Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:10 pm

Sauwelios - I see that to understand where I have misunderstood Nietzsche, I am to trust you as to what could be implied by him, instead of read what he actually wrote. This is a nonsensical demand. You have provided no material to back up your interpretation, and the more you try to argue against it, the more my interpretation of the passage appears valid.
Yes, by all means, write some essays.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:06 am

Jakob wrote:Sauwelios - I see that to understand where I have misunderstood Nietzsche, I am to trust you as to what could be implied by him, instead of read what he actually wrote. This is a nonsensical demand. You have provided no material to back up your interpretation, and the more you try to argue against it, the more my interpretation of the passage appears valid.

To whom? Certainly not to me.

Let us indeed go back to what Nietzsche actually wrote:

"Jede Theilnahme an einem Gottesdienste ist ein Attentat auf die öffentliche Sittlichkeit. Man soll härter gegen Protestanten als gegen Katholiken sein, härter gegen liberale Protestanten als gegen strenggläubige. Das Verbrecherische im Christ-sein nimmt in dem Maasse zu, als man sich der Wissenschaft nähert. Der Verbrecher der Verbrecher ist folglich der Philosoph."

I will now translate this literally.

"Every participation in a religion [literally "in the service of a God"] is an assassination attempt on public morality. One should be harder against Protestants than against Catholics, harder against liberal Protestants than against devout ["strictly believing"] ones. The criminal character of being a Christian increases in the degree to which one approaches science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher."

Is it a crime to be a Christian? Does one break the law (Thomas Common translates Verbrecher as "law-breaker" in order to retain the sense of "breaking") by being a Christian? No? Then what is Nietzsche talking about? According to what measure is being a Christian a criminal state? There cannot be any doubt: according to Nietzsche's measure; what other measure could he be talking about?

It does not matter to me whether it is acknowledged here that I am right; it suffices that an intellectually conscientious person knows that I am. And although you have asked that I go back to the text, the context supports my explanation - section 38 is conclusive.
Last edited by Sauwelios on Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:26 pm

Jakob wrote:Nietzsche is not very clear about the Ubermensch. Sometimes he is the robust Caesar type, sometimes he is the sensitive hermit who flees from the stenches of the mob.

I think you project your own mind's unclarity on Nietzsche's writings.

Caesar was an epileptic. Nietzsche writes about him;

"The means by which Julius Caesar defended himself against sickliness and headaches: tremendous marches, the most frugal way of life, uninterrupted sojourn in the open air, continuous exertion—these are, in general, the universal rules of preservation and protection against the extreme vulnerability of that subtle machine, working under the highest pressure, which we call genius."
[Twilight, Skirmishes, section 31, entire.]

And is this not a kind of escape from the morasses? The sensitive hermit flees into robustness... Oh, and Jesus was the soul of Caesar, of course.

By the way, I have found out why the most spiritual human beings are the strongest (as Nietzsche contends in AC 57):

"We consider [man] the strongest animal because he is the most cunning [listig]: his spirituality is a consequence of this."
[AC 14.]
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:47 pm

Sauwelios wrote:"Jede Theilnahme an einem Gottesdienste ist ein Attentat auf die öffentliche Sittlichkeit. Man soll härter gegen Protestanten als gegen Katholiken sein, härter gegen liberale Protestanten als gegen strenggläubige. Das Verbrecherische im Christ-sein nimmt in dem Maasse zu, als man sich der Wissenschaft nähert. Der Verbrecher der Verbrecher ist folglich der Philosoph."

I will now translate this literally.

"Every participation in a religion [literally "in the service of a God"] is an assassination attempt on public morality. One should be harder against Protestants than against Catholics, harder against liberal Protestants than against devout ["strictly believing"] ones. The criminal character of being a Christian increases in the degree to which one approaches science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher."

Is it a crime to be a Christian? Does one break the law (Thomas Common translates Verbrecher as "law-breaker" in order to retain the sense of "breaking") by being a Christian? No? Then what is Nietzsche talking about? According to what measure is being a Christian a criminal state? There cannot be any doubt: according to Nietzsche's measure; what other measure could he be talking about?

That of public morality of course.
I'm the only one who actually interprets the text at hand. You take a couple of elements from the text, throw them in a stew allready saturated with elements of your own fabrication which you advertize as having their origin in Nietzsche, and you serve the soup as the gospel of Nietzsche by Sauwelios.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:38 pm

Jakob wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Is it a crime to be a Christian? Does one break the law (Thomas Common translates Verbrecher as "law-breaker" in order to retain the sense of "breaking") by being a Christian? No? Then what is Nietzsche talking about? According to what measure is being a Christian a criminal state? There cannot be any doubt: according to Nietzsche's measure; what other measure could he be talking about?

