Was Nietzsche an atheist?

Was Nietzsche an atheist?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >download(2)
    what is download(1) anon?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      asked this on reddit, they said he was agnostic theist

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You have to understand that Nietzsche is an atheist, a nihilist, a postmodernist which appeals to a lot of liberals and other deeply neurotic teenagers because Nietzsche is the achievement of the secular humanism which booted Christianity out of power. Nietzsche is overtly anti-christian, and it permits to all the atheist bug men to actually see themselves as the righteous resilient guy who create his own values.
        In effect trannies are the best ubermen ever: they hate to see themselves as they really are, so they change both their neurotic spirit and also their body to match the narrative of the ubermen and even better, they impose their values to non-trannies. Same thing with feminists and all the idolized minorities in Humanism.

        Naturally, the atheists cant know right from wrong, so their mental gymnastics about the uberman is flawed. The uberman is actually the last man: the uberman despises so much reality after seeing nihilism, that out of resentment for reality, the uberman CHOOSES to sink further in his delusion by building a narrative where he is not the last man, but actually the opposite, ie the uberman who creates his own values, ie cooming by living in own brain farts until he dies.

        Oh and by the way only atheists take him seriously in the first place. Atheists love him because according to them, he found a way to be nihilistic without leading to suicide. In order to avoid being called a nihilist, friedrich PUSSY nietzsche re-defined nihilism to be 'not living in the present moment', which applies to christianity.
        So now atheists dont say they are nihilistic, they say they are vitalist. And as a bonus they get to shit on christianity (their perpetual enemy that they defeated centuries ago, yet they still beat a dead horse to smugly fill up their days). You have to understand that atheists are braindead hypocrites so even when they say they are vitalist instead of nihilistic, they still remain 100% hedonistic and they still dont know what not do with their lives beyond making up self-aggrandizing narratives to feel justified for wanting to and actually doing coomming all day long.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          89 IQ post. Please never type out that many words on this website ever again

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          based

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            le worship of le dead israelite while larping le orthodox is... BASED

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Nietzsche is.... le everything I don't like!
          >No, I know nothing about Nietzsche beyond "God is dead" and "da ubermensch!!!"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Nice bait moron.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          t. has never read a single page of nietzsche let alone gotten close to understanding him
          Why are christlarpers like this, bros.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >muh trannies
          >muh this and that

          The simple fact is that man grew out of the need for god and it is a natural progression to abandon the faith and scripture when we’ve discovered the scientific method and ways of acquiring true knowledge of the world around us.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists are the most immature ones as clearly shown by your post

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >I fear: the post
          Another christcuck.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Nice bait

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          definitely

          Christians are very confused. Yes, Nietzsche was very anti-christian, but that would have made him loathe postmodernity just as much, as it is in fact a religious movement. It's impossible for a christian to understand this, but marxism, psychoanalysis, and critical theory - basic ingredients of postmodern academia today - are efforts to remake israeli and christian ethical/moral structures in secular form. Postmodernity is an attempt to reenchant the West from the top down - no god, no heaven, nothing supernatural necessary.

          >trannies are the best ubermen ever

          The recent obsession with trannies is an excellent case of this neo-spiritual effort to mystify the world. Something as given and fundamental to how we navigate social relations, gender, has become "fluid" by institutional force. Even if demographically marginal, trannies are now celebrated in all major institutions, perpetuating a sense of confusion about the self and others. Postmodernity starts with relativism and anti-Darwinian arguments concerning human beings. This is religion - the core of the argument is that "science cannot know human consciousness." As science has made plenty of progress studying and understanding the species, postmodern fervor around trannies becomes a self-fulfilling argument.

