Nietzsche

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Snoopy, Nov 13, 2011.

  1. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great tash!

    What else?
     
  2. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    No takers then? Not even Allelyah?
     
  3. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    1
    Fantastic!

    As to Nietzsche, I'm unfamiliar with the specifics, as I understand it he wanted us to become amoral and let the strongest rule the weak. If someone would add some insights I would gladly discuss the subject.
     
  4. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku IAMTHATIAMNOT

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nietzsche wasn't amoral, he called himself an 'immoralist' which is similar to what we call an 'antitheist' these days, Nietzsche is important to Luciferians for a number of reasons, but as an immoralist he challenged all the religions and belief systems, deciding they were more detrimental than beneficial to Mankind.
     
  5. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    1
    This struck me, me thinks that we first have to figure out what we believe the purpose for mankind and/or individuals are before we can determine what is detrimental or beneficial.
    What was his conclusion?
     
  6. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku IAMTHATIAMNOT

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Freddy's outlook was that they were extremely detrimental and a hindrance to an evolving Mankind. I tend to agree with him, where I can see that religion provides comfort and consolation it, in many cases, blinds and deludes rational thinking, has caused more wars than possibly any other reason, and to this day keeps most of the world at each others throats.

    Which is why I imagine this website forum was designed, so that some of us can get past this and unite.
     
  7. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    So often I see a person claim that a teaching has caused him/her to do something, or a word has caused them to feel something, or a person's dress has caused them to act, or an advertisement has caused them to buy. It is often a person that seeks their own 'freedom' too, yet fails to exercise their freedom to review their own behavior, their own coveted addictions. While it is true that people can become aware of temptations and addictions, and then seek to tempt, seduce, or addict a virgin neighbor, the awareness of temptations and addictions is perhaps a necessary step to overcoming them. A book does not cause anything. People cause, and some try to use religion as their excuse.
     
  8. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    1
    Etu, I think it's hard to define what religion actually does and the answer is probably very different depending on who you ask. I'm trying to imagine a world without religion and I can't see where religion and begins and ends in society. For me religion is a product of people huddling together by the fire, it has some unique aspects but it has so much in common with any other type of human organization. In a way, religion (a world with many meanings) is a natural product of mankind.
    Hm, thanks, never thought of it that clearly before.
     
  9. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    0
    to quote terry jones:

    "Nietzsche! HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!"

    or, alternatively, jeeves, to bertie wooster:

    "You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound."

    or, if you prefer, bertrand russell:

    "The whole of [Nietzsche’s] abuse of women is offered as self-evident truth; it is not backed up by evidence from history or from his own experience, which, so far as women were concerned, was almost confined to his sister."

    good moustache, though.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  10. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only know a teensy weensy bit of Nietzsche, but he does seem interesting. I'm aware Russell is underwhelmed by him, but then I know buggerall about Russell.
     
  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    0
    ACOT is onto something here. In the beginning (2 million years ago or so) we have proof of technology (Leakey's tools in East Africa). About 250,000 years ago we have proof of a mythic-religious bent (Neanderthal burials). About 10,000 years ago we begin having proof of theology (Temples in Turkey and Indus valley).

    By the time we get to writing 5,000 years ago (Sumeria and Egypt, then, independently, Indus, China, Mezoamerica, and Abenakian) we know that the religious (individual spirituality) and theology (collective or exoteric Religion) both thrived (yoga postures and individual gliphs in Indus and temple myths in Sumer).

    By the time we get to the great transition times (Zarathustra, Rishis, Moses, the Original Daoists, Q'uq'utazi) the split between religion and theology was evident and philosophy (including math and science) was just beginning to separate from theology (before which time only priests had math and astronomy skills).

    BOTTOM LINE: By the time of the Hundred Schools of Thought (China), the Nine Shools of Philosophy (India), and the Pre-Aristotelians (Europe) religion (personal beliefs in spirit), theology (normally called Religion), and philosophy (now including philosophy proper, first philosophy and metaphysics, mathematics, and physical science) were firmly separated. And techne (or craftsmanship or technology) was still well ahead. Sound plausible?

    By this argument. Freddie N and Franz Rosenzweig were opposite sides of the same coin--Freddie opted for a philosophical solution to theology (ignoring religion) and Franz opted for a religion that embraced theology and philosophy.


    Panta Rhei!
    Everything Flows
     
  12. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you recommend any particular books? Either about his philosophy or translations of the actual works?
     
  13. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku IAMTHATIAMNOT

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    0
    His "Anti-Christ" and "Will to Power" are both seminal works for Luciferians to understand.
     
  14. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK thanks. Any particular translations?
     
  15. IowaGuy

    IowaGuy Hunter-Gatherer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    As soon as my device is prepared to play youtube I'll check it out!

    Thanks!
     
  17. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    0

    Especially Christianity, he said, whose god died.
    Ben
     
  18. Sam Albion

    Sam Albion akaFrancisKing:ViveLeRoi!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nietzsche is the most amusing philosopher I have ever encountered. He appears to be immoral, as he mocks morality, yet subtly, the morality he mocks is the faux-morality humans are enslaved by, rather than liberated by. He is witty, and he takes no prisoners. He's well worth reading. For me, laugh out loud funny. I remember first encountering Nietzsche on a train, and consistently laughing out loud. Oft misused now, LOL, but... Nietszche is a LOL kinda guy.

    It's a pity he'd dead. We would've made beautiful babies...
     
  19. Snoopy

    Snoopy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0

    I rather thought his point was that god was a human psychological construct, and modern thinking meant that it was no longer a viable one. The value of it is gone, but there remains a need for something to replace it.
     
  20. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Especially Christianity? Although he does have a unique disdain for Christianity, I consider Nietzsche an equal opportunity critic.

    To quote the maxim: the enemy of one's enemy does not thereby become one's friend. As I read him, usually after a good dose of Pepto-Bismol as a prerequisite (though, granted, he is also at times funny and brilliant), he identifies Jews as the source of all Christian congenital abnormalities, going so far as to recommend that his readers inoculate themselves against the Gospels because, after all, by reading them, they enter the realm of Jewish genius, one key feature of which, as Nietzsche would have it, is dissimulation raised to an art form. Here, then, is Nietzsche, on a bus spitting diesel and in need of new tires, giving us a guided tour of how he sees the "evolution" of Christianity:

    Etc., etc., ad nauseam (were it not for the Pepto-Bismol)




    Serv
     

Share This Page