That of public morality of course.

Yes, but what public morality - didn't I already address this question?

"[W]e can no longer stand it if a priest as much as uses the word "truth." If we have even the smallest claim to integrity, we must know today that a theologian, a priest, a pope, not merely is wrong in every sentence he speaks, but lies—that he is no longer at liberty to lie from "innocence" or "ignorance." The priest too knows as well as anybody else that there is no longer any "God," any "sinner," any "Redeemer"—that "free will" and "moral world order" are lies [does "everybody else" really know this? Does everybody else have at least a modicum of intellectual integrity?]: seriousness, the profound self-overcoming of the spirit, no longer permits anybody not to know about this... All the concepts of the church have been recognized for what they are, the most malignant counterfeits that exist, the aim of which is to devalue nature and natural values; the priest himself has been recognized for what he is, the most dangerous kind of parasite, the real poison-spider of life [by whom?]... We know, today our conscience knows—, what these uncanny inventions of the priests and the church are really worth, what ends they served in reducing mankind to such a state of self-violation that its sight can arouse nausea: the concepts "beyond," "Last Judgment," "immortality of the soul," and "soul" itself are instruments of torture, systems of cruelties by virtue of which the priest became master, remained master..."
[AC 38.]

Who is this "we" that Nietzsche is talking about?

"Everybody knows this: and yet everything continues as before. Where has the last feeling of decency and self-respect gone when even our statesmen, an otherwise quite unembarrassed type of man, anti-Christians through and through in their deeds, still call themselves Christians today and attend communion?..."
[ibid.]

Why should these anti-Christians still call themselves Christians? Is it not for the sake of power? But in a democracy, the power is to the people; therefore, these anti-Christians still call themselves Christians because public morality demands that of them!

Nietzsche is essentially calling people to honesty:

"Granting that as a theory this [the will to power] is a novelty--as a reality it is the fundamental fact of all history: let us be so far honest towards ourselves!"
[BGE 259.]

What would happen if a statesman told the truth - if he said in public that he was only into politics for the sake of power? - Fact is that public morality was in Nietzsche's time, and still is now, Christian, all too Christian.

The Antichristian is a Revaluation of All Values. In the last section, Nietzsche even suggests that one should no longer reckon time from the beginning of Christianity, but from its end - that the year 0 should be reckoned the year -1888. When Nietzsche says, in the first proposition of his Decree Against Christianity, that "[e]very type of anti-nature is depraved", that is a revaluation of the Christian idea that every type of nature is depraved. In Christianity, the least depraved man is the priest; against those who teach nature, one doesn't use arguments, but the penitentiary (or the stake); every non-participation in divine service is an assassination attempt on public morality; one should be more severe toward Protestants than toward Catholics, more severe toward liberal Protestant than toward the orthodox, because they approach knowledge, not because they are Christian; the philosopher is the criminal of criminals because he has attained knowledge, nihilistic knowledge; the "blessed" places in which Christianity has hatched its eggs should be maintained or restored, and revered as holy places; the sermon on unchastity, being a public instigation to naturalness, is something contemptuous; sexual love is despised as "dirty"; one should prefer, one should be honoured to eat with a priest at one's table; etc. etc.

Now how hard is this to appreciate!
Last edited by Sauwelios on Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:45 pm

Sauwelios wrote:In Christianity, [...] one should be more severe toward Protestants than toward Catholics, more severe toward liberal Protestant than toward the orthodox, because they approach knowledge, not because they are Christian[.]

"Definition of Protestantism: the partial paralysis of Christianity—and of reason..."
[AC 10.]

Nietzsche encourages the complete paralysis of Christianity, whereas Christianity encourages the complete paralysis of reason.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby detrop » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:16 pm

Jakob rolls five on six sided dye....

Penalty to morale, failed save throw...