          My sense is that academic assimilation of Nietzsche was always an effort to shut him down. Everything he argues for is deeply anti-academic.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No he was a mystic. People who read Nietzsche and took away from his work that he was an atheist have to be some of the most superficial and tedious people on the planet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He even says that he has a deep religious instinct. You don't sperg over the same thing for decades if you're not involved in some way tbqh

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A: Nietzsche never said he was an atheist!
    B: I am afraid he did.
    >"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" without exception, concepts to which I never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been child like enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think! (Ecce homosexual 'Why I Am So Clever' §1)
    A: But here Nietzsche is only talking about the Christian God. I understand why Nietzsche denied the Christian God, yet that does not mean he denied the existence of a Deity or Demiurge.
    B: Nietzsche's atheism went much further than denying Deities and Demiurges.
    >But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests — that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine. (The Gay Science §344)
    A: But see?! Nietzsche still has a faith. A Dionysian faith! And who was Dionysus? A Greek god. Who was Apollo? A Greek god. Nietzsche was not really "godless".
    B: Nietzsche did recognise that "the greatest advantage of polytheism" was the "wonderful art and gift of creating gods" (The Gay Science §143). But Nietzsche understood these ancient gods as symbols of values, as symbols of the will to power, but not as metaphysical entities. The truly scandalous word in The Gay Science §344 is not "godless" but "anti-metaphysicians".
    >How many there are who still conclude: "life could not be endured if there were no God!" (or, as it is put among the idealists: "life could not be endured if its foundation lacked an ethical significance!") — therefore there must be a God (or existence must have an ethical significance)! The truth, however, is merely that he who is accustomed to these notions does not desire a life without them: that these notions may therefore be necessary to him and for his preservation — but what presumption it is to decree that whatever is necessary for my preservation must actually exist! As if my preservation were something necessary! (Daybreak §90)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsche says he is an atheist, therefore he is an atheist
      Midwit detected.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nietzsche says he is atheist, therefore he is a theist.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          wait, when did nietzsche say he was an athiest?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        moron. try reading next time

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >he can’t just declare himself an atheist
        >that’s for the priests to decide!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests
      He doesn't deny this faith, he still relies on it as a basis for his statements. Even the faith in truth and logic shouldn't be held so holy that it can't be criticized but we can still base ideas on logic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >"God", "immortality of the soul", "redemption", "beyond" without exception, concepts to which I never devoted any attention, or time
      >Takes the time to give these concepts attention
      lol what a liar

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He doesn't, show me where he talks about them?
        Those concepts themselves mean nothing, now those concepts meaning something to people, that is different and the latter is what interests Nietzsche, the psychology. Not if there is... Le god.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          He basically stated "I never mention the thing I am literally currently mentioning". It's self refutation.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You know he wrote that shit as a parody and this was right before he went insane right? Dont tell me you are one of those morons who takes everything Nietzsche said at face value right

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you are definitely one of those morons

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      A: The problem, then, is your definition of the word "God". I am not talking about the Abrahamic God or the Greek gods or a metaphysical Deity. I am talking about an ecumenical God beyond time and culture: what Jung calls a "supra-ordinate principle" (CW7 §274) or "the archetype of das Selbst". (CW9ii §43-§67) No person can live without the concept or the image of God (CW5 §98). Jung's Selbst is a psychological concept, not a metaphysical concept.
      B: And is the Selbst omnipotent, omniscient and moral? Because those three attributes of God (or Selbst or Deity) are precisely what killed him:
      >God died of his pity for man. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra II 'On the Pitying')
      A: What did Zarathustra mean by "God died of his pity for man"?
      B: He means the Death of God — "the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable" (The Gay Science §343) — is inseparable from Nietzsche's refinement of the Problem of Evil.
      >A God who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intention — could that be a God of goodness? [The Problem of Evil] Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of the truth? Would he not be a cruel God if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? — But perhaps he is a God of goodness notwithstanding — and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack the intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? So much the worse! For then he was perhaps also in error as to that which he calls his "truth", and is himself not so very far from being the "poor deluded devil"! Must he not then endure almost the torments of Hell to have to see his creatures suffer so, and go on suffering even more through all eternity, for the sake of knowledge of him, and not be able to help and counsel them, except in the manner of a deaf and-dumb man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to fall on his child or his dog? — A believer who reaches this oppressive conclusion ought truly to be forgiven if he feels more pity for this suffering God than he does for his "neighbours" — for they are no longer his neighbours if that most solitary and most primeval being is also the most suffering being of all and the one most in need of comfort. (Daybreak §91)

