Philosophy Why I will read Nietzsche.

[Raskolnikov]

I am a Christian. I wear a cross and proclaim to follow Jesus Christ. My faith however is hollow, only an abstraction of itself. If someone were to tell me "Explain why you're Christian" or "Rationalize your faith", I realized that I cannot do such a thing. I can not rationalize or argument for my faith, and by that extension I do not have any tangible faith. Saying one believes when one has no tangible deep faith is worse than not believing at all, because at least the second group is not lying to themselves.

Then I came to a conclusion, Friedrich Nietzsche is most likely the most intelligent denier of God and attacker of Christianity that has ever set foot on earth. So if I want to rationalize my faith, the best way to do so would be to stand eye to eye with the most intelligent opponent of the idea I desire to defend, by doing this I either lose and submit to his ideals (which would at least be tangible argumentative ideals), or when facing this man my brain is forced to develop tangible counter arguments and ideals defending and explaining why I do believe. I'm convinced the only way for me to find peace within the stability of my Christian faith is to go up against this iron man of its opposition. I either lose or I win, either way I will be able to know why I think the way I do.

@Tabula Rasa

 

[Memento Mori]

Friedrich Nietzsche is most likely the most intelligent denier of God and attacker of Christianity that has ever set foot on earth.

Rather flattering that you refer to him as the most intelligent, there have been many other intelligent writers and philosophers who have written their own polemics and criticisms against Christianity. Nietzsche is certainly a name that is more recognisable in this contemporary era, however.

So if I want to rationalize my faith, the best way to do so would be to stand eye to eye with the most intelligent opponent of the idea I desire to defend, by doing this I either lose and submit to his ideals (which would at least be tangible argumentative ideals), or when facing this man my brain is forced to develop tangible counter arguments and ideals defending and explaining why I do believe. I'm convinced the only way for me to find peace within the stability of my Christian faith is to go up against this iron man of its opposition. I either lose or I win, either way I will be able to know why I think the way I do.

It would be rather negligible for a novice like you to spar in an intellectual joust against a long-dead influential philosopher who has already been picked apart by other commentators aplenty over the many decades. Perhaps it would be better for you to familiarise yourself with a diverse range of viewpoints and arguments instead of focusing so intently on one individual.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Rather flattering that you refer to him as the most intelligent, there have been many other intelligent writers and philosophers who have written their own polemics and criticisms against Christianity. Nietzsche is certainly a name that is more recognisable in this contemporary era, however.

Name some you deem more intelligent, will check them out for sure, Nietzsche just holds this mysterious aura of a scarily deep mind that you rarely will see each century.

It would be rather negligible for a novice like you to spar in an intellectual joust against a long-dead influential philosopher who has already been picked apart by other commentators aplenty over the many decades. Perhaps it would be better for you to familiarise yourself with a diverse range of viewpoints and arguments instead of focusing so intently on one individual.

I spar for my own personal satisfaction, not for glory or fame. Also I do not know what others have said so I start with a clean slate.

 

[Memento Mori]

Name some you deem more intelligent

I'm not one who ranks other intellectuals by such a metric, I'm just suggesting that you shouldn't single out a particular individual when there exists a broader range of material with which you could familiarise yourself with. Perhaps you should investigate some of the thinkers of the Enlightenment, for example Voltaire and Hume.

 

[Myst]

I am a Christian. I wear a cross and proclaim to follow Jesus Christ. My faith however is hollow, only an abstraction of itself. If someone were to tell me "Explain why you're Christian" or "Rationalize your faith", I realized that I cannot do such a thing. I can not rationalize or argument for my faith, and by that extension I do not have any tangible faith. Saying one believes when one has no tangible deep faith is worse than not believing at all, because at least the second group is not lying to themselves.

Then I came to a conclusion, Friedrich Nietzsche is most likely the most intelligent denier of God and attacker of Christianity that has ever set foot on earth. So if I want to rationalize my faith, the best way to do so would be to stand eye to eye with the most intelligent opponent of the idea I desire to defend, by doing this I either lose and submit to his ideals (which would at least be tangible argumentative ideals), or when facing this man my brain is forced to develop tangible counter arguments and ideals defending and explaining why I do believe. I'm convinced the only way for me to find peace within the stability of my Christian faith is to go up against this iron man of its opposition. I either lose or I win, either way I will be able to know why I think the way I do.

@Tabula Rasa

Copied from .org

 

[Raskolnikov]

Copied from .org

Yes but it is literally me on both sites, same guy, HarrierDuBois.

 

[Myst]

Yes but it is literally me on both sites, same guy, HarrierDuBois.

Fair enough, also read the nietzsche alternatives under your original thread if you haven't already.

 

[SergeantAutist]

HarrierDuBois

Bro i can remember you tho

 

[Raskolnikov]

Fair enough, also read the nietzsche alternatives under your original thread if you haven't already.

On The Genealogy of Morals
Birth of Tragedy
Beyond Good and Evil
The Gay Science
Twilight of The Idols
Anti-Christ
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Ecce Homo

Current list. Feel free to add anything.

 

[porco-dddio]

I have read it when I was teenager but I got that book bout zaratustra and I didnt get it, and I was reading it quick in the toilet. I didnt get it and it was all metaphors and symbols and stuff.

Also he made assertions like "we killed god" and to me seems unsubstantiated, even when i was younger I was feeling something is off here, something isnt right, some smell of shit I cant quite describe

I think that guy nietzsche is profoundly wrong, profoundly at a very deep level, he makes assumptions he has no way to demonstrate so he resorts to rhetorical trickerry and poetical images.

If he was brainier he would have wrote philosophy that is intelligible.

 

[porco-dddio]

Also. Poetic authority doesnt matter not in front of me.

It can matter for other people, but im an incel, and I stand in front of poets and jesters. Imagine my face like the stone of this statue.

Cool poetry bro, im gona read MIT philosophy not some poetry that I can debunk while im the toilet. I have dignity, some standards. I dont read inferior people. Fail to impress me with intelligible info and I wont ever give you any sort of respect.

I watch anime, Im full of myth and lore. Nietzsche is an annoying little fly his rudimentary poetry is built to arouse christians so they can "prove" their logical fallacy.

Christians love nietzsche, half their rhetorical programming has been built on finding resolutions for the artifcial programming of nietzsche.

This is the nietzsche little trick: false description of a problem, all fake no substance > false sense of doom > therefore solution is join christianity.

Its so evident, anyone can see the trick. I spotted it a mile away. Its a classical problem reaction solution pattern.