Christianity after Nietzsche. (page 4)

Deputy Dog

Sorry Something is wrong I can't get anything to format properly

Deputy Dog

Nark

I guess I'm agreeing with Rapunzel

"So, I guess that I am asking whether you think that Nietzsche even had a concept of reality, and if he did, what it was. "
"Finally, I don't see Christianity as willing to accept the confrontation of Nietzschean thought. I don't think that Christianity and Nietzsche have much common ground for dialogue or polemics. "

I believe the Romans passage would have been Paul's response to your question, had he been here today.

Why would or should expect the church (Christianity) to be any different?

The Christian outlook was laid out by the Abraham 'the father of those having faith.' It was said of him that he was, 'reaching out for a better place, that is one belonging to heaven. He saw himself as a temporary resident on earth.

The trouble with spending ones whole life looking towards a heavenly life is that our life on earth is devalued by not living fully in the now. Christianity along with most other religions sees the body as a disposable vehicle fit only to carry a soul to the next life.

The life we have is wonderful already and all efforts to improve life right now is a very moral endeavor. Reaching out for a 'better place,' shows a lack of appreciation for what we have.

The Epicureans believed that the absence of pain and suffering was the highest ideal. Buddhism teaches the same and as such are more a philosophy than a religion.

Memento Mori - Remember that we all must die

BurnTheShips

"Dear me, I am nuance!" ( Ecce Homo, in an anti-German passage which all people who still connect Nietzsche with Nazism should read btw.)

I always believed the one fed the other, I got the notion from Rise and Fall of the Thrid Reich, which I must have read 5x over the years....

BurnTheShips

The trouble with spending ones whole life looking towards a heavenly life is that our life on earth is devalued by not living fully in the now. Christianity along with most other religions sees the body as a disposable vehicle fit only to carry a soul to the next life.

A rather ridiculous exaggeration. God made the body, it is therefore sacred. We will be joined with our bodies again in the glorious future.

The life we have is wonderful already and all efforts to improve life right now is a very moral endeavor.

Feed the hungry, heal the sick, console the suffering.......

Reaching out for a 'better place,' shows a lack of appreciation for what we have.

Then it logically follows that seeking better things even in this life shows a lack of appreciation for what we have in this life...

Memento Mori - Remember that we all must die

Vanitas Vanitatum, Omnia Vanitas.

THE GLADIATOR

Burn The Ships: A rather ridiculous exaggeration. God made the body, it is therefore sacred. We will be joined with our bodies again in the glorious future.

You make three unfounded assumptions in this statement based on you beliefs.

The fact is that the Bible repeatedly praises the notion of surrendering the human body prematurely, in order to get a hold of the real life or gain an incorruptible spiritual body. The idea that we will again be joined with our bodies is a Jehovah’s Witness belief.

I have read a number of your posts and your arguments with other posters and they do not really add up. You rely too much on presenting your assumptions or beliefs as indisputable facts.

You are like a little boy with a wooden sword pretending to be a gladiator.

You are honoured to have received a reply from a real gladiator.

Memento Mori

Narkissos

DD:

If you have read the excerpt of The Antichrist I pasted above for R. Crusoe (I chose it for a completely different purpose, so it is "random" as far as your issue is concerned), you can see how much the notion of reality matters to Nietzsche, at least on the critical side of his thinking. What this notion exactly means to him must be sought, I think, in the direction of Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) to whom Nietzsche often acknowledges an epistemological debt -- even though he eventually takes the opposite philosophical stance, i.e. a willful embrace of reality vs. a willful rejection of it. Of course this positive relationship to the real is not one of mere objective knowledge or submission but one of creation -- poetry in the etymological sense -- reality is ultimately what I make of it. The analogy with Freud (wo Es war, soll Ich werden -- where That was, must I come to be) is striking -- all the more as it is not direct ideological influence, since Freud largely ignores Nietzsche.

The Gladiator: it may be worth noting that this view of Abraham in Hebrews is tainted by the author's Alexandrine-like middle Platonism -- precisely the philosophical view with which Nietzsche most consistently takes issue.

BTS: We've had this discussion on the Nazi connection before, so I won't elaborate on this again. But if you read the context of my quote in The Antichrist you will notice that Nietzsche explicitly admits to closer intellectual fellowship with Jews than the Germans.

God made the body, it is therefore sacred. We will be joined with our bodies again in the glorious future.

I apologise in advance for the trivial parody (even though I might quote Kundera on that). What about: "God made sh*t, it is therefore sacred. We will be joined with our sh*t in the glorious future"?

Then it logically follows that seeking better things even in this life shows a lack of appreciation for what we have in this life...

This is rather extreme, but it reminds me of the following from Twilight of Idols ("Morality as anti-nature," § 6), which may also gives some elements for your question on Nietzschean "reality":

Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: "Man ought to be such and such!" Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms — and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: "No! Man ought to be different." He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall and comments, "Ecce homo!" But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to him, "You ought to be such and such!" he does not cease to make himself ridiculous. The single human being is a piece of fatum from the front and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is yet to come and to be. To say to him, "Change yourself!" is to demand that everything be changed, even retroactively. And indeed there have been consistent moralists who wanted man to be different, that is, virtuous — they wanted him remade in their own image, as a prig: to that end, they negated the world! No small madness! No modest kind of immodesty!
Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of life, is a specific error with which one ought to have no pity — an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm.
We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers. More and more, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize everything that the holy witlessness of the priest, the diseased reason in the priest, rejects — that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous. What advantage? But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.

BurnTheShips

I don't have time to address all your points right now, so I will return later but this piece:

The idea that we will again be joined with our bodies is a Jehovah’s Witness belief.

It is not a Jehovah's Witness belief merely. The Apostle's Creed, and since you like Latin so much:

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae, et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen

BurnTheShips

"God made sh*t, it is therefore sacred. We will be joined with our sh*t in the glorious future"?

It is a trivialization, but sh*t was not made in the image and likeness of God.

This is rather extreme, but it reminds me of the following from Twilight of Idols ("Morality as anti-nature," § 6), which may also gives some elements for your question on Nietzschean "reality": ............................................................................

............................Obviously, not even you believe what follows.

BurnTheShips

hamilcarr

It is a trivialization, but sh*t was not made in the image and likeness of God.

Does God have a body?

Christianity after Nietzsche.

Share this