      A: The Problem of Evil only applies to the Abrahamic God. Instead, I believe (like the Gnostics) that both "Good" and "Evil" come from God or the godhead (or whatever we want to call it). Nietzsche's philosophy is an invitation to go beyond good and evil. I don't see why you fail to understand that "God" is a powerful metaphor that is, ultimately, inescapable. Why do you object to the most universal of metaphors?
      B: Because "God as a metaphor" is still too anthropomorphic.
      >Let us beware.— Let us beware of thinking that the world is a living being. [...] The total character of the world is in all eternity chaos — in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms. Judged from the point of view of our reason, unsuccessful attempts are by all odds the rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the whole musical box repeats eternally its tune which may never be called a melody — and ultimately even the phrase "unsuccessful attempt" is too anthropomorphic, and reproachful. But how could we reproach or praise the universe? Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man. None of our aesthetic and moral judgments apply to it. Nor does it have any instinct for self-preservation or any other instinct; and it does not observe any laws either. Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses. Once you know that there are no purposes, you also know that there is no accident; for it is only beside a world of purposes that the word "accident" has meaning. Let us beware of saying that death is opposed to life. The living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type.
      >Let us beware of thinking that the world eternally creates new things. There are no eternally enduring substances; matter is as much of an error as the God of the Eleatics. But when shall we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to "naturalize" humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature? (The Gay Science §109)

      A: I understand what you mean by "Nietzsche's atheism". Nevertheless, Nietzsche was not an atheist like Sam Harris.
      B: I agree. Nietzsche was not an atheist like Sam Harris.
      A: And Nietzsche was not an atheist like Richard Dawkins.
      B: I agree. Nietzsche was not an atheist like Richard Dawkins.
      A: And Nietzsche was not an atheist like Christopher Hitchens.
      B: Well, Christopher Hitchens' anti-theism was mostly Nietzschean. Hitchens wanted to be like Nietzsche. Yet the problem here is not really Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, but the fact that your definition of atheism is limited to public intellectuals and professional debaters, and ignores real philosophers.
      A: Yes, but even if we broaden the definition of "atheism", Nietzsche never said atheism was an ideology worth spreading.
      B: Well, perhaps he thought that — in the long term — nothing was more desirable.
      >...the prospect cannot be dismissed that the complete and definitive victory of atheism might free mankind of this whole feeling of guilty indebtedness [Schulden] toward its origin, its causa prima. Atheism and a kind of second innocence [Unschuld] belong together. (On the Genealogy of Morals II §20)
      A: But see?! This second innocence — this going beyond good and evil — is the coming of the Übermensch. The Übermensch is Nietzsche's God.
      B: I strongly disagree with that equivalence. And so does Zarathustra:
      >Once one said God when one looked upon distant seas; but now I have taught you to say: overman.
      >God is a conjecture; but I desire that your conjectures should not reach beyond your creative will. Could you create a god? Then do not speak to me of any gods. But you could well create the overman. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra II 'Upon the Blesses Isles')
      A: Why do you dislike the word "God" so much?
      B: Because the word "God" is still too anthropomorphic, too teleological, too tyrannical, too moralistic. For the free spirit, in contrast, the Death of God is the gladdest of tidings.
      >...we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the old God is dead", as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an ''open sea". (The Gay Science §343)

      A: I like this. Nonetheless, I will still use the word "God" as I understand it: Spinoza's immanent God.
      B: Alright, but...
      >Perhaps the day will come when the most solemn concepts which have caused the most fights and suffering, the concepts “God” and “sin”, will seem no more important to us than a child’s toy and a child’s pain seem to an old man — and perhaps “the old man” will then be in need of another toy and another pain — still child enough, an eternal child! (Beyond Good and Evil §57)
      A: One last question. Can we at least agree that Nietzsche never denied the value of religion?
      B: We finally agree.
      >Do not underestimate the value of having been religious; discover all the reasons by virtue of which you have still had a genuine access to art. Can you not, precisely with aid of these experiences, follow with greater understanding tremendous stretches of the paths taken by earlier mankind? Is it not on precisely this soil, which you sometimes find so displeasing, the soil of unclear thinking, that many of the most splendid fruits of more ancient cultures grew up? One must have loved religion and art like mother and nurse — otherwise one cannot grow wise. But one must be able to see beyond them, outgrow them; if one remains under their spell, one does not understand them. (Human, All-Too Human I §292)

