Yes I know, he disliked the church doctrines even more than the true Christian ideal.... that doesn't mean he liked Christs true teachings. It is possible to dislike multiple things and for different reasons.

Not making any distinctions anymore, not resisting anything anymore, is not life-affirming. The basic principle of life is precisly making those distinctions in order to affirm its particular will.

Read the passage about "inner subjectivity" being the only reality left for Christ. Christ is the orginal hippie in search for eternal bliss. Projecting your will outward into the world doesn't matter anymore, it's all about feeling good.

They consequently are versus each other, Complimentary Opposites PAIRING to generate something greater. — Vaskane

Yes it was his first book, immature and still under the influence of Schopenhauer (and Hegel) as he said so himself. He views evolved over time, and he moved progressively more towards the dionysian later. Either way Apollo and Dionysus were certainly not identical like you would have it with dionysus and Christ.

Literally the last sentence of his last work :

"Have I been understood? Dionysus versus the Crucified"

There's still a versus there. If you want to make a case that they compliment eachother and even come together in the end, by all means do, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence for that.

Alright I have read through it, once more, and it just seems to confirm what I already wrote earlier, Nietzsches aim is to flip the moralist/prophet project on its head.

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist; for that which distinguishes this Persian from all others in the past is the very fact that he was the exact reverse of an immoralist. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things. The translation of morality into the realm of metaphysics, as force, cause, end-in-itself, is his work. But the very question suggests its own answer. Zarathustra created this most portentous of all errors,—morality; therefore he must be the first to expose it. Not only because he has had longer and greater experience of the subject than any other thinker,—all history is indeed the experimental refutation of the theory of the so-called moral order of things,—but because of the more important fact that Zarathustra was the most truthful of thinkers. In his teaching alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue—that is to say, as the reverse of the cowardice of the "idealist" who takes to his heels at the sight of reality. Zarathustra has more pluck in his body than all other thinkers put together. To tell the truth and to aim straight: that is the first Persian virtue. Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth. — Nietzsche

I shall have an excellent opportunity of showing the incalculably calamitous consequences to the whole of history, of the credo of optimism, this monstrous offspring of the homines optimi. Zarathustra, the first who recognised that the optimist is just as degenerate as the pessimist, though perhaps more detrimental, says: "Good men never speak the truth. False shores and false harbours were ye taught by the good. In the lies of the good were ye born and bred. Through the good everything hath become false and crooked from the roots." Fortunately the world is not built merely upon those instincts which would secure to the good-natured herd animal his paltry happiness. To desire everybody to become a "good man," "a gregarious animal," "a blue-eyed, benevolent, beautiful soul," or—as Herbert Spencer wished—a creature of altruism, would mean robbing existence of its greatest character, castrating man, and reducing humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom. And this some have tried to do! It is precisely this that men called morality. In this sense Zarathustra calls "the good," now "the last men," and anon "the beginning of the end"; and above all, he considers them as the most detrimental kind of men, because they secure their existence at the cost of Truth and at the cost of the Future. — Nietzsche

Why Nietzsche choose Zarathustra should be clear, he was the first moralist, the first monotheist, the inventor of Good and Evil etc etc... On top of all of that, Zoroaster was the one to proclaim truthfullness as the highest virtue. And then a bit further Nietzsche clearly states that the moralist is necessarily a falsifier of reality... a liar. So you see the irony in the use of symbolism here, he used the stated values of the first moralist precisely to overcome the moral traditions he himself gave rise to...

But there wasn't anything specifically about Jesus in the aphorisms you encouraged me to read, other than the very last sentence I had quoted.

He's an immoralist because he rejects the traditional metaphysical systems of Good and Evil moralists have set out historically.... he's beyond Good and Evil, not beyond good and bad. You can be an immoralist and still have virtues in his conception, it just won't be the traditional Platonic formula for virtues of "the good, the true and the beautiful", but rather 'vir'tu with emphasis on the latin root "vir", manly.

The only similarity is that Jesus and Zarathustra were creators of values. That's the one aspect Nietzsche could respect in Jesus, that he had the strenght of his convictions, and managed to overturn conventional morality and create something new to suit his character. That's why (as I said above) he choose a prophet-type as the mouthpiece for his philosophy in Thus spoke Z, because they were doing a similar prophet thing, creating new tables of values.

