What can we learn when Nietzsche preaches Pilate ... ?

2PhiloVoid · Feb 7, 2021

As a Christian who takes various educational cues from philosophers of all kinds in order to scour the landscape of human thought for God's Truth, a particular cue I've taken is from Christian philosopher, Merold Westphal, who is a favorite of mine.

One of Westphal's books is titled, Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism (1998). In that book, Westphal digs into the central themes of critique about religion proposed by Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Although we won't necessarily be digging into this book for this thread, I am giving Westphal a nod for the fact that it was his book which helped me to generate the most essential notion for this thread.

With that cue, I'm instead offering for us to read together and possibly discuss a brief essay from the online Christian journal, First Things. The name of the article is Nietszche's Pilate by Mark Bauerlein. I present this article as a reminder about the things pertaining to Christ that we Christians, together, know and affirm. I also present this article as a clearer example of the kind of work that Christian Philosophers can aspire to doing as we all attempt to meet the modern world where it is ...

... the article itself likely won't take more than 10 - 15 minutes for anyone to read. Enjoy!

Nietzsche’s Pilate | Mark Bauerlein

WonbyOneanddone · Feb 7, 2021

Here is my favorite quote on truth

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Winston Churchill

jacks · Feb 7, 2021

Very good article, thanks for sharing. I have nothing of substance to add to it, but it does highlight how easy it is criticize, (..."on the lips of every college sophomore") but hard to come up with better solutions. As the article quotes: “irony in a strict sense can never set forth a thesis” (Kierkegaard, The Concept of Irony, with Constant Reference to Socrates). When I was an atheist I used to play all these philosophical games, their ultimate emptiness is what turned me to The Truth.

zippy2006 · Feb 7, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Nietzsche’s Pilate | Mark Bauerlein

It's an interesting piece. The confrontation between Pilate and Jesus in John 18 is certainly capable of capturing the imagination:

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

I find it notable that John's portrayal of Jesus heightens the contrast, for in John's gospel we encounter a Jesus who is far above the riff-raff of the accusers and enforcers, just as Pilate is far above the riff-raff of the masses (e.g. John 18:6; John 18:23).

Bauerlein said:
If Pilate’s remark is so ruinous to the Christian story, why does it appear in the text?

[...]

There is no end to their irony. It can be halted only by forces deeper than words: devotion, conviction, sacrifice.

Keeping to the text, we surprisingly receive no indication that Pilate's irony was ever halted. Perhaps some Pilates will never be deterred, but I think Bauerlein is right to think that some will be, and that "forces deeper than words" will do that work.

I wonder what those forces are, aside from "devotion, conviction, and sacrifice"? Would they be different for Pilate, Nietzsche, and the modern cynic?

jacks · Feb 7, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Keeping to the text, we surprisingly receive no indication that Pilate's irony was ever halted. Perhaps some Pilates will never be deterred, but I think Bauerlein is right to think that some will be, and that "forces deeper than words" will do that work.

I wonder what those forces are, aside from "devotion, conviction, and sacrifice"? Would they be different for Pilate, Nietzsche, and the modern cynic?

Perhaps the "forces" are merely the emptiness and limitations of their current philosophies? Keep asking questions and eventually you will find God.

2PhiloVoid · Feb 7, 2021

WonbyOneanddone said:
Here is my favorite quote on truth

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

Winston Churchill

That's a relevant quote from Churchill, WbOad! It seems to fit the form of Pilate's response appropriately.

Thanks!

2PhiloVoid · Feb 7, 2021

jacks said:
Very good article, thanks for sharing. I have nothing of substance to add to it, but it does highlight how easy it is criticize, (..."on the lips of every college sophomore") but hard to come up with better solutions. As the article quotes: “irony in a strict sense can never set forth a thesis” (Kierkegaard, The Concept of Irony, with Constant Reference to Socrates). When I was an atheist I used to play all these philosophical games, their ultimate emptiness is what turned me to The Truth.

It's amazing to hear that you were able to come to a point of realization that philosophical games have limits and you could still encounter Truth in Christ. That's a blessing, especially since, as you brought up in highlight from the article, it's "hard to come up with better solutions."

When you were trudging through the philosophical swamps of atheism, did your own skeptical stance at the time comport with that of Pilate and Nietzsche?

jacks · Feb 7, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
When you were trudging through the philosophical swamps of atheism, did your own skeptical stance at the time comport with that of Pilate and Nietzsche?

It was a very convoluted journey to say the least. However, I certainly did pass through the skeptical/critical stance of Nietzsche. And hopefully this won't sound too arrogant, but it was one of the least theologically mature stages I went through. It is very easy to be cynical and to question everything with "whataboutisms" but it doesn't take you very far down the path, sort of speak. It might perhaps be a necessary starting point however, and I do see it as a common atheistic approach that our current society embraces; probably because they really aren't interested in finding the truth. (In a sense like Winston Churchills quote from @onebyoneanddone above.)

2PhiloVoid · Feb 7, 2021

zippy2006 said:
It's an interesting piece. The confrontation between Pilate and Jesus in John 18 is certainly capable of capturing the imagination:

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

I find it notable that John's portrayal of Jesus heightens the contrast, for in John's gospel we encounter a Jesus who is far above the riff-raff of the accusers and enforcers, just as Pilate is far above the riff-raff of the masses (e.g. John 18:6; John 18:23).

Yes, it's an interesting piece, even though it's also (conveniently) a fairly short one.

You bring up an interesting point about the status of both Jesus and Pilate in relation to the riff-raff of the masses. Do you think Nietzsche's interest in Pilate has anything to do with this point you're noting?

Keeping to the text, we surprisingly receive no indication that Pilate's irony was ever halted. Perhaps some Pilates will never be deterred, but I think Bauerlein is right to think that some will be, and that "forces deeper than words" will do that work.

I suppose there would have to be, and from some of the small indicators Bauerlein expresses in his thinking about the skeptical musings of the many Pilates among us, there seems to be a necessity for it.

I wonder what those forces are, aside from "devotion, conviction, and sacrifice"? Would they be different for Pilate, Nietzsche, and the modern cynic?

I'm thinking that Kierkegaard, if he were to have lived long enough to weigh-in, might have had a little more to say about the forces you're referring to than what Bauerlein's quick quote implies. But on the level of personalization, I'd have to read the whole of Kierkegaard's, Concept of Irony, in order to say more. But then again, he's not the only one whose mind we could tap in order to consider what those additional forces could be, right?

2PhiloVoid · Feb 8, 2021

jacks said:
It was a very convoluted journey to say the least. However, I certainly did pass through the skeptical/critical stance of Nietzsche. And hopefully this won't sound too arrogant, but it was one of the least theologically mature stages I went through.

No, that doesn't sound arrogant at all to me.

It is very easy to be cynical and to question everything with "whataboutisms" but it doesn't take you very far down the path, sort of speak. It might perhaps be a necessary starting point however, and I do see it as a common atheistic approach that our current society embraces; probably because they really aren't interested in finding the truth. (In a sense like Winston Churchills quote from @onebyoneanddone above.)

I hear you. I've never gotten more than ankle deep into Nietzsche's works or into his nihilistic mode of thought myself, but I've met a few at college who did. To say the least, I wasn't overly impressed with their positions on morality and reality. It sounded to me like all gripe and little substance. This isn't to say that Neitzsche didn't have a few interesting ideas (like his 'Eternal Return), but on the whole, I'd say that, cliche notwithstanding, there was essentially nothing in his "Pilate Light" that I thought was very realistic.

Still, I do understand his existentially laden difficulty with handling the singular concept of "Truth," as he does through Pilate. I've tended to ask a similar question "What is the nature of Truth?," but I've done so more in line with some of the existentially relational notions about the qualities of Truth bounced around by Kierkegaard and alluded to in some ways by Pascal, all without the veneer of snark that Nietzsche had. In thinkng against the grain of Pilate's elitist manhandling of truth rather than offering an actual inquiry, I think it's interesting that Bauerlein says "that’s not what Pilate really intends. He’s not an epistemologist—Nietzsche wouldn’t like him if he were." ... hmmm.

Nietzsche wouldn't like Pilate if he thought Pilate was an epistemologist? How strange.

jacks · Feb 8, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
I've tended to ask a similar question "What is the nature of Truth?,"

I think this is a natural question that every philosopher must try to address at some point. When I was "searching" I came up with "Truth is an absolute that is constantly changing". To be honest I'm not sure what I meant by this, but it pointed to the real problem. What do/can we really know? If as Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" or all we can really know is what is personally and immediately apprehensible, then how can we say what any Absolute/Universal Truth is?

BTW My comment still sounded arrogant to me. I should probably not have said the skeptical/critical stance of Nietzsche was "the least theologically mature stages..." it just because of my personal circumstances and upbringing it was one that I went through early on. Perhaps not really a maturity issue.

