A popular story about Friedrich Nietzsche is that he went insane because of being infected with syphilis. The evidence for this is quite scanty, though - it seems that he was "diagnosed" with syphilis simply because that was a common condition, not because his symptoms truly fit the disease. In fact, there are good reasons to think that he suffered from something else entirely.
Issue 23 of The Philosophers' Magazine reports:
[Leonard] Sax, executive director of the Montgomery Center for Research in Child and Adolescent Development, argues that there is no record of Nietzsche suffering any of the symptoms associated with paretic syphilis, the diagnosis at the time of his admission to a psychiatric asylum in Basel in January 1889. ...
Sax argues that Nietzsche's final breakdown was the culmination of a far longer process more consistent with a meningioma. Syphilis takes hold faster and patients do not survive as long as Nietzsche did after his breakdown. Sax also points out that bizarre-sounding and grandiose claims were not confined to the last years of Nietzsche's life, suggesting they were not caused by the sudden onset of syphilis.
A meningioma, on the other hand, develops over years and could have been the cause of Nietzsche's long history of bad headaches - usually assumed to be migraines - and visual disturbances.
Why has the myth about Nietzsche's syphilis persisted for so long? It seems likely that insanity, coupled with a sexually transmitted disease, has been just too appealing of a story among those who seek to disparage a philosopher who did so much to attack organized religion. To put it simply, people have needed a way to attack his reasoning abilities and his moral character and this provided just the way. So much for compassion, eh?
Read More:
yes… such a lack of compassion these people have displayed. To suggest someone may have contracted a STD in those times is obviously ludicrous! I am certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that none of his military service as an orderly might have been conducive to any such contraction. I thank the lack of a God of any kind that we have you to champion our cause while the rest of us live our lives. I for one have too many other (fun and acyually interesting) plans to set up a web site to defend my faith.
To think that Nietzsche was an athiest is a terrible generalization and you have clearly misread his refusal of this title in The Gay Science.
Also, to Chris above, Syphallis is a sexually transmitted disease that was first contracted from SHEEP…when farmers had sex with sheep.
And considering there was a large population of workers in the primary/agricultural business, it was very likely that this STD could have been contracted and passed along.
Not to mention, this STD was believed to exist even in the 13th century BC.
And Austin, if you’re going to write about Nietzsche, read him:
“Compassion can be praised as a virtue of prostitutes.”
Compassion is for the weak men! Nietzsche is probably laughing at this idea, right now. I’m know he likes being teased a lot more than being praised.
1. Did anyone use that label with him above?
2. Whether he “refused” the title or not is immaterial; all that matters is whether he believed in gods or not. If not, then by definition “atheist” is correct.
Nietzsche said “God is Dead”. He did not say “God Doesn’t Exist.”
That is the definition of Athiesm.
[And obviously exclude the BC in my second comment. Where that came from, I do not know...]
The definition of atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
Nietzsche never said he didn’t believe in the existence of God[s]. In fact, he spoke about them a lot and acknowledged the existence of many.
Not sure if you’ve read The Birth of Tragedy [you must not have] but it focus’ on two Gods the entire book, and the different way that dramatics praise them.
And “God is Dead” means that he is aware that a God must have been in order for It to cease to exist [And that is not Atheism!]. You would know all this if you would actually read his work…
The point is, Nietzsche was not an atheist.
And thus, he has no real place in your “Athiesm Blog.”
Nietzsche’s discussion of Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of literature and culture was never meant to suggest that he believed there existed a real Apollo or a real Dionysus. I would never have imagined for a moment that anyone could read that book and think Nietzsche believed that those Greek gods actually existed in any real, objective sense.
And I have read it by the way. I’ve read all his works, including most of his unpublished notes. In the original German.
1. He wasn’t talking about a real god, but the conception of God in western culture. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand the whole point of what he was saying about the changes he saw happening in western culture.
2. If you believe that there existed some god in the past but not now, then you don’t currently believe in the existence of any gods — and you’re an atheist.
Your reasoning thus far isn’t very good. On the contrary, I believe that your reasoning rests on significant misreadings of Nietzsche’s works. Writing about gods metaphorically does not make one a theist.
Right. Because… no one but atheists should be mentioned here?
I did not say that Nietzsche believed those gods existed himself but he did acknowledge their existence and their importance for the Greeks and within Greek tragedies. An athiest would not acknowledge any gods’ importance but would blow it off as suppositious nonsense.
Ooo.. you’ve read all his GERMAN works too!? I am so impressed. A lot of people can read, read, read all the books in the world but that doesn’t mean they comprehend the writer.
Nietzsche was speaking about a REAL god, actually. First passage of book three of the Gay Science mentions the death of Buddha and how people praised the shadow that remained on the wall after his death [and how he thought THIS was silly]. He did, in fact, mention a real God.
Wow, you atheists don’t seem to have your story straight.
First you tell me Whether he “refused” the title or not is immaterial; all that matters is whether he believed in gods or not. If not, then by definition “atheist” is correct.
Then you tell me The definition of atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
Now you tell me it’s okay to have once believed in gods, but atheists believe they don’t exist ANYMORE?
Please, get your definition straight.
You’re contradicting yourself.
The reason I think he has no place in your atheist blog because you write about him in a praising manner, as if he did something great for atheism, when those were not his intentions.
And for a group of people who don’t believe in something higher, you sure are into praising dead people just because they say “God is Dead”.
What an interesting discussion. I shall now weigh in!
First, FN didn’t die of syphillis. That’s rubbish. Second, with regards to his “atheism”…it is really fairly complicated. He definitely went through a deeply positivistic phase where he was a completely hard core materialist. He also railed relentlessly against the entire Western metaphysical tradition, including Kant, and comes out strong against any sense of “things in themselves” that we can’t see, feel, taste, hear, etc. And his ongoing diatribe against all religions of his day, and especially against Christianity, is well-known.
Why, then, can we not say that he is a straight up atheist? Well, becaue he believed in, and advocated, a profoundly religious culture. He really wanted the West to return to that era of Greek history where men lived heroically, and performed great feats, as it were on a stage in front of the Greek gods. He believed in religious festivals, celebrations, ceremony, etc., and he wanted the religion of humanity striving for greatness to be at the heart of an invigorated culture in the west. So, not your run of the mill atheist. Perhaps the most “religious” atheist of all time! (And in this regard, even here he has some kind things to say about the Christian tradition).
You said he “acknowledge the existence of many” gods, which means actually believing that they exist. You can’t “acknowledge” the existence of something you don’t believe in.
There is nothing about being an atheist which would prevent a person from acknowledging that this or that god has been important in this or that culture. or to various people. Would it be too much to ask that instead of making sweeping generalizations and assumptions about people you know nothing about, you please try to ask questions first?
Well, you’re the one incorrectly stating that the “death of God” was meant to describe the real death of a real god as opposed to the demise of a cultural principle/artifact/symbol.
Not even Buddhists believe Buddha is or was a god. Many Buddhists disbelieve in or simply disregard the possibility of gods generally.
There’s no contradiction. Notice that the definition of “atheism” is in the present tense and is therefore about what one presently believes presently exists. Atheists don’t believe in the existence of any gods; this doesn’t preclude the (probably remote) possibility of thinking that something like a god could have existed in the past but no longer does. I’ve never met such an person, but it wouldn’t contradiction the definition of atheism.
What I most definitely did not say is that atheists (generally) don’t believe that gods exist anymore. That’s just an egregious misrepresentation of my words. All I did was point out that such a belief is not contradictory to atheism.
I don’t describe him as doing anything “great for atheism” — as the absence of belief in gods, you can’t do anything great or awful “for” it. He did, however, make many important critiques of religion which is worthwhile for atheists today to be familiar with. Whether he intended to write anything useful for atheists more than a century after his death is irrelevant and I’m at a loss to explain why you might think that it could be.
1. Atheists don’t believe in any gods; that doesn’t exclude believing in anything “higher” (higher values, higher principles, etc.). Once again, please don’t generalize about and misrepresent people you don’t know; instead, try to ask questions.
2. Since no one is praising Nietzsche “just because” he said “God is dead,” this isn’t a legitimate criticism here.
I find all your egregious misrepresentations and false attacks on things no one has written to be beyond my understanding, to say the least. Why don’t you take a couple of steps back, try to identify anything that anyone has actually written which have disagree with, and explain why you think it’s wrong?
I’ll be happy to entertain legitimate criticism of something I’ve written, but I have no time for or interest in attacks on things you want to attribute to me but which I’ve never written — or things falsely attributed to Nietzsche, for that matter. If you can’t base your criticism or argument on a direct quote from the relevant person, maybe that’s a sign that what you’re saying is incorrect.
I could reply so many different things to your last comment but I’ve exhausted myself with this journal.
My last points will be:
I still stand that Nietzsche was not an atheist. He believed in the existence of a God. He believed man killed him. Period. And that was the beginning of the argument.
Feeling compassion for a dead guy over something he is most likely laughing about is very much like when a theist praises an idol.
Your definition of atheism is ever changing.
You stated “I’ve never met such an person, but it wouldn’t contradiction the definition of atheism.” — for someone who tells me to state my opinions with facts or direct quotes from a relevant person, what gives you the right to assume such a stance on atheism without ever having met someone who believes such a thing? Are you the master of atheism? Should I bow down to you, knower-of-all-things-atheist? Do your degrees give you all this amazing knowledge? Does having a popular webpage make you oh-so-wise?
And finally:
“Arguing over the internet is like the special olympics. No matter who wins, you’re still a retard.”
I’d be satisfied if you could only support a single one of your claims. It shouldn’t be that hard.