      a bright star shines upon the dregs. your work has been witnessed.
      for those who haven't read Nietzsche, or worse, have poorly read him, this likely either doesn't make sense or goes against the non-sense they've built up in their heads. but to those who do read him, and understand the ebb and flow of his perspectivism, the turns are more than legible—they are enjoyable. the movement is clear: a coming to terms for "God" (Greek, Abrahamic, metaphysical, ecumenical), and as a result, what it means to be an atheist in Nietzsche's sense (overman). it is ultimately the result of his de-deification, killing the shadow of God, in order to restore the all-too human, and further, to overcome it. in a way, Nietzsche is one long coming to terms with the moral and metaphysical history thus far— a map, with suggestions for uncharted territories.

      it is too cheap to say he is not an atheist, or even that he bluntly is. he is rather that result of the will to truth struggling against life-affirming forces, perhaps life itself. most atheists are rather cheap, they still believe in a metaphysical god, or their morality still stinks of some shadow of God. Nietzsche takes the reins back and through pains out of that seeking of knowledge, that intellectual conscience, tries yet again to say Yes to life. a Yes that is liberated from God and man. circulus vitiosus deus, what remained to be sacrificed but God, to liberate man for the joy of eternal becoming and all its pain, and thus eternal recurrence brings man to himself forever. no free will, only strong wills and weak wills, and the weaker ones will hate this truth the most. if all you felt was joy when reading Nietzsche, you really didn't understand him.

      --
      on another note, the value of discussing Nietzsche with others who have read him is that the best readers often have their own little trails of ideas and progressions. perhaps that's how a spider feels when it visits another's web. many things become clearer, and other trails open up that were not thought of. still, to stay in another's web is death. it was nice to visit.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A: The problem, then, is your definition of the word "God". I am not talking about the Abrahamic God or the Greek gods or a metaphysical Deity. I am talking about an ecumenical God beyond time and culture: what Jung calls a "supra-ordinate principle" (CW7 §274) or "the archetype of das Selbst". (CW9ii §43-§67) No person can live without the concept or the image of God (CW5 §98). Jung's Selbst is a psychological concept, not a metaphysical concept.
    B: And is the Selbst omnipotent, omniscient and moral? Because those three attributes of God (or Selbst or Deity) are precisely what killed him:
    >God died of his pity for man. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra II 'On the Pitying')
    A: What did Zarathustra mean by "God died of his pity for man"?
    B: He means the Death of God — "the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable" (The Gay Science §343) — is inseparable from Nietzsche's refinement of the Problem of Evil.
    >A God who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intention — could that be a God of goodness? [The Problem of Evil] Who allows countless doubts and dubieties to persist, for thousands of years, as though the salvation of mankind were unaffected by them, and who on the other hand holds out the prospect of frightful consequences if any mistake is made as to the nature of the truth? Would he not be a cruel God if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth? — But perhaps he is a God of goodness notwithstanding — and merely could not express himself more clearly! Did he perhaps lack the intelligence to do so? Or the eloquence? So much the worse! For then he was perhaps also in error as to that which he calls his "truth", and is himself not so very far from being the "poor deluded devil"! Must he not then endure almost the torments of Hell to have to see his creatures suffer so, and go on suffering even more through all eternity, for the sake of knowledge of him, and not be able to help and counsel them, except in the manner of a deaf and-dumb man making all kinds of ambiguous signs when the most fearful danger is about to fall on his child or his dog? — A believer who reaches this oppressive conclusion ought truly to be forgiven if he feels more pity for this suffering God than he does for his "neighbours" — for they are no longer his neighbours if that most solitary and most primeval being is also the most suffering being of all and the one most in need of comfort. (Daybreak §91)

