Nietzsche vs. Christianity

[foolsparade]

I am curious as too the opinions of you fine decent moral people about the passage below. Has this been the consequence of Christianity? From FN's last book "ECCE HOMO"

Have I been understood?— What defines me, what sets me apart from the whole rest of humanity is that I uncovered Christian morality. That is why I needed a word that had the meaning of a provocation for everybody. That they did not open their eyes earlier at this point, I regard as the greatest uncleanliness that humanity has on its conscience, as self-deception become instinctive, as a fundamental will not to see any event, any causality, any reality, as counterfeiting in psychologicis to the point of criminality. Blindness to Christianity is the crime par excellence—the crime against life ... The millennia, the nations, the first and the last, the philosophers and old women—excepting five, six moments in history, and me as the seventh—at this point all of them are worthy of each other.

The Christian has so far been the "moral being," a matchless curiosity—and as the "moral being" he was more absurd, mendacious, vain, frivolous, and more disadvantageous for himself than even the greatest despiser of humanity could imagine in his dreams. Christian morality—the most malignant form of the will to lie, the real Circe of humanity: that which corrupted it. It is not error as error that horrifies me at this sight, not the lack, for thousands of years, of "good will," discipline, decency, courage in matters of the spirit, revealed by its victory:—it is the lack of nature, it is the utterly gruesome fact that antinature itself received the highest honors as morality and was fixed over humanity as law and categorical imperative! ...

To blunder to such an extent, not as individuals, not as a people, but as humanity! ... That one taught men to despise the very first instincts of life; that one mendaciously invented a "soul," a "spirit" to ruin the body; that one taught men to experience the presupposition of life, sexuality, as something unclean; that one looks for the evil principle in what is most profoundly necessary for growth, in severe self-love this very word constitutes slander! that, conversely, one regards the typical signs of decline and contradiction of the instincts, the "selfless," the loss of a center of gravity, "depersonalization" and "neighbor love" (addiction to the neighbor!) as the higher value, what am I saying! the absolute value ... What! Is humanity itself décadent? was it always?—

What is certain is that it has been taught only décadence values as supreme values. The morality that would un-self man is the morality of decline par excellence—the fact, "I'm perishing," transposed into the imperative, "all of you ought to perish"—and not only into the imperative! ... This only morality that has been taught so far, the morality of un-selfing, reveals a will to the end, fundamentally, it negates life.

The uncovering of Christian morality is an event without parallel, a real catastrophe. He that is enlightened about that, is a force majeure, a destiny,—he breaks the history of mankind in two. One lives before him, one lives after him ... The lightning bolt of truth struck precisely what was the highest so far: let whoever comprehends what has here been destroyed see whether anything is left in his hands. Everything, that has hitherto been called "truth," has been recognized as the most harmful, insidious, and subterranean form of lie; the holy pretext of "improving" mankind, as the ruse for sucking the blood of life itself. Morality as vampirism ...

Whoever uncovers morality also uncovers the disvalue of all values that are and have been believed; he no longer sees anything venerable in the most venerated types of man, even in those pronounced holy, he considers them the most calamitous type of abortion, calamitous because they exerted such fascination ... The concept of "God" invented as a counterconcept of life,—everything harmful, poisonous, slanderous, the whole hostility unto death against life synthesized in this concept in a gruesome unity! The concept of the "beyond," the "true world" invented in order to devaluate the only world there is,—in order to retain no goal, no reason, no task for our earthly reality! The concept of the "soul," the "spirit," finally even "immortal soul," invented in order to despise the body, to make it sick—"holy"—to oppose with a ghastly levity everything that deserves to be taken seriously in life, the questions of nourishment, abode, spiritual diet, treatment of the sick, cleanliness, and weather! In place of health, the "salvation of the soul"—that is a folie circulaire [manic-depressive insanity] between penitential convulsions and hysteria about redemption! The concept of "sin" invented along with the torture instrument that belongs with it, the concept of "free will," in order to confuse the instincts, to make mistrust of the instincts second nature! In the concept of the "selfless," the "self-denier," the distinctive sign of décadence, feeling attracted by what is harmful, not being able to find any longer what profits one, self-destruction is turned into the sign of value itself, into "duty," into "holiness," into what is "divine" in man! Finally—this is what is most terrible of all—the concept of the good man signifies that one sides with all that is weak, sick, failure, suffering of itself, all of which ought to perish...Yes, who is sure of the future, who guarantees the future—and he is now called evil ... And all this was believed, as morality..

 

[panterapat]

I cannot point-counterpoint this whole disertation but here are a few counterpoints.

