Nietzsche’s “God is Dead” isn’t an attack on religion but a warning to an atheistic culture that its epistemic foundation would disintegrate with this God’s demise leaving a dangerous struggle with the double threat of nihilism and relativism
Nietzsches God is Dead isnt an attack on religion but a warning to an atheistic culture that its epistemic foundation would disintegrate w...
People really do be spinning Nee-chee to say whatever they want him to say, huh
Why did he attack Kant so much if this was his genuine concern.
Because Kant already effectively killed God as an object of knowledge bozo.
That's not Nietzsche's criticism of Kant.
it's both, he is absolutely attacking Christianity and also attacking those atheists who wish they could believe in Christianity
Wrong
show me where Nietzsche says being Russian Orthodox is based and redpilled unlike all the other forms of Christianity
GS 343 nothing but open seas.
no it's not
niche was a theologian, he literally wasn't an atheist
You can be a theologian and an atheist. It's like being learned on Lord of the Rings lore.
if you're woke on theology you know that you can't disprove god. atheism is a phenomenon.
let's be honest, it was triumphant. Half of his work is shitting on christcucks and bragging about being an atheist.
*facepalm*
Let me spell this out because people seem to get confused by his idea on this subject. God isn't dead. It's the idea of God. Mankind's development has been a slow process of going from living in mystery to discovering the scientific method. At first everything was spirits, then we got the idea that some spirits were stronger than others, these powerful spirits we elevated to gods, they typically were whatever philosophical idea people found important. Gods of death, gods of fertility, gods of luck, gods of wisdom, gods of safe travel, etc. Then there came the idea that there was actually only one god and we were made in his image and thus also divine and 'above' nature. Then because we believed ourselves above nature we began to study it. Think Mendeleev, Gregor Mendel, etc. Then upon studying nature and recording knowledge (good job church priests) mankind eventually advanced their study of the world to the point that they all but banished metaphysics from the minds of men.The problem that arises is that the more we learn the more it seems like the universe and everything in it is just kind of there for no real reason other than for the sake of being there. In a further twist of fate science itself eventually discovers that there is a hard upper limit as far as how much can actually be known and that now of the sciences are capable of actually proving themselves not only true but based on some irrefutable truth. Mathematicians for example still can't "prove" that 1=1. They make attempts with things like group theory, but they all run into the same issue of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
So when Nietzsche talks of the crisis of nihilism he truly means that it is a fucking crisis for everyone. That more than needing a God, people need some reason to be and to continue the species that is even greater than the idea of God.
Nietzsche tried with his idea of the Ubermensch and so forth. But he never quite got around to detailing just what it is about the Ubermensch that allows him to rise above nihilism.
I know where you come from.
Good then maybe I'll give you a bit more to go with it and expand on my thoughts just a bit more.
Anyone who wants to see the next step beyond Nietzsche should look into B F Skinner and behaviorism. Nietzsche couldn't find a solution to nihilism because he was going about it all wrong. He wanted to assert the primacy of the self above all else. What he never considered that there is no self, that there is no internal free agent of the mind making choices.
There are only self organizing systems. Everything from top to bottom is natural selection. Because what is natural selection? Natural selection is only the blind process of trial and error. Humanity will move beyond the crisis of nihilism one way or the other. The question is whether we survive as a species or not in the attempt.
What will more than likely have to happen in some point in the future is that we will have to take a more active role in how we organize ourselves and we will have to stop being slaves to our base impulses. I don't mean that in a religious sense either. Humans will have to finally stop letting themselves be controlled by what Skinner called Adverse Controllers. Human failures will stop having to be blamed on the "self" of the individual and start being attributed to the brute facts of cause and effect. The scope is a bit too big for casual forum discussion but for anyone interested I recommend reading pic related and "upon further reflection".
Boring.
Fag.
>The problem that arises is that the more we learn the more it seems like the universe and everything in it is just kind of there for no real reason
it isn't
>never quite got around to detailing just what it is about the Ubermensch that allows him to rise above nihilism
it's nothing
in the end philosophy meets with theology and decrees that there's god or there's nothing. you're completely free to choose.
You are welcome to disagree but I must dismiss your disagreement offhand because you do not put forth any substance to support your claims. Therefore they can be just as easily dismissed without any counter substance on my part.
>you're completely free to choose
So you say and were that the case there would be no need for religionfags to endlessly train their victims with love bombing, songs, endless discussions on which magic is more real than another cultures magic, and threats of eternal hellfire etc. If there were indeed a free agent, an internal man that existed outside of your memories and the chemical makeup of your brain you would simply be born knowing everything you needed to know without any instruction necessary.
To use your own crude logic. If free will existed either everyone would be religious or no one would be. There would be no need to instruct them on which belief was "correct"
who said the choice is obvious? it really isn't, i attend church and i'm not sure to be honest
My friend, causality is not the only mechanism. You can also have acausal events happening simultaneously. A mechanistic interpretation is only used in engineering.
>turns the death of god into a bourgeois lack of 'meaning'
Why don't you just stick to self help.
>warning to an atheistic culture that its epistemic foundation would disintegrate with this God’s demise leaving a dangerous struggle with the double threat of nihilism and relativism
Sort of. But that wasn't an endorsement of christianity, since he thought that christianity had created the situation with the emerging nihilism in the first place; by its sermons about how life should be taken solely as preparation for an afterlife, which undermined the perceived meaningfulness of earthly existence. So when christianity had driven European culture to a point where all meaning was contingent on god and aftelife, a passively nihilistic culture was inevitable when those false beliefs began to erode.
and? he wasn't naive to think people can go back to believing in god, and it's less of a warning and more of a prophecy, it already happened "the light of stars need time", he expects a 200 years of nihilism and then who knows what will follow, I'm sure the last man is one of the futures, we are going into the unknown
Nietzsche has some line, I can’t remember it maybe someone can finish it if I’m wrong. Something like; in the beginning man sacrificed life for god, then later on man sacrificed his instincts for god in the form of moral chastisement, then lastly humanity sacrificed god itself.
Yes, but he also gave that same culture new values: the overman, eternal recurrence, amor fati, and will to power (none of which can be properly understood without the other three).