Has any Christian philosopher ever bothered to perform a rigorous refutation of Nietzscheanism?

Has any Christian philosopher ever bothered to perform a rigorous refutation of Nietzscheanism?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    guu goo daa daa baby bietzsche can't wipe his white ass... sad!

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsche
      >White
      He was polish, that's basically israeliteisj

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Peterson tried. The extent to which his “rescue your father from the whale” schtick worked on Nietzsche will likely be debated as well. Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer wrote a fair bit about him as well.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      what an inept post

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Kierkegaard wrote a fair bit about him as well.
      what? K died when N was 11

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    I stopped being a Nietzsche fanboy after watching this movie

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    they really aren't sending their best... just consider how a mainline Protestant or a Catholic would respond to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as a base resentment of power, an engine of spite—they would affirm it! The Gospel is the preferential option for the poor. How can you refute someone who has described you so accurately? His only error, then, is in rejecting this.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Kek you even tried to write like Neetzsche. Embarrassing.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >His only error, then, is in rejecting this.
        >,then,
        c r i n g e

        >non-replies
        non-internet Christian hierarchs will tell you Christianity is effectively a form of socialism, if you count the "right wing" Russian ones it is just a form of Russian imperialism (anti-European third-worldism), and if you count Republican talk radio evangelical Christianity it is a form of ensuring every last birth takes place especially among the poor, so was Nietzsche wrong or are you mad that he is right about your fake and gay larp?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >His only error, then, is in rejecting this.
      >,then,
      c r i n g e

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      they can't lol

      this lmao. Actual Christians stand by their morality and believe it's le good. Why would they try to refute themselves?

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche dismisses almost the entirety of Western philosophy, that's why trying to refute him would be tedious.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Though that reminds me that Spengler wrote a short assessment of Nietzsche's thought that could be considered favorable to Christianity.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Has any Christian philosopher ever bothered to perform a rigorous refutation of Nietzscheanism?
      No, because no Christian has ever even bothered to read him, let alone understand him.

      You would think he has something of actual value to say should that be the case. Would you not agree, moron-kun?

      Nietzsche rarely makes ontological and epistemological statements, when he does he usually gravitates towards negation or just makes a statement that is logically open-ended and left up to the reader to interpret. Without the kind of structure that forms a foundation for a "new" philosophy there isn't much to actually "refute" in the traditional sense. He loved attacking existing paradigms and conventions, bragging about how smart and clever he was, referencing non-traditional philosophical sources, and in general looped these things together into a quasi-empowering message. The only true reason he is as popular and read as much as he is stems from the fact that so many people already are fed up with those existing paradigms and conventions or simply never found them to be satisfying in the first place.

      You wrote a lot to said nothing.

      Why would you bother to do a “rigorous refutation of Nietzsche”? He was an atheist-materialist moron who believed that the soul is reducible to movements of atoms and that no God exists and that life is inherently meaningless. Anyone who believes that is simply a moron, because it means that nothing they say is true or meaningful by their own admission. Just because the world considers Nietzsche to be a wise man doesn’t mean we should take him seriously or bow to him. Christians have to be outsiders, above the world, above the vain chatter of the “wisdom” of these worldly philosophers. We are living in a declining age when people are losing faith and therefore losing all grips on reality. It behooves us not to perform “rigorous refutations” of every single new worldly philosophy. All atheism, all materialism refutes itself because it destroys the possibility of truth or knowledge.

      And there it is! As stupid as ever.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You would think he has something of actual value to say should that be the case. Would you not agree, moron-kun?

        ESL, stupid or both?

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          If Nietzsche refuted the entirety of Western philosophy, which he did to a certain extent, would you not a agree that he at least has something interesting to say, you illiterate frick?

          >you wrote a lot to said nothing.

          The insult has more meaning if it makes sense.

          But is does. Of course, you wouldn't know.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            ESLfriend, dismiss & refute don't mean the same thing.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Perhaps you should actually read his criticism, you crayon eating moron?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did. It's shit.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            ESL anon, I truly applaud and commend you on your enthusiasm for Nietzsche, I mean that sincerely. I hope you find whatever answers you are looking for that you believe we have to offer you, and find more fulfilling missives with which to occupy yourself. In the name of the will to power, Zarathustra, and the appollonian/dionysian divide amen.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you wrote a lot to said nothing.

        The insult has more meaning if it makes sense.

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche rarely makes ontological and epistemological statements, when he does he usually gravitates towards negation or just makes a statement that is logically open-ended and left up to the reader to interpret. Without the kind of structure that forms a foundation for a "new" philosophy there isn't much to actually "refute" in the traditional sense. He loved attacking existing paradigms and conventions, bragging about how smart and clever he was, referencing non-traditional philosophical sources, and in general looped these things together into a quasi-empowering message. The only true reason he is as popular and read as much as he is stems from the fact that so many people already are fed up with those existing paradigms and conventions or simply never found them to be satisfying in the first place.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The only true reason he is as popular and read as much as he is stems from the fact that so many people get filtered by actual philosophy
      ftfy

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        It would only be a fix if Nietzsche didn't filter just as many lol, I will leave that as an open-ended alternative in true Nietzschean fashion though.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nietzsche is very easy to read and you don't really need a background in philosophy to understand him.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would agree with that statement, and yet a large enough number of Nietzsche threads on this board generally indicates otherwise.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nietzsche is probably one the most popular normie philosophers together with Marcus Aurelius

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            eurgh fricking Marcus Aurelius
            "I've been reading Marcus Aurelius after watching some guy on youtube mention it, it really helps in between sets"

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Kek it's funny how they never recommend any other stoic writing, is aways fricking meditations.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            If they were serious they would read Seneca or Epictetus's manual for praxis

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do so many of these AI pictures have feces in them? Are they made by homosexual shit fetishists?

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you bother to do a “rigorous refutation of Nietzsche”? He was an atheist-materialist moron who believed that the soul is reducible to movements of atoms and that no God exists and that life is inherently meaningless. Anyone who believes that is simply a moron, because it means that nothing they say is true or meaningful by their own admission. Just because the world considers Nietzsche to be a wise man doesn’t mean we should take him seriously or bow to him. Christians have to be outsiders, above the world, above the vain chatter of the “wisdom” of these worldly philosophers. We are living in a declining age when people are losing faith and therefore losing all grips on reality. It behooves us not to perform “rigorous refutations” of every single new worldly philosophy. All atheism, all materialism refutes itself because it destroys the possibility of truth or knowledge.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      I like that

      >materialism refutes itself because
      of the material limits of its own framework
      therefore
      >it destroys the possibility of truth or knowledge

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      the truth led to the death of god, seems you are still searching for the truth

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        this, the commitment to truth requires the death of God as much as it required the death of the many old gods, but the Christian "philosopher" is in the habit of saying "this is far enough" when analyzing things, God is his rest stop, no need to explore if God has a will or motives for acting, he is just "pure" because he has to be for us to stop this line of inquiry

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        That’s impossible. God is the truth. The loss of faith was prophesied in the Bible. You are but a puppet for God’s world-historical drama.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        this, the commitment to truth requires the death of God as much as it required the death of the many old gods, but the Christian "philosopher" is in the habit of saying "this is far enough" when analyzing things, God is his rest stop, no need to explore if God has a will or motives for acting, he is just "pure" because he has to be for us to stop this line of inquiry

        Scientific materialism is not “the truth”, believe it or not. It is actually a very easily refutable lie.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          fair enough, but neither is your volcano demon, and it is people who have made a god of science (in the same way a god was made of the volcano demon) who have done the most harm to understanding

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He was an atheist-materialist moron who
      who was a son of a German pastor, and knew about Christianity better than an average christcuck does. Up to the point of being nicknamed "little pastor" in school, because he had memorized scripture by heart.
      And he was a classical philology professor, so he knew about the Greeks just as thoroughly, and thus could easily see that Christianity is just a 'platonism for the poor'.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lutheranism is not all of Christianity. Nietzsche couldn't have happened in an Orthodox country. Even the most heretical philosophers all considered themselves Christian and Orthodox and submitted to the Church eventually.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nietzsche couldn't have happened in an Orthodox country.
          Too bad the Orthodox take 4x damage from communist opponents

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Did Nietzsche read the neo-Platonists. I doubt it tbh.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      more intelligent believers have risen to the call. you should really talk less next time. it's always the worst of your kind who prattle the loudest.
      >He was an atheist-materialist moron who believed that the soul is reducible to movements of atoms and that no God exists and that life is inherently meaningless
      filtered hard

      https://i.imgur.com/BwojYxs.jpg

      Has any Christian philosopher ever bothered to perform a rigorous refutation of Nietzscheanism?

      reposting what someone else said before. i think he made some valid points but he never continued and the thread died. tl;dr Read The Beauty of the Infinite by David Bentley Hart

      >Read The Beauty of the Infinite by David Bentley Hart. Within the first one hundred pages or so he offers a critique of Nietzsche, Deleuze, and various other postmodern thinkers from a Christian perspective. At the same time, he does not attempt to efface- as Fr Seraphim Rose does- the legitimate critiques of classical metaphysics Nietzsche and the postmodernists have, thereby making it the more intellectually rigorous book.

      >But- and this is riffing on Hart's critique here- if I may put the question back to you, why is that Nietzscheans so frequently misunderstand Christianity, and, probably more importantly, the figure of Christ Himself? Read a text like The Antichrist, and see the way in which Nietzsche is forced to re-write the gospels in order to make Jesus into an airy-fairy figure- almost akin to Prince Myshkin from The Idiot- which he certainly wasn't and never has been presented as (see: the episode driving the money-lenders out of the temple). Ultimately, the deficiency lies with Nietzsche, because he is unable to extend his critique beyond a sociological one targeting the particular Protestant type of the Christian religion prevalent in the Germany of his day whose decaying effects he was witnessing and wanted to strike out against to a critique of Christ as he is presented in the gospels. It's important to also remember that Nietzsche was writing at a time when it was assumed that the historical truth of Christianity had been disproved by archeology and the natural sciences (hence the attempt at historical revisionism on his part), something which is definitely no longer the case today.

      >If Nietzsche has to effectively write a fan-fiction of the founder of the religion in order to critique it, should I take his critique seriously? Even though I can admire his thoughts on some of the effects of a certain type of Christianity, this will always be the fundamental limitation to his thought.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Good post. Here's another Hart article on the topic

        www.firstthings.com/article/2003/

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          My bad

          https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/10/christ-and-nothing

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >more intelligent believers have risen to the call. you should really talk less next time. it's always the worst of your kind who prattle the loudest.
        All materialistic philosophy fails before it even starts. It literally is not necessary to go into a deep critique of Nietzsche because as a materialist he refuted himself by even opening his mouth. Every thought, every spiritual action that a human being undertakes presupposes a commitment to objectivity and truth. Relativism is not possible. Materialism is not possible, because materialism reduces thoughts to chemical reactions — ie. physical events which are no more “true” or “false” than an explosion of a firework is true or false. By opening his mouth, by putting his pen to paper, by experiencing thoughts, Nietzsche refuted the materialism that he espoused. Nothing more needs to be said.

