Forum Settings
Forums
#1
Nov 20, 2015 7:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 941
This one for all those MAL philosophers. Not going to respond to unreconstructed posts and random one liners btw.

I want to start of by saying that my assortment of literature on this topic is quite limited. So i am not sure if this is discussed on any literature and if I'm not just repeating what someone already said.

Now to begin the topic itself, today i was putting all end together on my presentation about Nietzsche, which I'm doing as my major assignment for philosophy lecture. In the last few days i read quite some passages from Nietzsche. Plus spend my time watching lectures about him.

As far as i can see Nietzsche is labeled as atheist by most social media. Now in my understatement atheist is someone who reject all religious forms of believe and existence of god. That all seemed to make perfect sense in Nietzsche's case till i saw i quote from Nietzsche - "In the entire New Testament, there is only person worth respecting: Pilate, the Roman governor."

So after this i took Bible to refresh my memories of Pilate and while reading i somehow got the feeling, that Pilate has a lot of resemblance to both Nietzsche and his character Zarathustra. To make long story short in bible crowd comes to Pilate and demands that he would put Jesus on the cross and he does not do that, he see that this "son of god" have done nothing wrong and in a way he recognizes Jesus as son of god, at the end Pilate whips Jesus and let people do the murdering of him saying that this blood will fall on their hands. (If you going to read this bible passage i would suggest ether Matthew or Johannes as those are way more detailed.)

So what is the similarity in my eyes? Well both of them recognize that after this point the god is dead while people around them seem to not have grasped this yet, in Pilate case literally and in Nietzsche case the believe in it. Nether one of them doing anything to really prevent this, also nether one see this as situation in which we should be happy, none the less Nietzsche see an opportunity in this an opportunity to redefine our morals and become superior species.

Now lets take a look at Nietzsche view on relativism it's another take on relativism based on historical epoch, to put it simple he says that there is no rational path in changes as not only the world is changing, but so does our perception of it and our perception make up the truth at that point of time. This led me to think that instead of thinking that god is something that did not ever existed, god almost literally died, tho he did exist at the point when he was relevant to the masses, and if it was relevant at that point than it used to be the truth. And i think that this is makes the difference from Nietzsche's beliefs and atheist beliefs. As atheist point of view would be that god was non-existent from the start, so not believing in it does not take anything from us while Nietzsche seems to think that we do not have morals and have to redefine them from this point because in that way god has died instead of just not existing as he left a gap in humanity by doing so.

What's your take on this? Can a view like this still be called atheism in your opinion?

P.S. Forgot question mark after the title.
Modified by GhostOutOfShell, Nov 20, 2015 6:19 PM
Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines.
 
#2
Nov 20, 2015 7:33 AM
Offline
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 447
He can be called an atheist but he has nothing to do with the cucked humanist atheism of the 21st century.
 
#3
Nov 20, 2015 7:45 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1132
 
#4
Nov 20, 2015 7:48 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 2791
Swagmonogatari said:
 
#5
Nov 20, 2015 7:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 591
i'm also not an etheist
 
#6
Nov 20, 2015 8:02 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 693
Whether or not someone believes in God, one can certainly believe in the impact of such belief regardless of faith. And since Nietzche seemed to be promoting the idea of not relying on any existing source to derive one's morality from, it seems unlikely that he would follow a religion.

Can't really respond to the less important points for reasons that include (but aren't limited to): taking only two courses of philosophy, not being familiar with Nietzsche's work beyond the first half of Zarathustra and OP's grammar (no offence, it's just a pain to read through).
 
#7
Nov 20, 2015 8:17 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 918
No, he was a gay

"waaaaii~" (Akaza Akari)


 
#8
Nov 20, 2015 8:27 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 941
Kousoku11 said:
Whether or not someone believes in God, one can certainly believe in the impact of such belief regardless of faith. And since Nietzche seemed to be promoting the idea of not relying on any existing source to derive one's morality from, it seems unlikely that he would follow a religion.

Can't really respond to the less important points for reasons that include (but aren't limited to): taking only two courses of philosophy, not being familiar with Nietzsche's work beyond the first half of Zarathustra and OP's grammar (no offence, it's just a pain to read through).


At last someone with real response, big ups for that.

My point was not that he follows a religion, more like he believes that god used to exist, as god was relative to people believes at one point, but does not anymore, as impact of god to the masses is dying.

Don't following a religion doesn't make you an atheist, it's more about believe in any type of existence in higher power.

No offense taken, i know that my grammar can be shit sometimes, even tho my spellcheck didn't pick anything at this post i still have made few editions after your post to correct some minor errors. Also it's might be that my spellcheck is U.S. based so it has some differences from standard English, i should probably change it.

Example of one of those minor differences from standard English:
http://grammarist.com/spelling/offence-offense/
Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines.
 
#9
Nov 20, 2015 8:34 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 7644
I guess he is not an Athiest if you consider the fact that he believed God once existed. But if something "dies" then it ceases to exist. So, if you want to look at it from that perspective, he could be considered an Athiest because God no longer exists. I didn't know being an Athiest implied some time frame that God never existed from the very beginning. I thought it was that you didn't believe in a God.
 
Nov 20, 2015 8:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 162
Nietzsche was definitely anti-religious and more specificity Anti-Christian. I believe he was practical atheist because I don't think he believed in the existence of any deity or deities. I think he was stating "God is Dead" in the minds of the masses. In short, yeah I think he was atheist.
 
Nov 20, 2015 8:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 2705
illivinni said:
No, he was a gay
 
Nov 20, 2015 8:57 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 21336
TL;DR
Nico- said:
@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite
Salman bin Abdul Aziz said:
@Comic_Sans I hate to insult you on forums but you are just a troll so just go kill yourself already bitch
 
Nov 20, 2015 9:14 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 941
PoeticJustice said:
I guess he is not an Athiest if you consider the fact that he believed God once existed. But if something "dies" then it ceases to exist. So, if you want to look at it from that perspective, he could be considered an Athiest because God no longer exists. I didn't know being an Athiest implied some time frame that God never existed from the very beginning. I thought it was that you didn't believe in a God.


Nice point.
Well from classical understatement god is eternal being so if he exist that mean he exist any point of time and vice versa. Only Nietzsche theory about historical relativism lets for some sort of God existed and ceases to exist type of thinking in classical sense.

SolidShadow said:
Nietzsche was definitely anti-religious and more specificity Anti-Christian. I believe he was practical atheist because I don't think he believed in the existence of any deity or deities. I think he was stating "God is Dead" in the minds of the masses. In short, yeah I think he was atheist.


The boom of atheism happens a bit before Nietzsche, tbh Dostoevsky is the first one to make a point that God is dead, well in Dostoevsky's case it's more like god is dying. Nietzsche was inspired by that, tho he came to completely different end point compared to Dostoevsky.

Also i don't think that Nietzsche would try to implement that ideas to the masses as the to thinks Nietzsche was "scared" of most was democracy and atheism, latter because he though that human race is still not ready and need someone else to redefine the morals after dead of the Christian ones, which in Nietzsche's view seem pointless he argues that every human should redefine morals for them self's.
Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines.
 
Nov 20, 2015 9:20 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 941
Bernkastel said:
If you understand Nietzsche's perspectivism (i.e. truth is defined by perspective), then is it not obvious that he's both atheist and theist? This question simply depends on the plane of reference. From his perspective, he's probably a post-theist though. I doubt Nietzsche would consider the theism/atheism label meaningful.


+

Just for the record i do not try to argue that he was theist.

What i try to argue for a little different point, imo instead of being both he is nether, but i guess it's pretty much the same as both would be generally undefined.

Also from my little frame of references i didn't even knew the term post-theist. Thanks for this post, a nice insight, going into the meaning of post-theist i would agree that he actually was one.
Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines.
 
Nov 20, 2015 10:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1002

oh there's a live action, PTW !!!

on topic
I don't give two shits about god but when I had to read zarathustra for school, I realized he definitely got dumped at the time of writing because all women are just plain crazy half inhuman creatures
oh so thankful I live where I live and in the 21st century

 
Nov 20, 2015 2:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31855
I think when Nieztche claimed " God is dead" he is not necessarily literal but really saying that not only is religion no longer needed but it has failed under humanities frailty and flaws. So this would be a Post-Theistic view. In Post-Theism the divide between theism and atheism is considered obsolete. He is also talking about morality as well that people had fallen from their ideals of religion. The quote about Pilate helps put this into perspective that it is not necessarily Anti-Theistic of a view Nieztche has. This is more a traditional view of Nietche though. Pilate took to more democratic method even though he had every opportunity to pardon Jesus on his own but instead left the decision up to the people but they chose Barabbas instead.


BTW you said " believe" several times you should have been saying " belief" which makes me think its not a typo but a misunderstanding how to use the word. You may want to look that up.
 
Nov 20, 2015 2:59 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 17182
I agree that he realized the important role God played in human society until the turn of the century when he asserts something else has to take his place, but I don't believe he ever believed in God in a physical sense, only a conceptual one.

The concept of God is what he was referring to, not a physical manifestation.
"Let Justice Be Done!"

My Theme
I conclude that this theme is in fact good!
 
Nov 20, 2015 6:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 941
traed said:

BTW you said " believe" several times you should have been saying " belief" which makes me think its not a typo but a misunderstanding how to use the word. You may want to look that up.


My bad, I'm not native English speaker, so i some time make mistakes like that, was not even aware i made it, might be also the fact that i wrote it late at night, tho i do get the difference between them.
Will correct op.

Also thanks Bernkastel and traed for well constructed and insightful responses, MAL lacks those tbh.
Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines.
 
Nov 20, 2015 6:34 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31855
Keep in mind that I was winging it a bit with my interpretation of Neiztch from what little I know. So it can be debatable unless I actually am in line with what someone more versed in his philosophies would know.
 
Nov 20, 2015 7:07 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 11302
>MAL
>Philosophers

the fuck is this heretical shit?
 
Nov 20, 2015 8:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 9178
see this is the part of philosophy that I can't stand. Why are you trying to redefine what atheism is? Nietzsche was a nihilist. In order to be a nihilist, one by definition has to be an atheist. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers, along with Schopenhauer and Camus, but to suggest he was anything but an atheist seems absurd to me.

When Nietzsche said "God is Dead" he wasn't talking about god literally dying. He was instead suggesting that without God existing humanity would be plunged into chaos. This in and of itself is quite a controversial standpoint on secular morality, but I think it's really interesting to analyze, especially when compared to Camus' view on the topic.

I suppose you could suggest that Nietzsche's idea of what god was was the belief in god itself as the zeitgeist of a generation, instead of the existence of some omniscient entity. This is definitely the most compelling argument for Nietzsche not being an atheist, but at the same time this would redefine his views as a whole. Could something without omniscience or omnipotence that was created by humans be considered a god? It's certainly interesting. When Marx said religion is the opium of the masses, regardless of what he truly meant taking his quote at surface value it demonstrates that religion has power over people. In my opinion, anything with power over people can be described as a higher power, and anything that's a higher power can be described as god like. Overall, I think it can only be assumed that Nietzsche was speaking in a metaphor when he suggested that god once existed, and it can easily be asserted that the "god" that Nietzsche was referring to was symbolic specifically of the people's belief in religion.
 
Nov 20, 2015 8:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 4064
Swagmonogatari said:
yes
 
Nov 20, 2015 8:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 9178
Bernkastel said:
Ravioli_Ravioli said:
see this is the part of philosophy that I can't stand. Why are you trying to redefine what atheism is? Nietzsche was a nihilist. In order to be a nihilist, one by definition has to be an atheist. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers, along with Schopenhauer and Camus, but to suggest he was anything but an atheist seems absurd to me.

Nietzsche is actually one of the strongest critics of nihilism in Western philosophy. His criticism of Schopenhauer (who he personally saw as nihilistic) and his story in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (last man vs Ubermensch) are all conclusive evidence for his stance against nihilism.

He wasn't critical of nihilism in and of itself, he was more critical of people's adoption of nihilism. He himself was a nihilist. Again, Nietzsche was by definition a nihilist. In fact, our modern day definition of nihilism comes from Nietzsche.

I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting that Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist...
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/nihilism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzsche
click these links and ctrl+f Nietzsche to read more about it.
 
Nov 20, 2015 9:22 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 9178
Bernkastel said:
Ravioli_Ravioli said:

He wasn't critical of nihilism in and of itself, he was more critical of people's adoption of nihilism. He himself was a nihilist. Again, Nietzsche was by definition a nihilist. In fact, our modern day definition of nihilism comes from Nietzsche.

I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting that Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist...
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/nihilism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzsche
click these links and ctrl+f Nietzsche to read more about it.

God if you're going to link Wikipedia then at least read the first line of what you linked.

Wikipedia said:

Nihilism is often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who provided a detailed diagnosis of nihilism as a widespread phenomenon of Western culture. Though the notion appears frequently throughout Nietzsche's work, he uses the term in a variety of ways, with different meanings and connotations, all negative

Look up the definition of nihilism. then read Nietzsche's work. I'm an atheist but I think when too many other people are atheists it is bad. In fact, I think atheism as a whole is simply a worse kind of view than religion to hold because it has no pragmatic benefits. That does not mean I am not an atheist.
 
Nov 20, 2015 9:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 8189
Are atheist and religion threads the new norm now? =/

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Nov 20, 2015 9:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 9178
Bernkastel said:
Ravioli_Ravioli said:
Look up the definition of nihilism. then read Nietzsche's work. I'm an atheist but I think when too many other people are atheists it is bad. In fact, I think atheism as a whole is simply a worse kind of view than religion to hold because it has no pragmatic benefits. That does not mean I am not an atheist.

I have read his works. Not at any point did he not consider nihilism as a negative thing. In fact, he bitches about nihilism all day long. Him and Camus (who is apparently another one of your favorites) both consider nihilism some kind of inevitable crisis. In Nietzsche's perspective, the last man embraces comfort and nihilism, while the Ubermensch transcends it.

Are you trying to say he's a nihilist that rejects nihilism? In your perspective maybe, but Nietzsche probably won't be happy being categorized as such. Neither would Camus.

see now you're changing your argument. Remember when you said "conclusive evidence for his stance against nihilism"? It was literally 2 posts ago. Yes I know his stance on nihilism, he did consider it an inevitable crisis. The ubermensch doesn't transcend nihilism per say, but rather transcends the need for such a label . I don't know whether or not they would be happy being categorized as a nihilist, but frankly speculation as to how they would feel with what they were does not change how they were.
 
Nov 20, 2015 10:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 9178
Bernkastel said:
Ravioli_Ravioli said:
see now you're changing your argument. Remember when you said "conclusive evidence for his stance against nihilism"? It was literally 2 posts ago. Yes I know his stance on nihilism, he did consider it an inevitable crisis. The ubermensch doesn't transcend nihilism per say, but rather transcends the need for such a label . I don't know whether or not they would be happy being categorized as a nihilist, but frankly speculation as to how they would feel with what they were does not change how they were.

If Nietzsche and Camus both spoke so negatively about nihilism, do you want to provide evidence for your claim that they were nihilists?

"Every belief, every considering something-true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world" (Will to Power [notes from 1883-1888])

"the highest values devalue themselves. The aim is lacking, and 'Why' finds no answer" (Will to Power).

Nihilism is most often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, although he never actually advocated Nihilism as a practical mode of living and was typically quite critical of it. He was, however, one of the first philosophers to study nihilism extensively. Nietzsche's criticism of nihilism was mainly on that grounds that it can become a false belief, and lead individuals to discard any hope of meaning in the world and thus to invent some compensatory alternative measure of significance. He also asserts that Nihilism is a result of valuing "higher", "divine" or "meta-physical" things (such as God), that do not in turn value "base", "human" or "earthly" things, and that any form of Idealism, after being rejected by the idealist, leads to Nihilism. Frankly, I don't quite understand why recently I've been seeing a lot of arguments pop up about Nietzsche not being a nihilist. I get that college undergraduates in their first year of philosophy want to reject common values and what not, but the least they could do is have some sense about what they're saying.
 
Nov 20, 2015 10:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3737
Nobody before the 20th century was an atheist

 
Nov 20, 2015 10:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 6357
lucjan said:
Nobody before the 20th century was an atheist


True. They had a better name back then, 'heretics'.
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!''
~Oscar
[/i]
 
Top