[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 74 KB, 564x564, 43c7f5fc69e92d6665109af58ed1a7c3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23331857 No.23331857 [Reply] [Original]

was Nietzsche really atheist?

>> No.23331869

That’s not a real pic they didn’t have motorcycles in the middle ages

>> No.23331875

Kierkegaard not invited to the existentialist Sunday ride :(

>> No.23331905

No he was PAGAN
Dionysian Catholic..

>> No.23331913

yes he stank bad too and wore an old fedora which he would often tip in front of madams
source: I read it in a book

>> No.23331914

No. Brainlets call him atheist and nihilist because they can't stand that he BTFO the christian understanding of divinity and morality

>> No.23331935

>>23331857
Yes*

*antiquity atheist

>> No.23331938

Pantheist

>> No.23331960

>>23331857
Nietzche was a trained philologist and the son of a pastor, he was obviously a Christian

>> No.23332065

No one ever is.

If one had made any decision by taking risks in their life, then he's not atheist.

>> No.23332149

>>23331857
He seemed to not really care one way or the other and was more concerned about the consequences ideas about God have on men who hold them.

>> No.23332838

>>23331857
Ezra Pound called him a modern Christian. Modern Christianity = Mormonism. Nietzsche was Mormon

>> No.23333058

>>23331857
Sartre can't pick a lane.

>> No.23333540

>>23331857
What do you mean by atheist? As in he acknowledged that truth is will to power and all gods are projections? Then yes, he was atheist.

>> No.23333759

>>23332065
Stupid definition of theism.

>> No.23333978

>>23331875
Kierkegaard was way too hardcore for those Nancies.

>> No.23334153

>>23331857
yes, one of the most immanent philosophies, idk how you can claim that he is something but atheist

>> No.23334191

>>23331857
no he was a nihilist they are similar but different, being a nihilist is more extreme than atheism

>> No.23334729

>>23331857
Yes. He lays out his understanding of the nature of the universe in The Gay Science section 109:

>Let us beware of thinking that the world is a living being. To where would it spread? With what would it nourish itself? How could it grow and multiply? We have a pretty good idea what the organic is; and we are supposed to reinterpret something unspeakably derivative, late, rare and accidental, something we only perceive on the surface of the earth, into something essential, universal and eternal, as do those who call the universe an organism? That disgusts me. Let us beware of believing that the universe is a machine; it is certainly not constructed for any one purpose; we do it too much honour with the word ‘machine’.
...
>The overall character of the world, however, is from all eternity chaos; not in the sense of a lack of necessity, but rather in the sense of a lack of order, structure, form, beauty, wisdom and whatever else our aesthetically attractive human qualities are called. The failures are by far the most numerous, the exceptions are not the secret purpose; and the whole music box perpetually repeats what should never be called a melody – and finally the very expression ‘failure’ is already an anthropomorphism which implies censure. But how could we presume to blame or praise the universe! Let us beware of imputing to it heartlessness and irrationality, or their opposites; it is neither perfect, nor beautiful, nor noble, nor wishes to become any of these things; it by no means strives to emulate man! It is by no means subject to our aesthetic and moral judgements! It also has no instinct for self-preservation, indeed, no instincts whatsoever; it also knows no law. Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, and no one who transgresses. When you know that nothing is intentional, then you also know that nothing is accidental; for it is only where there is a world of intentions that the word ‘accident’ has any meaning. Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living is only a species of the dead, and a very rare one at that.

>Let us beware of thinking that the world perpetually creates what is new. There are no perpetually enduring substances; matter is as much an error as the god of the Eleatics. But when shall we have done with our caution and care?

>When will all these shadows of God no longer darken our understanding? When will we have completely demythologized nature? When may we begin to naturalize ourselves by means of the pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?

>> No.23334917

If you say God has a beard and I say no I'm making positive theological claims just like you are. Nietzsche generally doesn't do that, he talks about the concept as it relates to our psychology.
The world on a fundamental level appears as chaos with a will that orders it. This is the Biblical and Sumerian story of Genesis. Does that say anything about if God has a beard?

>> No.23335360

>>23334191
Succinctly put, anon.