>none of his critiques of Christianity apply to Orthodoxy Was it intentional?

File: 26 KB, 274x300, Nietzsche-274x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 4 21:59:49 2020 No.16947755 [Reply] [Original]

>none of his critiques of Christianity apply to Orthodoxy
Was it intentional?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 4 22:02:04 2020 No.16947774 Name one critique that can’t be applied to orthodoxy. I’m waiting

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 4 22:03:57 2020 No.16947789 >>16947774 Name one that can, checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 4 22:07:22 2020 No.16947810 File: 212 KB, 1024x1410, 1600389147133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16947755 >another thread on how Orthodoxy is actually really spiritual, mystical, and deep and totally not at all like those other forms of Christianity

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 4 22:10:43 2020 No.16947835 >>16947755 Two flavours of the same onions

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 4 22:28:35 2020 No.16947939 File: 3.31 MB, 2254x2952, El_padre_Juan_de_Mariana_(Museo_del_Prado).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16947755 Lolololol It doesn't apply to Catholicism thanks to based Mariana.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 00:28:34 2020 No.16948569 >>16947755 Which ones can't be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 00:31:50 2020 No.16948588 >>16947755 I like Orthodoxy, but it seems to ultimately lose much of the greater reality and true spiritual depth of Catholicism and Protestantism. >>16947939 Explain him to me anon.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 00:37:52 2020 No.16948615

kierkegaard refuted everything this guy said. the greek mode of morality was basically secular and ethical. it was literally a bootlicker religion concerned with order and the wellbeing of society. christianity was the realisation that morality has nothing to do with concequences or order and is the most personal expression of life possible. his whole "i make my own ideals" individualism is christian, he literally would not have been born outside of a christian society. the personal commitment to the absolute and having no allegience to the world is emulating jesus

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 00:43:08 2020 No.16948636

>>16948615
It would have been very interesting to see Nietzsche's reaction to Kierkegaard (had he been able to go and study him with the professor and not fallen ill). There is no one quite like Kierkegaard, in everyone Nietzsche rejects and insults.

I also agree with what you're saying, but people like Nietzsche and Holderlin do have a point in recognising the far extent spirituality of the Greeks. Just look at Socrates, Pythagoras, Orpheus and the likes. In Greek myth and culture you can't just degrade it to "only Christianity revealed the absolute spiritual nature of man" and so forth. And I say that as a Christian.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 00:53:36 2020 No.16948674

>>16948615
>his whole "i make my own ideals" individualism is christian
It's gnostic, really. The Christian doesn't create his own ideals.
The "personal commitment to the absolute and having no allegience to the world" is however not total ; Nietzsche defends sensuality within a certain framework. That's what makes him more Christian (than Gnostic).
But all in all, you're ignoring the *content* of those values. There is an inherent contempt for altruism in Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 03:45:33 2020 No.16949387 >>16948588 He advocated for tyrannicide, which completely dismantles the slave morality bullshit strawman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 06:27:43 2020 No.16949903 >>16949387 What does it have to do with anything you fucking retard? Maybe if your read a real philosophy book once in a while you would at least know what you're attacking instead of bathing yourself in irrelevant faggot pedophile ramblings?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 06:37:46 2020 No.16949927 >>16949387 >tyrannicide I don't think this exactly "refutes" Nietzsche in any major sense, other than reinforcing and as manifestation of a nobler Christian spirit, which Nietzsche perverts. A Christian spirit of heroism and priesthood.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 06:39:38 2020 No.16949934

>>16949903
>faggot pedophile ramblings
Not the anon you're replying to, but you're a complete brainlet and degenerate. I can tell by your unnecessary bringing up of homosexuality in the church, and calling all Catholics paedophiles in all earnestness to be an insult(-- where you only insult yourself); but I can also tell you're a brainlet by your innability to grasp the anons point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 06:43:16 2020 No.16949943 Who cares what this faggot thought

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 06:47:19 2020 No.16949957

>>16949387
you don't understand master/slave morality
It's not about what you do physically
It's your reasons for doing it
A slave killing a tyrant is still a slave killing it for slavish reasons, and killing someone more powerful than you is actually an incredibly typical slavish act.
A master killing a tyrant will have done it for master moralist reasons, and it will not have been slavish at all
The reasons define the act anon.
Read Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals. It's all in there. It's not hard to understand if you genuinely try to, and stop LARPing as a Christian to be an internet contrarian

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 07:20:30 2020 No.16950065 BEGOME >>16949957 Not him but who gives a fuck what N thought, he can take whatever he wants from it and interpret it however he wants to

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 07:29:53 2020 No.16950108

>>16950065
are you retarded?
he said that whatever priest refuted Nietzsche's philosophy. If he's going to comment on someone's writing he should have read it and understood it. This isn't even some interpretation issue either, it's just not even having read about what master/slave morality even is.
I don't give a fuck what he ultimately takes away from it, he's larping as a christian on 4chan so he's probably beyond saving. But if he's gonna start speaking about things he doesn't understand he can be called out on being an ignorant retard.
and by he I mean you, samefaggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 07:43:09 2020 No.16950142 >>16950108 he's literally not even me get owned lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 07:51:51 2020 No.16950181 >>16947755 The Platonism, the other-worldliness, is still there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 07:54:50 2020 No.16950193 >>16947789 All of them lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 07:59:18 2020 No.16950225 >>16947755 >a religion where all its followers are victims of fas I’m good bruh

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 08:06:47 2020 No.16950253 Why are Nietzsche niggers so annoying and schizophrenic

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 08:09:13 2020 No.16950262 >>16949387 You understand nothing about Nietzsche lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 08:25:49 2020 No.16950330 >>16949957 >killing someone more powerful than you is actually an incredibly typical slavish act. wouldnt killing someone ''more powerful'' will revert the power relation? this sounds so retarded, might isnt right?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 08:45:06 2020 No.16950424

>>16950330
nietzsche never said might is right and there are different forms of power. the power Nietsche talks about when referring to master morality is largely a spiritual power, a power of the mind and of the soul.
A key concept that people seem to miss in Nietzsche is the slave revolt. To Nietzsche, the slaves took over the world (through Judaism and Christianity), they have the collective power. They hated the powerful (both the spiritually and physically powerful) so they introduced a morality that paints weakness as virtue and power as vice, so that they could become the "good"--and therefore have power. This is, of course, driven by both ressentiment and the will to power.
Killing someone doesn't make you powerful. Nietzsche wasn't some caveman "me have big muscles me better than you" retard. A master isn't just the person in control or the person who is stronger or the person who wins. The slaves won, the slaves have the control. The slave seeks to keep the master on their level, to make the master resentful and life-denying, like they are. Because they hate the master. And if they didn't hate the master, they would follow him.
Just read Nietzsche, he says it all way better than I could

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 08:55:45 2020 No.16950461

>>16950424
>Nietsche talks about when referring to master morality is largely a spiritual power, a power of the mind and of the soul.
and this is yet not what a literal ''spiritual power'' is: pure intellectuality, NOETIC power.

>they hated the power (both spiritually and physically)
christianity gave continuation to the platonic (and aristotelian, but it is within the platonic tradition) intellectual tradition and to the theopoetic symbolique common to ancient traditions, which was reflected in all its constitutive elements: intellectually through theology, ritualistically through the sacraments, artistically through the architecture, paintings, icons, etc etc, and HIERARCHICALLY (or socially) through the clergy and kingship.

>Killing someone doesn't make you powerful.
so it is not an intellectual power, it is not physical power, it is what nietzsche phantasizes, his own ideal, nonexistent morals. If you kill the other becaue you think you are better or deserve to be above him this is already an act of what nietzsche would consider master morality or mentality or whatever the fuck that syphilic shit eater thought.

you need to be a literal brainwashed nigger to take nietzsche seriously, the guy who didn't even understood platonism, the ancient mysteries and the greeks in general.

MUTTER ICH BIN DUMM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 09:14:47 2020 No.16950524 >>16950461 Look at the slave morality in this one. Even defers to his masters to make an argument.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 09:35:06 2020 No.16950603

>>16950461
why are you responding to my posts if you haven't read him? Who are you arguing against? I'm just translating (and majorly dumbing down) his thought to answer the anons question.
You're so blinded by your dogmatic belief in good and evil that you still attempt to apply this to Nietzsche's philosophy which explicitly negates this. Nietzsche is not saying "powerful people are good", and it's immensely troubling to know that even if you're able to understand this, you are completely incapable of internalizing it and what it means.
If you kill someone else for your own reasons, divorced from all other influence, divorced from ressentiment, then yes, you are a master moralist. No that doesn't mean you're "the good guy" or that Nietzsche inherently thinks you're great.
Nietzsche proposed that, when divorced from all these things that you try to infect your fellow man with, a person would not want to kill someone else--and if they did, their reasons for wanting to do so would be better than that of the slave who kills out of ressentiment. Again, this has nothing to do with good or evil, though I know you're likely incapable of comprehending this.
Let's take, on the other side, a "good" action--giving money to a someone in need. When you, the slave, give your money to someone in need, you do it because of guilt, because of societal pressure, because of pity, because you don't want to go to hell--all reasons of bad conscience, of fear, of hatred. When the master gives money to someone in need, it is because it is in their nature as a compassionate, charitable, powerful person. In both cases the action is the same, but your reasons are that of a slavish, weak, cowardly nature, and the masters are pure.
The same goes for killing. The reason that you think that with Nietzsche's morality we would all just kill or steal or whatever other "sin" is because that's what you would do if you found out morality wasn't real. But you would do that because of ressentiment, because you're a slave and it's in your life-denying, hateful nature. If you were a true master moralist you wouldn't feel this way. Maybe you'd still want to kill, but you'd at least be doing it for better reasons.
I'm happy to keep engaging with you but like I said you're never gonna satiate your ressentiment arguing with me over someone you haven't read.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 09:57:47 2020 No.16950700

>>16950603
>why are you responding to my posts if you haven't read him?
I have read his birth of tragedy, untimely meditations and human all too human.

>Who are you arguing against?
I'm arguing against the idea of master morality/ ubermensch being anything but a sophistication of a egoic cavemen mentality ''might is right'' or ''I am always right''.

>You're so blinded by your dogmatic belief in good and evil
I don't believe in evil (only secondarily, dependent on good, anyway this is just too much to explain to a nietzschean)

>If you kill someone else for your own reasons, divorced from all other influence, divorced from ressentiment, then yes, you are a master moralist
This is exactly what I have been saying, thank you.

>it is because it is in their nature as a compassionate, charitable, powerful person
This is exactly the whole point of christianity, its anthropological recursion to the kenotic act of the Divinity in succession, from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the world/universe/creation. You can also read Girard for an anthropological understanding of this difference in what you said, a bad influence, pressure on one's act and a kenotic act, simply out of compassion, love, charity. This is the break of the cycle of violence (parallel with the cycle of pressure-fear-action) common to the religions before Christianity. Girard wrote about Nietzsche too, worth checking.

>I'm happy to keep engaging with you but like I said you're never gonna satiate your ressentiment arguing with me over someone you haven't read.
Everything I do I do simply out of love and compassion. I may be farcical, ironic, aggressive in my first replies because there is still no honest conversation (which is scarce in this place). But when, as you seem to be right now, is open to discussion with honesty and humility, I do the same. As Bloy used to say: ''my anger is the effervescence of my pity''. Even in such replies of mine I still do them out of compassion and love. I just want people to partake in true spirituality and true (affirmation of) life.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 10:56:37 2020 No.16951058

>>16950700
>I have read his birth of tragedy, untimely meditations and human all too human.
these aren't really relevant to our discussion, aside from small portions of human all too human. Read Beyond Good and Evil and the Genealogy of Morals, that is where all of this stuff is explained. Read BGE first and Genealogy second, Genealogy is the better of the two and refines all the ideas conceived of in BGE, but I think it's important to read BGE to understand the ideas at their core. If you can only read one though read Genealogy.
>master morality/ ubermensch being anything but a sophistication of a egoic cavemen mentality ''might is right'' or ''I am always right''.
As I said before, it has nothing to do with that; that is the impoverished, misinformed understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche never says that a masters actions are the "right" actions. Just that they aren't slavish actions.
The ubermensch is not the same as a master moralist. Anybody can be a master, the ubermensch is the master who invents his own value system, his own morality, one that defies any pre-existing morality.
Like I said, master/slave morality is not about right/wrong, its about ____/wrong (although this is not referring to the slaves in general, only in their ressentiment-fueled post-revolt morality). The master isn't inherently right, they just aren't as wrong as the slaves are. But like I said, he thought that masters would tend to do "good" given that humans are corrupted through ressentiment.
From the ____ the ubermensch is able to be born.
>I don't believe in evil
A belief in good suffices; you seem unable to escape from the mental trap that Nietzsche thinks master morality is good.
Do you genuinely believe that kenosis is what drives Christians to do good? I certainly do not, and I think that any truly kenotic act is simply an expression of power from a master moralist who is still tethered by christianity. Otherwise your "kenosis" is not at all pure, and you can very easily discover this yourself by asking yourself "would I be doing this had I not been told it was good to?" and answering honestly. If the answer is no then surely it cannot be an act of pure love, compassion, charity, because it necessitates external pressure.
>Everything I do I do simply out of love and compassion
Somehow your extreme vitriol (that you're now passing off as farce or irony) makes me doubt that. Most Christians try to twist their hatred into love--and in the process turn it into perversities like "pity". Seems like you're doing the same.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 11:59:09 2020 No.16951504

>>16951058
>read...
No thanks.

>Nietzsche never says that a master’s actions are the right ones
I did’t say that they are the right actions as if linked to a moral axis. I merely said that the I already justifies the action and because of that it is right according to the agent, not according any universal.

>who invents his own value system, his own morality
Yes, this is what I am saying in all the posts I have made so far. Read again what I posted.
The subjectivist relativization of values is something incredibly problematic. Try reading Plato, unironically.

>master’s would tend to do good
Rather erratic statement for a relativization of any valuation at all.

>do you genuinely believe kenosis...
The kenotic act is inherently good for this is what the Good itself is and does. Whatever is good is productive. God is the Good Himself for the very unnecessary, freely willed charity, this is good itself.
If you need to listen to what other people say (like I assume it is your case, for the very methodological valuation you impose on yourself and on others is valued as good from the imposition of Nietzsche’s own valuations, Nietzsche created a bunch of slave moralists, to use your jargon), I, and true Christians, don’t, we have our own elective power of dianoesis.

>extreme vitriol, hatred
You didn’t understand anything. You are a subjectivist moralist, a child. Punishment, chastisement is not necessarily evil. Evil is the fact of deserving it.
Anyhow, there is no point in discussing with you, I only beg you to avoid saying things like “spiritual power” in any thing Noetzsche wrote.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 12:45:34 2020 No.16951827 >>16947939 One man =/= Catholicism

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 12:57:41 2020 No.16951931

>>16951504
>No thanks.
Always so strange to see ressentiment-fueled cognitive dissonance in action.
>The subjectivist relativization of values is something incredibly problematic. Try reading Plato, unironically
lol, I have (obviously) and you should know that Nietzsche specifically disliked Plato (though he truly hated Socrates) for what you've just said. This philosophy was not born out of ignorance of these concepts, it is a direct disagreement (or dare I say, refutation) of moral objectivism. And if you'd read Beyond Good and Evil you'd see Nietzsche's direct responses to many preceding philosophers in which he aims to highlight their errors and bias.
>Rather erratic statement for a relativization of any valuation at all.
It's employing a word how you use it in your vocabulary for the sake of brevity. I don't care to, everytime when referring to what you or any other moralist would identify as good, make clear that I don't. The point is that Nietzsche believed that a master moralist would often be kind, compassionate, charitable, loving, and do all the things you define as good.
>God is the Good Himself for the very unnecessary, freely willed charity, this is good itself.
You're dancing around the question and as much as this schizo Christian babble genuinely interests me its a clear maneuver. Would you have done your kenotic act of good had you not known it is what you are supposed to, under God?
>If you need to listen to what other people say (like I assume it is your case, for the very methodological valuation you impose on yourself and on others is valued as good from the imposition of Nietzsche’s own valuations, Nietzsche created a bunch of slave moralists, to use your jargon), I, and true Christians, don’t, we have our own elective power of dianoesis.
This is a pretty obvious logical fallacy and it's lame that I'll have to clarify this, but Nietzsche never attempts to tell you what to do as a master moralist. He only ever identifies slave morality and dives deep into its specific nature; master morality is left entirely ambiguous beyond that it 1) is defined by its position as the opposite to slave morality and 2) manifests from power (in that it is spawned from powerful people). Beyond that any other attribute ascribed to a master moralist by Nietzsche is what it CAN be, but not what it inherently is. There is nothing that says a master cannot be influenced by or agree with someone else, only that this agreement must come from within, and detached from all slaveish ressentiment and bad conscience. As such a master moralist may, ultimately, ascribe good and evil to the same things a christian does (although this borders on paradox, considering christianity is slave morality incarnate), but they will still be a master.
> Punishment, chastisement is not necessarily evil. Evil is the fact of deserving it.
What are you talking about? I said none of these things. Just that you're hateful and vitriolic, which you are

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 13:36:39 2020 No.16952179 >>16951827 One man pointing out Catholic doctrine = Catholicism.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 13:45:27 2020 No.16952244

>>16950262
>>16949903
>>16949927
>>16949957
Listen me here. If you disagree tyrannicide is NOT slave morality, then you imply the option of not killing the tyrant and therefore being submitted to the tyrant's will is LESS slave-morality than actually killing the tyrant. This is absolutely irrational as you're telling me that a slave who doesn't kills his master is more slave that the one that sets himself free, it is a complete negation of reality. I understand that it's easy for you to assume that the slave who kills the tyrant is more slave than the slave who is under the tyrant's rule because Nietzschean philosophy is, grosso modo, based on reality's denial.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 13:49:37 2020 No.16952266 >>16949957 >killing someone more powerful than you is actually an incredibly typical slavish act. You see? This is reality denial. Like Alexander the Great in Gaugamela was commiting an slavish act by destroying the persian army. Absolute INSANITY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 13:49:41 2020 No.16952267 >>16952179 How is Monarchomachists' justification of tyrannicide Catholic doctrine?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 13:55:29 2020 No.16952316 >>16952267 St Thomas Aquinas, Suárez and other theologians defended this position as well. Mariana didn't invent it, he only perfected it. Nietzsche was arguing against an strawman like all of you do.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 13:58:59 2020 No.16952341

>>16950330
It is retarded, because it's based on retardedeness. Power is not an absolute measure, it's defined in relation to who holds the preeminency over whom. David while killing Goliath was more powerful than Goliath, otherwise he couldn't have killed him.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:08:35 2020 No.16952423

>>16952316
>St Thomas Aquinas, Suárez and other theologians defended this position as well.
Alright, and what makes it Catholic doctrine? More specifically, what makes it Christian? Do you realize that Nietzsche didn't treat Catholicism and Christianity the same way?

>Nietzsche was arguing against an strawman like all of you do.
There's retards on both sides of the argument in this thread. This is a strawman of Nietzsche's position, however. The history of the religion is a corrupt mixture of master and slave moralities according to Nietzsche — he criticized it for creating a powerful doublethink, in other words. So you pointing out the occasional example of master morality as spoken by a representative of the religion isn't in any way a refutation of his argument against Christianity. You would understand this better if you actually read his books.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:13:19 2020 No.16952454 He really liked Dostoevsky too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:15:43 2020 No.16952481 >>16951504 Wow. Your posts are steeped in gloating and make you seem really hypocritical.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:16:16 2020 No.16952483

>>16952423
>More specifically, what makes it Christian?
That Catholicism is Christianity? Don't you realize that there are examples of this attitude in the Bible, like for example when Jehu is elected by God to assassinate king Joram and exterminate the house of Acab? Just admit Nietzsche was a faggot with no idea of what he was talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:17:48 2020 No.16952504 >>16948615 If I could read only one of Kirkegaards books, which should I choose?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:18:59 2020 No.16952509 >>16952483 Jehoram* Ahab*

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:21:02 2020 No.16952524

>>16952483
>That Catholicism is Christianity?
It's more complicated than that.

>Don't you realize that there are examples of this attitude in the Bible, like for example when Jehu is elected by God to assassinate king Joram and exterminate the house of Acab?
I do, and so did Nietzsche, and in The Antichrist among other places he spends a good amount of time analyzing the different psychological types who have been involved throughout the history of the religion, and how they aren't all in agreement. It's a mess of a religion and full of doublethink. That's his argument, which you falsely represented in the form of a strawman before.

>Just admit Nietzsche was a faggot with no idea of what he was talking about.
Just admit you're this guy >>16950700 who admitted to not even having read most of his work with no idea of what he's talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:22:24 2020 No.16952536 >>16949957 >A slave killing a tyrant is still a slave killing it for slavish reasons, and killing someone more powerful than you is actually an incredibly typical slavish act. So would a person submitting to a higher authority then be a master act?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:23:00 2020 No.16952539 >>16952504 sickness unto death or fear and trembling

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:26:37 2020 No.16952559
File: 35 KB, 460x288, freddy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16952316
I can't believe no one has pointed this out to you yet, but tyrannicide is always an incomplete act if it doesn't involve killing the tyrant in your head. If you kill an emperor for persecuting you, but then you go about your life persecuting yourself, denying yourself this or that pleasure because the priest class tells you to, groveling to a God-Tyrant for forgiveness for your sins (which 9 times out of 10 are merely the results of natural drives), deriving meaning from an institution whose fundamental insight on the world is that it's fallen and that we can only hope for something better after a lifetime of self-abasement and so on, you are still within the confines of slave morality. There is no "based" Mariana or Aquinas. There are only cowardly theologians who stopped short of where their reason was leading them.

God is dead, but it's up to you to kill him.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:31:37 2020 No.16952586

>>16952524
>>That Catholicism is Christianity?
>It's more complicated than that.
Fuck off. If you're going to attack Christianity, make a serious attempt, what doesn't have any value is if like NEETZCHE and NEETZCHEfags you only attack the theology of some puritan grandmas and pretend that criticism can be extrapolate to the whole of Christian thought. Christianity, due to several historical reasons, it's a highly heterogeneous mixture, you cannot make like the Church Fathers and your local lesbian pastor are equal representatives on what Christianity means, and use your objections against the latter to attack the former.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:35:57 2020 No.16952618

>>16952559
Very good, so the pleb who is masturbating under the tyrant oppression is less slavish than the one who actually kills the tyrant and frees himself of the tyrant's rule but he continues being a virtuous man? It's this INSANITY what you're trying to say? To turn yourself a tyrant of yourself is actually what emancipates you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:39:09 2020 No.16952631 File: 19 KB, 220x310, 9EF9653D-3DDF-4A13-AC66-209491D8FA42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16947755 >none of his critiques of Christianity apply to Pietism Kierkegaard remains unassailed by Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:45:02 2020 No.16952669 >>16952631 Based kierkechad

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:49:34 2020 No.16952702

>>16952618
You aren't making an argument. You just asked three loosely related questions that demonstrate how unfit you are to be having this conversation. I can tell from your awkward syntax and your tendency to write in all caps for emphasis that you're a teenager.

