Book against Nietzsche's ideology

[LIND]

I have recently released my book entitled "UNPERTURBED BY NIETZSCHE'S ANTI-CHRIST". Take a look:
http://www.amazon.com/Unperturbed-Nietzsches-Anti-Christ-Marius-Manci/dp/1449075622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267464023&sr=8-1

 

[LIND]

Amazon.com: Unperturbed by Nietzsche's Anti-Christ (9781449075620): Marius Manci: Books

 

[Sniffles]

Never read that book before, might have to take a look if I can find a copy.

 

[Lark]

I'd like to discuss this a bit.

N.'s anti-Christ is a little like Marx's maxim about "the opium of the people (the heart of a heartless world)" Christianity has been used, I would say corrupted, to encourage servility and acquiscence in oppression, its summed up pretty accurately in the early english socialist/populist condemnation of it as "pie in the sky". Perhaps I'm being too generous.

I see his idea as being this in part and in part an observation on the role of faith in the world in his day and age, people were no longer terrified to do as they willed as a consequence of being under the watchful eye of heaven. Objectively the world today exists as though God were dead, whether its a loving, awesome or terrifying and capricious God is besides the point, never in the whole of human history has it been easier to disbelieve, to adopt a kind of sloppy atheism and I thnk N. summed that up. The norms have changed.

His exhortations to go beyond good and evil are a little worse than useless, Chesterton in Orthodoxy pretty much tore that one down, you can be extra evil or extra good but its one of those dichotomies that's not as easily proven false as for instance socalism vs. individualism or co-operation vs. competition.

 

[LIND]

Lark-thank you for your comment.
(a)indeed Nietzsche's book(thesis) is akin to Marx's thesis.
(b)Secondly indeed people in this recent and current generation, have employed a view which is devoid of any fear with regards to a possible eternal sentence (law) and thus Nietzsche's diagnosis was that eventually Christianity would die out..(however he was wrong here-as we can see Christianity is still alive..)
(c)A third part to Nietzsche's work is his attempt to challenge some of the Christian maxims. It is mainly this third part that I am examining in my book.
Nietzsche's problem is that he takes rather the extreme case in which he encourages a 'system' built based on impulses rather than reason. So he exhorts the people to abandon the Christian system (whose principles he attempts to challenge) and then instead of providing an alternative, a system based solely on reason perhaps, he unfortunately reduces the human to the same plane as the animal... at the instinctual level...perhaps his motto could be 'be like the animal'...rather than a rational being..
earnestly
Marius Manci

 

[Lark]

Lark-thank you for your comment.
(a)indeed Nietzsche's book(thesis) is akin to Marx's thesis.

Yeah but I dont see that as a negative, I think Marx made sociological points about Christianity and religion in general, similar to either Voltaire or Rousseau, not sure which one it was who said that if religion didnt exist it would be necessary to invent it.

(b)Secondly indeed people in this recent and current generation, have employed a view which is devoid of any fear with regards to a possible eternal sentence (law) and thus Nietzsche's diagnosis was that eventually Christianity would die out..(however he was wrong here-as we can see Christianity is still alive..)

Taking the long view and comparing Christendom to the secular age in which Nietzsche lived he was correct that Christianity had died, I dont think that should be confused, if you are a believer, with the death of God or Christianity as a spiritual as opposed to temporal order.

I'm not sure that its devoid of the eternal sentence Nietzsche didnt deal with those things so much but with what was going on in this life, the only one he recognised, and I believe that he made some good points, when he for instance declared in Thus Spake Zarathrustra that those who enforce virtue do so in a manner which itself could be considered a vice.

I think there's a good point there, the persecuting zeal with which all sorts of Christians have evangelised or policed believers is a matter of record, it has its equivalents in the modern political ideologies too and I think its a good indication that there's underlying characterological or personality structure issues.

(c)A third part to Nietzsche's work is his attempt to challenge some of the Christian maxims. It is mainly this third part that I am examining in my book.
Nietzsche's problem is that he takes rather the extreme case in which he encourages a 'system' built based on impulses rather than reason. So he exhorts the people to abandon the Christian system (whose principles he attempts to challenge) and then instead of providing an alternative, a system based solely on reason perhaps, he unfortunately reduces the human to the same plane as the animal... at the instinctual level...perhaps his motto could be 'be like the animal'...rather than a rational being..
earnestly Marius Manci

Hmm, I'm unsure, Nietzsche had a brain disease which caused him to deteriorate and I think that's reflected in his work, I also think that his family circumstances meant he had adopted a narcissistic copeing style which permeated some of his work too. However that said some of his work is rationalising, and I'm inclined to believe that mankind are rationalising rather than rational, but its difficult to see because like other existentialists he deals in aphorism etc.

So I dont agree that he wanted to give people licence to behave as animals and give in to the most bestial of natures, the same allegations have been made of Freud, both were writing in an age long before the permissive society, modernism or consumerism, it was an age riddled with different neurosis and hang ups than ours so they encouraged a relaxing of norms in order to re-examine them. I do think there should be a geneology of morals etc. I just dont believe that I could come to the same conclusions as Nietzsche.

 

[LIND]

Posted By LARK:

"Nietzsche didnt deal with those things so much but with what was going on in this life

"

Indeed Nietzsche has dealt with this issue..as one of the sections in my book shows how he attempted to dismiss such concept.

"Nietzsche had a brain disease which caused him to deteriorate and I think that's reflected in his work"

If the publishers were insane enough to publish it, then the work has to undergo examination. However given that Nietzsche sought a system that is antithetical to christianity, he uttered things that he knew were disturbing to a Christian (e.g. You look up to be exalted, I look down for I am already exalted" Thus spake Zarathustra). Thus his psychological condition is not a sufficient excuse...Things that were uttered before his decaying condition are on a par with the statements uttered towards the last phases of his condition. Outward chanelling of desires without any restrictions, appealed to Nietzsche throughout his life as we can infer from his writings and his condition (Syphillis).

 

[Mycroft]

...I thought Nietzsche made it pretty clear he considered his emphasis on strength and individuality similar to, or a return to, the hero-worshiping cultures predating Christianity, to which Christianity's moral code was constructed in reaction. I.e., it's not that he looked at Christianity and decided a new, reactionary moral code was necessary; he considered Christianity the fluke (and abomination) and his thinking a return to an older, purer approach to life.

Edit: Has there ever been any conclusive evidence in favor of the "Syphilis" theory?

 

[Lark]

...I thought Nietzsche made it pretty clear he considered his emphasis on strength and individuality similar to, or a return to, the hero-worshiping cultures predating Christianity, to which Christianity's moral code was constructed in reaction. I.e., it's not that he looked at Christianity and decided a new, reactionary moral code was necessary; he considered Christianity the fluke (and abomination) and his thinking a return to an older, purer approach to life.

Edit: Has there ever been any conclusive evidence in favor of the "Syphilis" theory?

In some ways Christianity could be considered a form of hero worship.

 

[LIND]

posted by MYCROFT:...I thought Nietzsche made it pretty clear he considered his emphasis on strength and individuality similar to, or a return to, the hero-worshiping cultures predating Christianity, to which Christianity's moral code was constructed in reaction. I.e., it's not that he looked at Christianity and decided a new, reactionary moral code was necessary; he considered Christianity the fluke (and abomination) and his thinking a return to an older, purer approach to life.

Thanks for your comment.
(1).Indeed Nietzsche's focus was on a return to the hero-worshiping cultures as he makes it clear in the "genealogy of morals". That is what he considered as being 'true' morality as generated by the cultures antecedent to Christianity. However evidently humanity has evolved, and this fact in itself would entail it to be an absurdity to return to the 'primordial man'. If we were to use that line of thinking, -strength and individuality- according to Nietzsche is an exteriorization of desires, of impulses, a breach with religion, a breach with society whose rules he himself *accepted* based on the fact that he lived in society; those who live in a society as Locke would say, sign a tacit contract to enjoy the benefits of the particular society.
(2).However if I have gone too far back.... by labeling it "primordial man" then the cultures whom as you assert were "purer" I would ask 'purer in what way'? (perhaps you can offer a contrast of this 'purity' against the curtain of Christianity..)
Marius Manci