Is it really Christian morality very different from the Greco-Roman one?

Is it really Christian morality very different from the Greco-Roman one? Didn’t the ancients praise moderation and virtue?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's not that different. aristotle already did everything nietzsche tried to do regarding values (but better) in Nichomachean Ethics. the middle path

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    And self sacrifice and being humble. Slave morality always wins and all master moralists can do is kvetch about it.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe if you read Nietzsche you will learn since he explains it like youre 5, you dumb moron

      Slave moralities lose to amoralist blacks and browns and all you can do is kvetch about it
      Such is life

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        go back to your reddit

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cope

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Explains why feminism and Afrocentrism took over

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        bioleninism and unironically chemicals in the water turning the men gay

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah until your slave morality is overtaken by even worse slave morality, like

      Explains why feminism and Afrocentrism took over

      , where you are now kvetching about how no-one goes to church anymore.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It depends what you mean you "greco-roman". Post-platonic philosophy is not too different from the Christian. Nietzsche wants to return to what he sees as a better pre-socratic morality. The ones from e.g. the illiad. Though I would personally dispute how different pre and post socratic morality truly was. It's probably more of a modern fiction about the ancients than what is reality.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pre-socratic morality. The ones from e.g. the illiad.
      >literally just "ugly/weak people are wrong"
      Based.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        (moron who never read the odyssey)

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >read
          No such thing.
          t. Homer

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    In almost every single moralistic system derived from some religious dogma there is some aspect that preaches the benefits and virtues of moderation. They all did the work for you and independently and concurrently reached the same outcome.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, I will remove concurrently, there may be a sense of concurrency to you based on your question but they did it independently at differing times in actuality.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Didn’t the ancients praise moderation and virtue
    no. who told you that? they basically did their praising when they had finished being moderate

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      (guy who has never read the pre socratics)
      (moron)

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes, im a cratylus schizo. it's not my fault. my teacher wanted to see 5 es

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh, they praised virtue. Virtù, that is, moraline-free virtue.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >moraline-free virtue.
      can you elaborate?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        He can’t because they are extremely similar concepts.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          can you elaborate on how they are similar?
          not trolling, just curious

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Machiavelli mourned the loss of virtu. Virtus is derived from the word Vir (man in Latin) and referred to manliness and manly qualities such as bravery and strength and had little to do with pity for the weak or universal kindness like Christian virtue.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            aristotle had concord with others in his definition of virtu. machiavelli (with nietzsche) is the one to say self-centeredness ought to be thought of as virtu

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seems like a Conan the Barbarian tier misrepresentation of Roman virtues.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Machiavelli mourned the loss of virtu. Virtus is derived from the word Vir (man in Latin) and referred to manliness and manly qualities such as bravery and strength and had little to do with pity

            Seems like a Conan the Barbarian tier misrepresentation of Roman virtues.

            >moraline-free virtue.
            can you elaborate?

            Yes ; but Virtu and "manliness" in relation to "The Patriarchy" that is upheld by Roman Religion

            Christianity changed the Signifiers, the "meta - relationships" are now in relation to Christian Metaphysics , to the ideology of "the Church" and not anymore the actual "fraternity between Patricians" that stems from Indo-European Warrior Cults.

            This is why Rome is a Republic in the first place.
            The Republic exists because it has been Generated by this Patriarchical Cult that Christianity has replaced.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What you wrote sounds really stupid, and it's not in Nietzsche's works.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be moderate about vices
    >honor is your higest value
    >if you are pater familias you can kill all your family if it pleases you and some men are literal animals you can dispose as you wish
    Vs.
    >be moderate bout vices
    >faith is your higest value
    >you have to respect your family and every man is sacred

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ancients were much more religious than christcucks. They also respected their families much more (ancestors are gods), unlike christcucks who want you to treat everyone equally and be a proto-communist.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Agree. Here's a list of quotables I made on this very subject (feel free to use)

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ironic that “his” name is the first bishop of Rome

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >more religious
        Wtf that even means
        >respected their families much more
        I wasn't talking about respect (honor was their most important value as I said), but how they could dispose of them. The point is that human value was only recognised to mature male citizens, while for christianity everyone has the same dignity (even women and children). That doesn't mean they abolished gerarchies in the family (wife, children/pater familias) or in society (servants/masters), they only put a limit to unleashed absolute power abuse on them.
        Tl,dr: if you were born in antiquity your father could have killed you without any consequence. If you're free to spam shit on Oyish instead of being a slave to your master be thankful to Christ

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ancient Rome was still subject to natural selection. If the father enslaves or otherwise mistreats his family, they won't be a successful family and will lose to families which have better cooperation. Or could it be that harshness towards women and children makes them better and provides an advantage? Hmmm.. What if everything you believe is a dysgenic lie? In any case, children can't be free (though the most mentally ill liberals like Rousseau have proposed this). So either you own your kids or the state owns them. Even christcucks, despite all their shortcomings, say that the man should be the head of family and believe in The Father.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >christcucks

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can't see a difference between being the chief of the family and have the literal right to kill its members?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Faith is your greatest value
      This is only for some flavors of Protestantism, which has existed for a small fraction of Christian history and has only ever accounted for a fraction of all Christians.