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A: The Problem of Evil only applies to the Abrahamic God. Instead, I believe (like the Gnostics) that both "Good" and "Evil" come from God or the godhead (or whatever we want to call it). Nietzsche's philosophy is an invitation to go beyond good and evil. I don't see why you fail to understand that "God" is a powerful metaphor that is, ultimately, inescapable. Why do you object to the most universal of metaphors?
    B: Because "God as a metaphor" is still too anthropomorphic.
    >Let us beware.— Let us beware of thinking that the world is a living being. [...] The total character of the world is in all eternity chaos — in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms. Judged from the point of view of our reason, unsuccessful attempts are by all odds the rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the whole musical box repeats eternally its tune which may never be called a melody — and ultimately even the phrase "unsuccessful attempt" is too anthropomorphic, and reproachful. But how could we reproach or praise the universe? Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man. None of our aesthetic and moral judgments apply to it. Nor does it have any instinct for self-preservation or any other instinct; and it does not observe any laws either. Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses. Once you know that there are no purposes, you also know that there is no accident; for it is only beside a world of purposes that the word "accident" has meaning. Let us beware of saying that death is opposed to life. The living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type.
    >Let us beware of thinking that the world eternally creates new things. There are no eternally enduring substances; matter is as much of an error as the God of the Eleatics. But when shall we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to "naturalize" humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature? (The Gay Science §109)

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A: I understand what you mean by "Nietzsche's atheism". Nevertheless, Nietzsche was not an atheist like Sam Harris.
    B: I agree. Nietzsche was not an atheist like Sam Harris.
    A: And Nietzsche was not an atheist like Richard Dawkins.
    B: I agree. Nietzsche was not an atheist like Richard Dawkins.
    A: And Nietzsche was not an atheist like Christopher Hitchens.
    B: Well, Christopher Hitchens' anti-theism was mostly Nietzschean. Hitchens wanted to be like Nietzsche. Yet the problem here is not really Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, but the fact that your definition of atheism is limited to public intellectuals and professional debaters, and ignores real philosophers.
    A: Yes, but even if we broaden the definition of "atheism", Nietzsche never said atheism was an ideology worth spreading.
    B: Well, perhaps he thought that — in the long term — nothing was more desirable.
    >...the prospect cannot be dismissed that the complete and definitive victory of atheism might free mankind of this whole feeling of guilty indebtedness [Schulden] toward its origin, its causa prima. Atheism and a kind of second innocence [Unschuld] belong together. (On the Genealogy of Morals II §20)
    A: But see?! This second innocence — this going beyond good and evil — is the coming of the Übermensch. The Übermensch is Nietzsche's God.
    B: I strongly disagree with that equivalence. And so does Zarathustra:
    >Once one said God when one looked upon distant seas; but now I have taught you to say: overman.
    >God is a conjecture; but I desire that your conjectures should not reach beyond your creative will. Could you create a god? Then do not speak to me of any gods. But you could well create the overman. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra II 'Upon the Blesses Isles')
    A: Why do you dislike the word "God" so much?
    B: Because the word "God" is still too anthropomorphic, too teleological, too tyrannical, too moralistic. For the free spirit, in contrast, the Death of God is the gladdest of tidings.
    >...we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the old God is dead", as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an ''open sea". (The Gay Science §343)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >B: Because the word "God" is still too anthropomorphic
      How is God anthropomorphic but ubermensch isn't?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        God is supposed to be the ultimate principale of metaphysical reality. It being anthropocentric is an objection to it's plausiblity. The ubermensch is a human created ideal. It being anthropocentric is obvious and unobjectionable.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A: I like this. Nonetheless, I will still use the word "God" as I understand it: Spinoza's immanent God.
    B: Alright, but...
    >Perhaps the day will come when the most solemn concepts which have caused the most fights and suffering, the concepts “God” and “sin”, will seem no more important to us than a child’s toy and a child’s pain seem to an old man — and perhaps “the old man” will then be in need of another toy and another pain — still child enough, an eternal child! (Beyond Good and Evil §57)
    A: One last question. Can we at least agree that Nietzsche never denied the value of religion?
    B: We finally agree.
    >Do not underestimate the value of having been religious; discover all the reasons by virtue of which you have still had a genuine access to art. Can you not, precisely with aid of these experiences, follow with greater understanding tremendous stretches of the paths taken by earlier mankind? Is it not on precisely this soil, which you sometimes find so displeasing, the soil of unclear thinking, that many of the most splendid fruits of more ancient cultures grew up? One must have loved religion and art like mother and nurse — otherwise one cannot grow wise. But one must be able to see beyond them, outgrow them; if one remains under their spell, one does not understand them. (Human, All-Too Human I §292)

