of Jericho in others.

Your results may vary.

Jungian phsychology says we should not get stuck in attachment to an archetype. Nietzsche failed in this (there many excuses for being a Nietzsche though), as do Chrstians. Belief in spirituality being who love us only ends in darkness because it won't be reciprocal. Those who love "God" more than there family fall under judgment

Eternity is part of the beliefs of positive nihilism. — xinye

I don’t think so. If I remember correctly Nietzsche only proposed eternal reoccurrence as a “measure” of how well one likes their own life. It was something along the lines of “If after you died the devil told you that you are about to experience the exact same life again would you be depressed or happy”. I don’t think he ever said that it’s what actually happens.

Nietzsche rejected the rejection of this world that is found both in Christianity and incidentally Buddhism. The Christian rejects this life and this world for a supposed better eternal life and eternal world to come.

I believe you are making the step of rejecting this world when you say that "to have faith with eternity is to believe that there’s something beyond the void(we are more than just mortals who are passively put to live and die in an endless physical world)". It is for this "eternity beyond the void" that you reject this life this and this world.

"Having faith with eternity" is a dubious phrase and requires some unpacking. It's not my phrase so I may not be able to unpack it but if "having faith with eternity" is a matter of rejecting this world in favor of a supposed eternal world this is antithetical to Nietzscheanism. It is this world and this life that matters. As a thought experiment we might imagine living our life over and over and over again forever and ever exactly the same every time. That is the myth or thought experiment of the eternal return. There is no escape from this world to this supposed eternal world. Imagine the weight of an infinite number of identical lives with each day you live. What choices virtues and actions would make the thought of eternal repetition bearable? How would you change the way you lived your life if you believed the myth of eternal return to be true? Can you, to borrow your phrase, have faith with this eternity?

The difference between Buddhist love and a mature Christian love is that the latter is unnatural (which is why they call it "supernatural") and unhealthy. Spiritual=good. Supernatural=bad

Sure. Nietzsche believes that Christianity is a rational morality and all it does to people is that it “enslaves” them by telling them what to do, through reasoning. But Nietzsche regards reason/rationality itself is an illusion so what Christians believe is wrong, and freewill is above all.

If a positive nihilist doesn't find meaning in the search of religion or doesn't find meaning in the benefits of religion, then said positive nihilist would never become a theist. — Isaac242

I think what Nietzsche believes to be the best response to eternity is that you should put yourself at the center and see and act form your own perspective, seeking every specific moment that you’re experiencing, so time or eternity might be an illusion but your wills and deeds are real in this process. So if an ordinary people realize this and get rid of the pessimistic attitude towards life and death, he/she can overcome nihilism and become superman — I don’t think it works this way though and I don’t know why they won’t just choose to be a theist in this case instead of trying to practice this whole set of thoughts. Also it would be impossible that all positive nihilists result in finding meanings in God or religion so yeah I guess religion nihilism will always remain as long as theology is not complete.

And the problem seems to be that, positive nihilists know there is an eternity, and will they find religious belief to be good or beneficial in this case?

The Christian rejects this life and this world for a supposed better eternal life and eternal world to come — Octopus Knight

Well, given that there are a couple of billion Christians, and that earnest disagreements of interpretation exist even within single congregations, any attempts to define all Christians as a single unified group seem doomed to incompetence, the most common form of commentary about Christianity on philosophy forums.

Within the couple billion Christians there are some which fit your description.

I was speaking of Nietzsche's view of Christianity. Far be it from me to suggest that Christians hold a common creed or a shared worldview. :wink:

I don’t know why they won’t just choose to be a theist — xinye

It's not always a choice, is usually a revolting one, and there is much evidence that the idea of God that most Westerners hold is illogical. Nietzsche was only anti-intellectual in the sense that Bergson claimed to be. They would be regarded as highly logical in the East

I think "positive nihilism", which could describe my own beliefs, is not a restrictive term and simply means that one sees no inherent meaning but is for whatever reason not bothered by it.

Nihilism doesn't necessarily lead to being humbled, I think stereotypically that an individual's nihilism is not nearly as nihilistic as it could be. Take time as an example, nihilism means that time is inherently meaningless, our feelings about it are subjective, based on nature/nurture influences, as well as our choices. There is nothing inherently good or bad about my life being so short in comparison to eternity but the individual nihilist cannot shed human psychology with just thoughts. What do we feel about this? Anger at the unfairness? Are we jealous? Insecure about our relative impact? Scared of death? These feelings lack inherent meaning too but saying that doesn't help.

Mostly, existential nihilism is not a result of the logic of nihilism but the framing of nihilism, which can become the backdrop for all that we are, everything we do, everything we think, it's all meaningless. Believe this and think it often enough and it can cause anxiety, stress, depression and all that we describe as existential nihilism. Yet again, this in itself is not very nihilistic, shouldn't it be true that both meaning and meaninglessness lack inherent meaning under nihilism? Nihilism itself is an argument which uses meaning, if "proof of nihilism" doesn't mean "there is nihilism" then where does the belief of "there is nihilism" come from? Meaning is taken as fact and has repercussions for how one lives, thinks and feels.