      Nietzsche makes the mistake of thinking that "how lay people around me practice this millennia-spanning, global religion," is the essence of that religion.

      I think a more common take would be:
      >Mystical union with the divine/the possession of God's Spirit and Logos is your greatest value
      Or:
      >Holiness is your greater value.

      Christianity as merely something you "believe," instead of something you "do" or "become" is a Reformation thing.

      Christianity as primarily "avoiding punishment and getting reward" is a medieval invention that has had unfortunate staying power. It's also more a lay perception, less something theologians of all stripes have ever embraced.

      Part of the problem is that people think anyone should be able to be an "authority" on spiritual matters. Just because your aunt "believes" in what physics tells you about the world, you wouldn't expect that she can explain physics to you (unless she's a physicist). But people expect that anyone who professes a faith must be able to explain it to them expertly, and assumes they now understand what people mean by the faith.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The biggest difference is the Person of Jesus and what He has to say.

    As Ratzinger repeatedly emphasizes, what distinguishes Christianity from all the religions before it, and all the religions that came after it, is that its central figure is also its God, and also set up a sequence of events as a test case to prove His validity.

    Basically, you should take Jesus seriously because of the Resurrection. Jesus' teachings, and everything said about Him, gain authority from the fact that He rose from the dead. All the Gospels build to this truth if you bother to read them.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Blessed

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you should take Jesus seriously because of the Resurrection
      Which never happened.
      >Jesus' teachings
      Which were not remarkable.
      >and everything said about Him
      Which was not true.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        source: your blown out aids infested butthole

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    moderation as something the individual accepts as a sort of challenge against the turbulent self and as a peak to climb through will is not the same as moderation being moralized=collectivized as an herd instinct to follow

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is very different but Spengler pretty much refuted Nietzsche entirely in DoTW. He makes clear that Nietzsche just projected what he liked onto the Greeks and what he didn’t like into the Christians, without regarding either as they actually were.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Wasn't this polytheist society who celebrated war, tragedy, and the hunt the same as this monotheist one that came centuries later?
    Gee OP, I wonder. I mean, why stop there anyway? Maybe all organisms along the evolutionary chain were in fact Christian? Do you think the early hydrogen molecules in space were Christian too? I think so.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >polytheist society who celebrated war
      The ancient war gods generally had strongly negative aspects. Mars/Ares were considered savage deities and regarded with fear.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah whatever, the city states of ancient Greece still went to war constantly and their society eventually produced one of the greatest warmongers ever known in history (Alexander). This was not a very peace-loving people. They also built an entire elaborate social function with massive popularity, the Olympic Contests (not games — the Greeks had no word for "game") designed specifically to find and elect new military commanders and political leaders, a function which attracted people from outside Greece, and which Roman Christians eventually discontinued.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Christians didn't go to war

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those Christians are mostly gone now. They're all gay homosexuals who hate war now.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Alexander justified his conquest as a way to liberate the Anatolian Greeks from Persian, seems that almost no one wanted to be seen as an agresor without a just motive, the Spaniards used Catholicism, Hitler used defense against communism, etc

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Incorrect. Παίγνιον from παις meant game. Olympic Contests were αγώνες, agon(s) which is more about struggle
          But the Greeks did have a word for games

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Παιδιά is also a word for game. Άθυρμα could be translated as game as well. Idk where he got that from.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          wow. you're moronic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            astoundingly wrong

            Cry harder

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Mars/Ares were considered savage deities and regarded with fear.
        I may be wrong, but those two differed.
        Mars was closer to a disciplined general and also had some connection to agriculture. Ares was the god of slaughter, not war.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Ares was the god of slaughter, not war.
          wut

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ares represented the distasteful aspects of war, such as slaughter, not war in its entirety.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ares (/ˈɛəriːz/; Ancient Greek: Ἄρης, Árēs [árɛːs]) is the Greek god of war and courage.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that Wikipedia? If so, right under what you just quoted is this.
            >He embodies the physical valor necessary for success in war but can also personify sheer brutality and bloodlust, in contrast to his sister, the armored Athena, whose martial functions include military strategy and generalship.
            He represented a side of war, the bloodlust and carnage, not war in its entirety. Therefore, he is a god of slaughter associated with war, not on the level of Mars.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I already said that he embodies savage aspects of war, but also virility and courage. Still the main god of war.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ares represented the distasteful aspects of war, such as slaughter, not war in its entirety.

