Nietzschean Christianity

[edwest2]

I can see the parallel you are making, but i still wouldn’t link what he’s saying to Christianity. These ideas of bettering oneself can be seen as very philosophical…so it doesn’t necessarily have to do with God or religion and definitely doesn’t mean it’s origins are there.

People can–and often do–want to better themselves and the world even if they do not believe in God.

.

But, on a Catholic forum, you will get the Catholic answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[andyklein]

Nietzsche also had fingers, and I strive to have fingers. My biggest issue with Nietzsche is that he claims that because faith in God supposedly makes us weak, we ought to abandon that faith. I find that, especially today, faith makes us strong, even more so at the end of time when non-believers and Nietzschens suffer forever. You also can’t just “set aside” the fact that his ideas inspired Nazi slaughter. That was the logical consequence of his ideas: rid the world of what appears to be “weakness.”

And we could never even “be our own person” as you put it. We belong to God. We can only achieve our highest ends through Christ. The freest thing man can ever do is to give himself over to God. Then he truly becomes free.

Nietzsche’s ideas were objectively evil.

I also want to add that it’s not possible to pick out one aspect of an argument and like that aspect and then say that that argument isn’t really that bad. We have to look at Nietzsche’s arguments as what they really were: absurd, dangerous, unsound.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Interesting. We all are given talents. God expects us to do something with them. There is a parable about the servant who did not invest his talent and he was thrown out into the darkness since he did not invest it.

Well, I mentioned the Parable of the Talents earlier in the thread. It is the most explicit hint of Nietzschean philosphy in the Gospel.

However.

Very rarely do I hear that parable interpreted in general terms. Far more commonly it is interpreted in terms of spiritual gifts and evangilism. As much as I might agree with you, you will find nothing in the CCC suggesting that, as you say, “We all are given talents. God expects us to do something with them.” Even the term “vocation” is almost universally understood as clerical vocation.

The world gives us its version of accomplishment. God gives us many more opportunities. Our final goal is to meet God and live with Him. Is owning a billion dollar business an accomplishment? Yes. But one Catholic plans to be broke when he dies. He knows that his treasure here will not join him in Heaven.

The question that I am posing here is whether, for example, a billion dollar business accomplishment is a step toward God or away from God. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that some Catholic has a talent for business is that a merely secular or potentially holy calling?

For example:

I can see the parallel you are making, but i still wouldn’t link what he’s saying to Christianity. These ideas of bettering oneself can be seen as very philosophical…so it doesn’t necessarily have to do with God or religion and definitely doesn’t mean it’s origins are there. People can–and often do–want to better themselves and the world even if they do not believe in God.

It is certainly true that accomplishment and self betterment predate Christianity (assuming you date Christianity to Christ and not to Adam) and that non-Christians can better themselves eve if in a non-Christian way. (Remember, also, that Christianity has borrowed liberally from non-Christian sources, not only from Judaism, e.g. from Greek and Roman philosophy.)

What I’m asking here is whether Christianity is inherently anti-accomplishment (as several posters have already implied) or if it is merely the case that Christians accomplish like non-Christians just as they brush their teeth like non-Christians.

A couple there possibilties include that Christianity might channel accomplishment in some signiciant way. For example, a businessman would choose to run his business consistent with Christian ethics and to dispose of his profits in a Christian manner.

Or, finally, Christ may be calling us to accomplishment beyond what non-Christians pursue but not exclusive of the accomplishments that non-Christians would recognize. For example, a Christian might work harder than a non-Christian to be a great surgeon or athlete because he sees a larger purpose to his accomplishments.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**During the World War II period Nietzsche was very popular with the Nazis. It was during the war that the atheist Bertrand Russell penned his History of Western Philosophy, and these are the concluding words in his chapter on fellow atheist Nietzsche.

“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy … lies not in any appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming to an end.”**

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

During the World War II period Nietzsche was very popular with the Nazis. It was during the war that the atheist Bertrand Russell penned his History of Western Philosophy, and these are the concluding words in his chapter on fellow atheist Nietzsche.

“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy … lies not in any appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming to an end.”

Yes, I did warn about that in the OP.

 

[HardRockGTR]

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.”

What about a vegetarian’s turd?

 

[Qoeleth]

During the World War II period Nietzsche was very popular with the Nazis. It was during the war that the atheist Bertrand Russell penned his History of Western Philosophy, and these are the concluding words in his chapter on fellow atheist Nietzsche.

“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy … lies not in any appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming to an end.”

Yes, but Wagner, Beethoven, and Brahms were also popular with the Nazis. Nietzsche himself criticized anti-Semitism, was quite hostile to what he saw as the emerging apotheosis of “The State”, and did not like nationalism, or ideas like “racial (or national) spirit”, at all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Qoeleth

Yes, but Wagner, Beethoven, and Brahms were also popular with the Nazis. Nietzsche himself criticized anti-Semitism, was quite hostile to what he saw as the emerging apotheosis of “The State”, and did not like nationalism, or ideas like “racial (or national) spirit”, at all.