The distinction of inherent meaning and asserted meaning is made meaningless under nihilism. Within nihilism, all meaning is asserted by the intellect, including what is inherent or asserted. There is nothing which is exempt, every argument can be waved off easily, worst-case scenario, theoretically at least, one could abandon logic and reason. Nihilism says there's no inherent meaning to that and I could reject the meaning one might think it has. In much the same way that God dictates within a religious scheme, the intellect dictates within nihilism, God's power has been taken away. Even if there were a God, his "Godness" has no inherent implications for the tyranny of the intellect, to assert or reject meaning at will. Neither time, mass or space, or even the divine, can contend with this power to dictate meaning.

Yet we are restricted, can't I only interpret whatever I wish if I am mad? I need to work within my limitations, I need to convince myself or it's pointless. The nihilist deals with two restrictions: Convincing themselves and contending with that which can not be changed. The two ways around a problem, firstly, for instance, with time, I can neither be immortal nor pretend like I'm indifferent to whether I live or die. Those are my limitations. In the end, it all comes back to human psychology, or my psychology and my Earthly circumstances.

Therefore if the issue of eternity can only be dealt with by either convincing myself of an interpretation of my mortality that allows me to accept it or by becoming immortal, then without the divine, it's got to be the first option. The second option becomes available through religion, rebirth or an eternal afterlife, it means you can take the second option of simply becoming immortal. The first option is not unachievable though, there are logically consistent and believable ways to come to grips with your mortality.

The intellect "finds" meaning through asserting meaning where neither restriction applies, patterns are the result of similarities in our nature/nurture circumstances that play a large role in what the restrictions are. Under nihilism, things can be split into meaning which the intellect dictates and meaning which the intellect is forced to accept by their intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I don't just mean that in a positive way, for instance, to deal with something about which I might be jealous, I need to deal with the cause of my jealousy, simply speaking words is not enough. Intelligence is both conscious and unconscious here and also, it can't be divorced from my biology.

I think a major issue then for belief in God as a result of pragmatism is that you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest in a way which shouldn't be able to fool you. Even if believing in God was pragmatic in that it provided you with psychological benefits of being happier or more fulfilled, you couldn't actually believe there is an eternal afterlife just because you think it'd be better if there were one and you can't become immortal either. One might be able to convince themselves of something based on a belief that the belief is pragmatic but there are rules for this, usually an element of truth is required. In this case, with an eternal afterlife, from an atheistic perspective, there's absolutely nothing to work with at all and it's pretty much hopeless.

I think that while I disagree with many of your points, this is the main issue. However, I would also say that the optimistic nihilist within these two aforementioned restrictions has an incomprehensible range of options. I think the problem of mortality can be dealt with before we need to rely on simply getting rid of it by becoming immortal. Mostly statements like "we are just mortals" need to be contended with, actually, mortals are the only source of intelligence and can only be contested by other mortals on intellectual matters. "We are only mortals" in philosophy, it's almost a nonsense thing to say when you're an atheist and with nihilism, mortal or immortal, mortal or divine, there aren't even hard and fast rules about what those things mean, certainly nothing an intellect can't rewrite.

Optimistic nihilism should work within these two restrictions, recognising that equally true or equally not untrue interpretations can be chosen between by their pragmatic benefits and aim at creating a worldview which produces positive effects. Your proposal here simply fails to work within these restrictions and probably isn't the best or easiest method by which one can view their mortality and think of it in a way which brings about desirable effects.

I was speaking of Nietzsche's view of Christianity. — Octopus Knight

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Well, if Nietzsche's view was that all Christians are X, then he was an incompetent commentator on that particular subject, and should be ignored.

The Bible says the Church is the spouse of Jesus. Yet the Church is nothing else but the assembly of
Christian. So a Christian is being called to marry Jesus, to spiritually take the form of a female. Nietzsche objected to this. Christian belief on this matter is the consequence of passive redemption (passive on our part). Christians say "there is nothing I can do about my sins. I can never tip the scales. All I can do is offer my crumb, my morsel of repentance which is worth nothing except that it is accepted as payment by Jesus and completed by His merits". If you are stuck in an archetype where you have to become a dead Jewish male's wife in order to feel (temporary) peace in your conscience, you got the issues.