Nine hit points lost....
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Jakob » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:13 pm

<i>Finally</i> you provide an argument. I am happy to admit defeat.
If I understand you correctly, Nietzsche means that one should be more severe to a liberal protestant (like Spinoza) than towards catholics, because he is more aware of the fact that he is lying when he calls nature God.
If this is what he means, I have misunderstood him, and in that case I think he is wrong. You have proven to me I am not a Nietzschean.
Here's how I see it:
The man of knowlegde understands that God, if he exists, can not be different from nature, and understands that faith is not unnatural, because increasing knowledge is increasing trust in the natural course of existence and increasing delight therein. The catholic thinks God is supernatural, and that he, being natural, is ungodly. Pretending to have faith in something he does not trust at all because he sees the world around him as directly opposed a doctrine of virgins giving birth and people ressurrecting from death, he is a hypocrit. The catholic is more of a hypocrit than the protestant, the protestant more than the liberal protestant. Hence all the idolatry of images in catholicism - Powerful means are needed to convince oneself of truths one instinctively knows to be lies. The protestant has no need for images, because he is less of a hypocrit.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:26 pm

Jakob wrote:<i>Finally</i> you provide an argument. I am happy to admit defeat.
If I understand you correctly, Nietzsche means that one should be more severe to a liberal protestant (like Spinoza) than towards catholics, because he is more aware of the fact that he is lying when he calls nature God.

Calling nature God is completely anti-Christian - and anti-Judaist, for that matter. Judeo-Christianity calls anti-nature God (the "beyond", the nothing). I would never call Spinoza a Protestant.


If this is what he means, I have misunderstood him, and in that case I think he is wrong. You have proven to me I am not a Nietzschean.
Here's how I see it:
The man of knowlegde understands that God, if he exists, can not be different from nature, and understands that faith is not unnatural, because increasing knowledge is increasing trust in the natural course of existence and increasing delight therein. The catholic thinks God is supernatural, and that he, being natural, is ungodly. Pretending to have faith in something he does not trust at all because he sees the world around him as directly opposed a doctrine of virgins giving birth and people ressurrecting from death, he is a hypocrit. The catholic is more of a hypocrit than the protestant, the protestant more than the liberal protestant.

I agree with everything you say here, save for the last sentence. The Catholic is less of a hypocrit etc., because he is less knowledgable about nature - less scientific. It is less hypocritic to unwittingly proclaim falsehoods than to do so wittingly. Hypocricy is feigned ignorance, not actual ignorance. The Catholic is more naive, more innocent; Adam before the Fall is the perfect Christian, because he has no knowledge of nature.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Jakob » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:39 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Jakob wrote:<i>Finally</i> you provide an argument. I am happy to admit defeat.
If I understand you correctly, Nietzsche means that one should be more severe to a liberal protestant (like Spinoza) than towards catholics, because he is more aware of the fact that he is lying when he calls nature God.

Calling nature God is completely anti-Christian - and anti-Judaist, for that matter. Judeo-Christianity calls anti-nature God (the "beyond", the nothing). I would never call Spinoza a Protestant.


If this is what he means, I have misunderstood him, and in that case I think he is wrong. You have proven to me I am not a Nietzschean.
Here's how I see it:
The man of knowlegde understands that God, if he exists, can not be different from nature, and understands that faith is not unnatural, because increasing knowledge is increasing trust in the natural course of existence and increasing delight therein. The catholic thinks God is supernatural, and that he, being natural, is ungodly. Pretending to have faith in something he does not trust at all because he sees the world around him as directly opposed a doctrine of virgins giving birth and people ressurrecting from death, he is a hypocrit. The catholic is more of a hypocrit than the protestant, the protestant more than the liberal protestant.

I agree with everything you say here, save for the last sentence. The Catholic is less of a hypocrit etc., because he is less knowledgable about nature - less scientific. It is less hypocritic to unwittingly proclaim falsehoods than to do so wittingly. Hypocricy is feigned ignorance, not actual ignorance. The Catholic is more naive, more innocent; Adam before the Fall is the perfect Christian, because he has no knowledge of nature.

You have a point. Where I differ wih you is that I do believe in 'God' - or rather, don't believe in nihilistic science.
I am a Blakean rather than a Nietzschean. But just call me a Milikowskian. I believe in Genius as the origin of everything. Genius is <i>by definition</i> inexplicabe, untraceable to reason, to logic. Reason, logic and science are all products of genius.

Genius stands between necessity and power - ah, between <i>will</i> and power! Does it not?
But I venture that Genius is even more fundamental than will.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby more or less » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:08 pm

Jakob wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Jakob wrote:<i>Finally</i> you provide an argument. I am happy to admit defeat.
If I understand you correctly, Nietzsche means that one should be more severe to a liberal protestant (like Spinoza) than towards catholics, because he is more aware of the fact that he is lying when he calls nature God.

Calling nature God is completely anti-Christian - and anti-Judaist, for that matter. Judeo-Christianity calls anti-nature God (the "beyond", the nothing). I would never call Spinoza a Protestant.


If this is what he means, I have misunderstood him, and in that case I think he is wrong. You have proven to me I am not a Nietzschean.
Here's how I see it:
The man of knowlegde understands that God, if he exists, can not be different from nature, and understands that faith is not unnatural, because increasing knowledge is increasing trust in the natural course of existence and increasing delight therein. The catholic thinks God is supernatural, and that he, being natural, is ungodly. Pretending to have faith in something he does not trust at all because he sees the world around him as directly opposed a doctrine of virgins giving birth and people ressurrecting from death, he is a hypocrit. The catholic is more of a hypocrit than the protestant, the protestant more than the liberal protestant.

I agree with everything you say here, save for the last sentence. The Catholic is less of a hypocrit etc., because he is less knowledgable about nature - less scientific. It is less hypocritic to unwittingly proclaim falsehoods than to do so wittingly. Hypocricy is feigned ignorance, not actual ignorance. The Catholic is more naive, more innocent; Adam before the Fall is the perfect Christian, because he has no knowledge of nature.

You have a point. Where I differ wih you is that I do believe in 'God' - or rather, don't believe in nihilistic science.
I am a Blakean rather than a Nietzschean. But just call me a Milikowskian. I believe in Genius as the origin of everything. Genius is <i>by definition</i> inexplicabe, untraceable to reason, to logic. Reason, logic and science are all products of genius.

Genius stands between necessity and power - ah, between <i>will</i> and power! Does it not?
But I venture that Genius is even more fundamental than will.


You sound more Freudian or Jungian as a result.

If will is the Id then is genius the Ego or the Super Ego? Sounds like the latter, but I don't get this "necessity"...
User avatar
more or less
Thinker
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: the internets

Re: Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

Postby more or less » Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:12 pm

Jakob wrote:
more or less wrote:
Jakob wrote:
more or less wrote:Well you are correct in that dialectics precede Hegel, the point was that Hegel extrapolated to abstract concepts such as history or the nation-state.

So no, we need Hegel more now than ever.

In this case, though, it is sufficient to see that both Jesus and Nietzsche were exaggerating. They went too far with their convictions, resulting in negation of these convictions. That, at least, was my point. There is no need to forge a fusion of the two - one can simply be moderate and take from both what is healthy, sane - and reject the other half.


Given what we know of the "truth," how is what you are suggesting not itself a synthesis? Or is that your point?

I wasn't sure if it counted as a synthesis when I wrote it since it is more of a middle road without an actual fusion of nuclei. I tend to think in terms of was and clash, release of blind new energy when I think of synthesis, Perhaps that is too dramatic.
Jakob wrote:
However I have a crazy suggestion to make, how do you know that Christianity is not a Greek conspiracy to overthrow [dialectically destroy] the Romans via the Jews?
The Christians in part being the synthesis of the Jewish and the Greek ethics....

I have never really thought through the fact that the Greeks were essential in the conception of Christianity. But of course they were.
---What Greek ethics do you see in Christianity?---

I've 'learned', so far, that Christianity was the antithesis to the classical world. But this brings back to mind the idea that Rome was an antithesis to Greece as well.
Rome has no Dionysos - The drunk Bacchus has nothing to do with the fluxgod - and there is a very distinct Dionysian quality to the effects of the Holy Ghost. But these aren't the Greek ethics you talk of, I presume.


No, Rome is very nihilistic, and thus the point about Christianity.
What do you mean by nihilistic here? My understanding fo nihilism does not apply to Rome - nihilism as belief in nothing, thinking that there is no point to exsitence. Rome was built with great love for the world, and especially itself. It still is a monument to existence.
Also, the example of Jesus is one who actually resists human authority in the name of truth. In other words, Jesus is about democracy and the masses inherently, ie, the meek shall inherit.... Very much a subtext about the polis/demos and against the notion of a Caesar/Republic with a very limited conception of the "citizen."

I can see your point, but that subtext is, I think, not objectively present in the Bible. The New Testament makes no mention of politics at all - it simply scetches worldy affairs as unimportant. Of course it was an actual threat to the authority of the Caesar - so much that he had to become a Christian in the end.
What is significant to me is that the art of the Augustus period, when Christianity was no factor, is of the highest standard of Roman craft and aesthetic - closely resembling the classical Greek period, whereas in the Constantine period it had fallen to a degenerate state.
Image
The mob of figures below are from Constantine period, the circles above are ripped from an arch from a much earlier period. The interest in art seems to have been almost entirely lost. My point is that I consider the factual Christian influence on Rome as degenerative - in terms of art at least. No wonder, with the emphasize on the afterlife. Id sooner call Rome under Constantine nihilistic than under Augustus.