        Literally the only reason any Christian would give Nietzsche even two minutes’ thought is if they believe being “culturally influential” is equivalent to being important. But that is a radically anti-Christian attitude. Christianity has always — apart from its brief golden age in the medieval period — been a religion for outsiders. Not people who are in the culture or care about the culture’s heroes, but people who transcend the mainstream and spit upon it.

        Why did the Church used to control which books are to be printed and which are to be burned? Because it rightly understood that the human mind is malleable and can be influenced by false doctrines. By treating Nietzsche as a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, and not merely as a symbol of our culture’s decline, David Bentley Hart and all these others give credence to materialistic philosophy as if it were a serious foe. But it’s not. It’s absurd from the outset. All these atheist-materialist heroes — Nietzsche, Daniel Dennett, Russell — are the philosophical equivalent of flat earth theorists. In fact, they are worse, since they begin their inquiry into truth by presupposing a worldview which destroys the possibility of knowledge and truth in the first place.

        I’ve read Nietzsche. He’s not a philosopher. He’s a prose-poet with a swashbuckling style which he uses to sensationalistically influence his readers. The reason he’s so popular is because when you read him you don’t need to do the hard job of philosophy — defining terms, making arguments, being precise and rigorous. The reason philosophy is seen as more of an art than a true form of knowledge is because figures like Nietzsche are counted as serious philosophers, even though they have no resemblance to someone like Aristotle or Aquinas or Hegel or any other serious inquirer into metaphysics.

        Nietzsche is nothing for Christians. He’s not a real philosopher. He’s just a great confirmation of Plato’s argument against democracy, that sensationalists like Nietzsche will sway the minds of the people without actually making arguments.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >He's so damn smart, he can think answers to questions you never conceptualized, yet understand. He's an absolutely daunting person to encounter, terrifying. He can see way underneath social structures to see patterns that are developing accross thousands of years to lay them out.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Peterson is also a materialist, although of a religious variety. His god happens to be Darwinian natural selection and the supposed “sexual hierarchy” that it produces. Quite pathetic.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          mind you i had typed out a reply. but it's not good enough for me to send. i don't think what you sent was good enough either, and believe that we would've both benefited from silence. know that i at least read this and disagree for your presuppositions are wrong. still it is unfair for you type all that and get nothing, so it's fair enough to say you've "won" though in an empty way.

          at the very least, all this is wrong:
          >All materialistic philosophy fails before it even starts. It literally is not necessary to go into a deep critique of Nietzsche because as a materialist he refuted himself by even opening his mouth. Every thought, every spiritual action that a human being undertakes presupposes a commitment to objectivity and truth. Relativism is not possible. Materialism is not possible, because materialism reduces thoughts to chemical reactions — ie. physical events which are no more “true” or “false” than an explosion of a firework is true or false. By opening his mouth, by putting his pen to paper, by experiencing thoughts, Nietzsche refuted the materialism that he espoused. Nothing more needs to be said.
          would not a brick be more correct for philosophizing as a brick? and are you not more wrong for being but a man and philosophizing as more than a man? at any rate, you'll have to do more to "refute" Nietzsche than by means of strawmanning him and then defeating that strawman of materialism (which itself hardly even seems to have been defeated).

          My bad

          https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/10/christ-and-nothing

          thanks, i'll look into it someday.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I will give you the silence that you desire. Anybody who responds to you — or even posts in this thread henceforth — is not me.

            Regards,

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nietzsche isn't a materialist, he even says at the start of BGE it's promulgated by spiritless socialists

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            He wrote all kinds of things, but his will to power is still just some kind of vitalistic impulse that emerges from biology.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but his will to power is still just some kind of vitalistic impulse that emerges from biology.
            That's not clear at all, when he says everything is will to power he means everything

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree. If he meant something else then he failed to make a convincing case for it.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does that also mean you believe Schopenhauer didn't make a convincing case for it?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not relevant. Nietzsche's will to power seems to be grounded in some kind of pseudo-Darwinism:

            >My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >seems to be grounded in some kind of pseudo-Darwinism
            This seems to hinge on a particular reading 'bodies' and 'force' in the cited quote, force isn't said to be an emergent property and it applies to all bodies in space

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok what did he mean then?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You've already dismissed one of his key influences as irrelevant but there's only a small ontological difference between them, he meant to exorcise Schopenhauer of the last traces of Kant

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >avoids the question
            Typical.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            No question is being avoided. He liked Darwin in the sense he's earthly, but read what he writes about him in relation to the boorish mechanizing spirit characteristic of Englishmen

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The initial question was whether he proposed a convincing alternative. I don't think he did, and he tried to ground his thinking as much as possible in biological processes because he couldn't come up with anything else.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The initial question was whether he proposed a convincing alternative. I don't think he did, and he tried to ground his thinking as much as possible in biological processes because he couldn't come up with anything else.
            Your view entirely makes sense from what we know of your methodology, although excluding influences like Schopenhauer while including Darwin points towards a particular motive behind the method

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't dismiss him as an influence, but my impression is that Nietzsche tried to distance himself from Schopenhauer. The fact that he tried to ground his ideas in biology doesn't necessarily make him a Darwinist either. My question is what the will to power is, not what it isn't.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            By the way my impression is that in academic Nietzsche scholarship after Heideigger leftists generally preferred to see the will to power as metaphysical force, while rightists interpreted in more biologistic terms.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's more Spinozism than Darwinism

            Nietzsche called himself the antichrist and mocked our Lord. Such language for a Christian is the equivalent to someone calling your mother a prostitute. You don’t “refute” someone like that, or write a response which says: “hmm yes I consider your argument and while I can see why you came to that conclusion, actually I have some valid responses that probably prove my mother isn’t a prostitute….” No, you sock them in the face, burn their books, and make them recant or get punished, as society used to do when it was Christian.