            Is that Wikipedia? If so, right under what you just quoted is this.
            >He embodies the physical valor necessary for success in war but can also personify sheer brutality and bloodlust, in contrast to his sister, the armored Athena, whose martial functions include military strategy and generalship.
            He represented a side of war, the bloodlust and carnage, not war in its entirety. Therefore, he is a god of slaughter associated with war, not on the level of Mars.

            two moronic gays quote wikipedia to each other to prove one of two moronic points. In the words of the great philosopher Demonax in a similar situation. "I heard two men arguing, one was milking a billy-goat and the other catching the products in a sieve"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cringed.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think medieval Christians didn’t celebrate war, tragedy, and the hunt?

      It’s so funny because all of you Nietzscheans are obvious non-readers. You could only accept his historicity as gospel of you know basically nothing at all about history. All of the modern stuff you dislike came from a deliberate revolt against Christianity in the 18th century onward.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        medieval "christians" were as christians as your average gay pro-troony pastor is nowadays
        Germanic aristocracy kept living more or less as their gentile forefathers did, glorifying in plunder and booty, and christians adapted to it begrudgingly, not certainly because the doctrine of early OG christians is warlike

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > Nietzsche said X about history and he’s right
          > how do you know that he’s right
          > Nietzsche said so
          Stop pretending you know anything about the Middle Ages beyond what little you took away from Nietzsche and Evola. You embarrass real medievalists.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Frick off with your homosexual desert religion

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hit a nerve I guess. Must have been pretty on the money.

            no refutation, I accept your concession
            "real" medievalists don't consider history like your pc videogames either where people "switch" from a faction to the other, to say a 1st century christian and a 11th century christian are the same thing is asinine, as much as thinking the lifestyle of the medieval aristocracy of the middle ages is something they imported from 1st century judaeans

            > hurr durr you didn’t refute my blatant lie
            > no I won’t read history I get all my history the insane emotional mustache man and that’s good enough
            Fricking loser. You’ll never get it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            seething brown golem, love to see it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You got outed as an uneducated /misc/tard and non-reader but the best you can come up with is insisting I’m brown.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            absolutely fuming + crying le /misc/ boogeyman, you just outed yourself as a bioleninist tourist, frick off back to rebbit ape

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > le leftist
            > le Reddit
            > le communist
            Got anything else in the tank mouthbreather? It’s obvious you’ve read maybe 5 books in your entire life.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            keep seething, the projector is running in overdrive right now, illiterate ape

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no refutation, I accept your concession
            "real" medievalists don't consider history like your pc videogames either where people "switch" from a faction to the other, to say a 1st century christian and a 11th century christian are the same thing is asinine, as much as thinking the lifestyle of the medieval aristocracy of the middle ages is something they imported from 1st century judaeans

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >medieval "christians" were as christians as your average gay pro-troony pastor is nowadays
          So Nietzsche's complaints apply only to early Christians, if that, and nobody else?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As far as slave morality goes, yes
            His main criticism against nonchristians and larping christians alike is nihilism, which is even worse

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Funny that nihilism is what people accuse Nietzsche of.
            >but you need to overcome nihilism
            Yet he didn't.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nihilism is what people accuse Nietzsche of.
            And where do they base that criticism on?
            Also yes Nietzsche wasnt particularly successful at life, this is undeniable

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not about worldly success but about his inability to create his own values. He puts the creation of new values off indefinitely, until the coming of the overman. This is what I'd call a cop-out.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is why Aristotle mogs. Literally defined his own values in a scientific way

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzsche's ubermensch was cope imo. Trying too hard to create his own brand of philosophy since the rest of his work was quotations and ripoffs
            Still, on what grounds is he a nihilist?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            nihilist
            /ˈnʌJ(h)JlJst/
            noun
            a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
            "it is impossible to argue against a nihilist"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So literally the opposite of Nietzsche, since he fought against the notion that life is meaningless, and hoped for superior moral principles

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's exactly what I said in my earlier posted. He told us nihilism is bad but remained a nihilist himself. 'Hoping for values' doesn't cut it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He didnt reject morality AND
            Which morality did he adhere to?
            >tried to convince everyone that life is not meaningless ergo
            What was the meaning of life for him?

            nietzsche did create values of his own though
            more importantly he thought humans should have a morality. he hated "nothing matters" types

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nietzsche did create values of his own though
            Not really.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            he literally did, have you read him? what do you think eternal recurrence is useful for? what do you think will to power is? what do you think nietzsche thought of these? do you think nietzsche thought nothing matters?
            I'm struggling to understand your critique