Well then do you consider the influence of democracy in the form of Christianity destructive to Pax Romana? Is that a "decent"?

Jakob wrote:
Also, I think the example of the Godhead and the Alpha/Omega is clearly an attempt to make a usable dialectic for combining the reality of the human, original sin, with the ideal of the human.
I think the gnostic Christian wrotings are by far the most useful to this dialectic. For one thing, they involve Mother Earth as opposed to the father in Heaven - a polarity absent in the final donctrine. I think the Bible has been mostly effective in securing the power of Caesar, who became the pope - as a representant of the Holy.
Jesus makes a nice thesis for the ubermensch antithesis. Neither example is workable in reality, neither is truly "human."

With this difference that the Ubermensch is a goal, whereas Jesus is (supposedly) a historic figure.
Nietzsche is not very clear about the Ubermensch. Sometimes he is the robust Caesar type, sometimes he is the sensitive hermit who flees from the stenches of the mob.
Then again - Jesus is also different in every description of him.


You mean that Caeser crippled the Republic and adopted the rise of Christian power?

A Christian Empire is doomed to failure. Nietzsche would no doubt agree...

Jesus is very political and is inherently about the will to power as well, its just that his is based upon equality and not individualism.
User avatar
more or less
Thinker
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: the internets

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:36 pm

more or less wrote:You sound more Freudian or Jungian as a result.

If will is the Id then is genius the Ego or the Super Ego?

Will is Id? I think you made an unwarranted assumption somewhere.
but I don't get this "necessity"...

First you would have to 'get' the will to power. That would first mean not to equate it with a completely different concept and then call me a follower of the father of that concept.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:43 pm

more or less wrote:Well then do you consider the influence of democracy in the form of Christianity destructive to Pax Romana? Is that a "decent"?
Pardon? What is this tendency to utter latin words completely out of context?
You mean that Caeser crippled the Republic and adopted the rise of Christian power?
Of course not you son of silly person, Jesus was Caesar.
A Christian Empire is doomed to failure. Nietzsche would no doubt agree...

Jesus is very political and is inherently about the will to power as well, its just that his is based upon equality and not individualism.

I'm sure you will agree with me that you are wrong.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby more or less » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:31 pm

Jakob wrote:
more or less wrote:You sound more Freudian or Jungian as a result.

If will is the Id then is genius the Ego or the Super Ego?

Will is Id? I think you made an unwarranted assumption somewhere.


Perhaps the word "if" is confusing for you.

Jakob wrote:
but I don't get this "necessity"...

First you would have to 'get' the will to power. That would first mean not to equate it with a completely different concept and then call me a follower of the father of that concept.


I asked you to explain your meaning of necessity, I guess you cannot.
Last edited by more or less on Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
more or less
Thinker
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: the internets

Re: Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

Postby more or less » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:33 pm

Jakob wrote:
more or less wrote:Well then do you consider the influence of democracy in the form of Christianity destructive to Pax Romana? Is that a "decent"?
Pardon? What is this tendency to utter latin words completely out of context?


So you don't think Pax Romana has anything to do with the Caesars?
Jakob wrote:
You mean that Caeser crippled the Republic and adopted the rise of Christian power?
Of course not you son of silly person, Jesus was Caesar.

wtf?
Jakob wrote:
A Christian Empire is doomed to failure. Nietzsche would no doubt agree...

Jesus is very political and is inherently about the will to power as well, its just that his is based upon equality and not individualism.

I'm sure you will agree with me that you are wrong.


I can see that all you can offer is sarcasm and empty claims at this point. I guess the dicussion is over.

:-?
User avatar
more or less
Thinker
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: the internets

Re: Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:36 pm

more or less wrote:
Jakob wrote:
more or less wrote:Well then do you consider the influence of democracy in the form of Christianity destructive to Pax Romana? Is that a "decent"?
Pardon? What is this tendency to utter latin words completely out of context?


So you don't think Pax Romana has anything to do with the Caesars? <b>I simply don't see why you would need this term in this discussion. Obviously Christianity was detrimental to the politcal stability in the empire. If that was your question, yes.</b>
Jakob wrote:
You mean that Caeser crippled the Republic and adopted the rise of Christian power?
Of course not you son of silly person, Jesus was Caesar.

wtf? <b>ask Sauwelios</b>
Jakob wrote:
A Christian Empire is doomed to failure. Nietzsche would no doubt agree...<b>I believe western man lives in a Christian empire that has lasted about 1700 years now. Now why would I get sarcastic?</b>
Jesus is very political and is inherently about the will to power as well, its just that his is based upon equality and not individualism.