            >i don't want to defeat my opponent, somebody else should
            a classic christer sentiment

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nietzsche
          >materialist
          holy fricking kek lmao, slave trannies really seething at big N even to this day. And that's completely ignoring the fallacy of thinking that what he said is wrong because you imagine him to be a materialist, a materialist critique of Christianity as slave morality is completely correct because that's what Christianity is. It literally says so itself, it's for the weak the dumb and the poor to find solace from the oppression of the strong.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christian ethics is based on Virtue ethics and natural law similar to the system of Aristotle.

            The seven Christian virtues are:
            1) FORTITUDE (Ie. Being strong and courageous, not weak like you said)
            2) PRUDENCE (Ie. Being wise, not dumb like you said)
            3) Temperance
            4) Justice
            5) Faith
            6) Hope
            7) Charity

            You are making stuff up. Christianity is about saving one’s soul from sin and temptation, not saving oneself from “the strong”.

            The seven Christian vices:
            Pride
            Wrath
            Lust
            Envy
            Gluttony
            Avarice
            Sloth (laziness)

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >ethics and natural law similar to the system of Aristotle
            Indeed you can find such similar lists among the Greeks, the Indians, the Arabs, the Chinese... and so you have missed the point entirely of what Nietzsche is saying. Who is blessed in Christianity? Not the victor. Not the healthy. Not the strong. Not the mighty. Not anyone you'd expect to have been "blessed" by any sort of God. Unless it's one of those warhammer gods that gives you leprosy, because apparently that is who Yahweh-Yeshua's blessings are reserved for, the conquered, subjugated, weak, and enslaved—they who are meant to enjoy an eternal Saturnalia when they die, where the first shall be last and the last shall be first. And these saints shall find it pleasing to hear the eternal torture of the strong? What makes Nietzsche's attack on Christianity so difficult for Christian apologists to engage with is that it isn't a matter of materialism, or a mere disbelief in the suprarational or super-natural, it is a kind of neo-Roman condemnation, more in the spirit of a Celsus or a Julian Augustus (pbuh) than a Dawkins or a Hitchens. When you debate a contemporary western atheist, he is trying to save your own school of morality from its bigotries and fantasies. But Nietzsche wishes to push the entirety of Christianity down the stairs in a fit of Schopenahaurian vigor.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            In Christianity, the way to heaven is to be baptised, to repent of one’s sins, and to live virtuously according to the commandments of God. There is no requirement that you be “weak”. I’m not even sure what you mean by weak to be honest. If you mean mentally weak (you said “dumb” earlier), then no, some of our greatest Saints were philosophers and men of great wisdom (eg Thomas Aquinas) and the Church pioneered education. If you mean politically weak then again no, we have great saints such as King Louis IX of France who occupied great positions of power (quoted here

            Nietzsche called himself the antichrist and mocked our Lord. Such language for a Christian is the equivalent to someone calling your mother a prostitute. You don’t “refute” someone like that, or write a response which says: “hmm yes I consider your argument and while I can see why you came to that conclusion, actually I have some valid responses that probably prove my mother isn’t a prostitute….” No, you sock them in the face, burn their books, and make them recant or get punished, as society used to do when it was Christian.

            ). If you mean physically weak, well again gluttony and laziness is considered a vice in Christianity, as well as drunkenness or any other form of destroying the body. So there is no such requirement.

            Maybe the confusion is arising because Christianity considers man kind as a whole to be spiritually weak due to its inherent corrupted nature, which is why we need Christ the physician to restore us.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >random historical figures disprove the base origins of Christian morality criticized by Nietzsche
            i know you haven't read Nietzsche so this discussion is futile, but perhaps make an effort instead of grasping for unrelated gotcha style responses whose content suggests you care more about Crusader Kings aesthetics than what is written about in the Gospels

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't be dishonest. Nietzsche also criticized Gautama who was the son of a Kshatriya king. Even his Theognis descended into slave morality later in his life apparently.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzsche attacks Buddhism as a form of nihilism similar Christianity, yes, but sees it as one lacking in the ressentiment which animates Christianity. Might that have something to do with it coming from a nobleman rather than a rabble-rousing subaltern like Paul?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but sees it as one lacking in the ressentiment which animates Christianity.
            It doesn't make sense. Spengler pointed out how ridiculous Nietzsche's contrasting of Buddhism & Christianity is.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't make sense
            ok

            I never reached for “random historical figures”. I cited two examples of Saints (Thomas Aquinas and King Louis IX). A saint is someone who is considered to be a model Christian whom other Christians should imitate. There are saints from all sorts of socio-political classes: intellectuals, rich people, poor people, great noblemen and kings. That by itself demonstrates that Christianity does not require one to be “weak” in order to be blessed.

            You never specified which way you intended “weak” to be interpreted, but I assume you mean the political sense. If you only accept examples from the Bible and ignore Church history, then you are treating Christianity as a dead religion which is present only in the Bible. That may be the Protestant view, but it is not my view or the view of the majority of Christians.

            But ok. Let us pretend we are Protestants and ONLY use examples from the Bible. We have all sorts of people from all sorts of socioeconomic classes: Kings (David, Solomon), Soldiers (the Roman Centurion convert, Samson), regular tradesmen (fishermen, carpenters), rich men (Theophilus, Joseph of Arimathea), poor men, slave owners and slaves (St. Paul exhorts the former to treat their slaves well, and the latter to obey their masters; if there were only Christian slaves and no Christian slave owners this would make no sense).

            So it is false, even from a purely biblical perspective, to say that “weakness” is required for sainthood.

            I’m sorry you believe in a misrepresentation of Christianity. But as I said, Fortitude (the opposite of weakness) is one of the seven Christian virtues that all Catholic schoolchildren are taught about.

            Do Christians give alms to the poor? Do we take care of widows, the sick, and the elderly? Of course; that is absolutely essential. We do not believe in anarcho-capitalist individualistic egoist society.

            I hope this cleared up your misconceptions. If you still believe the opposite it is on you to refute what I have just said.

            >If you only accept examples from the Bible and ignore Church history
            Yeah there's a pair of books on this called On the Genealogy of Morality, and Beyond Good and Evil, which in our case is early Christianity, a moral revolt by the servile class of a particular Roman province. Nietzsche is well aware that it captured Europe and became the religion of princes and philosophers. Again you are just making guesses at what Nietzsche meant, despite having not done the reading, a reading which would give you background on master vs slave morality, evaluation, nihilism, ressentiment, etc. It would be tedious to discuss late medieval Christianity or the biblical kingdom of Israel with you or whatever it is you admire more than the original religion of Paul

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're just repeating the same few buzzwords in every post. We could quite easily replace you with a chatbot.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            i can't really parse your gibberish either, go wash some Senegalese feet

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’ve just completely ignored what I said. You are now claiming that Christianity “only became” a religion of non-slaves in Europe later on. But I have cited numerous examples from the Bible itself, restricting myself to the Bible in order to grant you all the slack possible, of people who were not from a “servile class”. I have even definitively proven to you that the early Christians had amongst themselves SLAVE-OWNERS, and not just slaves. Otherwise, St. Paul’s exhortations to the slave masters to treat their slaves well and not to beat them would not make sense. Moreover, St. Paul returned a runaway slave Onesimus to Philemon, an early Christian convert and slave-OWNER!

            Christianity has never restricted itself to any particular class. It is for all classes, aristocrat and pauper, intellectual and simpleton. Because it’s not about wealth or IQ, it’s about overcoming temptation and cultivating a Virtuous character, living according to the law of God, and saving your soul. IQ will give you an advantage in understanding God philosophically, but wealth can even be a moral danger because it can make you materialistic and lazy (which is what Christ was referring to in his speeches against wealth).

            >you have an inverted view of Christianity
            Really, you think so? I'll take that as endorsement. But since you brought it up, if they were not "weak" people then why were they conquered by the Romans? Why come up with this whole notion that if the Romans execute you, you will be rewarded with eternal life and they will be punished? Why not simply overthrow the Romans, as their religious cousins would attempt and fail at repeatedly?

            Christianity is not a revolutionary political movement. It is a spiritual religion whose focus is on cleansing your soul and obeying the commandments of God. There is a Christian form of statecraft which came later when Europe was Christianised, but the early Christians were not in the business of politics. Martyrdom was highly valued because it meant that the person did not give up his belief even against the threat of death. It is a highly courageous thing to look death in the face and stick to one’s principles. It was a testament of faith, not a praise of “weakness”.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            "slave" is not literal in Nietzsche, though it can be, again since you haven't read the critique and are responding solely to my references to it this is a futile discussion, you can cite as many non-enslaved Christians as you like it will not change a thing, but I will continue to tap the sign

            they really aren't sending their best... just consider how a mainline Protestant or a Catholic would respond to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as a base resentment of power, an engine of spite—they would affirm it! The Gospel is the preferential option for the poor. How can you refute someone who has described you so accurately? His only error, then, is in rejecting this.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Holy shit it was you who wrote that cringe-inducing post.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            the only cringe here is pleading to a dead crusader king to save you from a thousand years of history leading to pachamama Catholicism

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            the only cringe here is pleading to a dead crusader king to save you from a thousand years of history leading to pachamama Catholicism

            This is how the conversation went.

            >You: Christianity is a religion for weak and dumb people!

            >Me: No, Prudence and Fortitude, the opposite of weakness and dumbness are two of the Seven Christian Virtues. Plus we have Saints, such as Thomas Aquinas who was very smart, or Louis IX who was very powerful. Saints are models in Christianity, so if Christianity valued weakness and stupidity we would have no such saints. And also Christianity teaches against destroying your body with gluttony, or alcohol, or any other destructive vice, so no matter which way you want to interpret the word “weak”, Christianity has no such requirement for its believers.

            >You: No, you are only allowed examples from the Bible! Christianity *started* as a religion for weak and dumb people but later was picked up by non weak and non dumb people.

            >Me: Ok, here is a bunch of examples from the Bible of people from all sorts of social classes. Not only that, but in the Bible some of the early Christians were themselves slave-OWNERS, not slaves! Christianity is for all classes.

            >You: Ah, who cares if they were not slaves? Slaves is not literal but metaphorical! So Philemon, the early Christian convert and slave-OWNER was actually a slave in this metaphorical sense! Also Pachamama and Crusader Kings.

            Here is a list of the fallacies you employed:
            1. Moving the goalposts: claiming that it’s illicit to cite examples of actual Saints who don’t conform to your stereotype, “because they came later”. Restricting your focus only to the early Christians and to the Bible.
            2. Double standard: claiming that it’s illicit to appeal to any example outside of the Bible and yourself appealing to Francis and Pachamama.
            3. Strawman: claiming that the appeal to medieval saints was an appeal to “Crusader Kings” or “random historical figures” when both figures were saints, ie. religious figures integral to the Christian religion and not divorceable from it.
            4. Motte-and-Bailey fallacy: slowly receding from your initial strong claim that Christianity is a religion for weak or servile people. First you retreated to “yeah but only in the Bible though”, and then when that was debunked, “yeah but only in an (unspecified) metaphorical sense though.”

            (1/2)

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            (2/2)
            You were wrong on every front.
            You were wrong on Christian ethics: Christian ethics is virtue ethics and natural law theory, similar to that of Aristotle. Weakness and stupidity are not considered virtues in Christianity, but Fortitude and Prudence are.
            You were wrong on the makeup of the early Christians: I have definitively shown that there were even slave owners among them and not just slaves.
            You were wrong on the main message of Christianity: it is not about finding “solace from the strong” but about battling against sin and temptation, turning away from the old state of spiritual blindness to the new state of sanctification and virtue, following the commandments of God, praying, fasting, training yourself to be morally perfect. And of course there are social virtues: taking care of the sick and poor and elderly, housing widows, feeding orphans, having a generally pro-social attitude and not the barbarous attitude of the gladiatorial arenas or Nietzschean anarcho-capitalist egoist utopia.

            Anything more I say will just be tossing pearls to swine. If you don’t acknowledge that you are wrong after all this irrefutable proof has been put to you, but continue to make vicious arguments full of fallacies and malicious spite, then you are spiritually blind and deserve no more of my time.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            St. Paul was a tradesman, a Roman citizen (something valued at the time), and, before his conversion, a government agent who persecuted Christians.

            Jesus Christ, our Lord, was of noble descent, coming from the line of King David.

            They were not slaves or “weak” people.

            Again, you have an inverted view of Christianity.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you have an inverted view of Christianity
            Really, you think so? I'll take that as endorsement. But since you brought it up, if they were not "weak" people then why were they conquered by the Romans? Why come up with this whole notion that if the Romans execute you, you will be rewarded with eternal life and they will be punished? Why not simply overthrow the Romans, as their religious cousins would attempt and fail at repeatedly?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why did the most powerful empire of the ancient world conquer a small Levantine kingdom

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            why did their defining religious practice become suicide by cop after the fact?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It didn't, and most israelites didn't adopt Christianity anyway.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never reached for “random historical figures”. I cited two examples of Saints (Thomas Aquinas and King Louis IX). A saint is someone who is considered to be a model Christian whom other Christians should imitate. There are saints from all sorts of socio-political classes: intellectuals, rich people, poor people, great noblemen and kings. That by itself demonstrates that Christianity does not require one to be “weak” in order to be blessed.

            You never specified which way you intended “weak” to be interpreted, but I assume you mean the political sense. If you only accept examples from the Bible and ignore Church history, then you are treating Christianity as a dead religion which is present only in the Bible. That may be the Protestant view, but it is not my view or the view of the majority of Christians.

            But ok. Let us pretend we are Protestants and ONLY use examples from the Bible. We have all sorts of people from all sorts of socioeconomic classes: Kings (David, Solomon), Soldiers (the Roman Centurion convert, Samson), regular tradesmen (fishermen, carpenters), rich men (Theophilus, Joseph of Arimathea), poor men, slave owners and slaves (St. Paul exhorts the former to treat their slaves well, and the latter to obey their masters; if there were only Christian slaves and no Christian slave owners this would make no sense).

            So it is false, even from a purely biblical perspective, to say that “weakness” is required for sainthood.

            I’m sorry you believe in a misrepresentation of Christianity. But as I said, Fortitude (the opposite of weakness) is one of the seven Christian virtues that all Catholic schoolchildren are taught about.

            Do Christians give alms to the poor? Do we take care of widows, the sick, and the elderly? Of course; that is absolutely essential. We do not believe in anarcho-capitalist individualistic egoist society.

            I hope this cleared up your misconceptions. If you still believe the opposite it is on you to refute what I have just said.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why did the Church used to control which books are to be printed and which are to be burned? Because it rightly understood that the human mind is malleable and can be influenced by false doctrines.
          totally agree with you the church is familiar with using false doctrines to influence minds

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lord, Thine enemies have amassed here in this thread to take arms against Thee. Behind the false prophet and vain chatterer Nietzsche have they amassed, Lord. Thy holy Name is blasphemed with impunity, Thy just doctrine trammelled and foolishness set in its place. O, Thou great Counsellor, thou great Physician and Restorer of broken souls, let not Thy sons be led astray. Remind them of Thine eternal words, that the wisdom of this world is folly in Thine eyes. Strike, O Lord, mercilessly strike the disciples of Nietzsche with fearsome afflictions! Let their bladders swell. Let cancer overcome them. Let their tumours grow malignant and inoperable. Let syphilis infect their brains, that they might follow the path of their own prophet. Let their bodies conform to their diseased souls, that their pride may be shattered, and Humility, their great laughing-stock, impress upon them! For in Thee only do we trust, in Thee only do we rest our hearts, not in syphilitic chatterers, not in the foolish wisdom of this world!

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah Valentin Tomberg has written something super interesting about him in Meditations on the Tarot from a Hermetic Catholic perspective:

    >in other words, the Master has come in order to render more living that
    which is dear to him and which is menaced with dangers, i.e. the sheep as the
    image of the personality! This appears inconceivable in the presence of the
    ideal of the personality according to Nietzsche and his “superman” or the
    great historical personalities such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
    Napoleon…and the “great personalities” of modern times!
    No, dear Unknown Friend, possession by the will-to-power or the will-to-
    glory makes neither the personality nor its greatness. The “sheep” in the
    language of love of the Master signify neither the “great personality” nor the
    “little personality”, but simply the individual soul which lives. He wants the
    soul to live without danger and to have as intensive a life as God has destined
    for it. The “sheep” is the living entity, surrounded by dangers, which is the
    object of divine care. Doesn’t this suffice? Is there too little brilliance and
    glory here? Is this too feeble an image to be able to arrive at, for example, a
    magician evoking good and evil spirits?
    Here it is a matter of drawing attention to one thing, to one sole thing: the
    language of the Master is that of love and not that of psychology, philosophy,
    or science. The powerful magician, the artistic genius, the profound thinker,
    and the radiant mystic certainly merit all these qualifications and perhaps still
    greater ones, but they do not dazzle God. In the eyes of God they are dear
    sheep to him; in his consideration of them he desires that they shall never go
    astray and that they shall have life increasingly and unceasingly.

    >Hermetic philosophy also has a human ideal to which it aspires. Its
    spiritual exercises, its arcana, follow the practical aim of realising the man of
    authority, the “father-man”. This is the man who is more human than all
    others…the man worthy of “the throne of David”.
    The human ideal of practical Hermeticism is not the superman of
    Nietzsche, nor the superman of India plunged in contemplation of eternity,
    nor the superman-hierophant of Gurdjieff, nor the superman-philosopher of
    the Stoic and Vedanta philosophies—no, its human ideal is the man who is
    human to such a degree that he contains and bears in himself all that which is
    human, that he may be the guardian of the throne of David.

    The gist of it is that the goal given by God is not to transcend humanity and become the Übermensch, to become fully human, to develop all of the drives, and to live out the full potential of humanity as the Son of God and the inheritor of David, as God intends for us.

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    He may be a crypto-Christian but Peter Sloterdijk's Nietzsche Apostle is absolutely gut wrenching - the guy had issues.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      ChatGPT's list:
      The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism" by Edward Feser - While this book is more about refuting the New Atheists, Feser frequently draws from the thoughts of Nietzsche to critique modern atheism.

      "Between Nietzsche and Kant: Michel Henry's Radical Phenomenology of Life" by Jeffrey Hanson - An examination of the French Catholic philosopher Michel Henry’s engagement with Nietzsche.

      "Faith and Reason in Continental and Japanese Philosophy: Reading Tanabe Hajime and William Desmond" by Takeshi Morisato - This work examines the philosophy of Tanabe Hajime and William Desmond, and their engagement with Nietzschean thought is explored in some depth.

      "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures" by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) - While not exclusively about Nietzsche, Ratzinger frequently engages with Nietzschean critiques of Christianity.

      "Nietzsche and Theology" by Craig Bartholomew - This isn't written by a Catholic per se (Bartholomew is Reformed), but it provides a deep Christian perspective on Nietzsche's work.

      "From Nietzsche to Newman" by John F. Crosby - Discusses the transition from secular thought, represented in part by Nietzsche, to Christian belief.

      "The Drama of Atheist Humanism" by Henri de Lubac - De Lubac critiques Nietzsche, along with other atheist thinkers, from a Catholic perspective.

      "Descartes to Derrida: An Introduction to European Philosophy" by Peter Sedgwick - While the focus is broad, this book does touch on Catholic responses to Nietzsche.

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rene Girard

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would that even work?
    Nietzsche and Christianity have different starting points.
    If Christians are correct that Jesus is God, Nietzsche is completely useless.

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    What we have entirely failed to observe is the peculiarity of moral dynamic.
    If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic, sense) is that
    world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on behalf of all, then we
    are all without exception, willingly or no, wittingly or no, Socialists. Even
    Nietzsche, that most passionate opponent of "herd morale," was perfectly
    incapable of limiting his zeal to himself in the Classical way. He thought
    only of "mankind/' and he attacked everyone who differed from himself.
    Epicurus, on the contrary, was heartily indifferent to others' opinions and acts
    and never wasted one thought on the "transformation" of mankind. He and
    his friends were content that they were as they were and not otherwise. The
    Classical ideal was indifference (JiiraBeia) to the course of the world — the
    very thing which it is the whole business of Faustian mankind to master —
    and an important element both of Stoic and of Epicurean philosophy was the
    recognition of a category of things neither preferred nor rejected l (ASutyopa).
    In Hellas there was a pantheon of morales as there was of deities, as the peaceful
    coexistence of Epicureans, Cynics and Stoics shows, but the Nietzschean Zara-
    thustra — though professedly standing beyond good and evil — breathes from
    end to end the pain of seeing men to be other than as he would have them be,
    and the deep and utterly un-Classical desire to devote a life to their reformation
    — his own sense of the word, naturally, being the only one. It is just this, the
    general transvaluation, that makes ethical monotheism and — using the word
    in a novel and deep sense — socialism. All world-improvers are Socialists.
    And consequently there are no Classical world-improvers

