So basically he was a atheist but he wanted to prove to others that were atheist but then the ones realizing life is meaningless but he doesn’t think life is meaningless and he believes life is full of meaning and that you need to find a cure for existentialism?
>Nietzsche
>atheist
Niggtsche was very much spiritual, just not christian. 6 billion people right now aren't.
Nietzsche was an atheist and his cope is that people should create their own meaning and fighting for them, like trannies are doing right now
he says somewhere that God is the only potential source of absolute meaning but his whole career was autistic rebellion against that truth
yes, people tend to choose choose bad
to be nietzschean is to be filtered, idiot
Totally agree. I used to think Nietzsche was profound and then I actually read medieval philosophy and realized that he was a fraud.
But he never rebelled against Greek or Vedic gods for example
He simply didn't like judeochristianity
You have not read nietzsche
> you disagree with what Nietzsche said?!
> you just haven’t read his books!
> no argument
Like clockwork. Literally every single time. It never fails.
Nah, you were filtered. Read more than one book by him. Especially if you are going to post here.
>creating your own meaning means you are an atheist
hilariously dimwitted
Yeah, I’d say being an atheist is a necessary requirement to believe you can create your own meaning, which I’d say necessarily follows from theism.
Trans people are the ubermensch
"Alas! there are so many great thoughts that do nothing more than the bellows: they inflate, and make emptier than ever.
Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
Art thou one entitled to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free for what?"
>his cope is that people should create their own meaning
yeah nobody should ever do anything other than agree with you and your bullshit specifically otherwise they are le culture war blood enemy
just because you're not an outright materialist doesn't mean you aren't an atheist. anyone who isn't religious is an atheist. agnostics are atheists. deists are atheists. "spiritualists" are atheists. they're all just a slightly less moronic kind of atheist than full-on materialist-reductionist type atheists
>anyone who isn't religious is an atheist.
You can believe that supernatural gods exist without having a specific religion. You are completely braindead, have a nice day
The atheist label really is worthless, Nietzsche never makes any proclamation that god does or doesn’t exist. And there’s no point because you could never prove it one way or another, those who believe in god fall in line of faith which requires no proof, that’s the whole point. He makes the case that religion poisons man and isn’t worth your time according to its values, practice and effect on humanity.
First of all, he does say “God is dead”, which taken literally would mean that he thinks God did exist but no longer does. If not meant to be taken literally, he probably meant that God might exist but the culture has abandoned Him either way. In which case, his position would be an explicit concession that God can exist, in which case, the claim that it’s not worth your time would be fundamentally unjustified and possibly wrong. If you have to admit that God might exists and He might be exactly the type of God which bids you to do His will or else you go to Hell and are tormented for eternity, then you’d have to come up with a pretty damn good justification for why you should do anything other than what He wants. Saying “well, it’s slave morality, you only obey because you don’t want to be punished” is not a justification. That is merely an aesthetic judgement, and because you conceded that God might exist, it’s baseless to evaluate claims on the basis of aesthetics alone anyway. Even worse, he goes on to claim that ethics are the result of power struggles and if you admit that God might exist, which he has to, then the sort of God that might exist might be exactly the sort of God which you cannot conceivably be more powerful than. So if ethics is just informed by power, your ethics would just necessarily just have to be what God wants for you. This is the insane irony of Nietzsche. He liked to believe he prescribed something beyond good and evil that he was somehow past Christianity. In reality, who’s the prescribed was quite literally exactly the same as Luciferianism, the same ethics of the snake in the garden. And his moronic fanboys either don’t get this or think it’s fine because it’s like aesthetically based or whatever. You can like it aesthetically if you like, but that is not real philosophy and it can’t contain any claim to truth.
>he might mean
Stopped reading there. Go do your homework.
If he didn’t mean what I wrote, then you tell me what you thought he meant. Don’t just say “hurr durr you didn’t read him, go read him”. Let’s hear what your take is. You did read him, right?
>If not meant to be taken literally, he probably meant that God might exist but the culture has abandoned Him either way.
"The fact that the stronger races of northern Europe failed to reject the Christian God does not say very much for their skill in religion, not to mention their taste. They really *should* have been able to cope with this sort of diseased and decrepit monster of decadence. But they were damned for their failure: they brought sickness, age, and contradiction into all of their instincts, - they have not *created* any more gods since then. Almost two thousand years and not one new god!"
So basically you were filtered.
I dont get why people think that nihilism is "lol depressed sad shit" and atheism is having the religion of not believing in God.
