/lit/ - Literature

Could anybody explains to me how Nietzsche's views on faith reconcile with his perspectivism? He criticizes faith as being unable to find truth, but perspectivism pretty explicitly states that there is no real truth.

>But the “deep“ thought can nevertheless be very far from the truth, as, for instance, every metaphysical one; if one take away from the deep feeling the commingled elements of thought, then the strong feeling remains- and this guarantees nothing for knowledge but itself- just as strong faith proves only its strength and not the truth of what is believed in.
-Human All Too Human section 15

>In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original] otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism." It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. [emphasis added] Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.
-The Will to Power 481

>>11621848
The fundamental structures of our reality are time and space. Think of these as the walls, stage, ceiling, curtains, rafters, etc of a theatre that all of humanity is sitting in. Now, for all of human history, we have tried to think our way outside of this structure to see what's outside of the theatre in the real world. Where were we before we were born? Where do we go when we die? Who created the universe? Why did they create it? Do we have souls? And so on. Priests, philosophers, and thinkers have tried to answer these questions forever, they've tried to show us the way out of the theatre into the real world that lies outside of the structures we reside within. But time and time again, we come to realize that the priest who led us outside of the theatre didn't actually lead us anywhere, all he did was put on a play in front of us, the audience, about what he thinks the outside is like. And so we shake our heads and decide to follow another man who claims to know how to get outside the theatre, but the same thing happens.

And this continues on, until we get to the Enlightenment. Here, we looked back on the history of all of the plays we've ever put on, all of the plays we falsely thought (at the time) were leading us outside the theatre, and we (read: Kant) came to a conclusion: every time someone tries to lead us outside the theatre to see what's beyond our governing structures, it turns out to have just been a play the entire time, and in fact we were just sitting in our seats having never left. So where does this leave us? Philosophy (read: Nietzsche) came to two final options:

1) We can stop trying to leave the theatre altogether (since it always just turns out to be a play) and sit here in the theatre watching paint dry since the plays were all lies

OR

2) We can us this knowledge to spend our time in this theatre putting on the most terrifyingly grand plays ever put on

1/2

I FUCK THE MUSIC I MAKE IT CUM
I FUCK THE MUSIC WITH MY SERPENT TONGUE

>Christianity is platonism for the masses

What did he mean by this, /lit/?

>>11090705
>we've moved on from Plato/Aristotle
You wish.

>>11085423
"No"

>>11077710
>He doesn't realize that time is a circle
Read a book sometime kiddo

>>11066370
>By birth, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebeian.
>We are told, and can see in sculptures of him, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself
>an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all?
>Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed,
>thwarted in some way. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropological
>criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum
>in animo [monstrous in appearance, monstrous in spirit]. But the criminal is a
>decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would be consistent with the
>famous judgment of the physiognomist that so offended the friends of Socrates. This
>foreigner told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum — that he harbored in
>himself all the worst vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know (((me))), sir!"

>>11057021
Plato
>served in the "Athenian" military
>invented western "theology"
>greatest of the political "philosophers"

Nietzsche
>finest rider in all of Prussia
>seminal philosopher of modern times
>clearly comments on Platonism in a way that both confounds and intimidates brainlets

>>11052961
You know why.

>>10534169
Stop feeling pity

>Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a solitary figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard a Jewish imbroglio seriously -- that was quite beyond him. One Jew more or less -- what did it matter? ... The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament with the only saying that has any value -- and that is at once its criticism and its destruction: "What is truth?"...

>>10395929
>>10395936
Nietzsche's interpretation of Jesus is as preaching a similar mindset to Buddha. I believe he even directly says this in the aphorism you're quoting from, if not within an aphorism close by. He sees heaven not as a physical place, but as a state of mind akin to Nirvana. Jesus did not just preach faith, he preached action by urging people to follow his example. Jesus was offering the poor and oppressed a way of avoiding their pain and suffering by way of detachment. Care for nothing, love everything, and your pain and suffering will disappear just like Jesus'. This claim is solidified in his final act, where Jesus makes the ultimate sacrifice as a martyr by willingly going to the cross.

It's admirable in a way that not even Nietzsche can deny, but to him it's ultimately life-denying. Just like Socrates before him, to willingly choose your own death as a martyr is to posit a value-system that elevates death over life. And just like Buddha before him, to preach detachment and unceasing love is to remove yourself from the life that you are very much a part of. And of course, this quote implies that Nietzsche did not believe that Jesus' preachings carried over to his followers. He has a lot to say about St. Paul, who he claims mutilated Jesus' gospel with his inherent rabbinicism. Rather than preaching the Buddhistic state of mind that Jesus did, St. Paul turned it into something entirely different, a religion of faith and sin and whatnot.

If you wait a few hours I can come back with citations supporting these claims, if anyone is interested.

>>10336995
>he hasn't moved Beyond Good and Evil

>typical resentful virgin taking Nietzsche's high-level b8 seriously response

Why do people think this is clever? Are christians simply brainlets?

>love Greek polytheism and the world it created
>reject God(s) and embrace material naturalism

Why was he such a fedora? Why couldnt he just have took the "pagan" pill

>>10163427
>Implying reason and empathy are virtues
Be gone!

>this thread

>>10077526
he would've reached shitposting levels that shouldn't even be possible

>>10043899
Calm down there

"Christianity has perhaps chiseled the finest specimen of human society of all time: the specimens of the higher and highest Catholic clergy." - Nietzsche

>just be yourself! lol

Embodied much of what he hated. Regularly derided the romanticists, yet was in many ways indebted to them. Criticized the philosophers for their tyrannical instincts, yet he embodied those too. Regularly expressed a desire for clarity in writing and thinking, yet was given to obscurantism when it suited. Delusions of grandeur, particularly regarding his fate and command of the German language. Regarding the latter, he thought himself the heir to Goethe - yet whether translated or in the original German, his 'masterpiece' (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) leaves much to be desired. Stated that his aim was to combat nihilism, yet most of his work served only to corrode any non-nihilistic values in much the same fashion as he accuses Socrates' dialectic of having done.