2PhiloVoid · Feb 8, 2021

jacks said:
I think this is a natural question that every philosopher must try to address at some point. When I was "searching" I came up with "Truth is an absolute that is constantly changing". To be honest I'm not sure what I meant by this, but it pointed to the real problem. What do/can we really know? If as Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" or all we can really know is what is personally and immediately apprehensible, then how can we say what any Absolute/Universal Truth is?

That's always a perennial question I think. Or at least it is until any of us feels that we've finally met with Christ, then we've reached a state of confidence, even if not absolutely from our Subjective, personal viewpoint.

BTW My comment still sounded arrogant to me. I should probably not have said the skeptical/critical stance of Nietzsche was "the least theologically mature stages..." it just because of my personal circumstances and upbringing it was one that I went through early on. Perhaps not really a maturity issue.

Perhaps it does sound a little arrogant to say that Nietzsche's kind of skepticim is the 'least theologically mature stages' one might be in. But then again, your comment might be salvaged by me through simply saying that maybe it's not so much arrogant as it is a kind of categorical mistake. Then yet again, if we buddy your comment up to Scripture, to something that Paul said, like Ephesians 4:13-15---then maybe your comment can be forgiven (?)

2PhiloVoid · Feb 9, 2021

zippy2006 said:
It's an interesting piece. The confrontation between Pilate and Jesus in John 18 is certainly capable of capturing the imagination:

So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

I find it notable that John's portrayal of Jesus heightens the contrast, for in John's gospel we encounter a Jesus who is far above the riff-raff of the accusers and enforcers, just as Pilate is far above the riff-raff of the masses (e.g. John 18:6; John 18:23).

Capturing the imagination it most certainly can. Unfortunately, it seems to do so less and less of late.

Keeping to the text, we surprisingly receive no indication that Pilate's irony was ever halted. Perhaps some Pilates will never be deterred, but I think Bauerlein is right to think that some will be, and that "forces deeper than words" will do that work.

I wonder what those forces are, aside from "devotion, conviction, and sacrifice"? Would they be different for Pilate, Nietzsche, and the modern cynic?

If you have the inclination to offer up what you think some of the other forces may be, please feel free to share them, Zippy. I'm not really looking to come up with all of the answers, let alone exhaustive answers, by myself here in this thread.

You post a great question, really. What additional forces do we surmise might be needed to pursuade each of the following in their own respective mileau?

Pilate : ___________X__________________

Nietzsche: ___________X__________________

The Modern Cynic: ___________X__________________

zippy2006 · Feb 10, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
You post a great question, really. What additional forces do we surmise might be needed to pursuade each of the following in their own respective mileau?

Thanks, I think it could be an interesting discussion, too. It would also be interesting to discuss how the realities Bauerlein noted: devotion, conviction, and sacrifice, could reach the heart and consideration of someone like Nietzsche.

I am going to take a bit of a break from CF, but I will think about this while I am away and get back to you eventually.

WonbyOneanddone · Feb 11, 2021

Nietzsche, to his credit, understood that if he were to reject Christianity, he should at least reject the morals of the said religion or play the hypocrite. At the end of his life he was working on just that but never completed it. He viewed men like Marx as having rejected Christ, but still trying to embrace the morals of Christ, such as wanting to help the poor. Nietzsche had no concern for the poor.

But at the end of the day, the philosophy of Marx led to world governments that slaughtered hundreds of millions, and the philosophy of Nietzsche was embraced by Hitler and slaughtered millions. This shows how rejecting Christ, even if you embrace some of his truths, leads to utter destruction because they reject the source of truth. When Jesus was asked by Pilate what the truth was, he told him. I am the truth. It went right over Pilates head, as it does most readers. In the mind of Pilate, that was not answering the question, but Christ did just that.

So why does rejecting Christ lead to such utter devastation even if you try to embrace the morality of Christ? It think it all boils down to who and what you serve. If you serve yourself, you will then twist your ideology to serve yourself, even if it has Christian leanings. Ultimately, serving yourself will help very few people other than yourself. Conversely, serving Christ is a focus on serving Christ, which is to serve others. Before Christ, the world was not much into helping those in need. In fact, you might say that Christ was a game changer in that regard. Before Christ came into the world, charity was unheard of. But just like Marx, the world systems have embraced Christian like morals in wanting to help the poor, but have ultimately rejected Christ. This is why we see these same societies murdering babies by the millions, that some so called Christians call reproductive justice, like the preacher Warnock who just got elected to Georgia. For you see, Warnock serves the a political party, not God.