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The things you listed are descriptive. If you don't understand what values are it's not surprising that you'd struggle.
            As for nothing matters, I'm not sure that's an accurate description. I'd say Nietzsche believed nothing has meaning, or that nothing contained truth.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol you havent read nietzsche. He valued strength, overcoming, transvaluation, art, creative drive, affirming life and other things. His ubermensch is someone who creates values out of the central value of life, amor fati is also a value
            He had values both in sense of this is le good and this is le principle that must be followed. He never supported a life without morality where even decadence can be seen as good

            >As for nothing matters, I'm not sure that's an accurate description.
            well then that's what nihilism (nihil) is. nihilists view the world as meaningless nothing worthy in it and nietzsche saw all of the world as worthy or rather full of worthiness
            thats even in his birth of tragedy

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >His ubermensch is someone who creates values out of the central value of life, amor fati is also a value.

            You have a self-help guru understanding of Nietzsche:

            >The consensus of the sages-I comprehended this ever more clearly-proves least of all that they were right in what they agreed on: it shows rather that they themselves, these wisest men, agreed in some physiological respect, and hence adopted the same negative attitude to life-had to adopt it. Judgements, judgements of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can in the end never be true. They have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgements are stupidities.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is to say, life is only good because the life-affirming individual judges it to be good. There's no "central value of life" in Nietzsche.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, he's attacking Kant's thing in itself, it's already clear you haven't read Nietzsche no need to demonstrate it again
            >They have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms
            Nietzsche did indeed think several things hold value
            >There's no "central value of life" in Nietzsche.
            There is in his ubermensch which nietzsche moralizes as good and nietzsche himself upholds affirming life as good hence his shilling for it. He considers life itself good too since he considers life denial extremely bad and attacks it
            Not sure what your point is. Nietzsche had a morality, followed a morality, and shilled for a morality since he literally had moral (le bad/le good) principles.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Heres a good work for understanding nietzsche's moralgayging
            https://www.grafiati.com/en/literature-selections/nietzsche-friedrich-wilhelm-1844-1900-estetica/dissertation/
            He held will to power and affirmation of life as extremely good values that should be followed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"ubermensch" which nietzsche "moralizes" as "good"
            Spooks.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nietzsche did indeed think several things hold value.

            No, he is reacting against the concept of intrinsic value in its entirety. Values for him are merely lies or idols.

            >Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature—nature is always value-less, but has been given value at some time, as a present—and it was we who gave and bestowed it. Only we have created a world that concerns man!

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"superior" "moral" "principles"
            spook

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christians are nihilists to Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a nihilist to Christians. Christians were atheists to the Romans. Romans were atheists to the Christians.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nietzsche is a nihilist to Christians.
            Is he though? They dont consider people with different moralities nihilists just infidels

            That's exactly what I said in my earlier posted. He told us nihilism is bad but remained a nihilist himself. 'Hoping for values' doesn't cut it.

            He didnt reject morality AND tried to convince everyone that life is not meaningless ergo 0/2
            Youre just coping methinks

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He didnt reject morality AND
            Which morality did he adhere to?
            >tried to convince everyone that life is not meaningless ergo
            What was the meaning of life for him?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The morality where he found some things good and others bad, as he explicitly wrote in his books. Not sure if he followed a religion so there is probably not a name for it
            But then again most people are like that
            >What was the meaning of life for him?
            Life itself. There are many reasons to live and life is beautiful ergo life isnt futile. He wrote books on that, you should try reading them
            He literally disliked christianity because it hates the world and life and copes for an afterlife

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you've read Nietzsche or understand what nihilism is. Here's a hint: nihilism doesn't mean being sad.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They dont consider people with different moralities nihilists just infidels
            Nietzsche is an infidel and a popular target of poorly argued contemporary christian apologia

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your observation seems correct

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            of course, he's getting at the source of it, not at how every group interacted with this doctrine over thousands of years per se
            apparently the epic chungus "learned medievalists"(they studied, you see) of Oyish find it baffling that someone could suggest a christian of 1st century judaea is not the same thing as some Frankish knight of 10th century France in how they see warfare

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Was Nietzsche familiar with the writings of the church fathers though?

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    you should read more

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think when it comes to war the medieval Catholic church had the right idea (I'm not a Catholic): stop waging pointless wars on neighbouring Christian states, but wage war on infidels if you must, and take their stuff. Basically what Nietzsche would call "grand politics".