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      The moral imperative as the form of morale is Faustian and only Faustian.
      It is wholly without importance that Schopenhauer denies theoretically the
      will to live, or that Nietzsche will have it affirmed — these are superficial
      differences, indicative of personal tastes and temperaments. The important
      thing, that which makes Schopenhauer the progenitor of ethical modernity,
      is that he too feels the whole world as Will, as movement, force, direction.
      This basic feeling is not merely the foundation of our ethics, it is itself our whole
      ethics, and the rest are bye-blows. That which we call not merely activity but
      action 2 is a historical conception through-and-through, saturated with
      directional energy. It is the proof of being, the dedication of being, in that
      sort of man whose ego possesses the tendency to Future, who feels the
      momentary present not as saturated being but as epoch, as turning-point, in a
      great complex of becoming — and, moreover, feels it so of both his personal
      life and of the life of history as a whole. Strength and distinctness of this con-
      sciousness are the marks of higher Faustian man, but it is not wholly absent
      in the most insignificant of the breed, and it distinguishes his smallest acts from

      1 The original is here expanded a little for the sake of clarity. — Tr.

      2 After what has been said above regarding the absence of pregnant words for "will" and
      "space" in the Classical tongues, the reader will not be surprised to hear that neither Greek nor
      Latin affords exact equivalents for these words action and activity.

      Spengler wrote quite extensively on Nietzsche vs. Christianity. I think most of it is in Decline.

  15. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    BUDDHISM, STOICISM, SOCIALISM 343

    those of any and every Classical man. It is the distinction between character
    and attitude, between conscious becoming and simple accepted statuesque be-
    comeness, between will and suffering in tragedy.

    It is quite wrong to bind up Christianity with the moral imperative. It was
    not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who trans-
    formed Christianity — and he not only made it a new religion but also gave
    it a new moral direction. The "it" became "I," the passion-charged
    centre of the world, the foundation of the great Sacrament of personal contri-
    tion. Will-to-power even in ethics, the passionate striving to set up a proper
    morale as a universal truth, and to enforce it upon humanity, to reinterpret or
    overcome or destroy everything otherwise constituted — nothing is more
    characteristically our own than this is. And in virtue of it the Gothic spring-
    time proceeded to a profound — and never yet appreciated — inward transforma-
    tion of the morale of Jesus. A quiet spiritual morale welling from Magian
    feeling — a morale or conduct recommended as potent for salvation, a morale
    the knowledge of which was communicated as a special act of grace l — was
    recast as a morale of imperative command. 2.
    We may talk to-day of transvaluing all our values; we may, as
    Megalopolitans, "go back to" Buddhism or Paganism or a romantic Cath-
    olicism; we may champion as Anarchists an individualist or as Socialists a col-
    lectivist ethic — but in spite of all we do, will and feel the same. A conversion
    to Theosophy or Freethinking or one of the present-day transitions from a
    supposed Christianity to a supposed Atheism (or vice versa) is an alteration
    of words and notions, of the religious or intellectual surface, no more. None
    of our " movements' * have changed man.

    A strict morphology of all the morales is a task for the future. Here, too,
    Nietzsche has taken t;he first and essential step towards the new standpoint.
    But he has failed to observe his own condition that the thinker shall place
    himself "beyond good and evil." He tried to be at once sceptic and prophet,
    moral critic and moral gospeller. It cannot be done. One cannot be a first-
    class psychologist as long as one is still a Romantic. And so here, as in all his
    crucial penetrations, he got as far as the door — and stood outside it. And so
    far, no one has done any better. We have been blind and uncomprehending
    before the immense wealth that there is in the moral as in other form-languages.
    Even the sceptic has not understood his task; at bottom he, like others, sets up
    his own notion of morale, drawn from his particular disposition and private
    taste, as standard by which to measure others. The modern revolutionaires —
    Stirner, Ibsen, Strindberg, Shaw — are just the same; they have only managed
    to hide the facts (from themselves as well as from others) behind new formulas
    and catchwords.

  16. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche called himself the antichrist and mocked our Lord. Such language for a Christian is the equivalent to someone calling your mother a prostitute. You don’t “refute” someone like that, or write a response which says: “hmm yes I consider your argument and while I can see why you came to that conclusion, actually I have some valid responses that probably prove my mother isn’t a prostitute….” No, you sock them in the face, burn their books, and make them recant or get punished, as society used to do when it was Christian.

  17. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is nothing to argue. Anyone with the proper understanding of both Nietzsche and Christianity knows that Neetsch was the first Christian since the reformation, and the savior of the one true faith.

  18. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Alisdair MacIntyre

  19. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    And of course then there is the Nazi view of the will to power exemplified in the struggle for survival of a Nordic-Doric aristocracy in Greece, besieged by the racial alien masses of commoners. I believe BAP is trying to revive this school but I haven't read his books.

  20. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    G.K Chesterton makes some unique arguments against Nietzsche in his Christian theology work Orthodoxy:
    >This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, "beyond good and evil," because he had not the courage to say, "more good than good and evil," or, "more evil than good and evil." Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, "the purer man," or "the happier man," or "the sadder man," for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says "the upper man," or "over man," a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being "higher," do not know either.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Love this fat british frick always has something smart to say.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *