The Antichrist

[SpheresOfBalance]

Thanks, Spheres, for your comment, and thanks to artisticsolution for this topic.

After reading a couple of reviews of Nietzsche's (N's) "The Anti-Christ", it appears to me that the English title is a misleading translation of the intended German meaning, "The Anti-Christian", as others have mentioned.

In the book, N criticizes Christianity as a nihilistic, life-denying religion of the weak. He claims the life of Jesus had little to do with the way Christianity as an organized religion became: A religion that appeals to "losers", a source of comfort for oppressed peoples who resent their superiors or over-lords. It has demonized worldly success, the scientific method, and human beings as biological entities with a desire to survive and have power and enjoy life. Christianity, according to N, has replaced the goodness and enjoyment of natural biological life with a decadent down-grading of the importance of the natural world and a sick focus on a fictitious after-life.

In the book, N also makes an interesting comparison between Christianity and Buddhism, the latter in his view being the superior belief system, for one thing in that it seeks to eliminate suffering by dealing in a special way with reality and apparently holding that sin doesn't exist.

I think N was nervous about the possible impact of the book, and thus warned, in effect, that only people with sufficiently open minds should read it.

N's book is thus a good stimulus for discussion of the pros and cons of Christianity in its many forms, other religions, atheism, and the scientific method.

As you said yourself, "After reading a couple of reviews of Nietzsche's (N's) "The Anti-Christ", it appears to me...," which to my way of thinking is merely the parroting of another's understanding of N. Which also has the effect of contaminating any future reading of N that you do for yourself. Even most teachers/professors do this as they supply you with a meaning, one tends to side with the authority, assuming that their understanding is actual and correct, without agenda, this is one of the commonalities within the construct of human civilization, socialization!

[reasonvemotion]

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

An immature attempt to unscrupulously control a situation and person.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

An immature attempt to unscrupulously control a situation and person.

Not just that, but she doesn't realize that I would more readily throw some lovin' her way as well, because I have issue with displaying affection, especially with males, I'm heterosexual and thus lovin' of the platonic nature is also easier to display towards a female, the whole nurturing, mothering thing is at issue here. Also what she fails to understand is that Chaz and I have a history, whereby he STARTED being extremely 'nasty' and 'rude' to me as the nice laid back newcomer, that I initially was. So he shall ALWAYS from that INITIAL day FORWARD be an enemy of mine unless he mind's his manners, because I know that his nastiness is solely due to the "bravery of being out of range," in other words, that of cowardice. And he never apologizes, again due to his cowardice, and he is so frightened that he even goes so far as to create some axiom of falsehood that he can lie to himself about so as to reinforce his cowardice, which is pretty pathetic, I can't help it, I actually feel sorry for the boy sometimes. That's why I apologize after some reflection, I realize that most people can't help themselves, as their nastiness is always linked to some hardship they've suffered, such that they're really not fully responsible, such that I realize that I shouldn't hold them as such. In other words I finally acknowledge what it is in being human, as I know only too well, and I'll finally allow them that. Actually the only reason I apologized to Arising_uk is because she's a female. I especially don't want to hurt 'ladies.' One can view that however they want, but I believe in chivalry, with respect to ladies, to a lesser degree with respect to merely females.

[artisticsolution]

To prove it tell me what this means, with 100% certainty, as to the words meaning in and of themselves, without supplying any belief of yours, or else supply evidence in other words of his that proves he means other than these words meanings, in and of themselves:[/color]

The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

Okay. But first we must define what he means by "the weak and the failures". You see, if we do not define what he means then there is no way we can understand him. We can ONLY understand him based on OUR knowledge and understanding of "weak failures". An understanding I might add...that we were given by society....an axiom that we took as ours without question...the same as we learned that 1+1=2.

You see...with every axiom there is a beginning point. A place where one just assumes the beginning point is 'true' and all else stems from that. N is asking us to suppose that our beginning point is not true when he makes this statement.

So now imagine that by 'weak and failures' N meant all of the people who are like Hitler....for example. Suppose he said,

"Hitler should parish : the first principle of our love and humanity. And he should be helped to do this."

I think most people would agree with that statement. But then we change the definition that we were taught as to what is 'weak and a failure'. But you see....in order to do this...people must change the axiom in their head...the one that tells them that Hitler was powerful and successful. We believe Hitler was Powerful because our preconceived ideas...'axioms' if you will....tells us that leaders (hitler in this case) of entire countries have 'power'...and successful because he also 'succeeded' in his 'evil' plot.

However... if we change the definition/axiom of the starting point we were lead to believe was 'weak' and 'failure' we can begin to change our concept of what that entails. Meaning we would no longer attribute 'bad' (if you will) sentiments like "weak and failure" to the underdog/the good. Instead we would attribute the "good" meanings toward them....i.e. the underdog/good strong moral person would then become the "powerful". And thus the Hitler (or in N's case 'Christianity' types would become the weak and the failures as far as detrimental human behaviors go. Now mind you...this is just a simple starting point in order for you to see what I mean and the distinction that I am making in my explanation.

What I find especially interesting is that Einstein also used these methods (that is the method of imagining that an axiom was wrong from the get go) in order to come up with the theory of relativity. Before that, no one dare even question what they had been taught about time/space/light/etc.

It is not the morality one should be looking at in N's words in order to understand him...it is the breaking of the axiom that is important here. If we get caught up in the morality of what he is saying...we can't understand that what he is asking us to consider for a brief moment. He is giving us a gift that might set our creative wheels in motion for all our lives if we can break free from the axioms we were taught. And that is why N was great. Not because he was coming from a "normal" starting point...but because he broke free from that point in order to question a larger more complex problem in a unique way.

Anyway, that is what I know with 100% certainty....if any of us can know anything with 100% certainty. Which I don't believe we can...lol.

[artisticsolution]

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

An immature attempt to unscrupulously control a situation and person.

No, just an observation dear.

[reasonvemotion]

AS:

....I would hold back

You are obviously a person of warped reasoning. My advice to you is "don't hold back," keep on making a fool of yourself with SoB, while I quietly extricate myself from this absurd situation.

[chaz wyman]

That is true. In fact, my words were mostly in relatiation.


Or retaliation !!

CW, yes I believe either/or. Which does not mean you are blameless. I have noticed you do on a regular basis adopt the attitude of "teacher-student" attitude to most contributors on this forum. I extended my apology with sincerety but not with longevity, as the scenario changes constantly, but the sincerety always remains. This forum is not conducive to proving one's sincerety and from what I can gather that is a very important quality to you. My posts are based on my limited knowledge of philosophy as that is not my primary interest, but I glean much from other people's insights, opinions and candid words. If I have offended you unduly, I wish I could retrieve my words but unfortunately I cannot.

I don't think any of this should be about blame. Blame, guilt, apology are all empty gestures/positions. You are who you are and nothing to apologise for. Forgiveness is arrogant. If it helps - I do not forgive you because I do not blame you for being who you are.
Your words do please me as they speak well for future conversations. If that sounds like forgiveness to you , then you can accept it as such.

Explanations are better than apologies. If I come on like a teacher then that is because I have spent years in that profession, and if I come across impatient, that is because I have spent years biting back my impatience, and find myself on a Forum where it is no longer necessary.

[chaz wyman]

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

An immature attempt to unscrupulously control a situation and person.

I think you have AS In the palm of your hand.

[Mike Strand]

SpheresofBalance said, regarding my reading of reviews of N's book, "The Anti-Christ":

As you said yourself, "After reading a couple of reviews of Nietzsche's (N's) "The Anti-Christ", it appears to me...," which to my way of thinking is merely the parroting of another's understanding of N. Which also has the effect of contaminating any future reading of N that you do for yourself. Even most teachers/professors do this as they supply you with a meaning, one tends to side with the authority, assuming that their understanding is actual and correct, without agenda, this is one of the commonalities within the construct of human civilization, socialization!

Of course, I agree there is no substitute for reading the entire book for myself. If I do that, and it proves to be over my head, I'll still need to rely on reviewers.

Spheres, if there is anything about my short review of the book that is a poor representation of it, I would enjoy reading any review you may have of the book. As a review, my comments were an attempted summary of the main ideas, and not a commentary upon my opinion of them.

[SpheresOfBalance]

To prove it tell me what this means, with 100% certainty, as to the words meaning in and of themselves, without supplying any belief of yours, or else supply evidence in other words of his that proves he means other than these words meanings, in and of themselves:[/color]

The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

Okay. But first we must define what he means by "the weak and the failures". You see, if we do not define what he means then there is no way we can understand him. We can ONLY understand him based on OUR knowledge and understanding of "weak failures". An understanding I might add...that we were given by society....an axiom that we took as ours without question...the same as we learned that 1+1=2.

You see...with every axiom there is a beginning point. A place where one just assumes the beginning point is 'true' and all else stems from that. N is asking us to suppose that our beginning point is not true when he makes this statement.

So now imagine that by 'weak and failures' N meant all of the people who are like Hitler....for example. Suppose he said,
You see this is exactly what I'm talking about, you said 'imagine what he meant, that is you supplying meaning, from your mind, Hitler didn't exist as the tyrant that we've come to know, during N's time. So now I give you an opportunity to redeem this understanding that you claim, by asking, do you know of any of N's words that elude to this meaning of the above quote of N's, which you claim? Here are a few questions for you to consider: was Hitler a Christian? If he was, are all Christians alike? Is it rational to declare war on all of Christianity if there are differing beliefs within the Christian faith. By the definitions below, It's clear that I could be a Christian and still not belong to either the Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox churches. As a matter of fact I could belong to no church at all, and still be a Christian.

Christian [kris-chuhn]
Chris·tian /ˈkrɪstʃən/ [kris-chuhn]
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.

"Hitler should parish : the first principle of our love and humanity. And he should be helped to do this."
With respect to Free Will, was Hitler actually responsible for what he did such that he would deserve to die? Was Hitler Insane, I say that anyone responsible for such heinous crimes as Hitler, is surely insane.

The rest, as to perspective, is elementary, as far as I'm concerned, and my reading of N is not required for me to understand it.
I think most people would agree with that statement. But then we change the definition that we were taught as to what is 'weak and a failure'. But you see....in order to do this...people must change the axiom in their head...the one that tells them that Hitler was powerful and successful. We believe Hitler was Powerful because our preconceived ideas...'axioms' if you will....tells us that leaders (hitler in this case) of entire countries have 'power'...and successful because he also 'succeeded' in his 'evil' plot.
But Hitler did have "power" over the lives of his victims, as he ended them. You can say that what gave way to this 'power' over their lives, was a weakness, but you cannot say that Hitlers affect over the Jews lives was weak. Go back and tell yourself that as a Jew while you're being gassed, incinerated and/or shot in the head. Imagine if you will the extreme horror you'd feel as you become aware that your life is about to be taken, thats pretty powerful stuff, not weak by any measure.

However... if we change the definition/axiom of the starting point we were lead to believe was 'weak' and 'failure' we can begin to change our concept of what that entails. Meaning we would no longer attribute 'bad' (if you will) sentiments like "weak and failure" to the underdog/the good. Instead we would attribute the "good" meanings toward them....i.e. the underdog/good strong moral person would then become the "powerful". And thus the Hitler (or in N's case 'Christianity' types would become the weak and the failures as far as detrimental human behaviors go. Now mind you...this is just a simple starting point in order for you to see what I mean and the distinction that I am making in my explanation.

What I find especially interesting is that Einstein also used these methods (that is the method of imagining that an axiom was wrong from the get go) in order to come up with the theory of relativity. Before that, no one dare even question what they had been taught about time/space/light/etc.

It is not the morality one should be looking at in N's words in order to understand him...it is the breaking of the axiom that is important here. If we get caught up in the morality of what he is saying...we can't understand that what he is asking us to consider for a brief moment. He is giving us a gift that might set our creative wheels in motion for all our lives if we can break free from the axioms we were taught. And that is why N was great. Not because he was coming from a "normal" starting point...but because he broke free from that point in order to question a larger more complex problem in a unique way.

Anyway, that is what I know with 100% certainty....if any of us can know anything with 100% certainty. Which I don't believe we can...lol.
Here I agree with you 100%, that there is no 100% certainty, so why do some speak as though they are 100% certain? Simply, egoism!

Edit 1: added the last lines
Edit 2: colored the last lines red
Edit 3: punctuation

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresofBalance said, regarding my reading of reviews of N's book, "The Anti-Christ":

As you said yourself, "After reading a couple of reviews of Nietzsche's (N's) "The Anti-Christ", it appears to me...," which to my way of thinking is merely the parroting of another's understanding of N. Which also has the effect of contaminating any future reading of N that you do for yourself. Even most teachers/professors do this as they supply you with a meaning, one tends to side with the authority, assuming that their understanding is actual and correct, without agenda, this is one of the commonalities within the construct of human civilization, socialization!

Of course, I agree there is no substitute for reading the entire book for myself. If I do that, and it proves to be over my head, I'll still need to rely on reviewers.

Spheres, if there is anything about my short review of the book that is a poor representation of it, I would enjoy reading any review you may have of the book. As a review, my comments were an attempted summary of the main ideas, and not a commentary upon my opinion of them.

I am not trying to be mean or abusive of you, just pointing out the facts surrounding understanding as I see them. I do not think you are a fool. Neither have I read N's The Anti-Christ completely. So I shall not bother to comment on it in it's totality, But I did find issue with it, right out of the starting gates, that compelled me to lay it down. I'm currently trying to make some sense of sections 32-34 at Lance's suggestion, but I'm having problems with the Christianity portion, as I know practically nothing related to the specifics of it.

[Mike Strand]

I think artisticsolution's thoughts here are on target:

It is not the morality one should be looking at in N's words in order to understand him...it is the breaking of the axiom that is important here. If we get caught up in the morality of what he is saying...we can't understand that what he is asking us to consider for a brief moment. He is giving us a gift that might set our creative wheels in motion for all our lives if we can break free from the axioms we were taught. And that is why N was great. Not because he was coming from a "normal" starting point...but because he broke free from that point in order to question a larger more complex problem in a unique way.

The axioms and definitions of words (in this case, "weak" and "failure") are critical to any argument. Changing them can lead to surprising results, and artistic's example of Einstein's theories is very appropriate.

I agree with artisticsolution that N challenged us to think again about our Judeo-Christian heritage and its moral code, even if he couldn't verify the details of Jesus' life and apparently claimed that Jesus lived like a Buddhist. It's ironic that the Christian churches, like other human organizations, have sought influence (or power) over the minds and hearts and property of humanity and have often succeeded in a fashion that even Machiavelli might admire. But is it really the meek who have inherited large portions of the earth? Depends partly on what you mean by "meek", I guess.

Some would argue that the "strong and fit" humans in the sense that N apparently was thinking of have used the Christian doctrines to fool the bulk of folks into being meek and accepting of whatever the strong and fit (who also call themselves Christians) decide for them. Without passing moral judgement here, one might argue that N's concept for human life and organization is being fulfilled.

[Mike Strand]

Hey, SpheresofBalance, I took no offense, and I didn't mean to appear defensive. Your suggestion to read the book is entirely valid. For example, I read reviews of the Bible, and I have to say when I study it for myself, I find many of those reviews puzzling if not way off base.

Perhaps related to your concerns with the "Christian portion", I have problems with N's treatment (as described by the reviewers) of Christian history. Some of what he says is plausible, but historic facts are hard to verify. I can only say that my own reading of the New Testament and my inferences about Jesus and his message (whether he's a fictitious character or not) are often at odds with current Christian practice and dogma. This agrees with N in general, but not in the specifics. For example, N describes Jesus as living like a Buddhist, but he may have been more like a charismatic rabble-rouser.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

An immature attempt to unscrupulously control a situation and person.

I think you have AS In the palm of your hand.

This is very important to an egomaniac, isn't it? The relatively skeptical belief that you can actually contain, own, someone so as to have them in the palm of your hand, as if your self proclaimed relative truth doesn't contradict the very notion. At your core you're obviously a twisted mass of bitter confusion, the skeptic, fearful of holding his own skepticism suspect. What deeply embedded horror do you run from Chaz, the coward that you are?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lance,
To be honest with you, the Christianity concepts that he attempts to contrast, I see as so vast, that it would take me such time to fathom, that I really don't feel like becoming a theology major, so I doubt that I shall complete the suggested reading to my satisfaction, however with a small amount of continued analyzation, I may soon be capable of formulating questions as to specific understanding of various Christian concepts of his reference, for you to answer.