Heresy and Witchcraft

[Typh0n]

I had read Nietzsche back in the day, and had com accross this quote;

Heresy and witchcraft. - To think otherwise than is customary is much
less the effect of a superior intellect than of strong, evil inclinations -
detaching, isolating, defiant, gloating, and malicious inclinations.
Heresy is the adjunct of witchcraft and surely no more harmless and
least of all anything venerable. Heretics and witches are two species of
evil people; what they have in common is that they also feel evil but are
impelled by an unconquerable lust to harm what is prevailing (people or
opinions). The Reformation, which was a kind of redoubling of the
medieval spirit at a time when it was no longer accompanied by a good
conscience, produced both in the greatest abundance.

-Friedrich, Nietzsche, the Gay Science, translation Josefine Naukhoff, aphorism 35​

I recently read this to a relative of mine and she said she thought it was weird that such a proficient thinker would consider thinking outside the norm to be a result of "evil inclinations". I find it odd too, but oddly appealing, as well, as I like to play devil's advocate and push unorthodox arguements in discussions, partly because I belive "popular knowledge" to be categoraically false and empty, but also because I like to watch people's reactions to controversial ideas. I do not defend ideas I do not believe in for the sake of being a shock-jock however, so I dunno. I think its part of the fun, to stir things up and cause intellectual controversy, but not for the sake of creating chaos in itself - what would be the point of that? So despite my love of playing devil's advocate I feel I am doing it with good intentions - to cause people to think people and possibly rethink their views(though its not possible with some, and with those people I just don't bother).

What about you, if you like to adopt unothodox opinions and think outside the norm ; why do you do it? Do you get pleasure out of doing it? What do you think Nietzsche meant here? Is it a reference to something specific(like a specific person)?

 

[Jeremy8419]

I had read Nietzsche back in the day, and had com accross this quote;

Heresy and witchcraft. - To think otherwise than is customary is much
less the effect of a superior intellect than of strong, evil inclinations -
detaching, isolating, defiant, gloating, and malicious inclinations.
Heresy is the adjunct of witchcraft and surely no more harmless and
least of all anything venerable. Heretics and witches are two species of
evil people; what they have in common is that they also feel evil but are
impelled by an unconquerable lust to harm what is prevailing (people or
opinions). The Reformation, which was a kind of redoubling of the
medieval spirit at a time when it was no longer accompanied by a good
conscience, produced both in the greatest abundance.

-Friedrich, Nietzsche, the Gay Science, translation Josefine Naukhoff, aphorism 35​

I recently read this to a relative of mine and she said she thought it was weird that such a proficient thinker would consider thinking outside the norm to be a result of "evil inclinations". I find it odd too, but oddly appealing, as well, as I like to play devil's advocate and push unorthodox arguements in discussions, partly because I belive "popular knowledge" to be categoraically false and empty, but also because I like to watch people's reactions to controversial ideas. I do not defend ideas I do not believe in for the sake of being a shock-jock however, so I dunno. I think its part of the fun, to stir things up and cause intellectual controversy, but not for the sake of creating chaos in itself - what would be the point of that? So despite my love of playing devil's advocate I feel I am doing it with good intentions - to cause people to think people and possibly rethink their views(though its not possible with some, and with those people I just don't bother).

What about you, if you like to adopt unothodox opinions and think outside the norm ; why do you do it? Do you get pleasure out of doing it? What do you think Nietzsche meant here? Is it a reference to something specific(like a specific person)?

He's referring to Ti used with Ne in Socionics. All types do it. Mine is in the service of normalization of relationships, which is, consequently, used to the benefit of my dual, who apparently has jacked relationships all around her lol.

 

[Typh0n]

He's referring to Ti used with Ne in Socionics. All types do it. Mine is in the service of normalization of relationships, which is, consequently, used to the benefit of my dual, who apparently has jacked relationships all around her lol.

I dunno, it could also be Te and Ni, stirring things up intellectually seems the realm of NTs generally(alpha or gamma), but I am not satisfied with that as an explanation.

Can you think of something other than socionics/typology as a means to approach this question? I mean this to be a more philosophical than typological discussion.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I dunno, it could also be Te and Ni, stirring things up intellectually seems the realm of NTs generally(alpha or gamma), but I am not satisfied with that as an explanation.

Can you think of something other than socionics/typology as a means to approach this question? I mean this to be a more philosophical than typological discussion.

Oh, lol. Sorry.

Think of order and structure and logic and reason like Legos. No matter what you create, it is composed of smaller Legos. Most people have all these little Lego houses, people, cars, yards, whatever that are mostly like the average individual (bell curve). These are composed of the smaller Lego blocks, which we may call portions of our experiences in life. Sometimes it’s fun to be a goofball and throw in some Lincoln Logs or Duplo blocks or maybe even Play-Dough and make something a bit different than everyone else, and, if you know what you’re doing, you can make something unique that stands out and seems even better than other normal Lego houses. However, often people who simply don’t know how to do such, or who don’t have your Legodough house as experience to be a Lego block in their Lego house, will be jealous, because they now know what is possible for them to build. They either work to be able to buy some Play-Dough, or they resent the Play-Dough and try to smash it or take it by force. As all this is going on, you also have individuals who are sitting in their life-size Lego houses, simply enjoying watching and assisting others play with their Lego houses. Then you encounter some that are enjoying building their houses, but they don’t have Legos, just Play-Dough. Sometimes those with the normal Lego blocks will make them feel like less, because they don’t have Lego blocks like everyone else, don’t have normal experiences, because theirs kept getting broken. Sometimes those with normal houses will try and take their Play-Dough to compete with the Legodough houses, and sometimes those with Legodough houses will try and take their Play-Dough to stay above those with normal Lego houses, and sometimes those with life-size Lego houses will help them with what is bothering them with their houses or convey why their houses are good to others, as they do with those with normal Lego houses and Legodough houses. And as all these things ebb and flow, the very fabric of individuals’ realities are changed and altered, much like witchcraft.

 

[Typh0n]

[MENTION=27890]Jeremy8419[/MENTION]

I do not understand. Methinks you are just babbling.

 

[Jeremy8419]

[MENTION=27890]Jeremy8419[/MENTION]

I do not understand. Methinks you are just babbling.

No LOL.

Anytime you change a viewpoint either of yourself or others, you're altering the logical structure which makes up that portion of the psyche. It's witchcraft.

 

[Typh0n]

No LOL.

Anytime you change a viewpoint either of yourself or others, you're altering the logical structure which makes up that portion of the psyche. It's witchcraft.

Ok.

Yes, the fear of witchcraft is related to glamour and the evil eye, basically the capacity to charm to change someone to your will and make them do what you want. Witches were feared during the middle ages, reformation, and rennaissance because people were so irrational and primitive passions were so conscious, people were afraid of the witch who would manipulate their wills. Nowadays people think themselves more rational, but the primitive passions are still there, and can be tapped into by someone who excercises fascination and glamour (willingly or not).


Black Magic, by William Mortensen

The above image is a typical Mortensen photograph designed to evoke a strong response in onlookers. Could be considered witchcraft in and of itself.

But we're getting sidetracked, since my OP was about how to infleunce and challenge others intellectually, not emotionally. The artist's purpose is to cause reactions, as Marilyn Manson once said. Thats the witch, that tries to affect only the emotional. But I see it as less my own purpose to evoke strong emotions than to cause people to think, and appeal to intellect as opposed to emotion. Where does that leave me? A simple heretic? Where I am going is that maybe witchcraft tries to influence people towards unorthodox (read: not accpeted by society) ends using emotion, passion, fear, and desire where heresy attempts to lead people down the same path through logic and reason. So what is tradionally labelled "heresy" and "witchcraft", their purpose is the same, their means of acheiving that purpose is different.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Ok.

Yes, the fear of witchcraft is related to glamour and the evil eye, basically the capacity to charm to change someone to your will and make them do what you want. Witches were feared during the middle ages, reformation, and rennaissance because people were so irrational and primitive passions were so conscious, people were afraid of the witch who would manipulate their wills. Nowadays people think themselves more rational, but the primitive passions are still there, and can be tapped into by someone who excercises fascination and glamour (willingly or not).

View attachment 16484
Black Magic, by William Mortensen

The above image is a typical Mortensen photograph designed to evoke a strong response in onlookers. Could be considered witchcraft in and of itself.

But we're getting sidetracked, since my OP was about how to infleunce and challenge others intellectually, not emotionally. The artist's purpose is to cause reactions, as Marilyn Manson once said. Thats the witch, that tries to affect only the emotional. But I see it as less my own purpose to evoke strong emotions than to cause people to think, and appeal to intellect as opposed to emotion. Where does that leave me? A simple heretic? Where I am going is that maybe witchcraft tries to influence people towards unorthodox (read: not accpeted by society) ends using emotion, passion, fear, and desire where heresy attempts to lead people down the same path through logic and reason. So what is tradionally labelled "heresy" and "witchcraft", their purpose is the same, their means of acheiving that purpose is different.

Well, emotions and logic are the same.

The difference between heresy and witchcraft is casting spells with the hand versus with the voice.

In a magic dual, you would be casting one way, and the other person would be casting the other way, and your focus is either on what you're doing or what the other person is doing.

 

[Typh0n]

I got kinda sidetracked.

To put this thread back on track : is causing others to think outside the accpted norm of opinions, regardless if done through art or intellect, evil or good? Neither? Why?

 

[Jeremy8419]

I got kinda sidetracked.

To put this thread back on track : is causing others to think outside the accepted norm of opinions, regardless if done through art or intellect, evil or good? Neither? Why?

Depends on what one considers good and evil. For myself, balancing of good and evil is my actual "good," however, to others, destabilization of good and evil is their actual "good," and hence, my actions are evil. And then, there's the flip side of that combined coin, and then another, and then another, etc.

 

[Typh0n]

The quote by Nietzsche becomes less puzzling if you read it next to the following one. Speaking of destabilizing good and evil, he says that this has a purpose in "conserving the species". Aphorism 4 of The Gay Science:

What preserves the species. - The strongest and most evil spirits have so
far done the most to advance humanity: time and again they rekindled
the dozing passions - every ordered society puts the passions to sleep - ,
time and again they reawakened the sense of comparison, of contradiction,
of delight in what is new, daring, unattempted; they forced men
to pit opinion against opinion, ideal model against ideal model. Mostly
by force of arms, by toppling boundary stones, by violating pieties - but
also by means of new religions and moralities! In every teacher and
preacher of what is new we find the same 'mischief' that makes
conquerors infamous, even if its expression is subtler and does not
instantly set the muscles in motion and for just that reason does not
make one as infamous! What is new, however, is under all circumstances
evil, being that which wants to conquer, to overthrow the old boundary
stones and pieties; and only what is old is good! In every age the good
men are those who bury the old thoughts deeply and make them bear
fruit - the farmers of the spirit. But that land is eventually exhausted,
and the ploughshare of evil must come time and again. Nowadays there
is a thoroughly erroneous moral theory which is celebrated especially in
England: it claims that judgements of 'good' and 'evil' sum up experiences
of what is 'expedient' and 'inexpedient'; that what is called good
preserves the species while what is called evil harms it. In truth,
however, the evil drives are just as expedient, species-preserving, and
indispensable as the good ones - they just have a different function.​

Nietzsche was a relativist and subjectivist when it came to morals, so he wouldn't have used the term "evil inclinations" as a flat moral judgement. He meant it in the context of this idea, that challenging good vs evil is also a form of good...which is conventionally called "evil". It is good to Nietzsche because it "conserves the species" as he puts it, though I personally don't agree that this arguement based on Darwinian biology is correct. I don't believe biology determines most of our actions. So calling heresy and witchcraft "evil" and "malicious" does not mean that these things are destructive to humanity in Nietzsche's view, simply that they are considered this way by society and Nietzsche uses the term evil possibly tongue-in cheek.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Was there a question for that?

 

[Typh0n]

Yes, "what do you think Nietzsche meant here" was the question for that.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Yes, "what do you think Nietzsche meant here" was the question for that.

It's dialectics. Those who die while speaking spells and watching silent lips, do so that those who live while signing spells and hearing words may continue on as heroes. Christianity is pretty laden with dialectics.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I had read Nietzsche back in the day, and had com accross this quote;

Heresy and witchcraft. - To think otherwise than is customary is much
less the effect of a superior intellect than of strong, evil inclinations -
detaching, isolating, defiant, gloating, and malicious inclinations.
Heresy is the adjunct of witchcraft and surely no more harmless and
least of all anything venerable. Heretics and witches are two species of
evil people; what they have in common is that they also feel evil but are
impelled by an unconquerable lust to harm what is prevailing (people or
opinions). The Reformation, which was a kind of redoubling of the
medieval spirit at a time when it was no longer accompanied by a good
conscience, produced both in the greatest abundance.

-Friedrich, Nietzsche, the Gay Science, translation Josefine Naukhoff, aphorism 35​

I recently read this to a relative of mine and she said she thought it was weird that such a proficient thinker would consider thinking outside the norm to be a result of "evil inclinations". I find it odd too, but oddly appealing, as well, as I like to play devil's advocate and push unorthodox arguements in discussions, partly because I belive "popular knowledge" to be categoraically false and empty, but also because I like to watch people's reactions to controversial ideas. I do not defend ideas I do not believe in for the sake of being a shock-jock however, so I dunno. I think its part of the fun, to stir things up and cause intellectual controversy, but not for the sake of creating chaos in itself - what would be the point of that? So despite my love of playing devil's advocate I feel I am doing it with good intentions - to cause people to think people and possibly rethink their views(though its not possible with some, and with those people I just don't bother).

What about you, if you like to adopt unothodox opinions and think outside the norm ; why do you do it? Do you get pleasure out of doing it? What do you think Nietzsche meant here? Is it a reference to something specific(like a specific person)?

I read very small amounts of Nietzche in college. Not enough to even have a deep convo about him.


But...if philosophy 101 taught me anything...


I would ask (about the paragraph) what Nietzche defines evil as, first.

Then considering that answer, I would think he is describing the difference in predominant culture of the time verses an opposing, imminent culture. That one deemed heretic.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I read very small amounts of Nietzche in college. Not enough to even have a deep convo about him.


But...if philosophy 101 taught me anything...


I would ask (about the paragraph) what Nietzche defines evil as, first.

Then considering that answer, I would think he is describing the difference in predominant culture of the time verses an opposing, imminent culture. That one deemed heretic.

Well, it's called "The Gay Science," so go figure.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Well, it's called "The Gay Science," so go figure.

I don't know if it is that specific. At least, I see it as more an emcompassing culture that gets challenged by an encumbant one. Then the cycle repeats. Heretic and witchcraft may not have anything to do with God but of predominant belief.

If Christianity is prominant then yes. (Hello, Neitzsche here)

If objective truth is (scientific knowledge) is predominant, there will be a pendulum swing and calls of heresy and witchcraft/magic (FSM comes to mind) for opposing culture.

That may not be his point. It's just how I saw it with limited view into his writing. That is subject to change with more and I would have to do way more reading into Nietzche/philosophical than I want too.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I don't know if it is that specific. At least, I see it as more an emcompassing culture that gets challenged by an encumbant one. Then the cycle repeats. Heretic and witchcraft may not have anything to do with God but of predominant belief.

If Christianity is prominant then yes. (Hello, Neitzsche here)

If objective truth is (scientific knowledge) is predominant, there will be a pendulum swing and calls of heresy and witchcraft/magic (FSM comes to mind) for opposing culture.

That may not be his point. It's just how I saw it with limited view into his writing. That is subject to change with more and I would have to do way more reading into Nietzche/philosophical than I want too.

Dunno what FSM is.

His stances are called Objectivist in Socionics.

 

[Coriolis]

Dunno what FSM is.

FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster, the creator acknowledged by the Pastafarian Church.

BTW, witches are no more inherently evil than anyone else, and heresy is in the eye of the beholder. Witchcraft IS all about changing things, though, most commonly oneself.

 

[Thalassa]

Uh ...as far as I know the whole witchcraft thing was hostility at pagan women or even Christian women who for whatever reason - asexuality, lesbianism, or even hypersexuality - didn't conform to the church of the era's teachings about everyone be married and reproduce as much as possible. From what I understand many "witches" were the equivalent of medicine women, or even just loners who didn't want a family or to become a nun, so they lived alone, something considered totally normal now.

I don't think most "witches" did it out of any smug detachment, it's just that time in society took issue with them being themselves. The modern day equivalent of hating LGBTQ people for merely existing and having the audacity to live their lives.

Heretics can go either way. Some have legitimate complaints about organized religion, and others were probably the olden days equivalent of the angry, superior acting dumb atheist who thinks being an atheist automatically made them smarter, the latter of which I think is a problem Nietzche had, as a man.