Sad.

WonbyOneanddone · Feb 11, 2021

To find the truth, ask yourself this question

Does the truth hurt? If not, you may want to keep looking. Truth is like a double edged sword in that it MUST show you how you err because we all do.

Is truth your own personal weapon? If so, you have not found the truth. Again, you don't own the truth and the truth has no interest in adding to your worldly power. More than likely, you are just using elements of the truth to help yourself while rejecting the other elements you see as not deleterious to your worldly position.

And the later is how I see Pilate. Pilate is only interested in the truth, so much as it can facilitate a better worldly position. For Pilate, choosing truth and then meeting the fate of those who followed Christ, all of whom were martyred for their faith, was unacceptable. Now had Christ offered Pilate a better job, for example, he would have probably embraced him

Magnanimity · Feb 11, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Nietszche's Pilate by Mark Bauerlein

I enjoyed reading the article. Thanks for recommending it. I used to subscribe to First Things way back in the day when Neuhaus was the editor.

As to the substance of the essay, I'll admit I'm a little conflicted. On the one hand, I get what he's saying when critiquing the ironist and seeing Pilate as a consummate ironist of the powerful Roman empire 2,000 years ago. There is truth in saying, as Augustine scholar James K.A. Smith has, "the ironist is our last hero. The ironist is the one who sees through everything and knowingly insulates himself/herself from caring. And that ironist becomes a certain saint to exemplify."

The author Bauerlein goes in a lot of directions in this brief essay. I don't love what he has to say about Socrates. I think Socrates definitely had his projects, not least of which was getting folks around him to admit the existence of the Forms (Universals), one important example of which is virtue itself. In these projects, Socrates was quite serious.

But, I like what Bauerlein says about Shakespeare, and I think it's spot on. Shakespeare certainly plays that roll, at least in his comedies. His comedic plays are an attempt to transcend the folly of ordinary existence and poke fun at our seriousness. But in a way, that's what I see as kind of crucial about the ironist. I think cultures need ironists. Maybe I don't want ironists to be ubiquitous. I don't want a whole generation of them. Probably, I don't want them occupying high positions of government power like Pilate did.

But, ironists seem to me to be necessary. Cultures need them. They help us to not take ourselves or our beliefs too seriously. They help us to see that the universe is not riding on whether or not we get it all right. They help us to take a step back, relax and appreciate our own finitude. The ironist is a counter-measure against my own sense of self-importance. Isn't there something laudable about the ability to transcend it all and "see through everything?" Seems to me that we need such people. They have value, maybe immense value.

One last thought. I love the final words of Christ in that passage to which Pilate responds with his famous "what is truth?" Jesus says, "Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." If you belong to the truth, you can hear Him. That's comforting and perhaps a superior transcendence to that of the ironist.

2PhiloVoid · Feb 11, 2021

WonbyOneanddone said:
To find the truth, ask yourself this question

Does the truth hurt? If not, you may want to keep looking. Truth is like a double edged sword in that it MUST show you how you err because we all do.

Is truth your own personal weapon? If so, you have not found the truth. Again, you don't own the truth and the truth has no interest in adding to your worldly power. More than likely, you are just using elements of the truth to help yourself while rejecting the other elements you see as not deleterious to your worldly position.

And the later is how I see Pilate. Pilate is only interested in the truth, so much as it can facilitate a better worldly position. For Pilate, choosing truth and then meeting the fate of those who followed Christ, all of whom were martyred for their faith, was unacceptable. Now had Christ offered Pilate a better job, for example, he would have probably embraced him

These are some great comments, and I think that this and your previous post accentuate some very apt aspects of the encounter between Pilate and Jesus, and I appreciate your having shared your own evaluation of this with us. You said that you think Pilate was most interested in truth as a facilitator of his own worldly position. I supposed Pilate was akin in mind and heart to the Young Rich Ruler whom Jesus elsewhere told to "let go of all you have."

What do you think would need to take place in Pilate's mind or experience for him to see Jesus as Peter saw Him?

2PhiloVoid · Feb 11, 2021

@Magnanimity

Magnanimity said:
I enjoyed reading the article. Thanks for recommending it. I used to subscribe to First Things way back in the day when Neuhaus was the editor.

I'm glad you found the article interesting, M. Personally, I haven't read many things from First Things, but I was introduced to this publication by a philosophical friend here on CF who goes by the name of @Silmarien.