He idiot proclaimed that God is dead as if it was an a priori absolute universal truth and never even considered that maybe that claim should be investigated. What kind of metaphysician makes claims like this and doesn’t question them? What kind of western philosopher doesn’t grapple with the most fundamental questions in Western philosophy?
Seems more like a joke than a philosopher.
god is dead and christcucks like you killed it
Proof? Because everything I know about the Christian God implies that it’s totally impossible for a human to kill Him. So what exactly does this even mean?
idiot
your opinion is wrong, again read Nietzsche if you want to talk about him, otherwise frick off back to IQfy
We know. We know. You have no real arguments or even critiques really but you somehow know I didn’t actually read the books and so therefore I’m wrong. We’ve heard this routine before.
an argument against an author's position should have some familiarity with it. Instead 101% of Nietzsche opponents on IQfy do something like this
>nietzsche said x is y because of z
>well, since i have entirely different definitions of x, y, and z, i am going to smugly disagree
>no i don't have to defend or justify my versions of x,y, and z against his, that would be a waste of time
These more unjustified claims and a strawman. How do you know metaphysics is perceptual artifact? You’d need metaphysics other than as perceptual artifact to know that. Moreover, the argument is not X than Y than Z but precisely that Nietzsche’s X is either a strawman or nothing.I swear talking to Nietzscheans is like talking to toddlers. You know absolutely nothing at all about philosophy. You don’t know what a justification is, you usually don’t know what fallacies are, you reject the conventions of logic and reason but then use logic and reason to make bad arguments, and when you get called out on it you resort to 1 of 3 tactics every single time:
1) “you just didn’t read Nietzsche” (wouldn’t even matter if true if the argument is valid regardless)
2) “this is pointless” le you just don’t understand because Nietzsche is too big brained for you
3) quote mining of more unjustified claims
You are actual idiots.
Nietzsche doesn’t deal in metaphysics and I don’t care
And your brain does deal in oxygen or neurons you mouth breathing oaf
Absolutely seething.
>you reject the conventions of logic and reason but then use logic and reason to make bad arguments
look at him squirming... show me the immortal rabbi or shut up already
>metaphysician
The other guy is right, if you call Nietzsche a metaphysican you have not read him.
His ENTIRE philosophy is a rejection of metaphysics. To him, metaphysics leads one to live like a slave and should therefore be rejected along with all the "objective" moral values that come with it. Instead, one should live according to his own will.
>What kind of metaphysician makes claims like this and doesn’t question them?
Again, the "interpretation" of someone who didn't even read the his Wikipedia page.
You are talking as if Nietzsche set out to investigate the existance or non-existance, or death of God, like Descartes did in his Meditations. God's actual state doesn't matter at all for Nietzsche, but the result of it in the people and nihilism as its consequence.
The existence and non-existence of God are metaphysical claims you imbeciles. He goes so far as to center his philosophy around what the world really is, what history means, ethics, from whence ethics derive, etc. all of these and I mean all of them are metaphysical claims.
You don’t know what you’re talking about and by the way, you failed to even grasp the critique. Obviously, Nietzsche did not set out to “investigate” the existence of God and that’s exactly my critique. He just accepted it as some bizarre sort of axiom. Whether he believes God is dead in a genuine and true sense as in the Christian God literally no longer exists or that he is dead in the sense that we as a culture have abandoned belief in God, either way, those presuppositions are necessary for him to proceed from there. How could someone proceed with non-Christian ethics if Westerners abandoned God but God still really is real and does exist? None. Nietzsche never even asked the question. That’s only one of the reasons why he’s a fraud. The notion that he “rejects” metaphysics is the biggest cope. Honestly, this is the problem with Nietzsche and Nietzscheans. The guy flat out asserted unfounded and unjustified bullshit and because you like the aesthetics of these writings, you accept them as gospel. What does it even mean to say shit like you reject metaphysics, rationality, reason, all this nonsense and then make rational arguments for why this or that is the case and why you should do this or that. That’s objectively nonsense and you’ve been duped by a fraud into joining his quasi-religious cult.
ty anon. i used to make serious posts but until a worthy nietzschean shows themselves, im sticking with low effort reactive posts calling them stupid homosexuals
>Nietzsche did not set out to “investigate” the existence of God and that’s exactly my critique.
>aka he didn't make arguments against my fairytales
based Nietzsche not wasting time on obvious bullshit
> presupposes his position
> refuses to justify it
> thinks this is philosophy
This is not philosophy. It’s simply delusion, my friend.
