The Antichrist

[reasonvemotion]

but I believe in chivalry, with respect to ladies, to a lesser degree with respect to merely females.

ladies and merely females? ....... merely females sounds ominous SoB.

[SpheresOfBalance]

but I believe in chivalry, with respect to ladies, to a lesser degree with respect to merely females.

ladies and merely females? ....... merely females sounds ominous SoB.

So I'll explain myself. For me, all females tend to deserve special consideration, but I also recognize the difference between simply a female and a lady (see definition below, note the most important part to me in red)

lady [ley-dee]
la·dy /ˈleɪdi/ [ley-dee] noun, plural la·dies, adjective
noun
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.

So that I see that some of the females here in this forum are not ladies, merely females. Not that I always see myself as a gentleman, as opposed to merely a male, but I do have my moments.

[Arising_uk]

... 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. ...

LMFAO, good job you didn't carry on with Philosophy then as you're not suited to it as you come with to many self-conceits.

[artisticsolution]

Hi everyone,

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.

Yes, I can see how to you it might seem I was "making myself out to be a fool" but I was never one to consider honesty and bluntness to "make someone a fool." You will always know what is on my mind...even if it appears 'embarrassing' to most, I find it the only way to get a truly interesting conversation going...at least one that I am interested in having. I am sorry if you don't like my observations. I am just saying is all. I have no idea if I am correct or not. I just think I am...it's sort of like placing a bet to see if it comes true is all. If I didn't say it....how would I be able to tell anyone, "I told you so? I would also be inclined to tell you any other "embarrassing" thing I had to say....even if had a wet dream about you....lol...which I haven't...just saying....I would probably tell you. It's just who I am...I don't get embarrassed very easily...and it makes for a lively unique perspective of how a person will react. I just enjoy intimate discussions...both sexual and non sexual. I absolutely HATE talking about benign things like the weather in a church type voice. Hate it...despise it...would rather die...get the picture? Don't read me if it upsets you...cause I won't stop saying what is on my mind. I just notice that every time you have responded to me...it is to say something nasty in a sly way. I am not sure you are aware of it...but you have followed me all over the forum writing snide little snippets ...why it's almost as if you are camel or something....not that I am saying you are a sock puppet...as I know how much amod hates that...lol. I am just saying you speak in the same way...and it's okay if we don't agree....it's just I wish my personality didn't offend you so bad...for your benefit as well as mine. But oh well if it does...

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

Actually, I think you are right...but I jumped right in...on purpose. Actually, I would have rather jumped into her pocket...to know who she is and why she thinks like she does.

Hi Sob,

I had written a whole reply to you but I had to run out for an emergency and when I came back my computer was frozen and I couldn't get back my reply. Maybe this weekend I will try to think of the good points I was making about the antichrist...actually, I think there was a quote on page 179-178:

"If mankind never manages to get rid of Christianity, the Germans will be to blame."

Do you think this is racist? How do you think Hitler felt about this line from the book you implied caused Hitler to take up arms against the Jews/weak? What do you think it means? Very interesting...don't you agree?

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your kind words. Have you read the Antichrist?

Hi Lance,

I am starting to read, "Beyond good and evil"...Have you read that one yet? I am hoping someone has...so that we can discuss...

Hi Arising,

Good to see you here. Help....I was re reading a little of The antichrist again and now I am getting some mixed messages. I am a little confused....maybe because I skipped to the middle in order to find quotes to support my argument...sigh...I think that was a mistake. Have you read it again to refresh your memory? Did you read beyond good and evil?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi Sob,

I had written a whole reply to you but I had to run out for an emergency and when I came back my computer was frozen and I couldn't get back my reply. Maybe this weekend I will try to think of the good points I was making about the antichrist...actually, I think there was a quote on page 179-178:

"If mankind never manages to get rid of Christianity, the Germans will be to blame."

Do you think this is racist? How do you think Hitler felt about this line from the book you implied caused Hitler to take up arms against the Jews/weak? What do you think it means? Very interesting...don't you agree?

Yes, what I do sometimes, I should do it, all the time, because sure-as-shit (SAS) as soon as I don't it bites me in the ass, is to write my reply's in a word processor, saving often, then simply cut N' paste it into the PNF web interface, do a little formatting, and Walla!, done, and safe!

As to the German bit, I think it absurd to attribute that much power to one country. And as to it being racist, since there is no such thing as race, no!

[reasonvemotion]

I just notice that every time you have responded to me...it is to say something nasty in a sly way. I am not sure you are aware of it...but you have followed me all over the forum writing snide little snippets ...why it's almost as if you are camel or something....not that I am saying you are a sock puppet...as I know how much amod hates that...lol. I am just saying you speak in the same way

You are projecting your own unpleasant feelings onto me and blaming me for having thoughts that you really have. The reason being is because you lack insight into your own faults.

[artisticsolution]

I just notice that every time you have responded to me...it is to say something nasty in a sly way. I am not sure you are aware of it...but you have followed me all over the forum writing snide little snippets ...why it's almost as if you are camel or something....not that I am saying you are a sock puppet...as I know how much amod hates that...lol. I am just saying you speak in the same way

You are projecting your own unpleasant feelings onto me and blaming me for having thoughts that you really have.

Just out of curiosity....Do you have anything to say about The Antichrist or are you just here to antagonize and be divisive?

[reasonvemotion]

AS:

I am just saying is all.

duh

[SpheresOfBalance]

In case anyone believes that I'm merely being difficult with respect to Nietzsche's T A-C, here are the facts in chronological order:

1) During my course of study the final philosophers we covered was Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant.
2) Many people had spoken of Nietzsche, and I couldn't wait until I had a chance to read him.
3) Several years ago I almost bought "The Anti-Christ" on Amazon, but didn't as other matters were more pressing.
4) Sept. of 2011 I registered here at PNF.

The point being that until I read this copy, compliments of our local university library, for this thread, I had looked forward to reading him. Imagine my surprise when I read these words (especially those in red):

What is good? - Whatever enhances people's feeling of power, will to power, power itself.
What is bad? - Everything stemming from weakness.
What is happiness? - The feeling that power is growing, that some resistance has been overcome.
Not contentedness, but more power; not peace, but war;
not virtue, but prowess (virtue in the style of the Renaissance, virtû, moraline-free virtue).
The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.
What is more harmful than any vice? - Active pity for all failures and weakness - Christianity....

The reason you may ask? Because years earlier I had come to understand at least intellectually, philosophically, that there is absolutely no reason in killing, especially when considering the nature of mans free will. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as he wrote those words highlighted in red above, his life was instantly null and void, such that anything after, he could not speak, because he had helped himself to perish. I see that any belief in killing is purely emotional, without reason, (devoid of intellect) even one's own, such that in this consideration, one only has the right to kill themselves, that is the only emotionally charged mistake anyone is allowed to make, with respect to killing. Could I, if someone killed one of my loved ones, remain rational, NO, my emotions would override my intellect, my reason, and I would try and kill them, to treat them in kind, so as they would 'learn?' Of course, then, they would never learn, would they? And I would have a major emotional issue with allowing my loved ones death to only possibly become, their teaching aid, after their merely spending the rest of heir life in a cage, where their animal belongs. Intellectually, I'd know that they were insane, subject to their tainted free will, but emotionally I wouldn't want my loved ones death, to pay their tuition, in the understanding their life's meaning.

So no, at least with regard to N's The Anti-Christ I see that he allowed his emotions to cloud his intellect, and as such this book only appeals to would be killers, of emotion rather than intellect.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Sob,

I completely understand what you are saying. But let's suppose for a second that you were wrong. What if what you believe actually made things worse? What if it actually killed more people? (whether or not this is true is beside the point...I am just asking what if...see?)

Now keeping the above in mind, I just want to touch base with one statement of truth that I have made about reasonvemotion. I said that her posts thus far were divisive and antagonistic and did not have anything to do with the thread. An insult in anyone's eyes as we are taught that we should not say negative things about a person whether or not they be true. But if we look back at her posts...indeed we can see that no mention of the A/C is had in any of them...but rather, praise and insults are showered on the participants of this thread. I am pointing this out because this is proof of truth even though she denies it because of what ever reason. It doesn't matter what she denies...she can deny til the cows come home...but it doesn't change the facts. I invite any one to look back through her posts without pity of any kind of judgment in order to see them at face value and see if they are discussing the antichrist or being divisive. I am just speaking of "truth" now...and not of our 'feelings' and side issues.

N is saying that that is what Christianity has taught us to do. He is saying that, we have allowed Christianity to cloud hurtful truths. We have become liars in our attempt to be kind...but in becoming liars...we have become exactly the opposite of Christians. Because there was only one true christian , Jesus, and he didn't lie....or so the story goes.

Wikipedia:

The Holy Lie and belief

Lying, or not wanting to see as one sees, is a trait of those who are devoted to a party or faction. Lying is utilized by all priests, whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian. "...[T]he right to lie and the shrewdness of a 'revelation' (Offenbarung) pertains to the priestly type...The 'Law,' the 'will of God,' the 'sacred book,' 'inspiration' — all merely words for the conditions under which the priest comes to power, by which he maintains his power... ."[62] Christianity's lies are not holy. They serve ...bad ends: the poisoning, slandering, denying of life, contempt for the body, the denigration and self–violation of man through the concept of sin... ."[63] Unlike the Jewish/Christian Bible, the Hindu Law–Book of Manu lies for a good purpose. "...t is the means by which the noble orders, the philosophers and warriors, keep the mob under control... ."[63] It affirms life, well–being, and happiness. The purpose of the Christian Holy Lie is bad because it "...is born of weakness, of envy, of revenge."[64] Christianity lied about guilt, punishment, and immortality in order to destroy Imperial Rome, an organization that was designed to promote life. Paul realized that "...with the symbol 'God on the Cross' one could sum up everything down–trodden, everything in secret revolt, the entire heritage of anarchist agitation in the Roman empire, into a tremendous power."[65] His vision on the road to Damascus was "... that to deprive 'the world' of value he needed the belief in immortality, that the concept 'Hell' will master even Rome — that with the 'Beyond' one kills life ... Nihilist and Christian (Nihilist und Christ): they rhyme, and do not merely rhyme ... ."[65]

I am sorry to use reasonvemotion as my example, but I could not think of another. So I hope you understand what I am saying. Can you see how upset we all get at certain truths? So much so that we can't admit them? I think N makes a good point. When we "hear" negative about something we have held dear to us as an axiom all of our lives...we immediately shut down and deny it's validity or truth. We simply can't allow ourselves to accept it...even though it might be the truth. But we would never understand such truths...because we feel harmed by certain truths. Sort of like when people were threatened with death if they dare mention the Earth was round.

Sob...he has clearly given you a disclaimer in the beginning as to the direction he was going to take your thoughts. He says as Wikipedia states: 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.

Why did you go on to read, "The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this" if you could not do it in keeping of his request? He suggests it is because of the axiom of what Christianity has taught us...and in light of this...he isn't wrong. There is truth in what he is saying if we could break down our wall in order to think outside of what we were taught to believe. Whether he is morally right or wrong is besides the point....he is just saying. He is just giving us a gift...one that may allow us to be more creative in the way we view things.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here you go AS, this is the Preface, and contains what you keep quoting, from the wikipedia page. I want you to pay particular attention to the blue & red below:

This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps none of them are even alive yet. Maybe they are the ones who will understand my Zarathustra. There are ears to hear some people — but how could I ever think there were ears to hear me? - My day won’t come until the day after tomorrow. Some people are born posthumously.
The conditions required to understand me, and which in turn require me to be understood, — I know them only too well. When it comes to spiritual matters, you need to be honest to the point of hardness just to be able to tolerate my seriousness, my passion. You need to be used to living on mountains — to seeing the miserable, ephemeral little gossip of politics and national self-interest beneath you. You need to have become indifferent, you need never to ask whether truth does any good, whether it will be our undoing . . . The sort of predilection strength has for questions that require more courage than anyone possesses today; a courage for the forbidden; a predestination for the labyrinth. An experience from out of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for the most distant things. A new conscience for truths that have kept silent until now. And the will to the economy of the great style: holding together its strength, its enthusiasm . . . Respect for yourself; love for yourself; an unconditional freedom over yourself. . .
Well then! These are my only readers, my true readers, my predestined readers: and who cares about the rest of them? The rest are just humanity. You need to be far above humanity in strength, in elevation of soul, - in contempt . . .
--Friedrich Nietzsche--

Can you tell me what that Blue sentence means?

[Mike Strand]

Hi, artisticsolution,
No I haven't read "The Anti-Christ(ian)", just several reviews and summaries. This thread has got me curious, however, and I plan to read it after I've finished Mark Twain's autobiography, which came out just recently. Interesting that Twain and Nietzsche have in common the ability to get the reader to look at things differently, by starting from a viewpoint or set of assumptions that vary from the common or established or usual. Twain does it through humor and irony; Nietzsche takes a more serious and systematic approach.

Here is an imaginary contrast between how Twain (T) and Nietzsche (N) might address the idea of chimps and humans descended from the same common anscestor:

T: Chimps and humans have the same forefathers and mothers. One might ask, which branch of the family is the superior and more worthy branch?

N: We are animals, like the chimps! The strong and fit apes lead the group and do most of the procreating and lead the others to take territory, find food, and gain power over other ape groups. The weak are abandoned or killed. What makes humans think we should behave any differently?

[artisticsolution]

Here you go AS, this is the Preface, and contains what you keep quoting, from the wikipedia page. I want you to pay particular attention to the blue & red below:

This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps none of them are even alive yet. Maybe they are the ones who will understand my Zarathustra. There are ears to hear some people — but how could I ever think there were ears to hear me? - My day won’t come until the day after tomorrow. Some people are born posthumously.
The conditions required to understand me, and which in turn require me to be understood, — I know them only too well. When it comes to spiritual matters, you need to be honest to the point of hardness just to be able to tolerate my seriousness, my passion. You need to be used to living on mountains — to seeing the miserable, ephemeral little gossip of politics and national self-interest beneath you. You need to have become indifferent, you need never to ask whether truth does any good, whether it will be our undoing . . . The sort of predilection strength has for questions that require more courage than anyone possesses today; a courage for the forbidden; a predestination for the labyrinth. An experience from out of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for the most distant things. A new conscience for truths that have kept silent until now. And the will to the economy of the great style: holding together its strength, its enthusiasm . . . Respect for yourself; love for yourself; an unconditional freedom over yourself. . .
Well then! These are my only readers, my true readers, my predestined readers: and who cares about the rest of them? The rest are just humanity. You need to be far above humanity in strength, in elevation of soul, - in contempt . . .
--Friedrich Nietzsche--

Can you tell me what that Blue sentence means?

Oh Goodie! A question I can actually answer! Huh go figure...reading books does have a purpose! LOL I can say this because all of my life I have hated reading...It is only recently that I started to read...because of K. I figured since I liked fear and trembling so much, it might be that I was reading the wrong books before and now I have switched to philosophy books...they are much better than romance novels!

Anywho....in the antichrist N talks about this further...he speaks of how philosophers are always trying to prove certain "truths"...He examines Kant and others and finds them lacking in one thing....That they always seem to start from the axiom that Christianity has set forth. Of course the "truth" would be biased! It's coming from a starting point that is biased!
IN the highlighted sentence above...notice how he says you need to BECOME indifferent (in order to read him) He does NOT say you have to BE indifferent forever. I think our christian axioms make us hear things that are not there.

Second, when he says "you need to ask whether 'truth' does us any good"....obviously, ( at least from my reading of the part where he questions philosophers up til this time basing all of their 'truths" on the axioms present in society --he does make a few exceptions though) He is asking us to examine the "truth" and what it means. WHo's "truth"? How can we know it is true? He is asking us to question absolute morality as a truth and let our minds wander to the forbidden reality society keeps hidden from us. Things we can't ask in "polite company." So basically he is asking us to question, "how do you know you aren't following evil?" He speaks of how Jesus was the only true christian and how Christianity does not follow his teachings. So see...he does not put down all christian. He actually says nice things about Jesus...it's his follows he doesn't think got the same memo.

Third, he wants to know if any 'truth' will be 'good' ...he doesn't mention a certain truth...he could just as well mean his 'truth' as kants. He is coming from a place of indifference...remember. He might return to non indifference throughout his discussion...but that need not matter as long as he stays focused on questioning certain axioms. His personality will shine here....and it is certainly polemic....but it is the same as being polemic in the opposite way...in the way that Christians are polemic...in the way that you say "As far as I'm concerned, as soon as he wrote those words highlighted in red above, his life was instantly null and void, such that anything after, he could not speak, because he had helped himself to perish." Same same....yet N took time to listen to the other side is the only difference between you and he. He read the whole kit and kaboodle of christianity and other religions he did not believe in. Quite a feet of indifference if you ask me. It would be like Chaz reading every book on Christianity he could get his hands on! Can you imagine! LOL

Just because a guy doesn't know A doesn't mean he doesn't know B. Or more precisely because N doesn't know morality in the way Christians believe is truth...doesn't mean he doesn't know 'true' morality. He is asking us to question whether we can even know 'truth'. And if we can't...isn't it a lie to say we can? When in fact, N is not claiming to know what is moral...he is just bringing to our attention we are hypocrites to think we know morality but then break our own moral code right and left and still consider ourselves to be more moral than him...or any other person that break the mold of what society has taught us to believe.

This brings me to K and fear and trembling...there is a part in that book where k talks about this preacher on the pulpit giving a sermon about Abraham and Issac that I think you would really like. He says the preacher goes on and on about how pious Abraham was...how obedient to God and how much God loved him for it. The preacher tells his congregation how God wanted all of them to be as obedient as Abraham. Then k says something like...but what a fool the preacher is to be preaching a story that he doesn't even understand...because if anyone could understand the severity of the story...surely they would not only forgive the insane member in their congregation for the same act but they would hold him in as much reverence as they do the story of Abraham. But if truth be told...and a member came to the preacher and told him that God had told him to kill his son...the preacher would surely recoil in horror. There would be an arrest...surely the preacher would NOT get up on the pulpit and give the same speech he gave about Abraham....and yet he has the nerve to speak of such obedience as if it was the epitome of morality!


And last of all, "whether it will be our undoing"...Is he wrong here? How many "truths" have we learned that might be our undoing. Nuclear science for one....not that N is questioning that...but rather...his line of thinking makes us more creative in our understanding in order to branch out in our understanding. Instead of hearing what societies axioms have 'taught' us to hear he makes it possible for us to take pause and think. Will 'truth' be our undoing? Very apt question if you ask me. It might possibly be....there is nothing that says "truth" will be our saving grace. It might not be...especially, if one uses the 'truth' of science to destroy the world.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts thrown out there. I am glad we can discuss.

[artisticsolution]

T: Chimps and humans have the same forefathers and mothers. One might ask, which branch of the family is the superior and more worthy branch?

N: We are animals, like the chimps! The strong and fit apes lead the group and do most of the procreating and lead the others to take territory, find food, and gain power over other ape groups. The weak are abandoned or killed. What makes humans think we should behave any differently?

Hi Mike,

Interesting quotes! I look forward to discussing the A/c with you. I am very forgetful so let me know what page you are on if you find any more great comparisons like the one above!

Isn't it amazing how one can say seemingly the same thing yet one personality puts it is a way that is pleasing to societies ears that 'the herd' all clamors and agrees with ...and then another...who may be social challenged says the same thing...but more polemic and the herd shuns him? Isn't that odd? How we hate to hear the same truth when it is said in a less aesthetically pleasing manner? K talks about this in either/or and it was like music to my ears! (I consider myself to be proudly standing with the herd...as it's my only choice! LOL)

[reasonvemotion]

AS:

But if we look back at her posts...indeed we can see that no mention of the A/C is had in any of them...but rather, praise and insults are showered on the participants of this thread. I am pointing this out because this is proof of truth even though she denies it because of what ever reason. It doesn't matter what she denies...she can deny til the cows come home...but it doesn't change the facts. I invite any one to look back through her posts without pity of any kind of judgment in order to see them at face value and see if they are discussing the antichrist or being divisive. I am just speaking of "truth" now...and not of our 'feelings' and side issues

Reasonvemotion:

I see you are lacking in research skills also.

The Antichrist is written eloquently, but in the year 2012, it is outdated and his passion and intensity regarding Christianity today, for me, is of no consquence. So what! Christ, Antichrist, I fear this man was on the verge of obsession and insanity.

My reason for rejecting The AntiChrist, is although there is no doubt he was highly intelligent, he still could not prove a final conclusion. How could he? Yes, I noted at the end of my criticism my observation that I thought he was suffering some sort of mental illness, but that was not a criticism of his literary work, that was more an aside. You have successfully taken it out of context

AS:

I would also be inclined to tell you any other "embarrassing" thing I had to say....even if had a wet dream about you..

Reasonvemotion:
You know what, take another pill.