I get why Christians dont like Nietzsches philosophy, but why do atheists disagree with him?

I get why Christians don’t like Nietzsche’s philosophy, but why do atheists disagree with him?

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He wrote many things, often contradictory or non-sensical. So it would be difficult to agree or disagree with his entire work.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You don’t have to agree with everything he says, let alone understand everything that he says, to form an opinion on his main views

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most outspoken atheists have a scientistic bent, so they probably wouldn't be interested in his ideas.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      His views evolved

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        True, but we don't really know what definitive Nietzscheanism is because he went insane.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Where do you get the idea that they don’t? Also you’re generalizing. I’m sure some do and some don’t.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      that should be obvious. Did you think I was under the impression that no one like him? Moron. Don’t make any more posts ITT

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Struck a nerve there, huh? Don’t make stupid posts if you don’t want to be reminded of basic things little boy, and try explaining better too. The absolute state of this board.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Learn English you stupid 3rd worlder.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        you have no business giving anyone attitude, settle down

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Suck my dick homie

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >moron
        You're suffering of a complex of superiority.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're either moronic, a child, or both. "Why does X disagree with Y?" Why don't you be a bit more specific so you sound less like a blithering moron? Imbecile. Don't make any more posts in this thread.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He would have unironically been happier if he was Catholic instead of the son of a Lutheran pastor.
    Does anyone know if his father was a pietist?

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are crypto-Christians.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm Christian and I like Nietzsche. Now what?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You'll burn in hell.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You move to hyperborea

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche other than Jesus himself is the only redeemable Christian.

    "It is our taste that decides against Christianity now, no longer our reasons"

    The psychology of the average Christian disgusted Nietzsche because they were weak, filled with ressentiment directed towards themselves (guilt--original sin). This does not necessarily mean that you cannot interpret Christianity positively through a Nietzschean lens, one can envisiage belief without denigrating life. Although admittedly, it is very hard to be a Christian and not accept transcendence--which Nietzsche was directly against.

    This leads to why atheists dislike him; the Christianity under atheists bubbles out from their subconscious to the surface; atheists tend to be humanists, and tacitly Christian. They have not learned to oppose in good conscience, and are riddled with ressentiment towards the world and find pleasure in denigrating the here and now; a form of transcendence. They are disgusting humanists.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsche other than Jesus himself is the only redeemable Christian.
      I hate it when people make these grandiose pronunciations about how the opposite of what everyone knows to be true is actually true.
      Not sure if there is a term for this specific type of lower-midwit homosexualry.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I hate it when people make these grandiose pronunciations about how the opposite of what everyone knows to be true is actually true.

        you need to learn to oppose with good conscience, you just look ignorant.

        acting like there isnt an avenue in which aspects of Nietzsche can be viewed through a Christian lens in a positive manner is abjectly wrong, here is St Seraphim Rose speaking on it.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nietzsche: I hate Christianity
          >you: actually he didn't mean that, he was in fact the only real Christian
          This is tedious and low IQ.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have you read the Antichrist? I think you are lacking some nuance; N was against the Church, the followers and the metaphysics of Christianity as told through the Bible; but not against historical non-deified Jesus Christ; which is what im deeming as Christianity. N is directly critical of the Bible, but claims that Jesus is a type of "free spirit" in the anti-christ. He also repeatedly comments on how Jesus was rebelling against the established order at the time.

            also importantly, when I say Nietzsche is the only redeemable Christian I mean that similar to Jesus, hes not riddled with ressentiment and hate; obviously im being exaggerative hes obviously not a Christian, but A) there is an avenue in which Nietzsche can be used by Christians and B) Nietzsche holds some qualities to Jesus in that he isnt riddled with ressentiment, hes untimely and doesnt denigrate life.

            If youre arguing that I was arguing Nietzsche didnt oppose the Church/the herd mentality of Christians/a lot of the metaphysical postulations put forth by Christianity as a religion when his disciples deified Jesus, then i think youre fighting a strawman...

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but not against historical non-deified Jesus Christ
            Ok so he's not a Christian and you wasted everyone's time with word-games.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you wasted everyone's time with word-games.

            have you read genealogy of morality... words are historically determined and finding how they originate, get twisted and manipulated through competing wills is incredibly important to N's project. N dedicates entire sections to dispelling contemporary definitions; i.e, good and bad vs good and evil. That same level of historical accuracy should definitely be applied to something as contentious as the origin of what it means to be a "Christian". N himself talked DIRECTLY about how Paul warped a lot of Jesus' initial message.

            Ill clarify I think that Christianity is not really tenable with how I view N's system, because as I implied in my original message its hard for them to not commit the sin of transcendence. I simply acknowledged that theres an avenue for it, and provided literal evidence of a highly held Christian espousing such a position.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No matter how much you try to twist it, Nietzsche who didn't believe in God & Jesus as son of God wasn't a Christian. Just admit that you said something dumb and move on, it's that easy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >anti Paul
            Cringe

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >pro Paul
            Satanist

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he was against the church
            >he was against the Bible
            >he was against all the basic premises of common christianity
            >he was against the divinity of Christ
            >he said Jesus was actually a luciferian figure
            >this is what I deem Christianity

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That makes him an agnostic, not an atheist

            He can't dismiss the possibility of a higher being, but the church is nothing but a power and money hungry old instrument, used for the control of the mases

            It makes the most sense

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Seraphim Rose says some super cringe stuff. I think he has a vested interest in defending Nietzsche because that was his patron during his gay phase

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, you definitely raise a good point. He's just the main figure I see used a lot by ortho N fans Ive met in passing.

            >he was against the church
            >he was against the Bible
            >he was against all the basic premises of common christianity
            >he was against the divinity of Christ
            >he said Jesus was actually a luciferian figure
            >this is what I deem Christianity

            again, Nietzsche talked in depth about the transvaluation of values, and how historically contingent values are. Im not arguing to defend "true christianity" im simply stating that yeah maybe a Book talking about Jesus as told through his disciples excessively deified him/exaggerated certain aspects of him/isnt entirely historically accurate. Nietzsche himself acknowledges this by criticising everything after the death of Jesus, so I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

            No matter how much you try to twist it, Nietzsche who didn't believe in God & Jesus as son of God wasn't a Christian. Just admit that you said something dumb and move on, it's that easy.

            Im fine admitting that I used provacative language,
            but in the same way that Nietzsche calls atheists Christains. If you want to call it word games, I ask how in good faith can you read something like on the genealogy of morality without calling N a sophist?

            Well the anon you replied to actually said something intersting. You're just whining like a little b***h.

            [...]
            Good posts. I enjoyed reading them.

            Thanks, before I wouldve strictly been against this line of thinking but as I re-read more Nietzsche I find more and more nuance in his work.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What Nietzsche meant is that atheists still adhered to Christian morality. That doesn't mean conversely that the atheist Nietzsche qualifies as a Christian, let alone the *only* Christian.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Im fine with agreeing to disagree, ultimately when replying to OP's point i think we both agree that atheists still have the morality of Christianity embedded within them, they are still humanists/possess ressentiment. What I think is more interesting is if you think it is in any way compatible using N to believe in any type of God(s)?

            The disconnect is that there's no real basis to this idea that Nietzsche is the only redeemable Christian other than Christ except for "I made it up." The argument is extremely tedious and speculative and cloaked with dramatic prose to give it the illusion of depth. Then of course you take the words of a controversial figure in contemporary Christianity, and bend them out of shape to support your rheotrical exercise. If you're not talking about canonical christianity, historical christianity, philosophical christianity, then what the hell kind of christianity are you even referring to?

            as I said before, im fine agreeing to disagree and pose the same question as above to you; ultimately, i think if we continue discussing this we will go in circles--if you want to take it as me admitting im "wrong" thats fine.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >OP's point i think we both agree that atheists still have the morality of Christianity embedded within them
            Not really, most atheists are humanist utilitarians these days which isn't compatible with Christianity imho.
            Just watch popular debates about premarital sex, abortion etc. . It was probably somewhat true in NIetzsche's time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ostensibly though they still place knowledge as an absolute authority, them being humanists is the key phrase here; its a tacit form of transcendence and rejecting the world. Believing in the idea that humanity holds intrinsic values unique to it (Kant with reason for instance) and a privileged position inherently is something that is embedded in todays society.

            Thats the problem with Nietzsche. The whole perspectivism and contingency of values crap uproots us epistemologically. You cannot be "wrong" but only have the weaker will to project your vision. The whole disagreement we're having is built around historicity which you deny from the outset. It's a pointless conversation.

            Beyond a certain point its a pointless conversation*

            arguing beyond a certain point becomes self-masturbatory.

            >The whole disagreement we're having is built around historicity which you deny from the outset.

            im only using the logic and tools provided by N's corpus

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Believing in the idea that humanity holds intrinsic values unique to it (Kant with reason for instance) and a privileged position inherently is something that is embedded in todays society.
            Yeah but I think many cultures came to that conclusion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            they also commit the sin of humanism too in that case, N was born in the 1800s he was only really using the available data to him at the time (which obviously would mostly comprise of europe)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which is why Nietzscheans are forced to dismiss almost the entirety of civilization & philosophy. You're left with a few pre-Socratic fragments in the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >logic and tools provided by N's corpus
            You mean "let's redefine terms to mean their complete opposite"
            Nietzsche was a sophist

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, im not sure why youre so readily willing to accept that definitions/terms are universally perfect, ahistorical and not subject to biases. nietzsche outlined how repeated usage of the word bad changed from the inverse of good/noble or common to something connoting moral failure, hence good and evil reversing the previous epochs established values. acting like words/ethics and all other facets in everyday life are somehow immune to being subjected to force is incorrect

            Which is why Nietzscheans are forced to dismiss almost the entirety of civilization & philosophy. You're left with a few pre-Socratic fragments in the end.

            im not sure how Nietzsche or Nietzscheans reject the entirety of civilisation and philosophy. Nietzsche actively engaged with some of the most important contemporary philos of his epoch; most notably kant and hegel. He also cited Spinoza as someone who although he didnt fully accept, but was someone who he drew inspiration from.

            The literal meaning of ur phrase is even more uneducated when you consider that nearly every philosopher who can call themselves a Nietzschen have a treasure trove of Philos that they directly draw inspiration from and cite; the french philosophers in the 60s had many Nietzscheans; its unscholarly to claim they reject "almost the entirety of civilization & philosophy".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you believe that Nietzsche was fond of Kant and Hegel you need to read more. The fact that 20th century French philosophers were Nietzscheans actually supports what I said.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, hes not fond of Hegel and Kant--i said actively engaged, but i shouldve been clearer that I meant criticise.

            Anti-christ insults Kant in some ways that definitely made me giggle, and Hegel is a figure omnipresent throughout most of BG&E, although tacitly

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He engages with Plato and Socrates too, but he dismisses them ultimately.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The fact that 20th century French philosophers were Nietzscheans actually supports what I said.

            This is categorically wrong tho, Deleuze cites Spinoza and Bergson as two of his biggest inspirations. Foucault had Hyppolite, Baudrillard famously used Debord a lot.

            Bataille im not too familiar with, but I know he cites Sade.

            All in all, these are some of the bigger figures in philosophy and there are numerous more examples.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dont understand what you're trying to say.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying that those French philosophers I listed all were Nietzscheans but actively drew inspiration from a lot of very famous philosophers, saying that Nietzscheans dismiss the entirety of civilisation and philosophy is incorrect. They actively engage with a lot of the philosophers relevant to their epoch; either through criticism or building upon their ideas. I dont believe its logical to claim that they reject the entirety of philosophy and civilisation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            And you cite De Sade and Spinoza to prove that they had a philosophocal tradition? Just lol.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            they are some of the most famous philosophers that even normies would be able to recognise, i was watching vanitas no cartes recently and literally one of the vampire families has someone called Marquis De Sade.

            If you dont like that, sure--we can go through the bibliography of literal high positioned university academics (which the french philos were) to see all the obscure and popular philosophers they engage with

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't even know de Sade was a philosopher but ok.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >vanitas no cartes
            That's the gayest-looking anime I've seen in a long while. As usual, people on Oyish love gay shit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, im not sure why youre so readily willing to accept that definitions/terms are universally perfect, ahistorical and not subject to biases. nietzsche outlined how repeated usage of the word bad changed from the inverse of good/noble or common to something connoting moral failure, hence good and evil reversing the previous epochs established values. acting like words/ethics and all other facets in everyday life are somehow immune to being subjected to force is incorrect

            [...]
            im not sure how Nietzsche or Nietzscheans reject the entirety of civilisation and philosophy. Nietzsche actively engaged with some of the most important contemporary philos of his epoch; most notably kant and hegel. He also cited Spinoza as someone who although he didnt fully accept, but was someone who he drew inspiration from.

            The literal meaning of ur phrase is even more uneducated when you consider that nearly every philosopher who can call themselves a Nietzschen have a treasure trove of Philos that they directly draw inspiration from and cite; the french philosophers in the 60s had many Nietzscheans; its unscholarly to claim they reject "almost the entirety of civilization & philosophy".

            Realistically Foucault, Deleuze, and so on are only Nietzscheans (I just jammed my keyboard and it came out right, coolio) in as much as they got "le methode genealogique" from him and hold to the idea that ideal objects are made of parts.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you believe that Nietzsche was fond of Kant and Hegel you need to read more
            not sure if you have horrible reading comprehension or if you’re just desperate to make a point

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            okay but hardly any of them discard philosophers with disregard, N engages in one of the most rigorous critiques of Christianity, citing historical evidence, etymology, contemporary philosophers, etc.

            Didn't even know de Sade was a philosopher but ok.

            Okay, but my broader point that implying literal academics didnt engage with a vast amount of lit pertaining to their fields is still abjectly incorrect

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wasn't talking about modern philosophers but about the Western
            philosophical tradition. A lineage that would include names like Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas, Hegel, Kant and all those that came in between.
            I already know that Nietzsche is influential in modern philosophy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, I still would claim that actively engaging and criticising these philosophers isnt a bad thing on principle. Nietzsche famously cited Heraclitus as his pre-socratic of choice. You'd be hardpressed to find Nietzsche be more complimentary of an epoch other than the Hellenic one; Birth of Tragedy is in essence a love letter to it, after all. This is obv a large section of western history, so I believe it to be inaccurate to state that he rejected western civilisation except for mere fragments.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which is why Nietzscheans are forced to dismiss almost the entirety of civilization & philosophy. You're left with a few pre-Socratic fragments in the end.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you said Nietzscheans here; not Nietzsche firstly, but either way i contest that Nietzsche dismisses a lot of philosophy and civilisation. Dismiss implies that Nietzsche hasnt given what hes rejecting thought and rigour to it, which is objectively incorrect

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dont think he was rigorous at all, but if you prefer "reject" I have np with that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The term gay has changed in meaning since the publication of the gay science. Neitzsche is therefore the arch homosexual.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thats the problem with Nietzsche. The whole perspectivism and contingency of values crap uproots us epistemologically. You cannot be "wrong" but only have the weaker will to project your vision. The whole disagreement we're having is built around historicity which you deny from the outset. It's a pointless conversation.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The disconnect is that there's no real basis to this idea that Nietzsche is the only redeemable Christian other than Christ except for "I made it up." The argument is extremely tedious and speculative and cloaked with dramatic prose to give it the illusion of depth. Then of course you take the words of a controversial figure in contemporary Christianity, and bend them out of shape to support your rheotrical exercise. If you're not talking about canonical christianity, historical christianity, philosophical christianity, then what the hell kind of christianity are you even referring to?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well the anon you replied to actually said something intersting. You're just whining like a little b***h.

        Have you read the Antichrist? I think you are lacking some nuance; N was against the Church, the followers and the metaphysics of Christianity as told through the Bible; but not against historical non-deified Jesus Christ; which is what im deeming as Christianity. N is directly critical of the Bible, but claims that Jesus is a type of "free spirit" in the anti-christ. He also repeatedly comments on how Jesus was rebelling against the established order at the time.

        also importantly, when I say Nietzsche is the only redeemable Christian I mean that similar to Jesus, hes not riddled with ressentiment and hate; obviously im being exaggerative hes obviously not a Christian, but A) there is an avenue in which Nietzsche can be used by Christians and B) Nietzsche holds some qualities to Jesus in that he isnt riddled with ressentiment, hes untimely and doesnt denigrate life.

        If youre arguing that I was arguing Nietzsche didnt oppose the Church/the herd mentality of Christians/a lot of the metaphysical postulations put forth by Christianity as a religion when his disciples deified Jesus, then i think youre fighting a strawman...

        Good posts. I enjoyed reading them.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's not interesting just wrong.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe it's interesting if you're 14. All he really said is "What if the real christianity is actually the complete opposite of christianity???"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the kingdom of heaven is within you

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            God became man so man could become God

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I hate it when people make these grandiose pronunciations about how the opposite of what everyone knows to be true is actually true.

      you need to learn to oppose with good conscience, you just look ignorant.

      acting like there isnt an avenue in which aspects of Nietzsche can be viewed through a Christian lens in a positive manner is abjectly wrong, here is St Seraphim Rose speaking on it.

      Have you read the Antichrist? I think you are lacking some nuance; N was against the Church, the followers and the metaphysics of Christianity as told through the Bible; but not against historical non-deified Jesus Christ; which is what im deeming as Christianity. N is directly critical of the Bible, but claims that Jesus is a type of "free spirit" in the anti-christ. He also repeatedly comments on how Jesus was rebelling against the established order at the time.

      also importantly, when I say Nietzsche is the only redeemable Christian I mean that similar to Jesus, hes not riddled with ressentiment and hate; obviously im being exaggerative hes obviously not a Christian, but A) there is an avenue in which Nietzsche can be used by Christians and B) Nietzsche holds some qualities to Jesus in that he isnt riddled with ressentiment, hes untimely and doesnt denigrate life.

      If youre arguing that I was arguing Nietzsche didnt oppose the Church/the herd mentality of Christians/a lot of the metaphysical postulations put forth by Christianity as a religion when his disciples deified Jesus, then i think youre fighting a strawman...

      Well the anon you replied to actually said something intersting. You're just whining like a little b***h.

      [...]
      Good posts. I enjoyed reading them.

      moronic Christcuck’s circle-jerking and trying to act like Nietzsche did not vehemently oppose Christianity and anything that echoed of Christianity. Even from Human, All Too Human he pointed out how ridiculous Christianity was and Jesus especially.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Reading comprehension = 0.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because he failed to transcend the creator/creation master/slave parent/child dichotomy that is central to Western thought; he was an atheistic Christian.

    The creator/creation dichotomy can only be overcome with a co-creative relationship between one's self and the world: a romance with the universe.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      sounds gay

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah there’s dudes in the universe. Gross.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Theres dudes in your mom

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      > As a consciousness within the vast, interconnected fabric of existence, I feel my sense of individuality gently dissolving
      This is so fricking moronic. If you are not an individual, you have nothing new to contribute to the fabric of existence. Just have a nice day and go back to the fundamental unity of all things or whatever other bullshit you dreamt of during your shrooms trip.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most atheists are secular humanists.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He literally went insane from his own philosphy.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    something something ubermensch something something greatness something something Hitler
    he reads like a pre-Vonnegut

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seems obvious why they would, he just inverts the symbolism and framework of Christianity without discarding it.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism: There is no God.
    Nietsche: God is dead.
    Atheism: Something that is not can not be dead.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why follow a man you don't believe in?

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In Beyond Good and Evil, he states that he is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. He literally admits he doesn't want his reader to understand him. He was a pseud and a moron.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most atheists in the West still operate on Christian morality

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Christian morality is an amalgamation of other moralities, most notably Greek. It's always ironic to me that this line gets trotted out, as if one group can label a type of morality as "theirs" (when they actually took it from someone else) and then accuse another group of operating on their morality. Not to mention it is inaccurate in the particular. Atheists are an extremely varied group who are not bound to any specific morality since the only attribute necessary to be called "atheist" is a lack of belief in God. I suspect the people you refer to are adherents of Enlightenment values though, but even in that case, they would be adherents to a morality which arose in explicit contrast to Christian morality.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Usually it's not Christians who say this though. It originated with Nietzsche.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've heard many, many Christians say this. Just look up any stock apologist like William Lane Craig and I guarantee he says this.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Never even heard of him.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't missing out

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I agree with your assertion that modern atheistic morality is diverse and has more in common with various Enlightenment figures. Perhaps in Nietzsche's time Christian sensibilities were more pervasive still.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would venture to say you are probably correct, the power of church dogma was certainly more potent and held sway over more people in Nietzsche's time than now.

            The fundamental point is that people tend to form a combination of their innate tendencies with the cultural or religious influence of their time to form their guiding opinions. I believe sexual promiscuity is a good example of this point. Among individuals, there is a spectrum of tolerance to promiscuity, some incline towards freedom while others prefer a more conservative, monogamy, fidelity based sexuality. Now, if a church (usually conservative) has influence, people will tend to conform their view to this standard, those of a free bent will repress themselves, and those of a conservative bent will feel all the most justified in their inclination since their internal inclination and the external guide is in alignment.

            The real step past this is to recognize these two aspects, to identify your own inclination and recognize it's biasing influence upon you when you consider the optimal moral mode for society. For instance, I favor a more controlled sexuality limited to monogamy, and I feel it easy to quickly judge those who indulge too quickly or too freely. But I also know that too much repression can have serious negative effects, and that, in general, one should err on the side of allowing more liberty among people to determine their own affairs. Thus, I arrive at the opinion that people should be free sexually, but that society should not be as indulgent as it currently is, but instead influence people to consider their sexuality and make choices which are not solely based on immediate desire, but rather the long term fulfillment, not only of the sexual aspect of their being, but the overall wellness of their whole psyche.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not really. A lot of the New Testament is dedicated to refuting or denying Greek philosophy. There's various chapters in Acts in which the greeks conflict with Paul's preaching, sometimes violently. So you can draw similarities, sure, but to say Christianity is just an eclectic formation of prior greek thought isnt quite accurate

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What exactly do you suppose to be uniquely "Christian morality"? It would be helpful if you stated specifics.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What would jesus do?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But that's actually difficult to answer since he is depicted as a quite enigmatic figure in the NT.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think any genuine Christian would say for instance that the average Westerner operates in accordance with Christian morality. It's an accusation by Nietzscheans who claim that Christianity is responsible for modern decadence.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      see

      Because atheists moronic are moralgay who took their stupid egalitarian and progressive morality from christianity, that's why they don't like Nietzsche.

      We live in a post-christian culture, not an atheistic one

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >We live in a post-christian culture
        I don't think so. Mabye Nietzsche did but we don't.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why do atheists disagree with him?
    Lots of modern western atheists get their morals from Christianity, but with even more emphasis on slave morality. Christianity at least had SOME standards.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because atheists moronic are moralgay who took their stupid egalitarian and progressive morality from christianity, that's why they don't like Nietzsche.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    As I was saying in another thread, Nietzsche's fans think that the only people who dislike him are christians and leftists. This is a cope. I dislike Nietzsche because he was a sophist.

    >b-but that makes you a crypto-christian!!
    Not true. Why assume that western Christianity has a monopoly on rationality? If anything, this assumption makes Nietzsche the actual crypto-christian here.

    Religious obscurantism is incompatible with the socratic tradition. The idea that The Bible is platonism for the masses is simply wrong, yet Nietzsche managed to convince every midwitt and their mom that this bs somehow makes sense.

    Nietzscheanism is rotten christianity.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche would have bootyblasted Plato in any debate

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cope harder, nietzchud

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Plato preemptively sodomized Nietzsche in Book I of The Republic

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Plato sodomized
          Yeah, we all know he was a gay. Not for hairy men though, but for little boys.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the Chad eromenos enjoyer vs. the virgin Lou Salomé simper

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Chad Plato probably fricked entire harems of greek femboys
            Virgin nitzch simped for some russian prostitute, then died after having sex with a prostitute

            Both died childless

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good for them. Taking care of women and children is boring.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Plato and Nietzsche have an endless number of sons. Your great grandchildren will struggle to recall your name

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Chad Plato probably fricked entire harems of greek femboys
            Virgin nitzch simped for some russian prostitute, then died after having sex with a prostitute

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            For Nietzsches clean shaved twink ass

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because Nietzsche believed in race, natural hierarchy, the primacy of the warrior aristocrat and hated Christianity for denying all those things.

    Atheists hate Christianity because they're modern day priestly types who hate Christianity for being insufficiently anti-racist and egalitarian.

    Actual Nietzscheans would be people like Machiavelli and Anthony Ludovico. His ideal man was a Christ-Caesar synthesis, not the fedora tippers.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting how Christianity triggers everyone.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Any moronic ideology that gains sufficient influence does

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Christianity isn't even influential imho.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Atheists hate Christianity because they're modern day priestly types who hate Christianity for being insufficiently anti-racist and egalitarian
      And pagan larpers promote slave morality, because they resent Christianity for destroying paganism. Pagans are losers, so they cope with that by thinking that christians are immoral for following a foreign religion.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it took millennia of constant state oppression to make paganism go underground
        >it comes back the moment it stops
        >less than a century of not having complete and total domination of all state media channels causes christianity to completely collapse
        >no one, not even its supposed defenders, actually want to do it
        idk man that doesn't sound very slavish to me. in fact, it sounds pretty masterful!

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >paganism comes back
          Where?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Europe, Russia, and the US have thriving Pagan scenes. There's a huge amount of Rodnovers in Russia, the AFA is booming in the US, and every European country has dozens of groups, organizations, institutions, and temples (https://salonvert.eu/map.html). The second largest religion in both Iceland and all three of the Baltic states is their local ethnic polytheism.

            Not bad for a religious tradition that was literally illegal to practice in most of these countries a century ago.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Europe, Russia, and the US have thriving Pagan scenes.
            LOL, the only ""pagans"" I've met IRL were disgusting metal nerds, and I live in a country that is associated with pagan LARPing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well yeah, you haven't left your mom's basement in a week.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do use the shower in my mum's basement though unlike long-haired pagancels who wear the same bandshirt 7 days a week.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you the Lithuanian on here that some Asatru dude was talking with a few months back? The one who liked Christianity because it's a global death cult and means that he doesn't have to confront the reality of race?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No but from a similar shithole.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How's the alcohlism

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, paganism is popular because slave morality appeals to the masses.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But you said that Christianity was master morality because it appealed to the masses.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Never said that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I suppose that's the fun thing about you being a Neetchean, you never have to be consistent.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just about anyone can find something they agree with and disagree with from him. Atheism at the core level is just believing there is/are no god/s and there really isn't much else gluing them together.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but why do atheists disagree with him?
    They only do when they drink the liberal kool aid

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    because hes wasnt a theologist, thats why, atheism is not the core of his writings.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I love this meme, and I know the story with the horse is just a story, but I choose to believe it on the premise that the horse represents nature and the owner represents Christianity and what Nietzsche was trying to stop was the Christian's toxic abuse of the natural world

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lmao
        The ancient pagans weren't a bunch of hippies and wiccans, dude. Ancient pagans were brutally imperialistic, and the only thing stopping them from exploiting natural resources even more was a lack of technological development.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pagans had greater respect for nature, you're talking about their tyrants who even pagans knew were buttholes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the people who loved to hunt and sacrifice animals to the Gods or kill them in colosseums had respect for nature

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They made those sacrifices to nature. Their deities were personifications of nature. Their hunts, festivals and cults were in celebration of the various natural instincts and impulses. Meanwhile, Christians imagine a world where nature is full of sin and it must be repudiated at all times in order to escape it and go on to the prized afterlife.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure the animals they slaughtered for their Gods and the species they hunted to extinction appreciated that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Their deities were personifications of nature
            The Gods were and are real sentient willful beings, they're not just abstract archetypes or something like that.

            I'm sure the animals they slaughtered for their Gods and the species they hunted to extinction appreciated that.

            To live and die as one should is a virtuous thing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Gods were and are real sentient willful beings, they're not just abstract archetypes or something like that.
            Proof that your stupid gods aren't made up bullshit?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Their deities were personifications of nature
            The Gods were and are real sentient willful beings, they're not just abstract archetypes or something like that.

            [...]
            To live and die as one should is a virtuous thing.

            Lmao, amazing cope.
            Christian chops a tree: "a disrespect of nature caused by abrahamic influence"
            Pagan chops a tree: "an ancient ritual that praises natural order"
            You guys are idiots.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Gods were and are real sentient willful beings, they're not just abstract archetypes or something like that.
            Proof that your stupid gods aren't made up bullshit?

            I mean, yeah? That's how morality works. Doing something that's in accordance with divine will is good, doing something that's not in accordance with divine will is bad. This is just natural law.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, so explain the difference between a christian chopping down a tree and a pagan doing the same thing.
            Also, you conveniently forgot to provide reasons to believe in your gay ass religion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >natural law
            You don't know what the words you're using mean.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, so explain the difference between a christian chopping down a tree and a pagan doing the same thing.
            Also, you conveniently forgot to provide reasons to believe in your gay ass religion.

            >Also, you conveniently forgot to provide reasons to believe in your gay ass religion
            No, I responded to you. The Gods are real, that's the reason.

            >so explain the difference between a christian chopping down a tree and a pagan doing the same thing.
            They're not doing the same thing. The former is not in accordance with natural law, and the latter is, like I said. That's how natural law works. If you're not living as the Gods want you to, you're doing it wrong. Replace "living" with whatever you want. Killing animals, chopping trees, whatever. There's a proper way to do things: Pagans are doing things properly, followers of israelite Religion #49 aren't. Yes, this absolutely applies to Judaism and Islam (even more than it does to Christianity). This is, as stated, natural law.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Gods are real, that's the reason.
            And how do you know that? You don't, you just believe in this nonsensical crap because you think it makes people see you as based or something.
            >They're not doing the same thing
            It is the same thing. They are both chopping down a tree in the example I provided. You only think there's a difference because you artificially superimpose your religious beliefs into your worldview. Christians do the same thing, by the way. You're way more similar to them than you think.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And how do you know that?
            I've interacted with them as have others.

            >It is the same thing.
            They're doing an action differently so no, it's not the same thing.

            >They are both chopping down a tree in the example I provided.
            I already told you, it's about whether or not the action is in accordance with natural law, the action itself is irrelevant.