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The difference between a pagan view of war and a Christian view of war:
      Pagan: “Blood is what makes the world turn and the act is divinely-sanctioned.”
      Christian: “Correct. It’s my blood. I sanctioned it. Do it right.”
      The modern delusion that created a self-destructive drive to utopian pacifism at all costs is not Christian, but a sympathy informed enlightenment “metaphysics”, liberal politics, and progressive law. None of it is Christian. We moderns are closer to pagans than to medieval Catholics.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >None of it is Christian.
        Where do you think Enlightenment science and morality came from? From the delusion that everything stems from a single source, from one god. Certainly not from the view that there are multiple truths, multiple realities, and that knowledge is constrained by local limitations.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > people smuggle Asian ideas into the West
          > those Asian ideas form heretical cults
          > they go on to inform the enlightenment ideals and enlightenment science
          > Christian church works hard to suppress it
          > some historylet a thousand years later: “the Christian church did this”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christian church works hard to suppress it
            There can be multiple ways in which a religion influences a society, even on opposite sides of a given fence. You didn't actually provide a refutation of the assertion that modern science and mathematics are founded on the monotheistic principle that everything springs forth from a single source / mind.

            TThis is 16 year old caliber historicity. Nietzsche and Evola have truly been a disaster for serious scholarship. You are probably a grown man and giving a take on something for which you could not even name 5 primary sources that you’ve actually read.

            >blah blah blah Nietzsche and Evola muh sources
            moron.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            History is the refutation. What you’re asserting is plainly an ahistorical pile of lies. It didn’t happen. Enlightenment political thinkers for example accepted an origin story of man that supposed he climbed out of the muck as a tadpole or something and existed in a pre-political state of nature. You would know that if you actually read then, which you didn’t. There’s absolutely nothing Christian about this story. It’s in direct conflict with the Christian story. The whole thing is a deliberately constructed myth with the express purpose of going against the Christian story, not naturally following from it. You read some really mediocre writers, took what they said as gospel, read nothing further, no primary sources, very little history in general, and that’s just that for you and that’s why you think there is no refutation. You think I need to deconstruct your quite literally imagined and fake theory about what really happened, but I don’t because it’s not what happened. This idea that mathematics was founded in monotheistic principles is also a lie. Did pagans not do math? This is occult historicity that you find exactly in writers like Nietzsche, but it’s not true. You just have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >History is the refutation.
            In other words, you don't have to provide a refutation, because "le look around you!"

            Natural law hinges on monotheistic values. Secular thinkers of the Enlightenment were almost all concerned about natural law. You think over a thousand years of Christian influence suddenly evaporated within a century or two because of some heretical cults and secular revolts? Are you fricking dumb?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, dude. You’re the one who thinks Rousseau’s state of nature and Darwin’s protozoic soup are somehow obvious implications of orthodox Christian theology but I’m the moron.

            By the way, the conception of natural law as we take it comes to us from pre-Christian stoics. You’d know that if you read much of anything at all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Stoics were proto-Christians, so you failed to make a convincing argument.

            >You’re the one who thinks Rousseau’s state of nature and Darwin’s protozoic soup are somehow obvious implications of orthodox Christian theology
            No, I think that ideas have genealogical histories and that Enlightenment secular thought would have never happened had Christianity not prepped the intellectual soil for it.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          TThis is 16 year old caliber historicity. Nietzsche and Evola have truly been a disaster for serious scholarship. You are probably a grown man and giving a take on something for which you could not even name 5 primary sources that you’ve actually read.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Muh sources.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Read? Who reads?
            > t. Oyish

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          astoundingly wrong

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Christian: “Correct. It’s my blood. I sanctioned it. Do it right.”
        Examples?

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the golden rule
    >laws of the covenant
    Completely different

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    consider how a mainline Protestant or a Catholic would respond to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as a base resentment of power, an engine of spite—they would affirm it! The Gospel is the preferential option for the poor. How can you refute someone who has described you so accurately? His only error, then, is in rejecting this.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      *burns you at the stake for being a heretic*
      Nothin personnel

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every year the Nietzsche, Evola, Guenon devotees get worse…

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      the evola and guenon posters are at least a little more refined
      the NEETzsche posters are noticeably schizo

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t agree. They’re all bad. For a long time, it’s been almost a ritual where young men discover these guys after not reading very much or knowing a whole lot about anything, but each cohort seems to be even less and less well-read otherwise, less and less critical, less and less inclined to pursue further or investigate, and worst of all, double down more and more on their ignorance. Maybe I’m just getting old and cranky, but even though I know I went through that and many others do too, it does seem to be getting worse

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >he's pretending to be le epic chungus wise old fella
          these little bioleninist kids are hilarious

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I doubt these guys read Guénon. His writings aren't edgy and there are no quotable passages about le warrior ethos and such things.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They do.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yea, i think the proliferation of smart phones play a role in this.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    comparison shield doesn't quite feel safe?

  19. 5 months ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    >Is it really Christian morality very different from the Greco-Roman one?

