But I don’t see the point of battling wits in internet Nietzsche camp. — Fire Ologist
And Nietzsche was wrong about a lot of what he thought being Christ-like means for the Christian. It’s freedom and God’s power, like God’s will through us, like a Will to God’s power and glory…but again, enough with the fables. — Fire Ologist
For once the entire symbolism of the body, not only the symbolism of the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantomime of dancing which sets all the members into rhythmical motion...the votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! — Nietzsche
If you want me to get into the nitty gritty of it all — DifferentiatingEgg
It’s freedom and God’s power, like God’s will through us, like a Will to God’s power and glory…but again, enough with the fables.
— Fire Ologist
There you go again, refusing to interpret his complexity — DifferentiatingEgg
But he was a horrible judge of others (Christ, Kant, Hegel, Socrates, Napoleon, etc). He would not deny his own biases, and he let them color all he made of Christianity, of morality, of science and of most other philosophers. So he was a bad judge of himself as well...
He was a metaphysician (of the Apollonian and the Dionysian), a truth seeker, a new type of moralist...
He was impoverished at identifying beauty and good... — Fire Ologist
Nietzsche wasn't a metaphysician at all — DifferentiatingEgg
you made him sound like a oxymoron of hypocrisy — DifferentiatingEgg
Nietzsche values in Beauty and Good simply don't match your own hence you don't understand Nietzsche's values of Beauty and Good...
You see him through your own mask...
You have yet to go beyond your reification of Nietzsche... — DifferentiatingEgg
You don’t ask what I think, but, the quote from Deluze is a metaphysical claim. — Fire Ologist
The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective.I disagree that refuting what I am saying is helping you bring that across. — Fire Ologist
I know. You don’t understand what I am saying. I am the oxymoron - I know and love Nietzsche and Christ. You won’t allow that to be the case. — Fire Ologist
How do you know my values? Maybe you don’t know what a Christian really is. In my view, a Christian is NOT 99.99 percent of those who call themselves Christians, including myself, so how do you know what my values or sense of beauty or good is? — Fire Ologist
Do you have any masks?? Don’t you see Mietsche through your own masks? Or are you the reincarnation of Buddha?
If you say you have no masks, you’re blind or a liar; if yes, then what is the point of focusing only on mine? — Fire Ologist
I dont need to know what you think, I know what you said. Saying Nietzsche was a metaphysician when he wasn't doesn't matter what you think about that. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 = 5. I don't need to know the logic behind it. — DifferentiatingEgg
The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective. — DifferentiatingEgg
Actually if we go back, we can clearly see you're the one who denies Nietzsche's correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible... You won't allow Nietzsche's interpretation to be the case. This is one way you start twisting Nietzsche. You should try self abnegation before handling his works. — DifferentiatingEgg
Thus his understanding of beauty is so far beyond you comprehension it's alien to you. — DifferentiatingEgg
you choose not to see Nietzsche from his modality, rather through your own caricature. — DifferentiatingEgg
Logic dictates — DifferentiatingEgg
I told you to revisit Nietzsche and do so under the forces that brought him about.. — DifferentiatingEgg
…your own, from the slave moralist's point of view. — DifferentiatingEgg
“…he wasn’t…”
You said what is not. You didn’t say what is. So nothing to discuss in this whole passage besides me. — Fire Ologist
The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective. — DifferentiatingEgg
Haven’t twisted one word. — Fire Ologist
Not inclined to offer specifics with someone who just asserts “ correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible” both as if I didn’t know that and as if it was enough to support your overall assessment of what there is to know about Nietzsche. — Fire Ologist
And his will in the Gospel speaks to a very specific equation...Jesus loved even those who would kill him. He did not divorce himself from even his greatest negations... — DifferentiatingEgg
but he rejects so many of the things we do, for which we need to be forgiven to become his friends — Fire Ologist
In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.
The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”).[12] He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.—And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.—
[12]Matthew v, 34.
The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life—and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God—not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith”—the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.”
The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is “in heaven” and is “immortal,” despite many reasons for feeling that he is not “in heaven”: this is the only psychological reality in “salvation.”—A new way of life, not a new faith.... — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 33
I’m telling you, Nietzsche was high priest of a new religion with Zarathustra as prophet — Fire Ologist
The dance is real. We need both Apollo and Dionysius to discern the human (therein lies the metaphysics, but forget I said anything if “metaphysics” is such a dirty word in Nietzsche’s mouth - I’m sure Nietzsche would curse me for accusing him of ever saying something metaphysical, right?.) — Fire Ologist
while in all productive men it is instinct that it is the creative-affirmative force, and consciousness acts critically and dissuasively, in Socrates it is the instinct that becomes the critic and consciousness that becomes the creator" — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy § 13
Even Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the deity that spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether new-born demon, called Socrates. This is the new antithesis: the Dionysian and the Socratic, and the art-work of Greek tragedy was wrecked on it. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy 12
but Nietzsche points to "them" flipping it over — DifferentiatingEgg
He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 33
There's very much to admire about Lord Russell's works (& logic-chopping) but his potted and unscholarly A History of ... is certainly not one of them.Russell portrayed he of the moustache as [ ... ] — Banno
As Freddy Zarathustra himself cautions his close readers (foreshadowing his Ecce Homo) ...Nietzsche remains the [twilight] idol of post-pubescent males. Someone to consider and grow beyond.
(emphasis is mine)Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you… One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers – but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you… that I may celebrate the great noon with you. — Also Spoke Zarathustra
Yet it sufficiently impress the Swedish Academy that they awarded Russell the Nobel Prize for Literature .There's very much to admire about Lord Russell's works (& logic-chopping) but his potted and unscholarly A History of ... is certainly not one of them. — 180 Proof
Yet [Russell’s History] sufficiently impress the Swedish Academy that they awarded Russell the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Something that Zarathustra, with his swollen, distended prose, did not achieve. — Banno
The book is over 1000 pages, quite meticulous and the arguments powerfully stated; looking beyond Nietzsche's philosophical texts towards his letters and other written material. The book changed my outlook on Nietzsche. Even if you will not fundamentally agree with Losurdo (who does not claim that Nietzsche should be discarded, by any means), I think there is a lot to grapple with. Highly recommend. — Maw
his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw
Taking literally the ruthless implications of Nietzsche's anti-democratic thinking—his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw
The word "Superman," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes...
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
Can you tell me two useful things Nietzsche has contributed to your thinking and life? In simple dot points. — Tom Storm
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.