Interesting [not sarcasm]. I’ve never actually met a member of Opus Dei, let alone engaged one in philosophic conversation. Was he actually open to discussion or more just stating his beliefs? I’m not surprised they think of him as a nihilist – that seems a popular conception amongst those who fancy demonizing him without having to do all that pesky reading. My experience is that Christians generally either don’t know who he is, as Smears suggested, or write him off as a lunatic.
I’m interested in what you’ll conclude. I figure Nietzsche saw “good” and “evil” as fundamentally religious concepts, and without any actual constituents. They are essentially just labels that command an appeal to authority and promote complacency.
Opus Dei members are much more open to discussion than you would think. Certainly a lot more than a regular christian, and this is because they are mostly rich or close-enough-to-rich and therefore well educated always. If you belong to the OD, chances are you dedicate honest and rational thought to christianity (always assuming that God and Jesus are real as described by the Catholic Church of course). I would say that, in my experience, Opus Dei is the order to go to for honest and advance discussion with a christian (they are, of course, agnosticism-proof and cannot be talked out of christianity, but they are usually able to hear contrasting points without a negative emotional response).
From my only contact with christians about Nietzsche (which was with this Opus Dei character), I conlcude that they see him as a decadent, a nihilist enemy of the church that wants to set people on the path of atheism. As such he is not seen as evil, like a satanist would be, but as a simptom of the deep atheist nihilism that is taking hold of society. They see him as a kind of nausea created by a virus that the church is always trying to cure.
Perhaps the line is this: I doubt that any christian whatsoever (except maybe an amish or something like that, but how would they ever hear of Nietzsche?) would pray for Nietzsche’s soul.
The fact that his whole philosophy was basically centered around how to gain power at all costs.
Thats a pretty obvious red flag right there. I have some respect for some of his psychological contributions i.e birth of tragedy, etc. but again, certain flawed conclusions due to ethical shortcomings. The true Dionysian is not a chaotic-chaotic as he insists, but a structured-chaotic according to natural tenets.
do you really think I care? You must since you just stated your opinion of my statement without providing any reasons for it so you must think that I automatically regard it highly or something.
I see this as a pretty radical misinterpretation. I’m not even sure where to begin an argument as I’m not totally sure how you’ve gathered this. Are you referring to the Will to Power?
My experience corroborates what Pezer suggests – that they are acutely aware of his existence, and perceive him as a threat.
If Christians perceive N as a nihilist this is not entirely unfounded, since in order to arrive from Christianity at Nietzschean thought, one has to pass through a phase of honest nihilism. Christianity, as N perceives it, is based on the worship of nothingness, of the not-this, but it does so with the help of very human images – the Christ on the cross is basically an erotic symbol, a Greek statue in a rather perverted pose. For the purer Christians there has always been the Mary-cultus. In the more healthy periods and cultures of Christianity, the divine-fertility-cultus has been an esoteric superior to the culture around the crucified. This is expressed in the more accomplished architecture (“freemasonry”) of the Christian era, (of course all cathedrals have vaginas as entrances), and most explicitly that I know of in this building:
The Palais des Papes in Avignon, where for a period of time certain alternatively inclined popes were housing, and which has at its peak a large golden statue of Mary overlooking from above a crucified Jesus made of humble stone.
I digress, what I mean to say is that what Nietzsche called nihilism was certainly a general motive within the larger body of Christianity, but should not automatically be taken as a definition for the entire religion and all of its artists. That would be a bit too simplistic.
A very enlightening comment on the fluctuations of christianity, certainly I have noticed that Mary is much more important in the Third World than the developped countries.
Let me give you this beautiful piece of Nietzschean antichristism:
The nihilism in christianity is dressed in imaginary realities.
I think he has a point I think you need to read some Nietzsche, saying he was all about power no matter what is an erroneous accusation. Sure some people chose to interpret it that way, but they hadn’t really understood his philosophy. Whilst I don’t think he was the best philosopher of all time, I do think he was ahead of his time. As others have said though your supposition is outrageously simplistic.
Right, what I meant is that it shouldn’t be an active process where you logically decide to do some shit. Logic and comprehension is only a tool to help you realize how to behave naturally/optimally. The Dionysian doesnt need to be synthesized because it automatically comes into itself through unbiased observation.
Nietzsche doesn’t realize this because he is unethical and would probably think that killing a million babies would be an end to justify the means or some shit.
But that’s what it essentially comes down to. Most people wouldn’t admit it because they are too busy getting their cheap highs off the power trip of reading his books to bother with the minutiae, or they have their own personal vested interests and biases.
Self-wanking and arrogance at it’s best, Adolf Hitler at it’s worst.
So far it appears everyone is concentrating on the discussion of Nietzsche.
Christianity is a diverse collection of religions factions, with a general tenant that salvation (going to heaven) is obtained by accepting jesus christ as savior, usually phrased The Lord Jesus Christ.
As a religious collection the lot are absolutists. Black & White. Thus if you haven’t accepted jesus christ as your personal savior then you are pretty much heading for a long sabbatical in a real hot place. For the most part there are just the two domains. If you don’t end up in one through personal choice, by default you end up in the other with the resulting moral consequence as well. Heaven = good, all else, evil = hell.
Some Christians sects have further divided hell into two domains purgatory and hell proper. It’s just not so hot in purgatory, and there you will find those folks, that due to life circumstance didn’t have the opportunity to make the choice. As a result of the requirement of it being a personal choice, Christianity had to spread the word, to insure that as many people were aware of the choice and purgatory did not become over populated. Property values must be a lot higher in purgatory and therefore it boils down to a matter of a cost effective solution.
It really doesn’t matter, from the standpoint of doctrine, what individual Christians believe regarding the assignment of a moral domain.
Curious, why you believe their opinion makes any difference. They could correctly or incorrectly assign the label ‘evil’ to another and it wouldn’t matter. Evil doers make it to heaven all the time. All they have to do is accept jesus as their savior and their “sins” are absolved (forgiven). Slate wiped clean no longer evil and sitting pretty in heaven. It’s not like a democracy where everyone gets together in the end and votes whether this person was evil and that person wasn’t. Unfortunately it does seem to have some impact here on earth.
I have been making an effort to separate myself from this line of thinking, that is mostly the reason. I want to observe, not dictate. You yourself are an object of christiandom (as am I, I think you get the picture), and I thank that that very fact calls attention to christianity.
It is not a cult among other cults, it is the cult to end all cults.
If you are what I call a “nietzschean,” then try to think beyond good and evil.
First of all, your question was loaded, it should have been perhaps " . . . why you care what they think." Nietzsche himself cared enough to write a book and a half on it.
Good point, that is another way of phrasing the question with less ‘load’.
Of benefit or detriment would be labels I tend to use, evil, in a devilish sense doesn’t exist. Good luck with any effort to convince a Christian that a devil isn’t ‘real’.
If I were all that curious my comment would not have been so generalized.
“The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith.[14] These professions state that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead in order to grant eternal life to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins (salvation).” (1.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in hell, they believe in the souls annihilation for unbelievers. Big difference?
So yeah I was overly flippant and general in the statements.
If you care to provide examples of the variations. As you please.
beyond good and evil.