    NOT REALLY; IT IS VERY DIFFERENT, THOUGH, FROM THE «PROTESTANTISTIC» HERETICAL ONE, AND THIS, IN TURN, VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GRECOROMAN ONE.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're pseud Christcuck trash.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You're pseud Christcuck trash.
        >AH BLOO BLOO YOU UGLY STUPID

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine being you right now and coming to the defense of one of the worst and most autistic posters on the entire board.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is what you get when you post even worse and dumber than a tripgay

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All I did was insult him by calling him a Christcuck. Are you a Christcuck? If so, why do you adopt a religion for women?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >pseud Christcuck trash
            YOU STUPID, VERY STUPID RELIGIOUS TRASH!
            85 IQ facebook tier posting. not even redditor material

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >YOU STUPID, VERY STUPID RELIGIOUS TRASH!
            I don't hate religion, you stupid Christcuck.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            85 IQ confirmed. I was dunking on your 85 IQ post that wouldn't be amiss from a schizophrenic facebook post, imbecile. i'm buddhist. lmao.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >i'm trans. lmao
            Indeed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure that would appeal to you, homosexual. lmao

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't deny it

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't have the mental horsepower to detect a subjunctive tense
            try taking your grammar courses more seriously, little bud

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            not me but thanks for standing up for me anon

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'll ask again, why are you defending superstitious low IQ christcuck trash like cumgenius?

            yes im fricking trans so what? it's not against the precepts of buddhism boomer gay

            I don't care if he's a buddhist or not because someone who'd defend an annoying pseud POS like cumgenius is LARPing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            life must be hard in the single digit iq realm

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'd much rather be low IQ than crawling out of whatever loveless c**t that dysgenic twiggy abomination spawned out of.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes im fricking trans so what? it's not against the precepts of buddhism boomer gay

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, but christians didin't praise virtue.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're making a mistake in how you even frame the question. When people talk about 'the ancients', they're making a statement about an entire group. You're going to find a variance of opinion within that group, but the claim is about sort of the 'average position'. So yes, you can find commentary from 'the ancients' on moderation, but that doesn't mean it's indicative of the entire group.

    In fact, if the sorts of persons you're reading to infer this are ancient philosophers, then you're already lost in a Nietzschean interpretation. Nietzsche's entire belief is that philosophers were the sidelined weirdos in Athenian society, it's modern humans that go back and read Socrates and think he was a hero. Socrates was treated like a clown who was executed by 'the ancients'. It's the people who executed Socrates that Nietzsche is speaking so highly of, not Socrates.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your post makes absolutely no sense considering what Socrates was tried for.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You've clearly never read Plato if you think Socrates didn't revile excess.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Master morality is a fiction, when it comes to some grand Greek ethos. Nietzsche was actually a sloppy and shitty philologistand historian, which is why so many of his disciples make the post hoc claim that he was intentionally being shitty at it to make a point. He'll often make basic errors, like claiming Socrates' inner voice never tells him to do things actively, but to avoid things (blatantly contradicted in the text).
    I've always held that Nietzsche was a lazy albeit brilliant thinker, which is why he failed at every project in his life, despite the fact his disciples will play up mere early potentials as glory to him. Nietzsche was the ultimate clever child that is still coasting on mere potential. Which explains why his ideas are expanded based on how captivating they are over raw substance. If Marxists are delusional because they move the revolution down the centuries and disown previous failures, Nietzcheans are delusional because they can always play coy and claim that wasn't what Nietzsche REALLY meant. Or that his philosophical ideas don't really need to come to fruition in the real world.
    Anyway, there are plenty of Presocratic and Preplatonic Greeks that demonstrate the Nietzschean reading of the Greeks is faulty (but I'm sure Nietzscheans have some clever play for us on how Nietzsche really meant .... because apparently Neetzsche never said anything at all).
    >Property is not for seizing: far better God-given. For if a man does seize wealth by force of his hands, or appropriates it by means of words - the sort of a thing that often happens when profit deludes men's minds, and Shamelessness drives away Shame - the gods easily bring him low, and diminish that man's house, and it is but a short that prosperity attends him.
    From Hesiod's Work and Days
    Hesiod has a lot of qualitatively moralistic statements like this, and Zeus almost equals to the God of Christianity in purpose. Even so, other Greeks had their criticism of this era of Homeric religion.
    >Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods
    >Everything that men find shameful and reprehensible-
    >Stealing, adultery, and deceiving one another
    From Xenophobes of Colophon
    >[Heraclitus] said that Homer deserved to be expelled from the competition of and thrashed...
    A fragment about Heraclitus
    Nietzsche projects into history the master/slave dichotomy, and that the prechristian Greek world was held by a master morality, and that Christian morality is, in a sense, a subversion. He reads into history the idea that Christian was a religion propagated by women and slaves. Now there may be an extent that Christianity spread among slaves and women, but ultimately it spread along all sorts of classes and peoples. This is important to note because there were actual examples of religious groups that truly were female-led and oriented among the Greeks. Also, the fact that women were forbidden from leadership roles. Alas, Nietzsche was a shitty historian, and so are his disciples.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      based Nietzsche making christcucks uncontrollably seethe and shit their pants, you literally didn't make an argument in your long ass text, literally
      >Nietzsche bad
      that's all you did

