Morality, as you seem to look at it; what is its purpose? What is its goals? — Beebert

Flourishing?

I am not an enemy of morality in itself. — Beebert

Well it certainly seems to me that you are. For example you call Blake a Christian, and yet Blake advocated and engaged in free love, including adultery and opposed monogamy, marriage and chastity. Please explain to me how that isn't against morality, and how that is Christian.

If you want to look at someone who actually had the RIGHT to criticize Nietzsche, I recommend to you Berdyaev — Beebert

I've read quite a bunch of stuff by Berdyaev including most recently Meaning of the Creative Act, but also The End of Our Time and Philosophy of Inequality. I like most of his writings. Berdyaev does advocate for morality though. He goes at length about the necessity of religious asceticism, even his philosophy of sexuality is very interesting, and unlike the full of lust crap you find in Blake and Nietzsche.

He had a great understanding of Nietzsche, and he admired him and considered him one one of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived. — Beebert

That wasn't my impression at all.

And he too was sceptical and critical towards Aquinas. — Beebert

:s He seems to admire Aquinas (he calls him "greatest genius"), even at the points where he disagrees with him. Unlike you.

http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1925_304.html

Btw, regarding Notes from Underground; I guess you dismissed the message there as false and untrue? — Beebert

What message? The work doesn't have a very clear message. It seems obvious that the Underground man is opposed to rampant materialism and scientism and wanted to assert the freedom of man. It also seems to argue against rationalistic attempts (like Communism) to enforce a certain scientific standard on society and take man's freedom away in the name of curing him of suffering (for example). It is largely a critique of Russian Westernized intelligentsia of that time, including their blind adherence to science, logic and reason (reason does NOT mean here what it means for Aquinas or for Plato - by the way. It's what reason means for the Enlightenment). If that's the message you refer to, then no, I would agree with that message, not reject it.

"That wasn't my impression at all"
Lol then you havent read or understood Berdyaev either. He sometimes even referred to himself as a "Nietzschean-Christian"

"It's what reason means for the Enlightenment"
I hope you know what Nietzsche thought about the enlightenment and what it did to man's ability and possibility to reach authentic religiosity and transcendence. Read Berdyaev's biography that he himself wrote, where he talks about the almost rage he felt when religious people mocked Nietzsche. And read what is considered his greatest work: "Destiny of Man". In it, Berdyaev sees Aquinas intellectual greatness, something I don't deny, but quite clearly finds his reasoning to often be sadistic.

http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1915_189.html

I am not talking about Dostoevsky's objevtions towards ideologies of his time, even though that is a natural consequence of his view of MAN. Partly his insight that man is irrational.

From the article of Berdyaev I linked:

"Truly in the spirit of Nietzsche there was more of the Slav, than the German: in him there is something end-like, final, already flown beyond the bounds of culture, going beyond the religious limit, akin to our Dostoevsky. And how close Nietzsche was, by his pathos, to the Russian religious searchings!(...) Zarathustra -- is the path of Man and the tragic fate of Man, of the human spirit in its ascent to the heights. This -- is a thankless and heroic path, in which man takes upon himself all the burden of suffering and all the difficulty of passage along as yet undisclosed mountain passes. In Zarathustra there is a spirit grasping towards the heights, there is a mountainous austherity, sacrificial in its unique asceticism.(...)Nietzsche, certainly, was not a pacifist, and indeed he need not be. Dostoevsky sang hymns to the spirit of war in quite more literal a sense, than did Nietzsche.(...)The martial and triumphant pathos of Nietzsche is profoundest a manifestation of spirit, and not a preaching of Prussian militarism. He had no desire to beget super-junkers. 'If ye cannot be zealous strivers of knowledge, then in extreme measure be its warriors'. 'Seek out your enemy, seek not his soldier to know -- but rather his thoughts!' 'I call you not to labour, but to struggle. I call you not to peace, but to victories. Let your toil be struggle and your peace victorious!' 'It is fine to be brave'. Here is what Zarathustra spake. He taught about war, about struggle and the victory of the brave, as the path towards the supra-human condition, as the surmounting of the merely human condition. This -- is a forging of the will, a steeling of the spirit, an eternal symbolism of spiritual power and firmness. And may God grant us this power and firmness."

"That wasn't my impression at all" Lol then you havent read or understood Berdyaev either. He sometimes even referred to himself as a "Nietzschean-Christian" — Beebert

"Humanist anthropology reached its climax in F. Nietzsche, the most significant spiritual phenomenon of modern history [...] Zarathustra is the most powerful human book without grace; whatever is superior to Zarathustra is so by grace from on high. Zarathustra is the work of man abandoned to himself"

I agree with that. But that's not saying much. Nietzsche is the best atheism can give, but it's not a lot. I've already told you that N. is deeper than Hume, etc. But he's not one of the greatest thinkers. He saw only half of what there was to see. That's a cripple, not a great (although he was indeed great - at being a cripple).

As for Berdyaev, I don't remember ever coming across him calling himself a Nietzschean Christian. Can you provide a citation for this?