Sexuality unclean? In the Christian sense sex is not good, icecream is good. Sex is not great, Frosted Flakes are great. Sex is holy and sacred! It is only when sex is defiled through careless use does it become unclean.

Morality as a disvalue of values? If there is no morality, how can there be values to disvalue?

Invention of the soul to despise the body? A holy person is a whole person with the body and soul in agreement in God. It is through the eyes of the soul that we know the beauty of our God given body.

Free will to confuse the instincts? It is the control of our instincts by our will that sets Man apart from the rest of the animal Kingdom.

St. Augustine said, "Our hearts are restless Lord, and they will not rest until they rest in You."

A belief in God and its morality has held the world together and saved civilization. Nietzsche is the anti-thesis of all that is wholesome, optimistic, and holy.

Patrick

 

[foolsparade]

panterapat: denial aint just a river in Egypt. you write: "A belief in God and its morality has held the world together and saved civilization. Nietzsche is the anti-thesis of all that is wholesome, optimistic, and holy."

Held the world together and saved civilization? It has? Some of us just have higher standards I suppose. You believe that whoever doesn't except your religion will be punished, that is your version of optimism? That is wholesome and holy? Are you a "holy" person?

 

[foolsparade]

coments? concerns? anybody? Throw me a bone for god's sake...

"From the time of Adam until now, man has been in an abnormal state: God himself has sacrificed his son for the guilt of Adam, in order to put an end to this abnormal state: the natural character of life is a curse; Christ gives back the state of normality to him who believes in him: he makes him happy, idle and innocent.-- But the earth has not begun to be fruitful without work; women do not not bear children without pain; sickness has not ceased; the most devout believers have just as hard a time of it here as the most devout unbelievers. That man has been freed from death and sin {assertions which permit of no verification}-- has been asserted by the church with all the more emphasis. "He is free from sin"-- not through his own deed, not through a stern struggle on his part, but ransomed for freedom through the act of redemption--consequently perfect, innocent, paradisiacal..

The true life is only a faith {i.e., a self deception, a madness}.  The whole of struggling, battling, actual existence, full of splendor and darkness, only a bad false existence: the task is to be redeemed from it."    The Will To Power..Nietzsche

 

[CopticOrthodox]

I think the effectiveness of Nietzsche's philosophy can be seen by how well it worked in his own life :-( Sure there have been plenty of bad Christians, but you can see by the examples of people who really followed it what it is capable of. Nietzeche's philosophy on the otherhand has predictable consequences for those who follow him.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm curious to know what you meant by that, CopticOrthodox. What exactly do you think it means to follow Nietzsche's philosophy? I assume you are aware that his productive period saw many nuanced changes in his position as the years went on. (e.g., "Dionysian" did not mean the same thing to him in 1888 than it did in the early 1870s).

And I sincerely hope you're not trying to suggest that his breakdown had anything to do with his philosophy.

 

[CopticOrthodox]

No, of course not, a philosophy that palaces yourself at odds with everyone else and doesn't see others as equals but as things to be stepped on would lead one to end up alone and isolated. A philosophy that praises sexual liberty and using women, advising men to take their wips when dealing with women, wouldn't have anything to do with the sexual disease that contributed to his madness... The philosophy that became the basis for the NAZI movement wouldn't lead to a less than integrated person.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I suspected as much. The basis of Nazism? Come on! Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with Nietzsche's work knows that he was consistently outspoken in his opposition to anti-Semitism (one of the very few 19th century European intellectuals one could say that of, BTW), Bismarck's military adventures, the notion of the Reich, almost all of German culture as it had been expressed up to that time (Goethe being a notable exception), etc. It's hardly Nietzsche's fault that a later generation of Nazi party hacks paid him the dubious compliment of quoting him out of context to legitimize their own prejudices. The cruelest irony is that Hitler evidently thought of himself as the embodiment of Nietzsche's Ubermensch. In fact, Hitler and everything he stood for would have seemed to N. as vulgarity par excellence. If you want to know what sort of person N. had in mind when he wrote of the Ubermensch, check out his references to Goethe, particularly in "The Twilight of the Idols."

Lest you think I'm some sort of Nietzsche apologist, I freely acknowledge that his remarks concerning women are uniformly embarrassing. What he understood about women would barely fill a coffee cup. That said, he was hardly a sexual libertine (compare your characterization of him, for instance, with his many writings on the theme of sublimation). The infection that eventually drove him mad was almost certainly contracted when he was a young man. I have never seen any evidence that he was anything but celibate during his productive years, his brief and bizarre relationship with Lou Salome being a possible exception.

Also, your suggestion that his philosophy -- which of course was anti-democratic in the broadest sense -- led him to behave in his personal life as if others were just things to be used and stepped on flies in the face of everything we know about how he actually conducted himself. As scathing as he could be toward the artists and intellectuals he attacked in his books, he was unfailingly polite and decent to his aquaintances, never more so than when he was dealing with people who weren't his intellectual/cultural equals. When Nietzsche picked a fight, it was invariably with other heavy-hitters.

 

[foolsparade]

CopticOrthodox: as usual, instead of addressing Nietzsche's arguments head on you fall back on a basic mis-understanding of philosophy in general. Hitler represented the opposite of every philosophical point Nietzsche made, and bringing up his second and third rate comments about women which his philosophy is not based on confirms my assumption that you know very little of Nietzsche and philosophy. Lets have a look..

"The Will To Power.. A book for thinking, nothing else:it belongs to those for whom thinking is a delight, nothing else-- That it was written in German is untimely to say the least: I wish I had written it in French so that it might not appear to be a conformation of the aspirations of the German Reich. The Germans of today are no thinkers any longer: something else delights and impresses them. The will to power as a priciple might be intelligiable to them. It is precisely among Germans today that people think less than anywhere else. But who knows? In two generations one will no longer require the sacrifice involved in any nationalistic squandering of power and in becoming stupid."

"Admit no more Jews! And especially close the doors to the east (and also to Austria)!" thus commands the instinct of a people whose type is still weak and indefinite, so it could easily be blurred or extinguished by a stronger race. The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions."

"To the psychologists first of all, presuming they would like to study ressentiment close up for once, I would say: this plant blooms best today among anarchists and anti-Semites--where it has always bloomed, in hidden places, like the violet, though with a different odor."

"The very same conditions that will on average lead to the leveling and mediocritization of man--to a useful, industrious, handy, multi-purpose herd animal--are likely in the highest degree to give birth to exceptional human beings of the most dangerous and attractive quality." 

Nietzsche. 

 

[foolsparade]

"On the Christian need for redemption.— If we reflect carefully, it ought to be possible to arrive at an explanation for the process in a Christian's soul that is called the need for redemption, an explanation that is free of mythology, that is, a purely psychological one. Of course, until now psychological explanations of religious states and processes have been in some disrepute, in that a theology that calls itself free has been up to its bootless mischief in this area; for from the start, as the spirit of its founder Schleiermacher {Frederich Schleiermacher (1768-1834, Protestant theologian} allows us to assume, "free theology" was aiming at the preservation of the Christian religion and the continuance of Christian theologists, who were to gain a new anchor, and above all a new occupation, in the psychological analysis of religious "facts." Undeterred by such predecessors, we venture to present the following interpretation of the phenomenon in question. Man is conscious of certain actions that rank low in the customary hierarachy of actions; in fact, he discovers within himself a tendency to these kinds of actions, a tendency that seems to him almost as unchangeable as his whole nature. How he would like to try his luck in that other category of actions, those that are generally esteemed to be the topmost and highest; how he would like to feel full of a good consciousness, which is said to follow a selfless way of thinking! But unfortunately it does not go beyond this wish: the dissatisfaction about being unable to satisfy the wish is added to all the other kinds of dissatisfaction that his lot in life generally, or the consequences of those actions, termed evil, have aroused in him. Thus he develops a deep discontent and searches for a doctor who might be able to put an end to this discontent and all its causes.--This condition would not be felt so bitterly if man would only compare himself dispassionately to other men; then he would have no reason to be dissatisfied with himself to any special degree; he would only be sharing the common burden of human dissatisfaction and imperfection. But he compares himself to a being who is solely capable of those actions called selfless and who lives in the continual consciousness of a selfless way of thinking: God. Because he is looking into this bright mirror, his own nature appears so clouded, so abnormally distorted. Next, the thought of this other being makes him fearful, in that it hovers in his imagination as a punishing justice; in every possible experience, large or small, he thinks he recognizes its anger, its menace, and he even thinks he has a presentiment of the whiplashes it will deliver as judge and executioner. Who helps him in this danger, which by its prospect of an immeasurable duration of punishment, surpasses in horror all other terrors of the imagination?" Nietzsche,  Human All Too Human...

 

 

[foolsparade]

Ok, so like I will try to make this easier for everyone. If you dissagree with the statement below please state your case.  peace...

"If one goes through the individual moral statements of the documents of Christianity, one will find everywhere that the demands have been exaggerated so that man cannot satisfy them; the intention is not that he become more moral, but rather that he feel as sinful as possible. If man had not found this feeling agreeable, why should he have produced such an idea and been attached to it for so long? As in the ancient world an immeasurable strength of spirit and inventiveness was employed to increase joy in life through ceremonial worship, so in the age of Christianity an equally immeasurable amount of spirit has been offered up to a different striving: man was to feel sinful in all ways and excited, animated, inspired thereby. Excite, animate, inspire at all costs—is that not the watchword of an enervated, overripe, overcultivated age? "

from Nietzsche's Human All Too Human.

 

[4Peace]

Thanks foolsparade - Have you read Rozanov (Russian)?  Very cool read - (pre-Nietzsche) - who essentially stated Christianity was a "death" religion.  Whereas the OT glorified nature and human copulation, the NT is concerned with the afterlife (and stifles the joys of life as a result). 

IMO, you've hit upon the Achilles heel of Christianity.  After 2000 yrs, we've squeezed Christ so tightly we don't know whether to stand or sit. 

 

[foolsparade]

double post

 

[foolsparade]

4Peace: Nope, I haven't read Rozanov, but will check him out. I recently have decided to pursue the writings of Wittgenstein. He isn't as interesting as Nietzsche or as poetic..

"The madman.— Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"— As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?— Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him, you and I! All of us are his murderers! But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? And backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?—Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives,—who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed,—and whoever is born after us, for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto!"— Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners: they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering—it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars-- and yet they have done it themselves!!  The Gay Science, Nietzsche..  

 

 

[Vladimir]

Nietzsche ended in the asylum for mentally ill persons. His curing doctor warned to take heed ofNietzsche 's theories, because, as doctor said, they are a produse of an ill brain.

 

[foolsparade]

Vladimir: thanks, that was short but pointless...

 

[Outspoken]

"the intention is not that he become more moral, but rather that he feel as sinful as possible."

I disagree. If a standard is set and you don't met it, its not the standards fault if you feel guilty about it.

 

[the outlaw]

Outspoken, well said...

What Nietzsche failed to accept was a universal moral law...When you say things like "denying one's self in favor of another is wrong", you justify scenario's like this...

An old lady is being beat up by a couple of thugs. You are walking by and see this happen. According to Nietzsche, you should not get involved because you(your self) could be harmed and since self value is more important, you should keep walking.

See the flaw here...or maybe you don't. Anyway, if this scenario did arise, you'd be prompted with 2 instincts. Help(favor a neighbor) or Run(favor one's self)...The fact that you are prompted with a choice is the issue. There is a "right" answer. You know if you run away, the old lady could die. F.N. suggests we "deny" these feelings of "guilt"...Apply this to your everyday life. Today, I stabbed "John Doe" in the back to get this promotion. I will be making more money and be better off in the long run so it is ok. I should not feel "sinful" or remorseful about it. Nietzsche doesn't come right out and say it but this is what he is implying by attacking Christianity when it says to "Love thy neighbour".

btw, FN's understanding of the OT and feeling sinful is different than the one I have. He obviously never read about David or Samson or Moses or Joseph or Abraham or etc. etc...

 

[foolsparade]

the outlaw: I had a feeling that I would get responses from those who know very little of Nietzsche, have never read Nietzsche except for the stray paragraph from obscure Christian web sites, and of course those who do not understand philosophy in general. That is why I asked for you all knowing people to comment directly to the statements I posted. Yet as if on cue, you and others avoid to get in the ring and give me your critique of the passages. You just fall back on personal attacks on him that are based on common misconceptions, and idiocy. You suggest that Nietzsche advocated that we not help anyone, not to save someones life? That is down right silly, and only proves my point above. Ok, show me writings of Nietzsche in which he suggests that in your words... "According to Nietzsche, you should not get involved because you(your self) could be harmed and since self value is more important, you should keep walking."
I am very interested in your thesis, please present evidence of this view. I would also like to mention mainly out of fun that in Nietzsche's final moment before insanity{from syphillis} he was found in the streets of Turin Italy with his arms around a horse that had just been badly mistreated.

and you continue: " See the flaw here...or maybe you don't. Anyway, if this scenario did arise, you'd be prompted with 2 instincts. Help(favor a neighbor) or Run(favor one's self)...The fact that you are prompted with a choice is the issue. There is a "right" answer. You know if you run away, the old lady could die. F.N. suggests we "deny" these feelings of "guilt"...Apply this to your everyday life.

your blind absurd arrogance is rather sad, but typical of the uneducated. Firstly you need to understand the concept of morality and it's origins relating to the ancient Jews and with Christianity, which you don't. Again I ask you to provide evidence that Nietzsche would let the" old lady" die..

you write: "btw, FN's understanding of the OT and feeling sinful is different than the one I have. He obviously never read about David or Samson or Moses or Joseph or Abraham or etc."

Did you know that FN actually prefferred the old testament over the new?? You doubt that he ever read the bible??

I will let FN have a few words:

"The oldest moral judgments.— What really are our reactions to the behavior of someone in our presence?— First of all, we see what there is in it for us—we regard it only from this point of view. We take this effect as the intention behind the behavior—and finally we ascribe the harboring of such intentions as a permanent quality of the person whose behavior we are observing and thenceforth call him for instance "a harmful person." Threefold error! Threefold primeval blunder! Perhaps inherited from the animals and their power of judgment! Is the origin of all morality not to be sought in the detestable petty conclusions: "what harms me is something evil (harmful in itself); what is useful to me is something good (beneficent and advantageous in itself); what harms me once or several times is the inimical as such and in itself; what is useful to me once or several times is the friendly as such and in itself." O pudenda origo"

The "fair person" constantly needs the fine tact of a scale for the degrees of power and right which, in view of the transitory nature of human affairs, will always be balanced only for a short time, while for the most part they either sink or rise: to be fair is therefore difficult and requires much practice, good will, and a great deal of good spirit.--

THE DAWN, Nietzsche

"Executions.— How is it that every execution offends us more than a murder? It is the coldness of the judges, the painful preparations, the understanding that a man is here being used as a means to deter others. For guilt is not being punished, even if there were guilt; guilt lies in the educators, the parents, the environment, in us, not in the murderer—I am talking about the motivating circumstances." Human All Too Human, Nietzsche..

There is so much to chose from

 

[the outlaw]

First off, you didn't ask for experts on Nietzsche's philosophy. You did ask for someone to respond to the excerpts you posted. (which I did) I apologize for not quoting specifically what I was commenting on but hey, I though a Nietzschehead like yourself could figure it out.

"That one taught men to despise the very first instincts of life; that one mendaciously invented a "soul," a "spirit" to ruin the body; that one taught men to experience the presupposition of life, sexuality, as something unclean; that one looks for the evil principle in what is most profoundly necessary for growth, in severe self-love this very word constitutes slander! that, conversely, one regards the typical signs of decline and contradiction of the instincts, the "selfless," the loss of a center of gravity, "depersonalization" and "neighbor love" (addiction to the neighbor!) as the higher value, what am I saying! the absolute value ... What! Is humanity itself décadent? was it always?— What is certain is that it has been taught only décadence values as supreme values. The morality that would un-self man is the morality of decline par excellence—the fact, "I'm perishing," transposed into the imperative, "all of you ought to perish"—and not only into the imperative! ... This only morality that has been taught so far, the morality of un-selfing, reveals a will to the end, fundamentally, it negates life. "

Somehow, I construe this excerpt to be an attack on the Christian belief of putting your neighbor above yourself...i.e. "Love thy neighbor". If I'm wrong, then FN really needed to reword some of his work. He blatantly attacks the "un-self" notion that he believes Christianity has. I know I'm not misunderstanding that. So what is he saying? That denying one's selfish desires is wrong? You tell me if he would have helped the old lady because from just reading that excerpt, I'd think he places all value on "self" preservation.

Also, I don't doubt FN "read" the OT. I said in my post...

"btw, FN's <b>understanding</b> of the OT and feeling sinful is different than the one I have. "

and then provided examples of the "sinful" minded men from the OT.

You obviously have read quite a bit of FN's work. I've read very little. But I responded to what you posted. If you want to go find works of FN's where he demonstrates being "unselfish" is good. That's fine, but when you ask...

"What do you think of FN when he said X"

Don't come back and say I'm "blind, absurd or arrogant" because FN also said Y. Kinda like me saying I believe the sky is green one day but when someone says no...it's blue. I can then go back and say I've also said the sky is blue...but I said it in this book over here.

From what I have read, FN has a distaste for Christianity. He attacks it because it states that denying certain "instincts" is good. Implying that all instincts are good all the time because it is simply a part of being human. Yet, according to your backlash against me, he also says we should help people regardless of the cost to ourself. Well which is it? If you are against one side of an argument, you must be on the other side...unless this rule of thumb doesn't apply to FN.

And if I ever find out that FN believed all life (animal, man or plant) is of equal value...I will lose ALL interest whatsoever in his works. (in regards to the hugging of the horse)

As for my "understanding of morality". Not sure what you mean...If anything, I think FN is the one lacking understanding of Christian/Jewish morality but hey...I'm not the one in the insane asylum. (cheap shot...I know)

I'm more of a C.S. Lewis and Schaeffer kind of guy anyway...but you probably guessed that : )