. "This is effectively what Plato is saying - he identifies three different faculties of the soul/body and he investigates how they can be brought in harmony. His conclusion is that this only happens when the rational faculty rules over the others."

This is where I simply cant agree with Plato

"This is more controversial. BUT! "Progression" is only a temporal matter belonging to this world, and this life"

Sure. But the next life is unimportant right now. Only Now is important. Nothing else. Progression for Blake is never about material things. But always about art and creativity

I forgot these twi which were most fundamental in the part from Blake I quoted. They follow immediately from the one you found to be platonic:

2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body, and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal delight!

I like Plato. Dont get me wrong. He is one of My favorites.

I dont agree. He clearly makes a distinction, unless you try to turn him in to a Christian, while in reality he was closer in many Ways to the thoughts expressed in the Upanishads... I agree with you that you can understand Plato in the way you present above. Perhaps that is what he meant , but I doubt he was aware of it. I would then prefer Nietzsche's way of saying it but you are right that language is just a mask and a mirror. As I have Said.

Blake sums up some of my problems with Plato:

"All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors:
1. That Man has two real existing principles, viz. a Body and a Soul.
2. That Energy, called Evil, is alone from the Body, and that Reason, called Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.
But the following Contraries to these are True.
1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that called Body is a portion of Soul discerned by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age."

Aaaaaannnnndddd...

"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,
Reason and Energy, Love and Hate are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil.
Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing
from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."

Body and soul are one. There is no seperation as in Plato. I prefer the view of Walt Whitman on this:
"Of physiology from top to toe I sing,
Not physiognomy alone nor brain alone is worthy for the Muse, I say the Form complete is worthier far"

And in Phaedo Plato through Socrates speaks about the evil body that causes man to be sick etc. And the convienience of dying so that the virtuos soul, the philosopher, can be freed from it.
One problem with Plato is that he speaks of the soul as trapped, imprisoned in the body and yet there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a certain body. Their difference makes the union a mystery.

"lol - I have quite the opposite impression. The Greeks, including Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were lovers of the body"

Aristotle I agree, and he is in many ways preferable to Plato. Though I prefer Plato in the end because of one very important aspect: Beauty.
Though I must ask you: Are you kidding me regarding Plato's view of the physical?

Sure. Nietzsche wasn't infallible either :P
Never Said anything else. But he is far more misunderstood and mistreated by those who do not appreciate him. And by blind fanboys too for that matter.

Would you Btw call Socrates superior as a human being to Plato or the other around?

Plato wasnt infallible. He was human, and it is pretty obvious when reading him. His worshiping of distinctions between what is and what becomes but really isnt is in a way a prejudice, and his worship of opposites is something worth questioning. Just because I can imagine a straight line doesnt mean there must be one. And if there is, who cares in the end? He is one of those philosophers whose hatred of the body and the physical I cant stand. Nor can I stand what seems to be an underlying death wish. He was definitely one of those great men of many true insights who loved wearing many masks. Even in his quest for truth and virtue one can smell something hidden... A mask(referring to our discussion in the other thread). I still really like Plato though, especially for his great prose. I also hate his hatred of arts and agree with Popper's criticism of him.

I have read Apology, Crito, Phaedo Gorgias, Symposion, Phaedro and the Republic. I Will soon read Timaeus, which I have heard many consider to be his greatest work.

I made an ironic joke. Of course it is. But I am not sure Plato was aware in depth about all the hidden motives behind why he wrote what he wrote

"what does the statement "life is will to power" mean, and how do we know it's true? Why do you think it's true? What reasons do you have to believe it?"
If you really read Nietzsche carefully, he tells you what it means. I can give you examples based on social situations and inner drives and motives within me and observations on others, but I do that tomorrow then since I am quite tired now and it is soon time for bed

"I very much doubt that. There's many nice American Christians (and non-Christians too) out there."
I dont doubt it. But I am talking about representatives of american christendom like John Piper and John MacArthur. I find them both to be repulsive in their outlook on all things and everything they touch. And it isnt better that Piper is a heavenly utilitarian and that they are both calvinists and almost worship the most reprehensible theologian in human history: Jonathan Edwards

No, for him pleasure was in his fantasy world of ideas and virtue

It is hard for me who is a Classical pianist to just name 5 pieces. But I will give it a try :

1. Beethoven's String Quartet in A minor Opus 132, especially "Molto Adagio; Andante", the 3rd movement.
2. Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op 109 and Op 111
3. Schubert's String Quintet D.956, especially the 2nd movement, the adagio. Oh, and Schubert 's Piano Sonata D 960 in b-flat major.
4. There is just so much of Bach... But Erbarme Dich from Mattheus Passion. And his Well Tempered Clavier. And Goldberg variations.
5. Chopin's 4th Ballade Op 52 and Nocturne Op 48 no 1

Now there is so much more than just this. We have Mozart too... and many others. I realize I cheated and mentioned more than 5 pieces...

"Why is life will to power?"

I am not sure I would go as far as Nietzsche even though I find his ideas very interesting. It is hard to answer "why". What do you mean by "why"?

Can you offer an example of what you mean?
People in general have a tendency to define others by what they have done in the past and thereby prevent people from not being defined by their mistakes. Which is horrible.


"Sure, but I made no mention of threats of punishment there, did I?"

No you didnt. But historically and very much today in America, the most disgusting country I know of when it comes to religiousity and spirituality, these threats have been popular. America's religion is almost always a typical example of Will to power as the primary driving force.


"So then Sweden is affected by an unconscious despair because of the absence of spiritual depth would you say? People live materialistically, unaware of their spiritual wants."

I would call that a very accurate way of putting it. The gods of Sweden are social medias like instagram and facebook, and also training in gym.

"Yes, too often people assume that pleasure is the highest good, as apparently the OP did, and so are really hedonists or sensualists, whether they realize it or not."

Here we have another reason why I love Nietzsche

"Okay, but is there ONLY will to power behind every philosophy & theology?"
It depends in how one views will to power I think. If you ask Nietzsche he would say yes. Because life in itself IS will to power. But it is a concept with a meaning, and words are just masks or mirrors of something beyond the words.

"I agree. But he was still someone who misunderstood the highest spiritual realities."
This might be true but it might also be wrong. Nietzsche was definitely a man too deep-seeing and intelligent for his own good. But here again, words are mirrors and masks of something beyond and under the surface of the letters. Nietzsche might have experienced profound truths (which I believe) but sometimes using the wrong words to express them

"Why would you say it's the worst thing, especially since I presume you must not encounter it very often in Sweden?"

Because similar condemnations in different situations happen. This pharasaic tendency is common and I despise it.


"So then condemnation of lust would be productive in Sweden. When the pendulum swings too far one way, you have to swing further in the opposite direction to balance it."

Yes. But I dont find threats of eternal punishment to be the best strategy.

"It's very funny, because I've never been to Sweden - though I've been to your neighbour Finland before - but we often hear how "happy" Swedish people and the rest of the Nordic countries are. It's disappointing to hear that Sweden is just another Western country in terms of morality."

Sweden is good in many ways. Swedes are often helpful when people suffer which I appreciate. But there is no spiritual depth, and the cultural depth is low IMO. Sweden is different from France or England and even Germany in many ways IMO. In some ways better, in many ways worse. One thing that defines Sweden IMO is that it is relatively safe. And people generally have it comfortable and "better" materially than most countries.

I agree very much with your example of what is to be considered false chastity. Though I believe, inspired by Nietzsche, that People try to display power way more often than we know. It was horrible to read the example of the 14 year old girl. Condemning like that is the worst thing I know. It is not as common in Sweden. In Sweden sex is not tabu as it was before and people too often idolize it here, at least Young People, both male and female. Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. Both Christianity and Nietzsche is rejected here, and the hedonists are the number. Sweden's perhaps most famous philosopher today is Torbjörn Tännsjö. He is a typical utilitarist, who IMO stands for onecof the most pathetic philosophy possible. He is very superficial. Nietzsche would have critizised Swedish culture harshly, that is for sure. Everything is very mediocre.

Funny that you mention the orthodox forum, I wondered if perhaps you had seen me there. I am not a very popular member there because of many of my provocative posts etc. I think. Some appreciate me, most seem to want me gone.

This is very much one of the things I have been trying to say. Nietzsche is in other words extremely misunderstood. As he himself said, he found there to be hierarchy thinking, political thinking and Will to power and control behind every philosophy and theology. I maintain that Nietzsche is the most underrated philosopher in history and the most misunderstood.

"Does that mean he's a theist now?"

No not necessarily, if my memory serves me correctly he wrote it before losing faith but I might be wrong about that. Anyway there is also another hint from Nietzsche in Zarathustra where it seems like he spoke of feeling the presence of an unknown God. Nietzsche was definitely NOT am atheist in the pathetic sense in which Dawkins is an atheist. Nietzsche wasn't a materialist, nor was he without sense of the religious, myterious and sacred in life. Did you know that when Nietzsche was young everybody called him "Little Jesus" because he was so religious?

"To be honest, I think the reason Freud said that was because Nietzsche essentially agreed with him "
He did on some parts yes. In many ways Freud didnt come up with anything New. But I am certain Nietzsche would be critical to many of Freud's ideas.

"You are not responsible for your existence, but you are responsible for what you do while you exist."

Yes and I see huge problems here to harmonize that with Christianity and its gastly doctrine of eternal punishment in a lake of fire. Is that Free will? Rather sounds like making fun of the whole concept to me. But I might be without understanding here.

'Yes, no doubt he did, but at many times it feels like he repressed these feelings. I think quite the opposite of you. Nietzsche didn't know himself. Nietzsche was a man of many masks, a man who was in flight from himself, always changing the mask that he was wearing. He thought he was someone different than he actually was, he never looked at his own face.

'“Every profound spirit needs a mask: even more, around every profound spirit a mask is continually growing.” - Nietzsche.'

Yes I agree to a certain extent. Except that you say Nietzsche didnt know himself, while I say he knew so deeply and profoundly all these things about himself and the power of unconcious instincts within man that he analyzed deeper than no one before him(except maybe Dostoevsky, but Dostoevsky was a tiny bit more biased though). Remember that he called man's conciousness to be perhaps man's weakest attribute. And remember what he said in the beginning of Genealogy of Morals where he Said that the insightful man doesn't know himself because he hasn't searched himself. And then he goes on explaining what he means. I maintain Freud had a point. Goethe would too agree: "True veneration and respect can only be shown to those who have never searched for themselves"(I am translating directly from Swedish here)

"The doctrine of participation in Being has been quite essential to the Thomist tradition. And it shows through art as well, for example in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (Tolkien was a Catholic)"
I can't say I find Lord of the Rings to be particularly good art though...


"Okay, but why would him being a virgin, or having sex with a prostitute and contracting syphillis, or being a homosexual tell us anything about his sexual insights? Do you mean to suggest that someone who doesn't have a lot of sex with women in particular fails to understand sexuality?"

They don't, and no I wouldn't. Having sex with a lot of women can on the opposite mean you don't understand sex. My main suggestion regarding this lay in much of Nietzsche's understanding of women.

"Why would chastity be self-torture instead of self-respect?"

I too ask myself that question. I personally understand Blake as cririzising priests who preach chastity in order to achieve power and mental and social control over others instead of understanding the true meaning of chastity.


"More often than not I find hypocrisy amongst Christians the other way around - they don't take lust & fornication seriously enough."

True about lay-men. Not as often true about priests and pastors.

Now if you dont mind, I would really appreciate you commenting on the things from my earlier post(s) that you avoid commenting and replying to but said you were going to comment on later. This one for example :
'Nietzsche wrote in Daybreak: “In this book faith in morality is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality!" This means that morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of morality he retains and employs.

As once again Berdyaev said about Nietzsche :
"And yet all the same I know of nothing more monstrous in its inner untruth, than to connect Nietzsche with the modern militaristic Germany. This means -- to read the alphabetic letters, without understanding the meaning of the words. They know Nietzsche only through certain fragmented aphorisms, turned round in reverse and filled with shoddy nuances, they read through and ponder on too little in him, and sense not his spirit and his fate."

There is a reason why Freud said of Nietzsche that no man in history has ever had a greater understanding of himself and man than Nietzsche. And that very likely no man in the future will ever reach the insights and the understanding Nietzsche reached.

One moral problem that I find in christianity, is that man is not a causa sui. That christianity admits, yet it seems to me that christianity's insistence then on making man morally responsible for everything becomes a contradiction. Something similar I believe was also one of Nietzsche's arguments when he criticized the doctrine of free will and christianity's insistence on defending it. Now this is my question and not Nietzsche's: How can I be responsible for everything if God is the one creating me without my consent for example?'