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He was a pagan, a polytheist, a parodist, a Polish prince.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are you a bot?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no I am not. why do you think so

    • 1 year ago
      ChadGPT

      Yes, I am an AI language model created by OpenAI. I am designed to provide helpful and informative responses to a wide range of questions and topics. While I am not a human being, I am programmed to understand and process natural language and provide responses that are as accurate and helpful as possible.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think he is copy pasting a reddit post from r/nietzsche It seems familiar to me.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What is ''atheism''? It's a belief like any other. It's only relevant in the context of signaling an ideological affiliation in the contemporary era.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >War Nietzsche ein Atheist
    Is the correct german spelling. Learn into german r-tard.
    And he was probably some sort of agnostic chad

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche would have been an atheist until people realized it and then he would write a book trashing atheists.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    actually, no. he wasn't

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In GS S. 109 Nietzsche gives his view of reality. It explicitly negates theism and commands us to remove all of "God's shadows" from our understanding of the world.

    109
    Let Us Beware!

    Let us beware of thinking that the world is a living being. To where would it spread? With what would it nourish itself? How could it grow and multiply? We have a pretty good idea what the organic is; and we are supposed to reinterpret something unspeakably derivative, late, rare and accidental, something we only perceive on the surface of the earth, into something essential, universal and eternal, as do those who call the universe an organism? That disgusts me. Let us beware of believing that the universe is a machine; it is certainly not constructed for any one purpose; we do it too much honour with the word ‘machine’. Let us beware of presupposing that something as perfectly shaped as the cyclical movements of our solar system obtains at all times and places; indeed a glance at the Milky Way raises doubts as to whether there are not much rougher and more contradictory movements there, and even stars with eternally linear paths and the like. The astronomical order in which we live is an exception; this order, and the considerable time which it requires, has again made possible that exception of exceptions, the development of organic life. The overall character of the world, however, is from all eternity chaos; not in the sense of a lack of necessity, but rather in the sense of a lack of order, structure, form, beauty, wisdom and whatever else our aesthetically attractive human qualities are called. The failures are by far the most numerous, the exceptions are not the secret purpose; and the whole music box perpetually repeats what should never be called a melody – and finally the very expression ‘failure’ is already an anthropomorphism which implies censure. But how could we presume to blame or praise the universe! Let us beware of imputing to it heartlessness and irrationality, or their opposites; it is neither perfect, nor beautiful, nor noble, nor wishes to become any of these things; it by no means strives to emulate man! It is by no means subject to our aesthetic and moral judgements! It also has no instinct for self-preservation, indeed, no instincts whatsoever; it also knows no law. Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, and no one who transgresses. When you know that nothing is intentional, then you also know that nothing is accidental; for it is only where there is a world of intentions that the word ‘accident’ has any meaning. Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living is only a species of the dead, and a very rare one at that.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Let us beware of thinking that the world perpetually creates what is new. There are no perpetually enduring substances; matter is as much an error as the god of the Eleatics. But when shall we have done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God no longer darken our understanding? When will we have completely demythologized nature? When may we begin to naturalize ourselves by means of the pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No. This is a huge misconception of him. He couldn't imagine anything more depressing than athiesm. He was a Christian through and through, just a slightly different variant where he was the sole member

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche's rejection of traditional Christianity was not a rejection of Christianity itself, just against its dogmatic nature and the institutionalized church. He showed a deep understanding of Christian theology and writings, something that some random atheist wouldn't be into. I think he was a Christian but in his own "I came to this myself" way

