The logical endpoint of Nietzsche’s nihilism is theism, specifically Christianity. When everything is deconstructed and all truths made subjective, when there is no meaning or purpose to anything, then religion is automatically optimal à la Pascal’s wager. Nietzsche would say that this is life-denial or the result of weakness, but this entirely hinges upon the assumption that atheism is true. But if Christianity is true, then the psychoanalysis game works in reverse: atheism is a convoluted rationalization to justify sinful behavior. But it’s not as if Nietzsche is completely opposed to a Christian lifestyle, either. He praises the character of Christ and sees the value in asceticism , even saying that the will to power has so far been the highest in abstinent priests and monks. Nietzsche never solved the problem of the “death of God”, certainly not for his own life, which was riddled with drug abuse, suicidal ideation, masturbation addiction, and being cucked. He wants to command to others “the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth” but doesn’t explain why anyone should care about what happens after they die or even why they shouldn’t kill themselves. He literally says the overman is his version of God, and expects everyone else to have the same faith for some reason.
He also tried to replace Heaven with “eternal recurrence” but—ignoring the fact that every iteration feels exactly the same, anyway—in an atheistic, materialistic worldview, there is no such thing as the self, or the “I” (BGE 17 & 54) and therefore no such thing as the eternal recurrence of a specific self. All conscious experiences are simply particular configurations of the will to power, experienced by no one and everyone, which means if this universe were to be repeated, you wouldn’t just magically reincarnate into “your” body, but some other body also, in fact all of them, every single time. This renders your individual life meaningless, nothing more than a vapor that appears and disappears. Add alien civilizations and a multiverse in the mix, and not even the power fantasy of ruling the earth would be any meaningful difference in the grand scheme of things. It follows from all of this that the only rational course of action is to live as if God is real. In a nihilistic paradigm, such a lifestyle is no worse than being an atheist (nihilism refutes itself). But if God is real, then seeking after him is infinitely good, and rejecting him is infinitely bad. >b-but there are 3,000 religions!yeah, and like 99% of them teach the same fundamental beliefs, and you yourself will admit that only 5 of them have any chance of being true anyway. If you strive to be like Jesus, you’ll go to heaven in most cases, in addition to knowing a life of peace, simplicity, honesty, and purity. This is the most logical course of action. The only thing holding back a rational mind from seeing this is the stubborn preference for a sinful lifestyle.
Pascal was one of the few intellectuals that Nietzsche respected, and after actually reading Pascal it becomes obvious how similar their thoughts were. The main difference being that Nietzsche was an edgelord and couldn’t stop gooning, and built his ego around the idea of being the smartest person who ever lived. A little humility, and he may have been saved.
Nietzsche makes fags from basically every annoying ideology seethe uncontrollably and for that he will always be based.No, I haven't read him.
>>25546513and Christianity made Nietzsche seethe enough to talk about it in every book he wrote. By the transitive property of seethe, Christianity is even more based than Nietzsche. Q.E.D.
>>25546494Christian theology is schizophrenic. It's funny seeing the mental gymnastics. I call your logical labyrinths "The Cuckold's Knot".
>>25546494The Pascal's wager apologists have a profound misunderstanding of the word "atheism".Atheism is the lack of belief on god.It is not the lack of belief in the god of yisrael specifically. The forced false dilemma breaks apart because there are actually 4 options:1. no god exists2. god of exists and it's the god of yisrael as described in the jewish bible3. god exists and it's not the god of yisrael, but another god known to men4. god exists but no man knows of himPascal never establishes why 2 must prevail over 3 and 4 and only bets against 1.>Nietzsche never solved the problem of the “death of God”, certainly not for his own life,Nietzsche never claimed to be the overman. The following two things can be true simultaneously:1. the concept of god has been undermined at the enlightenment era2. Nietzsche, like other thinkers did not live a wealthy life This does not mean whatever he said must be judged by his autobiography.
>>25546530The essence of schizophrenia wherein there is an almighty being watching each of your actions despite ultimately knowing what you would do anyways only to legitimize his sadistic eternal torment is a recognizable jewish trait.Christianity was authored by the jews, who, historically never held any land. The proof of in-group citizenship turned to bodily modifications like the other tribes.What was unique about the jews was that they chose to place the proof of citizenship in their private parts so they can blend with their host nations as a covert militia. In nature such tendencies are called "aggressive mimicry".Due to strict ethnic blood lineage requirement in jews, inbreeding was necessary to retain the bloodline, which resulted in many genetic malformity, one of which is carrying genetic combination that results in being 1.41 times as likely to develop mental illness like schizopherenia.Such traits candidly leaked into their franchise of mythology. The "enemy" tells them to do evil and god holds grudge for listening to "the enemy" that he himself created, and sent himself to redeem of all the sins he holds grudges for.
Christianity is a jewish golem religion. Nietzsche literally says this himself in genealogy of morals.
>>25546795You haven’t read Pascal
>>25546526Isn't Christianity that religion which says Indians and Africans have souls? I don't really want to live on an earth that tries to save them, or go to a heaven full of them. Thanks
>>25546530>>25546813>>25546821>I must keep gooning>I must keep gooning>I must keep gooningThese psychoanalysis games go both ways, fedoras.
>>25546878why not believe they go to hell? Would that make you feel better? It’s already established that most people go to hell anyway
>I am der ubermensch I will create le new values!what are your new values..?>cutting my dick off and gooning to porn of course! You just can’t handle my glorious DIONYSIAN energy!!
>i don't read
>>25547177You’re afraid, and you should be.
>>25546821>nietzsche literally saysmy daddy says it so it must be true, I'm pretty sure Nietzsche would be against such appeals to authority of other men .
>>25547405his point being: “umm actually Nietzsche would hate Christianity”which is a surface-level judgment. Yes, most Christians are retarded. But Nietzsche admired Christ and believed that such a way of living could be replicated. A life free from resentment or worry about vain things of the world. And as I’ve already said, Nietzsche values discipline, solitude, asceticism, etc. It follows from all of this that you could literally go live in a cave like Zarathustra and pray to God for the rest of your life. Nietzsche could only say “um but god is dead” (which is JUST his interpretation), whereas if Christianity is true then you go to heaven. It’s just basic game theory here. Trying to be a tranny ubermensch baby-eating atheist who doesn’t care about anything is the most retarded thing you could possibly do. Nietzsche refutes himself. Christ does not.
>>25547405Your post is about a question you’re theorizing Nietzsche answers. Nietzsche already directly addressed answered your question, and his answer is the exact opposite of what you’re proposing. You’re the one who tied this question to Nietzsche, if you’re uninterested in his opinion about it just call your post the crackpot blogpost theory it is rather than needlessly tying someone’s name to it who directly refutes and disagrees with you you golem christcuck.
>>25546873The use of the wager as deployed by the OP is subject to a logical issue independent of whether I have "read" Pascal.
>>25547594You said Pascal never establishes something that he literally establishes in the same book that contains the wager. Most people are completely ignorant about this though.
>>25546494Chesterlewisian empty quips. Legend says that if you write another five hundred of these church attendance becomes mandatory again.
>>25547603I don't see why OP specifically pleads to>2. god of exists and it's the god of yisrael as described in the jewish bibleinstead of >3. god exists and it's not the god of yisrael, but another god known to men>4. god exists but no man knows of himand just bet against>1. no god existsHis argument appears to be:P1: There must be an objective meaning to everything in existenceP2: Nihilism makes religion optimalC: Therefore, god of yisrael is trueNot only this is logically a non sequitur but also by deploying the parallel to Pascal's wager, he assumes his own chain of reasoning is demonstrated in Pascal's book.
>>25547611you seem to be a bot but I’ll explain anyway. Not only did I explain that being a Christian covers many possibilities, and that you will still benefit regardless, but yes, Pascal covers these arguments in his book, arguing specifically for Christianity and attacking other religions and philosophies.
>>25546494Never once has an intelligent person started a thread using this image.