Your definition of virtue is almost certainly Nietzsche's definition of slavery. To subscribe to that definition of virtue is to submit to the tyranny of Christianity. I don't expect you to understand this yet, as you are obviously quite young and you have not actually read Nietzsche. Give it a few years. Try to take a philosophy course in college. Then come back to /lit/ and we can have a real discussion.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:51:32 2020 No.16952719
File: 73 KB, 750x1004, sovGe4N.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16952244
>>16952266
>>16952536
you just literally don't understand what master/slave morality is, and you're rejecting the people who do.
Like I said in my very first reply in this faggot thread: it is all about reason and motive.
It's not about literal slavery you absolute fucking retard.
If a slave moralist kills a tyrant he will have done it for slavish reasons (like "because the tyrant is evil" as a disguise for resentment of the tyrants power, as an extremely obvious example). If a master moralist kills a tyrant he will have done it for masterly reasons (like that he disliked the tyrant, not out of a resentment of the tyrant's power, good and evil, or any other such mendacity, he simply disliked the tyrant and he recognized that this is why he wanted to kill the tyrant with no moral judgements supplanting this simple dislike, to be as masterly as possible for you).
Killing a tyrant or any other such person does not make the slave a master. They will still be a slave moralist, even if they overthrow the kingdom and crown themselves king.
Killing a tyrant does not make the master a slave either. They will still be a master moralist as they overthrow the kingdom and crown themselves king.
If the slave should, before killing the tyrant, have some sort of epiphany and reject their morality (or rather pull it out by its roots, which is the only way to rid yourself of slave morality) and embrace a master morality and decide to kill the tyrant, then they will be a master.
Do you get it yet?
As I said, the slave revolt is a crucial component of master/slave morality and all of Nietzsche's thought on the matter. The slaves revolted (through a reversal of power and virtue via Christianity) and they won. The slaves run the world. They are still slaves, not because they are being controlled literally by someone else or some other physical force, but because their morality and their psychology are slavish. Their reasons for doing things are corrupt impure, and weak, they originate from a belief in good and evil, from ressentiment, or otherwise from a place of dishonesty.
They could imprison the master, put him in bondage, torture him and force him to work the fields for them. He would remain a master and they would remain slaves.
If you're still not understanding, or think there's any sort of logical inconsistency here, then you're unironically too stupid for philosophy and should just give up. Even the schizo Christian faggot above hasn't struggled with this.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:53:20 2020 No.16952735

>>16952586
>Fuck off.
So it's not more complicated than that?

>you cannot make like the Church Fathers and your local lesbian pastor are equal representatives on what Christianity means
So it is more complicated than that?

Make up your mind. I don't think you even know whose side you're supposed to be on here. You keep fighting a strawman of Nietzsche's position even though you seem to be in favor of the same values as he was — the values of master morality, aka "the Church Fathers," whose will was militant and commanding, and whose values he realized did not actually come from this Socratic-Judaic doublethink religion, but from a higher and stronger and more personal religion.

Zarathustra:
>Do not be virtuous beyond your strengths! And will nothing of yourselves that is contrary to probability! Walk in the footsteps where your fathers' virtue walked before! How could you climb high if your fathers' will did not climb with you? But whoever would be a firstling should see to it that he does not also become a lastling! And where the vices of your fathers are, there you should not pretend to be saints! If your fathers took to women and strong wine and boar swine, what would be the use of demanding chastity of yourself? It would be a folly! To me it truly seems like much if such a man belonged to one or two or three women. And if he founded monasteries and wrote above the door: "This way to sainthood" — I would say: What for! It's a new folly! He founded himself a guardhouse and safeguard: good for him! But I don't believe in it. Whatever one brings into solitude grows in it, even the inner beast. On this score, solitude is ill-advised for many. Was there ever anything filthier on earth than saints of the wilderness? Around them not only hell broke loose — but pigs too.

Does this sound like a disagreeable man to you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:54:11 2020 No.16952742 >>16952719 Good description. Can you cite an original passage on this subject?

>>	Jesus Sat Dec 5 14:54:44 2020 No.16952744 >>16947755 you have negative IQ, OP

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:54:55 2020 No.16952746 Nietzsche is literally "what lack of pussy does to a mf"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 14:56:44 2020 No.16952766 >>16952719 >schizo!!! schizo!! good job internalising the pathologization of dissent

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:02:49 2020 No.16952814 >>16952719 You didnt answer my question though. Can a master moralist submit to a tyrant?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:10:20 2020 No.16952877

>>16952719
>he simply disliked the tyrant
Tell me how being free from the tyrannic rule because you dislike the subject of OPPRESSION is in any way SLAVISH??? You're assuming that TOLERATING that opression is LESS SLAVISH that not doing it. ABSOLUTELY IRRATIONAL.
>Killing a tyrant does not make the master a slave either.
No, it makes him a dead body!!!!!!!!!
>because their morality and their psychology are slavish
HOW, if they, through that morality and psychology that justifies tyrannicide, they have FREED themselves? A slavish morality is the one that MAKES YOU A REAL SLAVE, not the morality that EMANCIPATES YOU FROM SLAVERY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:11:29 2020 No.16952886 >>16952877 >dislike the subject of OPPRESSION dislike being* the subject of oppression

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:15:10 2020 No.16952917

>>16952702
>subscribe to that definition of virtue is to submit to the tyranny of Christianity
What tyranny man? What fucking tyranny?? If it's CHRISTIANITY what freeds you in real life by justifying the tyrannicide? YOURS is the tyranny, who thinks killing the tyranny it's what makes you a slave. Ridiculous!! Don't you see if I had to take your philosophy and I were under a tyrant's rule, I would never be free?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:21:51 2020 No.16952965
File: 79 KB, 602x602, 1605732817767.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16952742
read Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of morals, like I've said a million times in this thread.
Nietzsche isn't some pop philosopher who can be understood through quotes--that's been one of the biggest reasons for him being so misunderstood. He has a bounty of brilliant, beautiful, clever, funny quotes and passages, but they need to be read in the works they are placed in. He was a writer in the truest sense; he understood that a book is not simply a collection of thoughts but a whole work. As such, there are so many Nietzsche quotes that seem like they're saying one thing but, when in the context of the surrounding text, are quite obviously saying the opposite. Even his aphorisms need to be read in the context of the books they were published in.
If you want to understand Nietzsche, you have to read him, and read him carefully. He will warn you of the same thing as you read--his writing is not for the impatient or the speed readers. But he is not at all impenetrable, his prose is masterful and his writing is never boring, it's also very easy to understand as long as you actually pay attention..
>>16952766
don't try to moralize at me lmao it's an insult get over it
>>16952814
yes. If someone submits to a tyrant for master moralist reasons, they are a master.
>>16952877
thinking I'm being trolled at this point but I don't care.
>You're assuming that TOLERATING that opression is LESS SLAVISH that not doing it
I never said this. I said it's slavish either way if the reasons are slavish.
Learn to differentiate between concepts. Did you know words have multiple meanings?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:21:58 2020 No.16952968 >>16947810 funny picture lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:31:41 2020 No.16953033 >>16952965 You didn't answer. >Tell me how being free from the tyrannic rule because you dislike being the subject of OPPRESSION is in any way SLAVISH If you say this isn't slavish (because it isn't), then Christianity isn't slavish as you think it is.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 15:58:27 2020 No.16953235

>>16951931
>resentment
There is simply too many distortions on the greeks and the mysteries. There is simply nothing to get out of him. Call this whatever you want, not all people succumb to this dogmatism of yours.
Every agency seeks what is good. You and nietzsche link the idea of a master moralist doing good out of compassion, charity, selfless actions, on an objective ballast and at the same time deny any persuasion of knowledge of reality, for there is a rejection of the intelligibility constitutive of all reality. Denying the latter will obviously make a reading of Plato fruitless and reduce to a subjectivism that accounts nothing of life and reality.
That you reject every thing I say as “as you define”, “as you believe” shows that you cannot operate beyond this barbaric mentality of subjectivism.
>maneuver
You don’t care about metaphysics, epistemology. Why would one waste his time trying to get you out of this abyss of relativization?
>had you not known
The knowledge of it is the ground for all objective virtue/morality. But you don’t care about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 17:32:44 2020 No.16954002 Bump

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:16:14 2020 No.16954413

>>16952877
>Tell me how being free from the tyrannic rule because you dislike the subject of OPPRESSION is in any way SLAVISH???

"While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, the slave morality says 'no' from the very outset to what is 'outside itself,' 'different from itself,' and 'not itself': and this 'no' is its creative deed." Genealogy of Morals, first essay, §10.

In other words: what makes the act slavish or not depends on the motivation. If the motivation is to escape oppression, then you're a slave. If the motivation is the establish domination, then you're a master. Any other definition of slave and master is not relevant to Nietzsche's concepts of slave and master morality. This is where your confusion stems from.

tl;dr: read nigga, read

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:31:21 2020 No.16954562 >>16947755 Nietzsche's critiques of Paul apply to Orthodoxy because Orthodox are also Paul-respecters. Consequently OP is both fake AND gay.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:41:23 2020 No.16954632

>>16951931
I wasn't at home and couldn't make a well constructed post. I apologize for that. But our discussion is unproductive for we are operating on different levels: I on intellectual/spiritual with metaphysics and theology, you on cultural/anthropological. Since you recommended Nietzsche to me, knowing metaphysics and theology is not suited to your ''preferences'', I recommend reading Girard, specially his essay on Nietzsche.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:56:09 2020 No.16954759

>>16953033
you're not gonna refute nietzsche by ignoring what the people who are trying to teach you a bit about his philosophy are saying.
>>16953235
>There is simply too many distortions on the greeks and the mysteries. There is simply nothing to get out of him
What are you talking about you babbling lunatic?
>not all people succumb to this dogmatism of yours
Which dogmatism is that? I've only been presenting Nietzsche's arguments. The only strongly held belief of mine that can be found in what I've said to you is that I don't believe in good and evil. Everything surrounding that is Nietzsche alone.
I'm not arguing with you because I feel the need to protect my sacred beliefs. You're just incorrect about your assessment of Nietzsche and his philosophy.
>Every agency seeks what is good
Complete falsity and there's no way you can support this. Ever agency seeking power is much stronger, it's evident to anyone who looks for it and it even consumes your statement (ie those seeking good are simply seeking power)
>That you reject every thing I say as “as you define”, “as you believe” shows that you cannot operate beyond this barbaric mentality of subjectivism.
Yes, I do not believe in moral objectivity. It's (conceptual) existence can only be genuinely supported by two people; the ignorant and the stupid. All else is mendaciousness.
> The knowledge of it is the ground for all objective virtue/morality
Ah, so there we go, you wouldn't do a good deed unless you knew you were supposed to. Some kenosis!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 18:57:45 2020 No.16954775 >>16952481 Both anons speak in an ironic and gloating way. I hope you've noticed this

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:02:20 2020 No.16954834

>>16952735
>Was there ever anything filthier on earth than saints of the wilderness
It sounds disagreeable because it sounds like a man who discredits the lives of the saints/church/desert fathers and instead bases reality on his own preconceptions. Solitude does not always lead to a fostering of sin, and this can easily be seen in the lives of holy men who have lived and continue to live today; to say that they are somehow secretly "sinning greatly" or "hiding everything from us" is unevidenced and wishful thinking until actually brought to light. Note that I am specifically talking about ascetics .

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:10:52 2020 No.16954927
File: 319 KB, 1080x1707, 1599059748250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16952965
>read Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of morals, like I've said a million times in this thread.
Yes, we understand you've found yourself a crutch; if YOU truly have understood Nietzsche, I implore that you find your own words (as you have done) and rely only on them, not on "read X, Y, and Z." Ultimately, we are exchanging arguments, not book titles.

Of course, we are arguing with someone who has understood Nietzsche, aren't we?

>>16954413
>read, nigga, read
We are reading your posts. Is it possible for a man, who is definitely not reducible to only a "master or slave morality," to oppose a tyrant for both slavish and masterful reasons? Let's say he wishes both to escape oppression (because it is painful to him and his people) and to establish himself as the ruler or new status quo.

Either way, look at what Christianity, in the Bible, intended, and not why armchair social critics think a broad swathe of people in the past did something.

>Complete falsity and there's no way you can support this
No; every agency seeks good, but some have a corrupted idea of good. The good Christianity proposes is the highest good, and therefore the highest power because it allies one with God. You become divine, which is the highest power that can be attained; as you said, a master moralist continues to be a master (and masterhood is implied to be a good thing) even when under a so-called tyrant.

But why do people seek power? Answer me that, as it is not immediately evident in life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:12:55 2020 No.16954944 >>16948674 Please, please, please shut the fuck up you limp pseud

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:12:58 2020 No.16954945 >>16947810 Sweet pic related, anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:15:37 2020 No.16954968 >>16947810 Now make one with Nietzsche and a WWII-era german soldier

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:17:07 2020 No.16954984

>>16954927
did you just ingore my massive walls of text explaining Nietzsche's concepts in my own words hoping that I wouldn't notice?
Also I literally said that in response to someone asking for quotes from Nietzsche--the complete opposite of what you're attempting to "gotcha" me with
Absolutely pathetic attempt
Christians are so weak, spiritually, of mind, of body, it makes me thankful not to be one. must be a miserable existence.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:22:02 2020 No.16955036

>>16954984
No, I read all of your posts; my point was that you shouldn't tell someone to "read X" if you already provide us with the crux of that book's argument.

>Also I literally said that in response to someone asking for quotes from Nietzsche
I was referring to the n times you've told someone to "read Geneology of Morals" or some other book because they've "obviously misunderstood Nietzsche's arguments." Yes, they can read; but for now, you should focus on making arguments.

>Christians are so weak, spiritually, of mind, of body, it makes me thankful not to be one. must be a miserable existence.
Is this not the picture of resentment?

Of course, you must resort to the hope that Nietzsche has provided better arguments than yours because if your summarization of his arguments are true, his arguments truly are full of holes and mischaracterizations.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:35:02 2020 No.16955155

>>16954927
>Is it possible for a man, who is definitely not reducible to only a "master or slave morality," to oppose a tyrant for both slavish and masterful reasons?
At different points in one's life, sure. Simultaneously? No. Willing doesn't work that way.

>Either way, look at what Christianity, in the Bible, intended, and not why armchair social critics think a broad swathe of people in the past did something.
Hopefully you're not suggesting that Nietzsche is an "armchair social critic."

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:36:48 2020 No.16955173

>>16950424
>the slaves took over the world (through Judaism and Christianity)
By this, you mean slaves not in status but in soul and mind. Is this an accurate depiction of early Christians- slaves in mind and soul?

How was weakness portrayed as virtue? Cite verses from the Bible. The same goes for "power being vice;" don't worm away by telling me to read a book, provide your own arguments for once; don't "defer to your masters to make an argument."

>A master isn't just the person in control or the person who is stronger or the person who wins
>yes. If someone submits to a tyrant for master moralist reasons, they are a master. (>>16952965
)
Evidently a master is not even necessarily the person in control. He is only the man who is a "master in his own head" and wishes to establish domination.

>tyrannicide is always an incomplete act if it doesn't involve killing the tyrant in your head
Of course, you do not persecute yourself or tyrannize yourself by following God's ordinances according to Christianity, as Christianity purports to unite man with God, to make him divine.

Everything else is shallow; we supposedly "grovel" to a "cosmic tyrant" and try to avoid "natural drives" (sins), but that means nothing. Everything that occurs is natural, including the drive to escape sins (which are generally excesses or insufficiencies that cause you to stray from God). These allow you to truly gain mastery over yourself, which is their purpose, and not to placate some "cosmic tyrant" bogeyman.
Also:
>If you find inconsistencies in my portrayal of Christianity and real Christianity, that's because Christianity promotes doublethink

>whose will was militant and commanding, and whose values he realized did not actually come from this Socratic-Judaic doublethink religion, but from a higher and stronger and more personal religion.
How could these church fathers eschew their own religion? Show me this, because it sounds like a riot. Furthermore, it sounds like a half-assed attempt to cover your trail; "any example of a Christian that transgresses my tight paradigm is actually not a real Christian." This is untrue, of course; those church fathers are considered by Christians as true Christians; therefore, there are currents in Christianity that are both "master" or "slave" not because Christianity is a big "doublethink" religion but because it can be interpreted in several ways and has had great popularity and thus several schisms and regional idiosyncrasies. The same Christianity blacks used to justify civil rights were used to justify enslaving and colonizing them (with a master mindset, of course).

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:44:10 2020 No.16955224

>>16954759
>what are you talking about
I am justifying my decline to reading him. But obviously, you would assume your interlocutor is ressenting your own ressentiment of a primitive ressentiment that must be pointed out and demonized.

>which dogmatism is that?
sentimental dogmatism

>Nietzsche's arguments
There are no arguments at all. All there is a categorization valued according to what Nietzsche thinks, to what he deems to be powerful. And this is his positive valuation, this is his Good.

>Complete falsity
Whatever an agent seeks it seeks because it deems what it seeks to be good. You can invert the process all you want, not a single sentient being does what it does without thinking it is good. All things desire what is good. You can condition good to power in the same way you can condition it to beauty, intelligence, justice. The Good IS powerful, the Good IS beautiful. It IS intelligent. There is no greater power, no greater persuasion than it. It is only with reference to the Good that power can be good or good power.

>Yes, I do not believe in moral objectivity. It's (conceptual) existence can only be genuinely supported by two people; the ignorant and the stupid.
Then on what ground are you criticizing any moralistic foundation when the most absurd justification suffices? Even if there is a destruction of a justified ground for any action, there will be still the objective desire for what is good.

>you wouldn't do a good deed unless you knew you were supposed to.
Yes, unless I KNEW. It is not a supposition, but a necessary consequence. That is why there can only be true justification with the transformation from Knowledge.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 19:45:43 2020 No.16955236

I see absolutely nothing wrong with conceiving of this world as fallen, all that means is that there is struggle, or something to gain. If this world were not fallen, there would be nothing to do or fight for. I also see nothing wrong with having a better existence "after this life" (although the saintly gain a taste of their prize in this life, and the sinful have a taste of their punishment here; drunks, whores, sluggards case in point). Of course, this life does not end after death, so there is no "afterlife." What we call the afterlife is really just more life (or complete death and slavery to Satan). God is supposed to set you free; all other roads lead to death. The freedom you desire is really just a perfumed slavery

But of course, one's values must be self-made; but that's useless.

>>16955155
>At different points in one's life, sure. Simultaneously? No. Willing doesn't work that way.
Why not? I illustrated how you can hold two different wills, because will most certainly works that way. Humans are not so simple that they cannot have complicated or varicolored motivations.

You yourself said a master moralist topples a tyrant to erect himself as the next tyrant; the slave moralist topples the tyrant because he envies, hates the tyrant's power. Can you not both hate the tyrant and wish to become him at the same time? The master moralist has a creative motivation, the slave moralist has a nihilistic motivation; do the outcomes of the master/slave moralist actually matter, or only what motivates him?

>Hopefully you're not suggesting that Nietzsche is an "armchair social critic."
Hopefully he entered into specifics into his books because what you've posted in this thread thus far is not promising. Yes, I am suggesting that. What happens if I dare to besmirch Nietzsche? Another insult? Another book to read? You are like your master, both poor judges of character and slanderers.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:01:18 2020 No.16955363

>And if they didn't hate the master, they would follow him
Why can this not apply to God, as well? If we did not hate God, we would follow Him.

>A master isn't just the person in control or the person who is stronger or the person who wins. The slaves won, the slaves have the control. The slave seeks to keep the master on their level, to make the master resentful and life-denying, like they are
Instead, we wish to become like God, and we have killed God in our hearts and replaced Him with a life-denying slave morality, a sneering resentment of life masked by noblesse. We raise man by his own means so that he can fall by virtue of his own ill-constituted nature, for man is always ill-constituted without the grace of his creator. And so, we are not called to be slave moralists, but rather to join our master.

>When you, the slave, give your money to someone in need, you do it because of guilt, because of societal pressure, because of pity, because you don't want to go to hell--all reasons of bad conscience, of fear, of hatred
This is why Christianity encourages you to give out of the goodness of your heart, not out of fear of punishment or desire of recompense, both of which spoil your good deed, because then it is done only out of fear or desire.

>If you were a true master moralist you wouldn't feel this way. Maybe you'd still want to kill, but you'd at least be doing it for better reasons.
So it is okay to do things the slave also does so long as you are doing them for "masterful reasons." What would these be? It is left open to the interpreter, as there is no "good," only ____. Of course, _____ is anything that is not wrong/slavish, which is still narrow (as I see it).

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:02:15 2020 No.16955368

>>16955173
>How could these church fathers eschew their own religion? Show me this
It's covered in Nietzsche's writings. Read them if you're interested, specifically everything from 1886 and after. But the gist of it is this: Jesus of Nazareth was a spiritual man who started a new, genuine religion, which was quickly usurped and contaminated by the sycophant Paul for political gain, and from there the religion has been a doublethink disaster which has either forced the hand of many master moralists to adopt contradictory values in order to maintain their pride and honor in civil society or has caused others to perish from the disastrous effects of intellectually pursuing such a flawed and disingenuous value system.

>>16955236
>Why not?
Because that's not how the subconscious works. You either perceive the other as an oppressor or you don't, it makes no sense to try and claim that someone can perceive the other as both an oppressor and not as one simultaneously. The master moralist doesn't, even when the other is in the middle of winning the fight for freedom. That's the difference between the two moralities.

>You yourself said a master moralist topples a tyrant to erect himself as the next tyrant
That wasn't me. A master moralist simply seeks to establish his domination, which is another way of saying "affirmation of its own demands" in Nietzsche's words. That's all I said. The master moralist doesn't label the other as an oppressor — the master moralist takes action despite of the other, while the slave moralist takes action because of the other. You can't be both simultaneously because you can't do both simultaneously.

>Yes, I am suggesting that.
Then you should actually read him so you can stop spewing pretentious nonsense like that in future threads.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:05:30 2020 No.16955397

>>16955036
>you shouldn't tell someone to "read X" if you already provide us with the crux of that book's argument
maybe the dumbest thing I've read on here. Do you think that wikipedia articles are able to present "the crux" of a philosophical text? Do you not understand the point of reading a book? Have you read a book?
Also On the Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil are not "arguments" for master/slave morality--they are expansive works that are not at all limited to any single argument or concept. I recommend them because the books that contain Nietzsche's best writing on master/slave morality, and, as I said before, these books are not just some bullet point list of ideas, they are complete works in which every word is necessary to understand them.
I have summarized what master/slave morality is very clearly, and it's only braindead christfaggots who are struggling with it. So for them (and anyone genuinely interested in learning) I recommend Genealogy and BGE. With these they will gain a complete understanding of master/slave morality, as well as many many other things, and each thing that you learn will enrich your understanding of another thing.
That's how books often are.
>Is this not the picture of resentment?
I don't resent you, nor do I pity you, nor truthfully do I feel much of anything for you, but I don't like you. But you've provided me with a busy mind today, so thanks for that
>>16955173
>How was weakness portrayed as virtue? Cite verses from the Bible.
Don't want to go digging through the bible but immediately "the meek shall inherit the earth" is the obvious one.
I was raised Catholic and even though I think Christianity is a shit-tier religion I am still interested in it, I have the bible app that I read regularly and sometimes when I fall asleep I listen to biblical readings. I'm not at all ignorant of Christianity, and my appreciation for Nietzsche is largely thanks to how accurate I think his indictment of it is.
>Evidently a master is not even necessarily the person in control. He is only the man who is a "master in his own head" and wishes to establish domination.
Yes. While power comes in many forms, the power Nietzsche refers to when discussing masters and slaves is an internal power, of the mind and of the soul.
> Everything that occurs is natural, including the drive to escape sins
Sins necessitate someone to define them, anon. This is not a natural urge, even in the bible it is something first taught.
> How could these church fathers eschew their own religion?
you serious about this one chief? You can't comprehend how?
>>16955224
> not a single sentient being does what it does without thinking it is good
kek read notes from the underground or something jesus, this is so incredibly naive

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:12:32 2020 No.16955449

>>16955397
>read notes from the underground
This one of the most stupid replies I got from you in this thread. I have read and Dostoevski portraits his narrator protagonist as a manifest self-absorbed character, we are separated from his self-absorption and we have a interpretative horizon much wider than his. This is exactly the point Socrates makes in Meno, read Meno 77b-78e.
You said you read Plato but it is more than obvious that you understood absolutely nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:18:00 2020 No.16955495 >>16955397 >I'm not at all ignorant of Christianity you sound like you are, a lot.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:25:29 2020 No.16955550

>>16955449
the underground man specifically acts in opposition to the "universal truth" you so boldly announced. He is self-absorbed, yes, but he does not do what he thinks is good nor what he thinks is in his interest. He theorizes that he does this to prove his autonomy, but it is a theory made to justify his actions, not the reason that he chooses. While this is a fictional character, I've met plenty of people like this, people who do what they think is bad, what will harm themselves and others, for reasons that they can't explain. And I'm not speaking of addicts or people like that, I mean perfectly capable adults choosing to explicitly do bad things, with no good reason.
To say that everyone does what they assess as good is childish, anon. Demonstrates a really limited worldview, the result of little life experience I'm certain.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:31:11 2020 No.16955587

>>16955368
>contaminated by the sycophant Paul for political gain...
Hopefully he enters into specifics on this

>it makes no sense to try and claim that someone can perceive...
So it is not that the slave moralist hates the tyrant, but rather that the slave moralist perceives the tyrant as an oppressor? How does the master moralist perceive the tyrant (note that a tyrant is an oppressor by definition)?

If the master moralist wishes to become the master and construct, and the slave moralist wishes to become the master and destruct because he is full of resentment towards the tyrant, then I concede the point.

>the master moralist takes action despite of the other, while the slave...
But the master moralist must still address the other's existence, thereby taking action against him. The master moralist must overcome the tyrant, so he will take action because of the tyrant, no?

>>16955397
>Do you think that wikipedia articles are able to present...
Then why are you making any arguments for or against Nietzsche here, if you cannot accurately represent the crux of his arguments (not the text, but his point)?

>it's only braindead christfaggots
Why are you so angry? Furthermore, if you have "summarized what master/slave morality is very clearly," then you have very clearly "presented the 'crux' of Nietzsche's argument." Perhaps you only think it's the "dumbest thing I've read on here" because you misunderstood what I wanted; I didn't want a summary of the entire book, just the argument from the book that is relevant to this thread. Surely, his books make multiple arguments.

>I don't resent you, nor do I pity you, nor truthfully do I feel much of anything for you, but I don't like you. But you've provided me with a busy mind today, so thanks for that
So you say things without meaning them? You call people "braindead christfaggots" without feeling much of anything? Strange man.

>the meek shall inherit the earth
Do you know what "meek" means in this often-railed-against verse?
It's like what is described in Proverbs 16:32

https://biblehub.com/greek/4239.htm

>I'm not at all ignorant of Christianity, and my appreciation for Nietzsche is largely thanks to how accurate I think his indictment of it is.
You don't need to convince me; I don't care much.

>Sins necessitate someone to define them, anon. This is not a natural urge, even in the bible it is something first taught.
But the idea of sins is not in itself wrong, no? Nietzsche does not tell us what to do, but rather tells us what is wrong to do; so are sins. I would say that everything that happens is a natural urge; for example, to follow what is written in the Bible as others follow it. Or to re-evaluate it and still follow it.

>you serious about this one chief? You can't comprehend how?
You did say that Christianity is a doublethink, so how could they stray from a religion that not only they followed to a T but is also a "doublethink" (encompassing both types of morality)

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:35:15 2020 No.16955620

>>16955550
>He theorizes that he does this to prove his autonomy, but it is a theory made to justify his actions.
And this is his reason and aim to act the way he does. Simple.

>i know people who did bad things without knowing why
like what? be specific and don't simply reject a universal truth with spurious anecdotes.

>childish
Read Meno, for fuck's sake read a real book in this wasted life of yours.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:38:48 2020 No.16955656

>>16955620
>>16955550
> I've met plenty of people like this, people who do what they think is bad, what will harm themselves and others, for reasons that they can't explain. And I'm not speaking of addicts or people like that, I mean perfectly capable adults choosing to explicitly do bad things, with no good reason.
all actions have a cause: it will be either willed or constrained. if the former there is a reason for the subject who acted in a way to act that way, if the latter it will not be from his own will and could not said to be one's own action. end of story. you keep coping with anecdotal absurdities, inversions of what is good. you are dishonest.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:39:18 2020 No.16955663

>>16949387
>>16950330
Stop embarrassing yourself. A slave that conquers their master is still a slave. Likewise, the last man will always be the last man. Nietzsche was not writing self-help books. There are masters and there are slaves. By the logic you are using, the conclusion that Christianity is master morality would be implied, since it was through military force and subversion that Christianity was disseminated.
Do you think something like, say, the French Revolution (ignore the bourgeois influences for now), is "master morality"?
All of this can be resolved by reading Nietzsche on ressentiment (or in your case, reading him at all).

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:40:38 2020 No.16955676

>>16955397
>kek read notes from the underground or something jesus, this is so incredibly naive
I did not say this, I just said that one's will to goodness can be perverted. It doesn't mean your goodness is a consciously-recognized one, such as a murderer seeing "killing a hooker" as being good; it would just mean that you see what satisfies your own momentary desire as good, at others' expense.

>>16955550
I am not >>16955449

>>16955550
>To say that everyone does what they assess as good is childish, anon. Demonstrates a really limited worldview, the result of little life experience I'm certain.
It would be easy to then say that they subconsciously view the thing as good. I should have specified; by "good" I meant the will to return to God, which is what all fallen creatures would desire. A perverted will would just be an allocation of that desire to return to something different, unworthy; I suppose a deafening of such a will could also be a "perversion."

But it would still be a perversion; they do what they think is bad for reasons that CAN be explained, but for which they themselves cannot explain.

Give me a quick example, so we can see. Don't leave us in the mist. Perhaps you are referring to "l'appel du vide" or something like that, but I wouldn't describe that as a conscious choice. If someone snaps and murders another, that's not him "doing what he thinks is good," it's just him doing an action under the influence of some mental state

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:51:57 2020 No.16955749

>>16955663
Why should we care about these distinctions? Attack the belief itself, not the method of dissemination. I don't care what Nietzsche said necessarily, I want to hear you argue and list what makes Christianity "slave morality" and why. I don't see any ideas of "humans being too precious to sacrifice;" it seems that Nietzsche's philosophy relies heavily on the idea that God does not exist, as well. He does not attack Christianity from the perspective of a Christian but from a secular perspective

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 20:53:55 2020 No.16955759 File: 237 KB, 241x442, 1438100792187.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] good thread

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:05:24 2020 No.16955851
File: 2.15 MB, 1319x730, dareyouentermymagicalrealm..png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Christianity is slave morality incarnate
>I have the bible app I read regularly and sometimes when I fall asleep I listen to biblical readings
Obviously your understanding of the Bible is gleaned during your sleep because its spotty. The idea that Christianity is "slave morality" (in that it is fearful and resentful) is patently absurd and unsubstantiated. It is also a criticism only possible from an atheistic worldview, but which falls apart in a Christian's worldview.

>So you pointing out the occasional example of master morality as spoken by a representative of the religion isn't in any way a refutation of his argument against Christianity
This is because the argument should be against the Bible, not against how people disseminated Christianity and who did, considering that people (as they do with Nietzsche) generally take from a 1200-page book what they want for themselves.

>Like I said, master/slave morality is not about right/wrong, its about ____/wrong
>From the ____ the ubermensch is able to be born.
Doesn't Christianity do this? It just removes the need to "create your own values," which is unimportant because (from a Christian view) there is only one set of values that leads you to God, and many others which lead you astray. The Ubermensch is available for all

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:08:05 2020 No.16955874 >>16955663 >A slave that conquers their master is still a slave Here's where you're wrong. This is absolutely bullshit, it has no connection with reality. You cannot be a slave if you have no master.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:17:45 2020 No.16955955

>>16954413
>In other words: what makes the act slavish or not depends on the motivation. If the motivation is to escape oppression, then you're a slave. If the motivation is the establish domination, then you're a master.
To be actually FREED you first have to establish domination, this is not a dichotomy where you have to choose one of the other lol. There's no absence of power when the tyrant is killed, the most likely thing to happen is that a Christian may take control over the situation, otherwise you'd have an infinite chain of dead tyrants. Your dilemma is more fake than Nietszche's heterosexuality.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:23:36 2020 No.16955987

>>16955874
He believes that a slave's "slavishness" resides in their mind. So you can have a slave with master morality and a master with slave morality. Of course, there is no reason to drive a wedge between a "master" and a "slave" morality, or to say that one is evil and one is _____, which is just 'less evil' AKA good/desirable.

You'll find that most of the criticisms are either unimportant or complete misinterpretations, but there's no need to criticize; just tell people to "read X." No shit, we know that we must read, and we are reading when we have the time; but we are currently here to argue, not to copy-paste obvious recommendations from the lit wiki. If you want to summarize the salient arguments for the purpose of this thread, do so; if not, leave, but don't gloat. Gloating and insults are signs of slave morality, and none are better exemplars of it than the proponents of Nietzsche ITT. I also gloat and insult, but I can admit this because I can recognize my faults and do not hate so-called "doublethink" minglings of slave and master morality (which is supposedly a Nietzschean sin, which you are not supposed to do, although it is our natural urge to belong to both classes).

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:30:36 2020 No.16956028

>>16955987
But that's bullshit. You cannot be a slave without master, that's paradoxical. It's like saying you can have an upper without a below. If you kill your master you aren't imprisoning him inside your head; he ceases to exist and you're no longer under his rule. The "ouuuu you're still a slave!!" it's so bullshit it's unbelievable. A slave of WHOM??. Literally psychology-tier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:33:33 2020 No.16956044 >>16956028 >You cannot be a slave without master, that's paradoxical Prove it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:33:39 2020 No.16956047
File: 3.05 MB, 3308x2443, mihaiviteazul.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16954413
>"While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, the slave morality says 'no' from the very outset to what is 'outside itself,' 'different from itself,' and 'not itself': and this 'no' is its creative deed."

Incorrect; the slave moralist overcomes the aristocrat while both denying what is "not itself" and affirming what is "itself." Is this another one of those "misinterpretations" that we must "read more" to elucidate? That would be like me telling you to "read the church fathers" in response to the Biblical misinterpretations you'll likely post (if you're high energy) in this thread as "proof" of Christianity being "slave morality."

>If the motivation is to escape oppression, then you're a slave. If the motivation is the establish domination
And this is where I said that one can both seek to escape oppression and establish domination. One can seek to first destroy and then create (as a part of his future plan).

You then flip-flopped definitions (or were a different poster), telling me that "a master morality acts despite the other, while the slave moralist acts because of the other. Of course, you just went from one stupidity to the mother of all stupidities, because the master moralist must always act because of the other if he wishes to overcome the other.

Unless you mean that the slave moralist tries to topple the other (tyrant) because he resents the tyrant and wishes to escape pain, and the master moralist topples the tyrant because he wishes to instate his own values (primarily). In that case, then obviously Christianity's history will be filled with "inconsistencies;" it covers so many populations and time-periods- how could it not? But Christianity itself says to not be resentful- to forgive and even love your enemy, which is the opposite of resentment and an evolution of merely being impassive towards them (which most Nietzscheans claim they are, but obviously are not, as shown by their rabid vitriol)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:36:21 2020 No.16956059 >>16956044 PROVE WHAT? Don't you understand that it's because of the existence master that the slave is a slave? Prove that you can have a slave without a master.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:42:00 2020 No.16956089
File: 104 KB, 550x462, vladtepes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16956028
They say that you are a slave to the master because you act with him "living rent free in your mind," even if you overcome him, you still acted only out of your hatred of him. All this would take is for a Christian to overcome the tyrant because he wishes to spread salvation to as many as possible and remind them of their divine destination, and not because he resents his captor (which is bound to happen in certain circumstances, anyways, because people are imperfect).

Of course, you would still be a "slave" to God, but a Christian views existence as a striving or return to God, so it would not really be an enslavement but a fulfillment of your existence and thus freedom. That Christians succor the "unworthy" is not a sign of them being "slave moralists." Keep in mind that:

>When you, the slave, give your money to someone in need, you do it because of guilt, because of societal pressure, because of pity, because you don't want to go to hell--all reasons of bad conscience, of fear, of hatred.

>When the master gives money to someone in need, it is because it is in their nature as a compassionate, charitable, powerful person. In both cases the action is the same, but your reasons are that of a slavish, weak, cowardly nature, and the masters are pure.

We are called to be compassionate and powerful (holier, more patient, less resentful; a resentful man returns hatred with hatred). To do good out of guilt/pity(condescension)/fear is imperfect and doesn't reflect upon you. It's a dead, fruitless action.

Of course, it's the same criticism as paganism's criticism of Christianity. Any good aspect in Christianity is a holdover of "pagan culture." Any bad aspect is [Abrahamic boogeyman]. Any good aspect is a paradoxical master morality that wormed its way in. Any bad aspect surely, obviously represents the totality of Christianity- that is, slave morality. Of course, Christianity makes no monomaniacal distinction between slave and master morality, but rather incorporates elements of both without going to excess so as to save the soul.

This is the extent of Christianity's egalitarianism- all souls are worthy of being saved. This does not mean we must dissolve hierarchies. It simply means we must strive to save all, as all are "made in the image and likeness of God." In other words, it proposes an Ubermensch that no one needs to slave to bring about without experiencing; each sacrifices himself for his salvation and the salvation of others, rather than all sacrificing themselves for the creation of one.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:42:27 2020 No.16956093
File: 19 KB, 612x410, istockphoto-147091427-612x612.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Holy fuck, Nietzschetards are so deep into delusion and reality's denial that they believe you can have a slave without a master. What will be next, a son without a father? How do you guys post in 4chan with the straightjacket?

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:46:49 2020 No.16956112

>>16956089
>you still acted only out of your hatred of him.
You commit tyrannicide in order to no longer be subject of oppression, how the fuck does hate relate? Don't you know that hate is a sin in Christianity?
>Of course, you would still be a "slave" to God, but a Christian views existence as a striving or return to God
EVERYONE is a slave to God.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:53:13 2020 No.16956148

>>16956112
>EVERYONE is a slave to God.
What does it mean to be a "slave?" Your definition of slave is probably so broad as to not even be a bad thing. Of course we are "subordinates" to our all-powerful creator; we have fallen from equilibrium with our creator, and must return to that state for our own good.

Yes, everyone is a "slave" to God (as in less powerful than Him, dependent on Him). But not necessarily; you cannot have two masters; those who reject God are slaves to death.

>You commit tyrannicide in order to no longer be subject of oppression,
I know hatred is a sin in Christianity, but I am talking about the slave moralist that tries to overcome a tyrant because he hates the tyrant and envies his power. Christianity says it is wrong to hate, so obviously we must rebel against a tyrant without hatred.

You want to escape oppression so that you can begin your good works; hatred doesn't relate, hatred is for the slave moralists who are plagued by resentment

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 21:54:20 2020 No.16956153 >>16950603 Dude you just BTFO him

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 22:12:24 2020 No.16956249

>>16956153
that idiot simply ignored the main point: that christianity already made clear a distinction of '''''slavish'''' morality/praxis and ''''''master''''' one; you can see this in the distinction between perfect and imperfect contrition; and what Nietzsche overlooked was the fact that most if not all pagan societies would also enforce a moralistic slavish mentality both to the commoners as to the elite, thorugh rituals, taboos, laws that should be observed strictly and were so most of the times purely by fear and pressure.
this post also explains well >>16956089
in christianity the connection between god and man is completely intimate, theologically, anthropologically/culturally, there is a cessation of the latent violence and its fear and the sacrificial rites, scapegoating, etc. god became man so that man might become god

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 22:26:42 2020 No.16956305

>>16954944
Refute a single word of it.
Gnostic salvation is individual, since there is no collective guilt as in the Augustinian conception of original sin.
Nietzsche defends sensuality. He thinks ascetism is a mere tool. You can open any of his books to see that.
The content of the values Nietzsche puts forth is opposed to any caring for the weak. He's clear about that as well. The NT meanwhile values self-sacrificing love.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 22:37:26 2020 No.16956348

>>16956305
>Gnostic salvation is individual
by individual you say there is no collective one or that it is only an individual being saving itself by itself to some sort of paradise or whatever?
if the former, then all salvation is individual, if the latter, well, what is saving what to what?

>collective guilt original sin
this is the predication of our state and why we need to elevate ourselves to salvation
this original sin is different in orthodoxy

> Nietzsche puts forth is opposed to any caring for the weak
this is a contradiction to what other nietzscheans in this thread posted. this has nothing to do with caring for the weak itself.

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 22:38:28 2020 No.16956351

>>16956305
Of course asceticism is a mere tool, to be used to attain that "sensuality" with God (divorced of any libidinous or materialistic connotations).

But why is Nietzsche opposed to caring for the weak? Is this only because he is an atheist (which enables his prediction/hope for the Ubermensch)?

He says it "allows the ill-constituted to live instead of allowing them to perish, as per selection." Of course, in Christianity, there's no real "death." It's called a "sleep," where the soul is momentarily separated from the body before both are reunited, the body is resurrected, and judgement commences. For a Christian, the aim is to bring as many as possible to know God, bypassing the need for a eugenic/transhumanist utopia no one today can experience. One sacrifices oneself for others, thereby saving others and himself.

If Nietzsche's books aren't telling you what you should be, then I don't know what they're doing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:34:43 2020 No.16956664 >>16948615 dangerously based

Anonymous Sat Dec 5 23:49:06 2020 No.16956757
File: 117 KB, 800x400, Scipio-Africanus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16955587
>So it is not that the slave moralist hates the tyrant, but rather that the slave moralist perceives the tyrant as an oppressor? How does the master moralist perceive the tyrant (note that a tyrant is an oppressor by definition)?
I thought the quote I posted from Nietzsche cleared this up, but here is another one at the beginning of The Antichrist that establishes the primary difference between master and slave morality:

>What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing, that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, free from all moralic acid).

This is a depiction of master morality. Notice first that it speaks of "good" and "bad" rather than "good" and "evil." The master moralist doesn't view his enemies as agents of "evil" — as something emerging from a morally corrupt source which exists outside himself. Rather, the master moralist knows that it is himself who labels his enemies as enemies; they are enemies because they serve as obstacles for him, making their existence undesirable on a personal level only. The master moralist acknowledges perspectivism, and he is strong enough to not need to distort this business with a concept such as "evil" in order to take action confidently. The slave moralist, on the other hand, has a weak, reactionary will, and needs to use cunning to win battles, and as a result views his enemies as "evil," and designates them under the banner of a delusion called Satan, so that he can simultaneously wipe his hands clean of being vermin while also gaining the intellectual upper hand. Second, the passage talks of "not peace at any price," which is also a signature attribute of the master moralist — the master moralist is honest, and knows that all he does is for his own personal gain, therefore he knows that life comes to an end as soon as he puts his pursuit of power to an end. The slave moralist, being weak of will, suffers life instead, and wants to rest from it as often as possible, because mere living exhausts him; he sees the pursuit of power meaningless, because he is a meaningless creature in the world.

>If the master moralist wishes to become the master and construct, and the slave moralist wishes to become the master and destruct because he is full of resentment towards the tyrant, then I concede the point.
A master moralist doesn't "wish to become master," he is master on the inside — his will makes him so. He can be in prison, he will still be master. Prometheus can be chained to a rock, he is still a god. "The superior caste [...] are not at liberty to take a second place" (The Antichrist, §57).

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 00:02:34 2020 No.16956858

>>16955955
The point, that you're completely overlooking or misunderstanding, is that the master moralist doesn't condemn his enemies for being his enemies, while the slave moralist does. The slave moralist is resentful; he attacks because he is weaker and has to in order to survive. The master moralist is spiritually free, and attacks because he has more spirit / power / life in him, and he is strong enough to not need to regard his enemies as beneath him for any reason external to his own will. The master is motivated by his own will, the slave motivated by the will of the other. It IS a dichotomy, and you don't choose it any more than you get to choose what station in life that you're born into.

>>16956047
>the slave moralist overcomes the aristocrat while both denying what is "not itself" and affirming what is "itself."
Affirmation here is not masterly; it is indirect and subversive. The slave moralist is a subvert; his prerogative is not to establish domination, but to escape the clutches of those who are stronger than himself. On his own, he would live in lazy peace for the rest of his days, maybe attached to repetitive busywork to keep his mind occupied until he dies, because he suffers his own will, being that he's weak, and hides from it whenever and however he can.

>And this is where I said that one can both seek to escape oppression and establish domination.
Survival is not domination. The slave moralist is only concerned with surviving, not dominating. To dominate means to take the other under your command and shape him to your desires. To survive merely means to strive to escape being commanded and shaped. These aren't the same motivations.

>You then flip-flopped definitions (or were a different poster), telling me that "a master morality acts despite the other, while the slave moralist acts because of the other.
That isn't a flip-flop.

>In that case, then obviously Christianity's history will be filled with "inconsistencies;" it covers so many populations and time-periods- how could it not?
That's Nietzsche's point. There's too many chefs in the kitchen, and he strove to separate the wheat from the chaff, part of this effort requiring the concepts of master and slave morality to describe the different moralities at play within the religion.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 00:22:51 2020 No.16957024
File: 27 KB, 500x378, 1587046220126.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Orthodox here, can we stop larping as "orthobros" online? If you truly exercise your faith you have no need to make shitty threads like this on mongolian basket weaving forums. Please, improve yourself in your faith but dont' discredit everyone by posting cringe like this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 00:27:33 2020 No.16957064 >>16947755 Yes. He just hated protestants because his dad was one. He praises Jews, Mohammedans, and Catholics at various points.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 02:37:48 2020 No.16957787 Bump

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 06:37:22 2020 No.16958632 >>16952917 freedom is in your own mind first and foremost, and from there, your actions. this is not so black and white as ascribing values to actions and is entirely situational.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 07:52:14 2020 No.16958926 File: 226 KB, 563x651, 1603815540026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16947774 >>16947789 could it be more obvious that neither of you have read Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 09:37:18 2020 No.16959343 Lads, god is dead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 09:44:29 2020 No.16959374 >>16948615

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 09:49:26 2020 No.16959397 >>16947810 >the infamous idolatry, ritual, institutional fundamentalism, dehumanization of...orthodoxy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:04:38 2020 No.16959752 >>16951504 >>read... >No thanks. /lit/, ladies and gents

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:13:56 2020 No.16959803 Nietzsche followers are trannys

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:17:49 2020 No.16959826
File: 238 KB, 1900x1500, abortion europe map.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16947755
>>none of his critiques of Christianity apply to Orthodoxy

neo-orthofarts live in a fanttasy world. His critique of christianity not being pro strenght/aretae apply and dont apply to all forms of christianity

>yee shall know them by their WORKS

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:21:42 2020 No.16959847 Nietzsche was raised Lutheran and based his entire worldview on rebelling against his protestant parents he would then have mental breakdowns and die a silly man who cried over horses

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:21:45 2020 No.16959848 >>16949387 you're actually retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:23:01 2020 No.16959854 File: 1.25 MB, 2048x1878, 1593083148536.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16959397 Yes.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:41:18 2020 No.16959953

>>16956757
Obviously "good" and "bad" are just terms denoting what is desirable and undesirable. But I don't believe Christianity's distinction between "good" and "evil" is one that one that allows the Christian to "gain an intellectual upper hand" and "employ devious means to fight for good" (if this is what you meant by 'being vermin'). Evil is perceived as having no power of its own, as it is a separation from God; thus, evil is death. It has no "morally corrupt source" because it is not constructive; and so, we view the spiritually ill not as "agents of evil" but rather as sick individuals who need to be saved.

Furthermore, Christianity does not say "peace at any price." Does "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" ring any bells? If we are talking about wars, Christianity does not condemn wars, only petty, murderous ones.

>the slave moralist, being weak of will, suffers life instead, and wants to rest from it as often as possible
Christianity tells you to take your cross and follow Christ, the man of suffering. It is also to overcome suffering; if this is not 'master morality' enough for you I honestly couldn't be arsed to care. By the way, I didn't just now reformulate my beliefs to suit your criticisms; they were like this already.
>he sees the pursuit of power meaningless
That would be the anti-natalist/efilist; the Bible does not tell the Christian to be as such. Au contraire

>>16956858

> to describe the different moralities at play within the religion
So then it was not an attack on the religion per se, but an attack on the perceived or real elements of "slave morality" in the religion, thus invalidating the point that "Christianity is slave morality incarnate" (a rather overeager proclamation).

>Survival is not domination. The slave moralist is only concerned with surviving, not dominating
Can one be both concerned with survival and domination? You are concerned that you will not survive to enact your plans of domination

>the master moralist doesn't condemn his enemies for being his enemies, while the slave moralist does. The slave moralist is resentful
Then semantics regarding "good" or "evil" are wholly unimportant; what matters is how you approach or perceive your enemies.

How then does Christianity, in its totality, necessitate a slave morality, or "resentful approach?"
>you don't choose it any more than you get...
You don't get to choose it, but if you can identify what is "bad/evil" you can begin to change.

>the master moralist views his enemies only as obstacles to him
What's stopping a Christian from holding such a view? But these are not obstacles to be destroyed, but rather redeemed; the reason for why they are person obstacles is because they are deluded by Satan. After all, the "master moralist" surely has a reason for viewing these individuals as enemies that goes beyond them standing in the way of his "will to power." Because then, you'd ask- "what is he using his will to power for?" Why?

>

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:46:52 2020 No.16959988

>>16956757
>A master moralist doesn't "wish to become master," he is master on the inside
I was referring to the tyrant example. Besides, you yourself said that "all that enhances the feeling of power and power itself" is good in man; here, it seems, is only the "feeling of power."

But how does his will make him a "master on the inside?" How is his will manifesting itself? What is he a master over? His emotions?

>He can be in prison, he will still be a master
Over himself, of course, and I do not see any clash with this and the lives of saints/prison saints/martyrs, all of which perfectly represent Christianity and not some paradoxical thread of "master morality"

So, a 'master moralist' does not need to overcome his captors? Which takes precedence when regarding someone as a "master moralist"- power itself, or just the personal feeling of power?

Of course, in reality, peace and virtue do not weaken one, they just open up wars on other fronts (mastery of the self versus mastery of others on the 'war/efficiency' front)

>>16959854
Palpable ressentiment in this post

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:51:30 2020 No.16960018 >>16959826 Most of those countries are formerly Communist countries; really makes you think.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:55:06 2020 No.16960031 >>16952504 fear and trembling for sure, IMO

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:56:57 2020 No.16960041 >>16952702 I can tell that you're an erudite and learnèd scholar in possession of a powerful degree of Autism

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 11:57:33 2020 No.16960043 >>16960018 >really makes you think. makes you think why orthodoxy proved to be a fruitful ground for it

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:04:15 2020 No.16960079 >>16960043 Communism and abortion are severely anti-Orthodox. Correlation does not imply causation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:07:21 2020 No.16960089 >>16948615 Thus Christianity is the origin of liberalism, SJWism, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:09:19 2020 No.16960099 >>16947789 >no u >can't specify r e t a r d

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:10:02 2020 No.16960105 >>16960089 Thus living bodies are the origin of corpses, necrotic tissue and rot

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:18:06 2020 No.16960142

>>16956348
>if the former, then all salvation is individual, if the latter, well, what is saving what to what?
>this original sin is different in orthodoxy
Salvation implies the payment of sin. In Augustinianism, Christ pays on the cross for the sins of all mankind ; and all mankind bears the sin of Adam. There is a collective guilt to repay. Salvation has a collective component, it's not just related to your individual, personal actions and beliefs.
There is none of that in Gnosticism.
I know it's also different in Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy is only one sect of Christianity. I wasn't refuting that this particular disagreement of Nietzsche with Christianity didn't apply to Orthodoxy ; maybe it doesn't.
>this is a contradiction to what other nietzscheans in this thread posted. this has nothing to do with caring for the weak itself.
Other Nietzscheans in this thread are simply quote mining. The whole of Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Moral is a refutation of altruistic morality. It's so obvious I'm not really willing to debate it.

>>16956351
I think it makes a big difference the sensuality Nietzsche (partially) values is worldly, and not aimed at the supernatural goal of union with God or anything like this.
I don't know what you aim for with this post. I don't exactly disagree with you. But Nietzsche doesn't believe the God of Christians *will* realize this heaven, this afterlife, etc. So he thinks it's worthless to feed the poor and help the weak in order to grow closer to this goal. You don't need to be an atheist to come to that conclusion ; simply to disagree that there will be an afterlife of the Christian kind or that God asks of believers what the Christian God asks.
I like neither Christians nor Nietzscheans incidently, so I have no real side here.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:22:19 2020 No.16960172

>>16960142
Yes, I guess you could replace "atheist" with "non-Christian" in that case. But it's one of those philosophies you can only really accept if you accept its preconditions, one of which being "Christianity (or any such religion) is false." I wonder if Nietzsche makes any arguments against Christianity's veracity as opposed to topical characterizations

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:23:34 2020 No.16960181 >>16947789 Slave morality

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:23:59 2020 No.16960183

>>16948615
>his whole "i make my own ideals" individualism is christian, he literally would not have been born outside of a christian society. the personal commitment to the absolute and having no allegience to the world is emulating jesus
^Unironically arguing that the doctrine of absolute selflessness and submission to God is the origin of individualism

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:26:38 2020 No.16960203 >>16960183 Did he argue that individualism was made by Christianity, or that that particular brand of individualism is Christian (correlated to Christianity)?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:42:47 2020 No.16960292

>>16960172
In Antichrist, if I remember well, he mines quotes form the NT to criticize them. The only thing that looks like an argument is him saying that Jesus telling his followers some of them will not pass away before seeing the kingdom of God is an obvious lie. But I think Nietzsche in general wasn't interesting in discussing the truth of Christianity, moreso the motivations behind accepting it, its impact, and took its fading away for granted.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:51:37 2020 No.16960348

>>16960142
>payment
the atonement was not an end but a means, and the end was: deification of man.

>salvation has a collective component
the only collective component of salvation is its possibility to all, but the effectivity of it can only be between the individual man and god

>The whole of Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Moral is a refutation of altruistic morality.
Again, this whole ''refutation'' will ensure a slave mentality, it will not become a rejection out of will, but out of compulsion.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 12:52:35 2020 No.16960352
File: 863 KB, 1526x2339, 91930Y12doL[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Borrowing this thread to ask something not worthy of its own thread:
Is The Gay Science/Joyous Science a good place to start?
Also, has anybody read this translation (R. Kevin Hill)? I picked it up at the local bookstore on a whim but forgot to check about the translation. Translator uses research from Montinari & Colli which seems to be respected, but everybody else recommends Kaufman, so I don't know if I should return it

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:00:08 2020 No.16960388

>>16960292
Yes, I see his "quote mining;" he mostly offers no arguments against the quotes, but attempts to say that 1 Corinthians 1:20 and on are "resentful" and hate what is "noble," but in truth they point to a nobility beyond the material, which is truly everlasting and self-sufficient, for God, being the source of all life and power, bestows power to His followers that "intelligence" or "might" cannot.

Or that "priests desire war" and "hate science" because war keeps man "miserable" and "religious" and science makes man "equal to God." But didn't he also say that the slave moralist desires "peace at all costs?" Of course, this is all an attack on a certain type of person, not really a Christian exemplar.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:04:38 2020 No.16960428

>>16959953
>and so, we view the spiritually ill not as "agents of evil" but rather as sick individuals who need to be saved.
Who is "we"? There are many Christian denominations, all based on different interpretations of the bible. Again, the religion has a long, complicated history, with both master and slave moralities at play within it.

>Furthermore, Christianity does not say "peace at any price." Does "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" ring any bells?
Does that statement advocate imperialism and destruction, and absolve the concept of God from judgment? If not, it doesn't represent master morality. The master moralist doesn't need an external God as a judge, he is his own god and judge; and if any representative of Christianity doesn't refer to an external God in his usage of the concept, then he is one of the aforementioned master moralists who was forced to adopt the religion and isn't the subject of Nietzsche's criticism.

>Christianity tells you to take your cross and follow Christ, the man of suffering. It is also to overcome suffering; if this is not 'master morality' enough for you I honestly couldn't be arsed to care.
It's not master morality at all. Are you even paying attention to what's being said to you?

>That would be the anti-natalist/efilist
That would be the last man, who is anyone who has reached a point of exhaustion and wants happiness more than power.

>So then it was not an attack on the religion per se, but an attack on the perceived or real elements of "slave morality" in the religion, thus invalidating the point that "Christianity is slave morality incarnate"
Yes to the former, no to the invalidation part, since the word "Christianity" is referring to the slave morality of Paul that warped Jesus's new religion and got the ball rolling in the first place.

>Can one be both concerned with survival and domination?
Are you really going to ask this again? The will is either actively affirming itself (i.e. concerned with dominating) or it is reactively affirming itself because it has been forced to by another (i.e. concerned with survival). So the answer is no.

>Then semantics regarding "good" or "evil" are wholly unimportant; what matters is how you approach or perceive your enemies.
They're related. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it's unimportant.

>How then does Christianity, in its totality, necessitate a slave morality, or "resentful approach?"
It's been explained already. Sentiments like Satan are an expression of slave morality that exist within the religion.

>After all, the "master moralist" surely has a reason for viewing these individuals as enemies that goes beyond them standing in the way of his "will to power."
No, that is the only reason. The master moralist is his own meaning; he doesn't require it from anything external.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:05:44 2020 No.16960437 File: 9 KB, 253x199, two fighting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16947774 >>16947789 For God's sake just read either Nietzsche or Orthodox theology instead of arguing on an imageboard about things you know nothing about

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:33:23 2020 No.16960604

>>16960428
>Who is "we"?
Orthodox Christians, based on my elementary knowledge

>Does that statement advocate imperialism and destruction
No, and God would still remain the judge; of course, this is only possible in a world where God exists. But it doesn't matter that "God's will is done" by the ruler, if allying yourself with God's will is allying yourself with the ultimate power.

>he is his own god and judge
As we all are; God will not judge you here on earth, so you must learn to judge your actions in accordance with their salvific effect on yourself and others (if this is what you desire).

>t's not master morality at all. Are you even paying attention to what's being said to you?
Why should I care if it is not "master morality" to a T?

>That would be the last man, who is anyone who has reached a point of exhaustion and wants happiness more than power.
Isn't power equivalent to happiness? I think what you mean is the man who favors a safe happiness over a dangerous freedom; both states bring pleasure. An efilist is surely exhausted of life, but believes happiness is unattainable so he seeks to stop life; of course, this is impossible, so he just tries to live the most pleasant life he can, like most other "last men."

>yes to the former, no to the invalidation part, since the word "Christianity" is referring to the slave morality of Paul that warped Jesus's new religion and got the ball rolling in the first place.
If you care to argue in this thread, could you present Nietzsche's arguments for why Paul represents "slave morality?" I have the Antichrist but I don't want to argue with dead pages, I want to argue with someone who can respond.

>Are you really going to ask this again?
I just ask it because I don't understand how they are mutually exclusive. A man can have both reactive and active wills simultaneously; you can be concerned with survival so that you can carry out your plan to dominate (unless this is just master morality).

>They're related
Because it's up to the Christian or anti-Christian to give meaning to words such as "good" or "evil." "Evil" can be seen as "bad," or "misguided."

>No, that is the only reason. The master moralist is his own meaning; he doesn't require it from anything external.
Are there any real life examples of "master moralists?" How can one's "will to power" be completely internal if it is always created by external influences? Or do you mean that the master moralist only acts not because of others but because of his own goal? What creates the master moralist's goal?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 13:40:53 2020 No.16960657

>>16960428
Wouldn't anti-Christianity be slave morality, because it is overly preoccupied with subjugating an enemy instead of realizing your own goals (with Christianity only as a roadblock)?

>Does that statement advocate imperialism and destruction, and absolve the concept of God from judgment?
Rather, it meant that his teaching will not bring peace but rather strife. It wouldn't justify any action because not every action is in accordance with his teaching.

>he is his own god and judge
On what standards does he judge himself? How efficient his actions are? How much they contribute to his "will to power?" But what goal is his will directed towards, and why?

And why should I care if certain ideas are "slave morality" simply because they do not entail that my will must always be done? According to Christianity, only the will to God would be desirable (or good), all others would be bad, or evil, or whatever word you wish to use

>>16960437
He's waiting

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 14:15:43 2020 No.16960874

>>16960604
>But it doesn't matter that "God's will is done" by the ruler, if allying yourself with God's will is allying yourself with the ultimate power.
It does matter given what master vs. slave morality means. I repeat, the master moralist doesn't need an external God for meaning — he is his own meaning. He acts with moral indifference towards the external.

>Why should I care if it is not "master morality" to a T?
lol... so the answer is no, you aren't paying attention to what's being said to you.

>Isn't power equivalent to happiness?
There's the master moralist's happiness and the slave moralist's happiness. The master moralist's happiness is indeed the feeling of power increasing, as Nietzsche wrote. The slave moralist's happiness, however, would be described as something along the lines of "the feeling of the absence of the other's power" — in other words, the slave obtains it upon achieving a sort of deadlock / stasis with his environment.

>If you care to argue in this thread, could you present Nietzsche's arguments for why Paul represents "slave morality?" I have the Antichrist but I don't want to argue with dead pages, I want to argue with someone who can respond.
If you have the Antichrist then you don't need me to argue it, the arguments are in that book. Besides, I've already thoroughly explained to you what the differences are between master and slave morality.

>I just ask it because I don't understand how they are mutually exclusive.
Then I'm not sure what else to tell you. These concepts are meant to refer to two distinct polarities in morality where the central source, the primary context, is either coming from within or from without. Either one's morals are primarily formed by one's abundance of energy and (morally indifferent to the external) desire to dominate the other, or one's morals are formed by one's oppression and (morally obligated to the external) desire to escape the other's imminent domination. Think of the difference as male and female: a sexually healthy male represents master morality, while a sexually healthy female represents slave morality.

>"Evil" can be seen as "bad," or "misguided."
Or it can be as "coming from the devil" which is what is being referred to.

>>16960657
>Wouldn't anti-Christianity be slave morality, because it is overly preoccupied with subjugating an enemy instead of realizing your own goals (with Christianity only as a roadblock)?
No, because resistance itself doesn't equate to slave morality. Master moralists must resist others at times as well, but mere survival and an escape from conflict is not why they do it. They love conflict and want more of it; they impose more of it on themselves even during peacetime.

>Are there any real life examples of "master moralists?"
I posted a quote that expressed master morality rather well by Scipio Africanus. Nietzsche's hyperboreans would be examples. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Caesar, Voltaire, Machiavelli, Borgia, others...

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 14:20:16 2020 No.16960904

>>16960604
>How can one's "will to power" be completely internal if it is always created by external influences?
We're talking about morality, not one's will to power. All morality is ultimately created from one's will to power; however, when one's will to power is weak and sick, then the primary context for one's morality becomes the other, healthier wills surrounding him.

>Or do you mean that the master moralist only acts not because of others but because of his own goal? What creates the master moralist's goal?
Yes. Himself.

>Rather, it meant that his teaching will not bring peace but rather strife.
It depends on the nature and the goal of this strife that determines whether it's an expression of master or slave morality.

>On what standards does he judge himself?
His own, or perhaps his love.

>And why should I care if certain ideas are "slave morality" simply because they do not entail that my will must always be done?
Do you want to understand yourself better? If yes, then you should care.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 14:36:54 2020 No.16961025

>>16960874
>he is his own meaning
Nothing is wholly internal. "He" is not his own meaning as much as he thinks, because he is still a denizen of this world and must effect a change in it and himself.

>The master moralist's happiness is indeed the feeling of power increasing
Does Christianity not propose such a happiness? This is why I asked why I should care if it is not your definition of master morality to a T. Christianity does lead to such a happiness, but the meaning it provides is external, or from God; however, you choose to adopt this meaning, so it is internal.

>morally indifferent to the external
>morally obligated to the external
I guess this is from where my misunderstanding stems; I don't view anyone as truly indifferent to the external, even the master moralist.

>but mere survival and an escape from conflict is not why they do it
>they impose more of it on themselves even during peacetime
Would asceticism or an attempt to gain self-mastery be a "conflict?" Would conflict include argument, or only physical battles/conquests? After all, there is conflict, even in peacetime, but on a different front.

>Nietzsche's hyperboreans would be examples. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Caesar, Voltaire, Machiavelli, Borgia, others...
And so, all of these individuals formed their morals from where? Morals don't spring like Athena from one's head or "abundance of energy;" surely these individuals only create those morals that would justify their will to power, which is really just a will to happiness. So, where would Christianity's will for salvation of oneself and others fall in this paradigm? Does the master moralist want only to increase his own power, or also the power of his fellow men (as men like Napoleon surely did)?

You say that the master moralist is his own god and judge because he does what he believes will bring him power. I say that God is the ultimate god and judge because he knows what will bring us true and everlasting power (vitality), so by following him we would be attaining true, profound power through mastery of self and then others. This mastery would be for a purpose, just as individuals such as Napoleon had purposes beyond "my will to dominate others and myself." The will to dominate others and yourself for what? It's just a dog returning to its vomit, circular nonsense; I want to dominate others because I want to dominate others.

>Or it can be as "coming from the devil" which is what is being referred to.
It does not "come from the devil" because that would imply some creative power on his part. Caused by him, perhaps, as he was the first rebel against God, and thus the first to die and a perfect slave moralist because he, knowing his position, wants us to share his same deathly fate.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 14:48:36 2020 No.16961113

>We're talking about morality, not one's will to power
So one's will to power is external, and one's morality is internal in that it justifies the manifestation of one's will to power.

>His own, or perhaps his love
So I can choose to be Christian and still be a master moralist because it is a manifestation of my will to power, and whatever is moral to me is whatever furthers this. In that case, God's moral laws are more pragmatic than moral because they tell one how to best further this will to power, just as one might read Machiavelli to further one's ability to dominate/understand others. You are dominating them by changing their mind, but in times of war it could also be a physical domination.

Of course, someone said previously ITT that it would be paradoxical because "Christianity is slave morality incarnate," but I have not seen this thus far with regards to Christianity's main goal and not whatever excerpt from the epistle to the Corinthians or whatever they like to extract and say represents slave morality

>It depends on the nature and the goal of this strife that determines whether it's an expression of master or slave morality.

If the strife caused is one that subjugates the noble out of resentment of their material prowess, then that would be slave morality. If the strife caused brings one and those around him closer to a constructive power (rather than depriving them of power), that would be master morality.

Am I correct in my assessment?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:18:10 2020 No.16961338

>>16961025
>"He" is not his own meaning as much as he thinks
And God is not the slave moralist's meaning as much as he thinks. This changes nothing for either of them.

>Does Christianity not propose such a happiness?
It has the same function, but it doesn't propose it, which is the essence of the slave moralist. He's a paradoxical creature possessed by doublethink, so when he refers to his own will to power, he expresses it as "God's will." He feels an increase in his own will to power when he "follows God." This is doublethink.

>Christianity does lead to such a happiness, but the meaning it provides is external, or from God
It doesn't "provide" this meaning, it warps meaning (which is always created internally) so that it appears created externally.

>I don't view anyone as truly indifferent to the external, even the master moralist.
Likewise, I (and Nietzsche) don't view anyone as truly deriving meaning from anything external, even the slave moralist.

>Would asceticism or an attempt to gain self-mastery be a "conflict?"
Not if the asceticism in question is done in an effort to reduce inner conflict, like sexual frustrations.

>Would conflict include argument, or only physical battles/conquests?
Yes, it would include argument. Nietzsche considered the dialectic of Socrates to be an expression of Greek agon / their culture's love for competition and game. But what do you ultimately argue for? That's what determines whether it's master or slave morality.

>And so, all of these individuals formed their morals from where? Morals don't spring like Athena from one's head or "abundance of energy;"
Their own local quantum of power, and yes they do. That's how will to power operates. The moral, aesthetic and ethical emerge from the local quantum of power that one is interacting with the environment (both the local quantum and the environment being polarities, feelings, of the will to power), and the master moralist is he whose local quantum of power is strong enough to feel the environment as an extension of itself, while the slave moralist is he whose local quantum of power is weak enough to feel himself as an extension of the environment. What is felt as "environment" is an expression of the will — it doesn't simply mean "what's outside ourselves." The master moralist in perfect form doesn't feel an outside to himself, while the slave in perfect form feels everything (even himself) outside himself. If this seems perplexing, don't worry — the greatest scientists of the 20th century also struggled with very similar notions as these in the field of quantum physics.

>Does the master moralist want only to increase his own power, or also the power of his fellow men (as men like Napoleon surely did)?
The former, which extends into the latter. But the former is the primary motive, much like for Napoleon.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:26:23 2020 No.16961406

>>16961025
>>16961113
>You say that the master moralist is his own god and judge because he does what he believes will bring him power. I say that God is the ultimate god and judge because he knows what will bring us true and everlasting power (vitality), so by following him we would be attaining true, profound power through mastery of self and then others.
And this makes you a slave moralist for the reasons I've explained.

>The will to dominate others and yourself for what?
This is only a question a slave moralist would care about. It's an incident of life becoming sick, feeling ill will towards itself, and then asking itself, "why bother?" Life itself is will to power, so to question the value of the will to power means to be a sick, decadent local form of it.

>It does not "come from the devil" because that would imply some creative power on his part.
Take this up with your Christian brothers who say things like "the Devil's work" then. Regardless, any meaning felt as coming from the external rather than the internal is slave morality.

>So one's will to power is external, and one's morality is internal in that it justifies the manifestation of one's will to power.
No. See my post above.

>So I can choose to be Christian and still be a master moralist because it is a manifestation of my will to power, and whatever is moral to me is whatever furthers this.
A master moralist can choose to wear the mask of Christianity to further obtain power. Christianity is a mere mask for him; when he says "God's moral laws" he feels only his own and speaks such phrases as a lie. The slave moralist doesn't feel it as a lie though, and truly does feel that the meaning of life comes from this God who is external to himself.

>If the strife caused is one that subjugates the noble out of resentment of their material prowess, then that would be slave morality. If the strife caused brings one and those around him closer to a constructive power (rather than depriving them of power), that would be master morality.
No, no need to shoddily rephrase what I've already said in this manner.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:31:03 2020 No.16961433

>>16961406
Another anon here, but: only Christianity can be something alike to this ''ubermensch'' ''master'' ideal. It is only through Christ that there is union between Divinity and humanity. End of story. If you think that there is anything higher than becoming one with God, it is peak resentment and slavish/devilish obfuscation. And this obfuscation is the ''devil's work'', this is slavish mentality to your own individual inclinations, habits and separation from the highest goal: God.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:35:23 2020 No.16961460

>>16961433
>Another anon here, but: only Christianity can be something alike to this ''ubermensch'' ''master'' ideal. It is only through Christ that there is union between Divinity and humanity.
The ubermensch is not divine. He's just a supreme organism; supreme in that he embodies evolution (will to power) in the purest and greatest capacity. He has no need for an external God for that, and he doesn't even feel that such a thing exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:35:52 2020 No.16961467 >>16960183 Yes. If you get it, you get it. If you don't, you don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 15:38:55 2020 No.16961491 >>16960352 Bumping this, else I'll just make my own thread about it

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:11:05 2020 No.16961721 >>16961460 There is no external divinity. Evolution is a recursion to the very Source. You can only deny these things botching reality to fit your own individual inclinations, this is slave mentality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:27:24 2020 No.16961867 File: 94 KB, 625x500, 1604360067301.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16956093 NEVER!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:31:15 2020 No.16961904 >>16961721 >There is no external divinity. Agreed. >Evolution is a recursion to the very Source. The only "source" is will to power, which is not a "source" but a force. Evolution is another term for it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:34:05 2020 No.16961943

>>16956757
>The master moralist doesn't view his enemies as agents of "evil" — as something emerging from a morally corrupt source which exists outside himself.

i think this thinking is the norm between people who are secular and not emotionally driven, am i right? or at least the ones who are both but also ambitious since the higher the goal, the higher the number of obstacles you´ll encounter

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:36:40 2020 No.16961962 >>16961904 >Agreed Yes, Divinity is neither here nor there, it can't be located spatially. >The only source is will to power I mean, the Source IS also Its Will and Power to create and bring everything back to It.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:42:03 2020 No.16962014 File: 13 KB, 236x363, f897048e299ece14fbdc14add4916d20.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16948615 >literally a boot licker

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:49:40 2020 No.16962096 >>16961962 What is meant by divinity here? I don't know what the point you're trying to make in the conversation is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:52:51 2020 No.16962124 >>16962096 Try reading all my posts again and concatenate everything said.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 16:54:38 2020 No.16962143 >>16962124 You mean starting here? >>16961433 you haven't said much, and you definitely haven't said enough to make "divinity" understandable.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 17:44:30 2020 No.16962623

>>16961406
>>16961338
>the will to dominate others and yourself for what?
I am not asking "why bother," you are very quick to shoehorn me into your paradigm. I am asking "for what," or "for what reason?" I only asked for specificity; what are you using your will to power for? I am not questioning its value, I am questioning its direction. If you are using the will to power for the attainment of more power, then I would say that you are actually powerless; if you are using your will to power for something other than that, and that is slave morality and not master morality, why should I care? Why should we be one or the other? This dichotomy only has power if you accept that "God is dead," which is not a given.

I say that you are powerless because your view of the world as an extension of yourself could very well be a delusion born of insecurity (feelings of powerlessness) and because your attainment of power in this world is barely momentary and thus is no power at all. That is, unless the master moralist is a transhuman who also "conquers death," but even that is not guaranteed to last.

A man is not born a master or slave moralist, he becomes one. And your arguments give me no indication that it is unhealthy for one to be a slave moralist, only that there are men who are "master moralists" and men who are "slave moralists," and when either are taken to excess there are unhealthy consequences.

There is a distinction between Kraft and Macht, no? This is why I ask, what is the Kraft? You do whatever is necessary to obtain further power, but for what creative reason? I understand that you think gaining power is gaining vitality, and thus questioning the gaining of power is miraculously identified with decadence (when this is a sophomoric psychoanalysis likely born out of resentment), but I disagree with the idea that you are gaining vitality by gaining power. Only in Christianity would one truly gain vitality and power, reasons for believing in it be damned (because once again, Nietzsche's promotion of 'master morality's' self-created morals and exercise of will to power is only possible in a Godless world)

And so, you haven't once addressed my point against this, which is that, in a Christian view, this has no legs to stand on. You replace Life with God, but there is no life outside of God; God Himself is will to power, so you must become one with God to attain power.

This is why I have continuously asked "why does it matter that there exists some strand of slave morality in my thought?" Where are all of your Napoleons and Scipio Africanuses? And why is it that none of what you've said thus far is a refutation, only cheap psychologizing to the point that you have to concede that Christianity is "doublethink" (more complicated than 'mere slave morality' or 'mere master morality').

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 17:47:08 2020 No.16962647

>>16947755
Nietzche's seething against Christianity is all explainable in terms of a personal abreaction he had with it growing up. As a youth he actually had plans to become a Lutheran pastor like his father, but ended up forcefully rejecting the idea.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:02:59 2020 No.16962773 >>16962623 Even if God were real, I would reject him. Like the parable of the Grand Inquisitor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:05:26 2020 No.16962792 >>16962773 And you would do this out of ressentiment, because you are a slave moralist par excellence, but not necessarily according to Nietzsche's autistic calibrations

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:10:55 2020 No.16962843

>>16962623
>If you are using the will to power for the attainment of more power, then I would say that you are actually powerless
How is that powerless? It's merely being honest.

>if you are using your will to power for something other than that, and that is slave morality and not master morality, why should I care?
Better self-knowledge, as I said, which in turn also means better knowledge of the other too.

>Why should we be one or the other?
It's not a matter of should or should not. You are or you aren't.

>This dichotomy only has power if you accept that "God is dead," which is not a given.
It is a given for us.

>I say that you are powerless because your view of the world as an extension of yourself could very well be a delusion born of insecurity (feelings of powerlessness) and because your attainment of power in this world is barely momentary and thus is no power at all.
All is "delusion" so this doesn't change anything. It's merely how you feel about it, which indicates what local quantum of power you are.

>And your arguments give me no indication that it is unhealthy for one to be a slave moralist, only that there are men who are "master moralists" and men who are "slave moralists," and when either are taken to excess there are unhealthy consequences.
It is "healthy" for a slave moralist to possess slave morality. At no point have I or Nietzsche advocated for slave moralists to adopt master morality. However, from the master moralist's view, the slave moralist is "sick."

>You do whatever is necessary to obtain further power, but for what creative reason?
What is God's creative reason? Is God not the answer to that question? Why would God even entertain that question? As if there was even a situation where he could not create. This is how pointless the question is to the master moralist as well.

>Only in Christianity would one truly gain vitality and power, reasons for believing in it be damned
Christianity as slave revolt does not lead to any gain of power except for the slaves. Though, master moralists have certainly utilized the religion for better understanding themselves and obtaining more power through this self-knowledge throughout history.

>in a Christian view, this has no legs to stand on.
Of course it doesn't. The Christian i.e. slave view is the opposite of mine or Nietzsche's. Not once has anything written here been expressed as if it was fact.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:14:05 2020 No.16962875

>>16962792
Not true, not out of resentment, but out of desire for conquest. If God were real we should kill him, usurp his throne, and keep expanding our power, ever forward and ever onward. "Man is something that is to be surpassed. What
have ye done to surpass man?"

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:14:47 2020 No.16962882

>>16962623
>>16962843
Also, the slave moralist doesn't "use the will to power for something other than more power." The slave moralist is also striving for power and power alone, but his sense of power comes from the negation of the other. The slave moralist is negation, much like your evil as "separation from God."

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:25:03 2020 No.16962992

>>16962843
>How is that powerless? It's merely being honest.
Not you, but one who uses the will to power for merely having more power.

I see a general trend here, that truthfulness = slave morality; when one says that the following is impossible:

>the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not—or scarcely—out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the superabundance of power

One is called a slave moralist who tries to besmirch "all that is noble." But no one gives from an "impulse generated by power," one gives for a concrete reason. You give out of pity, or you give to flaunt your wealth, or you give out of duty, or whatever. You are enabled to give by your power, but power alone does not push you to give. No one is so "impulsive" and deadheaded.

>It is a given for us.
Then keep your diseased interpretations to you and your fellows

>Better self-knowledge, as I said, which in turn also means better knowledge of the other too.
>you are or you aren't
I disagree; it leads to the delusion that you have better knowledge; usually it is a fevered calumny born out of resentment in order to justify some spiritual lack or devitalized apathy towards such.

>all is "delusion" so this doesn't change anything
It's not so much that all is delusion as why you created this delusion, which ties in to my point that it is created from a feeling of insecurity, and thus resentment. By the way, you can adopt a "slave" or "master" way of thinking; one is not irrevocably born and groomed to be one or the other.

>It is "healthy" for a slave moralist to possess slave morality
And from the slave moralist's point of view, the master moralist's view is also sick, no? He is viewed as despicable, or secretly hypocritical, and he may as well be. In other words, if your arguments have no moral import, then why argue? "I believe Christianity is X. It is healthy for X to be X." Very well, you have an idea; let us see if reality vindicates it.

>What is God's creative reason? Is God not the answer to that question?
I could argue that His reasons are incomprehensible, or he simply wanted to create a race of beings that can enjoy communion with Him. I do not propose that God is a mindless formula that churns out humans by coeternal necessity, or that He doesn't think.

>Christianity as slave revolt does not lead to any gain of power except for the slaves
I don't care about what Christians have done in the past, I care about what Christianity itself prescribes. It actually has led to a gain of power because it allows for consolidation and thus dominance of the pagan world, creation of great empires, colonies, etcetera; but more importantly, it has led to a gain of power for all people, slaves and masters, in God.

>Of course it doesn't. The Christian i.e. slave view is the opposite of mine or Nietzsche's
Very well; your view i.e. the sickly view is the opposite of mine. You are sick, and try to give me the impression that you even know your sickness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:26:17 2020 No.16963001 >>16960181 lol I guess virtue is slave morality as well?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:34:11 2020 No.16963073

>>16962875
Yes, but if you are a creation of God you play under God's rules; you are a creation created to be in communion with God, and to return to God as you are fallen. You have a will to anything because you are fallen; when you are with God, you have attained the object of your desire.

And yes, you are doing it out of resentment, because God frustrates your ability to "kill Him and usurp His throne" (aside from the fact that this is an illogical and teenage idea), and this naturally leads to a surfacing of the resentment (rather than love of the fate God made for you) latent in God-deniers.

I disagree with the idea that we are not "expanding power ever forward" by returning to God. Rather, we have already achieved eternity, and thus have attained something equivalent to an "eternal expansion."

Man is being surpassed, every day. And by surpassing man, man truly becomes a man.

>>16962882
Yes; his will to power is a will to the destruction of others who are noble and have power because he is a spiteful and envious creature, much like those who despise and slander holy men for expressing a power that transcends the material dimension.

Everywhere around me I see the interplay between affirmation and negation; it is always easier to negate than to affirm, to make fun of than to create. Of course, constant negation leaves you with little of your own, and the affirmer needs only to ignore you and pursue his own will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:35:45 2020 No.16963089 In short, it doesn't matter specifically what Nietzsche considers "master morality" because "master morality" does what it does in a Godless world. In the real world, a "master moralist" looks different

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:39:00 2020 No.16963109 >>16963001 Compared to Machiavelli's virtù it is

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:42:45 2020 No.16963141

>>16962773
>>16962843
>>16962875
This has always been a thing in God's creation. As angels can't be purely evil, they can only fall and sin in a desire to get closer, the closest possible, resembling the most (since God is not in a place to be nearer or farther, and closeness to God can only be through resemblance), to God. This is what underlies the philosophy of Amaleks. They tried to reach the utmost holiness by disobeying and fighting against God. This was likewise the intention of the builders of the Tower of Babel. It is the very will and power given by God seeking stronger will and more power. It is a desire to holiness, to become God. But affirming the individual will to the detriment of The Will par excllence, Power itself that dispenses power to others, is the obscuration, utter darkness of this Power/Will/Light of all things and the ultimate separation from God and His Will. You can only become God in Christ. All the rest is cope.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:51:07 2020 No.16963212
File: 42 KB, 850x400, quote-if-anyone-could-prove-to-me-that-christ-is-outside-the-truth-and-if-the-truth-really-did-exclude-fyodor-dostoevsky-224966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16963141
Yes, you cannot become God against God, you can only become God through God. If you oppose the wave, you are crushed into the surf. If you rush headlong with the wave, you become a part of its power.

This is why I said that "power in the mind" or seeing everything as proceeding from you is delusion; you did not create yourself. You cannot even prevent your own death; you have no real power on your own, but with God, you have power. What would be called "evil" or "despicable" is never power, because it sets you at odds with God, and kills your vitality. Who is to say that the laws God has given us are not to refine our underlying forces, that we may return to him, while all of the vain philosophies of this world are the absurd analyses and codes that lead us astray from true power and life?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:54:31 2020 No.16963236 >>16963212 >you have no real power on your own Exactly, they think they can use their own will, given and willed by God, against God when this means using God's own Will against God's Will.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:56:09 2020 No.16963247

>>16963073
>You have a will to anything because you are fallen; when you are with God, you have attained the object of your desire...rather than love of the fate God made for you

This is why Christianity is life-denying.
I do not want to attain my desires or accept fate, I want to struggle, and to emerge.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 18:59:05 2020 No.16963261 >>16963247 I'm sure that affirming God's Will is the most life-affirming instance you can ever find, mate. In the end struggling for transient, secondary things is struggling for that darkness covering life and what sustains it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:00:58 2020 No.16963276

>>16963212

>You cannot even prevent your own death; you have no real power on your own, but with God, you have power

I cannot prevent my own death, but I can contribute to something which I myself chose to strive for, on my own conditions. With God I would be a slave. By not choosing God, I have made myself free, and helped set the stage for the usurpation of the future, which will be an effect amongst others of my will, instead of being subjected to the will of the great tyrant.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:02:31 2020 No.16963287

>>16963247
Doesn't Nietzsche promote amor fati? You are a fool, who struggles against life and allies himself with Satan, who takes you with him to death. Why don't you struggle against Satan, as well? Why only God? Because you resent power, that is why; there is no reason to despise the powerless devil, but even he has more power than you, and so he deceives you.

You want to struggle? You'll have plenty of opportunity to do so as a Christian. But struggle is a means to an end, and struggle exists only because we are men; thus, to ally yourself with eternal struggle against God is to ally yourself with death. Thus, you are devitalized and despicable, and are a slave moralist because you struggle but only to deprive the other of power, and even then you gain nothing- no power, no vitality.

In short, not all struggles are made equal.

>>16963236
They are not even true strugglers, for they can not even struggle to accept fate.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:03:06 2020 No.16963294

>>16962992
>It actually has led to a gain of power because it allows for consolidation and thus dominance of the pagan world, creation of great empires, colonies, etcetera; but more importantly, it has led to a gain of power for all people, slaves and masters, in God.
This is accurate, because through Christianity we have come to understand the ubermensch (whom the slaves refer to as God) better. And yet, the Christians don't actually like God, as shown by their rejection of Nietzsche's philosophy, which in itself shows how they are merely slave moralists who resent life. Such is their plight.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:04:10 2020 No.16963301 >>16963276 God wants you to have a free will even to reject Him. Are you a slave to God? God determines you to die. Are you a slave to God if you die? Again, there is only one Will, and everything you do will be in accord to It.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:05:42 2020 No.16963308 >>16963287 >they don't accept fate >affirming God's Will are you retarded?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:11:50 2020 No.16963355

>>16963276
>With God I would be a slave
I chose God on my own conditions, and I

>By not choosing God, I have made myself free
Only the truth will set you free; you are not even free, you are a slave to death. And so you slave against God, wishing to overcome Him, the tyrant, when you are but a finite man, not even fit to replace God.

>instead of being subjected to the will of the great tyrant
God is not a tyrant because He wishes not for the sinner to die but to be saved. In other words, He wishes a return to equilibrium; the only way you can rebel against God is to oppose yourself to Him and preserve this disequilibrium, but you can never overcome God with daddy issues or anything else.

And so, by rebelling against God, you have chosen your fate. As I have said time and time again, all men have the will to return to God; your will is not as much your own as you believe. Your will is to return to God, but you have perverted it by turning rebellion against that which you should be striving towards, rather than the devil that wants you to share his deathly fate.

These fellows always rail against Christianity, saying it is egalitarian; but Heaven has a hierarchy, and we can never be God. To oppose God is like opposing sudden death by killing yourself. You oppose what you see as a tyrant by enslaving yourself to a true tyrant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:13:59 2020 No.16963374 >>16963287 >>16963308 oh sorry I think I confounded you with the nietzschean interlocutors. I thought your ''they are not true strugglers'' meant to be they (christians).

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:14:57 2020 No.16963385 >>16963301 That's Predestination. Are you Calvinist?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:19:50 2020 No.16963424

>>16963294
>and yet the Christians don't actually like God because they reject Nietzsche's conception of the Ubermensch
They reject the idea that we can become the Ubermensch; and so, they really despise Nietzsche's "god," not the God that is. We resent life? How so? Life does not end after death; there is nothing we resent, for we must bear our cross and not suffer through this life but affirm God in everything, and endure what others could not with noblesse. Of course, this is but an ideal.

>>16963308
Yes, they do not accept their intended fate (to return to God), not their fate as in "whatever happens to them." "Whatever happens to them" happens according to God's will, if He is omnipotent, so everything they do affirms God's will. That aside, it is vital to accept your fate as a human who cannot be God, and deathly to erect yourself, not even a Machiavelli or Napoleon, as an opponent to God.

How will your "eternal struggle" manifest itself? What do you struggle against? Everything. For what? Struggle itself. Man lives to struggle, but struggle has an end; we do not rejoice at this cessation of struggle, we merely accept our laurel and return to God at life's end. There are even those who pray to God to give them challenges, and not to ease their life. As I have said, this is just an ideal.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:20:32 2020 No.16963431

>>16963385
Speaking of predestination and free will in absolute terms is lunacy. We can only affirm predestination according to the point of view of God. Everything will always be according to God's Will, He imposes an order and we move from ourselves within this order. Any move I make involves immediately a ''reaction'' on God's part. Creation reaches its goal through my free will and actions.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:23:36 2020 No.16963462

>>16963287
>Doesn't Nietzsche promote amor fati?

He does, but it's as a tool for accepting reality, similary to eternal recurrence. I Amor fati is a calling to take up the burden of becoming who you can become, to struggle to ascend. It is not a suggestion to accept your lot in life like a beggar. n any case, Nietzsche is not univariant. As he himself writes in Ecce Homo, there are always at least two divergent and opposed strands of thought in his writing.

>But struggle is a means to an end

Struggle is the end itself. Until it is not, when the Übermensch is achieved.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:23:38 2020 No.16963464

>>16963385
All die; that's what he meant by "God determines that you die." But in Orthodox theology death is viewed not as something made by God but as the consequence of Adam's sin.

These fools are like gladiators who try to fight the guards and kill the Emperor; they are the ones who fling themselves against the spears of the guards. They commit spiritual suicide, thumbing their nose at God because they cannot be Him. And they know they do this, or if they do not know they would remain unabashed and firm in their foolishness. In other words, it's foolishness and an idolatry of struggle, when struggle is just a means to an end.

Resentment par excellence

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:25:35 2020 No.16963480 >>16963431 Either there's free will or there isn't. You can't say I have free will, but then say when I reject God that it was God's will that I rejected him anyways. Either I choose, or God chooses.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:32:34 2020 No.16963533

>>16963462
>Struggle is the end itself. Until it is not, when the Übermensch is achieved.
So struggle is not really the end, it is a means for attaining the Ubermensch AKA God. Of course, amor fati is then not much because it's just you struggling to ascend; but anyone can struggle to ascend, unworthy as they are, slavish or noble alike.

>it is not a suggestion to accept your lot in life like a beggar
And yet Nietzsche rails against pessimism and misanthropy, no? These are people who do not accept their lot in life; he is situated on the diametrical opposite: he does not accept his "lot" in life not by destroying life but by transcending life. Of course, the only way to "become who you can become" and ascend is through God. Man is created for this purpose; to create a purpose divergent from God for yourself is the spiritual equivalent of sodomy- you pour all of your struggle into a fruitless endeavor. However, you reap what you sow.

In other words, you are just transhumanists who cannot "accept your lot in life" unless you are a king, or some self-made god. But if you are a beggar, you cannot accept your position in life; no, you are too important for this. And this is why you are resentful of your master

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:33:06 2020 No.16963541

>>16963424
>They reject the idea that we can become the Ubermensch
They reject it because they don't actually want such a being to exist at any point in time. They don't actually want God. God must lie in the "beyond" and stay there for them to care. Imagine if God from the Bible actually existed, and openly communicated with everyone; they would almost immediately stop being Christians because it would ruin the whole point for them (to have a tool based on language manipulation for usurping power in society for themselves) or they would show their true colors and grovel for mercy because they know they are insufferable, pathetic creatures who deserve to be smitten.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:40:01 2020 No.16963576 >>16963385 Predestination is Catholic doctrine, you midwit. God elects the saved, although not the damned.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:40:56 2020 No.16963581
File: 1.63 MB, 1596x5664, 1603632140740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16963480
It is not that God chooses, but God allows. You have the ability to choose God or to not choose God; it is God's will to allow you to choose whichever. If it is also God's will to eventually save the damned or not, I cannot say.

But just look at you. Evaluate yourself. Is this the kind of man that can challenge his maker? Not in his mind or fantasies, but in reality. Is this the kind of man that will set the foundation for the Ubermensch? Are you a fit forefather for a challenger to God?

In all likelihood, you are nothing of the sort, and you only have a misplaced will. If you are displeased with life, and cannot bring yourself to bear your "lot," which is life, then you must learn to be pleased with death, and struggle to kill yourself.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:49:15 2020 No.16963634

>>16963533
The only way to escape our lot is to ascend and conquer. The corpse God will be usurped and the Golden Throne blackened for the arrival of the Übermensch. Only through the Übermensch can we become free from the slavery imposed by the false corpse king.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:49:52 2020 No.16963638

>>16963541
>They reject it because they don't actually want such a being to exist at any point in time
But they do believe that God exists, and that we can enter into communion with God, thereby having His power, His vitality.

>God must lie in the "beyond" and stay there for them to care
Here, you are wrong; one tries to establish communion with God in this life. You have obviously never read any lives of the saints or desert fathers or anything in that vein. Besides, you've forgotten the resurrection.

>Imagine if God from the Bible actually existed, and openly communicated with everyone; they would almost immediately stop being Christians because it would ruin the whole point for them
I think you're talking about a certain negative stereotype of Christians, not what the Bible actually prescribes.

That people would deny God if He came to this earth because they would no longer exert their power over people through "the church." Sure, malefactors can enter the church and try to exert control, but the church exists to unite men with God, as I must be forced to repeat.

>or they would show their true colors and grovel for mercy because they know they are insufferable, pathetic creatures who deserve to be smitten
Why don't you smite them, then? We are all pathetic creatures, struggling to be more than such; only through God can we do this.

Furthermore, how would God communicate with everyone? You curiously leave out an interesting part of this fable- what God would be doing. Is it that God would exist and openly save all humans? A Christian would rejoice

You say a resentful person would resent God because God would be taking away sin, so that the resenter would have no one to look better than. Of course, God would also "communicate" with these resenters, and improve them. Your example is flawed, unless God does not communicate with His believers, in which case the believers would assume God has come to save the lost sheep, and continue with their spiritual lives.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:50:50 2020 No.16963647 >>16963576 If you knew your church history you'd know what I was referring to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:53:17 2020 No.16963662 >>16963541 don't be so judgemental anon.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:56:29 2020 No.16963694

>>16963634
Been reading 40K lore as of late?
Perhaps, but you do Nietzsche a disservice by showing only an ability to repeat platitudes.

How are you going to "ascend and conquer?"

How is it a "slavery?" You are just repeating what I've been saying but replacing "God" with Ubermensch and "Satan" with God. We need to escape one slavery to enter another?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 19:56:53 2020 No.16963700

>>16963581

>Are you a fit forefather for a challenger to God?

I can only hope, and struggle to be.

> If you are displeased with life, and cannot bring yourself to bear your "lot," which is life, then you must learn to be pleased with death, and struggle to kill yourself.

I'm not displeased with life you moron. I'm arguing that even with the delusional assumption that your God exists, I would still reject him and choose struggle. And no, Nietzschean philosophy rejects suicide and nihilism for struggle and life-affirmation. But it is unsurprising to see christcucks advocate suicide.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:00:51 2020 No.16963728 >>16963480 >Either I choose, or God chooses. If you want to read more about a subject like this I can recommend literature to you. It is not simple and involves metaphysics.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:03:15 2020 No.16963749

>>16963700
>I'm arguing that even with the delusional assumption that your God exists, I would still reject him and choose struggle
There is no your, his God. There is God. Again, you need to read more if you are interested, but I doubt you are. As for you rejection of God I already told you what I needed, you ignored and repeated the same thing, like the very obscured npc-like man you are. May God bless you.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:03:39 2020 No.16963755

>>16963694
It's slavery because you would be subjugating yourself to the morality of God. True will to power would be to strive to ascend to Heaven, usurp him, and go beyond him towards new heights. You're saying it is impossible, but that is an assertion, not a truth. Why would Satan attempt it if it is not possible? It must be possible, and it is our duty to attempt. God will be our slave, and we will force him to make anime real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:07:15 2020 No.16963776 >>16963728 What?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:07:24 2020 No.16963779
File: 59 KB, 474x632, mirceacelbatran.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16963700
>I can only hope, and struggle to be.
Obscurantism is the hope of all fools. "I can only hope." If you view God as a cosmic tyrant, you are resentful; simple as.

Once again, God is omnipotent. Everything that happens on this earth happens according to God's will. If you could by some stretch of the imagination "kill God" you wouldn't exist unless that was His will, but how can you kill that which is without death? Even if you killed God, He would live. Even if God did not exist, He would exist.

It is not a delusional assumption; an omnipotent being must always exist

>I'm not displeased with life you moron
Curb your resentment. You are displeased with life because you want to reject life, which is God. You are completely ignoring my point, which is that without God there is only death, therefore a struggle against God is a struggle against life. Thereby you commit suicide. Your self-affirmation affirms itself outside of God, and so it affirms itself outside of life, so it is suicide and nihilism.

>But it is unsurprising to see christcucks advocate suicide
How so?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:09:36 2020 No.16963793 >>16963749 You just told me it's impossible, with no argument as to why.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:10:39 2020 No.16963807

>>16963638
>But they do believe that God exists
They don't really. They just find it comforting to believe that such a being does not exist here.

>Here, you are wrong; one tries to establish communion with God in this life.
One believes one establishes communion, because the belief is useful.

>I think you're talking about a certain negative stereotype of Christians, not what the Bible actually prescribes.
I'm actually talking about the OT more than the NT.

>That people would deny God if He came to this earth because they would no longer exert their power over people through "the church." Sure, malefactors can enter the church and try to exert control, but the church exists to unite men with God, as I must be forced to repeat.
And yet they refuse to believe that the ubermensch, who is God's appearance on earth, can exist. So, why reject the ubermensch?

>Why don't you smite them, then?
I'm not God?

>Furthermore, how would God communicate with everyone?
As a human communicates with another human.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:14:16 2020 No.16963835 >>16963793 What is impossible?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:16:25 2020 No.16963857
File: 93 KB, 768x1024, Statue_d'Alfred_le_Grand_à_Winchester.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16963755
>It's slavery because you would be subjugating yourself to the morality of God.
You are not subjugating yourself to His morality but rather following His morality because it is a practical instruction as to how to return to Him. If you do not will to return to God, then you have chosen death.

>True will to power would be to strive to ascend to Heaven, usurp him, and go beyond him towards new heights
There is no greater height than God, who transcends all heights and breadths. He is the beginning and the end; if you could possibly conceive of anything higher than God, God is that. True will to power is to unite with the power that exists, which is God.

>You're saying it is impossible, but that is an assertion, not a truth
If God is omnipotent and omniscient it is a cold fact. And this is only sensible, because our creator should not be bound by the laws we are bound by; namely, those of time, logic, possibility.

>Why would Satan attempt it if it is not possible
Satan, who you do not believe exists. Satan did so because he was a deluded, proud fool, just like you. If you would fight against a God who you know you cannot defeat, so would Satan; it is called ignoring the facts.

Tell me first how you are going to usurp God. Thus far it is only your assertion, that you can usurp God; but tell me how you plan to do it, and I will not laugh at you anymore. It seems all you have so far is "hope and struggle," but you are not a master.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:16:27 2020 No.16963858

>>16963779
I'd grant you that per definition rebellion against an assumed real God is the slave rebelling against the master. That doesn't mean it's slave morality or resentment though.

>Once again, God is omnipotent.

So you claim. You don't know though, and therefore you don't really have an argument. You'd have to formulate such that there is a risk of omnipotence, I guess in a vein similar to Pascal's Wager. Otherwise you're just begging the question.

>How so?

Because they are life-deniers, and because they are more often than not hypocrites that will talk holy until something inconveniences them, whereupon they become Machievellian.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:17:35 2020 No.16963872 >>16963835 To usurp God

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:18:31 2020 No.16963884 >>16963872 and where did I say you could do so?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:23:23 2020 No.16963920

>>16963857
You're begging the question when it come to omnipotence etc. You're saying it's impossible because it's impossible. You don't know that.

> Tell me first how you are going to usurp God.

By surpassing Man. Genetic engineering, artificial selection, and artificial intelligence is the road to the Übermensch. The accumulation of knowledge, and changing our nature. Given that God exists, we do not know his nature. But with suffcient knowledge we can, and thus know how to defeat him.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:25:53 2020 No.16963937

>>16963884
You told me it was impossible, but didn't provide any argument as to why you'd know that. Even if God did exist, and the Bible was largely a message from him, source criticism should still lead one to question the veracity of the claims in it, especially those that would seem to be to his benefit and our disadvantage.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:25:58 2020 No.16963938
File: 57 KB, 723x410, 20200914_102148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16963793
Because if the Christian God existed, everything that happens happens according to His will. He existed before you or anyone could become an Ubermensch and "kill Him," so He could stop you before you or anyone even tried. It is impossible for the obvious reasons that have been discussed in this thread countless times; God is omnipotent and omniscient.

>They don't really. They just find it comforting to believe that such a being does not exist here.
And this understanding is based on what evidence?

>One believes one establishes communion, because the belief is useful.
No, communion is felt, not believed. If you read one page detailing the life of a holy man you'd know that, but you slander such men, saying they are "deluded" and "God is not real," because you envy their holiness and yes, even their weakness.

>I'm actually talking about the OT more than the NT.
The OT represents Christianity? Perhaps you are describing the Pharisees

>And yet they refuse to believe that the ubermensch, who is God's appearance on earth, can exist. So, why reject the ubermensch?
They do believe in Jesus Christ, who is God and man, so they do believe in the Ubermensch. But they do not believe that Nietzsche's Ubermensch can exist, who is likely not Jesus Christ, otherwise Nietzsche would be a Christian. But no, he is not so.

>I'm not God?
God wishes not for the despicable to be smitten, but for the despicable to be saved. And if you are not God, then you can never be God; this is not assertion, but fact. If God exists, and has prepared an end to history, you will never have enough time for petty "eugenics" or "transhumanism," which will never make you a God anyway. You will only expand horizontally, not vertically.

>As a human communicates with another human.
Are you thick? I asked what it means for "God to communicate with everyone." There's no reason for a Christian to despise the fact that God "talks to everyone." Talks about what? I gave a better example in my post of a resentful person.

You can never kill God, only yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:26:38 2020 No.16963943 >>16963920 >this is the person with whom you are discussing in all honesty things concerning spirituality and metaphysics You are just a child dreaming and playing childish games.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:30:55 2020 No.16963971

>>16963937
>you told me it was impossible to usurp god
>where did I say you could?
>you told me it was impossible
Are you ok?

>but didn't provide any argument
Read again these
>>16963301
>>16963236
>>16963212
>>16963141
I could provide you an extensive bibliography involving metaphysics, theology/symbolic theology that can provide a much deeper and transformative knowledge about what I said, but again, dismissing everything I posted as ''no argument'' makes your dishonesty manifest, it would be a waste.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:31:10 2020 No.16963973

>>16963943
I am playing a game, because I'm granting you the assumption that God exists, something I find patently absurd and would be incapable of believing even if I wanted to. I like the thought of arguing against an existing God, similar to the parable of the Grand Inquisitor, so I wanted to try it out.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:34:08 2020 No.16963988

>>16963920
I already told you about three times why "it's impossible." This is a board for literature, use your brain to read.

>by surpassing man
The mind can never know something that transcends beyond the mind. Only the soul can know, and a Godless man or machine can never know God, as they choose to do so.

Besides, my point was that an omnipotent, transcendental being cannot be defeated because it is deathless.

Furthermore, God could wipe anyone off this mortal coil right now, if He wanted. He could just kill anyone who tries to "surpass man," or thwart their efforts. You can't learn to overcome God if you don't even have the technology needed to get your effort off the ground.

I just don't get how it's so hard to understand that everything that happens happens according to His will. He is omnipotent and omniscient, and mankind can never use technology to understand a being that transcends the natural sciences (which technology depends on) and death/defeat.

Furthermore, you merely saying that we will use eugenics and transhumanism to "oppose God" doesn't actually mean we can oppose God using these things. You say it is possible; I say that if God created us, He could make it impossible for us to kill Him or to conceive of the technology that would kill Him.

So there; the only God that would make your position tenable is a God that allows us to kill Him and allows us to create that technology which would kill Him. Never mind that killing an immortal being is absurd, somehow "science-god" is going to make the impossible possible. Of course, we are more realistic than that.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:35:13 2020 No.16963998

>>16963938
>And this understanding is based on what evidence?
It is based on the hypothesis that if Nietzsche's ubermensch IS Jesus Christ, then they would stop following their religion. Feel free to change my mind without redefining Nietzsche's ubermensch.

>No, communion is felt, not believed.
It is felt because the feeling is useful all the same. God must exist "beyond" for the communion to be desirable to them. Otherwise, they would seek to commune with the ubermensch, rather than reject him.

>they do not believe that Nietzsche's Ubermensch can exist
I know, you said this already, and it's because they don't want him to exist.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:36:52 2020 No.16964004

>>16963971
None of that is anything but baseless assertion, which ultimately boils down to "God is omnipotent". It's not an argument, it's begging the question.
I'm a person that believes in a God that is revealed by the Christian bible. I still want to rebel against him. All your argument really boils down to is "trust me bro". What if I don't trust you?
>>16963141
this one was pretty interesting though

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:39:11 2020 No.16964024

>>16963973
You failed terribly, time and time again, and are probably underage as evidenced by your allusions to Dostoevsky and 40k. You're not ready to argue with us yet, come back at a later time. You are not even clever enough to see that it is you who are playing the game, day by day, and not just here, with us.

>something I find patently absurd and would be incapable of believing even if I wanted to
If you cannot even believe in the absurd, how can you believe that you can kill the absurd?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eauGAgiAvAA

>>16963971
Give us the bibliography. I'm off to do something more productive than the argumentative equivalent of spilling your seed into someone else's barren rectum

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:42:29 2020 No.16964040

>>16963988
Because God is omnipotent. That is begging the question dud.

>I just don't get how it's so hard to understand that everything that happens happens according to His will.

I understand that's your claim. I don't believe it. The bible is one version of the truth, representing fundamentally his perspective. You know as little as I do what the real truth is. If you can leap of faith into believing whatever you want God to be, so can I.

> and mankind can never use technology to understand a being that transcends the natural sciences

Look up emergence. We simply do now know how far we can go, what we can know and achieve.

> somehow "science-god" is going to make the impossible possible.

This is true, it is basically a belief in miracles. But it's not an unfounded belief, because of the existence of life and the nature of complex systems, that such a thing is possible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:44:28 2020 No.16964051 >>16964024 That's just like, your opinion, bro.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:47:25 2020 No.16964067

>>16964004
>baseless assertion
Assertions that involved metaphysics and theology. They were not a ''trust me bro'' posts in any way. Again you just show how dishonest you are in a simple conversation.
>What if I don't trust you
You don't need to, you could read books, like I do. But everyone, including yourself, knows you simply don't care.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:48:12 2020 No.16964073 >>16957024 Why do you have a picture of some dude smoking on your computer

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:49:47 2020 No.16964079

>>16963998
>It is based on the hypothesis that if Nietzsche's ubermensch IS Jesus Christ
They would not stop following Jesus Christ, if they are true Christians. Besides, they wouldn't care for some secular philosopher's opinions on the Son of God, they go with what the Word of God teaches instead. If Jesus Christ is the Ubermensch, why do you reject Him? We surely would not, unless your characterizations are true (they are not, you know less about the world around you than you think) If He is not, then why are we having this inane discussion?

>God must exist "beyond" for the communion to be desirable to them. Otherwise, they would seek to commune with the ubermensch, rather than reject him.
God is in everything, communion with Him is attained in this world. He is only seen as "beyond" because many are fools with no eyes to see. They don't commune with the Ubermensch because they don't believe in an Ubermensch as Nietzsche does; Nietzsche's conception of the Ubermensch is a Godless one, having nothing to do with Jesus Christ. The conception would fall apart if it admitted that God is real, and Jesus Christ was more than a material Ubermensch.

>I know, you said this already, and it's because they don't want him to exist.
And you do not believe in God because you do not want Him to exist? Wouldn't this be counterintuitive to your idea of "eternal struggle?" Wouldn't you want to believe in such an opponent as God, if you value struggle?

And it is not necessary for them to not want him to exist. This is because they don't need him, as they already have Jesus Christ. It does not matter that you "want" the Ubermensch to exist; will does not imply possibility.

>>16964004
>which ultimately boils down to "God is omnipotent".
That's precisely the point, and it most assuredly is an argument.

So you DO believe in God; why then did you say throughout this thread that you do not believe in a God? Was this another anon?
You believe in Him, and you will rebel against Him. You forget that you are His creation, instead choosing to ignore or discredit those elements of Christian theology that refute your arguments. You are not a Christian nor do you believe in the Bible, otherwise you would recognize the futility of your suicide

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:57:19 2020 No.16964132 >>16964067 No one who reads books says they "read books". They say what they read.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 20:58:38 2020 No.16964146 >>16964079 > That's precisely the point, and it most assuredly is an argument. It's not an argument, it's an assertion. Why should I believe in you?

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:03:07 2020 No.16964170

>>16964040
>Because God is omnipotent. That is begging the question dud
How is it begging the question? I showed you already what the importance of God being omnipotent means. You are, after all, assuming that the Christian God exists, and it is accepted doctrine that such a God is omnipotent.

>You know as little as I do what the real truth is. If you can leap of faith into believing whatever you want God to be, so can I.
I know little, but the church fathers and saints knew far more than I know because they had communion with the Being they believe in. I have read their writings (though not all, or even many), and am arguing based on this conception.

>>16964004
Hopefully you are not this charlatan; if you believe in the "God revealed by the Bible," you cannot believe that "the bible is one version of the truth." The God of the Bible makes it clear that He is the only way.

Odd how you changed your tune so quickly; instead of arguing that you can kill an omnipotent being, you argue that God really wasn't omnipotent all along. Is this the power of the Ubermensch? Instead of actually being powerful, you envision your opponent as weaker? What happened to this love of the "eternal struggle?" Wouldn't an omnipotent being fulfill this desire to struggle forever?

In fact, it does; Hell is the inability of the sinner to accept God; this will be your eternal struggle- in Hell, against God, an eternal defeat. This is not my wish for you, but what the Bible you ostensibly believe in.

>emergence
Summarize it, but a creator God could easily circumvent this. After all, it was He who created our ability to have "emergence." You do not understand that I have never begged the question, I have made perfectly valid arguments; God being omnipotent and timeless refutes anything you might posit. We are men in God's world, not the other way around.

>This is true, it is basically a belief in miracles. But it's not an unfounded belief, because of the existence of life and the nature of complex systems, that such a thing is possible.
Conceivable, but not possible. We'll see if "such a thing is possible" when science shows that such a thing is actually possible; heretofore, it has not.

>>16964146
Because you believe in the God of the Bible. If you do not believe in the God in the Bible, then you are not claiming that you can defeat the God of the Bible, so your arguments against me and my faith hold no weight.

The argument we are having assumes that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, as that is the Christian God.

You also didn't address any of my other points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprX1sikslc

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:04:19 2020 No.16964176

>>16964024
>Give us the bibliography
Complete works of Plato and Aristotle.
Commentary on Aristotle's works by Syrianus, Porphyry, Simplicius.
Maximus of Tyre, Plutarch, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius
Philo, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Justin, Augustine, St. Maximus, Eusebius, Dionysius, John Damascene, John Climacus, Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Bonaventure, Ficino, Cusanos, John of the Cross, Isaac Luria, Sefer Yetzirah, Abulafia, Zohar, Abhinavagupta, Bahavadgita, commentary on bhagavadgita by shankara, abhinavagupta, dnyaneshwar, ramanuja, Pratyanhijnahrdayam, Spandakarikas, etc...........
the list goes on

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:05:47 2020 No.16964181

>>16964079
>Besides, they wouldn't care for some secular philosopher's opinions on the Son of God, they go with what the Word of God teaches instead.
"God" and "Jesus Christ" are the slave's warped conceptions of "will to power" and "ubermensch." So they should care. And even if you refuse to believe this, you have to admit that, if it were the case despite your disagreement, you and Christians in general would not be pleased, because it would mean that you and they are all inferior slaves... and that's basically what you've been arguing against for the entire thread, is it not? Otherwise, why do you care to argue that Christianity isn't slave morality?

And it's THIS hypothetical that serves as evidence as to what the Christian really is, which is a slave moralist, which is someone who only attacks when attacked and attacks via negation and resentfully and who only deludes himself into loving God once God has become Christian, i.e., inverted into the complete opposite of what the much older conception of God entailed.

>Wouldn't you want to believe in such an opponent as God, if you value struggle?
The Christian conception of God is not an opponent. That God is the opposite of an opponent. What is the struggle to be had there?

>will does not imply possibility.
It never does.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:06:30 2020 No.16964184 >>16964132 >>16964176

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:17:53 2020 No.16964254

>>16964181
>"God" and "Jesus Christ" are the slave's warped conceptions of "will to power" and "ubermensch."
"Ubermensch" and "will to power" are the slave's warped conceptions of "God" and "Jesus Christ."

>you and Christians in general would not be pleased, because it would mean that you and they are all inferior slaves
I'm not really trying to argue that Christianity's not slave morality, but that a little bit of both (aforementioned doublethink) is good, as it is moderate, and that while slave morality is attacked at length, master morality should not be presented as flawless (even though there is a Kraft/Macht distinction). The will to power of the man who fights against God is a slave's will to power because his motivation is resentment towards God.

Also, I don't see how "it would mean that Christians and I are inferior slaves." If Jesus and God were anything but what they are, they wouldn't be Jesus and God; it's as simple as that. You might be arguing that I don't want the Ubermensch to exist because it would mean that I'm an inferior slave, but I wouldn't care. I recognize my shortcomings and overcome what I can. It's not that I don't want the Ubermensch to exist, it's that I know something better exists. So why would I want a knockoff Jesus Christ when I have the real deal?

>what the much older conception of God entailed.
It is not that God is a Christian, but that Christians are godly. I don't see how Christians "attack via negation" or " attack when attacked." We attack under other circumstances, and attack by presenting something better than what others with their "older conceptions of God" present, thus rendering their "older conceptions null." It is not that we attack through negation, but that what we propose is so great as to negate what once was.

Also, it's not about "older conceptions of God" but which God is true, for that God is older than all conceptions. You need a better standard for truth than age.

>The Christian conception of God is not an opponent. That God is the opposite of an opponent. What is the struggle to be had there?
Untrue. But you did argue that we should overcome the Christian God, and that those who do not are "slaves content with their lot," who do not desire "eternal struggle." So it seems that you believe only in a God that can be overcome (this is what your 'older conceptions' apparently are- just weaker gods).

No, God is an opponent to all that is evil. There is struggle to be had, but it's a fool's struggle, and thus suicide, as I've been arguing n times in this thread

>It never does.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:21:31 2020 No.16964267

>>16964181
>inverted into complete opposite, etc
You should read books, anon. See the post above yours, for one thing you people say we copied every thing from ''older'' traditions, for the other that we subverted and invented new corrupt things. We never denied that pagans knew some truths we vouch for, like Plato, Plotinus, who were important and influential figures to Christianity in its hermeneutical methodology of christian theology. We affirm the same thing Plato did about God, He is The Good, OUK OUSIA.
Anyway, read books.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:27:36 2020 No.16964302

>>16964170
I'm assuming that God is real and the bible is his message. I'm not assuming that the message is the whole truth or nothing but the truth.

> Odd how you changed your tune so quickly; instead of arguing that you can kill an omnipotent being

Never said I believed he was omnipotent. Regarding eternal struggle, knowledge that it was leading nowhere would rob the struggle of its meaning. It's eternal struggle and eternal ascendance.

> Summarize it

It's not easy to summarize, and I'm dead tired and need to sleep. If I had to simplify it as much as possible I'd say it's the 'miracle of complexity'. When complex interactions occur, results arise that are far more than the sum of the parts. The typical example is life itself. The key point is that this implies that us increasing the complexity of ourselves and our comprehension of the world has the potential to produce miraculous things beyond anything we are capable of imagining.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:30:49 2020 No.16964328
File: 35 KB, 550x550, transhumanist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16964302
>I'm assuming that God is real and the bible is his message. I'm not assuming that the message is the whole truth or nothing but the truth.
Then you are not arguing against the God of the Bible, and I am wasting my time

>knowledge that it was leading nowhere would rob the struggle of its meaning
That is weakness speaking; a true struggler would struggle even in the face of absurdity, especially if it is the only thing you can do aside from "worshipping a cosmic tyrant."

>increasing the complexity of ourselves and our comprehension of the world has the potential to produce miraculous things beyond anything we are capable of imagining.
It sounds absolutely absurd, but I do hope you have a good night. It seems I will have to read about it for myself to understand it in its totality

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:42:51 2020 No.16964425

>>16964254
>"Ubermensch" and "will to power" are the slave's warped conceptions of "God" and "Jesus Christ."
You can't just pull a "no u" response like this and expect it to make sense. Slave how? What is even meant here? Are you implying there has not been rigorous explanation on my part regarding what differentiates a master and slave?

>I'm not really trying to argue that Christianity's not slave morality, but that a little bit of both (aforementioned doublethink) is good, as it is moderate, and that while slave morality is attacked at length, master morality should not be presented as flawless (even though there is a Kraft/Macht distinction).
I never presented master morality as "flawless," but as a polarity on a spectrum opposite to slave morality. We are talking about modes of morality here. Also, moderation is mediocrity; if you aren't arguing that Christianity isn't slave morality then you're just arguing for your own version of slave morality.

>The will to power of the man who fights against God is a slave's will to power because his motivation is resentment towards God.
Master moralists don't fight against something which doesn't occur to them.

>If Jesus and God were anything but what they are, they wouldn't be Jesus and God
This is besides my point, which is that, if Jesus and God were really just what Nietzsche described as the ubermensch and will to power respectively (i.e., if Nietzsche was the true prophet) then you and Christians would change your tune rather quickly. It's because they aren't these things (i.e., aren't like your masters on earth) that you find them agreeable.

>I don't see how Christians "attack via negation" or " attack when attacked."
Where did Christianity find its beginnings in Rome, from Caesar and the nobility? When I talk about "Christians" I am talking about slave moralists, the slave revolt, not Jesus or his disciples, and not master moralists who wear the cloth like a wolf in a sheep's skin.

>You need a better standard for truth than age.
Truth is a matter of perspective. My point in bringing up age was to simply note this for you.

>But you did argue that we should overcome the Christian God, and that those who do not are "slaves content with their lot," who do not desire "eternal struggle."
This was someone else in the thread, but the hyperboreans should do this, because Christianity is mixed with an alien morality that poisons.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 21:54:55 2020 No.16964507

>>16964425
>You can't just pull a "no u" response like this and expect it to make sense. Slave how? What is even meant here? Are you implying there has not been rigorous explanation on my part regarding what differentiates a master and slave?
Because you are a slave to the devil, and thus conceive of Christ and God as Ubermensch and will to power; it's a "no u" of a "no u"

>Also, moderation is mediocrity; if you aren't arguing that Christianity isn't slave morality then you're just arguing for your own version of slave morality.

>Master moralists don't fight against something which doesn't occur to them.
I said "of the man who fights against God." Of course, the question of whether or not God is real is up for debate; it does not matter that they do not see what is occurring to them.

>aren't like your masters on earth
No, masters on earth are supposed to follow Christ and God and the examples they set, so it would not be the case that they are unlike my masters on earth. And as I said, if Nietzsche was the true prophet, then God and Christ would not exist; you can't ask "what if Christ was the Ubermensch?" Then that would not be Christ. What would Jesus Christ even look like if He was like an "Ubermensch?" What aspects of this non-Ubermensch Christ do I find agreeable?

>When I talk about "Christians" I am talking about slave moralists, the slave revolt
Of course, you only talk about what supports your notions. Who's to say that the slaves revolted because they despised their masters and resented them? What historical events, in particular, are you talking about? And finally, a man can revolt against his ruler without being a "slave moralist," for reasons discussed earlier in the thread- if he revolts not because of the tyrant but despite the tyrant, and not because he resents the tyrant and wishes for the tyrant to be as weak as him but rather because he wishes to express his own, stronger will.

>Truth is a matter of perspective.
Is this applicable to Nietzsche's philosophy?

>This was someone else in the thread, but the hyperboreans should do this, because Christianity is mixed with an alien morality that poisons.
That's not much of an argument; Hyperboreans should revolt against Christianity because "it poisons." It only really "poisons" if you 1) Misinterpret it 2) Don't even believe in it in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:02:13 2020 No.16964546 >>16964425 >Truth is a matter of perspective then there is no absolute slave or master morality, it is just all a matter of perspective, if you think so you are have a slavish mentality.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:02:41 2020 No.16964552

>>16964425
> The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not
require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: What is injurious to
me is injurious in itself; he knows that it is he himself only who confers
honour on things; he is a creator of values.
Is it wrong to say that I have determined my own values by choosing to follow Christianity? I view sin as injurious to me; I see that sin is injurious to me, so I accept that it is so for all, or in itself. Everything proceeds from me because I view myself as the key player in this world; I am biased for myself.

Of course, where I disagree with Nietzsche is where he says:

>in dèintèressement, the characteristic of the moral; faith in oneself, pride in oneself, a radical enmity and irony towards “selflessness,”
belong as definitely to noble morality, as do a careless scorn and precaution in presence of sympathy and the “warm heart.”
Just as "slave morality" (when misapplied) can be described as despicable resentment, "master morality" (when misapplied) can be described as impassive and egotistic.

But of course:
>—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man, within one soul

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:08:52 2020 No.16964600

>>16964507
>Because you are a slave to the devil
Didn't you deny the devil playing a role in all this before, or was that someone else?

>I said "of the man who fights against God."
Yeah, but master moralists don't do this, so who cares?

>masters on earth are supposed to follow Christ and God and the examples they set
Thank you for confirming that all my "cheap psychologizing" has been on point. I didn't need you to, since I know what I'm talking about, but thanks anyway.

>if Nietzsche was the true prophet, then God and Christ would not exist
They would, but as will to power and the ubermensch respectively.

>you can't ask "what if Christ was the Ubermensch?" Then that would not be Christ.
So in other words, you would reject him, which is what I'm getting at with this hypothetical. Your idea of Christ would be ruined. God must lie in the "beyond" for you to care. You denied this before, but now you just confirmed it for me.

>Of course, you only talk about what supports your notions.
I talk about concepts which have concrete references. It's you who has constantly misunderstood this and what Nietzsche was criticizing.

>What historical events, in particular, are you talking about?
Paul and the early Christians and the eventual Christian uprising in Rome.

>And finally, a man can revolt against his ruler without being a "slave moralist,"
Not arguing otherwise. But we are talking about a religion that is neck-deep in moral contradictions which Nietzsche pulls apart in his books, with a (politically) complicated and very shady history.

>Is this applicable to Nietzsche's philosophy?
Are you joking? Perspectivism is his idea.

>It only really "poisons" if you 1) Misinterpret it 2) Don't even believe in it in the first place.
No, it poisons because the primary mechanism of slave morality, negation, is opposite of the primary mechanism of master morality, affirmation. The morality of an opposite type of nature is poisonous.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:11:52 2020 No.16964619

> The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and
distrust, a refinement of distrust of everything “good” that is there honoured—he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine.
Sound like someone you know? Definitely not a Christian, who is told not to envy and to love his enemy.

>it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience,
diligence, humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are the
most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden
of existence
And here is where I disagree with Nietzsche's characterizations; compassion is not aiming towards utility unless it is a counterfeit compassion; we are called to be good from our own hearts, not to do good only out of a "fear of hell" or "love of heaven." Furthermore, we are called to suffer, not to "alleviate suffering," or else we'd be transhumanists.

Heaven is only seen as a reprieve for the man who likely does not deserve Heaven.

>power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness,
subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to
slave-morality, therefore, the “evil” man arouses fear; according to master morality, it is precisely the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being
Once again, all criticisms miss their mark; Christianity does not tell you that the evil man is "powerful or dangerous;" he is in fact powerless, because he is without God. Furthermore, Christian kings have 'aroused fear,' they have been harsh (yet just) and thus have followed in God's example, Who is described as One we must fear.

Everything else after this that may be ascribed to the "master moralist" is meaningless to me. I'd take one monk over a million "master moralists" who are not even close to following Napoleon or Machiavelli's example. They barely have mastery over themselves and their own mind, let alone over others.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:12:04 2020 No.16964621

>>16964546
>then there is no absolute slave or master morality, it is just all a matter of perspective
Correct. Though, realize that perspective doesn't come from nowhere — it comes from what local quantum of power you are. The perspective that can entertain multiple perspectives possesses a greater local quantum of power than the perspective that can't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:19:53 2020 No.16964663 >>16964621 and we are back again to an objectivity. decide yourself

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:20:39 2020 No.16964666

>>16964600
>Didn't you deny the devil playing a role in all this before, or was that someone else?
I denied the idea that the devil "constructed evil," rather portraying him as the slave moralist who operates by negation.

>Yeah, but master moralists don't do this, so who cares?
Some other guy who said it was a sign of the "master moralist" to duke it out with the biggest and the baddest power around, which would be God. If you are "content with being a mere human," you are "not a master moralist." Of course, whether your rebellion would manifest itself as a negation or affirmation is up to your scrupulousness.

>Thank you for confirming that all my "cheap psychologizing" has been on point. I didn't need you to, since I know what I'm talking about, but thanks anyway.
The problem is that I view this cheap psychologizing as powerless. What is wrong with following the best set of values, as opposed to whatever the "master moralist" conceives of? Furthermore, they follow in Christ and God's example as master moralists, who are "harsh" and as they are in the post above yours (where I tried to greentext Nietzsche).

>God must lie in the "beyond" for you to care. You denied this before, but now you just confirmed it for me.
I'm not talking about God but Jesus Christ; I quote- "Then that would not be Christ." Christ is the one who comes to earth, who is the "Ubermensch," correct?

>Are you joking? Perspectivism is his idea.
So why then should I accept his ideas? I should not, and instead follow my own delineations as opposed to his ideas of master and slave morality. You criticize Christianity from the frame of the "Ubermensch" and "will to power," I criticize you from the "God/Christ" frame.

>No, it poisons because the primary mechanism of slave morality, negation, is opposite of the primary mechanism of master morality, affirmation. The morality of an opposite type of nature is poisonous.
What does Christianity negate and how does it not affirm? Can a philosophy not both affirm and negate? If the primary mechanism of slave morality is negation, which is produced by resentment, is it possible for one to negate something without resenting? Is it possible to affirm without that affirmed value being self-made?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:35:55 2020 No.16964763 Wow the pseuds are giving it all in today's pseud battle.

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:48:32 2020 No.16964848
File: 117 KB, 400x400, mxc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16964663
>objectivity
Of? The only objective thing we are referring to here is a force which is not comprehensible to us, because it is not a substance of any kind, but which is certainly real nonetheless. Only its effects (ourselves) are felt, and by those effects we have given it a name, the "will to power."

>>16964666
>I denied the idea that the devil "constructed evil,"
Well, then I guess you didn't actually address my point about slave moralists using the devil as part of their cunning back then.

>What is wrong with following the best set of values, as opposed to whatever the "master moralist" conceives of?
Again, I'm not saying slave moralists should adopt master morality, so this question is pointless.

>I'm not talking about God but Jesus Christ
I know, but Christ is the son of God, so you still need that God to be in the "beyond" for you to care about either.

>So why then should I accept his ideas?
You shouldn't unless you understand them and realize that you share them. Let me remind you that our conversation started with you asking for an explanation on what master and slave morality even were. I didn't start talking to you to try and convince you of the ideas. I'm still not trying to do that.

>What does Christianity negate and how does it not affirm?
Life, because it places all value in a "beyond."

>>16964763

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 6 22:53:01 2020 No.16964887 File: 205 KB, 820x765, ixdiggy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16947810 >that picture

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 23:17:06 2020 No.16965029

>>16964848
>Well, then I guess you didn't actually address my point about slave moralists using the devil as part of their cunning back then
Reiterate that point

>Again, I'm not saying slave moralists should adopt master morality, so this question is pointless.
I'm not even saying that there are "slave" or "master" moralists; I argue that there is some of both in all men. Especially so if your only examples of pure "master moralists" are a few nigh-mythical figures locked up in antiquity.

>I know, but Christ is the son of God, so you still need that God to be in the "beyond" for you to care about either
I clearly argued earlier that there is no "beyond." There is only a "beyond" for those who have no eyes to see, for those who are spiritually blind, for those who are not aware of the spiritual battle around them. I do not need God to be in the beyond to care about Him; resurrection, case in point.

>You shouldn't unless you understand them and realize that you share them. Let me remind you that our conversation started with you asking for an explanation on what master and slave morality even were. I didn't start talking to you to try and convince you of the ideas. I'm still not trying to do that.
You are trying to convince me by implying that I can even "realize that I share them."

>Life, because it places all value in a "beyond."
How so? I have exhaustively argued against this already.
Such a weak point; "Christianity denies life because it places value in a state beyond life;" but Christianity makes no distinction between "beyond" and this life. The so-called beyond and this life are both life, as detailed in "Life after Death" (an Orthodox book). Once again, it's a criticism only possible if you believe God is dead and this life is all there is, so then seeking value in the so-called beyond becomes a "denial of life" (because it is assumed the beyond has nothing in it, or that it doesn't matter).

Anonymous Sun Dec 6 23:20:17 2020 No.16965055
File: 40 KB, 369x480, 6cd5d7acec3bd8dd1e06d345b702e1b8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16947810
>another poster who thinks 'Christianity is surely like all those other threads of Christianity' as a cope to dumb down what would entail weeks of dedicated reading
For shame

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 00:23:23 2020 No.16965548

>>16962143
Actually, he has made "divinity" perfectly understandable; you have not made yourself understandable by highlighting what you think is unclear. It is very obvious what "divinity" means; a unity between God and man, God being divinity, Jesus being our way.

Furthermore, if >>16961338 is true:

>The master moralist in perfect form doesn't feel an outside to himself
>the master moralist is he whose local quantum of power is strong enough to feel the environment as an extension of itself
Is it possible for me to be a Christian and yet a master moralist because I feel the environment as an extension of myself, and I adopt Christianity, which happens to exist in my environment. I am using it for a "will to power," and identify whatever goes against my will as bad (as a roadblock).

Surely you cannot be telling me that a master moralist can only hold view X or view Y, only that he cannot be resentful and dedicate himself solely to a negation of the noble (a concept which is not set in stone).

And of course, "this is doublethink" is not a refutation or a sign of it being mere slave morality. It's a buzzword you like to use, but it doesn't address the fact that God's will becomes your will, and by following God's will your own power increases because you are in communion with God. It is just arguing against the idea that man's power is self-sufficient, and showing that all power comes from the creator. Any "power" a Godless master moralist wins for himself is not true power, so his will to power is really a will to death, because everything he accumulates is perishable.

It would not be slave morality to care that something is perishable. It would just be a highlighting of the idea that master morality is not constructing anything without God, so there is no true affirmation. It is truly a warped affirmation, in reality a negation

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 04:17:55 2020 No.16966447

>>16964552
>> The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not
>require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: What is injurious to
>me is injurious in itself; he knows that it is he himself only who confers
>honour on things; he is a creator of values.
>Is it wrong to say that I have determined my own values by choosing to follow Christianity?
This can't be for real. Christ created those values not you

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 08:00:57 2020 No.16967327 >>16961467 I get that you have no argument

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 09:11:23 2020 No.16967634 >>16966447 >This can't be for real It's in the slave moralist's nature to reverse the meaning of things until they make no sense, as a survival mechanism

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 11:25:52 2020 No.16968417

>>16967634
The meaning of things created by Nietzsche, not by me

>>16966447
Bafflingly, you completely ignored my other post:

>The master moralist in perfect form doesn't feel an outside to himself
>the master moralist is he whose local quantum of power is strong enough to feel the environment as an extension of itself

If nothing is outside myself, Christ's teachings are a part of myself, as my environment is an extension of myself.

>what is felt as an "environment" is an expression of the will
>it doesn't SIMPLY mean "what's outside ourselves"
So the environment is also "what's outside ourselves," something that does not exist for a master moralist.

Of course, I've never seen anyone who thinks exactly like Nietzsche's master moralist, nor would such a person really exist, except if you think a record from the past encapsulates a man's entire life.

Where are all the modern day master moralists? Who are they? I need examples better suited for today, that I can better understand.

>if you do not like Nietzsche's ideas, and "misinterpret them" it is because you are a slave moralist trying to survive
Then it would be safe to say that you are misinterpreting Christianity until it is an "absurd doublethink" as a survival mechanism; you resent Christ and God.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 11:47:29 2020 No.16968528

>>16967634

>>16967327
He meant that it is individualistic, not that Christianity is the origin of individualism. I believe I've already replied to you with that, so pay attention.

>>16967634
That doesn't mean much, as it can be applied to anyone. If you are not a master moralist, then you are doing the same.

>It may be looked upon as the result of an extraordinary atavism, that the
ordinary man, even at present, is still always waiting for an opinion about
himself, and then instinctively submitting himself to it; yet by no means only to a “good” opinion, but also to a bad and unjust one

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 11:51:02 2020 No.16968542

>>16968417
>The meaning of things created by Nietzsche, not by me
You are still taking his ideas / words and reversing them into confusion, which is why "I determine my own values by choosing to follow Christianity" makes sense only to you / Christians.

>Where are all the modern day master moralists?
Running the megacorps and militaries like they always have.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 11:57:32 2020 No.16968585

>>16968542
>Running the megacorps and militaries like they always have.
And do you agree or disagree with what these elites are doing? If these are the only master moralists, how can they complain about Christianity's "slave morality" when the complainers themselves are also "slave moralists?"

>"I determine my own values by choosing to follow Christianity" makes sense only to you / Christians.
I explicitly defined what I meant by that, and all of it was according to arguments Nietzschean anons made in this thread. Go back and address what I said.

Of course I am trying to confuse what he's said; the problem is being successful. If I am able to determine my own values, why can I not choose Christianity? I don't see it as something external to me; in addition, Christianity's "values" would be pragmatic laws for attaining divinity. So I would be following God's laws in order to attain this divinity, which I see as a maximization of my power and vitality. It would be like reading Machiavelli to learn how to rule over a group of people, but for a better purpose and with real gain.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 12:02:32 2020 No.16968623

>>16968585
>And do you agree or disagree with what these elites are doing?
Does it matter whether I do or don't? I thought you just wanted to know who they are.

>If I am able to determine my own values, why can I not choose Christianity?
Because Christianity is not about determining your own values, but adopting someone else's. So it makes no sense. To determine one's own values means to base your values off your own instincts only. A gravitation towards Christianity is not instinctual except maybe for Latin peoples (which is why Nietzsche doesn't direct his criticism towards them), it's the result of a weakening / repression of instincts, which can be repaired / undone.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 12:11:57 2020 No.16968701

>>16968623
>Does it matter whether I do or don't? I thought you just wanted to know who they are.
In this thread I see "slave morality" get slung around as if it's something bad, or despicable; yet if these are the only master moralists, that would make the complainers slave moralists as well, no?

>Because Christianity is not about determining your own values, but adopting someone else's
You still haven't addressed the "local quantum of power" nuance, which says that a master moralist views the world as an extension of him; wouldn't this mean that you are not adopting an external value, as everything is encompassed by you?

>To determine one's own values means to base your values off your own instincts only
What if my instincts point towards Christianity? Furthermore, there exists no such thing as "your instincts only;" one puts thought behind his values. One is also influenced by others when creating his values, because no one exists in a cultural void.

Either way, the argument is null from a Christian perspective because all humans have the instinct to return to God, but apply this in different ways, often perverting it. Therefore, I would be correctly following my instincts and not creating my own values but adopting the values that will help me attain this salvation.

Mowgli can make up his own values; but a civilized man is influenced by the environment around him, so his values will look different. Usually, these values are not what someone else desires but expedients used to attain a goal that the individual also desires.

>A gravitation towards Christianity is not instinctual except maybe for Latin peoples
What is special about Latin people?

>it's the result of a weakening / repression of instincts, which can be repaired / undone
So Nietzsche is telling you how you can change; of course, how is a gravitation towards Christianity a weakening of instinct? How is Nietzsche the aficionado on what a certain people must gravitate towards? I'd like to hear this.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 12:44:14 2020 No.16968934

>>16968701
A facet of Nietzsche's philosophy that hasn't really been mentioned in the thread that would probably clear up a lot of these questions is the relevance of genes in the equation of perspectivism / beliefs. Basically, by master morality he is widely referring to a purer and older Aryan/Indo-European morality, and by slave morality he is widely referring to a purer and older Semitic morality, and part of his genealogical study of morality and how it changed in Europe over time is the study of the intermixing of different families over time.

To us, these two moralities that he outlines seem ideal and like they don't refer to anything concrete, but that's because there aren't really any pure Aryans or Semites anymore. However, in the past, racial differences were much more clearly defined, since there had been less mixing at that point, so moral differences were much more clearly defined as well. Nietzsche has this theory even in his early 20s when he wrote his dissertation on Theognis of Megara who he believed, through the poet's writings (which strongly condemned the poor as an inferior stock of people), innocently expressed this older master morality through his poetry which he wrote while the slave revolt in Megara resulted in his family's exile from the city-state.

Through the work of Darwin and Schopehnauer and his own philological work, he came to the conclusion that the dominant mode of morality in an individual expresses what genetic stock a person comes from. This is also why he speculates whether Plato was more Semite than Greek, because he sees a stark difference in the Socratic/Platonic morality compared with the morality of the "Periclean age," which was far more war-like, physically agitated and narrow-minded in comparison.

So to sum this up, if you feel that Christianity's core beliefs are correct, then you must not be of Aryan/Indo-European descent, or at least the genes you have that are Aryan/Indo-European are not dominantly expressed in your character. However, for the dominantly Aryan/Indo-European individual, Christianity's core beliefs don't make much sense, and it requires a weakening / repression of the instincts in order to adopt them.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 12:53:06 2020 No.16968990

>>16968934
>So to sum this up, if you feel that Christianity's core beliefs are correct, then you must not be of Aryan/Indo-European descent, or at least the genes you have that are Aryan/Indo-European are not dominantly expressed in your character
How does he substantiate this argument? A perusal of historical events? How do genes directly influence your beliefs?

>war-like, physically agitated, and narrow-minded in comparison
Are black people more Greek than semite?

>However, for the dominantly Aryan/Indo-European individual, Christianity's core beliefs don't make much sense, and it requires a weakening / repression of the instincts in order to adopt them.
What would these core beliefs be?

So it's just pseudoscience? I determine what my past is not based on genetic tests or who my ancestors were, but rather Nietzsche's half-baked ideas. Miraculously, any Indian or Aleut or Nord that wholeheartedly accepts Christianity is partially semitic.

I really just don't see why Aryan/Semite is the correct dichotomy here, either; there have been other peoples throughout time. I also don't see how "semites" haven't been warlike when their history is full of combat and tribalism

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:16:12 2020 No.16969161

>>16968990
>How does he substantiate this argument? A perusal of historical events?
More or less, as well as philosophical / psychological contemplation and study.

>How do genes directly influence your beliefs?
By defining your instincts. We develop / adopt beliefs which benefit us and what benefits us depends on our instincts.

>Are black people more Greek than semite?
No, but kurgans were.

>What would these core beliefs be?
That of Judaic philosophy, essentially.

>Miraculously, any Indian or Aleut or Nord that wholeheartedly accepts Christianity is partially semitic.
That depends on what about Christianity is being accepted and why, since Christianity was not a philosophically/morally pure (and consequently racially pure) religion from the get-go.

>I really just don't see why Aryan/Semite is the correct dichotomy here, either; there have been other peoples throughout time.
It was just the main concern of Europe's and the strongest dichotomy there at the time. He's far from the only one in 19th century Europe to have been concerned about these issues.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:21:13 2020 No.16969196

>By believing a better life is awaiting one following death, the individual escapes from the responsibility and burden of having to make the most of this life.
Wrong

>A new pride my ego taught me, and this I teach men: no longer to bury one’s head in the sand of heavenly things, but to bear it freely, an earthly head, which creates a meaning for the earth

Translation:

>A new pride my ego taught me, and this I teach men: no longer to bury one’s head in the sand of heavenly things, but to bury one's head in the dirt of earthly things, which creates a half-meaning for the earth

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:21:13 2020 No.16969197 >>16969161 >More or less, as well as philosophical / psychological contemplation and study. scientific study*

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:29:41 2020 No.16969251

>>16969161
So his hypothesis entirely hinges on the hope that all "indo-european" individuals either are uncertain Christians or accept only those aspects of Christianity that suit their genes, something he can only support with his "contemplations."

>no, but kurgans were
Then what are "blacks?" Are there not other people that have had "Judaic philosophies" throughout time; why, then, give Jews the monopoly on certain ideas? Why give "Aryans" the monopoly on other ideas?

>by defining your instincts. We develop / adopt beliefs which benefit us and what benefits us depends on our instincts.
Has Nietzsche identified those genes that define our Aryan/Semitic "instincts?"

>That of Judaic philosophy, essentially.
Explain the similarities between Christianity and "Judaic philosophy."

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:37:50 2020 No.16969320

>>16969251
I'm not interested in getting into these specifics with you. But as someone who is primarily Indo-European racially speaking, Nietzsche makes sense to me, and he shares the same moral, aesthetic, and ethical views as I do, and reads and enjoys the same poetry and scientific studies as I do, so to me this philosophy of perspective-as-genetically-derived is undeniable. What this philosophy also means is that having a conversation with someone who is genetically distant from yourself on philosophy is going to be virtually impossible, which is why I'm not interested.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:41:20 2020 No.16969345 >>16950603 maybe this is a brainlet question, but what exactly is the difference between compassion and pity?

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:46:50 2020 No.16969401
File: 108 KB, 400x500, demustached.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16969320
I am also primarily Indo-European but apparently Nietzsche believes I am simultaneously Semitic.

These philosophical discussions aren't impossible, I just haven't ever read Nietzsche. If what's been presented in this thread is the brunt of his ideas, his is a flimsy philosophy. And of course, it is possible that some of Nietzsche's criticisms of the Christianity he knew are still applicable to Orthodoxy, but most are obviously not, robbing his argument of worth.

It's all a feeble attempt to make your opponent believe he is something he is not, "philosophical/psychological contemplations" be damned. The failures of this reductionism is where we have to concede that "actually, the beliefs we are criticizing are double-thinks."

And to top it all off- replace Heaven with Ubermensch.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 13:53:06 2020 No.16969451

>>16969401
>I am also primarily Indo-European but apparently Nietzsche believes I am simultaneously Semitic.
If you actually are, then you're probably just confused / I'm explaining it poorly. But somehow I doubt you actually are, or at any rate you are too impure for these ideas.

>If what's been presented in this thread is the brunt of his ideas, his is a flimsy philosophy.
Can't really say this if you haven't done the reading yourself, and it's an immense amount of reading.

>And to top it all off- replace Heaven with Ubermensch.
Replace the bible with TSZ while you're at it too. The bible is less relevant to modernity.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:01:04 2020 No.16969525

>>16969451
>But somehow I doubt you actually are, or at any rate you are too impure for these ideas.
Of course you need to twist yourself into a pretzel to account for reality within Nietzsche's framework, which you've adopted not because of instinct but because of environment. Of course, if you can "Semitify" your genes, then there's an environmental influence as well as a genetic influence, which seems more appropriate than saying "Plato was likely a Jew, or part Jew."

>Can't really say this if you haven't done the reading yourself, and it's an immense amount of reading.
I trust you have done the reading; if you have done the reading and have accurately portrayed Nietzsche's beliefs, I see nothing conclusive, no refutation or even address towards anything but those forms of Christianity/evidence that supports his paradigm.

>Replace the bible with TSZ while you're at it too. The bible is less relevant to modernity.
The point being that "Christians have dangled Heaven and God as these sources of meaning in the beyond." The same is with the Ubermensch- no man here can become the Ubermensch, we are only bridges for him. He is effectively in the "beyond" that no human will experience.

Of course, TSZ is far less relevant than the Bible to modernity, it's just the further attempt to "defeat Buddha's shadow" even though he has supposedly died. "God is dead" but we must continue to kill him; in truth, he has not really died, we have created an overeager autopsy.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:03:29 2020 No.16969547

>>16969345
pity necessitates a lowering of the person pitied and an elevating of the one pitying. Compassion doesn't.
pity is really just the avenue for christians to hate without calling it hate. "oh, these poor sinners who will burn in hell, how we pity you" "oh, you poor ignorant fool, how i pity you" etc. etc. and so on
I have never in my life seen pity used in any context that wasn't massively insulting to the one being pitied.
It's a perversion.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:10:54 2020 No.16969604

>>16969525
>I see nothing conclusive, no refutation or even address towards anything but those forms of Christianity/evidence that supports his paradigm.
And I see nothing conclusive, no refutation or even address towards any of his arguments. All you do is demonstrate a misunderstanding of his ideas or you dismiss them for no real reason, for example with your dismissal of perspectivism.

>The same is with the Ubermensch-
No it isn't... the ubermensch is what we are evolving towards. We have evolved away from things, and we are evolving towards things — the ubermensch is what we are evolving towards. This is just a name for that thing. The ubermensch is not solely this master morality that I've been describing. If you don't understand even this, you have really understood nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:14:59 2020 No.16969635 >>16955368 Can you elaborate a little on what he thinks of Paul? What book should I read for this topic in particular?

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:23:31 2020 No.16969712

>>16969547
>oh, these poor sinners who will burn in hell, how we pity you" "oh, you poor ignorant fool, how i pity you
I've never seen pity in such a way, our experiences are so divergent. I have, however, seen resentful, early atheists characterize all Christians as such, which seems more like slander of something noble than actual insight into someone's character. It's almost as if you've forgotten the other "sin" of "humility"

>>16969604
>And I see nothing conclusive, no refutation or even address towards any of his arguments. All you do is demonstrate a misunderstanding of his ideas or you dismiss them for no real reason, for example with your dismissal of perspectivism.
To be understood for someone who's never read Nietzsche before or interacted with his ideas. Of course, you're just pulling a "no u;" Nietzsche's greatest problem here is the fact that he hasn't actually attacked Christianity, only a strawman of it; his evidence is whatever supports his interpretation. When reality doesn't conform to his paradigm, he resorts to slander- all "pity" is just "condescension."

>I have never in my life seen pity used in any context that wasn't massively insulting to the one being pitied.
Has it ever occurred to you that the person being pitied may not accurately interpret the actions of those giving to him, likely being in a lowly state where he resents those who have something he does not?

>The ubermensch is not solely this master morality that I've been describing
I precisely said that the Ubermensch is what Nietzsche believed man (master moralists in particular) serve as a bridge to. That we are or are not inevitably evolving to the Ubermensch is a different matter; it's the same as with Heaven- all of man's history is evolving to the eschaton, which is essentially where a Christian would expect to "receive his prize." In doing so, meaning is "relegated" to the future. Unless, of course, the master moralist does not "find meaning" in the fact that he is a bridge to the Ubermensch; that would raise the question of whether or not he would continue to be a master moralist if he knew it would not lead to the Ubermensch. Surely the idea that he is leading to the Ubermensch is a central idea in his life:

> For the more courageous and independent souls of today, the ideal Nietzsche expounds through the mouth of Zarathustra is not to become the Superman – as such a task is too far beyond what is possible for the modern human – but instead to act as “bridges to the Superman”

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:35:56 2020 No.16969798

>>16955368
So if Napoleon was a master moralist, if he had to attack an oncoming force, would that be an example of him taking action despite the other?

>What is injurious to me is injurious in itself; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a creator of values.
Wouldn't this be acting because of the other; "something harms me, therefore I deem it injurious."

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:36:02 2020 No.16969800

>>16969712
>I've never seen pity in such a way,
You're either lying or you've never see anyone tell someone else they pity them
Have you ever told or seen someone else say to someone "I pity you" and taken it as a statement of caring and respect?
Christians talk all the time about pitying the sinners in Church. It is framed as love. But you would never tell someone to their face that you pity them unless you meant to insult them.
That is the only context I have ever seen pity used towards someone else. As an insult.
Also whenever a righteous or evangelical person is shitting on someone else and is asked if they hate that person the response is always "no, I pity them"
And I'm not characterizing "all christians" in any way, I'm explaining to you what pity is, and pity is a very large element of Christianity's ethos. Stop being so fragile
Oh wait just now realized you're the same guy who's been in this thread the whole time. The prototypical hateful mendacious christian who tried to frame him calling someone a nigger as an act of love. Of course you think pity is love.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 14:48:54 2020 No.16969907

>>16969800
>see anyone tell someone else they pity them
I understand that sort of patronizing pity, but I don't believe that all good acts towards someone who has less than you is that sort of pity.

>Have you ever told or seen someone else say to someone "I pity you" and taken it as a statement of caring and respect?
No, but I do not see Christianity in such an affirmation, if it is actually done out of arrogance and superiority and not out of an innocent pity (not knowing how superior it sounds).

>Christians talk all the time about pitying the sinners in Church. It is framed as love. But you would never tell someone to their face that you pity them unless you meant to insult them.
It's a good thing that when you give to someone you don't tell them "I pity you," and snobbishly throw them a penny and drive away in your BMW.

>And I'm not characterizing "all christians" in any way, I'm explaining to you what pity is, and pity is a very large element of Christianity's ethos. Stop being so fragile
I have not been fragile. However, I do not see how you can portray condescension as bad in the same paragraph in which you use it.

>The prototypical hateful mendacious christian who tried to frame him calling someone a nigger as an act of love.
More slander; I am not defending the act of saying "I pity you," because it very often is a passive-aggressive statement.

I just don't see how by attacking some unChristian element in the church, you think you are criticizing Christianity as a whole. There's a difference between telling someone that you pity them as a way of asserting your superiority and feeling compassion towards them, which is what the church preaches. It's like Matthew 7:3, Luke 18:11, or Phillipians 2:3-4 don't exist.

Of course, the fact that you identify what some "righteous/evangelical people" have did with all Christianity betrays the resentment of an apostate who's been worn out by the condescension of surrounding Christians and father figures. Bafflingly, you think your anecdotes are ample evidence to incriminate all of Christianity.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:05:55 2020 No.16970090

>>16969635
The Antichrist is where he delves into this matter the deepest. To summarize very briefly, he thinks that Paul is responsible for the bible and Christianity as church-based religion far more than Jesus of Nazareth was, and that Paul basically co-opted the phenomenon of Jesus for his own gain, and that Jesus had more in common with an Eastern guru / mystic than a priest (interestingly enough, the Indian guru Osho had a lot to say on this, and had public readings of the bible and especially Gospel of Thomas where he drew a lot of fascinating parallels between certain lines attributed to Jesus and beliefs in Hinduism and Buddhism). A quote from the book: "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

>>16969712
>Nietzsche's greatest problem here is the fact that he hasn't actually attacked Christianity, only a strawman of it
It's not much of a strawman case when he blatantly puts out there that he thinks Jesus of Nazareth had a different philosophy than what Paul and the early Jewish-Christians had and that the religion as it is commonly known is a mixture of various philosophies. It'd be a strawman if he didn't specify this, but he does.

>>16969798
>So if Napoleon was a master moralist, if he had to attack an oncoming force, would that be an example of him taking action despite the other?
Still going on with this maddening dialectical rubbish? Yes, for a master moralist every oncoming attack is going to be responded with like attack, and the attack will be seen as coming from an enemy rather than as something morally beneath one because it stems from a place of objective "evil" like a "spawn of Satan" and so on.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:06:43 2020 No.16970097

>>16969907
the point is that regardless of wether or not you say it to them the emotion is the same.
if you're giving to someone out of love and respect and compassion then you aren't pitying
There is no context in which you can say to someone "I pity you" and have it not be derogatory. It's not just one specific breed of pity or the specific manner in which you deliver it, it's the word itself.
Pity itself is inherently insulting, and Christianity teaches its followers to pity those they see as lesser.
Like I said, it's an avenue for Christians to hate. It's a perverse emotion.
It's not some mere coincidence that it works so well as a word to replace hate, anon. Maybe try to suppress your mendacious nature and think about this one genuinely. Your religion preaches that hate is a sin but advocates for pity as an emotion to replace that hatred (ie do not hate the sinners, pity them). why do you think this is?

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:22:03 2020 No.16970237

>>16970090
>rather than as something morally beneath one because it stems from a place of objective "evil" like a "spawn of Satan"
There's a hairbreadth of a difference between an "enemy" and an "objective evil." An enemy to what? To what you believe in, or to you, specifically?

>>16970097
>There is no context in which you can say to someone "I pity you" and have it not be derogatory.
The important point was the intention, not how it's received; of course, as I said, you don't need to say "I pity you." Perhaps some evangelicals have "pitied you" in a condescending manner, but Christianity speaks against that.

>Pity itself is inherently insulting, and Christianity teaches its followers to pity those they see as lesser.
Ah, so you believe Christians view their enemies as "morally beneath one." However, we are taught to be humble and not to hate our enemies, but to love them; you cannot say that we "subconsciously hate our enemies" if we actually analyze our emotions and see no "insulting pity" but rather love and guidance for one who we see as misguided. The "misguided nature" would not be seen as a point of inferiority because, as I said, you do not view yourself as superior (look at the verses I supplied).

>It's not some mere coincidence that it works so well as a word to replace hate, anon
Yes, the reason being that people have erroneously and unChristianly used it in a hateful, arrogant context.

>Maybe try to suppress your mendacious nature and think about this one genuinely
You perfectly display what you ward against here- telling someone that they are lowly because you hate them.

>do not hate the sinners, pity them
Who the Hell has ever said this? Even if it's so, even if some megachurch pastor you identify as a representative of Christianity has said this, by pitying them, you don't see them as lesser than you; it just means you should help them instead of hating them.

Of course, in reality, we are told to love our enemies, and those who hate us, not to "pity them." And when you love them, and have compassion for them, you give and so on.

This is all a semantic argument that loses its power when you analyze what change Christianity really wishes to bring about in the man; of course, you purposefully do not wish to see the forest for the trees, instead listening to "Oshos" and identifying "Pauline trends" in Christianity, so you'll just pick and choose whatever you like, anyway.

>where he drew a lot of fascinating parallels between certain lines attributed to Jesus and beliefs in Hinduism and Buddhism
This doesn't mean that one influenced the other. It could be that they arrived upon similar truths.

>Jesus had more in common with an Eastern guru / mystic than a priest
So Nietzsche's issue is not with Christ, but with Paul, evidently. This entire Christ and Indian argument is a different matter, entirely, but commonalities are barely convincing to me.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:30:32 2020 No.16970311

>>16970097
If this is also Nietzsche's argument, then it is stunningly ill-constituted, and so it must perish. Not only is it anecdotal, it is fallacious; "Christianity, supposedly, tells people to 'pity the sinner.'" Rather than trying to understand what might be meant by "pity," I associate it with something negative and corrupt, as though a pastor would tell people that "they must be arrogant towards others," as if these same pastors have never read the Bible or heard that pride is a sin.

It may be described as this "hidden hypocrisy" in Christianity, but it is nothing of the sort. It is rather an obvious misunderstanding on your part.

1 Corinthians 13:4
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud."
"I pity you" as a boast is not love; luckily, when you are told to pity, you are not told to arrogantly express yourself, because that would not be loving, but rather to not view the unChristian as an enemy to be hated. Rather, he is viewed as a misguided person who does not see the harm he is doing to himself; this should not be cause for arrogance, as you, the Christian, are also a sinner. Rather, it should be cause for compassion.

It's like a fallacy of equivocation. Christians are told by person X to "pity" (want to help without any condescension) the sinner. This must mean that Christians are told to "pity" (be arrogant) towards the sinner.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:31:52 2020 No.16970320 >>16970237 >There's a hairbreadth of a difference between an "enemy" and an "objective evil." What I meant was... you know what, nevermind. I'm not repeating myself anymore, it's obviously pointless with you.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:35:06 2020 No.16970358
File: 31 KB, 313x286, 1515524176800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16970237
>n-no the bible says not to hate therefore you cannot hate and be christian its impossible it doesnt matter that pity in any context is insulting pity is love when i do it! everything *I* do is love, even when it's explicitly hateful it's love because I only love!
> You perfectly display what you ward against here- telling someone that they are lowly because you hate them.
Not at all. There is nothing wrong with hate, if it is honest and recognized as such. But you are a deeply dishonest man, the type that Christianity breeds, the type whose dishonesty is so deep that no amount of evidence will make them recognize it. So you "pity" as a perverse, disgusting abomination to disguise your hatred as love. Just as you did in one of your first replies after going on a vitriolic tirade and then tried to say "everything I do is out of love"
You're hateful and prideful and mendacious. This isn't ad-hominem, you've provided more than enough evidence to this in this thread.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:46:30 2020 No.16970449
File: 253 KB, 220x165, 1600356892171.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16970320
Perhaps you don't understand because you have more "Indo-European blood" than me.

>>16970358
>Not at all. There is nothing wrong with hate, if it is honest and recognized as such
Hate is useless; it's having someone else live rent-free in your mind.

>But you are a deeply dishonest man, the type that Christianity breeds, the type whose dishonesty is so deep that no amount of evidence will make them recognize it
I've refuted all of your arguments so far. Yes, I hate, but I do not disguise my hatred with charity or good intentions; this is just what you want to believe. Stop projecting and realize that people can have genuine motivations and are not at all subordinates to whatever you happen to believe as a scholar of Nietzsche.

>so you "pity" as a perverse, disgusting abomination to disguise your hatred as love
You haven't addressed any of my arguments. If you are the poster boy of "healthy, honest hate," then hatred truly is the bane of all strength.

>you did in one of your first replies after going on a vitriolic tirade and then tried to say "everything I do is out of love"
I never said this, you charlatan; my ideal is to love my enemy, but I am still a sinner, so I hate because I am weak. However, it was not a hidden hate, if you are talking about "vitriolic tirades," so I do not see the "dishonesty" or "hiddenness" you speak of. I will openly confess that I have posted hateful things here, but I am aware of this hate. I don't "pity" you as an inferior, either.

Quote where I said "everything I do is out of love."

Go on and quote my "vitriolic tirades." You probably see them as vitriolic because you are thin-skinned, but most of what I posted in this thread was not done with hate

>you've provided more than enough evidence to this in this thread.
Highlight this evidence and I will tell you if you are correct in your assessment. Otherwise, it's baseless, and you're probably getting the wrong anon, as well.

All of your criticisms have missed their mark because they are fevered stereotypes and baseless accusations. "Vitriolic tirades." What is vitriol to you? Is harshness "vitriol" to you? You should know that Nietzsche condemned the "good man" of the slave moralists for being servile and insufficiently harsh. Did I ever say "everything I do is out of love?" No, everything I OUGHT to do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:54:23 2020 No.16970525 >>16970449 >Perhaps you don't understand because you have more "Indo-European blood" than me. Except I can clearly see that you're asking the same questions over and over despite them already having been answered.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 15:57:30 2020 No.16970558
File: 339 KB, 731x1177, human nature.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16970525
>Except I can clearly see that you're asking the same questions over and over despite them already having been answered.
That's not even the point. I addressed all of your pity-related points, you should just tune out because you don't even have the energy to read my posts in full and coherently respond to them. Rather, you just assume it's all "mendacious" and respond as if I'm really what you say I am. I'm still waiting for those quotes to substantiate your slander

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 7 16:22:24 2020 No.16970786 >>16970558 You're confusing two different posters. I haven't talked about pity in the thread.

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 16:35:23 2020 No.16970899

>>16970786
I was then talking to >>16970358

>>16970525
Just quote the post where you explained it in depth and stop snubbing me. You can't possibly tell me you don't have time to do that when you've been glued to this thread, and even now you are still refreshing and replying.

So, show me your post in which you exhaustively described the difference between a slave moralist's "objective enemy" and a master moralist's "enemy." Is it not possible for the enemy of the master moralist to be considered an enemy of all, and thus an "objective enemy?"

Anonymous Mon Dec 7 16:40:07 2020 No.16970936

>>16970899
>quote the post where you explained it in depth
Here
>>16956757
>>16956858
>>16960428
>>16960874
>>16960904
>>16961338
>>16961406
>>16962843
>>16964425
>>16964600
>>16964848
>>16968934
>>16969161
Any more explanation and I might as well just dump his entire books here for you.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature