The Antichrist

[artisticsolution]

Found myself alone this morning. Took the opportunity to take myself to breakfast. While I waited, I begin reading a book I had downloaded to my phone, "The Antichrist" by Nietzsche. Thirty minutes later, sipping coffee, cold eggs forgotten and untouched, I realized why Arising liked Nietzsche so much. He had alot to say...didn't he? Heh....go figure.

I am still reading, but I did wonder to myself if Arising had ever read this book and my next thought was if he had ever read the bible in the fashion that Nietzsche desired from his readers. I wonder also, for that matter, if Nietzsche read the bible in the same way he wanted his readers to read him. Furthermore, I wonder if anyone reading this will read my curiosity about Arising and Nietzsche and the bible in a similar vein.

Wikipedia states: "Nietzsche claimed in the Foreword to have written the book for a very limited readership. In order to understand the book, he asserted that the reader "... must be honest in intellectual matters to the point of hardness to so much as endure my seriousness, my passion."[4] The reader should be above politics and nationalism. Also, the usefulness or harmfulness of truth should not be a concern. Characteristics such as "Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage for the forbidden"[4] are also needed. He disdained all other readers."

[artisticsolution]

Bob...I don't think Nietzsche was thinking in terms of false prophet when he said anti Christ. As far as I can tell he means Anti Christian....or at least in the term of what Christianity does to people. Sort of like how you think you're a prophet of darkness or something to that effect...personally, I call it a narcissistic flair for the dramatics...but I think he means to say how Christianity has played a mind game with not only Christians but also... in respect to their lack of intelligence when interpreting the bible...society as well.

Anyway, I meant to bring about a discussion about religion and Nietzsche and not foos-bob-economics. I am curious to understand if Nietzsche ever read the bible in the way he wishes his readers would read him. It would give me a starting point as to how to read him. I assume he had an open mind and did not base his conclusions simply on a few acquaintances.

Mind you I am not defending religion or anti religion...I simple want to come from a neutral place. Is anyone here game?

[Arising_uk]

...I realized why Arising liked Nietzsche so much. ...

I never said I liked him, I said I had to read him for my course.

A very difficult read as I've not had religious faith as a part of my life so trying to understand his point of view as a Christian who has his 'god' as dead was trying. In retrospect he gave me one bout of depression but made it up with one of the biggest out-loud belly-laughs I've had from philosophy when I got his eternal recurrence as a substitute for the golden rule. Soon replaced by the question, "Hold on!? How can we tell if this is the first time around?"

[artisticsolution]

...I realized why Arising liked Nietzsche so much. ...

I never said I liked him, I said I had to read him for my course.
"

I thought you said you preferred him to Kierkegaard? Did I misunderstand?

[Arising_uk]

I thought you said you preferred him to Kierkegaard? Did I misunderstand?

Nope, but preference does not have to imply like as I had not much choice in having to read either of them.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Arising,

I have to forewarn you that I am not fully sure of my comprehension thus far. You see, I usually read a book first for entertainment...meaning I read it quickly. Then if I like it I go back and devour it word by word so I can really go deeper into the meaning of the author. So my thoughts now are based on a superficial understanding...I hope that makes sense. I am just not capable of reading any other way. That being said, alot of what he is saying is Kierkegaard on steroids...at least to me. While K sugarcoated things in a more aesthetically pleasing way (at least for me...in it's imagery) Nietzsche says in a more strawdoggie type of way. It makes my mind hear a young man's shallow negative angst. Shallow in the sense he only sticks to one side of the equation (the negative cool guy side) and has not considered the other side of the equation (the positive grandpa side ...remember when you called grandfathers sentimental sops....or something like that...lol...I can't remember the term you used..only the sentiment).

But so far I do have some initial thoughts that I can only share by means of a little story in order to sort them. I am not sure it will make sense to you but I will try to explain a little about what I mean by the story after....hopefully you will be able to understand me.

I told you a while ago that my mom suffered from mental illness all her life. Just recently her and I had a very nice conversation (in the sense that it was interesting instead of abusive) during a brief stay in the hospital. Anyway, she told me a story about when she was in group therapy a long time ago when she was a young woman.

There was a girl in the group who admitted to physically abusing her child. She would slap the child for no reason. My mom ...wait I have to give you a little history first...(my mom prides herself on instinctively "knowing" people just by merely looking at them. As a child I believed everything she told me about people and it made me shun people because she only was able to "know" the bad side of people and she warned me against everyone. Quite scary....but as I aged, I begin to find out that she was wrong about some people...and I began to think that if she was wrong about some...she might be wrong about all....who knows...anyway, I began to look more closely and to realize how deep her illness went....when she started to see "evil" in who ever was on her shit list...and there was always some drama that eventually...everyone was on her shit list...she made up elaborate "lies" (as Nietzsche would call them) I call them exaggerations....due to her disease. Anyway...they weren't just gossipy things...they were downright insane...like saying someone was a pedophile when they weren't and causing those who did not know of her mental illness to be suspicious of the person...or saying her husband was trying to kill her...when he was not (there is a long story I won't go into with that one I wont go into ...but suffice to say he was not. Anyway, she was always convinced and convinced others of these wild assertions.)

Anyway, back to the group therapy story... So my mom told me that she understood why the woman abused her child and she wanted to prove to the group that she "knew" this women (and maybe cure her? She didn't tell me this is what she was thinking but I just got the sense of this by her story). So my mom began interrogating the woman saying...what is going on in your life that is making you hit your child? Is it your husband? The woman said, "No...he's wonderful." My mom continued in a tyrant fashion until the woman admitted that she had walked into her house and caught her husband with another man.' My mom said to the woman, "Go home and get a frying pan and beat the living shit out of your husband and you will stop taking you anger out on your child."

I asked a zillion questions after that...my first was why the therapist didn't get child services to see if the story was true and if the kid was safe...my mom simply said they didn't do that back then ...which I don't know if it was true. I had alot of questions but I did not mention what I really thought....because it wasn't an option in my quest to get an honest answer....what I wanted to ask was, is this story really true...or more importantly...if it is true ,why do you think it is true that you could "cure" a child abuser by having her take her anger out on her husband...or do you think she could have been lying to you in order to have a "good" reason to abuse her child...I mean there can never be a "good" reason...but at least a reason to become a "victim" in your own right so you don't appear so "evil" to others...and maybe one person might feel pity. Anyway, I just wanted to ask why my mom felt the need "to expose" this woman in a sort if triumphant way...almost like scoring a point.

Nietzsche reminds me of my mom. And I question the ability for some to even be able to see all aspects of life...as it appears to me most come from a negative viewpoint...and that's fine...it sells...there is a sense of coolness that is hip in wallowing in the negative. But I just feel in order to test your conclusions...you must scrutinize them under other avenues...like positiveness, lest you close your mind to all options. I think that is why I liked K...he went deeper than just the superficial popularity of despair.

Late to work...will add or edit later.

[artisticsolution]

Hi...I realize the above story was written in haste and that I failed to describe the situation to the fullest...but it is so long and detailed that I would not know where to begin. I wanted to mention something about "exposure" first though. My mom loves to, as she puts it, "expose people", this is kinda what I got the feeling that Nietzsche was doing..."exposing people". I think K did that too...the only difference is K didn't make a blatant value judgment on the wrong doing of an individual. K pretty much leaves it up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions by providing them with various observations and in depth conclusions as to the sources of the problem and the possible solutions. K is very thorough when doing this...no stone goes unturned...but still...he does not tell you what to think. He also gives the impression he would have liked someone to challenge his intellect and provide a scenario he did not think of before...

Nietzsche on the other hand does not bother caring about what other others think. It seems to me his word is law. He has his mind made up and nothing could shake his knowledge. His voice sounds to me as if one of a victim, although not a victim in the sense he was weak. A victim in the sense he was sensitive to outward influences who did not understand him and thus he was strong in playing such a victim without wavering....he withstood every punch they gave him and fought back with pen,In other words, he wanted to "expose" them.

I get the sense he was very alone intellectually and emotionally. He was justified in alot of what he said, as people (Christians) do behave as he states, however, not all people...obviously...as he himself was one such person....and where there is one...chances are there are more. But could he have allowed himself to admit it? I am not sure. There is an ego there that maintains a certain pride in an intellect above and beyond the rest. I would have to read more to understand what he was saying...and I most certainly could be wrong in my initial impression. Who knows.

As far as the text goes, it just seems to me so far that he is a disgruntled ex christian who is getting revenge on those in the church who harmed him well...more than just him...I get the feeling he thinks they harmed all of society. He has much to say about that.

Oh, I do have one question.....is he the first to write so openly about Christianity with such displeasure? The reason I ask is because I was surprised that some of the things he wrote have been echo by many after him. Like for example, remember when Mel Gibson got in trouble in the USA for that movie about Christ....Some Jews were pissed that he portrayed them as the ones who killed Jesus? Does anyone remember that? I vaguely remember something like that....so I may have the names wrong...anyway, it seemed to me as if Nietzsche eludes to that in this book....around page 100-130...or whereabouts. I was wondering if others have written such or if Mel might have read Nietzsche....or why it even seemed to piss off some Jews....if it was such the case. Anyway, I didn't understand the whole scandal then. To me it was no biggie...I mean it's not like the Jews today killed Jesus...and who cares anyway...someone did. To me it's like blaming whites today for having slaves....it wasn't today's white that enslaved blacks.... it was the whites of yesterday...so to get upset that someone said your ancestors did something...well...it's in the past. Why continue on with the anger? I don't get it.

[lancek4]

...I realized why Arising liked Nietzsche so much. ...

I never said I liked him, I said I had to read him for my course.

A very difficult read as I've not had religious faith as a part of my life so trying to understand his point of view as a Christian who has his 'god' as dead was trying. In retrospect he gave me one bout of depression but made it up with one of the biggest out-loud belly-laughs I've had from philosophy when I got his eternal recurrence as a substitute for the golden rule. Soon replaced by the question, "Hold on!? How can we tell if this is the first time around?"

I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Lance,

I am not sure I understand. Could you please give me an example of what you mean?

[lancek4]

Hi Lance,

I am not sure I understand. Could you please give me an example of what you mean?

I'll have to touch up on 'anyiC' , for fear I mite take this thread in another direction...

[lancek4]

Hi Lance,

I am not sure I understand. Could you please give me an example of what you mean?

Ahh yes... The Antichrist. The first question that must be asked is from the very first paragraph of the preface:

Is N writing to you ?

Then the next question has to be:

Do you understand what he is saying?

And the clincher:

If you do not understand him then he is not writing to you; for you are what he soon refers to as the 'modern' human, the 'evolved', and the 'herd animal', the 'sick brute man'.

One might be tempted to be philosophical and say No, he is talking about the Christian, but he uses this classifier to indicate a type of culturally conditioned human, as opposed to those who read him as from a friend, those few who need not decode his words because to them N is merely stating the 'uncommon' sense.

So I ask: what specifically are you asking?

[artisticsolution]

L: So I ask: what specifically are you asking?

AS: I was asking you to give me an example of what you meant by this:


"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

[chaz wyman]

L: So I ask: what specifically are you asking?

AS: I was asking you to give me an example of what you meant by this:


"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

I thought you were the N expert - What do you think he means by the phrase?

[artisticsolution]

I thought you were the N expert - What do you think he means by the phrase?

Where did I say I was an N expert. This is the first book I have read of N's and I am still reading. If I understood what Lance is trying to say I wouldn't ask for an example of what he (lance) means. I don't understand the problem.

[chaz wyman]

I thought you were the N expert - What do you think he means by the phrase?

Where did I say I was an N expert. This is the first book I have read of N's and I am still reading. If I understood what Lance is trying to say I wouldn't ask for an example of what he (lance) means. I don't understand the problem.

I did not so that either, nor was it even implied.
I said exactly what I wanted to say - no more no less.

So what do you think it might mean?
You know there is a 'problem'. So you must think something about it.