>if you don't waste time on obvious bullshit you're delusional
I'm sure you waste time on the Austronesian god Tiki, making arguments every day, newbie
yeah that's why philosophy didn't progress between presocratics and Nietzsche, 2000+ years of best minds and theology to prove rabbi Yeshua and the desert demon and what you have to show for? pic related, that's all you have, literally, go back to IQfy
Explain how you know it’s obvious bullshit you fraud.
the absolute state of nietzsche turds
Yes, everyone runs on delusion and falsity. Nietzsche is hardly a philosopher. Arguing about the existence of god is a complete time wasting endeavor for pseuds and peasants. It’s absolutely beneath me.
Well, I’m glad that you at least admit that you’re a pseud even if it’s only because you think reasoning faculties and knowing things are beneath you lmfao
There’s no common ground here and discussion is pointless, seething Christians only make these threads to convince themselves. N is not for you, simple as. These threads are extreme wastes of time and energy. You’re better off posting up on a campus with signs about eternal damnation and heckling the teenagers there.
>N is not for you
I
Even Aristotle showed belief in God is rational, even if he himself rejected his culture's concept of gods. Wittgenstein knew belief in God is rational too.
Even if I don't convince you, other anons here will understand this truth and not be blinded to bullshit like you.
>How could someone proceed with non-Christian ethics if Westerners abandoned God but God still really is real and does exist?
"God is a conjecture: but who could drink all the bitterness of this conjecture without dying? Shall his faith be taken from the creating one, and from the eagle his flights into eagle-heights?
God is a thought—it maketh all the straight crooked, and all that standeth reel. What? Time would be gone, and all the perishable would be but a lie?
To think this is giddiness and vertigo to human limbs, and even vomiting to the stomach: verily, the reeling sickness do I call it, to conjecture such a thing.
Evil do I call it and misanthropic: all that teaching about the one, and the plenum, and the unmoved, and the sufficient, and the imperishable!
All the imperishable—that’s but a simile, and the poets lie too much.—
But of time and of becoming shall the best similes speak: a praise shall they be, and a justification of all perishableness!
Creating—that is the great salvation from suffering, and life’s alleviation. But for the creator to appear, suffering itself is needed, and much transformation."
"The fact that we have not rediscovered God, either in history or in nature or behind nature: this is not what separates us. Rather, we are separated by the fact that we view the thing worshipped as God as pathetic, absurd, and harmful, not as 'divine'; the fact that we do not treat it as a simple error but as a *crime against life* ... We deny that God is God ... If someone were to prove this Christian God to us, we would believe in him even less. - In a word: *deus, qualem Paulus creavit, dei negatio*.[God, as created by Paul, is a negation of God.]"
Be honest for a second. You didn’t notice the multiple unjustified claims to truth that in this when you first read it? If you like this as poetry, fine, but stop pretending this is philosophy.
>You didn’t notice the multiple unjustified claims
Multiple justified claims to physiology and what the idea of God enables you to think.
"God is a conjecture: but I do not wish your conjecturing to reach beyond your creating will.
Could ye create a God?—Then, I pray you, be silent about all Gods! But ye could well create the Superman.
Not perhaps ye yourselves, my brethren! But into fathers and forefathers of the Superman could ye transform yourselves: and let that be your best creating!—
God is a conjecture: but I should like your conjecturing restricted to the conceivable.
Could ye conceive a God?—But let this mean Will to Truth unto you, that everything be transformed into the humanly conceivable, the humanly visible, the humanly sensible! Your own discernment shall ye follow out to the end!
And what ye have called the world shall but be created by you: your reason, your likeness, your will, your love, shall it itself become! And verily, for your bliss, ye discerning ones!"
> God is a thought
So to be clear, you think this is a justified statement about physiology and definitely not an unjustified metaphysical claim? Is that right?
>So to be clear, you think this is a justified statement about physiology and definitely not an unjustified metaphysical claim?
"A people that still believes in itself will still have its own god. In the figure of this god, a people will worship the conditions that have brought it to the fore, its virtues, - it projects the pleasure it takes in itself, its feeling of power, into a being that it can thank for all of this. Whoever has wealth will want to give; a proud people needs a god to sacrifice to ... On this supposition, religion is a form of gratitude. People are grateful for themselves: and this is why they need a god. - This sort of god has to be able to help and to harm, has to be able to be a friend and an enemy, - people admire him as good but also as bad. The *anti-natural* castration of a god into a god of pure goodness would hold no attraction at all. Evil gods are just as necessary as the good ones: after all, people do not exactly owe their own existence to tolerance and love of humanity."
"Of course: when a people is destroyed, when it feels that its belief in the future, its hope for freedom, is irretrievably fading away, when it becomes conscious of subjugation as its first principle of utility and conscious of the virtues of the subjugated as the conditions of its preservation, then its god will necessarily change as well. He will become modest and full of fear, he will cringe in corners and recommend 'peace of soul', forbearance, an end to hatred, and 'love' of friends and enemies. He will constantly moralize, he will creep into the crevices of every private virtue, he will be a god for one and all, a private and cosmopolitan god ."
"Whenever the will to power falls off in any way, there will also be physiological decline, decadence. And when the most masculine virtues and drives have been chopped off the god of decadence, he will necessarily turn into a god of the physiologically retrograde, the weak. They do not call themselves weak, they call themselves 'the good' ... There is no great mystery as to when, historically, the dualistic fiction of good and evil gods becomes possible. With the same instincts they use to reduce their god to 'goodness in itself', the subjugated scratch out the good qualities from their conquerors' god. They take revenge by *demonizing* their masters' god. - The *good* God as well as the devil: both are rotten fruits of decadence"
Right. I expected more quote mining and not a justification or even a yes or no answer. If you think this consists of a justification then philosophy is not your thing, my man.
>Right. I expected more quote mining
You've been pointed directly to the source, so that you could not weasel out. Problems?
>If you think this consists of a justification
Yes, the term "god" is operational in the evolutionary framework. No metaphysics required. Whatever you term "god" is emergent via environmental filtering.
In case of cultural evolution, "thoughts". And metaphysics itself is but a perceptual artifact.
>In case of cultural evolution, "thoughts"
Or in the modern parlance, it would be "memes"
I’ve read the source and I see no justification. Point out to me where you see the justification exactly. Summarize it in your own words if you like. From where I’m sitting it seems to only beg the question. He makes a lot of claims about what is the case, what happens, but absolutely nothing at all about how he knows that. Hence, the lack of justification. But go ahead and prove me wrong.
Even your final paragraph is unjustified. No metaphysics required but apparently you know what God is and what thought is. What are these if not metaphysical? You seem to believe there’s an evolutionary framework. How do you know that? How do you know that terms are conditioned by environment? All you’ve done is asserting things as being the case without justifying any of them.
This is why I think Nietzscheans are moronic. You don’t actually know anything at all about philosophy.
>but apparently you know what God is
>What are these if not metaphysical?
But apparently you know what metaphysics is
>What are these if not metaphysical?
Metaphysics is a perceptual artifact. An unstable undefinable thingamabob that each and every philosopher has one's own ideas about.
Which means, it is much more likely a signal of a query error.
"which means the emptiest, most universal ideas, the last wisps of smoke from the evaporating end of reality"
>You seem to believe there’s an evolutionary framework. How do you know that?
Through not dying. Passive environmental filtration.
And there is no such THING as evolutionary framework, just as there is no such THING as a hole. It is functionally dependent on what it is not. Yet, unlike metaphysics/God, it is stable enough to *work*.
> God is dead
> but not in a literal, true sense
> in the sense that people stoped believing in him just like God said they would
> now here’s why I don’t believe in God and why you should live your life according to what I think is good and not what God thinks is good even though I must concede that God may really in actuality exist for real
If you don’t see how moronic this is, you are not smart enough to engage with philosophy
>He idiot proclaimed that God is dead as if it was an a priori absolute universal truth
No he didn't.
>What kind of metaphysician
>What kind of western philosopher doesn’t grapple with the most fundamental questions in Western philosophy?
It's astounding to me that IQfy Christians harbor such hatred for a man they've clearly read NOTHING about. I actively try not to hate Christians but you prove yourselves to be so full of spite and resentment and blind hatred at any criticism of yourselves.
why do people that never read Nietzsche make threads about Nietzsche?
Why do homosexual Nietzscheans want to go around accusing everyone who disagrees with them of not having read Nietzsche?
because nietzscheans were led to their ideology they dont understand by their extremely egotism and project their illiteracy on others
They’re attracted to the aesthetic of Nietzscheanism. If he was right about one thing, it’s that many, many people will accept “truth” on an aesthetic basis alone.
He accepted baselessly basically that all religion was just a means of maintaining power-dynamics, and that meaning, to the degree it exists at all, is basically irrational and largely intuitive and derived from a historical and aesthetic appreciation alone. He arrived at this conclusion in part by idealizing the Greeks and going down the schizophrenic rabbit hole to imagine that he could understand how the Greeks experienced the world and then he could ape them. So for Nietzsche, the task was to set up a pseudo-religious cult centered around giving meaning to life via aesthetics and a sort of historicity about yourself and who you are.
He says basically “Look, religion is bullshit, but ethics power dynamics really do exist. They are just the result of power dynamics. I prefer the ones that unfold something I find aesthetically nice through history, so I’m going to call you to the ethics I find suitable for those ends.” The problem with Nietzsche is not that he appreciates history and aesthetics or that he recognizes that power dynamics are at work beneath the surface. It’s that his presuppositions are totally baseless and unquestioned. If Nietzsche is right, then so is the CIA if they infiltrate the Vatican and turn Roman Catholicism into a globohomosexual cult and Nietzscheans shouldn’t say shit about that because their own foundational suppositions imply that’s just how it is. Ironically, the single best refutation of Nietzsche I’ve ever read was in the final chapters of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West, where he explains how Nietzsche’s ethics derive from his claims about philosophy and history, which are, simply put, patently bullshit and Spengler demonstrates this by going so far as to providing real history.
>If Nietzsche is right, then so is the CIA if they infiltrate the Vatican and turn Roman Catholicism into a globohomosexual cult and Nietzscheans shouldn’t say shit about that
"And ye tell me, friends, that there is to be no dispute about taste and tasting? But all life is a dispute about taste and tasting!
Taste: that is weight at the same time, and scales and weigher; and alas for every living thing that would live without dispute about weight and scales and weigher!"
"And this do I say also to the o’erthrowers of statues: It is certainly the greatest folly to throw salt into the sea, and statues into the mud.
In the mud of your contempt lay the statue: but it is just its law, that out of contempt, its life and living beauty grow again!
With diviner features doth it now arise, seducing by its suffering; and verily! it will yet thank you for o’erthrowing it, ye subverters!
This counsel, however, do I counsel to kings and churches, and to all that is weak with age or virtue—let yourselves be o’erthrown! That ye may again come to life, and that virtue—may come to you!—”"
>their own foundational suppositions imply
"Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and low, and all names of values: weapons shall they be, and sounding signs, that life must again and again surpass itself!
Aloft will it build itself with columns and stairs—life itself: into remote distances would it gaze, and out towards blissful beauties—*therefore* doth it require elevation!
And because it requireth elevation, therefore doth it require steps, and variance of steps and climbers! To rise striveth life, and in rising to surpass itself."
"Verily, I say unto you: good and evil which would be everlasting—it doth not exist! Of its own accord must it ever surpass itself anew.
With your values and formulae of good and evil, ye exercise power, ye valuing ones: and that is your secret love, and the sparkling, trembling, and overflowing of your souls.
But a stronger power groweth out of your values, and a new surpassing: by it breaketh egg and egg-shell.
And he who hath to be a creator in good and evil— verily, he hath first to be a destroyer, and break values in pieces.
Thus doth the greatest evil pertain to the greatest good: that, however, is the creating good.—"
Nietzscheans always expose themselves as pseudointellectual. The entire philosophy is “I don’t know much about Christianity or even history but I think history demonstrates that Christianity is false and bad as evidenced by how gay everything got precisely at the time where Christians started coincidentally becoming not-Christian.” Utterly moronic lmfao.
> How do I know? You just didn’t read Nietzsche. That’s how!
> Justify my claim? Here’s a bunch of quotations that don’t justify my claim but rather asserts more unjustified claims!
This is the philosophical power of Nietzscheans LOL. At least one of you implicitly admitted that Nietzsche is basically just Luciferian poetry and not real philosophy so that’s good.
>There was only one christian and he died on the cross.
based Nietzsche (pbuh) destroying christcucks 100 years after his death
>BOTH active Nietzsche threads are the same 15 Nietzschoids and Christcucks switching between tabs and arguing in circles
I'll give you all the same advice that the sissy German and those desert nomads should have gotten: get a clue, go outside, live life in the real world and maybe even try talking to a girl ya dweebs.
Thanks enlightened one. Now we can all put aside questions about God and reality and touch grass all thanks to the savior anon who lurks IQfy and felt compelled to offer his input but not on the topic. What would we do without you?
Leo Strauss was 100% right about Nietzsche. His philosophy boils down to basically polemic founded on a sort of religious belief. Even though he professes himself to be an atheist, and indeed is an atheist in the strict technical sense of the term, he’s the sort of atheist that is waiting for, desperate for a God, and specifically the sort of God that’s contextualized by Christian religion and Christian culture. The questions to ask about Nietzsche are not just whether his claims are actually philosophically justified, but also assuming they are, why the God that he’s waiting for, can’t just be a different conception of the Christian God. In truth, there is no answer because a different conception of the Christian God could easily dismiss all of his ethical disagreements.
everyone is right about Nietzsche, yet none of their philosophies have "said" anything of note
Strauss mentioned Nietzsche, along with others, in many of his writings, all of which are accessible relatively easily. Lucky for you, I just summed up one of his many takes in his essay on Existentialism. You can read it yourself here if you don’t like my summary:
https://ia902806.us.archive.org/10/items/LeoStraussExistentialism1956Integral_201810/Leo%20Strauss%20-%20%27%27Existentialism%27%27%20%5B1956%3B%20integral%5D.pdf
So you can stop pretending that nothing of note was said.
who?
inb4 christcucks now come out of the woodwork saying Strauss is the greatest philosopher since Aquinas
> Nietzscheans know so little about philosophy that they don’t know who Leo Strauss was
You couldn’t write this stuff as propaganda tbh
>they did come out of the woodwork
HAHAHAHHHAHAHH, so did he advance philosophy? we live in the age of Strauss? any good quotes?
He’s one of maybe three 20th century philosophers of note that aren’t CIA-boosted French post-modernists. Everyone that’s engaged with Nietzsche and Nietzschean philosophy knows who Leo Strauss is lol. He was a student of Heidegger ffs. Even strict classicists and medievalists know who this guy is. If you don’t know shit, just say “hey I don’t know who this is because I don’t actually read or engage with philosophy”. It’s okay.
don't know Strauss therefore useless christcuck, probably gay and dumb since christcucks like you quote some moron, and even use him for an ad hom against a greater philosopher since there is nothing to discuss from "Straussian thought" even by you, maybe make a Strauss thread, you won't cuz he's useless
Very high IQ reply there genius
FYI - this board used to have Strauss threads before unthinkers and zoomers like yourself took it over
now you just plague Nietzsche threads because you're still butthurt he killed your israelite god?
tldr
>so did he advance philosophy?
In a "learn-to-read-as-if-you-were-ultra-paranoid" kind of manner, but yes, sort of.
While somewhat true, that was not his only contribution. Strauss correctly pointed out the dead end of existentialism and faulty presuppositions in both Nietzsche and Heidegger. Cutting away dead brush is in my mind a contribution. He was also one of the foremost scholars of Classical Philosophy which is unquestionably a contribution.
>His philosophy boils down to basically polemic
No, his philosophy boils down to basically cognitive neurobiology. 'Ought' is genealogically/evolutionary subjected to 'is', and it is the question of performing 'healthy' behaviour instead of being locked in a decadent disgenic one.
>specifically the sort of God that’s contextualized by Christian religion and Christian culture
Dionysus? Antichrist?
>why the God that he’s waiting for, can’t just be a different conception of the Christian God.
Because whatever the Christian God dictated, Nietzsche stands against. Hence, the God would not be a Christian one.
>we do not treat it as a simple error but as a *crime against life* ... We deny that God is God ... If someone were to prove this Christian God to us, we would believe in him even less
> Leo Strauss’ philosophy boils down to cognitive neurobiology
You pseuds are absolutely insufferable. You literally didn’t even understand the point of that reply and you revealed it with your third greentext reply.
Nietzsche's philosophy, moron. Learn to read.
That’s even dumber lmfao
As crazy as it sounds I actually do think there are some Christian Nietzcheans. There are Nietzscheans of all kind because he didn’t specifically lay out a system.
thats because there really are, youre right chief. and its not really that crazy since christianity is broad enough to incorporate ideas from many beliefs while still maintaining core doctrine
every christcuck cherrypicks at the end of the day, even you, you make your own headcanons for your israeli fairytale
At the center of Nietzsche’s philosophy is not knowing, truth as subjectivity and a revaluation of values. Of course you can do what you will at this point and create your own way of operating, and maybe that’s kind of the point. But at that point what is even left of your faith and the virtue that it’s supposed to uphold?