Standing by a claim isn’t laudable when you are unable or unwilling to support it.
No one has expressed “compassion” for Nietzsche here. Once again, you are attributing falsehoods to others instead of addressing what they actually write.
Feel free to support that accusation with citations of where I have changed anything.
I’m simply repeating the definition of atheism. I don’t need to meet a person who holds such a position in order to point out that this position is not contradictory to the definition of atheism. The only thing that would contradict being an atheist is currently believing that some god exists. Everyone lacking said belief is an atheist, no matter what else they may believe.
No, I simply happen to know what I’m talking about.
No, you should simply support your claims and accusations. Or admit you can’t and retract them.
No, they are just products of experience in which I learned how to do research, explain ideas, and support claims.
No, but it does give me a venue where I can explain ideas and support claims.
That’s a curious position for you to adopt, given that you chose to come here and chose to argue points you didn’t understand. Lines like that seem to be favored by people who prever passive-aggressive insults over constructing serious, substantive arguments. I must confess that I really can’t comprehend the psychology behind that.
Ah, I know your kind. I refer to your kind as the “ones that cannot be saved”. You are the kind of person who believes Truth to be founded on “facts”, and these “facts” to be simply something someone else quotes. You are never capable of thinking for yourself, of becoming Aware of Truths yourself, only finding “truth” in claims other people made and supporting falsities by quoting something someone else said.
I bet you’re one of those people who think education is great for you, too… who list lines from textbooks and don’t believe in anything unless you’ve read it somewhere, stated by someone who has a title as “philosopher” or “scientist” [although majority of people with title barely deserve it].
Did you know campus in Latin means “Military camp”? You are simply a pawn, like all the others. Brought up to think like all the rest. You cannot think for yourself. You need “citations” or “quotations” or “valuable sources” in order to believe anything.
You are the type of person, the weak man, that Nietzsche wrote about. You are the man who is so in love with science that he killed his own God because of it. You are the man who is now stuck in an abyss because of it, so obsessed with “facts” and “scienfic truths” that you have lost your own power, investing it in quoting what everyone else says in order to make sense to your life.
You are incapable of finding Truth for yourself.
And thus, you are incapable of accepting it when it is heard.
Much like you will find it difficult to accept this comment.
My “kind”? Do you generalize about others much instead of treating them as individual human beings?
Yet here you are anyway.
So, you never considered it a “fact” that Nietzsche wasn’t an atheist?
And yet, I still manage to make coherent arguments based on evidence and reason.
Well, it does come with the benefit of teaching a person how to do research, how to reason, and the importance of being able to support one’s opinions. It’s noteworthy that this comment is filled with accusations and claims, none of which you even try to support or defend. You just toss them around as if it were intellectually and ethically appropriate to say whatever negative thing comes into your head, regardless of whether you can back it up or not.
And treating others with such broad generalizations instead of as individuals is a sign of how you have managed to avoid that sort of mentality?
Whereas you’re convinced you have moved beyond such things, right?
So, I can’t find Truth for myself because I can only accept it when I find it said by others, but I can’t accept Truth when I hear it from others and that’s why I can’t find Truth for myself.
That could have been circular if it had been coherent, but as it stands it isn’t good enough to qualify as wrong. This, then, is one of the benefits of some education (of which Nietzsche had quite a bit and utilized heavily): it can help a person avoid obvious and simple errors in reasoning.
Another attempt at passive-aggressive insults.
(14) Claudia says:Did you know campus in Latin means “Military camp”?
Surely googling “etymology campus” ought to be able to bring up some shred support for this unsupported claim. And indeed, the word is said to be from “simple Latin”, so that’s a hit for Claudia. Unfortunately, the meaning is said to be something like “surrounded field” with no on-line dictionary bothering to mention any military connection.
This snippet of yours seems characteristic of your style of discussion: you make unsupported claims the unimportant part of which turns out true, but the important parts don’t pan out.
Since you are relying on “quotations” or “valuable sources” in order to believe that, isn’t this just an example of you not thinking “for yourself”? If you only believe it because it was written by someone with professional education, experience, and knowledge about Latin, isn’t that just a sign that you’re another “weak man” who is obsessed with “facts” and “truths”? Haven’t you “lost your own power” because you’re just “quoting” others?
Presumably, you should at least be willing to believe things said by people without any education, experience, or knowledge in the topic they are talking about. Even better, you should be able to create your own “truth” which doesn’t depend on “valuable sources” and “quoting” others. There’s certainly no need for you to have any education, experience, or knowledge in that area.
Here, let me give you an example: Did you know that campus in Latin means “place of political indoctrination”? It was originally a type of school where the youth of wealthy families learned how to misuse “facts” and words in order to deceive others and retain their power. No, really — that’s my “truth.”
(17) Austin Cline says:Since you are relying on “quotations” or “valuable sources” in order to believe that, isn’t this just an example of you not thinking “for yourself”? If you only believe it because it was written by someone with professional education, experience, and knowledge about Latin, isn’t that just a sign that you’re another “weak man” who is obsessed with “facts” and “truths”? Haven’t you “lost your own power” because you’re just “quoting” others?
From the vehemence of the style of response, my first guess is that Austin thought he was responding to a claim by Claudia instead of a comment from me. My not knowing a thing about Nietzsche or his writing other than that he’s claimed to be quoted by an animated character int the 1997 movie “Mighty Ducks The Movie” I am at a loss for interpreting the references quoted in the above comment.
Interpreting what Austin said instead as a criticism of the basis for my comment about Claudia’s style of discussion, I’ll concede the point. I wanted to test Claudia’s claim by a quick google reasoning that if it was true then it would show up in available sources about the etymology of the word. Not only was searching in the wrong direction (try instead “Latin campus military camp”), but then I didn’t bother checking my sources. (They were web dictionaries) Finally, on this flimsy basis, I made a snide comment about Claudia’s style of discussion. Claudia, I apologize for my unsupported comment.
No, no, I was just being sarcastic. Apparently, I did it so well that it came through as serious… sorry about that.
Not to worry. I’ve a thick head. Your words reminded me to remember to assess the strength of my data and reliability of my sources, something you always seems to do, so I can proportionately gauge the snideness of my comments.
Austin,
You should stop masturbating. You are too feminine. Your writing shows this, you are too verbose.
Once more with the passive-aggressive insults. It often takes longer to explain the flaws in bad ideas than it does to carelessly toss them out in the first place.
Case in point.
Also, it is in fact quite aggressive.
I’m a self-indulgent lunatic.
I think people who supported him may have spread the idea he had a disease, to cover up the idea that maybe his own philosophy drove him mad. At the end of his sanity he embraced a horse that had been flogged to an inch of its life – was this an act of repentance for his philosophy by being a reference to the christian mystic dostoyevsky’s work ‘crime and punishment’?
And why do you think that — are you seeking comfort in believing that a person whose philosophy you disapprove of would, for reasons unknown, suffer from a mental illness? That’s both bigoted and cruel.
Nietzsche suffered at least two strokes before he died, so it seems clear that some sort of physical ailment was afflicting his brain.
Many people with mental illness subsequently suffer problems with the physical brain. If you’ve read the brothers karamazov by dostoyevsky, Ivan has similar views to nietszche (in fact you can argue dostoyevsky predicted nietszches philosophy … and refuted it perhaps) and ends the novel being driven mad by them and in exactly the same state as nietszche finished his life. Yet another prophecy by the great dostoyevsky.
If I championed a philosophy that was basically ‘championing the strong over the weak’, and spread these ideas far and wide for the whole of my life, I think my conscience would catch up with me sooner or later… I mean look what it inspired in the 20th century, even though the nazis took it out of context to a certain extent.
Given the fact that mental illness is an illness of the physical brain, that’s to be expected. Stokes, however, are not normally associated with mental illnesses like depression or psychosis.
And of course a fictional story tells us so much about what happened to Nietzsche in real life.
And do you watch Star Wars for more prophecies? How about the Smurfs?
Except that that isn’t what he actually did. Maybe your conscience should catch with you over spreading falsehoods about others.
In fact they took everything in Nietzsche out of context. You’d know that if you actually understood Nietzsche — or were interested in being honest about his philosophy.
In fact they took everything in Nietzsche out of context. You’d know that if you actually understood Nietzsche — or were interested in being honest about his philosophy.
Wow! I must be clearly stupid and surely I understand nothing, and I am even dishonest. Like Lukacs and Losurdo. Nietzsche was only reactionary, imperialist and anti-democratic. And a complete misogynist. Hitler was a free man, wasn’t he? Like all warriors. The nazis understood Nietzsche quite well and began to apply his great politics. To build an European imperium for centuries. To build an aristocratic order. With slaves to satisfy their needs. And getting rid of the useless people. Quite a program, isn’t it?
I can’t disagree with you there.
You mean, a censored and edited version put together by his sister. Big difference.
Poor health and insanity aren’t quite the same thing.
So, now you’re a doctor who can diagnose that this was all the same illness that led to his insanity.
But of course you’re not. We’re just back to the “dishonest” part again.
Wow Aggressive aren’t we!
‘Given the fact that mental illness is an illness of the physical brain, that’s to be expected. Stokes, however, are not normally associated with mental illnesses like depression or psychosis.’
If you think mental illness is an illness of the physical brain that is your OPINION. The dualists (many eminent ones in the field nobel proze winners etc), and of course idealists like myself who believe the physical brain ad body are an expression of the mind. You are just making blind materialist assumptions typical of so many atheists. Also it was YOU who suggested that the strokes were because of his brain illness, not me.
‘And of course a fictional story tells us so much about what happened to Nietzsche in real life.’