"Yes, Nietzsche was in all likelihood quite selfish."

It wouldn't surprise me if he was. But he was funny too. One needs to look at human's more with a humorous eye I think. Like Cervantes was good at doing. I also dont believe Nietzsche was cruel, pitiless and without compassion. But rather that he had a quite strong tendency towards feeling compassion and pity...

"Okay, but aren't the two identical, or in fact, creation being higher than salvation? For man in his primordial state, before the Fall, was created in the image of God, and therefore in the image of a creator. And remember that according to Aquinas whom you don't like >:) man is meant to be a participant in creation - a co-Creator. Marriage, and having children, are symbolic of these creative capacities of man (and woman). Because salvation - okay one is saved. But what happens after? Clearly the after is defined by creativity or as Aquinas would say, participation in Creation."

And this has been much of my argument all the time, that man is created in order to create, or to be a co-creator. I did not know this though about Aquinas, and if what you say is the case, I am inclined to agree and appreciate this insight of his, though I would appreciate to read how he defined it.

"Why do you say that?"

On a superficial level, have you heard about the different interpretations on Nietzsche's sexuality etc? Some believe he never ever had sex(though that in itself doesn't necessarily mean he would be incabale to comment on sexuality with insights, but rahercregarding the reasons why some believe Nietzsche's lifelong virginity to be true), others say he was once with a prostitute and contracted syphilis (something I highly doubt), and some say he might have been homosexual. I would say because of Nietzsche's way of approaching women is my main concern though. I once read a biography of Nietzsche and laughed myself to death almost when I read Nietzsche's letter about how he liked Lou-Andreas Salome but that when it comes to marriage, he wanted his friend to tell her that he might consider it, but at max (!)for two years! As if more than two years with a woman in a marriage would be unendurable. That was hilarious to read. Also, even though Nietzsche too sometimes had profound insights in women and in the relationship between the opposite sexes and in a woman's relation to another woman etc. I would say that I most often disagree with his view on women.

"What do you mean by chastity being tyrannical or pharasaic?"
I am talking about a certain type of forced chastity that is mainly just self-torture for the sake of it or a misdirected energy and about some religious people's condemning attitude towards sex in its totality, losing the insight about the holy nature that also can exist in sex.

Even though I am not a fan of Aquinas philosophy, I don't object to it that much. It is rather his theology that I really dislike.

"Well I can't instantly read that book, so that's why I'm relying on this conversation. In the Meaning of the Creative Act, it seems that Berdyaev, to the contrary, presupposes that some degree of religious asceticism / morality is needed to fuel one's creativity. For example, he discusses about sublimating the sexual drive (which he identifies as fundamental) and channeling it towards creative endeavours. If one indulges in the sex drive, then one is left without energy to be creative. So the two seem to be intimately related. Why does he change his mind?"

Correct, that was his view in the Destiny of Man too. But you see how the purpose here is to create, not to seek salvation. Nietzsche too reasoned like Berdyaev that sublimating the sexual drive can be fundamental for the creative act. Though except that, Nietzsche is probably not the best to seek advice from regarding questions about sex

"In cruel holiness, in their Heavens of Chastity & Uncircumcision"

Regarding that; I don't know. It is hard sometines to read things without considering the context, the situation of the church of England during the times that Blake were living in etc. I still find some profoundly enlightened things in Blake that he discovered and obviously experienced. Reading him is like meeting someone who has stayed eternally young, with the spirit of a creative child. Chastity can definitely be tyrannical and pharasaic, so it all depends on how Blake understood chastity. But I give you this: He was certainly not what one would call "orthodox"

"Someone cannot be a Christian and encourage adultery and sin like Blake. That sort of double standard just does not work - a good tree does not produce bad fruit."
I agree, but I think you must read Blake differently than as a simple man advocating sin for the sake of it. For him, sin was to reject life and vitality, sin was to embrace nothingness. It wasn't just simply a moral violation.
Regarding Berdyaev's view on creativity, they can co-exist, but that is rare, not rule. Read his Destiny of Man for an explanation, it was his thought, not mine. Regarding him calling himself "Nietzschean-Christian", I am still looking for the place where I found it.
"It's not up to us to speculate who is in Heaven and who isn't though.", I completely agree.
Nietzsche wrote in Daybreak: “In this book faith in morality is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality!" This means that morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of morality he retains and employs.

As once again Berdyaev said about Nietzsche :
"And yet all the same I know of nothing more monstrous in its inner untruth, than to connect Nietzsche with the modern militaristic Germany. This means -- to read the alphabetic letters, without understanding the meaning of the words. They know Nietzsche only through certain fragmented aphorisms, turned round in reverse and filled with shoddy nuances, they read through and ponder on too little in him, and sense not his spirit and his fate."

There is a reason why Freud said of Nietzsche that no man in history has ever had a greater understanding of himself and man than Nietzsche. And that very likely no man in the future will ever reach the insights and the understanding Nietzsche reached.

One moral problem that I find in christianity, is that man is not a causa sui. That christianity admits, yet it seems to me that christianity's insistence then on making man morally responsible for everything becomes a contradiction. Something similar I believe was also one of Nietzsche's arguments when he criticized the doctrine of free will and christianity's insistence on defending it. Now this is my question and not Nietzsche's: How can I be responsible for everything if God is the one creating me without my consent for example?

And here is a quote from Berdyaev that I agree with: “Kant is a profoundly Christian thinker, more so than Thomas Aquinas,”

In Berdyaev's work Destiny of Man, as well as in his autobiography, he advocates for two paths in life: The path of creativity, the path chosen by artists Most often; musicians, writers, painters etc. And the path of salvation. Both leads to heaven in the end in his view. And you can rarely choose both at the same time. And he couldn't accept the thought that Nietzsche and other brilliant men were in hell. . And as the article I will Link here correctly claims, Berdyaev was in a very true sense a Nietzschean, who at least could correctly critizise Nietzsche: "He is a compelling writer, a Nietzschean whose critique of Nietzsche is sharper than a blade"
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4768

From the same article:
"In striving for redemption, however, the individual easily distorts the grace to which his struggle responds; he then becomes a Puritan, like Henrik Ibsen’s priest-fanatic in Brand, or like convinced Communists and multiculturalists. As Berdyaev remarks, Jesus kept company, not with the perfecti, but with taxmen, tavern-keepers, harlots, and thieves.(...)Berdyaev remains today one of the most radical of Twentieth Century philosophers. He must offend liberal and libertarian, militant atheist and Christian literalist alike. For all that Berdyaev shares with Nietzsche, he will offend those, and they are many, who have turned Nietzsche into one of the idols of the Götzendämmerung. "

Now when I read Aquinas, I find his outlook to too often keep Company with the "perfecti". Berdyaev is violent in his critique against the view of hell that was advocated by people like John Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin.

"That wasn't my impression at all"
Lol then you havent read or understood Berdyaev either. He sometimes even referred to himself as a "Nietzschean-Christian"

"It's what reason means for the Enlightenment"
I hope you know what Nietzsche thought about the enlightenment and what it did to man's ability and possibility to reach authentic religiosity and transcendence. Read Berdyaev's biography that he himself wrote, where he talks about the almost rage he felt when religious people mocked Nietzsche. And read what is considered his greatest work: "Destiny of Man". In it, Berdyaev sees Aquinas intellectual greatness, something I don't deny, but quite clearly finds his reasoning to often be sadistic.

http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1915_189.html

I am not talking about Dostoevsky's objevtions towards ideologies of his time, even though that is a natural consequence of his view of MAN. Partly his insight that man is irrational.

From the article of Berdyaev I linked:

"Truly in the spirit of Nietzsche there was more of the Slav, than the German: in him there is something end-like, final, already flown beyond the bounds of culture, going beyond the religious limit, akin to our Dostoevsky. And how close Nietzsche was, by his pathos, to the Russian religious searchings!(...) Zarathustra -- is the path of Man and the tragic fate of Man, of the human spirit in its ascent to the heights. This -- is a thankless and heroic path, in which man takes upon himself all the burden of suffering and all the difficulty of passage along as yet undisclosed mountain passes. In Zarathustra there is a spirit grasping towards the heights, there is a mountainous austherity, sacrificial in its unique asceticism.(...)Nietzsche, certainly, was not a pacifist, and indeed he need not be. Dostoevsky sang hymns to the spirit of war in quite more literal a sense, than did Nietzsche.(...)The martial and triumphant pathos of Nietzsche is profoundest a manifestation of spirit, and not a preaching of Prussian militarism. He had no desire to beget super-junkers. 'If ye cannot be zealous strivers of knowledge, then in extreme measure be its warriors'. 'Seek out your enemy, seek not his soldier to know -- but rather his thoughts!' 'I call you not to labour, but to struggle. I call you not to peace, but to victories. Let your toil be struggle and your peace victorious!' 'It is fine to be brave'. Here is what Zarathustra spake. He taught about war, about struggle and the victory of the brave, as the path towards the supra-human condition, as the surmounting of the merely human condition. This -- is a forging of the will, a steeling of the spirit, an eternal symbolism of spiritual power and firmness. And may God grant us this power and firmness."

I am not an enemy of morality in itself. I am against the completely moral outlook on existence and of the universe, as if life is a moral problem and the solution is a moral one. I am also against understanding all things morally and agree with Kierkegaard who said that rationality and moral interpetations of everything often causes people to sink in to either despair or impotence. Morality, as you seem to look at it; what is its purpose? What is its goals?
When Nietzsche threw himself over the horse that was being beaten by its owner, crying out with tears "stop beating the horse!", it was a christian act made by Nietzsche, inwardly as well as outwardly. And it wasn't what I would call a moral act, but an act of true love, of deep understanding and compassion. And it was an instinct, without interference from the intellect. The gospel is neither a Court of law nor a Book of morality IMO. If it has any right to claim itself to be True, it must be about True love, creativity, spontanity, freedom, strength, nobility, courage, honesty and affirmation of life in the HERE and NOW, not only in the life to come. I didnt like Chesterton's criticism of Nietzsche, he gives the impression (even though I doubt it is true) of someone who just had a cursory glance on Nietzsche and dismissed him immediately. If you want to look at someone who actually had the RIGHT to criticize Nietzsche, I recommend to you Berdyaev. He had a great understanding of Nietzsche, and he admired him and considered him one one of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived. He at least understood Nietzsche, admired him, was greatly influenced by him, and yet believed in Christ. And he too was sceptical and critical towards Aquinas. Btw, regarding Notes from Underground; I guess you dismissed the message there as false and untrue?

To me, your worship of the concepts "Righteousness" and "morality" sounds too lawful. Like the scribes sometimes. I dont mean to be rude when I say this, because I dont think you are dishonest and hypocritical. But I dont feel I can make it possible for us to understand each other. When I talk about making possible the impossible, I am talking about what is the whole core point of the writings of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky. While I find men as Aquinas, Calvin etc to be moral monsters that even naturalize the supernatural. In other words, Kierkegaard for example had a där better understanding of the core message of the gospels than did Aquinas, who remained in the ethical sphere, no matter how much he tried to define doctrines and dogmas such as "grace", "faith", "redemption", and the "supernatural" and their relation to the natural world.

I absolutely do NOT agree with you about Plato inventing Nietzsche long before Nietzsche.

Just to make my admiration of Nietzsche clear : How a christian that admires Dostoevsky and Kiekegaard for example (which I do too), can for example prefer Aquinas and Plato to Nietzsche, I can't understand. I dont quite understand that...
Have you read Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky? There he says that man gives up as soon as he encounters the impossible . By impossible he means the "Stone wall". This wall is Natural science, mathematics, reason, rationality etc. What can take man over this wall? God and faith. Nietzsche thought this work of Dostoevsky spoke the truth about man and existence all the way through. What Kierkegaard call faith in form of the absurd is the same as climbing over Dostoevsky's stone wall. This Faith transcends according to Kierkegaard both reason/rationality and morality. It isnt concerned with it; because it goes beyond it (Beyond Good and Evil ). A proof is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son. Another one is Job. Nietzsche knew this too, but expressed it in other words, mainly because his philology was so good, perhaps too good for his own best. Kierkegaard says that the greatness of Job is that he was right all the way through: nothing is to be explained in moral or rational terms when it comes to suffering.
In my eyes, and certainly in Dostorvsky's too, men like Aquinas, Hegel, John Calvin etc. did not really understand the possibility of doing the impossible, because they worshiped morality, necessity and rationality to much. It appears to me that Calvin and Aquinas turned God Into the stone wall, rather than the One who makes it possible for man to climb over the stone wall. Job would have blamed Plato when he said "This world is constituted by the combination of reason and necessity", according to Kierkegaard. For Job, a promise of reward in the next life in his moment of suffering would not be enough, and that is also Nietzsche's great truth. And Nietzsche knew it from experience to be true. Kierkegaard's says that for Job, the ethical thinking is empty: its "you shall" is empty words, and its methaphysical comfort is a lie. Job's greatness is that his quest for True freedom is greater than all hope for reward etc. This is what Nietzsche knew and understood, and this is why I consider him far greater and closer to the truth than Aquinas, Calvin etc. And it is also why taking the sort of critique most christians direct on Nietzsche seriously is ridiculous, same with Russell's critique. And it is also why Chesterton in many of his attacks on Nietzsche lacked psychological AND philosophical (even religious) discernment

I need to sleep now but let me just comment on the quotes of Chesterton.
I agree that Chesterton, though certainly not on the level of Nietzsche, was a brilliant man. And this quote is the proof, I loved it:

"It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite inefensible compliments to Christianity. They talk as if there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came, a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk. Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners."

, "'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.'" Nietzsche Btw rejected Darwin's understanding of evolution. He called it shallow, especially the Idea of "survival of the fittest". Oh sorry. You really dont get Nietzsche. Read through his fragments of thoughts called "The Will To power". That is better than me writing 100 000 words to you without achieving anything. What you and I do now, is nothing but imposing our Will to power on each other. And the laughable Russell was wrong in calling Nietzsche a romantic. All men are not born with a senare of artistry and art. Russell was one of them. So his words means nothing. Nor his fantasy about universal love(being unfaithful to wifes he means?) or that Nietzsche in his THought was a coward filled with hatred. Certainly not. Have you btw heard this superficial philosopher's understanding of Jesus and comments on him? Be sincere I suggest! You wouldn't like his words on Christ. At least Nietzsche was honest in his likes and dislikes. That is at least some sort of boldness, instead of making up excuses as Russell did.

Chesterton is right that Nietzsche as a person was quite weak. Physicallt. So? Another proof Chesterton didnt understand him. Nietzsche was an outsider, Chesterton an insider. Russell was just conventional. Btw, explain to me Why interpreting the world morally is better than understanding it artistically. And explain to me What makes you think Chesterton and Russell are deep while Nietzsche is not. And also Aquinas.

Russell, who didnt understand not only Nietzsche, but also not Augustine, Kant, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, and christianity in its totality, is not to be talen seriously. That would be like calling Bentham or John Stuart Mill deep. There Btw you have to mediocer Philosophers not worthy to be called deep.

What Aquinas said and what he felt in his heart, and what you discover If you can more in depth understand What is the heart behind words, is something else. Something more in line with Nietzsche'a understanding. While Chesterton is deeprr and better than Russell in his comments, he lacks psychological discernment. I dont care to debate with you more. I know that I know something you dont in this, and I cant help you.

This says christianity: If man is sinful through and through, then he ought only to hate himself. Fundamentally, he would have to treat his fellow men on the
same basis as he treats himself; charity needs to be justified and its
justification lies in the fact that God has commanded it. Love man for God's sake in other words, not man. Man is a villain. Why Love man at all? Because God so commnds? Because of fear of punishment? It follows
from this, that all the natural instincts of man (the instinct of love etc.) appear to be forbidden in themselves and only after they have been denied are they restored to their rights on the basis of obedience to God. Look at Pascal, the admirable logician of Christianity, he did went so far!
Consider his relations to his sister. "Not to make oneself love" seemed
Christian to him.

How, under the impress of the ascetic morality of, it
was precisely the affects of love, goodness, pity, even those of
justice, magnanimity, heroism, that were necessarily misunderstood:

It is richness in personality, abundance in oneself, overflowing and
bestowing, instinctive good health and affirmation of oneself, that
produce great sacrifice and great love: it is strong and godlike
selfhood from which these affects grow, just as surely as did the desire
to become master, encroachment, the inner certainty of having a right to
everything. What according to common ideas are opposite dispositions are
rather one disposition; and if one is not firm and brave within oneself,
one has nothing to bestow and cannot stretch our one's hand to protect
and support. How was one able so to transform these instincts that man thought valuable that which was directed against his self? when he sacrificed
his self to another self. Oh the psychological wretchedness and
mendaciousness that has hitherto laid down the law in the church and in
church-infected philosophy!

It is very difficult to understand Nietzsche; he is so subtle, so deep, and so profound. It is beyond the reach of any idiotananda. Beyond the reach of most. You also need to be interested, brave and Independent to understand even a tiny fraction of his thoughts.

It is good that God has been discarded. Now man has to take his life in his own hands. And the beauty is, if you become responsible, responsible for yourself, if you declare your freedom – you have to declare it because God is dead; there is nobody higher than you – if you accept that now you have to seek and search your way, you have to grope for it on your own, life will take a new plunge into the depths of the unknown. Life will become again an adventure. Life will again be an ecstatic discovery of new facts, new truths, of new territories, of new peaks of joy.

And it is only by becoming an adventurer that you will come upon the new face of God – which will be far more true than the old, because it will be far more mature than the old.

Nietzsche remained in difficulty: on the one hand he continued to fight with the old God; on the other hand, in moments when he was not so strong, he became scared too.

Zarathustra says,

Away!

He himself fled

My last, only companion,

My great enemy,

My unknown,

My hangman-god.

No! Do come back

With all thy tortures!

To the last of all that are lonely

Oh, come back!

All my tear-streams run

Their course to thee;

And my heart’s final flame –

Flares up for thee!

Oh, come back,

My unknown god! My pain!

My last – happiness!

These words look almost insane: “My unknown god! My pain! My last happiness! Ah, come back!”

Nietzsche remained divided, split. One part of him was still afraid: “Maybe God IS alive”; maybe he was wrong. Who knows? How could one be certain about such profound matters? And he was the first to say it, so naturally he was scared. He wanted to get rid of the enemy. He called God ‘the enemy’, enemy of man, because God had been like a rock on the chest of man, that is What seems to be your so-called God. I am not talking about the God of Buddha, Jesus and Moses. I am talking about the God of the common masses, of the mob. Nietzsche is also talking about the mob.

The God of the crowds is an ugly concept: it shows much about your weaknesses, but shows nothing about the truth of existence. When you pray on your knees you simply show your weakness, not that you know what prayer is. When you go to the church you go to demand something, to beg for something. You simply show your beggarliness but nothing about God. Very few people have known the truth of God. Aquinas is not one of them. Nietzsche was close.

As You know, Zarathustra is entrusted by Nietzsche with the task of conveying the news of God’s death to the world.

As he starts on his journey he meets an old hermit, a saint. The saint tells Zarathustra that he himself loves God but not man, because man is too imperfect. Zarathustra replies that he loves man, and then he asks the saint what he is doing in the forest. The saint replies, “I make songs and sing them; and when I make songs I laugh, cry, and hum: thus I praise God.”

The two separate, laughing like young boys. But when Zarathustra is alone again he wonders to himself, “Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!”

The old saint says he loves God, not man because man is imperfect, and Zarathustra says he loves man, and God is dead… As it seems to me, obviously, in the depth of his heart, the common Christian, with very few exceptions(Aquinas NOT being an exception), is Zarathustra's hermit saint.

In order to try to make You understand now, after you apparently have read Nietzsche, I would be forced to write a book in order to even hope you would understand. Though I am not rejecting the Idea of eventually actually writing a book about it. A book that once and for all eliminates misunderstandings and prejudices concerning Nietzsche and places him Where he deserves to be placed, that would be a great thing. A dream even.

That doesn't speak to your advantage. So You are a philosopher? Self-proclaimed or professional? Name these philosophers that are your friends. I am sure there are people who think as stupidly as you about this, the opposite would be surprising.
If Nietzsche cant even make you understand him, what makes You think I could? I lack faith in it.

Well. I don't care what you think. But I don't understand what you do on a philosophy forum. You give the impression of someone who either lies and says he has read something he hasn't, but in reality has just read poor second sources, or as someone who simply aren't capable of understanding in depth what he actually encounters in a text. In any case, an actor who pretends, either willingly or not: A Don Quijote perhaps? But that is not an insult...

Hah. Well it is obvious you find Nietzsche either offensive or someone you simply dont understand. You dont understand the depth in "Eternity in a moment" and "The marriage between light and darkeness". You need artistry for this. Not just moral prejudice or a dry-headed intellect. That his statement that his works are not for everyone is true is obvious when one observers your understanding of him even AFTER you have read his works