Where they took that exercise however, what values they created, could not be more different. — ChatteringMonkey

The C G Jung's seminar seems saying that Zarathustra has nothing to do with the Zoroaster religious figure or Mazdaznan sector. They seem to be in favour of paralleling Zarathustra with Jesus or Nietzsche himself.

But they conclude Thus Spake Zarathustra was Nietzsche himself talking.

Nietzsche himself yes, Jesus no, would be my interpretation. Zarathustra is the mouthpiece for Nietzsches philosophy. A lot of his next work Beyond Good and Evil is a restatement of the ideas Zarathustra expresses in Also sprah Zarathustra.

As is evident from the section from Ecce Homo I quoted above, Nietzsches Zarathustra is inspired by the Historical Zarathustra, but yes he is definately not meant to be the same, but rather the opposite, moralist <-> immoralist.

As for Jesus, I don't see why one would get the idea that Nietzsches Zarathustra is anything like Jesus, other than he is meant to be a kind of prophet-type.

I dunno, I think all of this is pretty straightforward.

As for Jesus, I don't see why one would get the idea that Nietzsches Zarathustra is anything like Jesus, other than he is meant to be a kind of prophet-type.

I dunno, I think all of this is pretty straightforward. — ChatteringMonkey

Couldn't Jesus be a symbolic figure for Nietzsche too? After all, Jesus was a loner, preached truths to the mass, and became a martyr, who suffered the betrayal from one of his disciples and punishment from the evil regime for the values he believed in.

He is a symbol for Nietzsche, but a symbol for the psychological state of bliss ("kingdom of heaven") and a symbol for the values he opposes because they are life-denying (Jesus on the cross turning the other cheek, giving universal forgiveness to mankind)... hence the "Anti-Christ".

It is true that he thought what the church made of Jesus teaching was a gross falsification (and much worse), but that doesn't mean he condoned or even subscribed to Jesus ideas.

I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word impérieux, used by Renan, is alone enough to annul the type. What the “glad tidings” tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children; the faith that is voiced here is no more an embattled faith—it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is a sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit.The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is not furious, it does not de nounce, it does not defend itself: it does not come with “the sword”—it does not realize how it will one day set man against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by rewards and promises, or by “scriptures”: it is itself, first and last, its own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own “kingdom of God.” This faith does not formulate itself—it simply lives, and so guards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment, of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain sort: in primitive Christianity one finds only concepts of a Judaeo-Semitic character (—that of eating and drinking at the last supper belongs to this category—an idea which, like everything else Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics[6] an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no work is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse[8]—and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.—With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth. The idea of “life” as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost—in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.—Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by the temptations lying in Christian, or rather ecclesiastical prejudices: such a symbolism par excellence stands outside all religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art—his “wisdom” is precisely a pure ignorance[11] of all such things. He has never heard of culture; he doesn’t have to make war on it—he doesn’t even deny it.... The same thing may be said of the state, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war—he has no ground for denying “the world,” for he knows nothing of the ecclesiastical concept of “the world”.... Denial is precisely the thing that is impossible to him.—In the same way he lacks argumentative capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a “truth,” may be established by proofs (—his proofs are inner “lights,” subjective sensations of happiness and self-approval, simple “proofs of power”—). Such a doctrine cannot contradict: it doesn’t know that other doctrines exist, or can exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining anything opposed to it.... If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy—for it alone has “light”—but it does not offer objections... — Nietzsche in the Antichrist

What is that to the third stage of the three Metamorphoses? — Vaskane

Degeneration? ;-)

The physiologists, at all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in the living organism, the result of degeneration. — ChatteringMonkey

Childishness is not the same as childlike. In any case in context it seems clear to me that he doesn't mean it as a positive in this particular instance.

But alright, I will grant you that there seems to be some aspects of the dionysian in Jesus. It is speculated that Jesus was inspired by the figure of dionysus, which does make some sense to me, in the dissolution of bounderies and emphasis on love.

I also vaguely remember Nietzsche saying something along the lines of the Ubermensch being a Ceasar with the heart of Christ.

Still in context of his whole philosophy, what Nietzsche valued and so on, something seems off to me with the idea that Zarathustra is essentially the same as Jesus. Like the way he talks about Jesus in the anti-Christ seems to paint a picture of Jesus as this weak figure, oversensitive to pain and unable to deal with reality. How would one reconcile that with what Nietzsches seems to value and his positive valuation of figures like Ceasar or Napoleon... they seem nothing like Jesus.

So yeah, I still think maybe he liked some particular things about Jesus, but disliked most of the rest.