Yet he preached the Superman. He also hated women. I don’t know what virtues you find in him.

He was a clever human rat who went insane. Hardly a recommendation.

 

[Qoeleth]

Qoeleth

Yes, but Wagner, Beethoven, and Brahms were also popular with the Nazis. Nietzsche himself criticized anti-Semitism, was quite hostile to what he saw as the emerging apotheosis of “The State”, and did not like nationalism, or ideas like “racial (or national) spirit”, at all.

Yet he preached the Superman. He also hated women. I don’t know what virtues you find in him.

He was a clever human rat who went insane. Hardly a recommendation.

I prefer to think of him as a tortured soul, with a gift for the aphorism, who art was stirred by an honesty (albeit a narcissistic honesty), that was intellectually and spiritually self-destructive. Yes, he was struggle was futile, and his victor’s crown became madness and defeat. But in the light of his own funeral pyre, some of our errors, our complanceny our hypocrisy (let me change that our to ‘my’) are brought to light.

I hate much of Nietzsche’s writings, especially his late stuff. I also reject his ideas (except for his aesthetic theories in “The Birth of Tragedy”, and “The Case Against Wagner”, both of which still convince me- in which he shows the antithesis of the spirit between noble Greek tragedy and degenerate 19th Century pessimism).

But “Also Sprach Zarathustra” must be considered a masterpiece of literature, a book which cannot be ‘not read’. It is a work of a creative genius, and is has its own beauty and tragedy, regardless of its truth.

 

[HardRockGTR]

Yet he preached the Superman. He also hated women. I don’t know what virtues you find in him.

Johann Eck and Martin Luther (who identified as a Catholic trying to reform the Catholic church; CERTAINLY not to create a schism) were both raging antisemites, the latter of which wrote a 65,000-word essay on why all the Jews should be enslaved or killed, sooooo…

 

[Portofino]

I prefer to think of him as a tortured soul, with a gift for the aphorism, who art was stirred by an honesty (albeit a narcissistic honesty), that was intellectually and spiritually self-destructive. Yes, he was struggle was futile, and his victor’s crown became madness and defeat. But in the light of his own funeral pyre, some of our errors, our complanceny our hypocrisy (let me change that our to ‘my’) are brought to light.

I hate much of Nietzsche’s writings, especially his late stuff. I also reject his ideas (except for his aesthetic theories in “The Birth of Tragedy”, and “The Case Against Wagner”, both of which still convince me- in which he shows the antithesis of the spirit between noble Greek tragedy and degenerate 19th Century pessimism).

But “Also Sprach Zarathustra” must be considered a masterpiece of literature, a book which cannot be ‘not read’. It is a work of a creative genius, and is has its own beauty and tragedy, regardless of its truth.

I think Nietzsche is one of those writers who is virtually impossible to understand without spending a significant amount of time with him. There’s a complexity and nuance of thought and of sensibility that defies easy understanding.

Here are a few quotes from Nietzsche that someone with only a passing familiarity with his writings – normally secondhand – would not likely recognize as having flowed from his pen:

–"Since humanity came into being, man hath enjoyed himself too little: that alone, my brethren, is our original sin!

And when we learn better to enjoy ourselves, then do we unlearn best to give pain unto others, and to contrive pain."

–“I would like to take away from human existence some of its heartbreaking and cruel character.”

—“What is great is so alien to your souls that the overman would be awesome to you in his kindness.”

“Ah, how it sickens me to obtrude my own ideas upon others! How I rejoice in any mood and secret change within myself whereby the thoughts of others carry the day over mine! But from time to time I enjoy even a greater treat: when I am allowed to give away my intellectual house and goods, like the confessor sitting in a corner and anxiously waiting for a distressed one to come and tell the misery of his thoughts, so that hand and heart may again be filled and the troubled soul eased. Not only does he not want any praise: he would like to shun gratitude as well, for it is obtrusive and does not stand in awe of solitude and silence. To live without a name or slightly sneered at; too humble to arouse envy or enmity; with a head free from fever, a handful of knowledge and a bagful of experience; a physician, so to speak, of the poor in intellect, helping one or the other whose head is bewildered by opinions without this one really noticing who has helped him! Without any desire of setting himself right in his presence and carrying a victory, he would speak to him in such wise that after a short, imperceptible hint or contradiction, he may tell himself what is right and proudly walk away! Like an obscure inn which never refuses admittance to a person in need, but which is afterwards forgotten and laughed at! He has no advantage, neither better food, nor purer air, nor a readier intellect – but gives up, returns, imparts, grows poorer! He can be humble in order to be accessible to many and humiliating to none! He has much wrong resting on himself, and has crept through the worm-holes of all sorts of errors, in order to be able to reach many obscure souls on their secret paths. For ever dwelling in some kind of love and some kind of selfishness and self-enjoyment! Powerful and at the same time obscure and resigned! Constantly basking in sunshine and soft light of grace, and yet knowing the ladder, which leads to the sublime, to be near at hand! That, indeed, would be life! That, indeed, would be motive for a long life!”