No it doesn’t necessarily, however dostoyevsky is widely considered THE GREATEST novelist of all time, and one of the greatest thinkers of the 19th century. His novels reflect reality like no other writer, and we follow in great intricate detail ivans life, and how he participates in murder and goes mad. Nietzsche himself although disagreeing with him on many points still said about him ‘he is the only psychologist I have something to learn from’.
‘And do you watch Star Wars for more prophecies? How about the Smurfs?’
Perhaps there is no difference between dostoyevsky and the smurfs and star wars in your mind, but perhaps you’re not very well educated.
‘Except that that isn’t what he actually did. Maybe your conscience should catch with you over spreading falsehoods about others.’
How was that not what he did? Explain how the central tenet of his philosophy wasn’t championing the strong over the weak.
‘In fact they took everything in Nietzsche out of context. You’d know that if you actually understood Nietzsche — or were interested in being honest about his philosophy.’
I am honest about his philosophy. I think there are some things good to be said about nietzsche, however alot of his philosophy is just butchered Schopenhauer.
If you think it’s “aggressive” when someone challenges your claims, that’s your problem. You have my condolences, but maybe you should spend more time in places where your claims are challenged. Then not only would you not find it some problematic when it occurs, but then more of your claims would be accurate.
No, it’s not. Mental illness is treated with physical methods precisely because it is ultimately a physical problem.
Then you are obligated to show some reason why it’s relevant in this particular case. The fact that someone is a good author of fiction doesn’t even qualify as a bad reason, much less a good one.
But I think we both know that you can’t provide any empirical reasons or foundation for your position. It seems to me that your only reasons are that you found something which reinforces your cruel prejudices. This can not only have the effect of making you feel better about them, but you don’t even have to take full personal responsibility for them.
You are of course welcome to prove me wrong by offering some sort of substantive, empirical argument for why anyone should believe that fiction written by one person at one point in space, time, and culture should be taken as an accurate representation of the real life experiences of an entirely different person at an entirely different point in space, time, and culture. I won’t hold my breath because I’m confident that you can’t do it, but I did want to point out that the way is open to you to substantively rebut my conclusions above if you disagree with them.
Oh, there are lots of differences — but I don’t use any of them in place of reality when trying to determine facts about history.
Easy: it doesn’t accurately reflect what he wrote. Nietzsche wrote many things, some more reasonable and some less reasonable, but he didn’t write what you attributed to him.
Simple: he didn’t write that.
I notice that you don’t try to support your assertions by providing documentary evidence to back them up. That would of course have been the serious response. Had you any sort of substantive evidence to back up your assertions, it would have been a trivial matter to shoot down my disagreement with some choice passages from his works. But you didn’t do that, did you? This suggests quite strongly that you have no such evidence.
The most generous assumption that one might make is that you heard this somewhere from someone and believed it without bothering to check it out for yourself. Maybe you even saw a couple of quotes taken out of context and, without any deeper knowledge of his philosophy, assumed that they were in line with what you had previously heard. Now, when challenged to actually support your assertions, you’re at a loss. All you can do is bluster.
Except for the parts where you don’t make accurate statements about this philosophy. Which would be… well, everything you’ve said so far.
I’m guessing that maybe we have different definitions of the word “honest.” For me, it means being truthful about reality. This would be the opposite of telling falsehoods that do not reflect reality.
‘If you think it’s “aggressive” when someone challenges your claims, that’s your problem. You have my condolences, but maybe you should spend more time in places where your claims are challenged. Then not only would you not find it some problematic when it occurs, but then more of your claims would be accurate.’
No, I don’t think challenging my claims is being aggressive, I think ending every second sentence with a viciously barbed comment is being aggressive.
‘No, it’s not. Mental illness is treated with physical methods precisely because it is ultimately a physical problem.’
Treating mental illness with physical methods hasn’t exactly been a resounding success now has it? The modern practice of treatment is just to drug the patients to the point where they can’t actually think about their problems. You like so many act as if materialism, or the idea that everything about the mind can be proved by physical processes and trust me it really hasn’t.
‘You are of course welcome to prove me wrong by offering some sort of substantive, empirical argument for why anyone should believe that fiction written by one person at one point in space, time, and culture should be taken as an accurate representation of the real life experiences of an entirely different person at an entirely different point in space, time, and culture. I won’t hold my breath because I’m confident that you can’t do it, but I did want to point out that the way is open to you to substantively rebut my conclusions above if you disagree with them.’
I didn’t claim it should be taken as an accurate representation. I just pointed out a fact that I thought might contain some meaning: Ivan believed what nietszche believed, Ivan ends the novel in the same way Nietszche ended his life.
‘I notice that you don’t try to support your assertions by providing documentary evidence to back them up. That would of course have been the serious response. Had you any sort of substantive evidence to back up your assertions, it would have been a trivial matter to shoot down my disagreement with some choice passages from his works. But you didn’t do that, did you? This suggests quite strongly that you have no such evidence. ‘
Well ok, here are some quotes for you to back up the stuff I’ve been saying:
Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness. – the gay science
We “conserve” nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means “liberal”; we do not work for “progress”; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about “equal rights,” “a free society,” “no more masters and no servants” has no allure for us. – the gay science
Without cruelty there is no festival: thus the longest and most ancient part of human history teaches — and in punishment there is so much that is festive! – the genealogy of morals
The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy; it is not from the strongest that harm comes to the strong, but from the weakest. – the genealogy of morals
The doctrine of equality! … But there is no more venomous poison in existence: for it appears to be preached by justice itself, when it is actually the end of justice … “Equality to the equal; inequality to the unequal” — that would be true justice speaking: and its corollary, “never make the unequal equal”. – twilight of the idols
As an artistic triumph in psychological corruption … the Gospels, in fact, stand alone … Here we are among Jews: this is the first thing to be borne in mind if we are not to lose the thread of the matter. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal “holiness” unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an art — all this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is race. – the antichrist
The whole disaster was only made possible by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the Jewish. – the antichrist
What follows, then? That one had better put on gloves before reading the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very advisable. One would as little choose early Christians for companions as Polish Jews: not that one need seek out an objection to them — neither has a pleasant smell. – the antichrist
I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite. – ecce homo
A declaration of war on the masses by Higher Men is needed! … Everything that makes soft and effeminate, that serves the end of the People or the Feminine, works in favor of Universal Suffrage, i.e. the domination of the Inferior Men. But we should take reprisal and bring this whole affair to light and the bar of judgment. – ecce homo
The rights a man arrogates to himself are related to the duties he imposes on himself, to the tasks to which he feels equal. The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men. – ecce homo
There is only nobility of birth, only nobility of blood. When one speaks of “aristocrats of the spirit,” reasons are usually not lacking for concealing something. As is well known, it is a favorite term among ambitious Jews. For spirit alone does not make noble. Rather, there must be something to ennoble the spirit. What then is required? Blood. – ecce homo
The possibility has been established for the production of…a Master Race, the future “masters of the earth”…made to endure for millennia — a higher kind of men who…employ democratic Europe as their most pliant and supple instrument for getting hold of the destinies of the earth. – ecce homo
‘The most generous assumption that one might make is that you heard this somewhere from someone and believed it without bothering to check it out for yourself. Maybe you even saw a couple of quotes taken out of context and, without any deeper knowledge of his philosophy, assumed that they were in line with what you had previously heard. Now, when challenged to actually support your assertions, you’re at a loss. All you can do is bluster. ‘
Given that you have asserted that his philosophy WASN’T championing the strong over the weak suggests that YOU don’t know what you’re talking about.
Ugh… ok… I’m the one that’s blustering
Come on now austin, you’re not going to censor my message, and pretend I didn’t respond now are you? Why don’t you write an article on about-atheism, that this is how you lot behave when someone says something you don’t like? Is it because you are so sure of your position that you think any morality doesn’t matter because the ends justify the means? So you can lie, cover up the truth etc, because if it attacks religion that alright then? If not perhaps you shouldn’t devote yourself to poisoning people against religion. Just because you don’t understand religion doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have great truth to it. You are not king of the universe.
Why do atheists (ie mainly middle – upper class, spoilt, university boys, who have had nice comfortable lives, and have never really lived) think that they understand things about life that the religious (ie the mainly working class, who have had bad lives, and have seen struggle and suffering the atheists never have) don’t?
The half of the world that has lead nice comfortable lives, look at the suffering and struggle in the world, tut, shake their heads and say there can;t be a god. The other half that have actually experienced the great struggle and suffering the world, know that something called god certainly does exist. Why don’t you give it up Austin… you really don’t know the damage you blind atheists might end up doing.
Pointing out how often you utterly fail to support your claims isn’t being “viciously barbed,” it’s accurately pointing out your many failures.
Compared to how they were treated when it was assumed that their problems were spiritual, it has indeed been a resounding success — and it keeps getting better over time.
You seemed to agree that it tells us “so much” about what happened to Nietzsche and, moreover, that the fiction was “prophetic.” So, yes, you presented fiction as an accurate representation of reality. It is thus far the only basis you’ve been able to offer for your assertion that you think Nietzsche didn’t suffer from any sort of illness. When you find yourself making strong empirical claims and your only foundation is a fictional story written by a completely unrelated person at a different time, place, and culture, you should start rethinking just how you approach reality.
OK, you finally provide something half-way substantive. Now, can you demonstrate that the quotes mean what you claim they mean in context? In particular you might want to drop the use of ellipses because they can be used to hide contrary passages without alerting readers. Indeed, why do I get the impression that you simply copied pasted these passages from some quotes site and without regard for what they might have meant in context?
