TrueCreation
Registered Senior Member
Hello all. I have been reading Nietzsche lately. My current interest is Nietzsche's philosophy illustrated in his work the Anti-Christ.
Fundamentally, perhaps I could best describe the man as a rather brilliant lunatic. Where his ideas are well developed, yet ultimately flawed by nature.
In the Anti-Christ, Nietzsche’s assaults on the Christian God are driven largely by his attraction to the weak which, Nietzsche argues is against life. The Christian God favors the man bent on destruction:
Perhaps, however, God takes the side of the weak not because they are indeed weak, but because the realm in which we determine relative weakness is relatively irrelevant by the tentativity of our might, by our finitude. I think that Nietzsche has introduced a fallacy I shall refer to here as a fallacy of practicality. While it is practical to contrast the strengths and weaknesses of individuals against other individuals (because this is all we know), christian doctrine there is indeed a supernatural realm in which there exist components of humanity.
By Christian doctrine there are at least two classes of constituent parts which embody every individual—those that exist in nature (our bodies, minds, and our behavior as implied by or as is filtered through our minds and bodies), and those that exist supernaturally (eg. souls or spirits). When we die our natural components are shed and discarded, left within the natural realm within which it exists. Presumably, most if not all of our characteristics from which we might infer a persons ‘strength’ or ‘weakness’ can be classified as existing naturally (indeed if they were not natural we could not observe anything to critique).
Thus, my question is, does not our methods of gauging an individuals weakness break down when we consider such supernatural characteristics?
I also have problems with the way Nietzsche abuses evolutionary theory.
Nietzsche philosophy as is illustrated in the Anti-Christ dictates that the preservation of the weak is the epitome of human decadence, a false-instinct, a depraved instinct. Inasmuch as Christian theology encourages such a moral posture, it is anti-power, anti-good, it is evil. Where this religion is a religion of pity, it is a religion set in the depravity of modern man. Nietzsche considers those evolutionary processes responsible for shaping life a good basis for distinguishing what ought to be good for life:
“Pity on the whole thwarts the law of evolution, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends life’s disinherited and condemned…”
As evolution has shaped life by preserving or selecting out the strong over the weak, we ought to also consciously favor the strong so as to continue evolution’s legacy. However, the arrival of humanity—a cognitive species exercising intellect and reason—from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary continuity has complicated the natural continuum of evolution. Minds are no longer controlled by nature, but minds control nature. I think, therefore, that it is not reasonable to consider such primitive instincts applicable to the behavior of modern man.
Sorry it is almost 5 am and I have a serious adware problem (pop-ups after every sentance I write at least, frustrating as all hell) so I wouldn't be surprized if I woke up tomorrow and couldn't make sense of my post. Nevertheless, what do you think of these Nietzschean ideas?
-Chris
Fundamentally, perhaps I could best describe the man as a rather brilliant lunatic. Where his ideas are well developed, yet ultimately flawed by nature.
In the Anti-Christ, Nietzsche’s assaults on the Christian God are driven largely by his attraction to the weak which, Nietzsche argues is against life. The Christian God favors the man bent on destruction:
“Possessing even the tiniest bit of piety in the body, we should find a god who cures a cold at the right time or who bids us enter a coach at the very moment when a violent rainstorm begins, such an absurd god that we should have to abolish him if he existed. A god as servant, as mailman, as calendar man—at bottom, a word for the most stupid of all accidents.”
Perhaps, however, God takes the side of the weak not because they are indeed weak, but because the realm in which we determine relative weakness is relatively irrelevant by the tentativity of our might, by our finitude. I think that Nietzsche has introduced a fallacy I shall refer to here as a fallacy of practicality. While it is practical to contrast the strengths and weaknesses of individuals against other individuals (because this is all we know), christian doctrine there is indeed a supernatural realm in which there exist components of humanity.
By Christian doctrine there are at least two classes of constituent parts which embody every individual—those that exist in nature (our bodies, minds, and our behavior as implied by or as is filtered through our minds and bodies), and those that exist supernaturally (eg. souls or spirits). When we die our natural components are shed and discarded, left within the natural realm within which it exists. Presumably, most if not all of our characteristics from which we might infer a persons ‘strength’ or ‘weakness’ can be classified as existing naturally (indeed if they were not natural we could not observe anything to critique).
Thus, my question is, does not our methods of gauging an individuals weakness break down when we consider such supernatural characteristics?
I also have problems with the way Nietzsche abuses evolutionary theory.
Nietzsche philosophy as is illustrated in the Anti-Christ dictates that the preservation of the weak is the epitome of human decadence, a false-instinct, a depraved instinct. Inasmuch as Christian theology encourages such a moral posture, it is anti-power, anti-good, it is evil. Where this religion is a religion of pity, it is a religion set in the depravity of modern man. Nietzsche considers those evolutionary processes responsible for shaping life a good basis for distinguishing what ought to be good for life:
“Pity on the whole thwarts the law of evolution, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends life’s disinherited and condemned…”
As evolution has shaped life by preserving or selecting out the strong over the weak, we ought to also consciously favor the strong so as to continue evolution’s legacy. However, the arrival of humanity—a cognitive species exercising intellect and reason—from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary continuity has complicated the natural continuum of evolution. Minds are no longer controlled by nature, but minds control nature. I think, therefore, that it is not reasonable to consider such primitive instincts applicable to the behavior of modern man.
Sorry it is almost 5 am and I have a serious adware problem (pop-ups after every sentance I write at least, frustrating as all hell) so I wouldn't be surprized if I woke up tomorrow and couldn't make sense of my post. Nevertheless, what do you think of these Nietzschean ideas?
-Chris