It is incredible that, after having taken from life all meaning, all purpose, all objectivity, some men still seem inclined not to see that there is no means, definitely, of convincing anyone that what he believes applies to everyone, that a faith or a system which “shows” the truth to him is simply a loss of time to other people.
That means:
no absolute=no particulars, that is, if there isn’t an “absolute” meaning/purpose to human existence, no man could say that humanity should act this or that way, without refering to some kind of absolute conception of reality. If you claim that:
Religion only leads humankind into slavery and décadence
you are making an absolute statment,and then you are obliged to show us from where you take this assumption, that is, what can lead humankind to freedom and progress,since you are absolutely sure of what leads it into slavery and décadence (=religion)??
Nietzsche despised Kant because he believed,after all his investigation, this simple and easy truth: deny the absolute, and then you deny all conception of life and reality as absolute. Causation (=determinism) and Evolution are maybe truths which are scientifically proven, at least at some level, while someone doesn’t say they are laws which applies every time and everywhere, and then isn’t able to prove that. If you stop to think of Evolution, you will see how hard is to understand how non-man developped into man, as well it is hard to understand how everything can have a cause (=determinism) and then, when you ask a determinist which was the First cause, he isn’t able to answer you. So you could even make this assumption: since everything has a cause, but the first cause was…causeless(???)…why has everything to have a cause?
And that’s precisely what makes Nietzsche’s philosophy, if not unconceivable, at least contradictory - the reason why the “tentative” of bringing into reality the “Superman” resulted in such a catastrophe (and will always result in a catastrophe)-. Nietzsche claims, after all his reasoning, that we are “just machines”, that there is nothing more obvious than determinism (=causation) and that, even if it is so, we “should” fight for our freedom from faith, from slavery, from moral. Following his own points of view, we needn’t “fight” for it- all that happens happens because it has to happen, it is unavoidable. The Roman Empire didn’t fall only because of the nihilism of Christians, it fell because it had to fall. There is no way of denying man’s freedom and then saying that we should fight for our freedom.
The only thing we could do, then, is to substitute one kind of slavery for another. In the end, there won’t be any kind of “free” man, but just some enslaved by their faith and others enslaved by their “instincts”. I refuse to believe that Nietzsche never thought of this paradox.