deleted
Right. Remember The Moustache and his wonderful insight: the religious type initially reacts to the strength of the master type, then expresses this resentment, this reaction, as its own creative deed. This is the fundamental difference between the master and slave morality. The former acts without restraint, the latter reacts to that power.
Consider Jesus’s role in the Roman Empire. Nietzsche classed Jesus as an “overman”, a truly original, new type of man. It is not the point that he was and is, today, considered a “religious” character…but that what he did was extraordinarily revolutionary- he was in comparison to the classes that existed in that day, a radical.
The pious and ascetic nature of Jesus was what distinguished him from the current class of religious personal in that day. The priests of that day were “bourgeois functionaries”, political officials who’s office was seated in the court of the despot, the ruling class. Remember the outrage of the church when Jesus called himself the real son of “God”. It was not the case that he was the son of “God” (as that is ridiculous), but that he “had the nerve” to oppose the paradigm of the time.
His rituals and practicies, his way of life, was that of the symbolic working class, the proletariat. The Buddha was this same symbol. Each sought to encourage a simple life in comparison to the ruling classes idea of the life that should be sought to gain wealth and riches.
Nietzsche had mixed opinions about the ascetic type- on one hand he considered this a manifestation of a weak will…on the other hand he saw it as an expression of a strong will. One must consider the context, then, in which the ascetic expression takes place. This is why, I believe, Nietzsche viewed Jesus as a higher type of man. It was the political setting in which the religious caste was seated that demanded the revolutionary type of the pious, ascetic nature in what could only be called the “new” type of man of that day. If the priest was in the wealthy class, he was necessarily so because of his function- the only existing economic classes were those of the working class and the ruling class. Essentially the priest was neither “here nor there”, but something of a “pet” to the ruling classes, who helped maintain, indoctrinate, and control the lower classes for the despots.
With this in mind, Jesus is in every sense nonreligious because his life was a representation of everything “anti-public” and “anti-doctrinal”, in the context of the present expectancy of what it was to be called “religious”.
“There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.”
This speaks volumes. The followers of Christ, the “Christians” of this organized religion are anything but overmen. They cannot be anything but followers of another’s original idea, original deed, which was what Jesus invented for himself against all odds in the Roman Empire.
Good stuff.
Nietzsche doesn’t really speak all that fondly of the redeemer type.
Redemption from what? Look closely at what Jeezy says in Mark and Matthew. Forget about his metaphysical comments (which are bullshit) and try to draw parallels between the practical knowledge of his “ethical” directions and the primary concerns of communist theory. He was describing very simple social rules that promote collective humanism.
Be charitable. Love your wife. Seek no riches. Take pride in your work. What have you. There is no magic or metaphysics in this stuff. It is the same “spontaneous organization” that Proudhon and other anarchists espoused that, with a little faith, would govern mankind without the need for leaders and rulers.
The redemption he speaks of is not to be rewarded by “his father in heaven”, because that is absurd. You must understand that Jeezy, like any other theorist in his time and context, was influenced by popular ideology. Of course Jeezy is going to speak as if he is the new religious authority. Jeezy didn’t have Hume or advanced scientific technologies to prove to him that lightening was simply static electricity and not a bolt thrown from the angry Zeus. The guy had to use the same languages and terminologies that everyone else used…and in those days…language was utterly confounded and complicated.
You cannot expect Jeezy to expect us to believe any of that metaphysical crap he talked about. We know that he was just trying to scare us with promises of eternal damnation and all that stuff. You need to consider how dumb those plebs were man, and how much they were struggling at the hand of the ruling classes. Jeezy couldn’t simply say “the most you can hope for is the continuation of the species in the future after you are pushing up daisies”, because that is a serious let down for a group of suffering mortals. They want to hear that God is waiting for them or they won’t have any incentive to begin an ethical revolution.
I’m telling you that Jeezy lied on purpose with all that religious crap, and that he was simply a proto-communist fighting fire with fire.
Dear altd&s,
The odd thing about what you write is that I (a religious person) can identify with most of it, even if you strike a distinctive aggressive note. If you could free yourself from a few prejudices, you would be spot on. You see, there is a difference between the Holy Man and his disciples, which you noted, but which you do not take into account. If you look into biblical transmissions you will see that this was an ongoing problem of Israel, the people who were called to become spiritual nomads and finally a beacon for the surrounding world. The difficulty they had was in passing on the inspiration from generation to generation. It involved a high discipline and courage and most of all, patience and humility.
Y’shua was such a person, probably unique in his youthful wisdom, able to feel the flow and the texture of life, straightening what had become bent, lifting up those who had fallen, healing the sick and able to give hopeful inspiration to the poor peasants of the area around Galilee by showing them that the rich were hardly the spiritual types at all. They were too heavy laden to lead a spiritual life, which was also the reason why the Pharisees chose the more formalist approach – curiously the same stance that many evangelicals take on today.
Another curious fact is that, although at various times in history regarded an “Übermensch†or “overman†as you translated (a “superman�), Jesus and Buddha were more the opposite – but in so being, found the greatness that is lacking in many of their followers. What you describe as “having the nerve†is in reality peace of mind and soul, which he installed in his followers, but which had difficulty passing into Greek and Latin vernacular.
This may have become the social reality throughout history, but it wasn’t permanent nor the design. Throughout history power and wealth has admittedly (mis-)used religion to its own ends, installing its “pets†into positions that could be manipulated. Jews say today that this was probably the reason for the fall of Israel finally, which inadvertently went down the path that Y’shua is said to have predicted. However, the prediction by Y’shua is due more to astuteness that divine revelation.
This is definitely true. The New Testament is a criticism of formalised religion, showing what dynamic thrust there is if religion really does inspire. However, this “thrust†grows out of the “inner chamber†of contemplation and prayer. It grows out of humility and a gentle heart which is still rugged enough to cope with life as it was in those days. He is redeeming in the sense of the OT, which is paying the way of his relatives in a sense and helping them to gain the things in life we need to survive.
Unfortunately you then become cynical about redemption and fall into the trap of assuming “magic†where something quite different is at work. You compare Y’shua with people who followed him in the line of history and who, consequently, should be compared with him, not the other way around. Then you even go so far as to say he “lied†– not very helpful and betraying an attitude that has the whole world explained in a notebook … a shame really!
Shalom
You are quite mistaken here. There is no prejudice in my analysis of this specific historical religion, this “Christianity”, because I am not looking for moral precepts and couldn’t care less about what ethical customs existed at the time. I observe the material relations, the economical relations, and the social classes that existed at the time. This is an indifferent observation- I am pointing out “who did what” in the society that was governed with “religious” help. I am examining the role of religious institutions and practices in that society. I am not looking for a foundation for the truth of those religious contentions- I am looking at the effect such contentions had on the people. Whether they are “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “bad”, is a philosophical question. I do not bother with this problem. That God does or does not exist is no issue for religion when it serves only as a tool for the ruling classes. Remember, I have been through this with you before. You want to believe that there is some metaphysical source for the existence of religion…there is not. It is a custom invented by man. The reason why it was invented is the only important issue…not whether or not it is “true”.
The only difference between such leaders and such followers is a matter of charisma and popularity. What you will not consider is that there were many, many people who played the same role as Jesus, those people who were considered leaders of sects. This is true throughout the entire history of man. What you want to believe is that Jesus was, in fact, the “son of God”. He was not. Nobody is the son of God because there is no God. The reason why Jesus is so popular is because the text that was written about him has survived throughout history. Had there been another group of texts which was preserved and became a global popularity, you would be carrying on and on about the central character of that text instead.
The passing on of these traditions was expected and completely natural. But this is not to say that any one specific tradition that lasted, while others faltered, is the tradition that was supposed to remain. What religious knowledge and history that has survived is entirely contingent. You want to believe the course of history has been planned by God. Again, this is absurd.
This is an example of you trying to describe a very natural human moral, and dare I say altruistic, behavior…one which has evolved and exists because it was necessary for the species to evolve, as something more than just an instinct…something that would not have evolved as a behavior in man unless God existed to see that it did. Again, there is absolutely no metaphysical foundation for morals and ethics- these can be explained completely in scientific terms. There is nothing significant about any historical character who promoted collective, charitable ethics other than the fact that he was a cool guy.
My interpretation of the overman is as Nietzsche describes it. An overman is a type of man who is considerably unique and given to revolutionary habits and behaviors. There have been many overmen throughout history, as there have been many radical men who broke out and defied what was expected of them by their society. Jesus was one such man because of his power to oppose the existing order of things at his time. Jesus was an immense political revolutionary. Nothing more.
It was most definitely by design. You do not, or cannot, come to a correct understanding of how religion originates in society. It is nothing more than a set of rituals and customs and practices. It is not ordained from above. It is not teleological. It is not intended for man by some “God”. Religion was invented by an elite caste who claimed to have divine knowledge of laws which were not accessible to ordinary men. There was absolutely no truth to this. None. They were sophists. It was a hoax designed to subjugate a specific class of people at the knee of another ruling class- the despots, monarchs, etc. Religion was the opiate for those who were ruled.
That, or he drank too much wine.
My admiration for Jesus Christ stands, though this admiration is for reasons you seen unable to comprehend.
Let’s agree to disagree again Bob. Lord knows how many times I have tried to argue with you to no avail.
So you do your thing, I’ll do mine, mmkay?
Sorry, I kindof assumed that you’d read The Anti-Christ. Nietzsche refers to Jesus as a world redeemer, and lays into that type.
Hi altd&s,
Isn’t that a little defeatist? Since I haven’t followed what alter ego you have had before I don’t know when we have had contact. Besides, I have learnt in this banter called Ilovephilosophy, because I listen and even if you think otherwise, I take what I say lightly.
I hear what you are saying but I also hear incongruence in your language. You are sending at various frequencies and one of them is very, very prejudiced. Prejudice doesn’t only have to do with moral precepts and if you fail to take the ethical customs of the time into consideration then that is a bias too. You only have a chosen slice of reality and that is discriminate. Also, the use of condescending language or to anathematise and castigate like you did in you opening statements reveals prejudice. Your indifference is bias. In short, if you were without prejudice, you would be the first.
Secondly, if you could say “who did whatâ€, you would be ahead of a number of historians who are precisely trying to find that out. What is becoming clearer is that much of what is written in scripture is in a shroud of mysticism and symbolism, which, if you do not take it into account, will falsify your findings – and has been the problem for centuries. Once your perspective is only on the material relations, the economical relations, and the social classes that existed at the time, the surrounding factors become mute although they had an influence.
Thirdly, you seem to view a time of extreme upheaval, political turmoil and personal mayhem with disdain, assuming that structures are stable. The last two thousand years have been extremely instable and “the church†has been anything but unified. If you were to say that you want to examine the clergy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and their influence on social conditions and political development, you would have enough on your plate. To look at the effect that religious “contention†had on the people without reducing the historical expanse is a little naïve. If you look at the thirty years war, there is nothing religious that explains the marauding deserters who wiped out even more people and devastated the land than any religious dispute could have done.
Although you say it isn’t your subject, you do what many modern people do, you rule it out. It is simply that you have no evidence for a metaphysical source, but to rule it out is to manipulate the equation. This kind of pseudo-science is as manipulative as it claims religion to be because it simply cannot say “I don’t know!†Your assumption that the custom has no origin is only a hypothesis. Religious experience, however you describe or explain them, are an experience. The task of separating experience from imagination would be a large enough task, but you save yourself the trouble and rule both out as being relevant.
Here you go again – what do you mean by “God� I have said often enough that the word “God†is a metaphor describing a relationship, not an entity. God is “no thing†as Meister Eckhardt has said. Clear up what you mean by God, and then ask others what they mean by the word. Until we have some consensus on this question every statement you make about there being “no God†is clearly false if people have a God!
You have obviously missed something about what I have written, which is OK, but I have repeatedly said that Y’shua wanted people who followed his “Way†and not to but put on a pedestal or worn around peoples necks. He wanted people who become free from formalised religion, members of a “new covenant†of spiritual liberty and vibrant hope. Humility and introspection, inspiration and salvation are the attributes of this covenant. In short, a “new†kind of Humankind is what he was actively cultivating.
I have to go … its time for my customs
Shalom
…
This line of thought has more to do with Kierkegaard than with Nietzsche.
- “H.H.”, Two Ethical-Religious Essays
Kierkegaard goes on to differentiate betwixt the two on a more immediate ground, ‘Authority’; it’s interesting to note here that Kierkegaard was far more of a traditionalist in this regard than was Nietzsche, to whom he is so often compared. For Nietzsche despised authority so much that he would rather man invent his own truths and be wrong than for an individual to accept them on the basis of revelation. This can be seen in Zarathustra’s commandment that his disciples ought to take leave of him to find themselves - to find the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence within themselves. Kierkegaard, however, finds ‘authenticity’ (not, naturally, using that phrase) within obedience to authority. So Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are not compatriots, as they are frequently considered, merely divided along religious grounds; their basic approach to life itself is qualitatively different. Kierkegaard is an existentialist, Nietzsche is . . . Nietzsche.
Love Kierkegaard, but I disagree with the quote.
Every apostle must be considered first a genius, if an apostle is to whatever degree greater than the ordinary person, or else there would be no definitive position as “apostle”. Who are the apostles, and who are the ones who are neither a genius or an apostle?
Kierkegaard is trying to elevate one position over another by assuming that “meager genius” will eventually be no more, but something of common knowledge, while the apostle represents a knowledge that is eternal and does not wither with age. No, there are no apostles that are not simply manifestations of genius; religiously considered, their genius exists only as far as they master the nature and conduct of there practice- being an apostle would mean “having genius enough to be fluent in ones religious beliefs”, and it is a rank allotted by other’s. It certainly cannot mean “having divine authority” while others, meager geniuses, are simply extraordinarily intelligent.
You’re quote above I would comment on too. Authenticity for the individual, which is the “subjective truth” in Kierkegaard…something that the individual and the individual alone can possess, is real when it is before God in despair; it is the truth of the absurdity of the individuals priority over the universal “individual, subjective truth” that creates the despair before God. The paradox here is where the individual must be before God and not the public…but it is the public that consists of nothing but individuals.
In Fear and Trembling, this same principle applies: the suspension of the ethical for the teleological- the command of God to kill the son. If and when belief in God transcends the ethical commitment to other men, it becomes naturally paradoxical. Here, as above, you have the commitment to God beyond and without the public commitment, and in turn, you have authentic subjectivity.
Where the public interpretation of God is at hand, where the “church” is the authority, where custom and tradition is at hand, there is no individual authenticity.
Perhaps this is why Kierkegaard separates the ethical sphere from the religious sphere. They are necessarily, in his view, incompatible. The obedience to God must be one’s own choice despite what public authority demands or expects. This is the source of despair and anxiety in many senses.
Kierkegaard, in Fear and Trembling especially but throughout his corpus, consistently toys with a nearly-maltheistic idea exemplified within the figure of Abraham: what if God were to command us to do something not only immoral but absolutely depraved? Would not this constitute a leap of faith not only beyond all ethical or moral considerations, but into the very face of dread itself? This is the teleological suspension of the ethical - it presupposes a commandment by God to violate His morality to serve His purpose. This is why Kierkegaard repeatedly declares in the work that he “cannot understand” Abraham. Any half-romantic individualism in this work in particular is only a side-effect; these dastardly Hegelian rationalists that infest Copenhagen like rats cannot understand this blind devotion which is nearly - what? yes, nearly Dionysian - and so find ground in it by means of which to dismiss the Gospels. There is nothing romantic or ‘individualistic’ about this, and the ‘subjective truth’ is more akin to “living up to one’s calling”, in a radical sense, than it is “creating and affirming one’s own life and actions”. Kierkegaard’s Abraham is the complete inversion of Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, and is both more dangerous and more wonderful for it.
Fortunately for Christians I feel that he proved his case: if there were a God, we would be utterly obliged by our own feelings to act out upon His every command. Any effort therefore to ‘morally refute’ the Bible through an appeal to some empty humanitarian, egalitarian and fundamentally enlightened code of conduct is laughter-inducing.
That was a great post, Dionysus.
Yes, the “leap” required by Abraham certainly does defy what seems to be the rational choice. Kierkegaard is a slight step ahead of Abraham in his admittance that God is not rational, but he is forever plagued with the truth of the principle employed in that story: obedience before God is necessary at all costs, and yet sometimes this requires irrational acts.
I don’t see how you compare him to Hegel. I understand that Kierkegaard despised him.
Oh, I’m not comparing him to Hegel; I was saying - in an ironic “through Kierkegaard’s own mouth” sort of way, what with the “dastardly Hegelians who infest Copenhagen” and whatnot - that, if there is an individualistic component to Kierkegaard’s philosophy, it’s in his rejection of those Hegelian scholars of his day who took offense at Abraham’s ‘barbarism’ and thought it fit to dismiss the tale on moral grounds. Kierkegaard’s knight of faith, a “little Abraham” of sorts, does indeed position himself against these fellows precisely because he engages in a teleological suspension of the ethical, but the tale is not one of ‘man against the masses’ (or, if it is, this is simply a byproduct, as it were, of the genuine drama, which happens to be man against himself).
op deleted.
‘It’s not what you say, it’s how loud you say it.’ -Stephen Colbert