People need something to believe in, something to follow. Nietzsche does what Plato did, the invention of a religion in the service of philosophy. Only Nietzsche's religion is to be an inversion of Plato's. A religion of the earth, a religion of becoming, a religion of the god Dionysus, of a god who philosophizes. — Fooloso4

Really nice approach. That something that Nietzsche wanted people to believe in, is their very own selves. And the tremendous potential that all of us have. That was the type of the "religion" that was Nietzsche's lust. Trying, in a way, to make Philosophy the new "religion". And that's why Philosophy loved him so much.

That something that Nietzsche wanted people to believe in, is their very own selves. And the tremendous potential that all of us have. — dimosthenis9

What do you suppose the ‘self’ meant to Nietzsche? A unitary self-aware ego? Or a disjunctive community of warring drives?

I think we have discussed it again at another thread about Nietzsche at the past.
Yeah, more or less,and with awareness of the impact that his Ego has on others too, I would add. But if I remember well, you had a different opinion.

Let’s bring this down to earth a bit. — Joshs

An intentional or unintentional pun?

Do you think Nietzsche can be called an atheist? — Joshs

Yes.

And what is left of the notion of religion if the ‘Good’ is incoherent or irrational? — Joshs

When religion is free of transcendence the creators of religion need not be bound to it.

Don’t you think Nietzsche’s concept of the drives in relation to knowledge is crucial here? — Joshs

Yes.

Only man placed values in things to preserve himself—he alone created a meaning for things, a human meaning. Therefore he calls himself "man," which means: the esteemer.
To esteem is to create: hear this, you creators! Esteeming itself is of all esteemed things the most estimable treasure. Through esteeming alone is there value: and without esteeming, the nut of existence would be hollow — Zarathustra, On the Thousand and One Goals

I think we have discussed it again at another thread about Nietzsche at the past.
Yeah, more or less,and with awareness of the impact that his Ego has on others too, I would add. But if I remember well, you had a different opinion. — dimosthenis9

Yes, this was my opinion:

Dan W Smith writes:
“… for Nietzsche, it is our drives that interpret the world, that are perspectival—and not our egos, not our conscious opinions. All of us, as individuals, contain within ourselves “a vast confusion of contradictory drives” (WP 259), such that we are, as Nietzsche liked to say, multiplicities, and not unities. Nietzsche’s point is not that I have a different perspective on the world than you; it is rather that each of us has multiple perspectives on
the world within ourselves because of the multiplicity of our drives—drives that are often contradictory among themselves.”

Moreover, these drives are in a constant struggle or combat with each other: my drive to smoke and get my nicotine rush is in combat with (but also coexistent with) my drive to quit. This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power—at the level of the drives. “Every drive is a kind of lust to rule,” he writes, “each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm” (WP 481)

Have you read Deleuze? Do you think he is a good interpreter of Nietzsche?

The quote above continues:

Change of values—that is a change of creators. Whoever must be a creator always annihilates.
First, peoples were creators; and only in later times, individuals. Verily, the individual himself is still the
most recent creation.

Philosophy the new "religion". — dimosthenis9

I don't think he regarded philosophy as the new religion or "religion", but rather, religion is what creators create. To what extent they believe their own mythologies is a deep and interesting question. The eternal return, for example

Have you read Deleuze? Do you think he is a good interpreter of Nietzsche? — Joshs

I think we have had this conversation before. I have not read enough of his work to say; but if I did, do you think we would agree in our interpretation of his interpretation?

To what extent they believe their own mythologies is a deep and interesting question. The eternal return, for example — Fooloso4

Or you could look at the eternal return this way:

“But the eternal return must not be understood simply as a doctrine in Nietzsche's philosophy. Rather, the eternal return was first of all a lived experience, which was revealed to Nietzsche in Sils-Maria, high in the Swiss Alps, in August of 1881, and experienced as an impulse, an intensity, a high tonality of the soul—and indeed as the highest possible tonality of the soul. But for this reason, the eternal return, as a lived experience, as a drive, was fundamentally incommunicable, or was communicable only on the condition of being fundamentally falsified. For was this not the result of all the Nietzschean analyses we have just examined—namely, that the drives find an expression in consciousness and in language only on the condition of being fundamentally inverted and falsified, reduced to what is common and average?”

Dan W Smith, Nietzsche and the Limits of Subjectivity: The Theory of the Drives

Hm.. Not sure that the last time we discussed it you had mentioned the "drives" matter. But I can't tell for sure. Just mention it cause there aren't much that I disagree with what you posted here from Dan Smith. And especially this, which I find it totally right :

"

This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power—at the level of the drives — Joshs

At the end when I say "self awareness" of course that includes our understanding of our own drives and their contradictions.And that constant effort to rule over them by the power of Will, is what goes us further. Ruling over them is what grows us bigger, "transforms" us to Ubermensch.

I think we have had this conversation before. I have not read enough of his work to say; but if I did, do you think we would agree in our interpretation of his interpretation? — Fooloso4

We probably would if you are comfortable with postmodern readings of him.

As to state it better, imo, he saw Philosophy as the path, the methodology for the new "religion" that would be born.

.And that constant effort to rule over them by the power of Will, is what goes us further. Ruling over them is what grows us bigger, "transforms" us to Ubermensch. — dimosthenis9

As long as we keep in mind that Will to Power is itself a drive. As such it does not return to the ego a command over the will, as if the ego is only at the mercy of unconscious drives, but consciously rules
over them via will to power. Will to power is just as unconscious as all other drives. In fact, all drives are already drives for power. Our central Will to Power is just whatever particular drive happens to dominate the others at any given time.

Will to power is just as unconscious as all other drives. — Joshs

Not so sure about that. We couldn't use it for our own benefit then, if it was unconscious or if it was mostly unconscious. And Nietzsche insisted that we could indeed use that tremendous Will. Making it a hammer as to sculp our Uber-versions.

We couldn't use it for our own benefit then, if it was unconscious or if it was mostly unconscious. And Nietzsche insisted that we could indeed use that tremendous Will. Making it a hammer as to sculp our Uber-versions. — dimosthenis9

Nietzsche writes that the intellect is merely the instrument of the drives:

The fact “that one desires to combat the vehemence of a drive at all, however, does not stand within our own power; nor does the choice of any particular method; nor does the success or failure of this method. What is clearly the case is that in this entire procedure our intellect is only the blind instrument of another drive which is a rival of the drive who vehemence is tormenting us….While ‘we' believe we are complaining about the vehemence of a drive, at bottom it is one drive which is complaining about the other; that is to say: for us to become aware that we are suffering from the vehemence [or violence] of a drive presupposes the existence of another equally vehement or even more vehement drive, and that a struggle is in prospect in which our intellect is going to have to take sides.”(Daybreak)

In the Gay Science, Nietzsche considers the familiar example we have of becoming more reasonable, of “growing up.” “Something that you formerly loved as a truth or probability,” Nietzsche writes, “[now] strikes you as an error;” so you cast it off “and fancy that it represents a victory for your reason” (GS 307). But it is less a victory for reason, for your reason, than shift in the relations among the drives. “Perhaps this error was as necessary for you then,” Nietzsche continues, “when you were a different person—you are always a different person—as are all you present ‘truths'….What killed that opinion for you was your new life [that is, a new drive] and not your reason: you no longer need it, and now it collapses and unreason crawls out of it into the light like a worm. When we criticize something, this is no arbitrary and impersonal event; it is, at least very often, evidence of vital energies in us that are growing and shedding a skin. We negate and must negate because something in us wants to live and affirm—something that we perhaps do not know or see as yet” (GS 307).
3 KSA 9:6[70], 1880, as cited in Parkes, p. 292 and p. 447, note 34

and that a struggle is in prospect in which our intellect is going to have to take sides.” — Joshs

And that's all the "juice" for me.Our intellect is indeed capable of taking sides and decide which of our contradicted "drives" will preveal each time at the end.
For me that is the Will to Power that Nietzsche wanted to spread. The Will to gain Power over ourselves. The Will to drive our "drives" for our own growth.

Rather, the eternal return was first of all a lived experience, which was revealed to Nietzsche in Sils-Maria, high in the Swiss Alps, in August of 1881, and experienced as an impulse, an intensity, a high tonality of the soul—and indeed as the highest possible tonality of the soul. — Joshs

I don't know what this means. Certainly not an experience like seeing the Grand Canyon which is there to be experienced. Perhaps like deja vu, which may be nothing more than the mind playing tricks on itself. Or Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, which was for him a profound experience but questionable with regard to whether it corresponds to anything other than what his mind has produced, a product of his imagination.

All experience is a lived experience. There is something ambiguous about such an experience. No doubt there is something that is experienced, but the experience of actually being on the moon is not the same as having an experience that one has been on the moon even though you have never been there.

Our intellect is indeed capable of taking sides and decide which of our contradicted "drives" will preveal each time at the end.
For me that is the Will to Power that Nietzsche wanted to spread. The Will to gain Power over ourselves. The Will to drive our "drives" for our own growth. — dimosthenis9

Is this deciding in favor of growth on the part of the intellect a rational process?

Surely not totally but a part of it yes. And that's the only "part" we have a say on. The conscious part of that procedure .At unconscious level isn't much that we can do.
And our Will to Power and how strong it might be will decide how big that part could become. As to gain more and more control over ourselves.

This, of course, should not be taken literally. The trope is one of Nietzsche's "inversions" of the innocence of the child in Christianity — Fooloso4

The use of "inversions" is an odd feature of Nietzsche's work. He said that one should be careful about what one opposes because it gives the 'enemy' new life. The battle better be worth it.

The idea of eternal recurrence is at odds with the 'future of a species' vision. Each person will only be what they experience being themselves. So, what does it mean to insist upon that necessity while saying other things about the world?

The undeniable is strangely unsuited for any of the available jobs on offer.

Will to Power and how strong it might be will decide how big that part could become. As to gain more and more control over ourselves. — dimosthenis9

Reminds me of Lord of the Rings. One ring to rule them all! What’s the point of this self-control? Why is it good or desirable?

Moreover, these drives are in a constant struggle or combat with each other: my drive to smoke and get my nicotine rush is in combat with (but also coexistent with) my drive to quit. This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power—at the level of the drives. “Every drive is a kind of lust to rule,” — Joshs

What's the drive to rule in the drive to smoke?

And imagine before I was amazed that I actually believed that you appreciate Nietzsche.Even thought for a min that I might have misunderstood you. But oh boy, how could you? I should have known better. You were just exercising your favorite sport "trolling".Poor fool me.

What’s the point of this self-control? Why is it good or desirable? — praxis

None. Totally useless.Don't try it. Especially when you are home and alone!

I don't disagree but I still can't really see how any of these perspectives are useful.

Don’t have to be in full agreement or understanding to appreciate others in various ways. I’m sincerely curious about what you’ve been saying about drives and self-control. I guess it’s implied that you think self-control is desirable, that it’s good in some way, but it’s unclear what exactly the benefit is.

Reminds me of Lord of the Rings. One ring to rule them all! What’s the point of this self-control? Why is it good or desirable? — praxis

That is the salient question.

We already have some self control otherwise we would have been like most animals driven just by our instincts. So yes if we gain more self control that means we are able to have a bigger part of ourselves that we actually have a say on.

Unconscious, subconscious, drives, instincts etc, all these are parts that we can't do anything at all about them,and surely cannot be totally tamed. But the more we develop our self control(plus our self awareness) the more we get things on our hands.We have only a part that we can control and that's the conscious part. And even realizing our drives and what motivates them (as much as that is possible) has its significance also. So yeah I do find it extremely crucial as for us to be developed more.

With regard to the question you ask about whether Nietzsche was an atheist, people often assume that he was on the basis of how he spoke of God as being dead. However, Colin Wilson saw this as implying a specific atheism as mistaken and when I was reading Nietzsche initially I saw his writings as compatible with belief in God.

Colin Wilson argued,
'Nietzsche called himself an anti-Christ when he probably meant an Anti- Luther. Nietzsche's temperament was less devotional, more intellectual than Blake's; there is a fundamental similarity all the same, and it would be more accurate to regard Nietzsche as a Blakeian Christian...'

It may be hard to know to what extent Nietzsche really was an atheist or not because he didn't look at the arguments for and against God's existence on a metaphysical level. However, Nietzsche's name is often linked to the notion of atheism but it may not be that simple.
.

Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence doesn't have to be taken literally as it can be interpreted as a symbolic way of thinking about life. Life is part of cycles and, in a way, there are potential symbolic ways of seeing all the various possibilities of each moment, in each person's life.

My understanding of FN is that he 'blew up' all totalising meta-narratives, which meant that for him the god question was not even wrong.