At least Catholics believe that not all sins are equal. Many Protestants think kicking a dog is as evil as murder and rape, and even believe that babies are murderers and rapists because of original sin. Catholic don't believe the former (mortal vs venial sin, remember) and usually do not believe the latter either (unless they follow Augustine over Aquinas on this). They do however have all their crazy rituals and it is true that many priests are gay and/or pedophiles. Underage porn is all over Rome

Therefore if the issue of eternity can only be dealt with by either convincing myself of an interpretation of my mortality that allows me to accept it or by becoming immortal, then without the divine, it's got to be the first option. The second option becomes available through religion, rebirth or an eternal afterlife, it means you can take the second option of simply becoming immortal. The first option is not unachievable though, there are logically consistent and believable ways to come to grips with your mortality. — Judaka

Optimistic nihilism should work within these two restrictions, recognising that equally true or equally not untrue interpretations can be chosen between by their pragmatic benefits and aim at creating a worldview which produces positive effects. — Judaka

Thanks for the detailed explanations, I think these may help to solve the problem. And yet, can you talk a little bit about how do you, as an optimistic nihilist, understand eternity differently from the theistic/religious views?

Many Protestants think kicking a dog is as evil as murder and rape, — Gregory

I don't think that's true and I don't think many Protestants hold this belief as long as they acknowledge that if you're not in heaven sins are not equal, for each has its own consequence. I think Leviticus explains it.

and even believe that babies are murderers and rapists because of original sin. — Gregory

any Protestant who has the right belief of resurrection/salvation would discard thoughts such as this.

I would summarise the problems eternity poses as an idea or as a framing as including making the intellect feel small, insignificant or inconsequential. Merely thinking it has this effect isn't necessarily a problem, it's when this thought becomes a common framing feature for other aspects of life. Religions deal with eternity differently but all the big ones include you in it through either an afterlife or reincarnation. Also, through God, there will always be an intelligent being in the universe, someone to remember us and what we did. Religion can give meaning to life by the implications it has for you in the afterlife.

Without that, things could be viewed as considerably bleaker, knowing that there isn't anything about your life that will be remembered after 20-60 years let alone thousands of years.

Personally, I view eternity as an intellectual concept that has real-world validity but in practice, is actually irrelevant to everyone and might as well not exist. We see others die and know life goes on but when we die, it may as well be that the universe has died with us. To me, meaning comes from me, the universe comes from me too. The universe as I know it is nothing without me and will be nothing with me after I die.

I think that the way eternity causes existential dread is flawed, a misunderstanding of what time and space look like without the intellect. With the intellect, it's a story, an epic tale of unbelievable and incomprehensible proportions that inspires wonder and awe and you are just a tiny part of it. Without the intellect, there is no story. Nothing is even heard or seen and in that sense, there really is just nothing. It is not impressive, it cannot even be impressive anymore, the concepts which we use aren't in existence there and things merely are.

However, that isn't the case if there is a God, an all-knowing intellect who sees you as a part of the universe, yet because God loves and treasures you and offers you a place by his side in the kingdom of heaven, it's okay. Even you yourself will get to see how the story unfolds as you live on for all eternity. The implications for life and death are totally different depending on what one believes.

No they DON’T know that there is an eternity. That’s what I’m saying.

I see -- thank you for proving thoughts here, appreciate that!

I don't think that's true and I don't think many Protestants hold this belief as long as they acknowledge that if you're not in heaven sins are not equal, for each has its own consequence. I think Leviticus explains it. — xinye

Many many Protestants have told me that, according to the Bible, all sins are equal before God

any Protestant who has the right belief of resurrection/salvation would discard thoughts such as this. — xinye

What about Calvinism?

Catholics at least have an authority to tell them what the Bible means.They don't rely on themselves for interpretation of the Scripture. They just rely on the hierarchy

But to fact check current Rome:

https://nypost.com/2019/02/14/80-percent-of-priests-in-the-vatican-are-gay-new-book/

Half of all Catholics are neurotics. The following link shows a certain strong tendency in Catholics in the modern age (which is whythey are always using the mantra of the Rosary)

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/scrupulosity?fbclid=IwAR3-CLdpTVXE0LHb3c-xi33NTU4mpuovnwxlL2rWe1NH1Bh0TZlbPZZYjGk

One traditionalist priest wrote:

“God had originally created the sexual act between man and woman to be no more pleasing to the flesh then a handshake and childbirth was not to be painful. The emphasis on the flesh, both the momentary pleasure during the act and pain during childbirth, are effects of Adam and Eve’s original sin. After Adam and Eve committed original sin they covered their private parts indicating a violation had occurred in this area not intended by God. This quick, momentary pleasure during the sexual act placed the excitation of the flesh at the center of attention instead of the true cause, which is the procreation of a child. Satan always promises a quick thrill while death lies underneath. This strange sensation that Adam and Eve experienced, this momentary flesh pleasure, was at the same time very shameful, something alien to them, to which they sensed a loss of control over their bodies. It is a misplaced and inordinate pleasure. Circumcision, which brings pain where a pleasure never belonged, is a sign that God reclaimed dominion over those that faithfully bore it, so that the devil may not tempt them with lust.”

That is from a Catholic priest. It is based on certain comments by Augustine, Jerome, and a couple other Church Fathers. They are very confused on the subject. Now bishops are saying homosexual desires are normal but acting on them is not