"Gott mit uns" was a Prussian military tradition going back to the 1800s. The Nazis simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it. — Apollodorus
My point is that if Nazi's were ostentatiously godless, as is often argued, they would have deliberately chosen something more pagan or secular, — Tom Storm
Nietzsche characterizes slave morality as one which emphasized obedience, pity, conformity and following the herd. — Ross Campbell
The original Hebrew phrase is לֹא אֶעֱבֹד (Lô´ ´e`ĕvôd), where it appears in a jeremiad against Israel, accusing them of refusing to serve God. Some English language Bibles may translate "non serviam" as "I will not transgress"; this seems to be an alternative reading of certain manuscripts. This is most likely a scribal error because the difference between "serve" (עבד) and "transgress" (עבר) in late Hebrew characters is so minute that it would be easy to mistake one for the other when hand-copying a manuscript. Most modern literal translations (such as the Revised Standard Version) choose "serve" over "transgress" as the proper reading because the context calls for a statement of disobedience, not of obedience.
Not sure if that adds anything; it's a pretty standard take. Basically, Christianity does a number on what Nietzsche's takes to be "life" and this is not due to later perversions of a corrupt institutional church - it's right there in the words and deeds of Jesus. — Erik
It is not clear what Jesus meant by "Kingdom of God is at hand". Some take it to mean a geopolitical change, but others interpreted it as a change in the person. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear. The world was at any moment going to undergo a fundamental change with only the saved remaining as "spirit bodies" (I think he gets this from Plato's Phaedo). It, of course, did not happen.
Paul taught that we are born in sin and must be saved. The physical body is a slave to sin. Hence the saved will be "spirit bodies". The Earth will be transformed to Heaven on Earth. — Fooloso4
Perhaps Nietzsche's ferocious attack on Christianity was his reaction against the puritanical Victorian Church of his time which was anti semitic, misogynistic, anti gays, authoritarian and conservative. This is as Kierkegaard said a warped hypocritical version of Christianity, not the true message of Christ. I personally think Nietzsche had an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, he was hostile to democracy and modern science also which he claimed strangely were products of a Christian culture which seems absurd. — Ross Campbell
He tries to psychologize everything , but how can we trust his conclusions if they're not based on empirical evidence, data and hard facts. Just dreamt up from his own head . His genealogy of morals , explaining ideas in terms of their historical development to explain morality is probably flawed. — Ross Campbell
sometimes I wonder why Nietzsche is so popular, so influential , is it because he's so provocative, radical, and easily misinterpreted. He seems to be unique among philosophers in that he attacks every tradition and thinker in the history of western thought. — Ross Campbell
There doesn't seem to be any coherent social, ethical or political set of values or structures in his thinking . I think his philosophy is only of relevance to the life of an individual, it couldn't be applied to society. A Nietszean worldview would be anarchy, devoid of ethics, and of science, religion or political systems. — Ross Campbell
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.