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're so vulgar and pathetic.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good post
      I read Nietzsche as Nietzsche, not as someone with good analysis of ancient times.basically his exegesis is his own fanfiction, and thats what I like reading

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good post
      I read Nietzsche as Nietzsche, not as someone with good analysis of ancient times.basically his exegesis is his own fanfiction, and thats what I like reading

      However
      >Nietzsche projects into history the master/slave dichotomy, and that the prechristian Greek world was held by a master morality
      Completely true. Master morality is moralistic
      >and that Christian morality is, in a sense, a subversion
      Correct and he explains why, as does natural selection

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The NEETzsche response is basically
      >well nuh uh!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Theognis of Megara:

      >Never do the enslaved go upright,
      >But the crooked necked are ever gnarled;
      >As a squill doesn't bear roses or hyacinths,
      >So neither does a slavette a free child.

      >It does befit the good to have wealth,
      >Poverty is to be borne by the bad.
      >Pray to the gods, 'tis in their power. Indeed,
      >Without the gods, men will neither become good nor bad.
      >According to Zeus' will, money comes to the man,
      >'Tis pure and ever abiding.

      >The mother of helplessness has seized them...
      >Who leads the soul of man astray to sin,
      >To pervert his body by severe necessity, ...
      >Yielding to need, who teaches every badness,
      >Lies, deceits and accursed quarrels. ...
      >For need engenders harsh helplessness.

      >The bad are not all bad straight from the womb, but
      >Transform in the friendly company of bad men
      >Learning base deeds, shameful words and lewdness ...
      >You will never be able to make a bad man good.

      >There is no glory in helping the lowborn,
      >Just like sowing the grey, salty sea —
      >Sowing the sea brings not a rich harvest
      >Nor will doing good to the bad return good.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The context of this is that he was butthurt because he was poor after the plebeians had overthrown the social order and taken his wealth. It's ironically an example of resentment.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's an example of master morality, which sees good against bad rather than good against evil, and which regards the slave a slave by birth. So, that anon was completely incorrect, master morality is real and did exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >master morality
            spook

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think slave masters had the same morals as their slaves in ancient times? Nietzsche's master morality is referring to ancient slave masters.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            he's famous now. if you can get it started you can keep it going?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone would break out in butthurt rants if robbed & condemned to a life in poverty. It's not particularly interesting no matter how you classify it.
            French aristocrats said exactly the same things during the revolution.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >French aristocrats said exactly the same things during the revolution.
            In other words, master morality continues to be a thing throughout history and that anon is wrong. Good to know.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            As I said, I think the poem is much closer to an expression of resentment. Theognis certainly lacked amor fati (until perhaps late in his life).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Master morality is simply the morality of the ancient slave master. Anything else is an extrapolation away from Nietzsche's works. Got anything else to add, or just more coping and b***hing to you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"Master" "morality" is "simply" the "morality" of the "ancient" slave "master"
            spooks.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            from you*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You should actually read Nietzsche. He specifically mentions master morality as not being motivated by spite or resentment. Merely calling others bad and yourself good isn't enough.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrath is not resentment.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzscheans are masters of pilpul.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You'd know what pilpul is, wouldn't you, rabbi?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The idea that Greek civilization operated under master morality as some unconscious norm, which was then subverted by Christianity (or Platonism, take your pick) is categorically false. That's the point. Evil was not invented by either Platonism or Christianity. Nor was it invented by Greeks in their more urbane state. The mere fact that manumission was possible in society demonstrates that. Or the fact that the Plebeians eventually shook out the orders in Rome, to which nobility no longer affected social distinction or wealth (and nobility itself became a sort of fraud, given that powerful families had a short lifespan of a few generations).
            The point is not that no Classical person expressed something which resembles master morality.

            Even in my own classes in 19th century philosophy, the fact that Nietzsche is incoherent is quite apparent, even beyond the mere evolutions he undertook from his first book, or the fact many of his works were aphorisms and notes, and his own mental state declined through disease. But I noticed quite clearly that Nietzscheans reinterpret this as ever intentional, but even Nietzsche realized some of this at times, even if he recanted self-awareness from his hideously malformed ego, a malignant tumor which would be well-fitting an image in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
            This is why I hate Nietzscheans, even though I actually like a lot of his books and he influenced writers I like even more.
            Especially when they treat his biography as some kind of luminous wonder (it plays an unusual role in studying his philosophy, in my experience). If we had none of his books to go by, he's basically a failure: failed his military service from an ouchie, failed a marriage proposal (prompting a "well acschually... from NEETzsche, as expected), failed a professorship, failed his major friendships. Most Kraut philosophers are inflated windbags in terms of personality, to be fair, for all their genuine brilliance.
            No wonder, Nietzsche has disciples from reactionary Nazis to libshit university professors. And what do they say, often? Neetie is a prophet, not s philosopher.
            Many of his moves to prophethood basic cope for being an incoherent, like his giant mustache covering his lips. His philosophy was ultimately an expression of his own person, as is typical of excessively psychoanalytical types.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Greco roman ethics is fundamentally judaic in origin

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism means standing up for LGBT rights. chuds, get in line

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I’m new to this board but is Nietzsche one of those topics that gets posted every day, people shitfling and argue, and nobody changes their stance?
    Oyish has dark souls 2 threads
    Oyish has race threads
    Oyish has IQ threads

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Any major author gets this treatment

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Any major author gets this treatment

      yeah kinda. for the past year or so, Nietzsche and Hegel are the meme authors on here
      bleak

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Monotheism vs Polytheism
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t even pre-socratic Greeks have believed in a kind of monadism? They didn’t think the gods were “real” in the Christian sense, that they were literal historical flesh and blood people, they would have believed them to be emanations of the divine. It’s that same reason-based metaphysics that inspired enlightenment thinkers as well so it seems pointless to argue about it. Christianity is both polytheistic and monotheistic, and pagan theology was similar.

    Ultimately the problem with Christianity is that it was just buckbroken more than all the other religions. Western countries had to adapt to capitalism, technology, information, and globalization more rapidly than any other civilization. You still had war, monarchy, patriarchy, etc, for hundreds of years under Christian rule, but now that the sun is setting on European civilization people want to point to Christianity as the cause.
    White women from California try to take up Buddhism because they think it’s cute hippie fare, and they get disillusioned when they learn that people from Laos still believe in demons and fire and brimstone. In the same way, you have teenage boys who get their morality from gigachad memes cheering on Islam against Christianity cause they think it isn’t cucked, but when they read the texts they learn that it’s still about loving your fellow human and submitting yourself to God. I don’t think Christianity is that different from pre-Christian pagan religions, especially considering how much the latter influenced the former. The one-size-fits-all mental gymnastics of tradcaths annoys me, but Nietzscheans are the worst posters by far. Nietzsche is a poet and a lifestyle guru, not a philosopher nor an historian. He writes cool things but 20-something’s latch onto him too hard. No one would try to make a religion out of Mishima.

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Moderation can be generative or degenerate. The recent Christian/protestant tradition was against displays of opulence and anything excessive that separates the individual from the masses. It's anti-elitism which is obviously degenerate, those that excel should be celebrated and imitated.
    If you think this guy was fundamentally against basic concepts like moderation in all cases you're not looking for the meaning behind the words.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Moderation sees itself as beautiful; it is unaware that in the eye of the immoderate it appears black and sober and consequently ugly-looking.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >moderation is ugly

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          It’s true, the real-life example of Nietzsche’s ideas put in practice is a fat moronic Black person who dances and fricks and doesn’t think about what happens after death. He even has a chapter in Zarathustra where he praises Africans for those reasons.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The real life example is that and the Roman Empire and everything in between, and politically and morally speaking, Nietzsche was a Roman.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you're implying he's fundamentally against any kind of moderation you really are illiterate.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I take the man at his word.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            To sincerely read means giving the text the benefit of the doubt and assuming a coherent interpretation that you can relate to instead of assuming the author is moronic.

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No there is nothing original in the Bible just some things packaged in a new way. It's a product.

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He finds objectionable the view that the numinous is wholly other and beyond this realm. That includes truth and beauty. When you lose those displaced to fictional elsewheres, nihilism is only a matter of time. "... the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." The gods of Greek and Roman antiquity were in the world and active. Where falsehood is quite literally ugliness - bereft of beauty, strength ... - Beauty (or splendor, strength) supersedes 'Truth for its own sake'. Socrates put the cart before the horse for personal self-preservation requirements because he was by all accounts, hideous. Abstemiousness is no virtue when one hasn't the stomach nor inclination in the first place; enervation (and niceness) likewise are of no merit. Church-ianity is a far cry from what He actually taught, and Nietzsche's objection is its emboldening of the spiritual lumpenproletariat. We're living the consequences of that Rev 3:9 misunderstanding as we speak.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Truly, Socrates philosophy was but a product of his bad looks. Here's your prophet of strength and beauty.

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