<b>Jesus is inherently about the will to power? Yes, if one believes that all is will to power, everything is inherently 'about' the will to power.</b>
I can see that all you can offer is sarcasm and empty claims at this point. I guess the dicussion is over.
<b>what discussion?</b>
:-?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Jakob » Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:15 pm

Nietzsche was a man troubled with a too big brain for his heart. His heart was pure and nice, and his brain was savage monster of energy. His heart was forced to eat all the brain caught for it. Rabbits, Dogs, Camels, Elephants, his sister, his mother, his God, his creation and ultimately even his sanity. Oh my god nietzschnietzschnietzsche. You are so cool.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:11 am

Jakob wrote:
Jakob wrote:
You mean that Caeser crippled the Republic and adopted the rise of Christian power?
Of course not you son of silly person, Jesus was Caesar.

wtf? <b>ask Sauwelios</b>

Jesus Christ was probably Julius Caesar:

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/contents.html
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re:

Postby Jakob » Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:29 pm

detrop wrote:I also want to say this, Jakob. I advocate secular ethics especially at this point in time. Any subdivisible group which separates itself from a social mass is an economic form of anarchy. Organized crime, for example, and the mafia.

The existence of such secular and as you call it, "tribal," moral systems is that they cause conflicts with the natural tendency for capitalism to attempt to appropriate consumers into a predictable and regulated class. Anything which makes it more difficult for law enforcement to regulate the money system is a step toward its loss of power over economy.

Anarchy is the ideal state during the reformation of capitalism when it reaches its contradictory state; when the need to produce higher volume exceeds the resouces for such. A great swell in the working class will rise up like a wave.....Mexicans with electric leaf-blowers will rally in the streets.

Social crisis creates secular ethics. They are neccesary evils in the dialectic.

8)
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re:

Postby Historyboy » Sun Dec 28, 2014 7:55 am

Jakob wrote:Nietzsche was a man troubled with a too big brain for his heart. His heart was pure and nice, and his brain was savage monster of energy. His heart was forced to eat all the brain caught for it. Rabbits, Dogs, Camels, Elephants, his sister, his mother, his God, his creation and ultimately even his sanity. Oh my god nietzschnietzschnietzsche. You are so cool.


Nietzsche was thinking too much. People can stop growing if thinking too much at an early age (21-). His height 171 cm. Reason why he was thinking too much was not that he was beaten (if one is hit in the head he starts thinking a lot) but being "polish among Germans".
Life is will to power. - Nietzsche; Culture is and gives power and strength - Vollgraff; The only attribute of the mind is that he is powerful. - Aristotle; Mind is dragging us into the future and the heart into the present. - Aristotle; Those who can foresee deeds are born to rule and those who need to do them are born as slaves. - Aristotle; So, what is an aristocrat? He needs to be powerful, that means to be excellent in foreseeing things! - Me; The highest honor belongs to that one who is able to predict the moves of the enemy commander. - Machiavelli; If you want that what you have inherited to possess, you need to deserve it. - Goethe; Culture, which means exactly learning to calculate, learning to think causally, learning to prevent, learning to believe in necessity. - Nietzsche. [Autumn 1887, 10 [21]]; Morals in the narrow sense is the belief that the deeds of the ancestors will be transferred to the descendants. - Nietzsche
Historyboy
Thinker
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:16 am

Re:

Postby Jakob » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:13 pm

Uniqor wrote:I have been doing Heidegger, I hesitate to say this, because I am not sure if I really did him or just thought I did.

Initially I thought what a wasit of time Heidegger was, that was when I missed ILP the most. But the more I read into him, the more I realised that my conceptiion or perspectival was simply not powerful enough for Heidegger's rants.

When people still read.

Deleuze, I think, remarked that Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche had been underrated. I agree and I would highly reconmmand them.

Much of what led up to self-valuing logic can be learned in there. It's the best body of philosophy of the 20th century Id say.

I also developed a connection with Heidegger on the pure basis of his communication style: to me Heideggerian prose comes naturally; the phenomenological and hermeneutical approach struck me as perspectival-enpowering in a familar way. But I see many rough waters ahead, including that I may have to chew German and Greek thoroughly.

Rough and bloody waters.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users