Post #1

"The Christian conception of God - God as God of the sick, God as spider, God as spirit - is one of the most corrupt conceptions of God arrived at on earth: perhaps it even represents the low water mark in the descending development of the God type. God degenerated to the contradiction of life instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yes! " (Section 18)

As we have unpacked Nietzsche's despise for Christianity, an outline of his major critique lies in his concept of life as a power or force and Christian tradition as a practice in which no longer allows its proper expression. Christianity instead consists of a conception of consciousness that punishes us, asking of us to internalize outward expression of instinct and aggression and inflicts an overarching affliction of guilt in the process. This form of "bad conscience" nihilism is a result of the degradation of life expression since the Greeks. The Greek or "barbarian", non-rational morality focused on the life expressive way of being. With the introduction of Christianity we have an inversion of the aforementioned "master morality" and thus our instincts are turn upon one another. Nietzsche highlights here points which Freud will later take off on in The Pleasure Principle such as his explanation of anxiety. Freud makes a point to explain that anxiety, as a completely internalized fear of our choices, is the one of the most dangerous emotions as we are in a battle not against the oppression of others, but of ourselves to which we have less defense. Nietzsche's concern with Christianity perpetuated guilt can be seen as creating a fictitious internal battle with anxiety which has been allowed to become tradition of the most dangerous kind. Nietzsche's critique can be seen as an attempt to reinstall an experience of existence that is genuine in the face of nihilism.

Worth noting again is the effect of pity as a vice for this Christian conception of guilt. Pity on others, an emotion whose purpose is to liken your emotions to others who are in pain in order to share in their suffering is another example of "God as sick" to Nietzsche. The tradition within religion here not only pushes the nihilism associated with life to a concept of fulfillment of an afterlife (denial) as well as make one feel guilty for not being able to live of to the highest standards granted in the afterlife on their time on earth, but then twists the knife one more time and breeds on the commiseration and comradeship of being in this situation together. This system may have an illusion of good and progress but these illusions instigate Nietsche's tirade against it.

Pity the fool obsessed with power

Section seven focuses on Nietzsche condemnation of pity. He writes "pity stands in antithesis to the tonic emotions which enhances the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect…..suffering becomes contagious.” (130)

Nietzsche sees pity as one of those present aspects of morality that is actually an inversion of true morality. By regarding pity as a grand virtue it has made people weaker. He sees pity as problematic because it multiplies sorrow, weakens everyone, and preserves that which is "ripe for destruction."

I find it interesting that Nietzsche uses the word "pity" as opposed to compassion or sympathy. The word pity has a connotation of power within it. To pity someone is to be above them looking down; it draws images of the rich looking down upon the poor pitying that they were not born so lucky. Pity also has an inactive sense about it, to pity someone usually denotes a passive twinge of guilt or sadness. Easily done, ”Oh I feel bad," while walking by the homeless man on the street.

When a tragedy befalls someone it is common to hear "I don't want anyone's pity," but I have never heard someone say "I don't want anyone's compassion." Nietzsches use of the word pity is a straw-man technique. Pity isn't a virtue that should be preserved, it is self-righteous and has a feeling of power engrained within it.

Compassion on the other hand is a virtue that should be preserved and does not have a depressing effect, does not increase sorrow, and does not preserve that which should be destroyed.

Nietzsche seems to have a keen interest in evolution; if he looked at the evolution of homo sapiens he would see that we are social animals; the only reason our species survived is through preserving of the group. (ie: alarm calling)

While I agree that pity is a waste of emotion compassion has ensured the survival of our species and will continue to be a cornerstone on what brings comfort and peace when tragedy befalls people.

Why does Friedrich Nietzsche passionately despise Christianity?

Friedrich Nietzsche has cultivated many rational reasons why Christianity is a disease on society. A couple of which include: 1) he believes that Christianity is a religion of pity, and 2) it stands in opposition of intellectual growth.

“What is good? – All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man.” (p.125, l. 26)

Rationally it can be safely stated that the majority of the population accept Christianity as being good, it can also be stated that religion is controlling.

“Pity is practical nihilism. To say it again, this depressive and contagious instinct thwarts those instincts bent on preserving and enhancing the value of life: both as a multiplier of misery and as a conservator of everything miserable it is one of the chief instruments for the advancement of decadence” (p. 128, l. 26)

Christianity and its collective interpretation looks down upon the desires of human beings, causing them to pity themselves and feel sorrow because of their natural instincts. As in the previous quote what is good is what heightens feeling and energy; since self-pity is a depressive activity to participate in, it can be said that self-pitying oneself is bad, therefore to Nietzsche Christianity is not good.

“Christianity, the typical Christian condition, ‘faith’, has to be a form of sickness, every straightforward, honest, scientific road to knowledge has to be repudiated by the Church as a forbidden road. Even to doubt is a sin”

As previously stated in Pauline’s post, Christianity supports that which is weak. Maybe because science is so straightforward, has proof, and is such a strong subject to argue against, the institution of Christianity is against it. Another reason may be is that they fear that the public might view science as being right, and begin to believe in science rather than the church; listening to scientists, rather than preachers. The fact that the institution of Christianity forbids intellectual growth only will lead people to it (remember the forbidden fruit?). Anyway, leaving people in a state of ignorance is what Nietzsche is saying the institution of Christianity wants.

Even though there are these dissenting traits of Christianity that Nietzsche chooses to focus on, there is also a humanitarian side that he fails to accept. (p.196) Nietzsche seems to understand the faults in Christianity, as well as many other worldly religions and people throughout this book. Even though Nietzsche has rationally developed countless numbers of logical proofs on how the institution of Christianity is bad, it seems as if he only recognized the bad and chosen to exploit them.

Nietzsche's formula to happiness; yes, no, straight line, goal.

Nietzsche is one of the more intriguing characters in the philosophical realm. Throughout his works he weaves his way in and out many ideas, criticizing Kant, Religion (very heavy criticism), the origin of morals, the concept of “good”, and many other abstract ideas. As I weaved my way through his web, I can only sit and ask what was his true happiness and is there anything for that matter that makes Nietzsche happy. What can make a man, a philosopher-who seems to claim everything is it’s own a deterioration of life-happy? Then all of a sudden, a breakthrough in the first section of The Anti-Christ (also in the Maxims and Arrows in The Twilight of The Idols), we have a formula to happiness, now there is no need to spend time looking for Nietzsche’s happiness or should we rather continue? “…a yes, a no, a straight line, a goal…” (Nietzsche 127) So before the formula is broken down and understood we must come to understand something worthy of note. If someone-Nietzsche in this case-is able to invest a large amount of time of their life putting pencil to paper and write their thoughts and ideas which cover a grand spectrum of topics. There is most obviously some sort of a “goal” which is most definitely related to happiness and the fulfillment of some sort of gratification. Through a sheer anthropological account we as people, as animals, work for a self-fulfilling purpose, Nietzsche himself, sadly enough doesn’t escape this. So whether The Anti-Christ or Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or even Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat for that matter, the writer writes with some sort of expectation in the end, in this case it is for some sort of satisfaction. Writing a book logically connects the act of writing with happiness or rather the expectation of a positive result. With the help of The Anti-Christ Nietzsche’s formula will be broken down and applied to his work to figure out what are the pieces of the formula and how they can be applied to this work.

First we begin with the “yes” of the formula, yes is a word which one uses to affirm (agree with) a statement. Nietzsche with the yes is affirming his very own position, meaning his ideas; the yes is also a universal yes, in the sense that it applies to all people; those who are willing to listen especially. “Formula of our happiness: a Yes, a No…” The “our” shows some kind of union between people, in this case the union is between Nietzsche and his listeners. The No; again we must make a basis of the word No itself, it is “used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative” (Merriam Webster Dictionary 489) Now that we have established the No, we must realize the correlation between No and The Anti-Christ. “One should not embellish or dress up Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man,…” (Nietzsche 129) then we have this “I make war on this theologian instinct: I have found traces of it everywhere. Whoever has theologian blood in his veins has a wrong and dishonest attitude…” (Nietzsche 132). Time and time again we have evidence of the refusal of Christianity, the “No” in his formula of happiness. Now we have the “straight line”, what do we associate with straight lines? Forward movement in a physical sense, in mathematical discourse it continues ad infinitum. This is the path which Nietzsche takes along with his willing listeners, they do not deviate off the line but rather follow every step, sort of in the way a straight line will never deviate and become perpendicular, the path itself mustn’t be deviated from because then Nietzsche loses his happiness and the formula is wrong. Now we have the “goal”, the goal can be a combination of things, it can be getting his greater message across, and it can also be the success and the posthumous glorification that Nietzsche receives. A tandem of words, events, ideas, has created the recipe to Nietzsche’s happiness, a happiness and formula which he knew very well of but he had said rather opaquely.

Faith v. Natural Instinct (Blog Post #3)

Is Christianity the cause of humankind’s decline? Perhaps not specifically Christianity as much as what any extreme giving of oneself over to any cultural or religious structure, which may lead to the relinquishing of rational thinking and submission to systematic forces that are not questioned.

Nietzsche delves deeply into the dangers of people positioning themselves within a system of beliefs where faith is the root. Such faith can perpetuate and/or excuse non-moral behavior and/or irrational behavior. How is that better than living without any structure, without any rules of conduct wherein a supreme being is believed to be the ultimate judge and dictator? When nations clash and cultural differences lead to war, violence and hostility, where is the value in faith then? It is this notion that Nietzche touches on when he refers to the “Evil One”. “Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, ill-constituted, it has made an ideal out of opposition to the preservative instincts of strong life; it has depraved the reason even of the intellectually strongest natures by teaching men to feel the supreme values of intellectuality as sinful, as misleading, as temptations” (128-129). The act of surrendering one’s instincts is to become depraved, and in turn, loses moral value. If we forgo our capacity to utilize our natural instincts, our intellect, then we have made ourselves weak.

The Anti-Christ expresses a severe distaste for the lack of use of reason, the relinquishing of one’s power to think, to pull from within oneself a sense of what is, in relation to what are the confines of faith. To have faith does not make one moral, but rather requires one’s submission of what is real, natural, and intentional use of reason. The confines of faith are that one is required to repress all natural states of being and acting with oneself, and instead is attached to a system, a system where personal instincts, drive, and reason are replaced with dogmatic principles and authority. Nietzsche argues that there is no moral value in such a system.

Religion has failed to serve as a definite guarantee for morality. There is no certainty to the value of morality in relation to faith, regardless of the religion and the time, which is a problem that The Anti Christ details through the critique of Christianity, Judaism, and all organized religion. Throughout the almost systematic attack on Christianity, the terms and principles based in the religious structure are shredded and redefined as baseless, demoralizing, and harmful to all who lie in its path.

Thats Life

“Pity on the whole thwarts the law of evolution, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for destruction; it defends life’s disinherited and condemned; through the abundance of the ill-constituted of all kinds which it retains in life it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect.”(pg.130)

            Nietzsche’s attitude towards a Christian notion of pity as it is related to evolution and the purpose of life can be extrapolated from the preceding passage. His language is violently inhumane in reference to any intrinsic value life might contain. He refers to some life as being “ripe for destruction”. However, if we understand his statements as a reaction his perceived effects of Christianity on society and not as a normative prescription, it becomes a bit easier to sympathize. In fact, the view he expresses is not easily denied on philosophical grounds. This is precisely the problem that theories of human rights will encounter upon attempting to create philosophical grounds for the intrinsic value of life. Nietzsche requires an evolutionary basis for the value of life. By using the word evolution, Nietzsche seems to be referring to a type of progress within society. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the text he denies the ability for man to determine the truth of a concept like progress. One problem with his strict understanding of evolution is that the preservation of life by means of pity cannot then, be considered an evolution. Furthermore determining what can and cannot be thought of as progress according to Nietzsche is impossible to do by those that the very progress effects. This would mean that by his own understanding, he is not in a position to determine that “pity thwarts the law of evolution”. This passage reeks of his concept of “uberman”. In its most superficial interpretation such a denial of the value of pity can lead to things like WWII. This is not a philosophical problem but a moral one. On the grounds that Nietzsche cannot be held responsible for the powerful implications of his philosophy it is nothing if not sound enough to enliven humanistic doubts in even the most idealistic of us. It is precisely the overcoming of such doubts that he sees as dangerous manifestations of faith. However, succumbing to the very same doubts is dangerous in it’s own right.

Post #3: Is Pessimism a Problem? –

In our reading of Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche explains that pessimism towards life among the wise men has led them to seek the “permanent… daylight of reason” (43) for consolation, which ironically led to the “immortal unreason” (59) that perpetuates false causality. In this reading, Nietzsche touches on the issues of pessimism and skepticism, morality and nature, as wells as cause and consequence. Nietzsche critiques the Christian Church since he believes that it seeks to condemn natural life, in addition to Socrates (as a wise man) and Kant (as a moralist). However, while Nietzsche’s critique is harsh, especially against religious judgment and reason, his deconstruction leaves us with a ‘real world’ full of ‘free spirits’ following instinct. Can Nietzsche’s critique abolish the pessimism against the world, and can there ever be a world where every spirit is free from condemnation? First, I will explain the problem according to Nietzsche, and then I will explain his answer. I think that Nietzsche’s answer is lofty, but also worth giving a try.

Nietzsche believes that wise men, like Socrates, have seen the world as pessimistic. In Nietzsche’s view, the dialectic of wise men has always been that life has no meaning or value (a highly nihilistic claim). Nietzsche claims that they console themselves with unwavering rationality, even though life has shown them otherwise (that life is not entirely rational) in the apparent world. As a result, wise men have abstracted the real world by viewing the apparent world with skepticism. The Christian Church, hostile to natural life in Nietzsche’s opinion, claims that humanity’s passions are to be castrated (not moderated). The Church imposes morality that condemns the passions of life, which according to Nietzsche, condemns life itself. One of the other issues that relates to this problem (of corruptive thinking) is that of causality. Nietzsche claims that religion and morality posits consequences as causes. Consequences (like virtue) are considered to be causes (like for happiness), when really it could be that happiness (doing what one likes to do) can be the cause of virtue (living prosperously). Nietzsche implies that causes are arbitrary and are ideas developed for consolation for a pessimistic view of the ‘real world’.

But Nietzsche posits the opposite of this. He declares a future where the ‘real world’ is no longer a necessary concept (even though it also abolishes the idea of the apparent world). He claims that real morality as something instinctive and natural. Passions are not to be castrated, but moderated by a strong will. He belongs to the immoralists, who seek to affirm the world, not deny or judge it. Every particular belongs to the whole, and each should not be held accountable for existing. Nietzsche believes that by abolishing the Great Condemner, God, humanity is liberated from its guilt and is allowed to exist.

This idea is quite lofty because it implies that we can survive without authority. However, he is right that if the authority is faulty, why bother following it? Why listen to those who hate life?