Neitzches and your personhood

I discovered Nietzsche at 8 years ago now and it totally changed my life. These days I'm mostly interested in his later works.

I think my "unifying goal" can best be expressed by paraphrasing the man himself: I wish to be one of those who make things beautiful.

I want to make the people who interact with me have a more benevolent view of existence. I love nothing more than being a part of the world, this world, and I want to help other people feel that way about life. That is what I have gotten out of Nietzsche. I can still be bitter, thoughtless and resentful often, but I definitely feel like I have improved a lot.

"Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity! Subhumans: Standing Every Human Idea On Its Head Since The Invention Of Speech.

You don't know Neitzches
and by the slightest hint of hope if you do,
Please explain both of those concepts acutely and tell me how they apply to any individual ( Specifically me, and not an application to the masses).

.
The entire point of his higher man is a man who defines his own virtues - and I have found all my virtues seem to align with Catholicism. I am not Catholic in obedience to the church but in obedience to my virtues, which happen to align with the Church.

I don't quite get you, Nietzsche despised religion, especially yours. A Catholic is explicitly stated by him as the antithesis of the Ubersmench.

And here you go criticizing others view on him when yours is more flawed. And why claim to adhere his philosophy to your life when yours is obviously just a misinterpretation ?

übercope

I see where you are friend, But you are subjecting your self to a false dichotomy that Neitchez warns against.
>“My brother, if you have a virtue and she is your virtue, then you have her in common with nobody.” Even naming one’s virtue would make her too common; if one must speak of her, it should be: “This is my good; this I love; it pleases me wholly; thus alone do I will the good. I do not will it the law of a god; I do not will it as human statute and need

You have aligned your self to him blindly - with no identification of your own, who are you to be historically a clone or a person of your own virtues?

A Catholic and a man that believe in the same virtues of a Catholic are no different, for both sprout from the same point. I've already used this word before, so you can look through my posts to find it.

Some one doesn't understand my perspective, please stop posting.

Contrary, I have self defined values and I use the Catholic narrative for people to get the general picture of my identity. Neitzches isn't anti-God he's anti moral slavery, in which one subjects them selves under an authority. ( a self saving plea of the masses ). I am not one such individual, I abide by my own conviction of values that may be found in the Church and I do not impose my values upon others.

Mistakes of the subhumans. They immediately interpret the idea of subjectivity as giving them free reign to support any viewpoint that they want, no matter how incoherent, ignorant and wretched. Sure, the ant too has its own perspective of things, and therefore its own subjective reality, but who gives a shit about the reality of an ant? The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective, and therefore the idea of subjectivity does not undermine the absolute rule of inequality in the universe but is precisely the mechanism by which it comes about.

Congratulations you don't understand what I'm saying still.
Blindly following =/= True Perspective

>The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective
holy cringe

>Neitzches isn't anti-God he's anti moral slavery, in which one subjects them selves under
and I've found the root of the problem. I am covinced you have never read Zarathustra, Gay Science, and especially the genealogy.

When the oppressed,
the downtrodden, the violated say to each other with the vindictive
cunning of powerlessness: ‘Let us be different from evil people, let us be
good! And a good person is anyone who does not rape, does not harm
anyone, who does not attack, does not retaliate, who leaves the taking of
revenge to God, who keeps hidden as we do, avoids all evil and asks little
from life in general, like us who are patient, humble and upright’ – this
means, if heard coolly and impartially, nothing more than: ‘We weak
people are just weak; it is good to do nothing for which we are not strong
enough’ – but this grim state of affairs, this cleverness of the lowest rank
which even insects possess (which play dead, in order not to ‘do too
much’ when in great danger), has, thanks to the counterfeiting and selfdeception of powerlessness, clothed itself in the finery of self-denying,
quiet, patient virtue, as though the weakness of the weak were itself – I
mean its essence, its effect, its whole unique, unavoidable, irredeemable
reality – a voluntary achievement, something wanted, chosen, a deed, an
accomplishment. This type of man needs to believe in an unbiased ‘subject’
with freedom of choice, because he has an instinct of self-preservation
and self-affirmation in which every lie is sanctified.

user, You still aren't understanding, my individual hood is not yours nor any one elses. I'm not proclaiming my virtues over yours. Please take a step back and go to OP, I asked several questions that would create a much better discussion.

Continue with your delusion user, perhaps this is a virtue you wish to act on.