With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth.
— ChatteringMonkey

Perfectly inline with the prior parts of the section even on Nietzsche's ideas of destruction:

"Negation and annihilation are inseparable from a yea-saying attitude towards life." — Vaskane

Notice the quotation marks arround free spirit though. He's saying it tongue in cheek, 'technically' he's a free spirit... because nothing gets to him anymore, that is he's not a free spirit for the same reasons other free spirits are free.

And because nothing gets to him (but his inner sensations), he doesn't even negate anymore. If negation is inseperable from yea-saying, then where does that leave us?

The way I would make sense of it, is that Jesus is only a yea-sayer in the sense that he affirms his inner world of sensations, because he has become incapable of taking up the world as it is.... that is affirmation out of ignorance. Nietzsche would want us to affirm the world as it is right?

He is a symbol for Nietzsche, but a symbol for the psychological state of bliss ("kingdom of heaven") and a symbol for the values he opposes because they are life-denying (Jesus on the cross turning the other cheek, giving universal forgiveness to mankind)... hence the "Anti-Christ".

It is true that he thought what the church made of Jesus teaching was a gross falsification (and much worse), but that doesn't mean he condoned or even subscribed to Jesus ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

Here is a good article on Nietzsche's idea on Jesus and Anti-Christ in Wiki, and it seems to be the case that Nietzsche thought Jesus was not quite the same figure as the churches depicted him. Nietzsche seems to have liked some characters and the background of Jesus for sure.

If anything of the sort is ever encountered, it laments the “blindness” with sincere sympathy — Nietzsche in the Antichrist

C G Jung's seminar seems to suggest AntiChrist was a brother of Jesus who tried to undermine Jesus' values. I am not sure if it is correct fact or misreading the book on my part. This needs to be clarified and confirmed suppose. I am not familiar of the stories in the bible on Jesus, Christianity or AntiChrist at this stage, but I will be starting to read them in the near future.

"Nietzsche does not demur of Jesus, conceding that he was the only one true Christian.[28] He presents a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy".[29]

Nietzsche heavily criticizes the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the 'kingdom of God' is within you:[30][29] "What is the meaning of 'Glad Tidings'?—The true life, the life eternal has been found—it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions", whereby sin is abolished and away from "all keeping of distances" between man and God.[29]

"What the 'glad tidings' tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children".[31] - WiKi on AntiChrist

Thank you for the reference.

The Redeemer type
Nietzsche criticizes Ernest Renan's attribution of the concepts genius and hero to Jesus. Nietzsche thinks that the word idiot best describes Jesus. — Wiki

Yes, this was the idea I got from reading the Anti-Christ, that he though him to be a bit of an idiot... but an idiot can be likeable I suppose.

Also interesting that he may have gotten that description from Dostoevsky's novel the Idiot. That would make a lot of sense actually, and also explains Nietzsches ambivalence towards such a figure.

Yes, this was the idea I got from reading the Anti-Christ, that he though him to be a bit of an idiot... but an idiot can be likeable I suppose. — ChatteringMonkey

A good hearted person can be name-called as an idiot in real life even these days suppose. I don't think Jesus would have minded being the person who he was.

And he may have called Nietzsche as a sage. Nietzsche might have asked Jesus, why do you called me a sage, when they say I called you an idiot. Jesus might have replied, well hmmmm well, to a sage, everyone appears to be sages, and to an idiot, everyone appears to be idiots.

And Nietzsche would have said "That proves their saying that me calling you an idiot." was a lie and groundless rumours.

"Nietzsche does not demur of Jesus, conceding that he was the only one true Christian.[28] He presents a Christ whose own inner life consisted of "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy".[29]

Nietzsche heavily criticizes the organized institution of Christianity and its class of priests. Christ's evangelism consisted of the good news that the 'kingdom of God' is within you:[30][29] "What is the meaning of 'Glad Tidings'?—The true life, the life eternal has been found—it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions", whereby sin is abolished and away from "all keeping of distances" between man and God.[29]

"What the 'glad tidings' tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of heaven belongs to children".[31] - WiKi on AntiChrist — Corvus

What is I think important to realise here is that, while most of these discriptions of Jesus may sound positive to "our modern ears", Nietzsche probably wouldn't have evaluated these all that positively. "Peace", "Free from all exclusions" "away from keeping all distances", "no contradictions" etc etc... all of these things don't contribute to overcoming, but to a kind of sterile unproductive happiness. On the contrary Nietzsche might say, for overcoming you need struggle, pain, difference, hierarchies... the pathos of distance,

So in short, whileNietzsche probably descriptively agrees with all of this, his evaluation of these things is just totally different.