Partly his insight that man is irrational. — Beebert

.... I think this is totally wrong. His view is rather that scientific reasoning cannot comprehend the whole of man. So when looking at man by the criteria of scientific reasoning then yes, man is irrational. But this is not the same criteria of reason that Aquinas and Plato had. By that criteria of reason, man is not irrational, but maybe supra-rational.

I hope you know what Nietzsche thought about the enlightenment — Beebert

I do, he didn't much like it.

And here is a quote from Berdyaev that I agree with: “Kant is a profoundly Christian thinker, more so than Thomas Aquinas,”

In Berdyaev's work Destiny of Man, as well as in his autobiography, he advocates for two paths in life: The path of creativity, the path chosen by artists Most often; musicians, writers, painters etc. And the path of salvation. Both leads to heaven in the end in his view. And you can rarely choose both at the same time. And he couldn't accept the thought that Nietzsche and other brilliant men were in hell. . And as the article I will Link here correctly claims, Berdyaev was in a very true sense a Nietzschean, who at least could correctly critizise Nietzsche: "He is a compelling writer, a Nietzschean whose critique of Nietzsche is sharper than a blade"
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4768

From the same article:
"In striving for redemption, however, the individual easily distorts the grace to which his struggle responds; he then becomes a Puritan, like Henrik Ibsen’s priest-fanatic in Brand, or like convinced Communists and multiculturalists. As Berdyaev remarks, Jesus kept company, not with the perfecti, but with taxmen, tavern-keepers, harlots, and thieves.(...)Berdyaev remains today one of the most radical of Twentieth Century philosophers. He must offend liberal and libertarian, militant atheist and Christian literalist alike. For all that Berdyaev shares with Nietzsche, he will offend those, and they are many, who have turned Nietzsche into one of the idols of the Götzendämmerung. "

Now when I read Aquinas, I find his outlook to too often keep Company with the "perfecti". Berdyaev is violent in his critique against the view of hell that was advocated by people like John Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin.

And here is a quote from Berdyaev that I agree with: “Kant is a profoundly Christian thinker, more so than Thomas Aquinas,” — Beebert

Yes, I know later Berdyaev developed a fetish for Kant :P

In Berdyaev's work Destiny of Man, as well as in his autobiography, he advocates for two paths in life: The path of creativity, the path chosen by artists Most often; musicians, writers, painters etc. And the path of salvation. Both leads to heaven in the end in his view. And you can rarely choose both at the same time. And he couldn't accept the thought that Nietzsche and other brilliant men were in hell. — Beebert

Why is salvation divorced from creativity? Why can't a creative person be moral? :s This seems to me to be special pleading. Dostoyevsky isn't a better man because he wrote Brothers Karamazov - it has little to do with his morality. He still committed many sins. His success, as a writer, does not erase his failures as a human being. And the same holds even more true for William Blake and F. Nietzsche. It's not up to us to speculate who is in Heaven and who isn't though.

"He is a compelling writer, a Nietzschean whose critique of Nietzsche is sharper than a blade" — Beebert

Well that's the author's reading of Berdyaev, but you said Berdyaev himself said he is a Christian Nietzschean. That's what I'm interested in.

For the Christian morality is very important. It's not everything, but if you don't have morality, neither can you have anything else. Someone cannot be a Christian and encourage adultery and sin like Blake. That sort of double standard just does not work - a good tree does not produce bad fruit.

"Someone cannot be a Christian and encourage adultery and sin like Blake. That sort of double standard just does not work - a good tree does not produce bad fruit."
I agree, but I think you must read Blake differently than as a simple man advocating sin for the sake of it. For him, sin was to reject life and vitality, sin was to embrace nothingness. It wasn't just simply a moral violation.
Regarding Berdyaev's view on creativity, they can co-exist, but that is rare, not rule. Read his Destiny of Man for an explanation, it was his thought, not mine. Regarding him calling himself "Nietzschean-Christian", I am still looking for the place where I found it.
"It's not up to us to speculate who is in Heaven and who isn't though.", I completely agree.
Nietzsche wrote in Daybreak: “In this book faith in morality is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality!" This means that morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of morality he retains and employs.

As once again Berdyaev said about Nietzsche :
"And yet all the same I know of nothing more monstrous in its inner untruth, than to connect Nietzsche with the modern militaristic Germany. This means -- to read the alphabetic letters, without understanding the meaning of the words. They know Nietzsche only through certain fragmented aphorisms, turned round in reverse and filled with shoddy nuances, they read through and ponder on too little in him, and sense not his spirit and his fate."

There is a reason why Freud said of Nietzsche that no man in history has ever had a greater understanding of himself and man than Nietzsche. And that very likely no man in the future will ever reach the insights and the understanding Nietzsche reached.

One moral problem that I find in christianity, is that man is not a causa sui. That christianity admits, yet it seems to me that christianity's insistence then on making man morally responsible for everything becomes a contradiction. Something similar I believe was also one of Nietzsche's arguments when he criticized the doctrine of free will and christianity's insistence on defending it. Now this is my question and not Nietzsche's: How can I be responsible for everything if God is the one creating me without my consent for example?

For him, sin was to reject life and vitality, sin was to embrace nothingness. — Beebert

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jerusalem._The_Emanation_of_the_Giant_Albion/Plate_49
So when he writes:

"In cruel holiness, in their Heavens of Chastity & Uncircumcision"

What does he mean? Is chastity a "rejection of life and vitality"? Is lust the acceptance of life and vitality?

It wasn't just simply a moral violation. — Beebert

But it was also a moral violation apart from being something more? :s

Regarding Berdyaev's view on creativity, they can co-exist, but that is rare, not rule. Read his Destiny of Man for an explanation, it was his thought, not mine. — Beebert

Well I can't instantly read that book, so that's why I'm relying on this conversation. In the Meaning of the Creative Act, it seems that Berdyaev, to the contrary, presupposes that some degree of religious asceticism / morality is needed to fuel one's creativity. For example, he discusses about sublimating the sexual drive (which he identifies as fundamental) and channeling it towards creative endeavours. If one indulges in the sex drive, then one is left without energy to be creative. So the two seem to be intimately related. Why does he change his mind?

I will comment on the other points soon.

"Well I can't instantly read that book, so that's why I'm relying on this conversation. In the Meaning of the Creative Act, it seems that Berdyaev, to the contrary, presupposes that some degree of religious asceticism / morality is needed to fuel one's creativity. For example, he discusses about sublimating the sexual drive (which he identifies as fundamental) and channeling it towards creative endeavours. If one indulges in the sex drive, then one is left without energy to be creative. So the two seem to be intimately related. Why does he change his mind?"

Correct, that was his view in the Destiny of Man too. But you see how the purpose here is to create, not to seek salvation. Nietzsche too reasoned like Berdyaev that sublimating the sexual drive can be fundamental for the creative act. Though except that, Nietzsche is probably not the best to seek advice from regarding questions about sex

"In cruel holiness, in their Heavens of Chastity & Uncircumcision"

Regarding that; I don't know. It is hard sometines to read things without considering the context, the situation of the church of England during the times that Blake were living in etc. I still find some profoundly enlightened things in Blake that he discovered and obviously experienced. Reading him is like meeting someone who has stayed eternally young, with the spirit of a creative child. Chastity can definitely be tyrannical and pharasaic, so it all depends on how Blake understood chastity. But I give you this: He was certainly not what one would call "orthodox"

Correct, that was his view in the Destiny of Man too. But you see how the purpose here is to create, not to seek salvation. Nietzsche too reasoned like Berdyaev that sublimating the sexual drive can be fundamental for the creative act. Though except that, Nietzsche is probably not the best to seek advice from regarding questions about sex — Beebert

Okay, but aren't the two identical, or in fact, creation being higher than salvation? For man in his primordial state, before the Fall, was created in the image of God, and therefore in the image of a creator. And remember that according to Aquinas whom you don't like >:) man is meant to be a participant in creation - a co-Creator. Marriage, and having children, are symbolic of these creative capacities of man (and woman). Because salvation - okay one is saved. But what happens after? Clearly the after is defined by creativity or as Aquinas would say, participation in Creation.

Though except that, Nietzsche is probably not the best to seek advice from regarding questions about sex — Beebert

>:O >:O Why do you say that?

Chastity can definitely be tyrannical and pharasaic, so it all depends on how Blake understood chastity. — Beebert

What do you mean by chastity being tyrannical or pharasaic?

"Okay, but aren't the two identical, or in fact, creation being higher than salvation? For man in his primordial state, before the Fall, was created in the image of God, and therefore in the image of a creator. And remember that according to Aquinas whom you don't like >:) man is meant to be a participant in creation - a co-Creator. Marriage, and having children, are symbolic of these creative capacities of man (and woman). Because salvation - okay one is saved. But what happens after? Clearly the after is defined by creativity or as Aquinas would say, participation in Creation."

And this has been much of my argument all the time, that man is created in order to create, or to be a co-creator. I did not know this though about Aquinas, and if what you say is the case, I am inclined to agree and appreciate this insight of his, though I would appreciate to read how he defined it.

"Why do you say that?"

On a superficial level, have you heard about the different interpretations on Nietzsche's sexuality etc? Some believe he never ever had sex(though that in itself doesn't necessarily mean he would be incabale to comment on sexuality with insights, but rahercregarding the reasons why some believe Nietzsche's lifelong virginity to be true), others say he was once with a prostitute and contracted syphilis (something I highly doubt), and some say he might have been homosexual. I would say because of Nietzsche's way of approaching women is my main concern though. I once read a biography of Nietzsche and laughed myself to death almost when I read Nietzsche's letter about how he liked Lou-Andreas Salome but that when it comes to marriage, he wanted his friend to tell her that he might consider it, but at max (!)for two years! As if more than two years with a woman in a marriage would be unendurable. That was hilarious to read. Also, even though Nietzsche too sometimes had profound insights in women and in the relationship between the opposite sexes and in a woman's relation to another woman etc. I would say that I most often disagree with his view on women.

