I commend to those who despise Christianity and think it a detriment to a culture based on its moral precepts this passage from leading Nietzsche scholar Rudiger Safranski's "Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography" (2002):
Nature produces the weak and the strong, the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is no benevolent providence and no equitable distribution of chances to get ahead in life. Before this backdrop, morality can be defined as an attempt to even out the "injustice" of nature and create counterbalances. The power of natural destinies needs to be broken.IN Nietzsche's view, Christianity represented an absolutely brilliant attempt to accomplish this aim. It offered the "underprivileged" three advantages. First, it granted man an "absolute value, in contrast to man's smallness and coincidental status in the flux of becoming and passing on." Second, suffering and evil were rendered tolerable once they had "meaning." Finally, the belief in creation made people regard the world as infused with spirit and therefore recognizable and valuable. Christianity thereby prevented people who were disadvantaged by nature from "hating themselves as people and taking sides against life." The Christian doctrine subdued the cruelty of nature, roused people to life, and kept those who might otherwise have despaired clinging to hope. In a word, it sheltered "the underprivileged from nihilism."
If we consider it a commandment of humanity not just simply to let nature take its course but to establish a livable order for as many as possible, we ought to be grateful to Christianity for introducing its "theory of morality" to the world. Nietzsche greatly admired the power of Christianity to set values, but he was not grateful to it, because its consideration for the weak and the morality of evening things out impeded the progress and development of a higher stage of mankind.
Nietzsche could envision this higher stage of mankind, as we now know, only as a culmination of culture in its "peaks of rapture," which is to say in successful individuals and achievements.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
From Charles C.:
The problem with Nietzsche is that he changed his mind and thus depending upon which period of his life a particular writing is taken from...
That's true, but this synopsis is still pretty reflective of Nietzsche's view from beginning to end. He saw Christianity's power, and he hated it.
...he is the only consistent athiest philosopher and one who is completely ignored by the latest barrage of popular athiest writers (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc.)
True. Hitchens' anthology, The Portable Atheist, completely ignores him. I'd think Passage 125 from The Gay Science would have made it, but apparently making room for Karl Marx's obsolescent views of history was more important.
But one of Nietzsche's deepest points is that the weak use the power given to them by Christianity to strike an actively hostile blow against those who they perceive as "stronger" than them. Christianity provides shelter from nihilism but also fuel for resentment and hostility. (This is very plainly evident in the various doctrines of salvation, hell, judgement day, etc.)
Christianity also affects us internally by alienating us from many of our own strengths; the dynamic of ressentiment is played again within the individual in the individuals relation to his "sinful" side. (He is not espousing the sophomoric philosophy that sin is strength -- he recognizes as well as anyone else that people can be corrupted -- but simply saying that what Christianity defines as sinful need not be in all cases a source of weakness).
It is also worth noting that Christianity and Christ are very different for Nietzsche -- he thinks institutional Christianity has very little to do with who Christ actually was as an individual man.
Nietzsche has a very nuanced feel for both the strengths and weaknesses of Christianity. Christians who read him tend not to fully absorb his analysis of their religion's flaws.
That’s a misrepresentation, ‘Irenaeus’.
"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk. --Jürgen Habermas, "Conversation about God and the World." Time of transitions. Cambridge: Polity Press 2006, p. 150-151
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurgen_Habermas
It's pretty obvious that he's speaking of the German situation substantially more than any other, by 'idle talk' Habermas means Lyotard's notions. I'm rather familiar with German life, and about 80% of what he's talking about here, despite crediting Christianity, is actually things that were lost to postwar German society with the expulsion and eradication of Jews and Jewish thought. It may be taking his words too far, but in European context the only place I can see Christianity uniquely necessary in his analysis is in overcoming the tribalism and nationalism problems.
There’s another German writer, Erich Kästner, whose “Die Mittel entheiligen das Ende”- the means desecrate the ends- comes to mind a good amount when I see some of the 'postmodern' arguments for Christianity employed here.
Christianity is a whole paradox. To be a christian in 2008 means to be a non-sense and total incapacity of thinking. We would be better without it (its a fact not an opinion). Wake up.
From mq:
But one of Nietzsche's deepest points is that the weak use the power given to them by Christianity to strike an actively hostile blow against those who they perceive as "stronger" than them. Christianity provides shelter from nihilism but also fuel for resentment and hostility. (This is very plainly evident in the various doctrines of salvation, hell, judgement day, etc.)
Nietzsche missed a very important concept in his criticism of Christianity's emphasis on empowering the weak: the concept that everyone is weak. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" is the way Paul explains it in Romans 3:23. Jesus sought to reach the poor, the weak, and the outcasts of society, because they were among the only ones to realize this. They had no positions of authority, or wealth, etc. to falsely pride themselves in. In addition, Jesus never taught "active hostility" towards others; rather he taught passive action:
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:27-31
Also, Jesus does not preach judgement, but rather that we should not judge.
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37
The "various doctrines of salvation, hell, judgement day" are so the individual can understand the implication of his own actions, not so he can project them on others. Any other use of these "doctrines" is obviously in direct contradiction with Jesus' teaching, and thus directly conflicting true Chritianity.
On a related note, I agree with some of Nietzsche's criticism of the church and Christianity (for example, the condemning of another person), as some of them reflect the corrupt nature in which some have taken the teachings of the Bible out of context and for personal gain. I think many Christians would agree with me that the chief goal of our lives is to seek to reflect the true nature of Jesus, and not grossly misrepresent Him as some have done.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.