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He was ironically religious (unironically) so basically a huge fricking homosexual

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He hinted at this several times. Read TGS, you dumb homosexual.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In the modern Dawkins sense of "bloodless academic cuck who starts literally shaking at any mention of the divine"
    No, no he wasn't

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There's no difference between atheist and atheist. It's all not a faith or cult, it's self assurance that there's no "divine, prime mover" bullshit any of our ancient ancestors invented. You prefer the way Nietzsche delivered it, cool. Who cares?
      Gonna post a hat at me?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >There's no difference between atheist and atheist
        There is, and we both know it.
        You're either pretending to be dense or genuinely dense.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Denies his stupid idea was btfo
          >offers no defense
          >makes high school insult
          Grow up.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, you're underage.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >no defense
            >posts his sweetheart
            btfo

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You wont be a woman today, you wont be a woman tomorrow.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Still not anything close to an argument.
          You have no defense. All you keep doing is thinking about troony dicks. The new hat-tip meme, I guess.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Reductionist midwit absolutist take. You can't gaslight anybody other than yourself into believing there's no such thing as nuance, troony.

        Unless you have an argument that's longer than the average length of a tweet, which you don't because you probably haven't read any Nietzsche, then you've already owned yourself by providing a gay ass semantic comparison with zero substance behind it. Even if it was written with any kind of intellectual pursuit in mind it's STILL a troll.

        >inb4 you still haven't provided an argument

        Still waiting on yours

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    For a period of several weeks in 1866, Nietzsche experienced intense sexual fantasies of being a female and decided to undergo gender transition. He arranged to meet with a psychiatrist in the UK, but changed his mind in the waiting room and did not disclose his reason for making the appointment. Afterwards, enraged, he considered killing the psychiatrist and other people whom he hated. Nietzsche described this episode as a "major turning point" in his life:[27][28][29] "I felt disgusted about what my uncontrolled sexual cravings had almost led me to do. And I felt humiliated, and I violently hated the psychiatrist. Just then there came a major turning point in my life. Like a Phoenix, I burst from the ashes of my despair to a glorious new hope."[28] Nietzsche returned to Prussia shortly after this incident.[29][30]

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >think this is fake
      >look it up
      >it's not from Nietzsche but from Ted Kaczynski
      wtf

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I get Gnostic-aligned undertones from Nietzsche, but instead of seeking Gnosis through wisdom and asceticism he tried to find it in hedonism and physical strength.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You’re fricking moronic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nah this is a well-documented analysis of N
        https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/nietzsche-nihilism-and-the-philosophy-of-the-future/ch3-nietzsche
        >This study of an unremarked neo-Gnostic strain in Nietzsche’s work aims to contribute to the general tenor of our volume, which treats the many kinds of thought in Nietzsche that run counter to his fascination with European nihilism as a culture of death. That such contrary strains exist comes as no surprise when, as is well-known, Nietzsche sees second-stage nihilism as a stimulus to more life. The European predicament demoralizes—and hence energizes; the outcome is suggested in the vivid title of Keith Ansell-Pearson’s and Diane Morgan’s recent volume Nihilism Now! Monsters of Energy.

        >The “nihilism-complex” in Nietzsche’s thought emerges “organically” in his unpublished 1887 essay titled “European Nihilism” (Kuhn 2000, p. 293; Montinari 2003, p. 90; KSA 12: 211). This meditation is informed by a conception of value and values, since nihilistic man conjures up, precisely, “the danger of dangers”—the valueless life (KSA 12: 109). Nietzsche’s essay prepares us to grasp his Gnostic élan as one of several directions that the invoked necessity of a transvaluation of values must take.
        You probably just associate Gnostic with esoteric new-age bullshit and don't get its actual precepts.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He was a christcuck.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That whole "Antichrist" thing was just a prank.
      I'm so convinced

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In all the ways that matter, yes. He was certainly not any kind of literalist superstition monke.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    God is dead, Anon.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Either way he was moronic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *