Yes, materialistically of course. But in a very spiritual sense, he has no thought to any loss.
Yes, beautifully stated, A, and this is the essence of the good Samaritan. “No matter” what…all he sees is necessity and thereby responds to that…as if he has no choice - but his choice is to act.
How did we get from a case of need and healing to lustful and pigs? I was here speaking of anyone who might want to come to the aid of someone in need – but someone who would be “better off” working something out for themselves – as in God helps those who help themselves. I am not sure who you mean here by “pigs” – can you clarify that for me? You mean that Christ came to save souls and to heal the wounded, inflicted physically and emotionally, I think.
Or we could say that Christ paid all costs for the souls of others.
By “envision a life for a person” all I meant was that it could have been possible that Christ could have looked in the eyes, into the heart, of the person and somehow sensed or knew that it would be better not to heal him physically. I was not speaking here of “physical” destruction as by a bus (I don’t think they had buses then ) but rather the ultimate destruction of his soul/his life, which would have been counter to the will of God and christ’s ultimate mission. The physical healing, I believe, was not always just for the person, but for the glorification of God and that Christ’s words and actions would later speak and point towards him being the Messiah. Let me say here too that this is purely a discussion for me…I know and know nothing. I was brought up as a catholic and so all of these are catholic teachings, as far as I am concerned, but at the same time, as far as Christ being the son of god (I mean Messiah) I rather lean toward agnosticism…I just don’t know so all of this is for the sake of discussion and what I feel would be if he truly is the Christ.
I am not saying that Christ was omniscience no more no less than you and I could look into the heart of someone we know well and see the path that they may travel because we know them well. That requires only instinct and heart. As far as Christ being omniscient though, who are we to say what the creator put into Christ moment by moment in order to follow His mission. How could we possibly know?
Painted with the very broadest and lightest touch of the brush. Now I certainly believe that you could paint that picture with much more vivid colors and much deeper meaning.I didn’t want to ask Nietzsche or Borgia…I wanted to ask Alyoshka. BTW, is your avatar from The Brothers Karamazov”? If so, you might be able to give me the answer I sought.
If you call empathy and compassion JUST feelings you are not seeing them as they truly are. And yes relieving suffering does require action. The strength itself at least I think is in the empathy and compassion…to feel and understand what the person is going through…and/or to “be in passion” with them over their suffering. But you are also right, you must then decide the wisdom of whether it is beneficial to reach out to the person or harmful.
How much strength do you think it takes to be compassionate toward your enemy. Christ said love your enemy. He didn’t mean you had to like him but I believe he did mean that you ought to respond to him in his need. What kind of “strength” might it take to overcome your hatred of someone in order to reach out to him in his real need, Alyoshka?
I will read Zarathrustra after doors of perception. Many people are like zarathustra in the sense you just described. But why do you use the term “goes down”? And what do you mean by “builds himself up”? Are you speaking of spiritually or egoistically?
Christ also felt the need to build himself up, not in the sense of his ego though. Christ went alone into the desert and was many times by himself to pray and to think perhaps. In order to have a mission, do in life what we feel is important, we must have some kind of practice[s] which strengthen our spirit and our heart. And then humanity is better served in this way. Christ thought of himself as a servant…but not the way in which Nietzsche perhaps thought of those opposite to a master. To be a servant does not mean to be a slave to a master as perhaps Freddie thought.
It would depend on one’s true intentions perhaps. As I said above, one can strengthen himself spiritually, his heart and his soul through solitude. Isolation to me connotes an involuntary separation from others but solitude is a deliberate putting of one’s self in aloneness for whatever reason, usually for a higher purpose, though it could be a self-serving one.
As I said, I haven’t as of yet read Zarathustra but will be getting to it. Can’t wait. Also, one can feel truly alone in the midst of a mob Alyoshka, and like it. And one can feel totally “isolated” while in the midst of his family, friends and pets.
I would opt for the solitude of the universe and the pets. He lives on a mountaintop huh – perhaps I will love this Zarathustra…unless the mountaintop symbolizes his deliberate separation from human beings because he feels far superior to them.
My point was that you had looked at them from the perspective of “good and evil”.
How about goodness as opposed to evil?
The Nietzschean view is of course that “Christ” (the Galilean Jesus) was weak.
Not of self-preservation; that is only derivative. An instinct of self-aggrandisement… So yes, from will to power—which is not just a “metaphysical presupposition”, by the way.
No, Nietzsche wants “good and bad”. You may call this notion “barbaric”, but the barbarian is the basis of all true nobility (in the non-moral sense).
The Roman Caesar within the exceptional man must master the Christ-soul within him: not in order to suppress it, but in order to sublimate it, to channel it toward the only object worthy of its benevolence: the Overman. He must be merciless with man for the sake of the Overman! He must ruthlessly cut away the degenerating parts of mankind. Thus Zarathustra says:
[size=95]They [the good [and just]] crucify him who writeth new values on new tables, they sacrifice unto themselves the future—they crucify the whole human future!
[…]
Break up, break up, I pray you, the good and just!
[TSZ, Of Old and New Tables, 26-27.][/size]
We shall sacrifice the good for the sake of the future!
By the way, Nietzsche refers to Jesus in section 26. And though the way he puts it there is flattering, on another occasion he puts it a lot less flatteringly:
[size=95]Christ is the chandala who repudiates the priest… The chandala who redeems himself…
[WTP 184.][/size]
“Christ” is the zero who emancipates himself from the negative position (the world-maligning position) of the priest; whereas the Nietzschean position, like the pagan (Graeco-Roman) position, is a positive position. That position however is based on the barbarian, the warrior. Cf. this thread.
That’s because to “return” to good and bad is not a regression!
Are you aware of Nietzsche’s attitude toward the modern idea of “progress”?..
Original (master-moral) evaluation:
“Good” (strong)
ranks above
“Bad” (weak).
Slave-transvaluation (slave revolt in morality):
“Good” (strong) is really evil,
and
“Bad” (weak) is really good;
“Good” (weak)
ranks above
“Evil” (strong).
Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values:
“Good” is really weak,
and
“Evil” is really strong;
Strong (“good”)
ranks above
Weak (“bad”).
“Obscurely crafted”? What is that supposed to mean.
I’m just being a realist here, basing myself on what Nietzsche actually said; whereas you are being an idealist here, envisioning a utopia where Dionysus and the Crucified are reconciled!
[size=95]—Have I been understood?—Dionysus versus the Crucified…
[Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny, section 9, entire.][/size]
The Nietzschean view is that the Christian religion, as crafted by Paul, is obsessed with the death/crucifixion of Christ and life in the hereafter rather than life here and now. Through Paul and the priests this life is “tamed”, its vital energies repressed, so that it can reap rewards in the hereafter…
But it is Paul who emphasizes weakness (i.e., “the weak shall confound the strong”, etc, etc, see the first few chapters of Romans which Nietzsche rails against in the AntiChrist…). But Paul also uses weakness in a long term power play, i.e., weakness is a means to power for Paul (see Caputo’s The Weakness of God for a good analysis of this; FYI: Caputo is a continentalist so he has strong ties to Nietzsche and provides some interesting studies of Nietzsche’s work).
Self-aggrandisement? What did I say, self-glorification? Is there a difference between these?
And what makes the Will to Power a reality? Doesn’t one selfless act deny it? Indeed, in response you’ll probably deny the possibility of a selfless act, since all is egoism to you. If so, I again recommend Caputo, who is more than anything a Derrida scholar. To Derrida and Caputo, like you, all is egoism. But there are flashes in their thinking, like lightning, where the egoistic circle is broken, or perhaps widened is a better term…
I’m not so much a fan of this thinking though. I think selfless acts are possible. See Biblical Scripture, most especially the Gospels for a multitude of examples.
This kind of thinking is not unique to Nietzsche. Look at Matthew for example, i.e., The Judgment of the Nations. Here we see humankind separated into sheep and goats, or into its generative and degenerative parts. The sheep go on to prosper while the goats face endless adversity…
Look at the Old Testament for more similar situations, for example where Israel is saved while Egypt is destroyed. Or where God tells Israel to make space in the promised land by, basically, “ruthlessly cutting away the degenerative parts of mankind”, i.e., the current inhabitants of the promised land…
Nietzsche steals this basic Biblical idea. He simply alters the type. i.e., Instead of the sheep being “Christ-like” they are “Zarathustra-like”… Instead of following Christ to prosperity we are to follow Zarathustra… (The concrete differences between which are still unclear!)
The way I see it:
The Priest: Convinces others to deny their life in order to affirm the priest’s own life.
Caesar: Affirms his own life no matter the cost to others; i.e., even if other lives are denied.
Christ: Affirms other’s lives no matter the cost to his own life; i.e., even if his life is denied.
Zarathustra: Again I refer to the opening scene of Zarathustra, the action of which places Zarathustra closer to Christ than Caesar according to the above…
Is Christ a ZERO? I don’t think so. He is positive; but unlike Caesar his position is with others… Christ affirms others while Caesar affirms only himself. But please, feel free to explain how Christ is a zero, or how Nietzsche thinks so. Do you think Christ was a zero to the people he saved? If you were blind and someone healed you, would you call them a ZERO? Or would they, perhaps, be the most valuable type of all to you?
It simply means that Nietzsche was an obscure writer… I don’t think he meant to be obvious in his writing, so that when we read him we need to be aware of his craftiness… Thus isolated passages or even a number of passages from throughout his text(s) may not be the best way to access Nietzsche…
I think Nietzsche strove to be inaccessible, and the only way to access him is through detailed readings and long ruminations… I’m not saying you haven’t gone through such a process, and perhaps the meaning of all the passages you cite are clear as day to you, but hopefully you get my point…
I accept my brushes with idealism, but I also think I’ve been very clear when I’m being imaginative, so as to separate what I say from what Nietzsche actually intended. I don’t want my imaginings to be confused with Nietzsche’s intentions.
Like you, realism is my primary interest. I want to understand Zarathustra’s type just as I want to understand Christ’s type so that I can, as per discussion above, determine which type is best suited to a prosperous humankind…
I know full well Zarathustra is not Christ, that there are differences. But these differences remain largely unclear… And just as there are differences there are also similarities, something you seem resistant to accept…
And again you mention “the Crucified”. This indicates Paul, who again was more obsessed with Christ’s death event than Christ’s life events… In other words, this term has more to do with PAUL’S Christ than it has to do with Christ himself…
The Crucifixion is not the culmination or defining point of Christ’s teaching… I am not trying to reconcile Dionysus with the Crucified, but rather Dionysus with CHRIST, as he actually lived life…
This is not about Paul; it’s about Jesus. Now hear what Nietzsche wrote about Jesus:
[size=95]The instinctive hatred of reality: a consequence of an extreme capacity for suffering and excitement which no longer wants any contact at all because it feels every contact too deeply. The instinctive exclusion of any antipathy, any hostility, any boundaries or divisions in man’s feelings: the consequence of an extreme capacity for suffering and excitement which experiences any resistance, even any compulsion to resist, as unendurable displeasure (that is, as harmful, as something against which the instinct of self-preservation warns us); and finds blessedness (pleasure) only in no longer offering any resistance to anybody, neither to evil nor to him who is evil—love as the only, as the last possible, way of life…
[AC 30.][/size]
Yes, for self-glorification glorifies the self as it is (preserved), whereas self-aggrandisement risks the preservation of the self for the enhancement of the self.
I cannot take so-called “Scripture” seriously. Its motive for describing “selfless acts” is precisely the contrary to selflessness: the will to power, the will to gain power over people…
Yes, and Nietzsche takes sides with the goats, not the sheep…
No, the goats are “Zarathustra-like”.
How do you explain Caesar’s death, then? He did not do anything to protect himself against possible assassination attempts—which in his case were not just possible, but probable.
No, it seems you are confusing Caesar and Alcibiades. Caesar served something greater than himself: he is unthinkable without Rome. Alcibiades served himself alone, whether with the help of Athens, Sparta, or Persia. Zarathustra and his peers are Caesars rather than Alcibiadeses.
Nietzsche’s Jesus served only the self-preservation of his “blessedness” mentioned above.
For you he is—but are you free to think so?
It does not matter what he was to others.
So what do you suggest: that I quote his entire oeuvre all the time?
[size=95]Against the shortsighted.—Do you think this work must be fragmentary because I give it to you (and have to give it to you) in fragments?
[Assorted Opinions and Maxims, 128, entire.][/size]
I do.
Thus Spake Zarathustra is a parody of the “Gospels”. When he’d just written the first part, Nietzsche wrote in his letters that it was “kind of a fifth Gospel”, but also, that “it concern[ed] the long-awaited Antichrist”. The only proper name other than Zarathustra in the book is Jesus:
[size=95]Believe it, my brethren! He [the Hebrew Jesus] died too early; he himself would have disavowed his doctrine had he attained to my age! Noble enough was he to disavow!
[Of Voluntary Death.][/size]
Zarathustra’s doctrine is the doctrine Jesus would have taught had he attained to Zarathustra’s age. It is a self-overcoming of Jesus’ doctrine:
[size=95][We have] to overcome everything Christian through something supra-Christian, and not merely to put it aside—for the Christian doctrine was the counterdoctrine to the Dionysian[.]
[WP 1051.][/size]
Yes and no. “Yes” in that I affirm this observation of yours, which I find quite astute; but “no” because Jesus “died as he had lived” (AC 35). The following passage is decisive:
[size=95]Dionysus versus the “Crucified”: there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom—it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering—the “Crucified as the innocent one”—counts as an objection to this life, as a formula for its condemnation.
[WP 1052.][/size]
I will halt here, for now at least. For the key word has already been said. “Innocent”. Jesus was no more (and no less) innocent than anybody else. The innocence of Becoming applies to everyone and everything.
He lived so as to die the way he did:
[size=95]He does not resist, he does not defend his right, he takes no step which might ward off the worst; on the contrary, he provokes it…
[AC 35.][/size]
Can you show how this follows from Jesus’ teachings? Or do you just take Nietzsche as the final authority? Even so, what he says here isn’t so bad. Although there seems to be inconsistency, i.e., between “no longer wanting any contact” and “no longer offering any resistance to anybody”… But again, isolated passages… Hard to get to Nietzsche’s point without, perhaps, a full reading of the AntiChrist and the rest of his works…
Fair enough.
According to Nietzche… Not all priests are like Nietzsche’s priest. Not all priests are bloodsucking power mongers…
I can accept this. Indeed, Nietzsche wants a warlike age, and violence seems to be more the action of the goats than the sheep. But then again, didn’t Jesus say he came to bring the sword? Hmm… Again there is confusion between the traditions… So much similarity and so much difference…
Oh please, you think Caesar didn’t travel with bodyguards or protect himself? Political murders and protection from the mob was a requirement in his day and age… Caesar would have been a fool to go unguarded.
BUT: Caesar was murdered in the Senate, no? This is somewhat of a guess, for I’m no historian, but it seems that a precedent was set in his murder, i.e., he was murdered by senators in the senate hall, and I’m guessing this was a first… Caesar probably presumed he was safe in that setting. But I am almost 100% sure that he traveled to and from the senate with a heavily armed escort…
The man clearly had enemies and the man was clearly brilliant. Given these two premises, Caesar certainly took protective measures.
No, I don’t see a meaningful difference between these characters OTHER THAN Caesar was more successful. Alcibiades, like Caesar, wanted POWER. Caesar made fewer mistakes, was more cunning, etc, in achieving it. Alcibiades FAILED and so HAD to turn side. ie. He was bested in Athens and so had to go to Sparta. He was bested in Sparta and so had to go to Persia. CAESAR WASN’T BESTED UNTIL HE WAS KNIFED IN THE BACK, AT WHICH TIME IT WAS TOO LATE FOR HIM TO CHANGE SIDES LIKE ALCIBIADES.
Not quite sure what this means. The passages above don’t cast too much light on it… Are you saying Jesus worked only so that he’d continue to be blessed? Where, in the whole of the Gospels, do we see Jesus working for his own gain, i.e., his own being blessed? All I see is Jesus working for others, i.e., Jesus blessing others…
Then you have a very simple sense of value. Where do you see value in life? Is the value of your life the value YOU assign it? If so, who wouldn’t value their own life beyond measure? Even the most deplorable would do so… TRUE value, or the only meaningful value, is the value OTHERS assign your life.
No, but flesh out the quotes with some analysis… Put some meat on the bones so to speak so that I can understand your reading of the passages/texts.
This is all fine.
From this I can’t help but feel Jesus “condemned this life”, and this is something I can’t accept because all I see is Jesus healing, repairing, restoring, improving this life in his life… The only ones I see Jesus condemning are those who, in fact, condemn life… i.e., those who turn the temple into a marketplace, and CHARGE people for the needs of life…
The passage you cite is true. But Jesus’ life isn’t just non-resistance. It is, like I said above, teaching, healing, restoring, etc. It is far more active than a life of non-resistance would suggest… This activity is the defining feature of Jesus’ life, not his passivity…
Bullshit: there is no hiatus here, this passage is one piece.
“No longer wanting any contact” and “no longer offering any resistance to anybody” are two sides of the same coin: he does not reach out, he does not evade.
“Jesus’ teachings” are hardly transmitted to us through history: as Nietzsche says,
[size=95]What concerns me is the psychological type of the Redeemer. After all, this could be contained in the Gospels despite the Gospels, however mutilated or overloaded with alien features: as Francis of Assisi is preserved in his legends, despite his legends. Not the truth concerning what he did, what he said, how he really died; but the question whether his type can still be exhibited at all, whether it has been “transmitted.”—
[AC 29.][/size]
Cf. the preceding section:
[size=95]What do I care about the contradictions in the “tradition”? How can one call saints’ legends “tradition” in the first place!
[AC 28.][/size]
So: “Jesus’” teachings are of no concern here at all.
Then go read them; I have already done so.
By the way: even if the teachings in the “Gospels” were not mutilated and overloaded with alien features, it would still be hard to get to Jesus’ point without a full reading of all his teachings. If only one word was lost in the course of time, we might never be able to understand them correctly! Not even the apocrypha, which I rank much higher than the “Canon”, could ensure that we did not miss anything!—This all according to your logic, of course…
“Bloodsucking power monger” is just a new formulation of the traditional malediction of the will to power. But even this malediction is an act of the will to power…
According to the “Scripture”, yes, he did… Nietzsche disagreed, of course:
[size=85]Such a faith is not angry, does not reproach, does not resist: it does not bring “the sword”—it simply does not foresee how it might one day separate.
[AC 32.][/size]
That’s right. He didn’t.
A pure fool, perhaps?
On what do you base your virtual certainty? Only on your imagination, methinks. “I cannot imagine…”
[size=95]Shakespeare worked from the first translation of Plutarch into English, which had been published by the scholar Sir Thomas North in 1579. The language of Julius Caesar owes a good deal to North, whom Shakespeare copied, paraphrased and versified. For example, North’s Caesar says, “It was better to die once, than always to be afraid of death,” while Shakespeare’s character declares, “Cowards die many times before their deaths / The valiant never taste of death but once.” http://www.amrep.org/articles/6_3a/plutarch.html[/size]
According to Plutarch, Caesar said that when he was advised to get a personal bodyguard.
Your logic typically disregards Caesar’s greatness of soul.
Every living thing wants power.
A nice theory. It all depends on your assumption though that Caesar wanted power unconditionally.
By the way, even this interpretation of the will to power as a desire for power is a malediction; cf.:
[size=95]Passion for power [Herrschsucht, literally “ruling-sickness”]: but who would call it passion, when the height longeth to stoop for power! Verily, nothing sick or diseased is there in such longing and descending!
[TSZ, Of the Three Evil Things.][/size]
The will to power of a Caesar is a reaching down, not a reaching upward. For the second time in this thread:
[size=95]The will to power appears
[…]
c. among the strongest, richest, most independent, most courageous, as “love of mankind,” of “the people,” of the gospel, of truth, God; as sympathy; “self-sacrifice,” etc.; as overpowering, bearing away with oneself, taking into one’s service, as instinctive self-involvement with a great quantum of power to which one is able to give direction: the hero, the prophet, the Caesar, the savior, the shepherd; (—sexual love, too, belongs here: it desires to overpower, to take possession, and it appears as self-surrender. Fundamentally it is only love of one’s “instrument,” of one’s “steed”—the conviction that this or that belongs to one because one is in a position to use it).
[WP 776—‘On the “Machiavellianism” of Power’.][/size]
Consider by the way the phrase “most courageous” in the light of the Shakespeare quote above.
To feel blessed, yes.
I have already qualified the importance of the “Gospels” above. But supposing that what you say here is true, don’t do-gooders usually feel good about themselves? They can almost feel the halo!
This is obviously(?) completely un-Nietzschean. I’m immediately reminded of a passage that supports my position:
[size=95]The best example of the degree to which a plebeian agitator of the mob is incapable of comprehending the concept “higher nature” is provided by Buckle. The view he combats so passionately—that “great men,” individuals, princes, statesmen, geniuses, generals are the levers and causes of all great movements—is instinctively misunderstood by him, as if it meant that what is essential and valuable in such “higher men” were their capacity for setting masses in motion: in short, their effect.
But the “higher nature” of the great man lies in being different, in incommunicability, in distance of rank, not in an effect of any kind—even if he made the whole globe tremble.
[WP 876, entire.][/size]
Note that the editor and translator of the English translation, Walter Kaufmann, adds the following footnote to this passage as a whole:
[size=95]The misunderstanding attacked here is widespread among those who have attempted popular expositions of Nietzsche. Again and again, the view he castigates has been attributed to him.[/size]
By the way, it works both ways: men who “make the whole globe tremble” do not have to be great men:
[size=95]The founder of a religion can be insignificant—a match, no more!
[WP 178, entire.][/size]
Who do you think Nietzsche is referring to here? But there cannot be any doubt:
[size=95]Consider with what degree of freedom Paul treats, indeed almost juggles with, the problem of the person of Jesus: someone who died, who was seen again after his death, who was delivered over to death by the Jews— A mere “motif”: he then wrote the music to it— A zero in the beginning.
[WP 177.][/size]
So far Nietzsche’s position in regard to the value of human beings. Or wait—that reminds me:
[size=95][E]very human being, with his total activity, only has dignity in so far as he is a tool of the genius, consciously or unconsciously; from this we may immediately deduce the ethical conclusion, that “man in himself,” the absolute man possesses neither dignity, nor rights, nor duties[.]
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.][/size]
Okay, so far Nietzsche’s position etc. I subscribe to his position, but I want to provide my own argument against yours. You say:
If that goes for all men, the only meaningful value a man has is that assigned to him by other men. But those other men are then also worthless in themselves. So you’re saying the assignment of value to one another by inherently worthless beings is somehow capable of making them all worthful, i.e., valuable. This is irrational, of course.
No, we cannot do without a being who has value in and of himself. “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Is a human being assigned value by others because he is inherently valuable, or is he valuable because he is assigned value by others? Either the one assigned value must be valuable in himself, or those who assign value to him must be valuable in themselves.
I think the quotes speak for themselves, if read well (i.e., philologically, not wishfully; consider what it actually says, not what you’d like it to say. And I can only encourage you to check out the context. Most of these works are readily available on the internet (and I always provide the source)).
That seems shortsighted to me. Do not these people who charge others for the needs of life need to live, themselves, too? And this does not just mean to sustain their own lives, but to enhance them. In fact, you have here done exactly what Nietzsche describes: by picturing Jesus as you do, and contrasting this picture with your picture of those Jesus condemns, you suggest Jesus’ way of life is the only commendable way of life, and all those who are driven by the will to power (as if Jesus himself was not!) are condemnable.
[size=95]‘Thou Idolater, is not God One? & is not he visible in Jesus Christ? […] and are not all other men fools, sinners, & nothings?’
[William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.][/size]
Insofar as that activity is not a distortion of the historical transmission, Nietzsche would probably argue that it is inability to resist internal stimuli as well as external ones:
[size=95][T]he weakness of the will—or, to speak more definitely, the inability not to respond to a stimulus—is itself merely another form of degeneration.
[Twilight, Morality, 2.][/size]
My prior response was hasty, and I apologize if it sounded dismissive at times. And just so you know I have read Nietzsche. Probably not as thoroughly as you, and I’m certainly not as meticulous, but I’ve given him significant and repeated attention in my life.
If it comes to waging a scholarly war with you, where Nietzsche is the subject, I will lose. Most of what I say isn’t meant to be a representation of Nietzsche. I tend to be more of a preacher than a scholar.
Jesus reaches out to everyone who asks of him.
I agree. What concerns me above all is the Redeemer type. And I wonder when I read Scripture, Nietzschean or otherwise, where is the transmission true? Where, in such holy writings, do we see the Redeemer burning bright? Does Zarathustra’s character reveal the Redeemer? I currently see it more in Christ. But I have reached the bottom of neither Zarathustra or Christ, whether historical or as depicted.
Is there any concrete historical fact other than a biographer who lived after the fact? I’ve studied classics. I know how dodgey Plutarch can be with his history!
And your logic his sensibility.
I know Caesar was a great soul. He was the perfect image of the will to power. I think Christ is too (as depicted in Scripture). Christ simply simply directed his power elsewhere, to the empowerment of others instead of conquest and personal aggrandizement.
Isn’t this your assumption? That everything wants power? I’m not against it. I just don’t think wanting power is all that important. I think appetites can be supressed; or better, that there can be other motivations that have nothing to do with the aquisition of power. Or at least, the aquisition of personal power need not be our direct concern.
I think other directives can be more fruitful than the direct pursuit of power, which often leaves a bloody trail.
Yes, and this was a revealing passage. But again, I refer to the opening scene of Zarathustra. The sun is being used by Zarathustra for its light. He mentions the bee being used for its honey. And then Zarathustra GOES DOWN so that the people can drink of his wisdom… Zarathustra’s “down-going” is different than the “reaching down” you point out here… Zarathustra’s and the sun’s and the bee’s action in this opening scene are more a being used than a using…
I think Nietzsche calls for both (and this really is just a thought). Zarathustra’s way is to both use and to be used…
I’m not concerned whether the Gospels match historical fact or Jesus’ actual teaching. I’m more concerned with the Gospels themselves, or more precisely the Redeemer type they claim to reveal…
And sure. Doing good can make you feel good. Haven’t you ever felt good after helping someone? I’m sure if there was an historical Jesus and he helped someone that he felt good about it too. I’m sure even Scriptural Jesus felt good! Hell; there is even a scene where he chastizes men for not coming back to thank him!
I know the value theory I slipped in there wasn’t Nietzschean.
Wonderful passage. I don’t agree that greatness is measured by being different though. Or at least, there needs to be more to it. How do we decide, looking at both poles, which is positive and which is negative?
Also; isn’t it funny that Nietzsche, who believed himself a great man but was unpopular in his own time, would espouse such a theory of greatness? I’m not saying he wasn’t great. But it is kind of funny…
Perhaps I should clarify, since I see your concern. I think everyone has material worth. For example, I have time and strength and money… But this “value” is more like a product; it is something that fetches a value on the market or that can be deemed of value by others (or even by itself).
Does that distinction make sense?
Sure. I think everyone has “strengths”, and strength can be of value… Value itself though is a whispy thing. It is always attached to the material… So a human being has inherent, material strengths, and these strengths can be assigned value by others and by the human being itself. As to the value the human being assigns its own strengths I say again: even the most deplorable value themselves beyond measure–of what worth is their estimate?
Of course they want to live and prosper. If only they could see this is the whole promise of the Bible, that it shows us the way to life and prosperity! Those who charge for their goods and services get in the way of this way… They are a stumbling block. Charging for goods begets charging for goods, so that eventually nothing is free (as in the present age). Hell; even hospitals in the so-called leading nation of the world will turn away those without good credit!
I’m not condemning anyone. People condemn themselves.
And Jesus was driven by the will to power insofar as he tried to make true the aforementioned promise. Jesus sought life and prosperity for all, including himself, and so yes, the will to power is at play in him. But it is indirectly at play. Directly Jesus seeks the empowerment of others (by which I mean he heals them, feeds them, blesses them, etc); and through this Jesus is himself empowered (as others heal him, feed him, bless him, etc).
Would a world of Caesars mean life and prosperity for all? Could a single Caesar be enough? Was Caesar even concerned with life and prosperity for all? Or for only himself? Perhaps this is it: Nietzsche has no faith in humankind, so he calls for a Caesar to direct global affairs toward life and prosperity. Christ, on the otherhand, wanted humanity to do the job on its own through the universal application of the divine will…
Nietzsche’s approach is certainly more prudent. (Like Nietzsche I too am often nauseated by humankind, and have little hope that the majority could hold fast to God…)
Just wanted to say, it’s not historical transmission I’m worried about when I read the Gospels, but the transmission of the Redeemer type as Nietzsche says in that passage above… Whether or not this type was present in historical Jesus who can say. Who even knows what it is, so that if one was to see it, one could say “Look, there it is!”
Certainly not I. And by Nietzsche’s thinking neither can you, unless perhaps you are great yourself so that the greatness can be communicated to you.
By the way, why did you say that in the present tense—did not Jesus die?
By “Redeemer”, Nietzsche just means Jesus. So why did he use “Redeemer” here and “Jesus” there? Let me make a little study of the occurrence of these words in The Antichrist.
The first time the word “Redeemer” occurs, it’s within quotation marks, and it refers to the degenerated Yahweh, not to the man Jesus (AC 17).
The first time the name Jesus occurs, it’s in the following context. I have to quote a long passage here.
[size=95]On such utterly false soil Israelian soil], where everything natural, every natural value, every reality was opposed by the most profound instincts of the ruling class, Christianity grew up—a form of mortal enmity against reality that has never yet been surpassed. The “holy people,” who had retained only priestly values, only priestly words for all things and who, with awe-inspiring consistency, had distinguished from themselves all other powers on earth as “unholy,” as “world,” as “sin”—this people produced an ultimate formula for its instinct that was logical to the point of self-negation: as Christianity, it negated even the last form of reality, the “holy people,” the “chosen people,” the Jewish reality itself. This case is of the first rank: the little rebellious movement which is baptized with the name of Jesus of Nazareth represents the Jewish instinct once more—in other words, the priestly instinct which can no longer stand the priest as a reality: the invention of a still more abstract form of existence, of a still more unreal vision of the world than is involved in the organization of a church. Christianity negates the church…
[AC 27.][/size]
“Baptized with the name”. Here Nietzsche implies that that name was not rightly connected with said rebellious movement. And indeed, he makes that suggestion explicit in the passage that immediately follows:
[size=95]Jesus has been understood, or misunderstood, as the cause of a rebellion; and I fail to see against what this rebellion was directed, if it was not the Jewish church—“church” exactly in the sense in which we use the word today. It was a rebellion against “the good and the just,” against “the saints of Israel,” against the hierarchy of society—not against its corruption, but against caste, privilege, order, and formula: it was the disbelief in the “higher man,” the No to all that was priest or theologian.
[ibid.][/size]
Next Nietzsche explains how essential that hierarchy was for the preservation of the Jewish people. And then he says:
[size=95]That holy anarchist who summoned the people at the bottom, the outcasts and “sinners,” the chandalas within Judaism, to opposition against the dominant order—using language, if the Gospels were to be trusted, which would lead to Siberia today too—was a political criminal insofar as political criminals were possible at all in an absurdly unpolitical community. This brought him to the cross: the proof of this is the inscription on the cross. He died for his guilt—all evidence is lacking, however often it has been claimed, that he died for the guilt of others.—
It is a completely different question whether any such opposition ever entered his consciousness—whether he was not merely experienced by others as representing this opposition. And it is only at this point that I touch on the problem of the psychology of the Redeemer.—
[AC 27-28.][/size]
Here Nietzsche begins his attempt to recover the psychological type of said “holy anarchist”, whose name may or may not have been Jesus; perhaps Paul just thought it a catchy stage name…*
The next time Nietzsche uses the words “Redeemer” and “Jesus”, it’s in this context:
[size=95]What concerns me is the psychological type of the Redeemer. After all, this could be contained in the Gospels despite the Gospels, […] The attempts I know to read the history of a “soul” out of the Gospels seem to me proof of a contemptible psychological frivolity. M. Renan, that buffoon in psychologicis, has introduced the two most inappropriate concepts possible into his explanation of the Jesus type[.]
[AC 29.][/size]
We are nearing the end of my little study, as it has now become entirely clear why Nietzsche alternates between the two words. By “Redeemer” (without quotation marks), he means the man behind the legend; by “Jesus”, he also means that man, but he does not mean that that was necessarily his name. Nor does he mean that he was actually a “redeemer”, by the way:
[size=95]This “bringer of glad tidings” died as he had lived, as he had taught—not to “redeem men” but to show how one must live.
[AC 35.]
Our age is proud of its historical sense: how could it ever make itself believe the nonsense that at the beginning of Christianity there stands the crude fable of the miracle worker and Redeemer—and that everything spiritual and symbolical represents only a later development? On the contrary: the history of Christianity—beginning with the death on the cross—is the history of the misunderstanding, growing cruder with every step, of an original symbolism.
[AC 37.][/size]
By calling the Galilean “Jesus” and “the Redeemer”, Nietzsche means neither that he was really called Jesus nor that he was really “the Redeemer” (or even a redeemer); and by alternating between the two terms, he shows precisely that. He might also have referred to him as “the Galilean” throughout, as I just did and as he does in AC 24 (where he uses the phrase “the psychological type of the Galilean”). Calling the historical figure “the Galilean” (and Christians “Galileans”) is an anti-Christian tradition started by the Roman Emperor Julian (called “the Apostate”). By calling him “Christ” and his followers “Christians”, Julian was afraid he would strengthen their movement (by implicitly affirming that he was “anointed”, i.e., divine). But Nietzsche no longer needed to oppose that idea:
[size=95]If we have even the smallest claim to integrity, we must know today that a theologian, a priest, a pope, not merely is wrong in every sentence he speaks, but lies—that he is no longer at liberty to lie from “innocence” or “ignorance.” The priest too knows as well as anybody else that there is no longer any “God,” any “sinner,” any “Redeemer”—that “free will” and “moral world order” are lies: seriousness, the profound self-overcoming of the spirit, no longer permits anybody not to know about this…
[AC 38.][/size]
He who fits the cap, let him wear it.—
*Some Christian Fundamentalists claim that the name Jesus was written in Hebrew as Yod He Vau He Shin Vau Ayin, Yahweshwa, so as to contain the full name of God. To me this seems just one more example of Christians’ attempts to reconcile the historical figure with the “Old Testament” (having him fulfill prophecies, etc.).
Sure, but what you claim is just speculation. Have you any evidence of Caesar’s having had a bodyguard?
Why should Caesar want to preserve himself? He had already accomplished everything. He had even appointed a heir (Octavius). His next big move would be his campaign against Persia—but do you think he believed in that? His insight proved sound in regard to his heir; did it not in regard to Persia? Even up to Julian, three centuries later, and beyond, Persia remained a threat (but never far beyond its “borders”). I think the following applied to Caesar:
[size=95]His death, dieth the consummating one triumphantly, surrounded by hoping and promising ones.
[TSZ, Of Voluntary Death.][/size]
Hail Caesar!
No, that everything is will to power (not want of power).
The sun is rather compared to a flower, and Zarathustra himself to a bee.
No, more an active imposing on others.
Two completely different things.
The question is whether one acts out of abundance or out of want. But perhaps one must have personal experience of such being (i.e., such greatness or smallness must not be so “different”, so alien, to one) in order to be able to judge it. To me it seems Nietzsche, when describing the “Redeemer type”, was speaking from his own personal experience. Cf. Ecce Homo, where he presents himself as both a decadent and its opposite.
Nietzsche himself made the whole world tremble later, of course.
Yes, but I make no absolute distinction between material and spiritual.
Well, to themselves they are indispensable, of course. So the question is: valuable to what (or whom)?
That may be its promise—but does it deliver? Nietzsche thought not:
[size=95]It is plain what was finished with the death on the cross: a new, an entirely original basis for a Buddhistic peace movement, for an actual, not merely promised, happiness on earth. For this—as I have already emphasized—remains the fundamental difference between the two religions of décadence: Buddhism does not promise but fulfills; Christianity promises everything but fulfills nothing.—
[AC 42.][/size]
In his decadence, Nietzsche was a Buddhist:
[size=95]What an affirmative Aryan religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: the law-book of Manu. (The deification of the feeling of power in Brahma: interesting that it arose among the warrior caste and was only transferred to the priests.)
[…]
What a negative Aryan religion looks like, grown up among the ruling orders: Buddhism.
[WP 145.][/size]
Of course it is. What do we do that isn’t reactive? It seems to me that all activity is in the face of some pre-existing conditions that the action is a re-action to. This holds, I think, even for proactive actions… Something provokes even proactive action…
I’m speaking more of the type, which isn’t tied to Jesus’ historical reality. The type is still active; but yes, Jesus is certaintly dead!
When I say “Redeemer type” what I’m going for is an ethical concept that is indicative of a way of life, not with any moral imperative attached to it but rather the promise and delivery of life and prosperity to those who follow. Is this what Nietzsche means when he uses the term? Maybe not. But whether or not, I do think Nietzsche is concerned with the question of how to live life, and that through Zarathustra he shows us the way of life that he believes will deliver the goods, so to speak.
I’m not so much interested in the historical figure Jesus. His actual teachings and doings are lost to us. What I’m interested in, again, is the way to life and prosperity, and the type of human being that facilitates life and prosperity for not only itself but others as well… I am a Yes-sayer to life, to all life, but this involves the delicate balancing of personal needs with the needs of others…
Pure speculation indeed, for I’m no historian. But I’m sure I could make a strong case. Did you ever watch the series Rome? There Caesar had a contingent of guards!
Also; if you want to equate Caesar with Plutarch’s Caesar (or Shakespeare’s Caesar) I’d be happy to comply.
In a snake-pit like Rome I feel you could never “accomplish everything”. There would always be threats and enemies lurking around every corner, local more than foreign… And wouldn’t he want to preserve himself for the sole reason of enjoying the fruits of his labour? Also, if he is such an affirmer of life, self-preservation should have been a top priority, no?
And that passage could apply to Jesus as well perhaps! If anyone died voluntarily it was Jesus, not Caesar… But I’d have to read that chapter again to get a better sense of the passage…
Ha. That metaphysical presupposition again? You know, the “will to power” probably isn’t far off from my “will to life and prosperity”. The difference, perhaps, is that when I hear “power” I hear “control” and “domination”, etc, etc. I see the will to power as the will to expand one’s dominion or sovereignty over other creatures, and to do so in such a way that may or may not be approved of by the subject creatures… Let me be clear: I have no problem with the will to dominion, and given my Biblical bias this is in fact the promise to humankind, i.e., total dominion over creation, but I do have a problem when dominion is forced.
To refer loosely to Deridda, it must be a dominion without domination… It must be a dominion where there is no King, no Caesar, no sovereign who excercises an absolute and perhaps violent will over all… Nietzsche calls Christ a “holy anarchist” in one of the passages you cited. That is apt.
So the sun imposes its light on us? And the bee its honey? And Zarathustra his wisdom? It seemed more like an offering than an imposition… Or something Zarathustra uses to ensnare men; not something he imposes upon them per se…
Fair enough; Nietzsche examined the experience of his own life, and from there judged what is great and small.
Curious about your statement “the question is whether one acts out of abundance or out of want”… Where are these two types compared? Which type is greater according to Nietzsche? I would lean toward the first, but the will to power indicates the second. i.e., The will to power indicates a lack of power, or at least the potential for more power, and so it seems, if all is will to power, that everyone acts out of want of power… Because they don’t have enough… Because they want to extend their domain…
The whole world? Unfortunately Nietzsche is somewhat confined to scholarly or well-educated circles…
I make a distinction between what has force and what doesn’t (hence, perhaps, my issue with “everything is will to power”…). God, as spiritual, has no force. Value, as spiritual, has no force. An idea, as spiritual, has no force… All these things are provocative; and they can indeed “make the whole world tremble”; but they cannot move even a feather on their own.
How, for example, would you distinguish the character of Jesus in the Gospels from the historical Jesus of flesh and blood? The historical Jesus was a real force in the world who could move real feathers. However the character Jesus lacks any material reality other than its imprint on the pages or on our minds as we read the text or think about it… The character Jesus can’t move a damn thing; but it is provocative, and it can make the whole world tremble… It can motivate us, perhaps, to be images of it, so that we make material the spiritual “motions” of the character… But motivating is not the same as moving…
Anyways, I do distinguish between spiritual and material. And by this I mean I believe in a category of existence that is without force of its own.
Exactly… “Valuable to”. One’s value is not arrived at through a personal valuation but by determining one’s value to others. We are worth what others esteem us.
I think the question of value, of our own personal value, is tantamount to asking: What would others give in order to prevent our existence from being blotted out entirely?
This question captures both what we have done for others, since blotting out our existence would also blot out everything we’ve ever done, and it also captures what we can or could do for others, since blotting out our existence would also mean we can do nothing more.
What did Nietzsche call the Eternal Return? Or the thought of having this moment, and all other moments, repeated for an eternity? That it could be the most terrible or joyous of prospects? I think thinking on the above, i.e., personally estimating what other’s answers would be, if honestly undertaken, could be just as terrible or joyous an experience…
Scrooge, for example, goes through a similar process in the Christmas Carol…
Anyways, the point is to emphasize a perceived difference between my thinking and Nietzsche’s, in that Nietzsche doesn’t seem to care so much what others value while to me personal value is inextricable from the values of others…
Look at Nietzsche’s wording “it is plain what was finished with the death on the cross…”, as in prior to the death, as in during Jesus’ life, there was an “entirely original basis for an actual, not merely promised, happiness on earth”, as if Jesus’ life itself was the basis… Anyways! Again there is the distinction between a Christianity that focuses on the death event as its basis rather than the life events as its basis…
Does the Biblical teaching deliver on the promise? There’s no historical precedent to say one way or another. i.e., There has never been a time when all creation has “held fast to God”…
To answer we’d have to examine the God-type, i.e., Jesus’ character, and the materialization of this character in all creatures, and whether this universal materialization would mean life and prosperity for all.
In Scripture Jesus tells his apostles to follow this basic formula which he himself exhibits in his own way of life: Travel through the land healing and restoring those that you meet and while being thankful for whatever they put before you.
Would the universal application of this formula lead to life and prosperity for all? At the least I think it would make the world a far more pleasant place to live. It certainly wouldn’t mean “eternal life” or anything like that (here I agree with Nietzsche).
Sure, everything is absolutely reactive. And yet the distinction “active/reactive” is important to Nietzsche. We he means is strength of will and weakness of will, respectively (and yes, those are relative: “weakness” is just a word for relatively small strength). When a weak-willed person reacts, it is because he could not resist a stimulus; but resistance is of course also a reaction. So what matters, for Nietzsche, is not whether or not one reacts (for action = -reaction, so one cannot help but react to actions toward one)—what matters for him is how one reacts. To turn the other cheek is the wise way of the decadent (whereas to resist is the foolish way of the decadent: it will only wear him out further); to resist is the wise way of the healthy (whereas to turn the other cheek is the foolish way of the healthy: to allow others to impair one’s health). It is a question of economics: will resisting or suffering wear one out more?
Yes, I think that’s how he means it. The “Redeemer type” is then a (the?) Buddhist type.
As I’ve suggested, Zarathustra’s way is an affirmative Aryan way as opposed to negative Aryan ways such as Buddhism. Nietzsche/Zarathustra aims at a rank-ordering of men, in which each finds his happiness—not the happiness of the Buddhist, but the worker of the worker, the warrior of the warrior, and the philosopher of the philosopher.
Let us forget Caesar for a while.
You obviously do not understand the will to power principle, as is obvious here:
That is too narrow an understanding.
This seems pretty accurate, but it is preferable if it is approved of, of course.
That’s why religion should be in the service of philosophy (and not vice versa): the lawbook of Manu is a religious code aimed, among other things, at giving the lowest caste a good conscience about its servitude. By serving the higher castes they serve God, and by serving God they will secure their place in heaven.
I say there must be a King, but the King must be the right hand of the philosophers. The King must be, officially at least, only the protector (and punisher), not the slave-driver. In truth however he is the conqueror, the enslaver. But this slavery serves the geniuses of all kinds, including the genius of wisdom and knowledge (the philosopher); not just himself (the military genius).
In the Prologue, Zarathustra imposes his teaching on the people he encounters on the marketplace. And as I said, the parallel is not sun—bee—Zarathustra, but sun—flower—Zarathustra. The sun imposes its light on us by rising (or, to put it differently, by descending to us, by bringing light even to the underworld we live in); Zarathustra imposes his teaching by descending to the valleys; and the flower? Well, no, the flower does not really impose anything. It tempts, indeed—much like the Zarathustra of Part I (but not of the Prologue!).
This is another example of your misunderstanding the will to power principle. Contrast:
[size=95][as] “will to power,” i.e., [as] an insatiable desire to manifest power; or as the employment and exercise of power, as a creative drive, etc.
[WP 619.][/size]
The square brackets I’ve added are meant to delete, not to add, the word “as”.
If was referring to the Second World War and its aftermath (including the Sixties). And I think, and hope, the real earthquake is yet to come.
All concrete things are will to power.
These are abstract, not concrete, things. The idea does not exist in itself.
The latter is an image of the former, however distorted.
The fact that an idea makes the whole world tremble (whether literally or metaphorically: i.e., whether by moving it or motivating it) does not make that idea great.
It’s not a category of existence. Without force, those things wouldn’t exist—that is, they don’t exist in themselves.
That is your assertion. And you haven’t really addressed my objection to it. Your assertion’s just a deference of the question. We are still looking for something valuable in itself. The answer to the question “valuable to what” must be: “valuable to something that is valuable in itself”.
Yes… And the Bible has very little to do with Jesus’ life.
That does not matter; it’s about individual salvation (salvation of the “soul”).
So if you’re strong enough, resist, but if you’re too weak, turn the other cheek. Fair enough; but I’m not quite sure what “turning the other cheek” would accomplish for the weak! To turn the other cheek is to forgive, no? What does this do in the face of oppression other than, perhaps, absolve the oppressor of shame?
Also I don’t like this non-resistance talk. Correct me if I’m wrong but Nietzsche is a philosopher of the flux, no? To him there is no being but only becoming, or continuous change, and therefore our condition is essentially a steady state of death and dying. Every moment is our first and last, so to speak, and Nietzsche would have us make the most of it so that we could rejoice over the prospect of re-living the moment for an eternity.
Is that fair? If so I see three possible reactions to our basic condition.
RESISTANCE. We can try to overcome death/dying or at least hold it off.
RESIGNATION. We can let death overtake us. Some might try to make the most of what’s left, but even so this is ultimately the reaction of the defeated, or crushed spirit.
RESOLUTION. We can embrace our condition. This is different from resignation in that, prior to being defeated or crushed by the prospect of death, this reaction actually wills it. It resolves to die so that when death comes it isn’t a defeat, but a victory…
Nietzsche seems concerned most with 1), as if it is the most appropriate response to our condition, and he ascribes non-resistance to Christ. I, on the other hand, believe 3) is the most appropriate response to our condition, but it comes with clarification. Notably: A suicide is resolved upon death, but Christ is no suicide. Where a suicide resolves upon death for the sake of death, Christ resolves upon death for the sake of life. Christ’s death begets life while a suicide’s death begets nothing.
Pace Nietzsche it seems to me that the strongest type is the type that wills its own death. It is not the type that merely risks its life in the battles of resistance, but the type that wills it. The suicide is illuminating on this point. How strong must you be to make the leap off a building? The suicide is the case of the greatest strength being wasted.
I think Nietzsche wants his own type; neither Buddhist nor Christian even if remarkably similar to both…
Yes, I’m noted this before. Perhaps the surest difference between Nietzscheanism and Christianity is rank-ordering. There is no rank-ordering in Christianity, or if there is it’s reversed (i.e., the poor are priveleged; the orphans and widows are of most concern…). I’m not so much into caste systems.
This was to express my apprehension over the term “power”, since it connotes things like control and domination… This was not to say Nietzsche’s will to power involves such things.
See, this is what scares me. To me approval is necessary, not just preferable… This is why I worry that the will to “power” will all too quickly turn into the will to control and dominate…
Maybe it’s my translation but I don’t sense any “imposition” or similary strong language in the Prologue… Or rather, if Zarathustra imposes his wisdom upon the people it is as a gift is imposed… Zarathustra mentions gift-giving, which I’m all on board for, and indeed gifts can come with an imposition of sorts, i.e., to accept. But again, imposition itself sounds too forced…
And where is the flower? Is the text not “Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey…”
Thus isn’t Zarathustra saying he is like a bee that has gathered too much honey? I’m missing this whole flower thing since I don’t even see the word flower in the text, unless it is implied in the honey-bee metaphor…
“As a creative drive”… Fair enough! If Nietzsche’s will to power is really the will to create, I’m much happier to embrace it. What I would like to compare is the creative action of God with the creative action of Zarathustra… You say Zarathustra’s is an imposition. I think God’s is, well, an act of hospitality for example. When God says “Let there be light”, etc, etc, God is “imposing” light upon creation like a hospitable host imposes food or water upon their guests.
This sense of “imposition” I can accept, since it makes it more like a gift-giving, which indeed Zarathustra mentions in the Prologue…i.e., “I am bringing mankind a gift.”
Ha. Just like the Kingdom of God is right around the corner?
You call them abstract, I call them spiritual. As for existence, and whether it applies to spiritual things, I could care less. Ideas/values/characters have a reality of sorts, even if they don’t “exist”. If existence implies possessing force then I’m happy to say Ideas/values/characters etc do not exist. But they still have reality! (As you say yourself they are “things”.)
This can work both ways. The material can be construed as an image of the spiritual or the spiritual can be construed as an image of the material.
If the goal is to reveal an ethical type, i.e., the type or ordering of society that delivers life and prosperity, then it seems to me that in Nietzsche too the point is for the material to be an image of the spiritual (or abstract).
I have already ascribed every existing thing strength, and strength is of value…
I’m not sure why something must be valuable in itself for something to be of value to it… Food and water and shelter are all valuable to a poor man, with nothing of value to speak of.
Do you mean historical Jesus or the character Jesus? I think the Bible has a lot to do with the character Jesus… The character Jesus himself says that he is in accordance with the Scripture that came before him. Jesus’ only law is the same as Moses: Love God with all your heart.
But sure, the Bible may have very little to do with historical Jesus.
These were not the laws of Moses handed down…they were God’s law handed down to Moses:
“Love God with all of your heart…and your neighbor as yourself.” We cannot leave out the second half of that Commandment if we are to truly observe the first.
If we love god, or think we love god, with all of our heart, but don’t love our neighbor, than we are truly not loving God. God is found in one’s neighbor, even in one’s enemy.
You make the mistake of projecting the monotheistic (Judeo-)Christian God, who is a product of decadence, on (early) Judaism. If God is found in one’s enemy as well as in one’s neighbour, one has no reason to distinguish between the two—as indeed early Christianity didn’t. Christianity is a liberalisation from Judaism, in that it’s accessible to anyone, not just to Jews. Loving one’s neighbour as oneself may be Mosaic, but loving one’s enemy definitely is not: it goes against political integrity, against the “chosenness” of one’s kind (which one believes is chosen by a god, not by God: Judaism is really henotheist or monolatrist, not monotheist).
[size=95]The law revealed by god to Moses was merely the law of the individual Hebrew republic and was therefore binding on none but Hebrews, and not even on Hebrews after the downfall of their nation.
[Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, Preface.][/size]
lSpinozism, by the way, is in turn a liberalisation from Christianity, for it emancipates God from the (Platonic) Idea of the Good. The only other consistent alternative for this liberalisation is the converse: secular Humanism, the emancipation of the Idea of the Good (which it believes is discernible for human beings in nature and history) from God. Christianity is simply inconsistent, and Judaism—insofar as it considers itself monotheist—even more so.
Fair enough; but Moses was a prophet. We need to trust Moses’ word that this law comes from God. The fact of the matter is: it comes to us through Moses (or through the writer of Deuteronomy).
I tend to think of the second part of this statement as a rearticulation of the first part… It brings nothing new to the first part but rather presents it in a different form.
The Decalogue follows from Moses’ one and only law, which is to love God with all your heart. Check Deuteronomy 6…
Indeed, this lays out, I think, one of the most enduring debates in the Biblical tradition, and even in Jesus it doesn’t seem fully resolved (i.e., see his encounter with the Syrrophonecian Woman).
Nevertheless, there are traces of universal inclusion in the Torah. See the Book of Ruth for example, where a foreigner is welcomed into the community. Or see Isaiah, where all the nations of the earth stream to the New Jerusalem…
But for sure, there are just as many or more examples of an exclusive Judaism, unfortunately.
Yes, Moses was a prophet. I have never actually thought of it in that way…as trusting Moses’ word that the Commandment came from God. In those days, yes, the Jewish people had to trust Moses’ words as they had to trust and believe that all of the words that issued forth out of the mouths of the prophets were God’s words, not necessarily those of the prophets albeit the prophets preached and foretold things. But we have the words of Christ, if Messiah.
I don’t know if I would agree with you on this. Well, maybe in a way. If you see the second part as a rearticulation of the first part, perhaps it is only because you perhaps understand that in loving god, you must also love your neighbor. They go hand in hand.
But I think that the second part of that Commandment would be in god’s eyes just as important as the first…in a sense, like an addendum to the first.
It can also be taken, for me, like an “embellishment” or “elaboration” for lack of a better word to strengthen the first part. It’s like god is saying "love me with all of your heart…oh, and by the way, if you truly do, then this must also include loving your neighbor.
For many people I believe loving god is tantamount but truly if they would turn their back on a fellow human being who was really in need, how can that be loving god as to love god is to love all his creations and all of his creatures. So this is why I bleieve the second half of that Commandment – it had to be driven home to all peoples, not just the people in the days of the prophets.
I wouldn’t call Christianity as a liberalization from Judaism…perhaps you can call it an “offshoot” of Judaism. But I do understand what you mean by it.
“Loving one’s neighbor” can also be called Messianic as it was given by Jesus in reply to the scribes asking what he felt was the greatest commandment…”I am the Lord thy God….and : ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31) In Christ words, this was the greatest commandment and he quoted it as two. There were in all I think over 500, 600 handed down but only ten were seen as most important to Christianity.
loving one’s neighbor goes against political integrity…perhaps that is why the world is as it is today. At least as far as I am concerned, there are no chosen. In the eyes of god, we have all been chosen. That is simply an old testament myth or truth as far as the Jewish people are concerned. I am not even sure if most of them would believe this these days.
Thus, the reason for the First Commandment and the edict "I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt not have strange gods before me.”
I think my last post was, well, confused on all points!
From the first pages of Genesis through the Gospels there’s the constant promise of life and prosperity. God is the one who delivers this, but it comes at the price of “loving/serving God with all our heart and soul and strength”, which is itself evinced, it seems to me, by following God’s commandments…
In other words; God’s number one commandment is to follow God’s commandments! It is to be committed to God and no other…
As such the first commandment is, well, rather empty without a secondary commandment, which is to love your neighbour as yourself, or perhaps more broadly speaking, to treat others as you want to be treated.
This secondary commandment fleshes out what we must commit ourselves to in order to demonstrate our commitment to God. In other words, to demonstrate our love for God we must show love to others, which I believe you said yourself in your original post (or at least you said something like it…).
To return to where I said we must trust Moses’ word that the commandment came from God, I would say instead:
We must compare the effect(s) of obeying the commandment to God’s promise, to see if obedience effects the delivery of God’s promise…
In other words; if we show love to others, does life and prosperity ensue? If yes, then the commandment comes from God, for life and prosperity is what God promises to those who follow him. If no, then the commandment doesn’t come from God…
There is no shame (much less guilt) in exercising your power. What does the killer care whether he is “forgiven” by his victim or not?
The thing is that, in the case of far advanced decadence like Jesus’, resisting would disturb one’s blissful state, one’s state of “going with the flow”, whereas turning the other cheek will preserve that state (until one’s death, after which there is no awareness anymore, of course).
More or less.
Picture an arm wrestling match. Suppose neither of the wrestlers is on the losing end. Their hands are in the middle. Are they trying to keep themselves from losing (i.e., are they resisting), or are they trying to win? They are doing both at the same time, of course.
The will to hold off death is a form of the will to power. So the first possible “reaction” is the following:
STRUGGLE. We can try to gain power or to at least not lose the power we have.
“Resignation” is then to give up the will to power, to allow others (living and lifeless) to overpower us, to do with us what they will (including wiping us out).
And “resolution” then means that we rejoice in the will to power, regardless of whether it’s ours: if it is stronger than ours, it deserves to overpower us. But we should first test it to see if it is stronger. And even if it’s obviously stronger, it may be greater to resist it anyway (I’m thinking of the movie 300 here). As Zarathustra says:
[size=95]His death, dieth the consummating one triumphantly, surrounded by hoping and promising ones.
Thus should one learn to die; and there should be no festival at which such a dying one doth not consecrate the oaths of the living!
Thus to die is best; the next best, however, is to die in battle, and sacrifice a great soul.
[Of Voluntary Death.][/size]
And:
[size=95]My death, praise I unto you, the voluntary death, which cometh unto me because I want it.
[ibid.][/size]
According to Nietzsche, this did not apply to Jesus, as the rest of Zarathustra’s speech shows.
No, it should be our own power that destroys us. By an act of will shall we make an end of ourselves. Jesus’ death, however, was no act of will but a denial of the will, a passive extinction…
I don’t see how “Christ’s” death “begets life”.
Suicide is greater than such a passive death, as suicide (in the literal sense) is the resolution to kill applied to oneself. It is the way of life:
[size=95][B]egetting, living, murdering, all is one.
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.][/size]
Hail murder!
And that makes it an instance of the second-greatest death, according to Nietzsche (see above). The greatest death, however, is where the great strength of the great one has already been spent (not wasted), and who kills himself so as not to live on, spent, as a depressing influence on the living. In fact, the greatest death is the death that comes at the peak of a great soul’s spending itself, as the crown and seal on his career:
[size=95]To die thus,
As once I saw him die—
Vanquishing, destroying…
[Dionysus-Dithyrambs, Ultimate Will.][/size]
Your Christ did not die such a death, of course.
It’s only “Christian” in the narrow sense (of there being only one Christian—who died on the cross). And Nietzsche himself identifies that with the Buddhist type. There is no need to distinguish the two, much less to posit a third one (the whole point of a “type” is that it encompasses many individuals).
The only reason it’s preferable is that if the dominated disapprove of their domination, they are more likely to rebel. I am looking at it from the perspective of the higher orders… For them, it’s better to dominate without approval than not at all!
[size=95][A] master race is either on top or it is destroyed.
[WP 145.][/size]
The thing is that Zarathustra gives what he wants to give, not what the receiver wants to receive.
It is implied. Zarathustra is to the sun as a bee is to…
The Nietzschean “revolution” has not (yet) come; if I can help it, it will.
Yes, one could probably engineer a unicorn. But in the case of Christ, there was a horse (or a rhino!) whose image was distorted and became the image of a unicorn.
Yes: and the spiritual (or abstract) image that is to be realised is that of the Nietzschean Zarathustra character, not of the Christian Jesus character.
My point is that the significance of the value of those things is dependent on the significance of the man.
That is not Moses’ only law, and it is not the same god.
) but rather the ultimate destruction of his soul/his life, which would have been counter to the will of God and christ’s ultimate mission. The physical healing, I believe, was not always just for the person, but for the glorification of God and that Christ’s words and actions would later speak and point towards him being the Messiah. Let me say here too that this is purely a discussion for me…I know and know nothing. I was brought up as a catholic and so all of these are catholic teachings, as far as I am concerned, but at the same time, as far as Christ being the son of god (I mean Messiah) I rather lean toward agnosticism…I just don’t know so all of this is for the sake of discussion and what I feel would be if he truly is the Christ.