I understand that you are not Catholic. I also understand that you follow your own virtues, which only coincidentally happen to align with the Catholics. If you bothered to read the genealogy, you would realize Nietzsche spent the whole book not criticizing the "blindly following", but staright up attacking the core of their VIRUES AND ETHICS AS THE RESULT OF SHEER RESENTMENT.

>says he 'persues' anti moral slavery.
>aligns with the powerhouse of moral slavery, suppressor of the superior man.
>Claims to live by the stands of a philosopher he clearly doesn't understand nor has read (apparently) as he can't fucking comprehend even his most simple concepts.

This "delusion" is straight out of the 27th page of your favourite authors best book.

But I am Catholic user, I am apart of their Church.

Yet I have no resentment for others - So explain how his Criticism of others applies to me.

OP, what Nietzsche have you read?

Cocaine + Nietzsche's philosophy turned me into a very cold and selfish man. I know it sounds cringy, but now that I finally got rid of my cocaine addiction as well as my remaining (Christian) way of seeing the world as black and white, I feel like I'm a new man; a better version of what I was before and during my cocaine addiction. Coke helped me to see the world for what it truly is. Humans are nothing but animals guided by their own primitive instincts, the only difference is that we try to suppress our own barbaric nature. And we can and should do that to some extent, but not the way we're doing now.

>What is your unifying goal from which all things stem?
For humans it's to say yes when the demongod asks you to step into his time machine, at least according to Nietzsche.
>am a religious man, and I agree with Nietzsche, god(s) and it's death in man.
>But we are called to find are own virtue - and God ( Catholic theology ) seems to unify me to a degree of perfect, with no discrepancies between identity and outcome.
Nietzsche would explain this as a cave in which the news of God's death had not reached. I'm Catholic (lapsed but raised in the Church) and while I have read Nietzsche, most of his criticisms of Schopenhauer as a pseudoChristian would be more applicable to the living Church than his proclamation of the death of God. That is where his criticism of such virtue rings strongest in my recollection anyhow.

Catholicism creates a system for the masses, but it does not exclude individuals of higher man from it's rank. I think you are misunderstanding how Neitzches critizes the church ( their lay- the blind followers ) and the virtues of which the Church proclaims.

That's not even what I was talking about.

You're probably right, though I do feel like some of the points I align myself with regarding him are vague enough to become my own (as in my beauty and Nietzsche's are not the same, nor could they be).

I certainly don't wish to be a clone of his, but I do tend to be so overawed by him sometimes that it's difficult to take a step back.

How should we do so instead?
What is cocaine like?

Attached: 1546481844386.jpg (472x461, 30K)

Is this a joke? The genealogy is all about how the Catholic religion is the result of the resentment of the poor.

thats good user, but I would reframe from agreeing that the Christian world view is black and white, but this is where we differ and thats okay.

What's your unifying idea? Where are you trying to improve and create an impact?

‘and impotence which doesn’t retaliate is being turned into “goodness”; timid baseness is being turned into “humility”; submission to
people one hates is being turned into “obedience” (actually towards
someone who, they say, orders this submission – they call him God). The
inoffensiveness of the weakling, the very cowardice with which he is richly
endowed, his standing-by-the-door, his inevitable position of having to
wait, are all given good names such as “patience”, also known as the virtue;
not-being-able-to-take-revenge is called not-wanting-to-take-revenge, it
might even be forgiveness (“for they know not what they do – but we know
what they are doing!”). They are also talking about “loving your
enemies” – and sweating while they do it.’
– Go on!
– ‘They are miserable, without a doubt, all these rumour-mongers and
clandestine forgers, even if they do crouch close together for warmth –
but they tell me that their misery means they are God’s chosen and select,
after all, people beat the dogs they love best; perhaps this misery is just a
preparation, a test, a training, it might be even more than that – something that will one day be balanced up and paid back with enormous interest in gold, no! in happiness. They call that “bliss”.’
– Go on!
– ‘They are now informing me that not only are they better than the
powerful, the masters of the world whose spittle they have to lick (not
from fear, not at all from fear! but because God orders them to honour
those in authority)34 – not only are they better, but they have a “better
time”, or at least will have a better time one day. But enough! enough! I
can’t bear it any longer. Bad air! Bad air! This workshop where ideals are
fabricated – it seems to me just to stink of lies.’