>>25547614Then attribute Pascal, don't pretend your chain of reasoning that "everything must have a meaning so god of yisrael is optimal post nihilism" is written in the Pensees.Establishing whether I am a bot is the burden for you to carry; in your profound need of self-validation, you must argue with a bot - that's your tension to resolve.OP's thread appeals to Pascal's non-proof of christianity and guises itself to be a unique christian apologetics while in reality, as you suggest it's not.With regards to Pascal:He asserts that the prophecies of the old testament has been fulfilled. The only fulfilling I see is rhetorical, not practical. If old testament is historically credible, the earth would today be no longer than 6000 years old. The jewish prophecy is only fulfilled by redefining the meaning of a year, or arguing that god of yisrael created a 4.5 bn year old earth 6000 years ago and planted dinosaur bones to confuse the goyim only to send himself as the good shephered to herd to lost cattle of yisrael.These prophecies are only fulfilled rhetorically, empty just as is the wager of Pascal, and his proof of rabbi yeshua.
>>25547654I should also mention that the credibility of jewish old testament is severely undermined by the lies of settlers violence from the city of jericho and the supposed reconquest of canan by joshua.Archeology and genetic studies have long contested this.I cannot see trust that the assertions made in jewish old testament is a blanket source of history.
>>25546494>Nietzsche>NihilismYou should kill yourself now, since you're ngmi.
>>25547688No one cares about your pilpul and word games 2018-2022 /lit/
>>25547654>or arguing that god of yisrael created a 4.5 bn year old earthlol? How do you even prove this exact estimate. All dating methods are entirely axiomatic and impossible to prove, empirically speaking. >and planted dinosaur bonesPeople planted those dinosaurs bones as a dinosaur has never existed and paleontology is a fake science.
>>25547692No one cares about what you have to say about philosophy when it's clear that you don't understand even the basics of philosophy. So my point still stands, kill yourself.
>>25547701Nietzsche was a retard that redefined nihilism (the actual definition) into "life-affirming" instead.
>>25547700What's not axiomatic is that the earth is older than 6000 years.
>>25547711Yeah whatever. My point is that shitence makes just as many faith-based claims too.
>>25547688>what are active and passive nihilismjust because he pretended to “life-affirming” doesn’t mean he wasn’t nihilist. He even admitted in WtP that he had been hiding this fact from himself, that he is nihilistic through and through. Looks like YOU are not gonna make it.
>>25546494After reading your post I think the trouble you have comprehending Nietzsche is because your mind goes too fast from thing (all truths are subjective) to the other (there is no meaning or purpose to anything) with no deeper thought or consideration of what you are actually saying. I can't fix this flaw in your manner of thinking, but I can try to elucidate where exactly you are misunderstanding Nietzsche. If you took a book, opened it and read in it that 'such and such is the meaning of life' and you then said to yourself with conviction, 'I will accept this as true!' to what extent have you now suddenly gained a sense of meaning or pupose? ---> It is like this with all metaphysics. Nietzsche's deconstruction is to say ultimtely these are just sounds. They are like the howls of a monkey. Can we look here for some transcendental capital T Truth? And suppose there was such a capital T Truth hiding behind the world as it appears to us? And for some reason the book you picked up earlier happened to present it to you in a way you could somehow comprehend. What does that have to do with meaning or purpose? God himself could come down and say to you, 'this is the meaning of life' but why would that be anything other than His opinion? You see it is the word 'meaning' or 'purpose' that you haven't properly examined. What does it really refer to? is it something outside of you? a kind of texture or feature of the universe? Or is it something that you feel? This is meaningful. To you. At this very moment.
>>25547783Do not post that pervert tranny jap's chicken scratches in my thread ever again, thanks.
>>25547793
>>25547783it’s very simple. An atheistic world is temporal and everything you do is relatively insignificant. But in theism, your actions have eternal consequences. You don’t lose much by being a Christian if atheism is true, but you lose everything by being an atheist if Christianity is true. Nietzsche felt compelled to justify his atheism by constructing a perspective that might help him and others to cope with such a nihilistic worldview, which didn’t work at all. Again, he literally tried to revive the concept of an afterlife with the eternal recurrence, and his excuse was “it isn’t another world, it’s still the same world!” but his motivation was to seek out an eternal, lasting consequence of his actions, because otherwise there isn’t much reason to stop gooning. He dreamed of his descendants ruling the world, but he couldn’t convince any women to have children with him. His whole philosophy is a bunch of power fantasies to cope with the misery of atheistic nihilism. The obvious solution is to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and return to a meaningful interpretation of reality, which, if true, would lead to eternal salvation.
