Nitese(sp)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ericmatthews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ericmatthews

Guest
i know i butcherd the name but anyway ive read a little bit of him and i was wondering what everyone thinks of him. IMO he seems kinda of a paradox from a christan perpesptive since he was an atheist i think and the bible says a fool says in his heart there is no god but the def. phiophser is a lover of wisdom
 
Nietzsche?

He was a brilliant man, the only one who ever understood what Atheism really meant.

If only modern Atheists would stop trying to pass off their pseudo-Christian, enlightenment age visions of the future as really Atheist.

He understood that without reference to God or any other kind of higher order, philosophy is actually the truth of the stronger party (see Thyrsmachus in Plato’s Republic). Power creates truth, and the real philosopher does so with a hammer.
 
Nietzsche?

He was a brilliant man, the only one who ever understood what Atheism really meant.

If only modern Atheists would stop trying to pass off their pseudo-Christian, enlightenment age visions of the future as really Atheist.

He understood that without reference to God or any other kind of higher order, philosophy is actually the truth of the stronger party (see Thyrsmachus in Plato’s Republic). Power creates truth, and the real philosopher does so with a hammer.
Yes Nietzche thank you for the name and the response now only if i could change the title
 
i know i butcherd the name but anyway ive read a little bit of him and i was wondering what everyone thinks of him. IMO he seems kinda of a paradox from a christan perpesptive since he was an atheist i think and the bible says a fool says in his heart there is no god but the def. phiophser is a lover of wisdom
I suppose by far the best known passage from Nietzche, at least amongst theists, is the parable of the madman. It suggests that he understood very well what the implications of atheism were. Certainly better than most atheists do, either then or now:

“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 am looking for God! I am looking for God!’ - As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated? [sound familiar?] - thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. ‘Where has God gone?’ he cried.’ I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are all his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is more and more night not coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? - gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murders of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives - who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed - and whoever shall be born after us, for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.’ Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground and it broke and went out. ‘I come too early,’ he said then; ‘my time has not yet come. This tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, deeds require time after they have been done before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves.’ - It has been related further that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem aeternam deo. Led out and quited, he is said to have retorted each time: ‘What are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?’”
 
Someone needs to send this to Dawkins, apparently he hasn’t read it. 😉

Nietzsche is the reason atheism never really appealed to me. I read him and Foucault early on, before I read Plato really, and I felt they discredited the earlier, 19th century “positive” atheism with all its emphasis on reason and the greatness of Man.

There is a funny saying, “the meek will inherit the earth, but the rest of us are going to the stars”. Fitting really, as it turns out, the stars are lifeless burning balls of gas completely millions upon millions of lightyears away, unfit for human habitation. That’s pretty much the whole story on the enlightenment in a nutshell. The moderns killed their Golden Goose.
 
Someone needs to send this to Dawkins, apparently he hasn’t read it. 😉
Yes, but Dawkins is an English flathead. Yes I know he’s from New Zealand, but if you put the Queen on your money that makes you English (line from House).

Seriously, though, Dawkins is the very definition of Nietzsche’s English flathead. The quote, from his commentary on George Eliot in Twilight of the Idols:
They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
Dawkins in a nutshell.

Has anyone noticed, actually, that Dawkins, Hitchens, and I think Dennett are all from places where they put the Queen on the money? My guess is, their atheism is culturally conditioned–they’re from places with a thin veneer of half-understood science, total ignorance of even the basics of philosophy, and a natural inclination to snobbishness. Their ancestors prided themselves on being illogical!

Why else would a man who is a provable ignoramus (Dawkins quite plainly has never read any works of Christian thought, not even to skimming the chapter headings in the Summa) call his faction Brights?
 
more from Twilight of the Idols:
We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.
I always sort of admired this guy, not because I think he is a good man, but he was a clear thinking man who at least did not try to lie.

He is basically to Atheism in the 19th century what Boyle was to Christianity in the 17th century.

It’s fascinating though- the Enlightenment Moderns saw Christianity, and all religion, as simply a non-thing, a way of saying “we do not know what”.

For example, the Egyptians did not know what a star was really made out of, so they called it a god, Ra- after all the sun is pretty amazing and at times I have looked up at it and sympathized with some primeval urge to worship it.

Fair enough, I say to the Moderns.

The problem is, the Moderns didn’t realize morality was not a real entity (ens reale) like the sun but a product of reason (ens rationis). They believed, that at some point, its universal nature would be discovered in the same way Newton “discovered” gravity. It never happened. Instead of religion being mere epiphenomena or a primitive turn of phrase for something naturally explicable, it was the meat of the whole thing.

Nietzsche was right… In a way though, I’m glad most people including Dawkins et. al. have not found out yet lest another Hitler come to power.
 
There is some evidence that Nietzsche was a more complicated individual than he is sometimes given credit for. For example, written towards the end of the author’s life, where do you suppose the following appreciation of Christian morality comes from?

“What advantages did the Christian moral hypothesis offer?
1.) It invested man with an absolute value, in contrast to his smallness and accidentalness in the flux of growth and decay.
2.) It served the apologists of God, inasmuch as, despite suffering and evil, it allowed the world the attributes of perfection - even that famous ‘free will’ - evil appeared meaningful.
3.) It implanted in man a knowledge of absolute values and thus gave him adequate knowledge precisely where it was most essential.
4.) It saved man from self-disgust, from a denial of life, from despairing of knowledge; it was a conserving force.
In summa: Morality was the greatest antidote to practical and theoretical nihilism.”

If they didn’t know, nobody would guess that came from Nietzsche. What seems to have happened is that, as he pushed his philosophy through to its logical conclusion, he began to see it less and less as a positive program, and more and more as a terrible warning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top