"What do you mean by chastity being tyrannical or pharasaic?"
I am talking about a certain type of forced chastity that is mainly just self-torture for the sake of it or a misdirected energy and about some religious people's condemning attitude towards sex in its totality, losing the insight about the holy nature that also can exist in sex.

Even though I am not a fan of Aquinas philosophy, I don't object to it that much. It is rather his theology that I really dislike.

And this has been much of my argument all the time, that man is created in order to create, or to be a co-creator. I did not know this though about Aquinas, and if what you say is the case, I am inclined to agree and appreciate this insight of his, though I would appreciate to read how he defined it. — Beebert

The doctrine of participation in Being has been quite essential to the Thomist tradition. And it shows through art as well, for example in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (Tolkien was a Catholic).

On a superficial level, have you heard about the different interpretations on Nietzsche's sexuality etc? — Beebert

Okay, but why would him being a virgin, or having sex with a prostitute and contracting syphillis, or being a homosexual tell us anything about his sexual insights? Do you mean to suggest that someone who doesn't have a lot of sex with women in particular fails to understand sexuality?

I once read a biography of Nietzsche and laughed myself to death almost when I read Nietzsche's letter about how he liked Lou-Andreas Salome but that when it comes to marriage, he wanted his friend to tell her that he might consider it, but at max (!)for two years! As if more than two years with a woman in a marriage would be unendurable. That was hilarious to read. — Beebert

Yes, Nietzsche was in all likelihood quite selfish.

I would say that I most often disagree with his view on women. — Beebert

Yes, same, but again this isn't to say he's not interesting to read. It's interesting to read because it helps you form your own position, even if you disagree with him.

I am talking about a certain type of forced chastity — Beebert

What do you mean "forced chastity"? How can a virtue be "forced"? If you are forced to love X, then you don't really love X.

self-torture for the sake of it — Beebert

Why would chastity be self-torture instead of self-respect?

condemning attitude towards sex in its totality, losing the insight about the holy nature that also can exist in sex. — Beebert

That is quite rare for the most part I think. Most believers aren't Puritans. And as a Christian one doesn't have sex outside of marriage because they love and treasure sex (not because they think it bad), and want to save it for the special person in their life with whom they develop a spiritual bond & connection.

More often than not I find hypocrisy amongst Christians the other way around - they don't take lust & fornication seriously enough.

"The doctrine of participation in Being has been quite essential to the Thomist tradition. And it shows through art as well, for example in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (Tolkien was a Catholic)"
I can't say I find Lord of the Rings to be particularly good art though...


"Okay, but why would him being a virgin, or having sex with a prostitute and contracting syphillis, or being a homosexual tell us anything about his sexual insights? Do you mean to suggest that someone who doesn't have a lot of sex with women in particular fails to understand sexuality?"

They don't, and no I wouldn't. Having sex with a lot of women can on the opposite mean you don't understand sex. My main suggestion regarding this lay in much of Nietzsche's understanding of women.

"Why would chastity be self-torture instead of self-respect?"

I too ask myself that question. I personally understand Blake as cririzising priests who preach chastity in order to achieve power and mental and social control over others instead of understanding the true meaning of chastity.


"More often than not I find hypocrisy amongst Christians the other way around - they don't take lust & fornication seriously enough."

True about lay-men. Not as often true about priests and pastors.

Now if you dont mind, I would really appreciate you commenting on the things from my earlier post(s) that you avoid commenting and replying to but said you were going to comment on later. This one for example :
'Nietzsche wrote in Daybreak: “In this book faith in morality is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality!" This means that morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of morality he retains and employs.

As once again Berdyaev said about Nietzsche :
"And yet all the same I know of nothing more monstrous in its inner untruth, than to connect Nietzsche with the modern militaristic Germany. This means -- to read the alphabetic letters, without understanding the meaning of the words. They know Nietzsche only through certain fragmented aphorisms, turned round in reverse and filled with shoddy nuances, they read through and ponder on too little in him, and sense not his spirit and his fate."

There is a reason why Freud said of Nietzsche that no man in history has ever had a greater understanding of himself and man than Nietzsche. And that very likely no man in the future will ever reach the insights and the understanding Nietzsche reached.

One moral problem that I find in christianity, is that man is not a causa sui. That christianity admits, yet it seems to me that christianity's insistence then on making man morally responsible for everything becomes a contradiction. Something similar I believe was also one of Nietzsche's arguments when he criticized the doctrine of free will and christianity's insistence on defending it. Now this is my question and not Nietzsche's: How can I be responsible for everything if God is the one creating me without my consent for example?'

"Yes, Nietzsche was in all likelihood quite selfish."

It wouldn't surprise me if he was. But he was funny too. One needs to look at human's more with a humorous eye I think. Like Cervantes was good at doing. I also dont believe Nietzsche was cruel, pitiless and without compassion. But rather that he had a quite strong tendency towards feeling compassion and pity...

I can't say I find Lord of the Rings to be particularly good art though... — Beebert

Why not? It's an amazing theodicy - justification of Creation as good, despite evil.

"There is light and beauty up there that no shadow can touch" -Samwise Gamgee

They don't, and no I wouldn't. Having sex with a lot of women can on the opposite mean you don't understand sex. My main suggestion regarding this lay in much of Nietzsche's understanding of women. — Beebert

Okay.

I personally understand Blake as cririzising priests who preach chastity in order to achieve power and mental and social control over others instead of understanding the true meaning of chastity. — Beebert

Sure, but does Blake ever speak about that true meaning of chastity?

As with regards to the priests.

Now if you dont mind, I would really appreciate you commenting on the things from my earlier post(s) that you avoid commenting and replying to but said you were going to comment on later. This one for example : — Beebert

Ah, I actually forgot about it, I didn't mean to avoid replying. Sorry.

'Nietzsche wrote in Daybreak: “In this book faith in morality is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality!" This means that morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of morality he retains and employs. — Beebert

It can mean that, but it's difficult to argue in light of his other works like his Genealogy of Morality which you mentioned as one of your favorite books. Nietzsche also wrote this poem to the Unknown God:

Once more, before I move on
I am directing my gaze forward
In loneliness, I am lifting my hands
Up to Thee, to whom I flee,
To whom I, from the deepest bottom of my heart
Solemnly consecrate altars
So that, at all times,
His voice would call me again.
Thereupon, written deeply inside, the word
Is blazing like fire: To the unknown God:
I am his, even if I remained with the hord of the infidels
Up to this hour:
I am his – and I feel the ties
That pull me down in fight
And, even if I should flee,
Still would force me into his service.
I want to know Thee, Unknown One
Thou, who is reaching deeply into my soul,
Who is raging through my life like a storm
Thou Unfathomable One, akin to me!
I want to know Thee, and serve Thee.

Does that mean he's a theist now?

"And yet all the same I know of nothing more monstrous in its inner untruth, than to connect Nietzsche with the modern militaristic Germany. This means -- to read the alphabetic letters, without understanding the meaning of the words. They know Nietzsche only through certain fragmented aphorisms, turned round in reverse and filled with shoddy nuances, they read through and ponder on too little in him, and sense not his spirit and his fate." — Beebert

Yes, I'm not one of those people who think Nietzsche was himself a Nazi, ALTHOUGH he did have elements which could very easily be interpreted that way. Even the Genealogy of Morality for example.

There is a reason why Freud said of Nietzsche that no man in history has ever had a greater understanding of himself and man than Nietzsche. And that very likely no man in the future will ever reach the insights and the understanding Nietzsche reached. — Beebert

To be honest, I think the reason Freud said that was because Nietzsche essentially agreed with him :)

But Otto Rank or Ernest Becker (who developed Freud's theories) don't agree :P The Denial of Death is a good book about this.

How can I be responsible for everything if God is the one creating me without my consent for example?' — Beebert

You are not responsible for your existence, but you are responsible for what you do while you exist.

I also dont believe Nietzsche was cruel, pitiless and without compassion. But rather that he had a quite strong tendency towards feeling compassion and pity... — Beebert

Yes, no doubt he did, but at many times it feels like he repressed these feelings. I think quite the opposite of you. Nietzsche didn't know himself. Nietzsche was a man of many masks, a man who was in flight from himself, always changing the mask that he was wearing. He thought he was someone different than he actually was, he never looked at his own face.

“Every profound spirit needs a mask: even more, around every profound spirit a mask is continually growing.” - Nietzsche.

As with regards to the priests. — Agustino

True about lay-men. Not as often true about priests and pastors. — Beebert

Here's the issue with priests. It depends on the age in which one lives. Our age suffers from sexual promiscuity, and therefore leaning towards condemnation of lust is preferable to the opposite, since the opposite will be misinterpreted. In Blake's age, I guess this was different.

I am from Eastern Europe, and here there's a lot of hypocrisy with regards to sexuality. Like, for example, say a girl has sex when she's 14, even if she regrets it, and is chaste and humble after that till she gets married, many times she will still be viewed as a whore, which is absolutely wrong. I mean people make mistakes, and those mistakes don't define them so long as they regret them and repent of wrong-doing. But unfortunately culture, especially amongst the older people, tends to be like this, and would disconsider people based on their actions, rather than their character. So I'd say this is a fake view of chastity, because the repentant woman who has turned away from sin and regrets her past actions isn't unchaste.

But then for men it's the opposite. For example, I'm viewed badly for not engaging in fornication, because here men are typically seen as strong if they do engage in it, and weak if they don't.

Now, I know you're from Sweden, so I'm not sure how this is there - but I'd be curious to know if you want to share (I know this because I follow another forum where I sometimes stumble across your posts, an Eastern Orthodox forum, though I don't have an account there, and am not active, but have been following and reading for quite a few months, some posters, even the non-Christian ones (thinking of mainly Jetavan now), are quite good - and a few of the Christian ones are quite stuck up :P ).

I don't think priests in particular misuse sexuality to control people or anything of that sort. At least I haven't encountered it. Orthodox priests get to marry as well, so they're closer to the layman than the Catholic priest. But there is a high degree of human tradition which replaces religion for some priests.

Nietzsche opposition is to morality is as an excuse for hierarchy. Not in the sense of there are no right or wrong actions or people who are better or worse, but rather to the citing of moral character as an account of the worth of existence.

He wants us to be honest about are hierarchy: if I exert power to obtain my preferred social organisation, my action is not done because the people I lock-up, kill or oppose in values are meaningless wretches, but rather because I am exerting power to achieve a (supposedly) just social organisation. No more lying that its because someone else, no matter how moral or immoral, is meaningless.

In this respect, Nietzsche is more Christian than the Christian. He takes the Christian attack on sacrifice to its end. Since sacrifice does not undo what has been done, it cannot pay for wrongs at all, not even in Jesus.

God is just as ignorant as the sacrifice obsessed humans which went before him, at worst building a religion on the very premise of sacrifice which was meant to be targeting, at best lying about why Jesus is sacrificed (i.e. that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sins, rather the death being a cultural act of power to cause people to alter their relationship to sacrifice).

Worth and meaning are given without sacrifice, payment or forgiveness. No matter how evil might be, the significance of existence goes on, one can always do better, can help with there actions. God is dead because we already have the meaning God is meant to grant us and always well.

Sacrifice, payment, punishment, forgiveness, desire, everlasting life-- these are all only about hierarchies of the world and possessing worldly goods. Many times they are about morality and justice, but the have nothing to do with the infinite of meaning or worth.

"Does that mean he's a theist now?"

No not necessarily, if my memory serves me correctly he wrote it before losing faith but I might be wrong about that. Anyway there is also another hint from Nietzsche in Zarathustra where it seems like he spoke of feeling the presence of an unknown God. Nietzsche was definitely NOT am atheist in the pathetic sense in which Dawkins is an atheist. Nietzsche wasn't a materialist, nor was he without sense of the religious, myterious and sacred in life. Did you know that when Nietzsche was young everybody called him "Little Jesus" because he was so religious?

"To be honest, I think the reason Freud said that was because Nietzsche essentially agreed with him "
He did on some parts yes. In many ways Freud didnt come up with anything New. But I am certain Nietzsche would be critical to many of Freud's ideas.

"You are not responsible for your existence, but you are responsible for what you do while you exist."

Yes and I see huge problems here to harmonize that with Christianity and its gastly doctrine of eternal punishment in a lake of fire. Is that Free will? Rather sounds like making fun of the whole concept to me. But I might be without understanding here.

'Yes, no doubt he did, but at many times it feels like he repressed these feelings. I think quite the opposite of you. Nietzsche didn't know himself. Nietzsche was a man of many masks, a man who was in flight from himself, always changing the mask that he was wearing. He thought he was someone different than he actually was, he never looked at his own face.

'“Every profound spirit needs a mask: even more, around every profound spirit a mask is continually growing.” - Nietzsche.'

Yes I agree to a certain extent. Except that you say Nietzsche didnt know himself, while I say he knew so deeply and profoundly all these things about himself and the power of unconcious instincts within man that he analyzed deeper than no one before him(except maybe Dostoevsky, but Dostoevsky was a tiny bit more biased though). Remember that he called man's conciousness to be perhaps man's weakest attribute. And remember what he said in the beginning of Genealogy of Morals where he Said that the insightful man doesn't know himself because he hasn't searched himself. And then he goes on explaining what he means. I maintain Freud had a point. Goethe would too agree: "True veneration and respect can only be shown to those who have never searched for themselves"(I am translating directly from Swedish here)

This is very much one of the things I have been trying to say. Nietzsche is in other words extremely misunderstood. As he himself said, he found there to be hierarchy thinking, political thinking and Will to power and control behind every philosophy and theology. I maintain that Nietzsche is the most underrated philosopher in history and the most misunderstood.

I agree very much with your example of what is to be considered false chastity. Though I believe, inspired by Nietzsche, that People try to display power way more often than we know. It was horrible to read the example of the 14 year old girl. Condemning like that is the worst thing I know. It is not as common in Sweden. In Sweden sex is not tabu as it was before and people too often idolize it here, at least Young People, both male and female. Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. Both Christianity and Nietzsche is rejected here, and the hedonists are the number. Sweden's perhaps most famous philosopher today is Torbjörn Tännsjö. He is a typical utilitarist, who IMO stands for onecof the most pathetic philosophy possible. He is very superficial. Nietzsche would have critizised Swedish culture harshly, that is for sure. Everything is very mediocre.

Funny that you mention the orthodox forum, I wondered if perhaps you had seen me there. I am not a very popular member there because of many of my provocative posts etc. I think. Some appreciate me, most seem to want me gone.

Woah woah what happened Willow, did you finally reactivate yourself? >:O

I noticed that you have been quite absent since I returned.

Nietzsche opposition is to morality is as an excuse for hierarchy. Not in the sense of there are no right or wrong actions or people who are better or worse, but rather to the citing of moral character as an account of the worth of existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You could extract this idea out of N. But you could also extract the opposite. For example when he says morality is a function of social status in Genealogy of Morality.

Since sacrifice does not undo what has been done, it cannot pay for wrongs at all, not even in Jesus. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But Eastern Orthodox Christians do not take Jesus Christ to be a substitutionary sacrifice for sinners, but quite the contrary - Christ came to save and deify human nature. The doctrine of penal substitution is foreign to this oldest form of Christianity:

https://becomingorthodox.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/the-purpose-of-sacrifice/

God is just as ignorant as the sacrifice obsessed humans which went before him, at worst building a religion on the very premise of sacrifice which was meant to be targeting, at best lying about why Jesus is sacrificed (i.e. that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sins, rather the death being a cultural act of power to cause people to alter their relationship to sacrifice). — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a common but false interpretation of Scripture. Please see above. Sacrifice is something positive, not negative in Eastern Orthodoxy. As a husband for example, you're supposed to sacrifice yourself for your wife, and doing so is something positive. There is no legalistic demand for it, but it's something you'd do out of love. Jesus sacrificed Himself for the Church out of love in order to bring salvation of human nature from ourselves, not as a response to a legalistic God.

God is dead because we already have the meaning God is meant to grant us and always well. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:s That's a non-sequitur.

This is very much one of the things I have been trying to say. Nietzsche is in other words extremely misunderstood. As he himself said, he found there to be hierarchy thinking, political thinking and Will to power and control behind every philosophy and theology. — Beebert

Okay, but is there ONLY will to power behind every philosophy & theology?

No not necessarily, if my memory serves me correctly he wrote it before losing faith but I might be wrong about that. — Beebert

Indeed he did.

Nietzsche was definitely NOT am atheist in the pathetic sense in which Dawkins is an atheist. — Beebert

I agree. But he was still someone who misunderstood the highest spiritual realities.

Nietzsche wasn't a materialist, nor was he without sense of the religious, myterious and sacred in life. — Beebert

Sure, I agree, I never said otherwise.

Yes and I see huge problems here to harmonize that with Christianity and its gastly doctrine of eternal punishment in a lake of fire. Is that Free will? Rather sounds like making fun of the whole concept to me. But I might be without understanding here. — Beebert

I've already explained that sinners, through their sins, choose the lake of fire willingly.

And remember what he said in the beginning of Genealogy of Morals where he Said that the insightful man doesn't know himself because he hasn't searched himself. — Beebert

Yeah it was something about us being like bees bringing back honey to our intellectual hives or something >:O >:O

Except that you say Nietzsche didnt know himself, while I say he knew so deeply and profoundly all these things about himself and the power of unconcious instincts within man that he analyzed deeper than no one before him(except maybe Dostoevsky, but Dostoevsky was a tiny bit more biased though) — Beebert

N. is someone who searched but never found in my opinion and understanding of him.

It was horrible to read the example of the 14 year old girl. Condemning like that is the worst thing I know. — Beebert

Why would you say it's the worst thing, especially since I presume you must not encounter it very often in Sweden?

In Sweden sex is not tabu as it was before and people too often idolize it here, at least Young People, both male and female. Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. — Beebert

So then condemnation of lust would be productive in Sweden. When the pendulum swings too far one way, you have to swing further in the opposite direction to balance it.

Sweden is a very secularized country, without sense of the sacred. Both Christianity and Nietzsche is rejected here, and the hedonists are the number. Sweden's perhaps most famous philosopher today is Torbjörn Tännsjö. He is a typical utilitarist, who IMO stands for onecof the most pathetic philosophy possible. He is very superficial. Nietzsche would have critizised Swedish culture harshly, that is for sure. Everything is very mediocre. — Beebert

It's very funny, because I've never been to Sweden - though I've been to your neighbour Finland before - but we often hear how "happy" Swedish people and the rest of the Nordic countries are. It's disappointing to hear that Sweden is just another Western country in terms of morality.

Funny that you mention the orthodox forum, I wondered if perhaps you had seen me there. I am not a very popular member there because of many of my provocative posts etc. I think. Some appreciate me, most seem to want me gone. — Beebert

>:O Yes, you're not very popular it seems, but it's not because of your views in my opinion, but rather that you end up arguing with the wrong people.

"Okay, but is there ONLY will to power behind every philosophy & theology?"
It depends in how one views will to power I think. If you ask Nietzsche he would say yes. Because life in itself IS will to power. But it is a concept with a meaning, and words are just masks or mirrors of something beyond the words.

"I agree. But he was still someone who misunderstood the highest spiritual realities."
This might be true but it might also be wrong. Nietzsche was definitely a man too deep-seeing and intelligent for his own good. But here again, words are mirrors and masks of something beyond and under the surface of the letters. Nietzsche might have experienced profound truths (which I believe) but sometimes using the wrong words to express them

"Why would you say it's the worst thing, especially since I presume you must not encounter it very often in Sweden?"

Because similar condemnations in different situations happen. This pharasaic tendency is common and I despise it.


"So then condemnation of lust would be productive in Sweden. When the pendulum swings too far one way, you have to swing further in the opposite direction to balance it."

Yes. But I dont find threats of eternal punishment to be the best strategy.

"It's very funny, because I've never been to Sweden - though I've been to your neighbour Finland before - but we often hear how "happy" Swedish people and the rest of the Nordic countries are. It's disappointing to hear that Sweden is just another Western country in terms of morality."

Sweden is good in many ways. Swedes are often helpful when people suffer which I appreciate. But there is no spiritual depth, and the cultural depth is low IMO. Sweden is different from France or England and even Germany in many ways IMO. In some ways better, in many ways worse. One thing that defines Sweden IMO is that it is relatively safe. And people generally have it comfortable and "better" materially than most countries.

It depends in how one views will to power I think. If you ask Nietzsche he would say yes. Because life in itself IS will to power. But it is a concept with a meaning, and words are just masks or mirrors of something beyond the words. — Beebert

Why is life will to power?

Because similar condemnations in different situations happen. — Beebert

Can you offer an example of what you mean?

Yes. But I dont find threats of eternal punishment to be the best strategy. — Beebert

Sure, but I made no mention of threats of punishment there, did I?

But there is no spiritual depth, and the cultural depth is low IMO. Sweden is different from France or England and even Germany in many ways IMO. In some ways better, in many ways worse. One thing that defines Sweden IMO is that it is relatively safe. And people generally have it comfortable and "better" materially than most countries. — Beebert

So then Sweden is affected by an unconscious despair because of the absence of spiritual depth would you say? People live materialistically, unaware of their spiritual wants.

"Why is life will to power?"

I am not sure I would go as far as Nietzsche even though I find his ideas very interesting. It is hard to answer "why". What do you mean by "why"?

Can you offer an example of what you mean?
People in general have a tendency to define others by what they have done in the past and thereby prevent people from not being defined by their mistakes. Which is horrible.


"Sure, but I made no mention of threats of punishment there, did I?"

No you didnt. But historically and very much today in America, the most disgusting country I know of when it comes to religiousity and spirituality, these threats have been popular. America's religion is almost always a typical example of Will to power as the primary driving force.


"So then Sweden is affected by an unconscious despair because of the absence of spiritual depth would you say? People live materialistically, unaware of their spiritual wants."

I would call that a very accurate way of putting it. The gods of Sweden are social medias like instagram and facebook, and also training in gym.

I am not sure I would go as far as Nietzsche even though I find his ideas very interesting. It is hard to answer "why". What do you mean by "why"? — Beebert

What does the statement "life is will to power" mean, and how do we know it's true? Why do you think it's true? What reasons do you have to believe it?

People in general have a tendency to define others by what they have done in the past and thereby prevent people from not being defined by their mistakes. Which is horrible. — Beebert

Hmmm

No you didnt. But historically and very much today in America, the most disgusting country I know of when it comes to religiousity and spirituality, these threats have been popular. America's religion is almost always a typical example of Will to power as the primary driving force. — Beebert

I very much doubt that. There's many nice American Christians (and non-Christians too) out there.

I would call that a very accurate way of putting it. The gods of Sweden are social medias like instagram and facebook, and also training in gym. — Beebert

Ahh I see - so mindless entertainment basically :P

"what does the statement "life is will to power" mean, and how do we know it's true? Why do you think it's true? What reasons do you have to believe it?"
If you really read Nietzsche carefully, he tells you what it means. I can give you examples based on social situations and inner drives and motives within me and observations on others, but I do that tomorrow then since I am quite tired now and it is soon time for bed

"I very much doubt that. There's many nice American Christians (and non-Christians too) out there."
I dont doubt it. But I am talking about representatives of american christendom like John Piper and John MacArthur. I find them both to be repulsive in their outlook on all things and everything they touch. And it isnt better that Piper is a heavenly utilitarian and that they are both calvinists and almost worship the most reprehensible theologian in human history: Jonathan Edwards

If you really read Nietzsche carefully, he tells you what it means. I can give you examples based on social situations and inner drives and motives within me and observations on others, but I do that tomorrow then since I am quite tired now and it is soon time for bed — Beebert

Ehmm I did read Nietzsche, the problem of course is that there's not only one way to interpret will to power. So I'm curious what your interpretation is, and why.

Furthermore, you keep claiming that N. is deep, and yet you always avoid my arguments that he's not, such as my reference to Genealogy. What do you find so great about Genealogy?

@Agustino
You argue man’s weakness supports the belief that God exists. You explain man as “fundamentally weak,” which I interpreted as a lack of happiness that can only be fixed by God. I deconstructed your argument into this proof:

1) Man is fundamentally weak.
2) Man cannot be happy by relying on his own power.
3) If man cannot rely on his own power for happiness, then he needs a power greater than him to provide happiness.
4) God is the greater power that can bring man happiness.

You intended to support theism with this argument, but I think your premises can also support atheism. Even if you assume that the first three premises are true, they do not secure the conclusion that asserts God as the greater power that provides happiness. According to the third premise, a power outside of man’s control is necessary for full happiness and the conclusion asserts that the power must be God. To find a contradiction to the third premise, we must find a power other than God that is greater than man and also provides happiness. According to this criteria, love or drugs could also be the power providing man happiness beyond what he can provide for himself. This argument doesn’t obviously support or confirm theism because an atheist could agree to the first three premises but come to a different, non-theistic conclusion. Therefore, man’s weakness doesn’t support God’s existence.