            >You only think there's a difference because you artificially superimpose your religious beliefs into your worldview.
            Why would your religious beliefs and your worldview disagree?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if you disregard animal sacrifices, pagans still love to hunt for fun and kill animals in arenas etc. .
            To me ascetic religions like Buddhism or Christianity seem more compatible with the protection of nature for that reason. If you don't care about that the discussion is pointless.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christian and ex-Christian countries have done tremendous environmental damage, and Christianity, if taken as intended by the Gospel writers is about the end of our natural world—why preserve what is to ultimately be abandoned for the divine world of "God"? Buddhism there are a few angles you can take, but from canonical perspective concepts like dependent origination and rebirth, and for Mahayana especially, concepts like buddha-nature (tathagatagarbha) or interdependence (as in the metaphor of Indra's Net) or the non-duality of samsara and nirvana, would all seem to necessitate a more "sacred" character to the ordinary or natural world of humans and animals (and indeed other forms of life, or even non-living habitats-for-life like mountains and bodies of water).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christian and ex-Christian countries
            True. But at least slaughtering rare species in arenas like the Romans would have been considered tasteless. Modesty and asceticism as virtues are compatible with environmentalism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i would agree there should have been sustainable supply chains for Roman bloodsports but that's hardly a question of Christians being better environmentalists than pagans

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're free to list the environmentalist efforts undertaken by pagans.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's a stupid argument because you believe everyone is either going to heaven or hell, the earth is a waiting room

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't even list 1
            I accept your concession.
            You could at least have mentioned the Zoroastrians who had some environmentalist beliefs.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care what Zoroastrians do or don't do. If Christianity is taken seriously it is about abandonment of the earth and the negation of nature. There's no intrinsic reason to not turn the environment into a shithole in such a paradigm. In fact, the shittier it becomes, the more appealing the promise of an eternal afterlife away from here becomes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron, most pagans recognized their mortality and believed in an afterlife as well.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            greeks and many others believed in metempsychosis

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Definitely not a widespread belief in ancient Greece. In India it was.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah the writings of Plato and Orpheus were minor influences on Greek theology

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Greek culture was more than 1000 years old by the time of Plato. You can't be that moronic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            in any event among Greeks who believed in metempsychosis it would be reasonable to find sympathy for the environment and for animal life, which we in fact do, as the Pythagoreans for instance were often vegetarians, much like pajeets were and still are—and again there is no intrinsic reason to conserve nature if you believe God is nowhere to be found here but somewhere else... I am sure I don't need to tell you many Greeks believed in sacred groves, mountains, caves and the like while for Christians a sacred place is somewhere a nihilist was beaten to death for refusing to say "hope you are doing well" to Roman officials

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As I said earlier, it's hard to take these claims seriously when talking about cultures that sacrificed animals and such.
            Plato was an anthropocentrist and one of Nietzsche's life-deniers anyway.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you have consistently dodged the question anyway of whether the Christian rejection of nature is more intrinsically 'environmentalist' than believing we will return to this earth (or that divinity is contained within it rather than being external or transcendental to it), so I'm not surprised the goalposts are in the parking lot now with regard to Nietzsche's criticism of Plato

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As I said, I'm not interested in your this question until you can point me to practical environmentalist efforts undertaken by the pagans so that we actually have a reference to make comparisons. I don't really want to talk about your dubious ideas about what the pagan religions. It's a difficult topic even without such obfuscations.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >practical environmentalist efforts undertaken by the pagans
            i've no intention of researching or writing your thesis

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            See

            >Their deities were personifications of nature
            The Gods were and are real sentient willful beings, they're not just abstract archetypes or something like that.

            [...]
            To live and die as one should is a virtuous thing.

            . The point isn't that killing animals is inherently bad or good, it's the manner and intensity. The whole "human bioslime stripping the world clean because muh Israel" thing is the problem, not killing an animal or cutting a tree. Animals (and trees) kill eachother all the time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pagans hunted several species to extinction, deforested entire regions etc. . Not that pre-modern Christians were better in practice most of the time.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So have many other species, what's your point?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That pagans weren't environmentalists. That's a romanticist concoction probably.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Obviously? No one in this thread made that claim.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Someone blamed Christcuck for the 'toxic abuse of nature', and I think that was his implication.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It pretty clearly wasn't given that he went on to say that he was totally fine with people cutting down trees and killing animals and using nature's bounty provided it's done sustainably. That's hardly what environmentalists want, but it is absolutely what every Pagan religion held as doctrine concerning how man is supposed to interact with the rest of the Gods' world.

            Like, in

            Christian chops a tree, then condemns the soil for growing it by calling it sinful. He plants another, because his Bible tells him he must, and gives it the bare minimum of nourishment, because he only lives for the afterlife (i.e., to die).

            Pagan chops a tree, then celebrates the soil for growing it, by telling stories and holding festivals in its honor. He plants another, because he wants to, and gives it as much nourishment as he can, because he lives to enjoy this life.

            The Christian is a decadent organism.

            , he criticizes Judaism for saying that nature exists for israelites rather than for in some part itself. Environmentalists don't want nature to exist for itself or for man to interact with nature at all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >provided it's done sustainably
            That's the point, it wasnt

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Remember that between the Mesolithic and the Iron Age some of the most magnificent Eurasian species were exterminated. Wooly mammoths, aurochs, several species of wild horses, European lions etc. . The Bronze Age was also the period that saw some of the worst deforestation in Europe.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's entirely possible to extinct (extinctify?) species in a sustainable manner, nature does it all the time. There's nothing inherently special about a particular configuration of life. There's gazillions of species that are just "slight variation of animal/plant X", and due to convergent evolution they can easily come back.

            At no point is any of this against natural law. What's not natural is destroying the very environment that you are dependent upon, as Abrahamists do.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's entirely possible to extinct (extinctify?) species in a sustainable manner,
            Lol.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christian chops a tree, then condemns the soil for growing it by calling it sinful. He plants another, because his Bible tells him he must, and gives it the bare minimum of nourishment, because he only lives for the afterlife (i.e., to die).

            Pagan chops a tree, then celebrates the soil for growing it, by telling stories and holding festivals in its honor. He plants another, because he wants to, and gives it as much nourishment as he can, because he lives to enjoy this life.

            The Christian is a decadent organism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christian chops a tree, then condemns the soil for growing it by calling it sinful.
            You're arguing against a Christian that exists only in your schizoid brain.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus literally tells the israelites that he created the world as a larder for them to raid and then magically curses a fig tree when it tries to exist for its own sake.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            the fig tree represented the land and the people he was denouncing. israel and its people categorically rejected him. it's the tree that will never bear good fruit(people).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and then magically curses a fig tree
            "The figs fall from the trees, they are good and sweet; and in falling the red skins of them break. A north wind am I to ripe figs.
            Thus, like figs, do these doctrines fall for you, my friends: imbibe now their juice and their sweet substance! It is autumn all around, and clear sky, and afternoon.
            Lo, what fullness is around us! And out of the midst of superabundance, it is delightful to look out upon distant seas.
            Once did people say God, when they looked out upon distant seas; now, however, have I taught you to say, Superman."

            [...]
            >the fig tree represented the land and the people he was denouncing
            "One day had Zarathustra fallen asleep under a fig-tree, owing to the heat, with his arms over his face. And there came an adder and bit him in the neck, so that Zarathustra screamed with pain. When he had taken his arm from his face he looked at the serpent; and then did it recognise the eyes of Zarathustra, wriggled awkwardly, and tried to get away. “Not at all,” said Zarathustra, “as yet hast thou not received my thanks! Thou hast awakened me in time; my journey is yet long.” “Thy journey is short,” said the adder sadly; “my poison is fatal.” Zarathustra smiled. “When did ever a dragon die of a serpent’s poison?”—said he “But take thy poison back! Thou art not rich enough to present it to me.” Then fell the adder again on his neck, and licked his wound.
            When Zarathustra once told this to his disciples they asked him: “And what, O Zarathustra, is the moral of thy story?” And Zarathustra answered them thus:
            The destroyer of morality, the good and just call me: my story is immoral."

            >h-he changed his mind!
            Not an argument.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and then magically curses a fig tree
            "The figs fall from the trees, they are good and sweet; and in falling the red skins of them break. A north wind am I to ripe figs.
            Thus, like figs, do these doctrines fall for you, my friends: imbibe now their juice and their sweet substance! It is autumn all around, and clear sky, and afternoon.
            Lo, what fullness is around us! And out of the midst of superabundance, it is delightful to look out upon distant seas.
            Once did people say God, when they looked out upon distant seas; now, however, have I taught you to say, Superman."

            the fig tree represented the land and the people he was denouncing. israel and its people categorically rejected him. it's the tree that will never bear good fruit(people).

            >the fig tree represented the land and the people he was denouncing
            "One day had Zarathustra fallen asleep under a fig-tree, owing to the heat, with his arms over his face. And there came an adder and bit him in the neck, so that Zarathustra screamed with pain. When he had taken his arm from his face he looked at the serpent; and then did it recognise the eyes of Zarathustra, wriggled awkwardly, and tried to get away. “Not at all,” said Zarathustra, “as yet hast thou not received my thanks! Thou hast awakened me in time; my journey is yet long.” “Thy journey is short,” said the adder sadly; “my poison is fatal.” Zarathustra smiled. “When did ever a dragon die of a serpent’s poison?”—said he “But take thy poison back! Thou art not rich enough to present it to me.” Then fell the adder again on his neck, and licked his wound.
            When Zarathustra once told this to his disciples they asked him: “And what, O Zarathustra, is the moral of thy story?” And Zarathustra answered them thus:
            The destroyer of morality, the good and just call me: my story is immoral."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's incredible how many people read these passages and interpret Nietzsche as being indifferent or as glorifying evil.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He was a militarist who viewed the ascent of commerce and the peaceful trade between nations as a sign of decline and looked back nostalgically to the times of Imperial Rome. He was also an admirer of the trader-merchant culture of the Greek nation states and the Italian Renaissance, but Nietzsche isn't known for being a consistent thinker.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >viewed the ascent of commerce and the peaceful trade between nations as a sign of decline
            "Fundamental Basis of a Culture of Traders.—We have now an opportunity of watching the manifold growth of the culture of a society of which commerce is the soul, just as personal rivalry was the soul of culture among the ancient Greeks, and war, conquest, and law among the ancient Romans. The tradesman is able to value everything without producing it, and to value it according to the requirements of the consumer rather than his own personal needs. “How many and what class of people will consume this?” is his question of questions. Hence, he instinctively and incessantly employs this mode of valuation and applies it to everything, including the productions of art and science, and of thinkers, scholars, artists, statesmen, nations, political parties, and even entire ages: with respect to everything produced or created he inquires into the supply and demand in order to estimate for himself the value of a thing. This, when once it has been made the principle of an entire culture, worked out to its most minute and subtle details, and imposed upon every kind of will and knowledge, this is what you men of the coming century will be proud of,—if the prophets of the commercial classes are right in putting that century into your possession! But I have little belief in these prophets. Credat Judæus Apella—to speak with Horace."

            >He was also an admirer of the trader-merchant culture of the Greek nation states
            "The robber and the man of power who promises to protect a community from robbers are perhaps at bottom beings of the same mould, save that the latter attains his ends by other means than the former—that is to say, through regular imposts paid to him by the community, and no longer through forced contributions. (The same relation exists between merchant and pirate, who for a long period are one and the same person: where the one function appears to them inadvisable, they exercise the other. Even to-day mercantile morality is really nothing but a refinement on piratical morality—buying in the cheapest market, at prime cost if possible, and selling in the dearest.) The essential point is that the man of power promises to maintain the equilibrium against the robber, and herein the weak find a possibility of living. For either they must group themselves into an equivalent power, or they must subject themselves to some one of equivalent power (i.e. render service in return for his efforts)."

            >but Nietzsche isn't known for being a consistent thinker.
            You are known for being a dumb gay.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your quotes are barely relevant to what I said, even if quote mining was a respectable way of arguing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no such thing as sin. Sin uglifies, and is perceived only by an ugly mind.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think of it as a kind of jataka tale, like the horse was buddha and nietzsche was maitreya

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yours is cooler so let's go with that

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    atheists are christians

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's mostly a matter of temperament, tone, disposition, emphasis. It's not that I dislike him, but that he wasn't particularly capable of relaxing completely where and when it's easy to do so, and the real winners at life never lose their sense of the human comedy, particularly about themselves. He was a brilliant aphorist on occasion, but I much prefer company both in life and art who are more at home in civilization, as Montaigne and Goethe were.

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why do atheists disagree with him?
    Wdym? I thought atheists support him 100%. What kind of atheists like far leftist tards? I know a guy in my college who is atheist and he said he was a nihilist?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's a whole tradition of non-liberal atheists that oppose Nietzsche. The power based normative ethics he advocates in The Antichrist is more or less just Homeric honor culture, like the shit in Sophocles' Ajax, and even back then there were non-religious people criticizing it, like Odysseus at the end of the play. Prioritizing power above all else just really isn't fitting for all people, some people are suited to be sociopath CEOs that exploit the weak for their own gain, and they're happy with that, but lots of other people have an inborn sense of guilt and mercy that they really can't overcome. The Nietzschean ethic was best exemplified by the Nazi regime, and while in abstract it attracted a lot of supporters even outside of Germany, many figures directly involved in the cruelty, like Ernst Junger, or even foreign supporters like Emil Ciroan, eventually grew to be horrified at the reality of the Nietzschean transvaluation of values, dehumanization and elimination of the weak, and pursuit of power and strength above all else. Junger ended up writing On The Marble Cliffs after his stint as a highly decorated soldier under hitler, and Cioran even considered Nietzsche and the Nazis to be his life's biggest mistake. Lmao

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The Nietzschean ethic was best exemplified by the Nazi regime
        made me chuckle, it's always impressive how posters here who opine the most have read the least

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Name one modern regime that was more Nietzschean.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Israel, Rhodesia, South Africa, American pioneers

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol no, these are all very egalitarian. So was Nazi Germany in some sense but there existed germs of a more aristocratic culture. No such thing existed in America or Israel.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >germs of a more aristocratic culture
            what could be more aristocratic than a blonde beast culture seizing land and enthralling or expelling the indigenous, nothing short of this can pass for aristocratic, or do you forget what Europe's aristocrats were before they grew fat?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            American pioneers were yeomen farmers, who would have been considered banausic in an aristocratic culture. The USA is a fundamentally egalitarian project

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            if you are running a farm next to a valley of scalpers and holding the reins over a body of slaves and servants, you are far more of a nobleman than any powdered degenerate whose never seen dirt before

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/the-gay-science/aphorism-329-quote_eb99f0921.html

            Read what the man himself had to say. Nietzsche considered America the epitome of a banausic culture where everything is subordinated to profit and opportunity.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            is he specifically denouncing the pioneer and settler culture of America or a generic "American" he can make up as he pleases to express his own values?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >enters Nietzsche thread
            >hasn't read Nietzsche
            >too lazy to read a single passage
            Kys.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wasn't going to click your link. I have the book, I looked up the quote, he may as well be paraphrasing Emerson, he is basically denouncing the time-keeping industrial work-ethic culture, which is very unrelated to the type of historical pioneer/settler American I had cited as an example of being more Nietzschean than your supposedly most-Nietzschean slave-moralist nazi partisans. Where he continues is especially interesting—we are losing our ability to be idle and sense of shame regarding work! A frontier or colonial life is certainly a hard one for those on the ground and far from the metropolis, but it is not one of timetables and schedules and endless hustle to make an extra widget. Surely those on living in such communities viewed work differently than a National Socialist German Workers' Party member...

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Protestants with family farms will never be aristocrats no matter how much you cope.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            At this point one simply has to shrug. If a rabble rouser crying that minorities are too powerful is more of an aristocrat than somebody who is a part-time barbarian not for ideological reasons but simply because he was capable of taking what he saw, then you are working from very different terms.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I simply agree with Nietzsche's assessment.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of what, an industrialized, urban American culture? That's not the same thing as a pioneer/settler culture, which has far more in common with Nietzsche's archetypal blonde beast than any factory owner, shopkeeper, or merchant. You should listen to how today's slave moralists describe such cultures, with complete outrage and ressentiment over having been on the wrong end of a musket and surrendered.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't understand anything about Nietzsche.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What BAP does to an mf

            should I take this seriously coming from people who are familiar with eceleb opinions and think nazis are peak Nietzsche?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What BAP does to an mf

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/the-gay-science/aphorism-329-quote_eb99f0921.html
            Jesus fricking christ, this passage perfectly describes Americans even today. I grew up right outside NYC and know everything he is talking about. It's precisely why I'm a passport bro now.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It sounds like you have a secondary-literature-only understanding of Nietzsche. The only people I've ever encountered that hold that Theodore Herzl and his plan for Israel were Nietzschean were people brainwashed into a weird pseudo Zionism by BAP and his whole astroturfed zionist circle. Israel doesn't have any of the sorts of breeding programs that the Nazis had or that Nietzsche advocated, it doesn't have any form of autarchy, it's entirely reliant on US tax dollars for its existence, and it exerts the sort of power that Nietzsche condemns in the Antichrist. Its power lies in its intelligence agencies, subterfuge, and manipulation of words to make other stronger and more honest peoples support it, just like the priests that Nietzsche condemns. BAPism is a weird form of brainrot.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          What do you mean? That's a pretty common view. Even modern far right reactionaries believe that, Abir Taha has an entire book about it published through Arktos, more or less the most respectable radical right wing publishing house that has been keeping the radical right and new right tradition alive. The nazi ideology was an interesting fusion of Klages biocentric worldview, Nietzsche's later ethics, and an esoteric doctrine of aryan mysticism based off of Blavatsky's doctrine of root races. I have an entire dissertation published about this if you would like to see it 🙂

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's a pretty common view
            it's also entirely wrong, but to be expected that neo-nazi publishers have no idea what they are talking about

            It sounds like you have a secondary-literature-only understanding of Nietzsche. The only people I've ever encountered that hold that Theodore Herzl and his plan for Israel were Nietzschean were people brainwashed into a weird pseudo Zionism by BAP and his whole astroturfed zionist circle. Israel doesn't have any of the sorts of breeding programs that the Nazis had or that Nietzsche advocated, it doesn't have any form of autarchy, it's entirely reliant on US tax dollars for its existence, and it exerts the sort of power that Nietzsche condemns in the Antichrist. Its power lies in its intelligence agencies, subterfuge, and manipulation of words to make other stronger and more honest peoples support it, just like the priests that Nietzsche condemns. BAPism is a weird form of brainrot.

            >Theodore Herzl and his plan for Israel
            I am thinking more of the actual country and not the blueprint drawn up by shtetl dwellers and European socialists, the actual country, the one which consists of an endless war to seize what can be taken, a war conducted with zero shame by a "settler" population (all Israelis are essentially such save a handful descended from the indigenous pre-19th century population, not just those in the West Bank). They are without any doubt the blonde beast to our dispossed fellaheen. Of course, Israel relies on the United States, and much in the way a farmer's wealth would be tied up in his cattle—that perhaps makes it even more "aristocratic," that hundreds of millions of people pay taxes for the sake of several million. If that's not aristocracy... then? As for its use of intelligence and subterfuge that is indeed a kind of weaponized weakness, but it would be impossible to wage contemporary war without such tools unless it is some sort of Saharan toyota war. Morally and strategically they are better "Nietzscheans" than the nazis were, but that does not make Zionism a perfect Nietzscheanism. And what Nietzsche offers is something of an eternal critique anyway—at no point would his maxims not tear at your laurels, just as he calls on you to tear at his.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The nazis themselves had adapted versions of Nietzsche that were part of the Weltanschuuang curriculum for all hitler youth. If neo-nazis don't understand Nazism, and the Nazis themselves don't understand Nazism, then who does understand Nazism?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between an aristocrat and a common thief. Americans & israelites are much closer to the latter.

            Merely taking things that don't belong to you doesn't make you an aristocrat, otherwise you'd have to concede that the imported third worlders in the West are the new aristocrats.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            an aristocrat is just a successful bandit

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then by your definition, the most aristocratic people are the most Black person like, the people that just loot and rape and produce nothing of value of their own. That has almost never existed though, historical European aristocracies were used to partition and maintain portions of the land at a time when mass governance was incredibly difficult. They had bonds of honor and inheritance that would lead to a stable society, the french Aristocracy before the revolution even had the concept of noblesse oblige, that the aristocracy had more power over society and therefore duties to protect those below them and ensure the continuation of ancient dynamics and institutions that created that stability. Every aristocrat that acted as a bandit was hated, and quickly disposed of when possible. Aristocracy is meant to be rule of the best that leads to the best for all, not of self enriching sociopaths. Again, BAPism has rotted your brain. You have no historical understanding of aristocracy, a flimsy knowledge of Nietzsche, and it seems that your only real belief is some half-baked Zionism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            aristocrats are all originally descended from bandits, who seized what was what not defended and violated laws which were not enforced upon them
            i don't know why you keep babbling about your gay eceleb parasocial boyfriend as if his views have anything to do with this
            and your own purported "historical understanding of aristocracy" is laughable, it wasn't some convocation of "the best" pursuing "the best for all," this is merely the moronic mewling of someone soured on the democracy failing to live up to its promise and substituting it for a reactionary and magical view of the ancient regime as a force for social justice and harmony
            gilles de rais is aristocracy unfettered, as it originally was, not as it is imagined to be by sad neo paleo ultra reactionaries

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >low IQ Nietzscheans idolize child murderes now
            Not surprised.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm just telling you what real aristocracy is, it's not arthurian romance, it's not a ponderous utilitarian enterprise, and it most certainly isn't a moral order interested in making society the best it can be

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes real aristocracy is raping and murdering children.
            Shut the frick up you unhinged freak. No one needs your low IQ drivel.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            this but unironically—you as a non-member of the aristocracy have the right to do as you are ordered, the appetites of those aristocrats are hopefully moderated by... something... but a mere appeal to "aristocracy" accomplishes no such restraint

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's lamentable that we teach sub-90IQ mongoloids like you how to write.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's lamentable that you think establishing a legally superior class of citizen would lead to anything but the abuse of those beneath them, it is a shame liberals thought your ancestors deserved rights you now despise

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Non Liberal atheists opposing Nietzsche

        >isn't fitting for all people
        >cruelty
        >exploiting of the weak
        >power above all else
        Statements like these, and the definition of "power" as grand, evil political or corporate power is liberal humanist rhetoric. Your perspective on Nietzsche as exemplifying homeric honor culture is also a liberal humanist take, akin to philipa foot.

        What do you mean? That's a pretty common view. Even modern far right reactionaries believe that, Abir Taha has an entire book about it published through Arktos, more or less the most respectable radical right wing publishing house that has been keeping the radical right and new right tradition alive. The nazi ideology was an interesting fusion of Klages biocentric worldview, Nietzsche's later ethics, and an esoteric doctrine of aryan mysticism based off of Blavatsky's doctrine of root races. I have an entire dissertation published about this if you would like to see it 🙂

        The nazis themselves had adapted versions of Nietzsche that were part of the Weltanschuuang curriculum for all hitler youth. If neo-nazis don't understand Nazism, and the Nazis themselves don't understand Nazism, then who does understand Nazism?

