Nietzschean Christianity

[Bubba_Switzler]

Now before I begin I just want to say, yes, I know Nietzsche was an atheist and an inspiration to the Nazis. Try and set that aside, if you can, because what I want to do here is explore one of his core ideas.

Among all his bad ideas, he had one that seemed promising to me, namely that it is the duty of every human being, to the extent of his capacity, to better themselves by striving to accomplish great things, even when it may entail sacrifice. His view of self-improvement involved not only effort but suffering, a cruelty toward one’s own beastial nature.

In some ways, this sounds very familiar to the Christian call to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” and “if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

However, the conventional understanding of the Christian call to perfection is, primarily, one of avoiding sin. This leads some to choose passivity since most sin is the result of action, not inaction. Think of the humble holy man.

By contrast, Nietzsche is calling people to strive to do great things. At best, this finds parallel in Christianity in one’s vocational calling. But I have never heard it said that ignoring one’s calling is a sin, though God did give Jonah quite a hard time. For the most part, higher calling in Christianity is to a comtemplative life, not a life of accomplishment.

 

[jritenour]

What’s the question? I don’t seem to detect one.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’d say that this is valid proof to one of my old Dad’s sayings when he was still alive: “You can always find at least a little piece of steak–even in a dog turd.”

 

[Qoeleth]

Now before I begin I just want to say, yes, I know Nietzsche was an atheist and an inspiration to the Nazis. Try and set that aside, if you can, because what I want to do here is explore one of his core ideas.

Among all his bad ideas, he had one that seemed promising to me, namely that it is the duty of every human being, to the extent of his capacity, to better themselves by striving to accomplish great things, even when it may entail sacrifice. His view of self-improvement involved not only effort but suffering, a cruelty toward one’s own beastial nature.

In some ways, this sounds very familiar to the Christian call to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” and “if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

However, the conventional understanding of the Christian call to perfection is, primarily, one of avoiding sin. This leads some to choose passivity since most sin is the result of action, not inaction. Think of the humble holy man.

By contrast, Nietzsche is calling people to strive to do great things. At best, this finds parallel in Christianity in one’s vocational calling. But I have never heard it said that ignoring one’s calling is a sin, though God did give Jonah quite a hard time. For the most part, higher calling in Christianity is to a comtemplative life, not a life of accomplishment.

Nietzsche also recognises ‘renunciation’ as a kind of a ‘achievement’. In fact, he described renunciation as the ultimate accomplishment. He stresses self-overcoming, which has obvious parallels in Christian thinking, especially in the saints.

I don’t agree with Nietzsche’s philosophy on the whole, but I do love his writings as literature.

Nietzsche described Christ as the only true Christian. Perhaps not entirely true, but there is something beautiful in it.

If find the following line from Zarathustra very inspiring- a real wake up about embracing the pain and love to which we are called:

The hour is coming when ye will say: “What good is my justice! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel!”

The hour when ye say: “What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on
which He is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion.”

Have ye ever spoken thus? Have ye ever cried thus? Ah! would that I had
heard you crying thus!

And another wonderful quote:

I love him who loveth his virtue: for virtue is the will to his downfall,
and an arrow of longing.

I love him who reserveth no share of spirit for himself, but wanteth to
be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walketh he as spirit over the
bridge.

I love him who maketh his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for
the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or to live no more.

I love him who chasteneth his God, because he loveth his God: for he
must succumb through the wrath of his God.

I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgetteth himself, and all
things are in him: thus all things become his downfall.

And is not the Superman, the model of humanity overcoming itself and thus fulfilling itself- is the real Superman clearly not Christ?

 

[empther]

Among all his bad ideas, he had one that seemed promising to me, namely that it is the duty of every human being, to the extent of his capacity, to better themselves by striving to accomplish great things, even when it may entail sacrifice.

Sounds like the philosophy of another non-believer: Napolean Bonaparte:
“A man who doesn’t achieve glory has not really lived.”

Glory for what? For a corpse that rots in the grave?

Christians should have a different goal.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Sounds like the philosophy of another non-believer: Napolean Bonaparte:
“A man who doesn’t achieve glory has not really lived.”

Glory for what? For a corpse that rots in the grave?

Christians should have a different goal.

Yes, but let’s explore that.

Would Bonaparte’s philosophy be repaired by saying, “A man who doesn’t achieve glory of God has not really lived.”

In other words, is the problem one of whose glory is sought or is it the pursuit of achievement itself irrespective of what is achieved?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Nietzsche also recognises ‘renunciation’ as a kind of a ‘achievement’. In fact, he described renunciation as the ultimate accomplishment. He stresses self-overcoming, which has obvious parallels in Christian thinking, especially in the saints.

…

And is not the Superman, the model of humanity overcoming itself and thus fulfilling itself- is the real Superman clearly not Christ?

I don’t think we should be surprised that Nietzsche might have borrowed liberally from Christianity, or even to have expressed some Christian ideas in an eloquent manner even as he went off in a futile direction, to put it charitably.

Christ as Nietzschean Superman, and as model for our future, is an interesting thought. (Let’s set aside Nietzsche’s actual idea on how man was supposed to get there.) But Christ didn’t have to achieve anything to arrive there, he just was Supeman. Or am I undervaluing his humanity? Because we surely must strive to become like Christ and it’s quite debatable whether humankind is improving on that score from one generation to the next.

 

[Euwe]

Even in error, there might be some truth.

I very much doubt that Nietzsche had any aspect of Christianity in mind when he wrote what he wrote. However I’m open to correction on this.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I very much doubt that Nietzsche had any aspect of Christianity in mind when he wrote what he wrote. However I’m open to correction on this.

I don’t know Nietzsche well enough to offer an informed comment on the origins of his philosophy but I see Christian ideas in every nook and crany of modern culture. He certainly had Christianity on his mind when he attacked it as the philosophy of slaves.

 

[Euwe]

I don’t know Nietzsche well enough to offer an informed comment on the origins of his philosophy but I see Christian ideas in every nook and crany of modern culture. He certainly had Christianity on his mind when he attacked it as the philosophy of slaves.

Indeed, as do I see.

But in many instances those Christian ideas are cossetted in concepts which are anti-Christian.

For example Marxists argue that the redistribution of wealth is a concept that it shares with Christianity. And that statement is true.
However Marxism in the totality of it’s conception is actually anti-Christian.

It is a dangerous route that says “yes this bit of X is also extolled in Christianity, therefore X contains truth”

I don’t like relativism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Indeed, as do I see.

But in many instances those Christian ideas are cossetted in concepts which are anti-Christian.

For example Marxists argue that the redistribution of wealth is a concept that it shares with Christianity. And that statement is true.
However Marxism in the totality of it’s conception is actually anti-Christian.

It is a dangerous route that says “yes this bit of X is also extolled in Christianity, therefore X contains truth”

I don’t like relativism.

Absolutely. I don’t think Nietzsche, or Marx, even rise to the level of heretic. Nietzsche ultimately took his philosophy in a distinctly anti-Christian direction.

I also appreciate the danger of identifying Christian truth in un- or anti-Christian philosophies and literature.

However, my interest here is not simply to say, hey, isn’t this bit of Nietzschean philosophy Christian-like?

Rather, I am more interested in the distinction I raised with empther. See e.g. the last paragraph of the OP. I’m interested in whether the pursuit of achievement, itself, is categorically unChristian. Is being Christlike merely a matter of avoiding sin (i.e. through inaction)? Or does it call us to something more active?

 

[Euwe]

Absolutely. I don’t think Nietzsche, or Marx, even rise to the level of heretic. Nietzsche ultimately took his philosophy in a distinctly anti-Christian direction.

I also appreciate the danger of identifying Christian truth in un- or anti-Christian philosophies and literature.

However, my interest here is not simply to say, hey, isn’t this bit of Nietzschean philosophy Christian-like?

Rather, I am more interested in the distinction I raised with empther. See e.g. the last paragraph of the OP. I’m interested in whether the pursuit of achievement, itself, is categorically unChristian. Is being Christlike merely a matter of avoiding sin (i.e. through inaction)? Or does it call us to something more active?

I see the point that you’re asking about:thumbsup:

My own view is that it is a call to do something more active (and I’m not condemning those that are inactive btw)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

My own view is that it is a call to do something more active (and I’m not condemning those that are inactive btw)

Your parenthetical is one criticism I often enounter when I pose this question. Christianity, they say, can’t call people to acheivement because so many struggle just to survive and to avoid sin. Christianity would be doing well if it just solved those. Those who do acheive are called to share generously but nobody is called to achieve.

(Note, btw, that I would call raising a big family an achievement. The more the better. And that is not a condemnation of the celebate or the infertile.)

And certainly, as empther pointed out, those we do see pursuing great achievement are often the greatest sinners of all. And even in the more pedestrian world, seldom do we see humble achievers.

But then there is the parable of the talents.

 

[empther]

Rather, I am more interested in the distinction I raised with empther. See e.g. the last paragraph of the OP. I’m interested in whether the pursuit of achievement, itself, is categorically unChristian. Is being Christlike merely a matter of avoiding sin (i.e. through inaction)? Or does it call us to something more active?

Let’s look at different classes of achievement.

1. Somebody wins a gold medal at the Olympics.
   Does this actually do anybody any good? No, but neither is it harmful or sinful. If a person likes to do this, I have no problem with it.
2. Some body becomes a billionaire by driving competitors out of business causing of thousands of people working for competitors to lose their jobs.
   This is rather difficult to classify. This businessman started companies that hired thousands of workers which would seem to balance off the thousands of workers for competitors who lost their jobs. It’s hard to say a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett has achieved something while doing harm. I would say they don’t.
3. Achieving glory in war.
   We call our Medal of Honor winners heroes. Of course, we also say the wars they fight in are just wars from our perspective.
   But were Napolean’s wars justifiable? No. This narcissistic psychopath fought wars because he enjoyed it, he was good at it, and it brought him glory.
   He had plenty of opportunities to make peace with everybody. But there’s no glory in peace when you’re a warrior like Napolean. So he found excuses for another war, or set up situations with other countries that these other countries found intolerable and made it inevitable they’d declare war against Napolean, which he knew or should have known they would. .
   His achievement was selfish at a cost of great harm to others. This was definitely un-Chirstian.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I prefer to think of Nietzsche as a broken clock. Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day!
But I do not go to him for spiritual or intellectual nourishment when there are so many better people to go to.

 

[polytropos]

I don’t see why Nietzschean Christianity is necessary. While he might have a couple worthwhile things to say, that’s because he was a human, not because he was a philosopher. As another poster said, you can pick a few good things out of any thinker.

It would be like a Catholic Republican appealing to Ayn Rand because they liked some of her conclusions even though her reasoning was poor (if not atheistic and hateful). One does not have to - and, indeed, should not - agree with everyone with whom one shares an opinion. The justifications for a belief are as important as the belief.

The true value of Nietzsche is that he was the shameless conclusion of the Enlightenment project.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“It is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific.” Nietzsche

Nietzsche is full of this salted baloney throughout his writings.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s look at different classes of achievement.

1. Somebody wins a gold medal at the Olympics.
   Does this actually do anybody any good? No, but neither is it harmful or sinful. If a person likes to do this, I have no problem with it.

How about someone wins the gold medal and entertains millions in the process while inspiring others to keep healthy through sports.

1. Some body becomes a billionaire by driving competitors out of business causing of thousands of people working for competitors to lose their jobs.
   This is rather difficult to classify. This businessman started companies that hired thousands of workers which would seem to balance off the thousands of workers for competitors who lost their jobs. It’s hard to say a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett has achieved something while doing harm. I would say they don’t.

How about someone becomes a billionaire by inventing a medical device sthat saves lives.

1. Achieving glory in war.
   We call our Medal of Honor winners heroes. Of course, we also say the wars they fight in are just wars from our perspective.
   But were Napolean’s wars justifiable? No. This narcissistic psychopath fought wars because he enjoyed it, he was good at it, and it brought him glory.
   He had plenty of opportunities to make peace with everybody. But there’s no glory in peace when you’re a warrior like Napolean. So he found excuses for another war, or set up situations with other countries that these other countries found intolerable and made it inevitable they’d declare war against Napolean, which he knew or should have known they would. .
   His achievement was selfish at a cost of great harm to others. This was definitely un-Chirstian.

How about someone achieves glory in a just war against an aggressive totalitarian state bent on world domination.

As you can see, I’m more than a little suspicious of your examples as it’s so easy to find better one.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I prefer to think of Nietzsche as a broken clock. Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day!
But I do not go to him for spiritual or intellectual nourishment when there are so many better people to go to.

I think Starsmother said it best:

I’d say that this is valid proof to one of my old Dad’s sayings when he was still alive: “You can always find at least a little piece of steak–even in a dog turd.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t see why Nietzschean Christianity is necessary. While he might have a couple worthwhile things to say, that’s because he was a human, not because he was a philosopher. As another poster said, you can pick a few good things out of any thinker.

It would be like a Catholic Republican appealing to Ayn Rand because they liked some of her conclusions even though her reasoning was poor (if not atheistic and hateful). One does not have to - and, indeed, should not - agree with everyone with whom one shares an opinion. The justifications for a belief are as important as the belief.

The true value of Nietzsche is that he was the shameless conclusion of the Enlightenment project.

Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting by the term “Nietzschean Christianity” that we go to Nietzsche (or Marx or Rand) merely becase we find something familiar in their writing but rather if they have something valuable to add.

Nietzschean Christianity is “necessary” if the pursuit of achievement is a good goal for Christians and non-Nietzschean Christianity is lacking in this respect.

So it’s a two-fold question:

1. Is non-Nietzschean Christianity lacking in the call to achievement? and
2. Should Chrisitans be called to achievement?

Now when I was in Catholic school there was no shortage of exortation to achieve in many respects: academic, athletic, and, yes, spiritual.

But I can’t recall ever hearing a homily at mass with anything remotely approaching a call to achievement outside of the spiritual.

An interesting contrast, don’t you think?