Rude trollish interjection:

Let’s not discount ‘The possessed’ aka ‘The Idiot’. , even if viewed optically insignificant by modern standards…

Just sayin’

He wasn't married to it insofar it conflicts with life-affirmation. Some fictions are necessary for life,... some, not that many, truth is still important. He did choose Zarathustra for that reason.

↪Corvus Nice, I hadn't seen these before. I'll add them to my armory! — Vaskane

:cool: :ok:

a man who asserts appearance is more valuable than truth — Vaskane

And what do you mean with appearance in opposition to truth, there is only appearance ;-).

Yes I get that you don't want to claim that he wants to promote Chirstian values, but that he was inspired by Jesus specifically. I guess I just have gotten another sense from reading his work. I seems to me he got most of his inspiration for re-evaluation from the pre-socrates Greeks. That was his first intellectual love so to speak, and it seems to have stuck with him. But I could be wrong offcourse.

Something changed in him deeply after some revelation involving Amor Fati, and it mirrors quite a bit of that which he says of Jesus' Glad Tidings in his much later works. — Vaskane

You could also view Amor Fati as a classic Tragic formula, i.e. the tragic hero who aims high and knows he will fail in the end, but still loves and affirms it all anyway.

I think this is the difference with "Good tidings"/"Euangelion", in tragedy there is no good news ultimately, the only justification is life itself.

The kingdom of heaven it seems to me is a kind of psychological trick where the world gets shut out to attain inner peace. The 'heros' aim in this case is not going under, spending himself in attaining some wordly goal, the aim is inner directed... feeling good.

In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished — Nietzsche, Antichrist 33

I agree that Nietzsche probably saw this as an improvement upon the moralising relgions, but Jesus way is not the only way to attain that. It was absent in Greek culture too, before Socrates in Homeric Greece at least... there was no sin the Gods didn't commit themselves.

Anyway I got to go, I enjoyed the discussion.

Which is what (in my opinion) a lot of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings are ultimately directing the readership to do, grow. — Bret Bernhoft

Sounds like Jordan Peterson.

Peterson loves Nietzsche because Nietzsche is an atheist who can be used to support Peterson’s thesis that atheism leads to a series of blood baths, and catastrophes via the death of God. Theists seem to l like Nietzsche perhaps because he says things like if you believe in grammar, you’re still a theist.

That definitely sounds like Peterson's kind of leap-frog conclusion. Which sucks - despite probably inviting the Hoardes, I think Peterson is great as a psychologist. The above proposition is a good one. I wasn't knocking either writer.

But I strongly dislike Nietzsche and have grown to really pity Peterson so *shrug*

Peterson always strikes me as a man having a breakdown in slow motion, reciting philosophical ideas and psychological theories as a kind or catechism of reassurance.

Other than a predisposition to assume his views require that type of personality, I can't see it (although, I allow for the year he actually had a breakdown lmao. That was baaaaad, including some of his output when he pretended it was over).

He comes across, to me, astute, well-read and forthright. The opposite of your description. He just is also wrong a lot lol.

Ok. I think your view is the more popular, the other competing account is that he’s mostly an idiot. I find him difficult to watch because of his anxious style which you can even hear in his terribly strangulated voice. I feel for him. But, hey, I might be wrong. I’m just reporting how he appears to me. Whatever the case, he’s like a guru for a lot of disenfranchised boys.

I think you're conflating a few things about him here. HIs demeanor is not anxious at all. He's quick-tempered. Perhaps you're seeing that? He usually sits laid-back, laughs through responses and concentrates adequately when it's required.

That said, you're right. We're just looking at appearances and they don't really matter. More substantially:

for a lot of disenfranchised boys. — Tom Storm

This is (perhaps true, in some sense) not accurate. He is a role-model for males without male role-models. There isn't some pre-disposition toward 'boys'. Women also find him extremely powerful, in large numbers, and defend him rigorously.

Again, Currently, i'm toward pitying the outcome of his last decade, but overall he's been an obvious good force for the male populations receiving his work. The idea that committing to short-term suffering for long-term gain; particularly interpersonal gain (family, community etc..) is the antithesis of how his work is framed: Anti-reason incel encouragement.