>>25547816I think you should probably try reading the post you're replying to. That way i don't have to repeat myself.
>>25546494>NietzscheI wouldnt take seriously anything that unhinged proto-lolcow had to say.
>>25547783>God himself could come down and say to you, 'this is the meaning of life' but why would that be anything other than His opinion?No, because God is the ground of Being lol.
>>25547834*No it's not
>>25547834This doesn't mean anything, though. I wrote my little God example and you presumably imagined it in your head with some old guy on a cloud or something like that coming down and telling you something, but none of that have anything to do with meaning. This is why priests and such had to use ideas like punishment or Hell to get anyone to care. Because now you are conjuring up a different image. Of future pain. And your animal brain (if you're gullible or neurotic) might treat this as a likely scenario. Chances are you don't actually believe this yourself, but that's really besides the point. The point is that saying something is ground of being is just tautological nonsense that by itself has nothing to do with meaning or purpose. It's just the kind of thing used to bamboozle pseuds into agreement.
>>25546494Didn't continue past your first sentence, you are stupid.
>>25547848>left-hand atheist retard filtered by nondualismlol
>>25547861If you ever want to actually understand Nietzsche and not just argue with people over nothing then I suggest you read my posts again and consider what I said.
>>25547869>we are le isolated and discrete entities formed by aggregates of matter -atheist philosopher #49576Yeah I did. I don't agree with the premise.
>>25547873You're applying some pre-rendered category (strawman) instead of actually reading the posts. Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. I think it's because you got stumped and didn't know what to reply so you just reflexively went to terminate all further thought on the matter. It's your own business really, but that's the kind of reflex that will make sure you never actually learn anything new. It's really kind of pathetic, I think, to not be able to read something you disagree with, without immidiately averting your eyes and stuffing your ears.
>>25547882>Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. When you implied God's opinion is arbitrary, that automatically precluded you from making coherent statements.
>>25547886Maybe you should look up the definition of opinion.
>>25547892Is gravity an opinion?
>>25547714All systems have axioms.The axioms of atheism is archeology.The axioms of christianity is adam was built out of clay and eve of his ribs, and both of them were banished from the heavens because "the great enemy" convinced eve to eat "a forbidden apple" in guise of a talking serpent.Your choice of axioms rests upon you.
>>25547896That's like saying is wind an opinion. If you mean 'is gravity a real phenomenon' then yeah that is technically an opinion.
>>25547899>The axioms of atheism is archeology.Oh my heckin' science.How do sauropods walk?
>>25547901How is the ubiquitous structure of reality ever be arbitrary, man. Are you your own God?
>>25547783>God himself could come down and say to you, 'this is the meaning of life' but why would that be anything other than His opinion?Presumably, because God, the architect of the universe, imparted His creation with his conceptions. Being the source of all things, I.E the absolute, means that whatever He may think is also absolute and unimputable.Of course the way Nietzsche addresses this is by pointing out that the prior reasoning is just words that do not have to be true just because you say you are. Which is why one should refrain from pulling out the aristotelian word-vomit when in these discussions.
>>25547909This is kinda basic stuff. maybe start with hume (pic related)
>>25547892Don't bother, it's presup.
>>25547902I would say by the grace of rabbi yeshua hamashiach but they are older than 6000 years so they are the deception of "the enemy".
>>25547910Even if it exposed Nietzsche to becoming very dated (factually) fairly quickly. I have to respect his insistance in grounding himself and not just starting from a thought and growing jungles upon jungles of them. Plus it helps him as a writer. The Antichrist would have been terrible if it was about Nietzsche wrestling with the Trinity and hierarchies of angels.
>>25547910The point I wanted to make was not that you don't have to accept it. I mean you don't. But that's pretty obvious.The point is that by itself it is empty of any meaning. It's all the stuff around it that inspires meaning and purpose. The cathedrals, the images of suffering martyrs, the beautiful hymns and so on. For this God to make an impression on me he would have to be loud and awe-inspiring. Saying he is the Absolute or whatever is totally meaningless. No one can comprehend anything that is absolute in that sense.
>>25547783God:>if you do xyz you go to heaven, otherwise you go to hellYou>idk man that just sounds like your opini- ACKKKK!!
you're only right in one thing: he did believe he solved nihilism. but for that reason, he was not a nihilist. the first perfect nihilist is also the first complete nihilist, the first to come out the other side of it. i mean, the fact that you're even talking about this in terms of "atheism vs. theism" tells me you don't really understand the "god is dead" quote. it's not about god literally existing or not existing. this is quite uninteresting to nietzsche, at this point in his career. the death of god is not the death of meaning "in general." it's a specific historical commentary about the development of european attitudes toward christianity, meant to be understood in the context of his genealogy of morals
>>25547941>>if you do xyz you go to heaven, otherwise you go to hellThis is such a sadistic maneuver of god. He pretends if he does not know who will enter heaven. Much like the performative persecution in the life of his human substrate. Oh no, the master of the universe, the all-knowing almighty god is being persecuted by the Romans :(The acolytes of god appear to commoditize the works as if nothing but forgiveness matters. As if they demonstrate moral performance in constant angst to prove their faith is "alive and well", like Mitch McConnel.
>>25547916>maybe start with hume (pic related)Hume was discussing the limits of language/systemic modes of thought.Just because we don't understand the full breadth of natural laws doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you believe humans *cannot* innately grasp an objective, external reality outside of one's consciousness does not mean one doesn't exist. If you believe otherwise, then you are a solipsist. >>25547918It'd only be presup if I argued that God existed because we must accept [x] axiom to be true for anything to be coherent, not in hypotheticals where we already accepted the existence of an Absolute entity.
>>25547937Atheism = Rejecting the Christian God. Just that simple, nitwit.
>>25548043for >>25547949
Tired of seeing nip scribbles in my /lit/ threads.
>The truth is that there is no absolute truth, god or morality!>Ok then why should we care about the pursuit of truth at all and not just believe whatever's personally convenient for us, why is your tortured fag philosopher life better than being a normie hedonist extrovert who does drugs at the club every weekend or a super trad christian who has 10 kids and a strong church community>Atheist.exe has crashed
>>25546494>but doesn’t explain why anyone should care about what happens after they die or even why they shouldn’t kill themselvesNietzsche spends his entire project trying to prove that you don't want there to be a reason or something to care about. A life lived for a reason, i.e. because there is a God who gave you one, would be worth less than a life lived for no reason. Nietzsche's entire shtick is "you get to do whatever the fuck you want and that is awesome". You are completely free to choose what's worth caring about. Any external source of morality could only possibly take away from you, never add. If you can't find anything to make yourself care about then you aren't worth having around and should probably do yourself in.>He literally says the overman is his version of GodNo he doesn't. He says we are forced against our will into His position as creator. Again, good thing. You creating something dogshit awful is preferable to a God creating something great for you.
>>25548074Damn, that's retarded
>>25546497>He also tried to replace Heaven with “eternal recurrence”No he didn't. It's just a thought experiment.>This renders your individual life meaningless, nothing more than a vapor that appears and disappears. Imagine being so fucking retarded trying to reason yourself out of accepting his argument that you accidentally loop back and agree with the argument.>In a nihilistic paradigmThis makes no fucking sense, faggot. A paradigm is a way of thinking. Nihilism is the outcome of NOT thinking.
>>25546494Endearing, but probably not true. Are you sure you're not in fact admiring Nietzsche and want to somehow reconcile two seemingly opposing beliefs?
>>25548074> You are completely free to choose what's worth caring aboutin that case, I choose Jesus
>>25548091Cool. Go pray.He is not really speaking to the Christians.
>>25548067>>The truth is that there is no absolute truth, god or morality!There is an absolute truth. But we lack the access of it. We project what we think to be truth on the basis of what we have seen and what we can predict.To finite beings, truth is what works.>>Ok then why should we care about the pursuit of truth at all and not just believe whatever's personally convenient for us,Because we know what works and is predicted to work.>why is your tortured fag philosopher life better than being a normie hedonist extrovert > trad christian who has 10 kids and a strong church communityIt's a matter of subjective preference. Between hedonism, drugs and prostitutes vs performative piety and submission to the jews and having 3 children out of 10 by other men in your "strong church community" fantasy, I too personally would choose the latter.
>>25548158>There is an absolute truth. But we lack the access of it.Is that an absolute truth?>Because we know what worksWhy should we care about your definition of "it's what works"? This is like when libs say to "just be a decent human being"
>>25548067>Ok then why should we care about the pursuit of truth at all and not just believe whatever's personally convenient for us,Nietzsche argues humanity de facto operates like this. Capital T truth is unimportant.>why is your tortured fag philosopher life betterHe never really claimed it was. He knew himself.
>>25546494No, something being subjective doesn't mean it's meaningless. And Islamo-Christianity can't become optimal at that point, because it's a mindset that completely denies this. Freely choosing values systemically (orange and after vmeme in spiral dynamics) becomes optimal, not pretending they don't exist to justify staying in your random traditional complex which you won't evaluate in any extra way (blue vmeme). Because you figured out that you can see whether it subjectively fits you, so there is no reason to not do that. Blindly listening to some ancient authority obviously won't fit you a lot of the time.Many Islamochristians are also drug addicts, sucks, ... >>25546497All souls are just tiny specks created by God. Yeah, it makes your individual life less significant in the grand scale, that's how quantities work, just how it becomes completely irrelevant after you get to the Christo-Islamic afterlife. Also, in Christo-Islamism, what you want literally has zero meaning, only what God wants. >>25546510Logical courses of action don't have to be backed up by fantastical threats of punishment
If God's morals are superior and decided without our input, why should we care? Do we not celebrate and hope to be men who stand up for their own values and independence in the face of oppression?I have quit jobs before over bosses incapable of respecting me or my coworkers. I see no reason to respect or follow a God who possesses the same emotional maturity as a toddler dispensing treatises from the top of the jungle gym. The only evidence of reality is this one, and Pascal's wager always assumes there is no sunk cost fallacy. If our lives are to be defined by our own goals, and if we have one life to live, it is an immense waste to not live your singular life on your own terms.
>>25547614Pascal's argument for acting as if you believe God is real is convincing, but his arguments for the truth of Christianity are not. He's right about acting within the general moral framework of religion - establishing a set of "noahide laws" if you will that everyone should follow because acting perversely is liable to get you damned or reincarnated into a fungus or something. But the wager falls apart when it runs into the Abrahamic doctrines. You have to accept one and deny the others, and there's no evidence to guide your decision. You just have to pick and hope.
>>25548220>Is that an absolute truth?It's a logical deduction. >Why should we care about your definition of "it's what works"? You don't have to. I will stick to what works. You can stick to whatever hecking based and kosher rabbi says to own the libs.The value judgements you and I make are going to be adjudicated by nature.
>>25549607>If i play enough word games nobody will notice that I made a universal truth claim in the same post I said we have no access to universal truthfuck off and die faggot>NATURe will judge!!is that why super religious people have 10 kids while atheists fuck trannies and die out?
>>25549001>God is like a boss who is incapable of respecting me or my coworkersgirlboss moment. you sound like whores saying god is an evil patriarch who is oppressing feminists
Ok but that still doesn't make a corpse walking the earth again so it may be theism but there is no reason for it to be Christianity
>>25550269The choice is obvious. You know it in your heart
>>25550279sure i'll just trust you bro
>>25550263Atheism does not require you to die without children, although you can make an argument that the atheists, due to higher intelligence, are statistically more likely to be from wealthy nations while the religious ones remain in the poor nations.Poor nations outbreed the wealthy nations - that's not in dispute here.Moreover, the worshippers of the god(s) you oppose reproduce just fine as well.I have a feeling that you are angry because you saw the word "Nature" instead of "God" as the adjudicator of truth. Is that what's driving you insane?
