Is he right about religion?
>>24985543>spends lifetime philosophising>fails to find GodHe was a dysgenic retard
>>24985554fpbp & /thread
>>24985543That they're full of tards? Yes.
>>24985543Yes, but his death of God paved the way to a greater religion, that of exploring base matter without the constraints of idealism and the thing-in-itself. Read Bataille and Land
>>24985543he was right about christianity, completely ignorant of all the others>>24985554he deeply believed in god, which is why he found his nonexistence in the society of his time deeply upsetting
>>24985543he said religion was necessary for meaning of lifeso obviously not
>>24986010>that of exploring base matterSexual debauchery?
his soul yearned for incest sex
>>24985543I don't see what's so interesting about this moralist
>>24985554He didn't spend anytime philosophizing as he wasn't a philosopher, just a mere sophist. Correct on the other points THO.
>>24985543What specifically do you mean, OP?
>>24986106I'm just asking what you guys think of his criticisms of the big religions like Christianity and Buddhism, since I've been drawn to those religions and their practices for quite some time now, but Nietzsche made me want to reconsider it. I know this board is big on Nietzsche so you're probably more familiar with him than I am.
>>24986133He's correct about the life-denying thing. But if the religions are true I don't see how Nietzsche's critiques would ultimately matter. But Nieztsche also seems to argue that the purpose of any civilization or culture, and the way by which it is to be evaluated, is in its creation of GREAT MEN. In which case, Christian Civilization seems to be the greatest of all., far greater than the pagan faiths so many Nieztschebros turn towards out of their hatred of Christianity.
>>24986076“Between us, my dear sister, as I am situated toward life and the task I have to fulfill, I necessarily need Europe, because it is the seat of science on earth; I have also found no reasons so far that would make it disagreeable to me” (BVN-1886,773)Quintessential pseud
>>24985543No>There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks.>He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear… It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His “noble” man–who is himself in day-dreams–is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: “I will do such things–what they are yet I know not–but they shall be the terror of the earth.” This is Nietzsche’s philosophy in a nutshell.>It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with which he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them…>Sympathy, in the sense of being made unhappy by the sufferings of others, is to some extent natural to human beings. But the development of this feeling is very different in different people. Some find pleasure in the infliction of torture; others, like Buddha, feel that they cannot be completely happy so long as any living thing is suffering. Most people divide mankind emotionally into friends and enemies, feeling sympathy for the former, but not for the latter. An ethic such as that of Christianity or Buddhism has its emotional basis in universal sympathy; Nietzsche’s, in a complete absence of sympathy. (He frequently preaches against sympathy, and in this respect one feels that he has no difficulty in obeying his own precepts.)For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world.
>>24986234Is that Bertrand Russell?
>>24986010Slit your throat, freak.
>>24986375It's projection from a deeply disturbed, evil man either way.
>>24985543My pastor said he was wrong.
>>24985554>>fails to find GodYou've completely misunderstood him. He's not a philosopher in the technical sense. He's a mystic whose mission is to instigate. Whether he finds a God or Gods is not the point, it's to get you to try it for yourself- which was the whole point of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
