Nietzsche's fundamental objection against Christianity (Socrates/plato)
In Christianity (and Plato before that) what animates human beings is the (holy) spirit, that is the general and immaterial which breaths life into the lifeless body.
In Nietzsche it is exactly the opposite. What animates a human being (and stops it from being animated) is the body, that is the particular and material which drives and motivates human beings.
The ramifications of this difference in understanding for what is of value, are legion.
In Nietzsche it is exactly the opposite. What animates a human being (and stops it from being animated) is the body, that is the particular and material which drives and motivates human beings.
The ramifications of this difference in understanding for what is of value, are legion.
Comments (45)
As far as values go, Nietzsche drew a sharp distinction between Christianity and ancient philosophers:
Quoting Nietzsche, Gay Science, 328
So, while I might be a bit short of your intended point of discussion, the logic (or theory) of those 1,000 or 2,000 years ago does not seem to be without standing or bearing even in 2025. That is to say, has not yet to be disproved.
That's fair, but it has been never been proven either. So what do we do? Would it not be prudent to put the as yet undemonstrated logic of the ancients in brackets and just carry on? I'm not particularly partial to Freddy (in as much as I can follow his writings), he seems to be offering a project which is the exact reverse of the nostalgia projects of people like Iain McGilchrist and John Vervaeke.
^self-overcoming
That's putting it lightly.
In the prologue to Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche declares the most protracted error of Plato was dogmatism and that came through Socrates. In Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche details that objective dogmatism is slave morality. The problem really boils down to this: the greatest presentment of man occurs through a crime against the moral systems of the time... Prometheus, Oedipus, Adam and Eve...
This dogmatism seeks to remove "Evil" from the picture all together and thus deny aspects of our human nature (or in relation "body"). Where as Nietzsche's equation from Aphorism 1 in BoT to Ecce Homo is the overcoming of oneself in their opposite...
The morality system "Good and Bad" keeps this intact, the morality system "Good and Evil" breaks this cycle of overcoming in ones opposite.
By the time Nietzsche arrives, the concept of 'the immaterial' has been largely misunderstood. Reconstructing it, the original term in Greek, (as I understand it, and as one not schooled in Ancient Greek) was psuch? (subject of Aristotle's 'On the Soul'), a term which is now generally translated as psyche, or mind. The Greek term however encompassed the totality of the being - which in modern terms would also include the sub- and unconscious aspects - and also qualities such as traits, dispositions and drives.
Aristotle held that the psuch? is the form or essence of any living thing rather than a distinct substance from the body (using the philosophical, not everyday, sense of 'substance'.) It is the possession of psuche (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all - the psuch? is the 'form of the body' as is often quoted, and nous the rational faculty (that faculty which is able to grasp rational principles.) It is the rational faculty (nous) within psuch? that grasps the essence of things, and this rational capacity is what makes it immaterial. Why? As Platonist scholar Lloyd Gerson put it,
[quote=Platonism vs Naturalism, Lloyd Gerson] Aristotle, in De Anima, argued that thinking in general (which includes knowledge as one kind of thinking) cannot be a property of a body; it cannot, as he put it, 'be blended with a body'. This is because in thinking, the intelligible object or form is present in the intellect, and thinking itself is the identification of the intellect with this intelligible ('the psuche contains all things'). Among other things, this means that you could not engage in thought if the mind were purely a function of a physical organ. Thinking is not something that is, in principle, like sensing or perceiving; this is because thinking is a universalising activity. This is what this means: when you think, you see - mentally see - a form which could not, in principle, be identical with a particular - including a particular neurological element, a circuit, or a state of a circuit, or a synapse, and so on. This is so because the object of thinking is universal, or the mind is operating universally.
.the fact that in thinking, your mind is identical with the form that it thinks, means (for Aristotle and for all Platonists) that since the form 'thought' is detached from matter, 'mind' is immaterial too. [/quote]
Obviously a lot to be said about all of this, but the point is that, after having been incorporated into theology as 'the immortal spirit', the original Aristotelian understanding was largely lost sight of (although preserved in Thomas Aquinas and other works of philosophical theology.) But it comes across much more like an invisible entity, which no sensible person ought to believe in, when originally it was a more subtle concept.
Nietzsche (and later Heidegger) were right to critique how 'spirit' became reified into a static, unchanging entity. However, I wonder whether this critique fully accounts for the dynamic aspects of Christian Platonism, which in its more sophisticated forms retained a more fluid understanding of soul and intellect. I suspect much of Nietzsches critique is aimed at a simplified, institutionalized understanding of 'spirit'one that had been drilled into generations of students through rote learning and dogmatic instruction, often devoid of its original philosophical depth.
Nietzsche was the first to unmask the Judaeo-Christian morality system. As far as Nietzsche's concerns "even the greatest amongst you is a disharmony and hybrid of phantom (spirit) and plant (body)," a coming together of opposites into a single unity. Just as psuche is understood. I dare say in his century he may have even understood the notion in greater detail than anyone ever before him. It is the "spirit" that informs Nietzsche on his considerable mastery of human psychology.
Awfully rich of a man who lost his virginity to a hooker to talk of "cultural decay" and "decadence." The abbeys and cathedrals of the medieval world may want a word with him. :lol:
:wink:
Did the ancient Greeks not value brilliant architecture or artwork? The best of it was made for the divine.
Then N does understand that a focus on the 'other world' can lead to greatness and not nihilism.
And we can see from AC 39 and 33 precisely how highly Nietzsche regards Jesus. He literally pulls many of the traits of the Ubermensch from Jesus. And the only time Nietzsche ever points to the superman becoming reality is in Ecce Homo, when Zarathustra comes down from the Mountain and goes around with compassion suffering with others, but from themselves, in a similar manner as Christ.
From Ecce Homo:
"See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man."
But without loaves and fishes, presumably.
The dithyrambs are literary music, meant to incite a person into a certain creative self abnegated state where you're bound by less of your Apollonian limitations. That is the true magic behind Thus Spoke Zarathustra. To assist the Apollonian moralist in overcoming himself in his opposite.
Nietzsche's fight wasn't against Christianity of the Gospels which is an account of the life of Jesus, but rather that of the Christianity preached by the disciples in the rest of the Bible, which was mostly Judaism, and if one recalls Jesus was an outcast from Judaism for rejecting their traditions to create his own life affirming values. Wait My fault, I thought you responded to my last message with that message. I got confused cause it was edited. My b.
I will read AC 33 and 39, and thanks for those references.
This I do not agree with.
Then Jesus said unto His disciples, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me."
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.
I would only agree this interpretation if by "life affirming" you mean living for the next one and the mentality that comes with that mindset.
Jesus. Did you just liken me to a lowly disease...for my apparent Nietzsche hatred? :chin: :snicker:
I don't resent Nietzsche. I don't think too much about Nietzsche. It's called asking questions and challenging an idea. Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.
Overcoming in ones opposite sounds rather Hegelian, something Nietzsche was not. The problem with 'Good and Evil' isn't only that it flips the valuation of world based 'Good and bad' on its head, and are thus world and life-denying, but also that it distorts them in the process... it moralises them.
:up: :up:
Now that is a good one. :fire:
I have many other such cases from BoT to Ecce Homo.
And that I have multiple quotes from across every one of his books detailing this very notion, I'd say, that while Monkey has a solid grasp of some of Nietzsche's fundamentals. They're still lacking quite a bit simce they've never even recognized this notion in Nietzsche's writings... and it actually plays into Nietzsche's fundamental objection of Christianity.
Nietzsche would perhaps take a moment to slap the shit out of me for expending so much of my vitality in delving deep into his madness. I do have a certain mastery with his works that I want to make useful towards others here.
It's taken roughly a decade of my life to become overfull with Nietzsche. He was my first true love affair in philosophy because I too am a Dionysian nature. I fell in with Nietzsche because I too am something of an overcoming of myself in my opposite.
I probably agree with you here about what he's getting at, I just wouldn't describe it as 'overcoming oneselves in ones opposite'.
Oh, on, second thought, I realize what error your having... because you understand that Nietzsche doesn't believe things exist solely in black and white dualism, that you think opposite ends of the spectrum don't exists. Hehe cute, though it's pretty poor logic to assume spectrums don't have opposite ends. And you have to also understand Nietzsche's use of the term "opposite" when he uses it means "the other end of the spectrum." Not a black and white 180...
So the second aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil literally starts off with a quote presented
by Nietzsche that mocks metaphysicsians (he literally gives it in quotes):
The next sentence informs upon the quote given by a typical metaphysician:
Nietzsche writes that doubting whether something grows out of its opposite is a typical prejudice of metaphysicians... next Nietzsche talks about how they believe values exists in antithesis to each other rather than GROW out of their OPPOSITE...
For example Good and Evil are antithesis with no bridging, where as Good and Bad, bad is the pale foil reflection of the good...from the opposite end of the spectrum (GoM10) like the Philosopher and his Shadow...
...skipping the middle unless you want me to go over it...
Now we can see Nietzsche putting at the fundamental base in which the true, genuine, unselfish grew out of is appearance, deception, self-interests, desire:
We can see Nietzsche suggesting there's a bridge of some kind connecting those "Good" values with the "Bad." Nothing bridges the antithesis of values...
If you want more aphorisms of Nietzsche detailing that which grows out of its opposite, lemme know, I'll drop em for you.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I want to distinguish two uses of the word opposite. The first use includes both binary black vs white oppositions and differences of degree within a spectrum. What both of these have in common is that they derive the opposition between two things from their mutual belonging to a shared superordinate category, like color. The second use of opposite is the one that Nietzsche develops alongside his notion of the Eternal Return. This concept of opposition refers to qualitative differences among things which belong to no shared binary category or spectrum. He embraces this use and rejects the first use of opposition.
I thought you were trying to grill me on Nietzsche not believing in opposites... probably because Im used to reddit.
But I wanted to add aphorism 2 hints at why Zarathustra says that "man is a rope to the superman."
Man binds the concept of animal and superman together.
And you can definitely see Nietzsche believes in a spectrum, as he says all things exists in gradations...
We can see again, not as an antithesis, but as a refinement: something grown out of...
This is why Zarathustra says Man is rough stone in need of a sculptor's chisel:
From ugly raw unshaped material we are hewn, and refined.
And the only time Nietzsche directly says the superman becomes reality is when Zarathustra suffers with his adversaries... with them from their very selves... this bit is in Ecce Homo.
"und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet!"
I find it very interesting that he specifies ihnen an ihnen vs just ihnen leidet...
Suppose it might mean suffer the fools and look the other direction? Basically amor fati and the glad tidings of Jesus Christ...
Who grew out of his opposite in Judaism... atleast according to the gospels which Nietzsche's got mad respect for Jesus from, as he details in AC 39 and 33...
And Foucault discusses this very notion that it took 200 years after Port Royal for Nietzsche and Dostoevsky to redeem the image of Jesus as the all graceful on page 78 of Madness and Civilization.
Interesting how Nietzsche, Jung, and Camus all worked on giving certain parts of Judaeo-Christian psychology back to the people in a more secular format. Though there's somethin in Camus' approach, he uses psychology of the Christianity from the disciples, rather than the psychology of the "one true Christian" the psychology of the glad tidings that died on the cross...
In fact... man is the bridge between the laws of God which Moses carried down from the mountain and Jesus, the overcoming of that destructive wrath ...that grew out of Gods angry judgement...
Very pernicious idea btw that has virulently anti-semitic repercussions. And wrong, of course. But when you're only reading some passages in the gospels and completely disregarding others, which I suspect Nietzsche is doing, I can see how you could get this idea.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Correct, lead by example and all. The Christianity of the disciples is for the most part, the Judaism that Jesus rejected in the Gospels... so to not align in the same path as Jesus will be left under the God's angry judgement (John 3:17 roughly iirc)
Jesus is the very personification of slave morality, imho: "the greatest among you will be your servant." The man takes servitude to a whole other level.
IDK about the "psychology of the gospels".... I look at the text. He washes the feet of his followers... as a flex.
Anyway, juxtaposing radical, kind, loving Jesus versus cruel legalistic Judaism is a really nasty (and false) portrayal. Not commenting on Nietzsche personally here; just the idea.
Well, John 1:
16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
IE the law of God brought Moses is the false way for humans...
If Moses is false then why did Jesus say:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
And gJohn would have been written many decades after J's death by one his disciples who Nietzsche would have presumably labeled a false Christian. Didn't N say that J's disciples ruined Christianity?
Notice how the only equation that's ever the same is in the observational account of the Gospels from multiple sources where as the other disciples put their own spin into what Christianity is? Gospels>therest