FYI, an ability to find a quotes sites via Google and single out few passages that appear to express what you want isn’t a sign that you actually understand Nietzsche. You weren’t even careful enough to ensure that all the quotes were on topic — the “I know my fate” passage is, at best, only tangentially related and that’s being generous.
You should also probably use a better quotes site because not all of the quotes are accurate. The “declaration of war on the masses” passage isn’t in Ecce Homo. Neither is “rights a man arrogates to himself.” Neither is “nobility of birth.” Neither is “the possibility of the production of a Master Race.”
Well, I don’t rely on an unreliable quotes site that misattributes a significant number of passages for all my information. Like I said, the ability to find such a site and copy/paste it’s inaccurate material isn’t a sign that you know what you’re talking about. On the other hand, the fact that I recognized that some of those quotes didn’t belong to where they were attributed should suggest to you that I know far more than you assume.
But of course the way is open for you to demonstrate that you really do understand what you’re talking about and didn’t just pull a set of out-of-context quotes out of the first quotes site you found via Google. I won’t hold my breath, though. If the best you can do is copy and paste a few random, inaccurate quotes instead of presenting what you imagine his philosophy to be backed up by relevant and accurate quotes, I think it’s clear that you just don’t know Nietzsche well enough to make any informed claims about him or his philosophy.
And we’re still left with the fact that the entire basis for your original claim about Nietzsche is that you read something similar in a novel you liked.
The fact that you would assume that if your comment doesn’t appear right away then it must have been censored by an atheist says a lot about the assumptions and prejudices you bring.
I’m not the one offering misattributed quotes that I found on some quotes site and don’t understand to back up philosophical claims.
Those are interesting claims about socio-economic and educational demographics. Why don’t you provide some numbers to back them up.
If you have to suffer in order to believe in a god, that doesn’t speak well for gods.
Oh, and what about the people who do suffer and don’t believe in any gods?
Why don’t you enlighten us.
‘Pointing out how often you utterly fail to support your claims isn’t being “viciously barbed,” it’s accurately pointing out your many failures.’
No, its not pointing out anything which is viciously barbed, its the fact that you follow up every time by slinging insults like an angry woman.
‘Compared to how they were treated when it was assumed that their problems were spiritual, it has indeed been a resounding success — and it keeps getting better over time.’
Please when exactly was it assumed they were spiritual? It doesn’t keep getting better over time. Mental illness keeps going up and up in the so called ‘civilised’ western world. Now come on Austin back up your claim that it is purely a physical problem. You keep having a go at me for apparently not backing up what I’m saying, why don’t you back up what you say? It couldn’t be that you are a narrow minded materialist, and are bigoted against dualistic and idealistic ideas now are you?
‘You seemed to agree that it tells us “so much” about what happened to Nietzsche and, moreover, that the fiction was “prophetic.” So, yes, you presented fiction as an accurate representation of reality. It is thus far the only basis you’ve been able to offer for your assertion that you think Nietzsche didn’t suffer from any sort of illness. When you find yourself making strong empirical claims and your only foundation is a fictional story written by a completely unrelated person at a different time, place, and culture, you should start rethinking just how you approach reality.’
Part of the point about art (true art I mean not the modern kind) is that the point of it is to inform us about reality, and the artist (the true artist) creates their art with this purpose. Dostoyevsky is one of the single greatest voices in the theism-atheism debate, and living in the times of the general decline of religion in europe he saw things no-one else did. He even predicted the russian revolution to a startling degree of accuracy. With Ivan he shows us the logical conclusion of the prevalent atheistic ides of the time, and where they might lead. And a few years later we saw a living example of this with Nietzsche.
‘OK, you finally provide something half-way substantive. Now, can you demonstrate that the quotes mean what you claim they mean in context? In particular you might want to drop the use of ellipses because they can be used to hide contrary passages without alerting readers. Indeed, why do I get the impression that you simply copied pasted these passages from some quotes site and without regard for what they might have meant in context?’
Ugh.. yes I did copy and paste those quotes from wikiquote, I didn’t realise that was such a crime. I do have a life and things to do, so I’m not sure what else you expected me to do. Alot of Nietzsches work is aphoristic, I expect most of those quotes were stand alone aphorisms, and so therefore couldn’t be taken out of context.
‘FYI, an ability to find a quotes sites via Google and single out few passages that appear to express what you want isn’t a sign that you actually understand Nietzsche. You weren’t even careful enough to ensure that all the quotes were on topic — the “I know my fate” passage is, at best, only tangentially related and that’s being generous. ‘
The ‘I know my fate’ passage is a very famous one, and one which I felt was relevant, because it turned out to be very true with what happened with the nazis didn’t it?
‘You should also probably use a better quotes site because not all of the quotes are accurate. The “declaration of war on the masses” passage isn’t in Ecce Homo. Neither is “rights a man arrogates to himself.” Neither is “nobility of birth.” Neither is “the possibility of the production of a Master Race.” ‘
No sorry, they were from ‘the will to power’… it was 2-3 in the morning… it’s a petty point.
‘Well, I don’t rely on an unreliable quotes site that misattributes a significant number of passages for all my information. Like I said, the ability to find such a site and copy/paste it’s inaccurate material isn’t a sign that you know what you’re talking about. On the other hand, the fact that I recognized that some of those quotes didn’t belong to where they were attributed should suggest to you that I know far more than you assume.’
Which one of those quotes were misattributed? It’s a sign I know what I’m talking about, becuase it backs up what I was saying before. One of the central tenets of his philosophy was outlining the distinction between the ‘slaves’ and the ‘masters’, and siding with the masters. Christian morality is about caring for the weak at the expense of the strong. Nietzsche overturned this and sided with championing the strong at the expense of the weak. Even the most ardent supporters of Nietzsches philosophy wouldn’t deny this, it is just a fact about his philosophy, there is no debate here.
‘But of course the way is open for you to demonstrate that you really do understand what you’re talking about and didn’t just pull a set of out-of-context quotes out of the first quotes site you found via Google. I won’t hold my breath, though. If the best you can do is copy and paste a few random, inaccurate quotes instead of presenting what you imagine his philosophy to be backed up by relevant and accurate quotes, I think it’s clear that you just don’t know Nietzsche well enough to make any informed claims about him or his philosophy.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche#Morality
If you really want me to trawl through my own books to show you, I suppose I will… but I don have a life you know…
‘And we’re still left with the fact that the entire basis for your original claim about Nietzsche is that you read something similar in a novel you liked.’
Err no, my basis for my claim is that I’ve read alot of Nietzsche, and there are striking parrallels between him and Ivan Karamazov, and Raskolnikov etc, and that Dostoyevsky shows what ultimately happens with such ideas.
‘I’m not the one offering misattributed quotes that I found on some quotes site and don’t understand to back up philosophical claims.’
When did I misattribute a single quote?
‘Those are interesting claims about socio-economic and educational demographics. Why don’t you provide some numbers to back them up.’
Am I wrong? Don’t most atheists come from nice comfortable middle class backgrounds?
‘If you have to suffer in order to believe in a god, that doesn’t speak well for gods.
Oh, and what about the people who do suffer and don’t believe in any gods? ‘
Well for a start there is a big difference between ‘gods’ and god. This is one of the fundamental things atheists fail to understand. Another thing dostoyevsky said was that the athiesm of most atheists is caused by pure dim-wittedness.
You don’t have to suffer to believe in a god, but here is another thing said by Nietzsche… I can’t remember the quote exactly, but it is something like: ‘Through suffering a greater understanding of the self is known.’
The people who suffer know things about life the people who don’t, don’t.
Can I also ask you a question Austin… do you support Nietzsches philosophy? I’m guessing you are a liberal? If there was one thing he attacked nearly as much as christianity its liberalism, and the democratic society. Also he certainly would have supported the neo-cons in america against the liberal, is that something you agree with?
‘Why don’t you enlighten us.’
Well as far as I can see human beings are meaning seeking creatures, and if you look at history as soon as religion declines in societies, political ideologies usually rush in to fill the gaps. Look at the french revolution and the reign of terror, the soviet union and the gulag… sure you have the small scandinavian countries of today, but they are almost entirely middle-class, and don’t have the demographic of the other countries. We’re both British I think, I can see some very dark times ahead for this country, due to people like you eroding the traditions, and spirituality of our society…
‘On the other hand, the fact that I recognized that some of those quotes didn’t belong to where they were attributed should suggest to you that I know far more than you assume.’
Or you just looked up Nietzsche on wikiquote yourself…
Because all scientific evidence we have points to physical causes of mental events, including mental illnesses, while no evidence points elsewhere. The body of all available scientific evidence is more than adequate support for a position.
You are trying to claim that a fictional story informs us about whether or not some real person suffered from an actual disease or not. I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate how.
It’s not a crime to copy and paste quotes without understanding what they mean or even whether they are accurate or not.
Not knowing where quotes come from when all you’re doing is offering quotes you copied and pasted speaks directly to whether you know what you’re talking about or not. That’s not petty.
What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Nietzsche realizes that material from Will to Power has to be treated carefully — and not at all like material from his other works. Attributing material from Will to Power to some other book gives that material greater authority than it really has and fundamentally misleads anyone looking at it.
And I expect you can demonstrate this.
You misattributed several quotes to Ecce Homo. Who knows what other errors there were.
I’m not personally familiar with the demographic numbers. You must be, though, since you made such an unambiguous claim. So I’m awaiting the numbers from you. What you say is quite possible, it’s just that since I lack any specific numbers I’m not going to jump making claims. That would be disingenuous.
Oh, and can I assume that you have some historical data as well? After all, you statements were rather general instead of culture-specific. This means that your statements would be undermined a bit if the demographics of atheism and theism in the West today were different from how they were in the West in, say, the 19th century. Or if they were different in America and Germany. Such differences would indicate that demographics were more dependent upon specific socioeconomic and cultural conditions rather than anything in atheism itself, thus invalidating any attempt to draw general conclusions about atheism overall from the demographic of atheists at some arbitrary point in time and culture.
We understand that for a believer, there’s a huge difference between other alleged god and the deity they happen to believe in. As atheists, though, we don’t privilege any one alleged deity over any other alleged deity.
And vice-versa. People who play competitive sports know things about life that people who don’t, don’t. And vice-versa. People who are disabled know things about life the people who aren’t, don’t. We do that all day and all night and not arrive at anything especially insightful.
Which part? This is a loaded question anyhow since it’s not clear that you actually understand anything about his philosophy.
This is a superficial and simplistic view which seems to assume that religious ideologies aren’t also political and that political ideologies don’t rush in to compete with religious ideologies even when they aren’t in decline.
Feel free to support your claims here. You imply, specifically, that secular atheists are a threat to a nation and that’s a pretty serious accusation which deserves to be backed up.
No, I compared a few suspect passages to my books and found that my suspicions were justified. There would be no need to look up Nietzsche on Wikiquote or any other quote site if I assumed your quotes were accurate.
‘Because all scientific evidence we have points to physical causes of mental events, including mental illnesses, while no evidence points elsewhere. The body of all available scientific evidence is more than adequate support for a position.’
Utter rubbish. Back this up. The only evidence there is is that when there is a mental event there is also observable activity in the brain, but that is no evidence that everything can be reduced to physical processes. Ok disprove an idealist like myself. Also if everything can be explained by the physical how do you explain consciousness? And by consciousness, what I mean is really subjectivity itself. Part of the definition of the physical is ‘object’, so how do you produce a subject from objects? Scientific materialism just doesn’t work does it? Is it just because science worshippers don’t like the idea that there may be things inaccessible to the scientific method?
‘You are trying to claim that a fictional story informs us about whether or not some real person suffered from an actual disease or not. I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate how.’
I’ve already demonstrated how. Read my previous post. Part of Dostoyevskys intention was to show us the logical conclusion of such ideas.
‘It’s not a crime to copy and paste quotes without understanding what they mean or even whether they are accurate or not.’
Give me an example of one of the quotes that eiterh wasn’t accurate, or which I failed to understand the meaning of.
‘Not knowing where quotes come from when all you’re doing is offering quotes you copied and pasted speaks directly to whether you know what you’re talking about or not. That’s not petty.
What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Nietzsche realizes that material from Will to Power has to be treated carefully — and not at all like material from his other works. Attributing material from Will to Power to some other book gives that material greater authority than it really has and fundamentally misleads anyone looking at it. ‘
Oh please line me up and shoot me for accidentally ascribing the wrong quote to the wrong work.
‘And I expect you can demonstrate this.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
‘You misattributed several quotes to Ecce Homo. Who knows what other errors there were.’
Feel free to point them out.
‘I’m not personally familiar with the demographic numbers. You must be, though, since you made such an unambiguous claim. So I’m awaiting the numbers from you. What you say is quite possible, it’s just that since I lack any specific numbers I’m not going to jump making claims. That would be disingenuous.
Oh, and can I assume that you have some historical data as well? After all, you statements were rather general instead of culture-specific. This means that your statements would be undermined a bit if the demographics of atheism and theism in the West today were different from how they were in the West in, say, the 19th century. Or if they were different in America and Germany. Such differences would indicate that demographics were more dependent upon specific socioeconomic and cultural conditions rather than anything in atheism itself, thus invalidating any attempt to draw general conclusions about atheism overall from the demographic of atheists at some arbitrary point in time and culture. ‘
Anyone with half a brain knows its true, Im not sure I really have time to actually find you some stats. You know its true as well, you’re just trying to kick up a fuss because you don’t like it.
‘We understand that for a believer, there’s a huge difference between other alleged god and the deity they happen to believe in. As atheists, though, we don’t privilege any one alleged deity over any other alleged deity.’
No that wasn’t what I meant by that statement, see I told you you wouldn’t understand it… its the same reason einstein didn’t believe in gods, a god, but referred to god, same with socrates in platos dfalogues, stephen hawking etc… in ancient indian literature as well. Unfortunately atheists don’t have the sharpness of intellect to understand such things… oh well.
‘And vice-versa. People who play competitive sports know things about life that people who don’t, don’t. And vice-versa. People who are disabled know things about life the people who aren’t, don’t. We do that all day and all night and not arrive at anything especially insightful.’
No. People who have had struggle and suffering in their lives know everything people who haven’t do, and more. This is why they know there is great truth to religion, and the pampered middle classes don’t.
‘Which part? This is a loaded question anyhow since it’s not clear that you actually understand anything about his philosophy.’
Ok, of course I don’t understand anything about his philosophy…
Like I said, all of the scientific evidence we have on the brain points to physical causes of mental events; no scientific evidence points anywhere else. If you want it backed up, just look at absolutely any scientific research on the brain — every single study done points to a physical, biological, material, chemical basis for everything. I’m not going to go into further detail on it because it’s off topic for this blog post; if you really care and want to discuss the science then post about it in the forum.
No, you haven’t, unless Dostoyevsky’s literary or philosophical intentions can tell us anything about the medical condition about some other person located in some other time, place, and culture. I don’t believe that his intentions can tell us anything about anyone’s medical condition and don’t think you can demonstrate otherwise. Nothing in Dostoyevsky can tell us about whether Nietzsche had something like syphilis, diabetes, hardening of the arteries, the genetic markers for Alzheimer’s, or any other medical condition.
As I already pointed out, the misattribution creates a serious and fundamental misrepresentation of Nietzsche’s writings.
Allow me to quote from the link you gave:
Nietzsche’s position on both “master” and “slave” morality is far more complex than your statements indicate. Yes, Nietzsche had a lot of harsh things to say about “slave” morality — but he had harsh things to say about, well, quite a lot. He was especially harsh on what he regarded as unquestioned assumptions in the culture around him and “slave” morality certainly qualifies.
There’s is nothing to indicate an unequivocal support for “master” morality, however. He points to things in it that he thinks were positive, but he never says anything like “and that’s why we should go back to it.” He never says anything like “this is the sort of morality which should define our society” or “we would be so much better off if we had master morality instead of slave morality.”
Even saying that he “preferred” one doesn’t qualify as “siding” with it because the latter implies a desire to see it “win” (i.e., take over) whereas the former can stem from a variety of attitudes and perspectives. When I “side” with someone or something over another, I’m working on behalf of one and want to see the other defeated. A preference, however, might stem from aesthetic or taste reasons that don’t entail a desire to defeat the alternative choices.
Criticizing A and pointing out some good things in B that were lost when A replaced B doesn’t entail that one sides with B over A. This is why you cannot support your claims simply by pointing to a few quotes where Nietzsche is critical of A or says something positive about B. A far deeper understanding of his philosophy would be required — an understanding that would enable one to construct a complex argument drawing from numerous sources and pointing out the flaws in the many alternative interpretations of the same sources.
Indeed, one would have to be familiar with those other interpretations — familiar with the other ways people have described Nietzsche’s ideas about morality. You didn’t even seem to be familiar with the Wikipedia page you linked to, given the fact that it made a statement which contradicted the position I challenged you to defend. At best the source you cite to demonstrate you are right describes your position as “debatable” (but not quite). And you actually think that this answers the challenge to “demonstrate” that Nietzsche “sides” with masters over slaves?
I certainly can’t assume that you have any familiarity with any of the published secondary literature on Nietzsche from the past couple of decades.
So you admit that you don’t have any verifiable facts or figures which would support your claim. You just “know” it. Somehow. You can’t explain how, you just do.
Yet you really expect me or anyone else to believe your claims about Nietzsche or the brain?
No, I don’t “know” it’s true. For me to know it, I’d have to have some sort verifiable evidence which I think supports that position. Even if I thought I merely “believed” it, the fact remains that I have absolutely no objective facts or figures to back up such a claim. At best, my belief would be based entirely on a non-representative sampling from personal experience and I’m not so dumb as to imagine that I can draw generalizations about a class of people either in my own country or in all Western countries today based solely upon some narrow personal experiences with just a few members of that class.
How about you? Do you imagine you can draw such conclusions about a class based upon your own personal experiences with a non-representative sample?
Are you sure that it requires “sharpness of intellect” to understand that when A.N. Other — an anonymous commenter on an atheist blog — writes “god” that they don’t really mean any of the first four or five definitions in the dictionary (any and all of which would have applied to my usage in the passage you say represents my lack of understanding)? Maybe it’s not “sharpness” that I lack, but rather just an “Other English” dictionary.
Prove it.
Oh, wait, perhaps this is one of those things you “just know,” even though you have absolutely no data or evidence whatsoever to back it up?
Can you tell us about the suffering you have experienced that provides you with what knowledge exactly which others lack? You must have suffered because everything you’ve written here indicates that such suffering is necessary to “know there is great truth to religion,” a position you seem to be endorsing. You couldn’t possibly endorse the position without suffering, otherwise you yourself would be your own evidence that a person need not suffer to “know there is great truth to religion.”
So I guess no one in the “pampered middle classes” (and presumably above) knows “there is great truth to religion?” Not a single member? And I guess also that everyone in the lower classes must “know there is great truth to religion.” There is not now and never has been a single suffering member of any lower class who has ever been a secular atheist who has rejected religion? All this strikes me as highly implausible.
If it’s not true, though, then what happens to your claim?
That’s a reasonable conclusion given a number of important data points. First and foremost right now is your failure to recognize that attributing quotes from published books to Will to Power is anything but petty. It does, in fact, represent a significant issue when it comes to any discussion about what views can properly be attributed to Nietzsche and what views cannot.
‘Like I said, all of the scientific evidence we have on the brain points to physical causes of mental events; no scientific evidence points anywhere else. If you want it backed up, just look at absolutely any scientific research on the brain — every single study done points to a physical, biological, material, chemical basis for everything. I’m not going to go into further detail on it because it’s off topic for this blog post; if you really care and want to discuss the science then post about it in the forum.’
This is either an utter lie, or a statement made by someone who just assumes because they’ve been hoodwinked by the devious scientific materialists. I’ll assume the latter. There is really sketchy evidence at best when it comes to any of this stuff about mental processes, consciousness etc. When we are talking about mental illness, there is only some circumstantial evidence to suggest that genetic and physical factors like brain chemistry may play a ROLE, but nothing further than that. The physical factors are contributory – is it such a stretch to think that maybe mental illness is umm… mental? Is it just that you want everything to be physical because you are a bigoted scientific materialist?
‘No, you haven’t, unless Dostoyevsky’s literary or philosophical intentions can tell us anything about the medical condition about some other person located in some other time, place, and culture. I don’t believe that his intentions can tell us anything about anyone’s medical condition and don’t think you can demonstrate otherwise. Nothing in Dostoyevsky can tell us about whether Nietzsche had something like syphilis, diabetes, hardening of the arteries, the genetic markers for Alzheimer’s, or any other medical condition.’
No, I suggested that there were striking parrallells between Ivan Karamazov, and Nietzsche. Dostoyevskys intention was to show the logical conclusion of some of the prevailing atheistic views of the time. Nietzsche even threw his arms around a horse that had been flogged to within an inch of its life. There are many people who regard this action as a direct reference to crime and punishment, so there is certainly evidence to say that he himself thought Dostoyevsky had predicted his own philosophy and what was wrong with it, and that he was repenting admitting D was right. Not that I a saying that definitely was the case, I was just trying to provide an interesting and very plausible possibility about his decline. What exactly is you problem with this?
‘As I already pointed out, the misattribution creates a serious and fundamental misrepresentation of Nietzsche’s writings.’
As I already pointed out it was 2-3 in the morning and I did it by accident… of course you’re not being petty…
‘There’s is nothing to indicate an unequivocal support for “master” morality, however. He points to things in it that he thinks were positive, but he never says anything like “and that’s why we should go back to it.” He never says anything like “this is the sort of morality which should define our society” or “we would be so much better off if we had master morality instead of slave morality.”’
Well I didn’t actually say he unequivocally supported master morality, I said he sided with it, which was true.
‘Even saying that he “preferred” one doesn’t qualify as “siding” with it because the latter implies a desire to see it “win” (i.e., take over) whereas the former can stem from a variety of attitudes and perspectives. When I “side” with someone or something over another, I’m working on behalf of one and want to see the other defeated. A preference, however, might stem from aesthetic or taste reasons that don’t entail a desire to defeat the alternative choices. ‘
Well he did quite clearly want to see it win –
It is true that there are men who, on the approach of severe pain, hear the very opposite call of command, and never appear more proud, more martial, or more happy than when the storm is brewing; indeed, pain itself provides them with their supreme moments! These are the heroic men, the great pain-bringers of mankind: those few and rare ones who need just the same apology as pain generally — and verily, it should not be denied them. They are forces of the greatest importance for preserving and advancing the species, be it only because they are opposed to smug ease, and do not conceal their disgust at this kind of happiness. – the gay science
‘I certainly can’t assume that you have any familiarity with any of the published secondary literature on Nietzsche from the past couple of decades. ‘
I’m not exactly sure when I tried to make out that I was.
‘So you admit that you don’t have any verifiable facts or figures which would support your claim. You just “know” it. Somehow. You can’t explain how, you just do.
Yet you really expect me or anyone else to believe your claims about Nietzsche or the brain? ‘
Do I need to have some actual facts and figures to show that atheists are in general people from well off backgrounds, and theists from less well off backgrounds? Why do you keep using the word ‘claims’? What ‘claims’ have I made exactly? One of us has made some outrageous claims about everything mental having physical causes, but these are the only ‘claims’ that either one of us has made.
‘No, I don’t “know” it’s true. For me to know it, I’d have to have some sort verifiable evidence which I think supports that position. Even if I thought I merely “believed” it, the fact remains that I have absolutely no objective facts or figures to back up such a claim. At best, my belief would be based entirely on a non-representative sampling from personal experience and I’m not so dumb as to imagine that I can draw generalizations about a class of people either in my own country or in all Western countries today based solely upon some narrow personal experiences with just a few members of that class.
How about you? Do you imagine you can draw such conclusions about a class based upon your own personal experiences with a non-representative sample? ‘
I’ve gotten to know many atheists and theists very well. I know the various strands of thought which has lead them to their beliefs, and it is very much linked with the degree to which they’ve lead a sheltered life or not.
‘Are you sure that it requires “sharpness of intellect” to understand that when A.N. Other — an anonymous commenter on an atheist blog — writes “god” that they don’t really mean any of the first four or five definitions in the dictionary (any and all of which would have applied to my usage in the passage you say represents my lack of understanding)? Maybe it’s not “sharpness” that I lack, but rather just an “Other English” dictionary.’
No… I think it’s sharpness of the intellect caused by a lack of life experience. Its the usual reason.
‘Prove it.
Oh, wait, perhaps this is one of those things you “just know,” even though you have absolutely no data or evidence whatsoever to back it up? ‘
Go back and read the original quote. People who have lead sheltered lives don’t have any knowledge of life the people who haven’t dont, why would they? But people who haven’t lead sheltered lives have knowledge of the life the people who have don’t. Surely even you can understand this one?
‘Can you tell us about the suffering you have experienced that provides you with what knowledge exactly which others lack? You must have suffered because everything you’ve written here indicates that such suffering is necessary to “know there is great truth to religion,” a position you seem to be endorsing. You couldn’t possibly endorse the position without suffering, otherwise you yourself would be your own evidence that a person need not suffer to “know there is great truth to religion.”
So I guess no one in the “pampered middle classes” (and presumably above) knows “there is great truth to religion?” Not a single member? And I guess also that everyone in the lower classes must “know there is great truth to religion.” There is not now and never has been a single suffering member of any lower class who has ever been a secular atheist who has rejected religion? All this strikes me as highly implausible. ‘
Yes, I come from a very poor background, both of my parents had very severe mental health problems, I wasn’t treated very well, not fed well, barely had any clothes, some domestic violence etc. Also I was at times in foster care, and I was moved about many places and sometimes not treated very well.
I don’t think my points above are exactly rigid, but it is a very good rough guide, and there are reasons why one sort of people have one view, and the other the other.
‘That’s a reasonable conclusion given a number of important data points. First and foremost right now is your failure to recognize that attributing quotes from published books to Will to Power is anything but petty. It does, in fact, represent a significant issue when it comes to any discussion about what views can properly be attributed to Nietzsche and what views cannot.’
Once again it was 2-3 in the morning and it was an accident. Pulling me up constantly on this is very petty indeed and you know it. You are just trying to kick up a fuss about nothing.
Then I eagerly await a post in the forum from you about all of the scientific evidence that points away from a physical, biological basis for mental activity.
Your original post was the expression of doubt that Nietzsche’s mental collapse was due to a physical illness (25). When challenged for the basis of your doubt (26) you offered Dostoyevsky’s Ivan as an example of someone with similar views falling into madness (27). Thus your original posts were: I read a novel about someone going mad due to a philosophy like this, therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that maybe a specific and real person in an entirely different time, place, and culture also went mad due to their philosophy.
I deny that Dostoyevsky writings or intentions can tell us anything about the medical condition of another person in some other time, place, and culture. You haven’t offered any reason to think otherwise and thus haven’t offered any reason to think that anything you read in Dostoyevsky serves as a sound basis for denying that Nietzsche suffered from any particular medical condition.
It’s true that you said he “sided with it.” What’s not true is that you an defend this claim.
That claim requires a quote, which you don’t provide. The quote you do offer does not express a desire that “master” morality win anything. On the contrary, it does precisely what I pointed out cannot support your case: it simply expresses some approval of a couple of aspects of “master” morality. Simply seeing advantages to having a few around who subscribe to some degree to some aspects of one moral system does not entail a desire that that system take over entirely.
The fact is, though, that he did clearly state that he wanted to engage in a total re-valuation of values — and that obviously would have included the values of “master” morality. He didn’t express any desire that his Europe simply adopt the old “master” morality. His disdain for systems probably would have prevented him from offering any systematized moral system, but had he tried something like that it wouldn’t have simply been “master” morality in new garments.
I never claimed you did. I was pointing out that such ignorance undermines any claims you might make about what Nietzsche “really” meant because there are a lot of arguments and disagreements in the literature about exactly that. If you’re going to formulate any sort of substantive, credible argument that Nietzsche meant X or Y, you’ll have to have some familiarity with the counter-arguments — i.e., some of the reasons offered by scholars and experts for why your position isn’t the best and why something else is better.
Or to put it another way: if all you can provide is a superficial, context-free interpretation of some quotes you copy and past off of some other site, you just have nothing substantive and credible to offer on behalf of your claim.
If you are going to make such generalizations about entire classes, yes.
Well, the three most important right now are:
So the claims I’m seeing and expecting you to support are:
Nietzshe went mad because of his philosophy, not because of a medical condition.
Supporters of Nietzsche are covering up his philosophy-induced madness with claims of a medical condition.
Atheists are mainly middle – upper class, spoilt, university boys, who have had nice comfortable lives, and have never really lived
Religious are mainly working class, who have had bad lives, and have seen struggle and suffering the atheists never have
The fact that “atheist” and “religious” are not mutually exclusive categories will making supporting the last two interesting to say the least, but I look forward to being entertained by your attempts.
You should learn to quote accurately (or maybe read carefully?). My actual claim is a bit more specific: “all scientific evidence we have points to physical causes of mental events, including mental illnesses, while no evidence points elsewhere.”
As I also pointed out, that’s off-topic here and would have to be discussed in the forum to give it more explicit attention.
Oh, and since you said the above is a lie, you are implicitly claiming that there is scientific evidence which points to nonphysical causes of mental events. I think then that it’s reasonable to add this as #5 to the above list.
Whether it was an accident or not doesn’t change the fact that, right from the beginning, you insisted that it was a “petty” point to raise — i.e., that it was an “minor” error that didn’t make any significant difference in the case you were trying to make. As I have noted, however, it is an error that makes a tremendous difference to your case. It makes a tremendous difference regardless of the original cause of the error.
Whether an error is “minor” or “major” depends not so much on what its origin is, but on what implications it has for the project at hand. If you make a math error because you’re performing calculations at 2-3 in the morning and that mistake would lead to a building collapse, is it a “petty point” to bring it up? Of course not — it’s the implications for your task/project/argument that matter most, not why you did it. Granted it would be worse for you if the error were because you’re lousy at math, but being tired doesn’t render an objection “petty.”
And you should have noticed that I’m not focusing on the cause of the error. I’ve only focused on the implications of the error to the case you were trying to make. It’s the fact that you refuse to acknowledge how serious the implications are, explicitly retract the quotes, and try to mount a new case based on more solid foundations suggests very strongly that you don’t recognize the underlying problem. You appear to imagine that misattributing quotes from Will to Power to Ecce Homo is no more significant than misattributing quotes from Antichrist to Ecce Homo. If that’s case, your ignorance of Nietzsche and Nietzsche’s writings is so great that absolutely nothing you say about them can be treated as the least bit credible.
You appear to be denying that the error you committed not only undermined your entire argument, but cast serious doubt on your credibility and knowledge. These doubts are not dispelled by you saying “sorry, it was 2-3 in the morning and I was tired” because the doubts are not dependent upon the assumption that you were awake and alert; instead, they are dependent upon you being able to look back at what you did and recognize the seriousness of the mistake. You have consistently failed to do so despite multiple opportunities; instead, you have sought only to minimize it and act like none of it matters much.
Everyone makes mistakes. They are a fact of life. One of the things that separates people is the degree to which they take responsibility for mistakes, acknowledge the seriousness of mistakes, and try to rebuild after removing the mistakes. You’ve admitting to making a mistake at least, but you refuse to acknowledge the seriousness or tried to start over on a less mistake-ridden foundation.
To return to the math analogy, saying “yes, I forgot to carry the 5 because I was so tired” is a fine start, but if you can’t acknowledge that it undermines the integrity and safety of the building you were working on and that you need to start over, rechecking and recalculating what you did, then you shouldn’t be allowed near a building project again.
I stopped by to see whats new and was highly entertained by this string of nonsense on Nietzsche.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that Nietzsche was insane and I find it ironic that one of the most influential atheists of the past two centuries was a certified nutcase.
I love the smell of atheists bashing each other in the morning!
Correction: went insane at the end of his life.
This is only relevant if his mental illness was present when he wrote his philosophy. Unless you have evidence of this, what possible point could you be making?
Ah, there’s that moral superiority of religious theists again.
Correction: went insane at the end of his life.
He was in poor health (insane) almost all his life.
This is only relevant if his mental illness was present when he wrote his philosophy.
It was. Headaches, blindness, insomnia, etc. to name a few.
I find the ‘those who suffer believe, and those who don’t don’t’ generalization amusing.
Believe it or not, some of those who suffer great hardship take such hardship to mean anything but the existence of a God, and they’re fully entitled to feeling that way. It’s not irrational for someone to say, ‘well, if God existed, would he let me repeatedly suffer like this?’ and question his existence, just as it isn’t irrational for someone to say ‘well, I’m suffering, but God is allowing this to happen for a reason’.
In the end, having faith and not having faith are based on personal interpretation, not factual evidence that things are one way or another. And just because one person chooses to interpret events and knowledge differently than the other doesn’t make them wrong.
If that was the case, I might as well start allowing someone else to think for me then, eh?
Wise up all of you who have argued that Nietzsche was not an atheist.
He was the perfect atheist.
His argument that “God is Dead”, refers to the idea that we killed god and can do so…wait for it…because we have created him.
It draws parrallels with marx’s conception of our transposition of higher human values and desires upon some fictional entity.(equivalent to his conception of state)
Back to Nietzsche, im sorry if i sound pretentious but if anyone states that Nietzsche is not a nihilist clearly has not read many of his works. They will be missing an elementary concept.
Anyway, Nietzsche wasn’t really so bothered with wheter a god existed or not, rather which what effects such a belief had on the general populace. Namely that people will degenerate into a pitiful nihlistic ‘will to nothingness’.
Nietzsche was not a nihilist, rather he sought to overcome this state of mind and culture sweeping the latter 19th Century in europe. He argued we should partake in a ‘will to power’, an active force which destroys established authority and takes us somewhere where we can build our own framework of morality.
Anyway, in conclusion Nietzsche was an atheist, he hated the effect that a belief in god had upon the world,(that we forget to live our only life on earth to the full in the hope of rewards here-after). Indeed Nietzsche thought the idea of a god, (atleast in its judaeo-christian form) was repugnant. How can a god simultaneously pronouce his unconditional love for the world but at the same time require you to abide by his laws. He argued therefore that even if god existed he was not worthy of our respect or attention.
Nietzsce=Atheist
Dear both, Wagner thought Fred’s health problems were a result of excessive masturbation. He often spent weekends at Wager’s house so who knows?
Leonard Sax has some other axe to grind, eg he advocates single sex schooling in the US. It is well known that syphilis presents in a wide rang of symptons: the fact that he lasted so long after collapse proves nothing, the survival times for diseases are averages. You and Sax should consult an expert. Anyway what does it matter if N had syph? he was in good company, Winston Churchill’s father died of it, N’s admirer Fred Delius was blinded and paralysed by it, it was rife at that time. Anyway why is N important, his stuff is just a lot of raving saying you should worship me because I’m very clever, Ecce Homo is supposed by some to demonstrate the typical manic phase just before teriary S kiks in. I wonder if we would have heard of N if his sister hadnt sold his stuff to Hitler – it was just what he wanted – some mumbo jumbo that would give the appearance of intellectual backing to his schemes, something not necessary in Britain but at that time necessary in Europe, similarly with existentialism and other idealistc, ie daydeaming unrelated to reality- stuff
Anyway why is N important, his stuff is just a lot of raving saying you should worship me because I’m very clever,
Looks like you haven’t read much of Nietzsche, perhaps only Ecce Homo… why Nietzsche is important, that is almost impossible to put into a few short sentences. But I would not reject Beethoven if I heard one of his last short pieces when he had gone completely deaf. But even there, in this last phase, there is genius — because it perplexes is no reason to write off the man entirely. Nietzsche was an untimely man who cannot be judged by the prevailing prejudices of our time.
> Ecce Homo is supposed by some to demonstrate the typical manic phase just before teriary S kiks in.
Once again, in our psychology/self-improvement era, diagnosing Nietzsche with manic depression is a foolish way of writing him off without any interest in understanding him. Why even make the effort? This attitude is precisely the kind he was directly fighting against, that of the ‘last man’ who blinks in the face of terrible beauty.
I wonder if we would have heard of N if his sister hadnt sold his stuff to Hitler –
She didn’t sell anything to Hitler, she constructed a museum and a cult around Nietzsche. Yes, she was anti-Semitic. But Nietzsche’s friends Overbeck and Gast immediately tried to set in motion the publications of his late works before his sister took ownership of them. So we would have heard of them. Nietzsche’s fame, even before his death (sitting upstairs from his museum as some exhibition) was widespread… Rudolf Steiner recalls as a child visiting this museum, and all of this long (1895 onward) before the Third Reich.
it was just what he wanted – some mumbo jumbo that would give the appearance of intellectual backing to his schemes, something not necessary in Britain but at that time necessary in Europe, similarly with existentialism and other idealistc, ie daydeaming unrelated to reality- stuff
Once again, your words are shallow and reveal you know next to nothing about Nietzsche, which makes me wonder why bother to post on a blog relating to him?
I’m just amazed at all the ignorance being displayed here, all deriving from the fact you haven’t read any Nietzsche to be making comments about him therefore you have no authority.
Was Nietzsche a nihilist? Read Will To Power about how nihilism is the direct effect of Christianity, which was the cause. Nietzsche writes about how to overcome nihilism because he overcame it.
Was Nietzsche an atheist? If by atheist you mean the Christian conception of God, then yes. If by atheist you mean there don’t exist the highest value (which we project on Gods), then no. The Ubermensch is that Higher Self, which he wrote about everywhere, but mostly in The Will to Power.
In a way, to understand Nietzsche, one must also read Jung. In Jungian terms, Nietzsche wrote about the process of individuation, which is completely opposed to the process of destroying the ego in divine absorption. Individuation, a process driven by the will to power, is about becoming strong enough to become a God.
What has atheism to do with this? The question itself cannot be answered in the conceptual limitations in which the question is framed.
Nietzsche is notoriously very misunderstood because if you take his entire collection of writings and try to turn them into a systematic, contradiction free system, then you’ve already missed the point. One must find the confused thread that joins them all, and likely, it’ll involve adopting a hermeneutic which admits satire.
Some say Nietzsche was the only truly honest atheist, hence his madness: by “unchaining the earth from the sun”, he found himself in nauseating free fall, and set about to become strong enough to endure it, as that is what the Ubermensch does by definition. You can be sure that few atheists, like most theists, are genuine, and Nietzsche had a field day with them in “Die Froeliche Wissenschaft”. The so-called New Atheists a la Dawkins, Hitchens et al. are merely reactionaries of Scientism who are deeply ignorant of the atheist-theist currents in the past few thousand years. To this effect, Nietzsche saw the scientific fetishism of his time as a mere cancerous outgrowth of Christianity, still contingent on its existence to give it the impetus it needed to keep marching. Dawkins is no different, as a reactionary can only function as a negation of the thing he is parasitically reacting against. He needs Christianity as a point of reference, like those men the madman addresses in the marketplace in the aforementioned book, still high on having killed the wicked witch (perhaps a straw god?). His vanity forces him to run to his master, the god he calls Science, or alternatively, the People. Perhaps he’s somewhat of a closet Hegelian, reifying an idea to the status of godhood. But as Carl Sagan more or less noted, there’s little satisfaction in worshiping something impersonal, such as an idea. And that is precisely what Nietzsche saw the Christian god as, an idea. Nietzsche saw Buddhism as as a process halfway to what he believed, but instead of ending with negation, he said yes to a self-selected delusion. This delusion would be the standard one would impose, from which culture, society, religion and science would come. After all, there are no facts, only interpretations. Might is right.
The question of whether he was an atheist really depends on how you understand atheism and how you conceive of godhood. If all gods to you are ideas, then no one is really an atheist. A central question, regardless of how you conceive of godhood, is whether what you believe in is grounded in some absolute. Everyone acknowledges absolutes, even those who deny absolutes as they deny them in an absolute fashion in some way. For example, in the Aristotelean line of thought, since we always seek out perceived good, the question becomes how do we seek out good? What is the good? And if anyone is a rational human being, he must be willing to see that culture and undigested experience are impotent towards this end, as culture is the product of others no different that yourself, and experience is always subject to interpretations furnished by culture and various other human weaknesses. It’s naive to speak nonchalantly about reason and skepticism and rationality. Give then, good, then, becomes a willing delusion, or something accessible to my intellect as well. We desire what we perceive to be good, not necessarily that which is good. Disagreement over what is good is enough to establish that, and Nietzsche’s point was that agreement was the product of power.
Now, it’s obvious to those in the know that Dawkins is not representative of atheists per se, but he is one of the most militant and vocal, adopting a fundamentalist, fanatic, extremist zeal not uncommon among, say, Islamic terrorists (of course, how am I evaluating fanaticism, says, Nietzsche — a moral high ground, if that of the master or coming from the master, is no problem, and it takes a resentful slave to complain about it). Anyway, point is that the Christian conception of God is routinely confused with certain naive pagan conceptions. Dawkins illustrates his ignorance by comparing Yahweh to Zeus or unicorns. Unfortunately, the pagan universe (let’s say, in the Greek conception) is static, uncreated, eternal. Pagan gods are immanent within the Universe, whereas Yahweh is stated to be “He who is”, that is to say, he is identified with the existential principle, the ground of being, what the verb “is” expresses, but without a concrete object. Aristotle takes his moderate realism to at least that point, but narrowly misses that fundamental principle, as Parmenides did before him, precisely because the Greek conception of reality prevented him from reasoning up to the most fundamental metaphysical principle there is, one which itself cannot be conceived, but only deduced from judgement. I recommend reading the existential Thomists (Wilhelmsen and Gilson) towards this end.
The syphilis argument, if true, is, to me, nothing more than a historical curiosity. As you can see, there’s a much richer opportunity for reflection if we consider the effects Nietzsche’s assertions had on his thinking, esp. during the period he is said to have been insane. How is it that we are judging him mad?
Some say Nietzsche was the only truly honest atheist, hence his madness
Can you provide any evidence to support the claim that all OTHER atheists are DISHONEST? And that “his madness” is in any way related to his honesty or his atheism?
What does that mean … “only truly honest atheist”? Do you mean the rest are dishonest and therefore they don’t suffer from madness?
“Nietzsche was the only truly honest atheist” …I don’t know what that means. What does that statement mean?
“Is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or God merely a mistake of man?” — Friedrich Nietzsche
I’m guessing Nietzsche was an athiest? if his fan’s don’t want to believe he had Syphilis, ok, you believe that, as Nietzsche said “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” he also said “Faith: not wanting to know what the truth is.” and as Billy Joel and MACHIAVELLI expressed “keep the Faith” whatever that may be..oh, and Nietzsche also said “In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.” so I’d say he’s in really good company now?
nietzsches view was that of perspectivism! he is both a atheist and a christian! a muslim and a jew! the only reson he spoke out against christianity is because it was starting to choke the world and he wanted to see diversity. “there is no turth only interpretations!”. even my interpretation is one of many others, none more real than the rest. this never ending creation is why we must cherish nietzsches tour de force he gave humanity; the ultimate entertainment.
I didn’t “know” that Nietzsche had syphillis until I read it in a Kurt Vonnegut book.
You know? Vonnegut? The atheist?
So much for atheists being honest, eh?
So in a causal, off-hand remark Vonnegut mentions something that may not have been true and you consider that dishonesty? I don’t think you have a firm grasp of what “honesty” actually means.
For the prototypical atheist movement that sort of defines its most strident application in modernity, in the French Revolution, Nietzsche had nothing but contempt and scorn. (One caveat: In The Antichrist, he definitely advocates some French Revolution-type anti-clerical activities, burning down of buildings, etc….but those are also rants after his mental collapse. I don’t think they represent anything more of his mature thought than an insane rant).
He also had no kind words to say for any egalitarian movements. He strongly believed in a hierarchical ordering of society, and his mature works are usually addressed to those who can handle them, the select few.
Compassion, as already noted in this thread, is completely tied to the slave mentality that has (in his view) diseased the west since Israel was carried off into exile in Babylon.
In summary, then….Nietzsche is difficult to pin down in terms of easy to use labels. Yes, I think he was an “atheist” in that he was a proponent of materialism. But he was very deeply dedicated to a cultural religious movement (and I would speculate that he would actually advocate that that religion include “gods” if only to convince the little people who are not part of the elite…ie, the slave elements of society, as in Greece).
Finally…Birth of Tragedy is truly brilliant. His insights into Greek Tragedy (and in my opinion, into Socrates) are really without parallel.
And I write all of that as an orthodox Christian, and one who has learned much from Nietzsche…both truths and falsehoods. Nietzsche is great. I love him and I am thankful for him. But he is not the final word…..
Atheism and religion aren’t mutually exclusive.
Atheism isn’t the same as materialism.
Atheism simply means that there is an absence of a belief in God. That’s all it means.
But in the so called “real world” most people who label themselves as atheists are really trying to ram materialism down everyone’s throat. And so this behavior of ramming materialism down everyone’s throat becomes ASSOCIATED WITH atheism, regardless of the actual meaning of the word “atheism”. It is after this fact, after the behavior of ramming slime and muck down someone’s throat, that confusion develops regarding what an atheist is.
Nietzsche spent his life fighting AGAINST Nihilism. Is that what a Nihilist does? or does a Nihilist advocate a Nihilistic world view? I don’t know the answer.
But Nietzsche did NOT advocate a Nihilistic view, he fought AGAINST Nihilism.
It was Schopenhauer who embraced a Nihilistic world view. And Schopenhauer was definitely an atheist par excellence.
Examples? Evidence?
Feel free to show how Schopenhauer was any more or better an atheist than anyone else.
But in the so called “real world” most people who label themselves as atheists are really trying to ram materialism down everyone’s throat.
OK, I’ll admit that I don’t know “most” atheists. But my statement would apply to “The New Atheists”, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and anyone who is part of the wave of New Atheism.
Of course, I wasn’t clear about what I meant by “materialism” … that could have a meaning other than what I intended. What I meant was the idea that everything is redicuble to physical forces, that everything can be explained in terms of material forces. It might be that “materialism” has a different meaning.
“More or better atheist?” well … an atheist is an atheist.
Schopenhauer is an excellent example of an atheist who embraced Christian morality without God, so maybe he was actually WORSE than many other atheists.
People who consciously identify themselves as atheists are often people who are unconsioucly limiting themselves to mere phenomena. The only thing that is real for them are intellectual constructs, products of the intellect are real, everything else in life either isn’t real for them or it has less value. They just don’t know how to feel.
The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy
What I want to know is precisely who are the sick? Who are they?
This has always irritated me. Don’t get me wrong, though, I’m a huge Nietzsche fan, but the whole idea of needing physicians who are themselves sick and the idea of “the sick” being the greatest danger for the healthy …. this is messed up. Precisely what is “sick” and who are the sick?
So did Nietzsche require a physician who was sick? Why would he not rather have a healthy physician? Nietzsche was sick, so that means he wanted a sick physician? sick in what way? what is sick? and how would Nietzsche, who was sick, pose a danger to a healthy physician?
I could certainly guess at all the meanings floating around behind Nietzsche’s words, but the utter lack of clarity is annoying as hell with regard to the whole sick physician thing and the sick being a danger for the healthy. Maybe it’s just nonsense.
Who are the sick? Show me who the sick are? And if you can point to them, demonstrate to me how it is that they pose a danger to the healthy? Do they really? What’s really going on here? The sick, the sick, the sick, the sick … WHO???!