As to the substance of the essay, I'll admit I'm a little conflicted. On the one hand, I get what he's saying when critiquing the ironist and seeing Pilate as a consummate ironist of the powerful Roman empire 2,000 years ago. There is truth in saying, as Augustine scholar James K.A. Smith has, "the ironist is our last hero. The ironist is the one who sees through everything and knowingly insulates himself/herself from caring. And that ironist becomes a certain saint to exemplify."

Oh, I understand where you're coming from in your evaluation of Bauerlein's article. I also found the article to be short of being incisive and fully touching upon the deeper nuances of Nietzsche's (and the literary Pilate's?) idiosyncratic, philosophical proclivities. I'm familiar with James K.A. Smith and I appreciate your reference to him. I don't think I've yet come across the comments on irony Smith has made which you brought up, but I think they'd certainly be relevant in helping us flesh out what Bauerlein tried to cull out.

The author Bauerlein goes in a lot of directions in this brief essay. I don't love what he has to say about Socrates. I think Socrates definitely had his projects, not least of which was getting folks around him to admit the existence of the Forms (Universals), one important example of which is virtue itself. In these projects, Socrates was quite serious.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure Bauerlein was presenting the ironic qualities of Socrates' argumentation style, In fact, I wish Bauerlein had brought in more of Kierkegaard's exposition regarding Socratic irony from The Concept of Irony; Kierkegaard had more to say about this than what the all too brief quip expressed which Bauerlein quotes. Still, on a scant introductory level, I think Bauerlein does well enough to open the box of inquiry on Nietszche's mental harboring on Pilate's indifference toward the Johannine figure of Jesus.

But, I like what Bauerlein says about Shakespeare, and I think it's spot on. Shakespeare certainly plays that roll, at least in his comedies. His comedic plays are an attempt to transcend the folly of ordinary existence and poke fun at our seriousness. But in a way, that's what I see as kind of crucial about the ironist. I think cultures need ironists. Maybe I don't want ironists to be ubiquitous. I don't want a whole generation of them. Probably, I don't want them occupying high positions of government power like Pilate did.

I think you're right about Bauerlein's reference to Shakespeare, and you likely know more about this angle than I do. I will say this—I like irony. I like using irony. But while I like using irony, I'd like to avoid becoming an irony. Then too, I fully sympathize with your concern that an army of autocratic ironists would prove to be a terrible headache for everyone.

But, ironists seem to me to be necessary. Cultures need them. They help us to not take ourselves or our beliefs too seriously. They help us to see that the universe is not riding on whether or not we get it all right. They help us to take a step back, relax and appreciate our own finitude. The ironist is a counter-measure against my own sense of self-importance. Isn't there something laudable about the ability to transcend it all and "see through everything?" Seems to me that we need such people. They have value, maybe immense value.

Well, if ironists truly have this kind of x-ray vision that can expose social structures as they are, then sign me up! The only caveat in my having any enthusiasm in this is that I'm not a big fan of drinking hemlock, which from what I've come to understand, can at times accompany the use profound irony.

One last thought. I love the final words of Christ in that passage to which Pilate responds with his famous "what is truth?" Jesus says, "Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." If you belong to the truth, you can hear Him. That's comforting and perhaps a superior transcendence to that of the ironist.

That's a good point, M! But do you think Nietszche was an ironist, too, as Baeurlein thinks Pilate might have been?

WonbyOneanddone · Feb 11, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
These are some great comments, and I think that this and your previous post accentuate some very apt aspects of the encounter between Pilate and Jesus, and I appreciate your having shared your own evaluation of this with us. You said that you think Pilate was most interested in truth as a facilitator of his own worldly position. I supposed Pilate was akin in mind and heart to the Young Rich Ruler whom Jesus elsewhere told to "let go of all you have."

What do you think would need to take place in Pilate's mind or experience for him to see Jesus as Peter saw Him?

That is an interesting question. What would make Pilate view or follow Jesus the way Peter did? Add to that fact that Peter disavowed even knowing Jesus once to save his own skin, and the question becomes even harder.

I dunno. How's that for waxing philosophical?

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps we should ask why the heart of Peter was fertile ground to accept Christ while the heart of Pilate was not.

What can we learn when Nietzsche preaches Pilate ... ?

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Active Member

Er Victus

Dragonsworn

Er Victus

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Er Victus

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Er Victus

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Dragonsworn

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Active Member

Similar threads