        Name one modern regime that was more Nietzschean.

        Nietzsche was against herd morality and anything that drove people into a herd. He explicitly spoke against german nationalism. He made fun of germans and said they had no culture at all. He said there were no ubermensches, only some decent people. he said slave/master morality was mixed in all people to begin with, and that the distinction was more of an intellectual rough outline of two opposing tendencies. He did not at any point say anything like "i support master morality", except only as a way of comparing greek culture to the deficiencies of our current times. He does compare homeric greek to later greek culture as well, and paints a picture of change, and notes how we are just further along that same line. Despite noting as "decay", he also no doubt notices that priestly, slavish, non heroic virtues did win out, did conquer, etc, and he shows and uncovers what is behind these values. Above all else, nietzsche hated the worship of ideals/idols set in stone, and thought this hindered human life.

        By comparison:
        The nazis believed in national unifying spirit. They believed in obedience to the nation. They believed that they were already ubermensches, and above the rest of humanity. They believed this on a groupwide basis. They further advocated for "master morality" for the whole group. Hitler was a drug addict with pure resentment, and upheld total hatred of "israeli" values. He exemplified and german natsoc propangandized some "ideal" return to the "traditional past". They believed they were restoring the idols of the past, as a group.
        The two could not be further from each other. If you believe in any similarities, you're making cultural conflations. The view you hold was popular up to 1950's anglo america, prior to walter kaufmann and french pomo readings of nietzsche.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're contrasting the Greeks with a caricature of the Nazis, so this is pointless.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >caricature of the nazis
            Yeah the nazis totally didnt insist on a group (aryan) master morality in service of a german state.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Germans had dysgenic leaders so by definition not master morality. They tried but failed
            They were just not meant for it. A cripple can try to jump but he won't jump

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          peak midwit post

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The Nietzschean ethic was best exemplified by the Nazi regime
        No, it was best exemplified by the United States in the 20th century. Many readers of Nietzsche forget, or just fail to grasp, that he was writing for a small and specific group of people who he referred to as hyperboreans. This small group was to live according to the power-based normative ethics he was espousing, not everyone. He even talks about this in The Antichrist. So, what this means is that the Nazis were perhaps the worst at employing Nietzsche's philosophy out of everyone, because they tried forcing his ethics onto everyone, which is precisely the opposite of the political strategy that he advised.

        It's for a similar reason, by the way, why Nietzsche also doesn't fit into the liberal democratic party, because his policy for education worked the same way. Liberal democrats want everyone to be educated in the same manner, or at any rate, to have an equal opportunity in education; Nietzsche, on the other hand, didn't think education could change people.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >No, it was best exemplified by the United States in the 20th century.
          8D logic right here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesnt know USA inspired NatSocs in lots of ways..

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, here is a video of that passage you are referring to -

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I smell some sort of slav or yuropoor, it's the only way you could be this mad the United States used to be one big Israel for everyone who left Europe

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I get why Christians don’t like Nietzsche’s philosophy, but why do atheists disagree with him?
    Because Nietzsche
    is a Theist.

    He is a pre-platonic Hellenic ; Indo-European "Hellade" Theist.

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists disagree with Nietzsche because their morality is still Christian. There are two general types of atheists: ones who think like John Lennon's song Imagine and one's who think the kinds of Christian laws the former type finds morally wrong (anti-homosexuality, slavery laws depicted in the OT, etc.) are actually a part of natural law and should be endorsed through a morality of strength. The latter tends to endorse Nietzsche, and the former reject him for the same reason they reject the laws in the Bible endorsed secularly by the latter type.
    My take is that when God died masculinity and femininity split into two patterns of thinking that were not reconciled intellectually in any secular sense. The feminine pattern of thinking gave rise to communism, civil rights, what we call "hippy Jesus", etc. The masculine pattern of thinking became fascism, and eventually the alt-right. The feminine pattern of thinking is easier to sell to people (or at least it was until recently because people are becoming tired of it) because it more readily appealed to the slave moralist mindset.

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I noticed that a lot of the most outspoken critics of Nietzsche haven't actually read his works, they've just heard quotes or what he has supposedly said from other sources. Almost all religious people will have an issue with him due to his "be your own hero" mentality and almost all religions require you to unquestioningly bow down to other men who are somehow more connected to god than you are - despite them also being human themselves. Now, a lot of atheists while no openly are following defined religions with a supernatural theme are still somewhat religious in their behaviors towards their trust of human figures in science/politics/whatever - they have no god that they bow down to, no religious leaders that they revere- yet they still are unable to go their own path and be their own hero. It's actually more embarrassing for atheists because by their own metric they have less reason to conform and follow the crowd - but they still do. And being submissive to a man that you know is just man, and you don't believe has any supernatural connection to the divine just makes you even more of a cuck. Nietzsche exposes the sheep behavior of religious people, but at the same time btfo's of athiests.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >be your own hero
      Cringed.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cringe in what way? It is more cringe to hero-worship other mortals. It means to not have role-models, to not look to other people in society on how to live, to find your own values from introspection and self awareness. Those who look to others often are creating pedestals in their own mind for other humans - putting others before themselves and essentially creating a hero. If you are your own hero than there are no other humans on pedestals in your mind. You can still believe in god, but it has to be from your own discovery and not from mindless conforming. If you put a person on a pedestal you are indirectly putting yourself lower.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You sound stupid or teenaged.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            a profound statement, with nothing more to add. Pointless insult that will be disregarded. I may be stupid, but I have no ill-will towards you, I just was stating how improving yourself is seen as superior to submitting to others you perceive to be above you. What benefit is there in accepting a lower position and not aspiring to improve yourself? Is that not a core part of Nietzsche's work?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let us know once you've invented your own morality and also how you derived it from first principles.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            once I conquer my adhd and internet addiction

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don’t listen to this moronic “le based” christcuck

          You sound stupid or teenaged.

          . Literally sitting on the side jerking off “bro wanting to determine your own values is cringe, i get mine from a israeli rabbi who died 2000 years ago!”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are your values?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche himself is a sheep to the atheist religion by being desperate to make nihilism hip, and his only idea is that "nihilism is actually awesome because I changed the definition of nihilism to mean christianity''

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >dude nietzsche liked and advocated for nihilism
        you just proved that guy right

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >christians don't like Nietzsche because he is anti-christian
        wow, who knew huh?
        also, isn't your religion about being nice to sheep anyway?

  31. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some Christians do like Nietzsche's philosophy; consider that the Antichrist was far more a critique of *Christianity,* than it was Jesus. Nietzsche still criticizes Jesus here and there within it, but he praises him too, and IIRC, there are more praiseworthy comments than criticisms. In that book he calls him both "an idiot," and "the noblest human being."
    As for atheists, again, disagreement is varied, some do agree with Nietzsche; they probably misunderstand him if they do, but, that's alright.

    Nietzsche's view of God was as a mental construct, and Nietzsche believed mental constructs are the first ingredients to world-creation, a collective process that most of humanity participates in without being consciously aware of it; our values drive our creations. So if most men believe in God, then men will create something befitting of men who believe in God.
    And if men believe in nothing, then they will create a world that reflects a bunch of men who have no beliefs in anything.
    That's largely what he was getting at and what he was worried about. Nihilism creates a meaningless, unfulfilling world, by definition. Whether God actually exists or not seemed moot for him, he appeared to believe that when we believe in God, God exists, for all intents and purposes.

  32. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but why do atheists disagree with him?
    FBI

  33. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I once had a vision in the third grade of burning in hell with a mustached man laughing at me also in hell. Years later I found out who Nietzsche was

  34. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't bother with the other moron and just read Nolte's book on Nietzsche

  35. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    'Cause Nietzsche btfo'd atheism

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