Attached: C7CNYpDU0AA2uhA.jpg (704x1134, 83K)

No, accurately it's the resentment of the poor in spirit ( not monetary gains ), as it is a system of perception with no means to gain the reigns of your own virtues. but this only applies to lower man, as they cannot do such anyways.

BTFO

Not him, but self resenting and general resenting of this world is not seen as a bad thing in Catholicism so it's not the most fruitful criticism. It just makes the Church try harder at changing the outcome with the same process, which is why it's described as a self defeating system throughout his work (God dies choking on his sympathy for man, and so on). For Catholics, it's what perpetuates their system, admittedly, and Nietzsche pointing that out won't stop the system operating that way. They both agree that they eternalise themselves through suffering, but only Nietzsche chooses the antiChrist position because of that.

I cannot believe someone can misunderstand Nietzsche this bad. The genealogy is about how the POOR AND RESENTFUL CREATE THEIR OWN VIRTUES which are nurtured from their weakness at the time.

>Catholicism creates a system for the masses, but it does not exclude individuals of higher man from it's rank
That is exactly the value system that Nietzsche despises, which must be abolished along with its members "who must be removed from this life with the appeal of 'eternal life'" (NIetzche, if you had read it, you would know where it is this part)
> think you are misunderstanding how Neitzches critizes the church ( their lay- the blind followers ) and the virtues of which the Church proclaims.
Cringe and pathetic, either you're a troll or you should improve your reading comprehension levels.

>They both agree that they eternalise themselves through suffering, but only Nietzsche chooses the antiChrist position because of that.
And this is okay.
Remember Ubermensch don't have to have the same perspective on life.

>self resenting and general resenting of this world is not seen as a bad thing in Catholicism so it's not the most fruitful criticism
Certaintly is a bad thing for a Nietzschean

fucking digits

No user.

>which must be abolished along
and why must this be? Because two people differ in their opinion? Seems very undermench for you two pick sides

because two perspectives are not equal

Def. a troll or an idiot. Anyways bye.

>for those of you who understand this man, What is your unifying goal from which all things stem?
Power. I mean, fuck, did you read him?

I never said I agreed with Neitzches with everything, all I said is I agree with is god is dead among men. And you're here proving that point.

Says who? As, now your taking a position of authority and for me to agree with you would subject me to slave morality.
You're the person Neitzches feared for the Overman, because people like you run wild trying to subject people to their slave train of an opion, cutting down those who stand in their way.

Power is more of... an outcome of a means for me. But yeah I understand what you're saying.

598. Nor does reading a genius's writings help in any significant way, shape or form, if you are not already a genius, as all the inferior intellects are pleased to think. "Maybe I wasn't born as smart as him, but all his smartness must be contained inside his books, so all I have to do to become like him is read them!" A gross overestimation of the power of words, that amounts to believing that reading books can change your genes! The reality is that, at most, and if you are sensible, the genius's books will give you an inferiority complex. If you aren't, they'll turn you into a stark raving retard for whom there is no cure. — And you thought that lifting weights above your strength was dangerous! But reading books above your intelligence is unimaginably more so. But that, too, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and heed, precisely because evaluating the power of books is an unimaginably harder task than sizing up the weight of a couple of barbells, while to you books are, after all, just books. "What harm can there be in reading them?", you think, like all uneducated people.

Attached: 300px-Icycalm.jpg (300x225, 15K)

>someone forgot to read
>I am covinced you have never read Zarathustra, Gay Science, and especially the genealogy.
>If you bothered to read the genealogy
>a philosopher he clearly doesn't understand nor has read
>OP, what Nietzsche have you read?
>either you're a troll or you should improve your reading comprehension levels.
>did you read him?

He's just a child guys, not cool going hard on OP.

>But yeah I understand what you're saying.
I'm not sure that you do. Will to power is the central concept of Nietzsche's entire body of work. Anyone who understands Nietzsche understands that life is will to power, and that Heraclitus was saying a very similar thing almost two millennia ago.

Continue to avoid my presuppositions.

Very good paragraph user.
That's a thing with a lot of philosophy readers.

If you agree with the death of God in man, then you're anti-religious. Religion is for the weak who can't control the circumstances of their own lives. Religion is essentially nihilist, carrying out a slave morality that ends up denying life. Kill youself, you don't understand a fuck

to come to power for me would to pursue God, unifying idea being God.

Pursuing God (unifying idea) is pursuit of power.
but also!
Pursuing God (unifying idea) is virtuous
Pursuing God is also Logical.

And, of course, after a long discussion, you end up being an egalitarian retard who doesn't understand half of the most basic parts of his favorite philosophers philosophy, and "doesn't agree with" the rest - which is of course all of that which criticizes you. Never mind all of his complex ideas! On top of that - you take your own opinions and project them onto him (as most do when they cannot comprehend something: use personal experience) and arrive out of him thinking you "understand him".

Attached: retard.jpg (121x217, 9K)

when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.

has it in a few words here
I think you both mistake Nietzsche's position. He is not saying it's a bad thing.

It's like being gay. It could be good or bad, who the fuck knows, but if you want to win an election, it matters as a good thing in San Francisco and as a bad thing in Lubbock TX. (Or at least it would for a given time period). Nietzsche is describing history and how these systems work to perpetuate themselves and evolve through circumstance and time, but he's not saying it's a bad thing because it does that. He's saying his ubermenschen would break the cycle for themselves not crash the system. He thinks the system itself can crash and rebuild itself without any intervention and that intervention is in fact part of how it performs these deaths and rebirths. He's not saying its a de facto bad thing, and it can be argued it's a necessary thing in his estimation. Without that perpetuation across generations of collapse and recompiling people become comfortable, the Last Men. Nietzsche would prefer you to become a jihadi probably if he was forced to choose between that and destroying such human systems despite their resentment. What Nietzsche's ubermenschen are meant to function as are those who try to pull people out of such systems when the system might chew up the individual. They're a counterbalance, and can only exist and function in contrast to the systems which will continue anyway. Do away with such systems and they serve no point.
You could just give him the aphorism on curiosity
>If it were not for curiosity, man would never do anything for his fellow man. Curiosity creeps into the homes of the unfortunate and the needy, under the guise of pity or duty. There is probably a fair bit of curiosity in the much vaunted motherly love.
He's not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. It might get overblown at times, but you do still need you mother to be somewhat curious if you've stopped breathing or if you've eaten for a few months for humanity to survive at minimum. It's more likely to be overblown if it's painted as duty or sympathy.

I agree, but don't try to masquerade that Nietzsche would in any way prefer this thought based on weakness to one with any sort power.

Get the fuck out of here, you say shit and shit. Please, just leave this thread.

Attached: descarga (6).jpg (281x179, 5K)

Nothing is a bad thing, but some things are preferable. You've never read the Gay Science though, so you wouldn't know that.

Lifeforms that whine are weak, and hence not very intelligent. And lack of intelligence causes lack of understanding, including, and above all, self-understanding. Therefore whining is proof of nothing besides weakness, and certainly shouldn't be taken literally. Maybe those whining like whining? Have you ever thought about that? Maybe they simply enjoy it too much to let it go and actually try to achieve the things they are merely saying they want to achieve?
Ponder that for a moment. I know you have questions on this, and I'll get to them eventually, but in the meantime let this idea seep into your mind and marinate there for a while. As a result, you'll be that much readier to grasp the detailed, and earth-shatteringly radical, explanations when the time comes for them.

Attached: 1552628237128.png (1000x1618, 639K)

>weakness to one with any sort of power
That's a very vague phrase, and I think paints Nietzsche as more judgemental than he was. He's also opposed to weakness in the absence of power, perhaps more vehemently than weakness to power, since weakness because one is not being imposed upon by power is an abject state of Man that for him is kind of a doomsday scenario.

>Chad
>atheist

I can’t believe a girl as attractive as butterfly browses this site she must be redpilled as fuck :3

Preferences are not prescribed for the ubermensch. Asserting that it would be a bad thing for Nietzsche off any of his works ignores him saying he gets constantly misinterpreted and people replace their own preferences for any of his through some psychic delusion.

>He's also opposed to weakness in the absence of power
Is he now? I thought you said >He is not saying it's a bad thing.
and now we reach the point where I realize you have only read half his books, and are assuming the rest - as your attempt at assuming showed. I will now lay the news on you that Nietzsche is much more judgemental than you think, and you would know if you read what suggested. Good day.

how can you possibly reconcile Nietzsche with Catholicism?

Oh, I am sorry. We all know how much Nietzsche loved being pathetic and weak! Oh, wait, that is in opposition of all of "the Will to Power", and the "Gay Science". Yes, preferences are not prescribed FOR the ubermensch, I agree with you there.

>Is he now?
Yes, that would be the Last Men, and I'm sure you can Wikipedia it to see how that's a big hole to have in his theory.
>I thought you said (You) #
>>He is not saying it's a bad thing.
>and now we reach the point where I realize you have only read half his books, and are assuming the rest - as your attempt at assuming showed.
The terrible thing about history is that it won't change based on rhetoric, though many will try. You may convince yourself you know my reading history, as everyone is allowed their fantasies of one day passing the NSA drug test. Nietzsche will still have written scathing critics of such rhetoric and what it does to a person who utilises it, trying to conjure facts instead of interpretations and always missing their mark.

I think you need to wait for your brain to stop having whatever seizure thought that tone was conducive to discussion, and try an honest reading. You're sounding like a emotional girl, and not a convincing one.

>Asserting that it would be a bad thing for Nietzsche off any of his works ignores him saying he gets constantly misinterpreted and people replace their own preferences for any of his through some psychic delusion.
Except Nietzsche has a full work titled the will to power which outlines the driving force in man - the will to power. I think it is safe to say the ubermensch will not have any of his thought based off slave morality.

Attached: 1529977295789.jpg (334x334, 88K)

You are explicitly one (of NIetz.) last men, a catholic.

The driving force in man is the will to create (sir Macht) not the will to power (Kraft). The will to power is a destructive tributary of the large will to create. Which is why English speakers don't know the German for the will to power, since Nietzsche made the Wille zur Macht famous, not his will to power.

>sir Macht
Zur.

This line is completely fucking wrong and should be swapped. Image is shit overall though. The Mundus guy is a moron.

Attached: wrong.jpg (988x73, 40K)

>Catholics are comfy
Have you not seen our statues?

I was referring to the Christians in weakness in the absence of power, and how you said that Nietzsche thought that wasn't a bad thing. Your contradiction is the result of you thinking Nietzsche had no problems with the Christians, which is obviously false.

Power is just the ability to create, but I've never read the work in german so you might be onto something.

It's just action and reaction user. What you said was so stupid I needed to rip it apart.

>Humans are nothing but animals guided by their own primitive instincts, the only difference is that we try to suppress our own barbaric nature.

This nigga gets it.

However, I'm also curious about this part:
>And we can and should do that to some extent, but not the way we're doing now

What do you mean? Why should we? The only reason I can think of is because of our intellect, which is still a mystery to me. It probably has a purpose or probably not.

I agree, just not very many Icycalm meme images I can use in accompaniment with his shitposts.

>Christians in weakness in the absence of power,
Are not last men. And you probably mean Jews in the absence of power become Christians? He thought it was not as good as the Jews could do, but a development out of their initial mistakes in captivity. I'm not saying he thought there was no problem with Christians, but it's a different set of problems he had with them than with Last Men. He has problems with almost everybody, and normally the more problems he has with you, the better he thought you could do. He thought Jews could do better than becoming Christians, but that's in a lot ways because he likes Jews enough to blame them rather than blame for Christians. Neither Christians or Jews are Last Men because of those problems. Last Men are a problem regardless of if they're atheist or Chinese.

It's a big thing in his work. Like when he talks about science and fact and history, he uses Kraft as power to show that he means it's The Man Telling You What To Think. He supports Macht because it leads to artistry and creativity but also because it has to be more tied to immediate reality.
You didn't rip what I said apart, you just after like a girl having a tantrum while not addressing what I actually said. If that's opposing an argument to you, you might have trouble deciding where you want to eat.

>I'm not saying he thought there was no problem with Christians, but it's a different set of problems he had with them than with Last Men
Oh, I agree with that man. But
you said "he is not saying it as a bad thing", which is obv untrue, which is what I've been trying to say this whole time.

Attached: 1521247177222.jpg (345x304, 35K)

>le depressing black hair and bubbly blonde stereotype
Why even live.

I don’t go near blondes unless they are reasonably intelligent, even more so than I. :3

He isn't saying it's an all bad thing. He has problems with lots of things, but that doesn't mean he thinks they're bad. Like with the Jews, he has thousands of years of problems with them, but that does not mean he thinks Judaism is a bad thing. He thinks it's pretty based in a lot of ways and wants them to be their best. Saying he thinks that it's a bad thing ignores that he doesn't think they're bad so much as human, and he likes them more than most humans. You're trying to get him to align with your absolute judgement, and he's just not that into absolutes.

I guess I'll restate myself. Nietzsche had preferences. Proof: large importance put on power (or as said, the ability to create). This is preferable to weakness (the lack of that ability).

What a dumb fucking faggot post. Blondes are the best, the stupider the better.
Fucking a dumb petite blonde doggystyle while biting her ear and sticking your fingers in her mouth is the most übermensch experience in the world.

My absolute judgment is that he thought resentment - specifically - was bad in the situation that the Catholics were in, as you could see

But he praises weakness at times. For instance his idea of humility in the worm being a lesson in curling up rather than dying, pits one weakness against another, and in other circumstances he damns and praises humility.
>large importance put on power
In that a lot of his work, the majority, says that people are too swayed by arguments about power (Kraft) to engage with the full freedom of the will to create (Macht), yes he does place a large importance on disregarding power and arguments both from and about it.

He didn't. He just thought it was bad for getting out of a resentful system if you wanted to free yourself. The Catholics themselves are in the perfect position to keep being Catholics and eternalising the suffering of Jesus. It's perfectly suited to its purpose in that as far as he's concerned.

>For instance his idea of humility in the worm being a lesson in curling up rather than dying, pits one weakness against another
This alone proves he had preferences just like any other man.

>He just thought it was bad for getting out of a resentful system if you wanted to free yourself
which is exactly what I just said.

But he never extrapolates those preferences and often changes them on purpose, and openly says his preferences will nearly always be misrepresented. Preferences that are set in stone are kind of antithetical to his point.

No preference is ever set in stone, but that doesn't mean there isn't preference. Preference is always changing, as we see in the Gay Science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>>He just thought it was bad for getting out of a resentful system if you wanted to free yourself
>which is exactly what I just said.
>was bad in the situation that the Catholics were in,
That is not the situation the Catholic were in. Catholics are not Nietzsche, and Nietzsche is not saying it is a bad thing for Catholics in the situation they are in. He is saying it's a very good thing for them which has seen them running the show for millennia. Him claiming it's a good or bad thing as an absolute would be abhorrent to him because he does think it's all a matter of perspective and that his taste cannot even outweigh what other people think is his taste but must stand alone.

>What is your unifying goal from which all things stem?
yea-saying, nigga

Can anyone explain why he believes Catholicism to be a resentful system? From what (admittedly little) I've read of Nietzsche he doesn't actually connect the two points. I understand what ressentiment is, I do not understand how he actually connects it to Catholicism, or any other large denomination of Christianity.

Ah, good point, but I think it's hard to argue against Nietzsches hatred for the christian religion when all of genealogy is criticizing their whole doctrine to be founded on lines which were founded on weakness in ressentment, all in a mocking tone. But, then again, Nietzsche did always find importance in suffering so you might be onto something.

I don't and thats not the point of this thread.
I simply do not agree with everything he has said.

He spends most of the genealogy talking about how its false virtue arose in response to jealousy/resentment. See

But that's not what Catholic theology and morality consist of though. If that post is meant to lampoon Catholicism, (or Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism for that matter) then he was either was not familiar with actual christian theology or he is straw-manning.

He doesn't but most of his reader are athiest in the modern sense and tie their world view to Neitzches creating a false dichotomy. They are slaves of their own fallacy.
look at this thread, they exploded in an emotional response because OP claims he is compatible with both out looks.

That post is from the genealogy idiot.
is this bait?
>"Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment?" In all sternness let it be answered thus:—just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness, into a new colour, a new signification, a new appearance.

>You can see now what the remedial instinct of life has at least tried to effect, according to my conception, through the ascetic priest, and the[Pg 166] purpose for which he had to employ a temporary tyranny of such paradoxical and anomalous ideas as "guilt," "sin," "sinfulness," "corruption," "damnation." What was done was to make the sick harmless up to a certain point, to destroy the incurable by means of themselves, to turn the milder cases severely on to themselves, to give their resentment a backward direction

and - the first line of aphorism 10 of the genealogy:
>The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of resentment becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge.

Attached: 1528936562441.jpg (524x179, 41K)

>If that post is meant to lampoon Catholicism, (or Lutheranism, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism for that matter) then he was either was not familiar with actual christian theology or he is straw-manning.
You are replying to Nietzsche.

>That post is from the genealogy idiot.

I am aware of where it is from, since it says so in the post. But I will reiterate the problem with it: that's not what Catholic theology and morality consist of. Then he was either was not familiar with actual christian theology or he is straw-manning.

If that is your interpretation, then let it be, but your viewpoint on is genuinely hilariously wrong (please learn how to spell Nietzsches name). You are the one tying your viewpoint to Nietzsche's conclusions. See and thread.

>but your viewpoint on

But I am not that poster.

>You are the one tying your viewpoint to Nietzsche's conclusions.

How? I asked how he actually links Catholic theology to slave morality and was linked to the post from Genealogy. To which I replied that it is not an accurate reflection of Catholic morality and therefore fails as an argument that Catholicism is a resentful system.

He doesn't hate it. For him to hate it sets him up for resentment. His tone confuses a lot of people, as does his criticism. That's why people who don't read the Nazi edit still think he hates Jews (despite the passages where he says that hating Jews is why Germans are retards who are only hurting themselves in the long run).

The AntiChrist is easiest to see it in. He also deals with those who think you can resuscitate the church but since he wants to track Christianity in Europe since Jews moved out of the promised land, a lot of it bears more resemblance to the Catholic Church, just because they were the only Church in Europe for a long span. Genealogy has more about how Christianity came into being and deals more with the Jewish part, but the AntiChrist will give you a lot of the same criticism.
Calling preference good or bad too is always changing. You know he's famous for Beyond Good and Evil too?

Not any of these anons, but Catholic and have read Nietzsche. He sets up Christianity as a resentful system in The Antichrist
>By creating suffering, it eternalises itself
or words to that effect are how he describes Christianity. And, by his definition of resentment, he makes the argument that Christians have to view this world as poor and filled with suffering, because without suffering, there is no cause for human compassion, and human compassion is supposed to be their whole point.
Catholicism shares some of that view on suffering, but claims that the world really is that bad and the Church is not just making up the need for their charity to feel important.
I wouldn't flatly dismiss it as a criticism, since I'm sure some people in the Church do it because they are prideful.

achieve my true will in life that is creating Hight Art, no bullshit authority and parsominous account in my fucking life, no more, fuck normies, fuck the establishment and fuck ideologies and fuck you

Attached: 1541046401323.jpg (1600x1048, 391K)

How's the high fructose diet going?

Oh, sorry. I thought you were that poster. You guys both have the same mispelling of nietzsches name. Disregard my last lines which were based on that assumption.
Yeah, you're right.

>Oh, sorry. I thought you were that poster.
Oh okay.
>You guys both have the same mispelling of nietzsches name.
But I spelled it Nietzsche.

Oh, and see for proof that Nietzsche thinks Catholicism is resentful. Or just read the genealogy, which literally describes his whole thought on the matter in the first ten pages.

You aren't a practicing Catholic, are you. You couldn't possibly agree with Nietzsche if you were. His entire shtick is being a brainlet reaction to brainlet Protestantism.

eh it´s not that bad

>"I follow Neitzches philosophy"
>"why yes I am also a Catholic"

Why didn't you assholes immediately recognize this as the bait it is? OP is clearly a troll who knew you'd all froth at the mouth at the idea of a Catholic Nietzschean. But then again I'm replying too so it's not like I'm any better than the troglodyte that started this thread

Catholicism makes you feel guilty and bad and sinful for having good natural instincts, like the desire for sex. The suppression of these instincts comes from a place of ressentiment. Think of the guy who thinks all women should be sexually restrained because he can't get a gf, or the woman who thinks men shouldn't be in power because she is incapable of controlling even her own life. These people desire their own power, can't achieve it, so they reduce the power of others through resentful, moralizing tactics

OP doesnt even say he follows Neitzche.

Pretty good bait, though. Pulls together both people who like Nietzsche and christians, polar opposites, for a toxic thread. Feel sorry for OP if he is sincere though.

Crowley is the next step for you.
The Beatles were the first Supermen on this planet.

Reminder that if you are a bottom you cannot be an Ubermensch

Get it?

Strong digits.

You write poorly enough for me to be unshakeably certain that you fundamentally misunderstand Nietzsche. Nevertheless, my worldview has been shaped by Nietzsche perhaps more than by any other thinker. So yes, my “unifying goal from which all things stem” has changed since l “have undertaken the glean of this man.”