I am hanged up on soteriology. I love to think about the Cross and what was accomplished there, for the sinner. Primarily because this was obscured to me when I was an RC and because this was side stepped when I went to Evangelia or as Evangelia went on. I can not get enough of it and it does not seem to bore me. I hope it does not get side-stepped again in the Liturgical Wars going on. I am fighting some funny things to say about this, but I do not want people to stumble so I better not.
It is amazing how a preposition determines correct or wrong thinking. Christian theology is a matter of getting your prepositions right. Neglecting it ruins the message of God.
Take 1 John 5:
11And the testimony is this, that God has given us (S)eternal life, and (T)this life is in His Son. 12(U)He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
There is something objective here, absolutely: God has given people of the world eternal life...but this is in the Son. From that, it can be turned to this...
Every one has eternal.
Can you see the implication of that? Even if one says " Every one has eternal life, whether or not one believes it or not" -- there is still something missing here. Boy, this is really sounding universalistic does it not? What gives? The phrase "in the Son".
Take the case again on justification - JBFA. Actually the slogan is meant to be considered in its completed thesis...we are justified through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. Dropping that last phrase gets all the trouble and confusion even amongst us who affirm this. What happens when what is implied is dropped? Faith becomes the focus, per se as an end point. You don't talk about Christ, you talk about faith.
Technically when it comes to justification: I like its definition such as "accounting or reckoning as righteous". The "being declared righteous" makes me want to search for a goose bump audible experience from God, so I rather think of "treating as righteous". Besides, justification is an attitude of God, it happens in the heart of God, it does not happen inside me. It is not an experience inside me, it is in God's being, it is happening outside me, it is happening in God. I believe it is happening in God by what Scripture says. I do not feel it.
Going back to Abraham in Genesis 15, you will notice that God did not come to Abraham with a proposal saying "Look, I am going to give you a promise, and if you believe this, then I will count you as righteous, ok,? Deal or no deal? It does not seem it happened that way. There was no proposal, rather there was a promise. Abraham simply trusted that, as if "ok if you say so". It was reality for him.
From the Apology of Augsburg-- Article IV:
For the Law requires of us our works and our perfection. But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ's sake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death, reconciliation which is received not by works, but by faith alone. This faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only confidence in the promise, or 45] the mercy promised in Christ. This special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for Christ's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us.And
46] Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed aside like a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the true knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law.
86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30You can see right away that the Apology does not even remotely suggest universalism. But why is it that when some presentations are heard it sounds that way?
You can also see the role of faith, that it is nothing as such, but if it is talked about without context, it can sound - hmm, may be I have to see to it that I have faith, or what amounts to faith in faith.
Faith is nothing but a hand that grasps the promise of the payment of sins at the Cross of Jesus. It has what it holds on to. The hand analogy is really quite good for me here. Hold on to a spanner, you got the spanner. Hold on to a hammer, you got the hammer. It possesses what it is holding on to etc.
But the thing that controls you from going down hill to universalism or going up to having faith in your faith is "IN CHRIST". The promise of redemption, like one pastor I heard, said that it, is not somewhere out there floating on air, rather it is located in one single spot, IN CHRIST. Neglect this and we are open to confusion.
It appears to me that when we start asking do we have faith, we are not looking at Christ, we are looking at our faith. lt is like the hands clasping at each other, not holding an external object.
My position is to keep on looking at my reconciliation, i.e. the payment for my sins, that what I owe by way of righteousness and by way of my sin has been paid for -- at the Cross of Jesus, all of them, no more, dealt with. I try not to look at my justification or analyze it, because it is something that happens in God, I trust my sins been paid for, dealt with, taken away, my debt paid in full, finished, what I owe God Christ provided and answered for. It is easier for me to think of my debt of sin being paid because I got to learn about the teaching of Romans and Galatians etc only after I believed - at the work of Christ at the Cross. Yes indeed I do rejoice that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to me, but the side of that came from my reconciliation.
31 comments:
I think it's fair game to say only in the Reformation Gospel, particularly the Lutheran Gospel where the Cross is truly viewed as UNCONDITIONAL. No strings attached. No putting you on the spot lurking in the shadows. No small print.
Only and but sheer unmerited grace. In fact, the Cross is precisely an attack on OUR conditionalism. Think about that! The Cross is against conditionalism in all its forms. This is why JFBA is attacked as a form of ANTINOMIANISM.
The Cross comes to DESTROY Aour conditionalism. And know what, sanctification is about getting used to the UNCONDITIONAL Gospel.
To quote the Reformed, man is nothing AND God is everything. We saw that wonderfully and brilliantly displayed on the Cross. Jesus dying DESPITE (yup) us. We don't want reconciliation. We may *think* we want. But the heart is desperately wicked above all things. Who can know it? Peter who confessed that Jesus is the Son of God and vehemently protested hus loyalty to Him ended up denying Our Lord three times, not once, but three times. The head of apostles. Imagine that ...
No, we don't want reconciliation. Our confession that we have been reconciled is GROUNDED in the fact that we have been reconciled by Jesus to God. And being reconciled, our Old Being/Adam is dead and continues to be killed, whilst the new man in Christ is being raised up in newness of life.
Isn't it wonderful, that the God Who has mercy on whom He will have mercy sends His only begotten Son to die for the UNGODLY, i.e. the anti-god. How unconditional can you get?
"I rather think of 'treating as righteous'."
"Besides, justification is an attitude of God..."
Tremendous insight here, and it truly describes the power behind so-called forensic justification. Surely the way God perceives something must be the way it really is.
And didn't Eliza Doolittle point out that what makes a lady is not how she behaves, but how she is treated?
Bro Jason,
When all conditions are also met by God for us, what freedom and joy.
Indeed, the reason why it is by faith and not works is because it is by grace, grace because Jesus is that gift of grace, our atonement, our reconciliation.
Law says I have debt worthy of death, the Gospel says, that debt is paid already by Christ, fully paid.
Yes indeed too as you say, sanctification is always believing that you are not saved by your works, it does carry that sense too in my thinking, always remembering that it is a gift.
LPC
xan,
Thanks bro.
but how she is treated?
Well isn't that true. My missus says that to me, she says when a woman is treated like a lady, she behaves like a lady. They become she says, how men treat them.
Thanks for this bro. You just got me recalling what my wife said.
LPC
It is a big debate amongst reformers.
Do we trust our personal experience of conversion?
In Calvinist Churches we are sicouraged from spending time recounting our "testimony". How Jesus saved me from drugs and alchohol etc... Or also about my current devotion to God.
Calvinists want to ANALIZE the Cross. We want to comprehend it.
Luther did also. He wanted us all to have PHDs on the Theology of the Cross.
My next Amazon.com video review will be of C.J. Mehaney's book on Humility. I am waiting for it to come in the mail first so I can say that I read it and have it.
But I am going to rip it to shreds.
What place does "humilty" have in salvation? A: None!
Luther summarized salvation AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE AND WALK FROM BEGINING TO END: THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL.
There is original sin and then there is the atonement and justification.
Lito is hanged up on soteriology and Mehaney is hanged up up his own humility. He has forgotten the law. He has forgotten his need for Christ. And then he has forgotten Christ. He only sees his own humility.
But Mehaney thinks that he has gotten his humility from Christ. But Luther amd Lito are hanged up on soteriology. But Menhaney has gotten something from it so that now he can forgo it altogether.
Soteriology is not an ends unto itself for Mehaney. He needs it to be a means to another ends. He needs it to be a means to humility. And now he has no need for it. He wants to live the "Cross-centered life" and have "humility".
But all I want to do is think about the Cross itself. I don't think I can live the Cross-centerd life or have any humility--not even in light of the Cross.
NOT EVEN IN LIGHT OF THE CROSS.
The Cross does nothing but show me my need for it. It is not a way of life and it does not give me humility. It is an ends unto itself. It is not a means.
Jim,
Thanks for the kind words bro.
The Cross does nothing but show me my need for it.
An absolute amen!
LPC
Hey L. P. Good post. One thing…
“…I try not to look at my justification or analyze it, because it is something that happens in God…”
Okay. Fine. But you did it anyway.
“…I trust my sins been paid for, dealt with, taken away, my debt paid in full …what I owe God Christ provided and answered for … my debt of sin being paid …the righteousness of Christ is imputed to me …”
I think I know what you mean, however. I also like to talk about Christ’s Cross most of the time instead of justification. More happens “in Christ” than just justification (e. g. adoption, reconciliation, expiation, propitiation, mystical union, and even election).
We are counted righteous in Christ. That is the short version of justification. That is the lynch-pin of my understanding of the atonement.
In Christ,
J. K.
JK,
I can only utter a blessing each time I think of the atonement.
I always go back to what was preached to me, and that involved the Law that told me of my debt, then the Gospel that told me how I have been paid by Christ.
justification (e. g. adoption, reconciliation, expiation, propitiation, mystical union, and even election)
This is probably where we will slightly differ in precision of terminology from a Calvinist.
Justification is the flip side of reconciliation (atonement), but justification happens when we are brought to faith in the atonement- it is the reckoning as righteous by God on account of Christ, taken by faith only.
That reckoning is God's attitude towards the believing sinner. So I try to not go looking around for some mystical experience, like a voice saying "you are righteous" etc.
The atonement is the source of all these blessings in Christ. Everything flows from the "Tree" (The Cross). It is the tree of life.
LPC
One could accuse Paul of circular reasoning:
Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Verse 11 is Paul's experience of "mystical union". How about this example of mystical union:
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Look how brilliant Nietezsche was as he teaches on what he says is the ultimate delusional religious weakness (of St. Paul)--far far more brilliant than most regenerate teachers! His language paralles that of Luther himself--if not out does it:
"Paul became the fanatical defender of this god and his law and guardian of his honor; at the same time, in the struggle against the transgressors and doubters, lying in wait for them, he became increasingly harsh and evilly disposed towards them, and inclined towards the most extreme punishments. And now he found that--hot-headed, sensual, melancholy, malignant in his hatred as he was-- he was himself unable to fulfill the law; indeed, and this seemed strangest to him, his extravagant lust to domineer provoked him continually to transgress the law, and he had to yield to this thorn.
Is it really his "carnal nature" that makes him transgress again and again? And not rather, as he himself suspected later, behind it the law itself, which must constantly prove itself unfulfillable and which lures him to transgression with irresistable charm? But at that time he did not yet have this way out. He had much on his conscience - he hints at hostility, murder, magic, idolatry, lewdness, drunkenness, and pleasure in dissolute carousing - and... moments came when he said to himself:"It is all in vain; the torture of the unfulfilled law cannot be overcome."... The law was the cross to which he felt himself nailed: how he hated it! how he searched for some means to annihilate it--not to fulfill it any more himself! And finally the saving thought struck him,... "It is unreasonable to persecute this Jesus! Here after all is the way out; here is the perfect revenge; here and nowhere else I have and hold the annihilator of the law!"... Until then the ignominious death had seemed to him the chief argument against the Messianic claim of which the new doctrine spoke: but what if it were necessary to get rid of the law? The tremendous consequences of this idea, of this solution of the riddle, spin before his eyes; at one stroke he becomes the happiest man; the destiny of the Jews--no, of all men--seems to him to be tied to this idea, to this second of its sudden illumination; he has the thought of thoughts, the key of keys, the light of lights; it is around him that all history must revolve henceforth. For he is from now on the teacher of the annihilation of the law...
This is the first Christian, the inventor of Christianity. Until then there were only a few Jewish sectarians."
from Nietzsche's Daybreak, s.68, Walter Kaufmann transl.
----"it is unreasonable to persecute this Jesus"----Nietezche summs up St. Paul's troubled conscience driving him to "the ignominious death... but what if it were neccessary to get rid of the law?.... the key of keys, the light of lights"
Look what Nietezche comprehends about the "charm of the law itself" beyond Paul's own "carnal nature" in his rebrobation that almost no regenerate teacher understands (requoted from above):
"And not rather, as he himself suspected later, behind it the law itself, which must constantly prove itself unfulfillable and which lures him to transgression with irresistable charm?"
http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html
Jim,
I hope Dr. Terry -- The Past Elder gets to read your quote of Nietzche. According to him, only Nietzche is the philosopher worth reading. He is yet to say why he is the philosopher that does them all.
A bit of that eloquence seems to hint to me, why he is the only philosopher worth reading.
LPC
Who summoned me?
(Just having fun here, guys.)
Many Jews, and also academics, not to mention liberal Christians, or rather liberals who honour Christ by finding him similar to themselves (stop right here, this is an allusion to Nietzsche, extra credit to whoever catches the reference) contend this, that Jesus was a Jew, and Paul the first Christian and inventor of Christianity.
Further, that Paul's new religion is based not on Scripture nor Judaism but twisting all of that to answer his personal problems.
Actually, I used to see Luther that way -- that his version of Christianity was simply a refashioning of the faith to address his inability to make a good confession made worse by his Occamist professors, so the poor guy, heir to the worst of Christian philosophy and thinking it was the best, never had a chance.
For that matter, Nietzsche himself came from a long line of Lutheran pastors, and started out to be one himself, until this boy from a small town got to the big city university and took some classes with the liberals of the day. He came to see Christianity as essentially Platonism for the masses, with a denial of this world for a supposed better one, serving the purpose of those who are incapable of handling this world, religiously serving the same Platonic arguments re matter and ideality.
I want to fulfill the Law. I can't fulfill the Law. Wait, he fulfilled the Law for me! O happy day.
Nietzsche once said this evangel, good news, is really dysangel, bad news. One who cannot handle this world lyingly invents another in which he comes out on top. Thus he finds Christianity anti-life, not in the sense of the current abortion debates, but in turning away from life to a supposed other life. The Exodus led the people out of a land obsessed with a supposed afterlife, now Christianity leads them back to it. The Law addresses life, the Gospel is a fairy tale.
Now, if you're not going to be a Christian, this is a much better basis for it than saying, as I learned at my RC university, that Scripture is simply the expression of the believing community of their understanding of the continuing significance of Jesus for them, and the community consists in finding Jesus of continuing significance, not in sharing the expression of any one age of that significance.
Actually, I don't say Nietzsche is the only philosopher worth reading. He said it himself; I simply repeat the claim. He was right. If Christianity is wrong, there is no better and more courageous view of life with all its contradictions and terrors and joys, and no better refusal to accept some sort of comforting fairy tale, than Nietzsche.
In nuce: God is dead. Not that there was a God and he died; there never was a God, and the myth that there is has outlived its questionable usefulness. Likewise a substitution of philosophical concepts for God to function similarly.
P. E.
Sounds to me that Nietzsche found the Gospel to be sooo good it had to be a fairy tale.
LPC
Dear P.E.,
So to Nietezche Paul was simply a Platonic "philospher king" of sorts in the name of Christ?
And so Nietezche rejected Platos allegory of the cave as weakness---the invention of another life, a fairytale for those who can't cut the mustard. Plato (Socrates) were making excuses.
So Nietezsche was actually defending sophestry as strength and was actually arguing that Socrates deserved to die for corrupting--or weakening--the youth by questioning the arguments for the strength and striving of the sophists?
And then Paul's gospel would be simply another version of Socrates weakness whom would not accept the hard realites of the sophists/pharissies? That is the Pharresies would simply be Paul's Sophists?
Paul was promoting a Christ who was truly simply a rebel-- a false messiah--against the Roman Empire and Paul turned to Platonic otherworld/fantsy/weakness/concotion to advertise his own rebellion in the name of the first rebellion he followed--the Lord Jesus? (who was only a rebel and not God and who therefore never ressurrected?)
All men must follow the sophists/pharresies through the will to power to become supermen?
IN OTHER WORDS, NIETEZSCHE CONFUSES SOLA FIDE FOR GNOTICISM. Plato was a gnostic and Nietzsche thought that Paul was simply another gnostic!!!!!!!
And that Luther simply had a similar gnostic nervous breakdown/bowl movement because of too many lightening bolts?
Did you know that I quote Ben Sasse on Luther from Modern Reformation Magazine in my book Eternal Christianity?
He wrote that Luther saw that "the infinite God revelation" was essential against finite human reasoning.
Nietzeche---and Plato---were both guilty of HUMAN REASON AGAINST INFINITE REVELATION.
Luther does quote Plato against Aristostle a bit in Bondage but Luther made it clear that human reason--like that of Plato's gnostism was not able to comprehend the infinite revelation of the Theology of The Cross.
You can read my quote of Ben Sasse from Modern Reformation and my anaylysis was Luther's INFINTIE 95 Thesis at
www.declaredrighteousness.com
in my second chapter on Introdction to Eternal Theology which is fully in tact at the google book link above.
P.E./Jim,
You are both Nietzche aware, I hardly new the guy back in uni days.
He seemed like an astute philosopher, no? But turned out to be an unbeliever.
LPC
Lito,
I don't categorize Nietzsche as a philospher!
Hume and Descartes and even Plato wrote intelectual arguments!
Philosphers do dable in spirituality and religion but they believe in objectivity and the MIND NOT HEART.
PSYCHIATISTS SPEICALIZE IN EMOTIONS AND SPIRITUALITY AND RELIGION.
Nietezche, Freud, Jung, Adler.
For example Decartes is also considered the "Father of Modern Mathematics" as well as the "Father of Modern Philosophy."
Decartes disocvered/invented Trinometry. He was a thinker that made objective observations.
Hume, was also a thinker, a debater, and analyizer. He and Nietzche, while both staunch anti-Christian "atheists" did not write in the same fashhion or genere.
Hume wrote very anaylitically and WOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED HIMSELF TO be "THE ONLY PHILOSPHER WORTH READING".
Nietzeche not only considered himself to be the only philospher worth reading BUT ALSO THE ORIGIN OF HIS WRITINGS. HE ENCOURAGES HE READES TO LOOK TO HIM--NOT JUST HIS ARGUMENTS--AS BEING IMPORTANT.
YOU NIETZSCHE ACTUALLY CLAIMED TO BE A "PROPHET"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DAVID HUME WOULD HAVE STILL TOLD YOU TO LOOK AT WHAT HE IS SAYING ABOUT FIRE AND DEW ON THE GRASS BUT NIETEZSCHE WHATS YOUR ATTENTION UPON HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!
PLATO DOES USE "allegories"
But like Freud, Jung, Adler---Niethzsche specializes not in objetivity but subejtive matters of-the-heart-----not objetive matters of the mind. David Hume was still arguing from his mind about the world system.
But Niethezche is mostly DRAMA and METAPHOR AND EMOTION as Freud was mostly DRAMA AND METAPHOR AD EMOTION and Jung was Gnostic PRIEST.
Hume was not metaphorical and dramatic and emotional but dry and anayitcal.
Nietezsche was not truly a philosphopher but a psycologist/sociologist before Freud.
In my humble opinion he was the inventor of Social Darwinsm primarily as a "deep psychologist/sociologist" not philosopher per se.
the "will to power" was simply his "libido".
For Freud every revolved around sex. For Nietzesche everything revolved around willpower.
Nice neat summary...
Looks like Nietzche was a real Pietists, subjectivity, emotion and feelings is reality.
It is sad that he left the faith then. Pietism can do that to people once faith and feelings are equated together.
LPC
I believe it would be Nietzsche's contention that there is no such thing as objectivity/subjectivity, or mind/heart etc, but these things are linguistic constructs, nothing more, not terms for something that exists, but terms useful or not in our attempt to sort out our experience of existence.
Hence the phrase Beyond Good and Evil. It is not that there is a good and evil to go beyond, it is that good and evil are terms that refer to nothing in objectivity but to values that predominate because of the existence of strong men or cultures which held them, and therefore are supposed to exist independent of them but do not.
The Will to Power then is to leave behind as nothing more than linguistic constructs things like good/evil, objective/subjective, mind/heart, und so weiter, and to experience existence directly rather than filtered through these lenses thinking that what one sees through them is "real".
"Willpower", then, is not the Will to Power but an expression coming from and lost in the illusions the Will to Power leaves behind.
P.E.
Would you consider Nietzche to be nihilist?
I am trying to relate it in my knowledge of Budhism. But could not Nietzche then dabble in mysticism to resolve his nothingness?I am just curious if he had any addressed to this as it seems to me meaning in life is not there and I wonder how he could resolve that.
LPC
P.E.,
While Nietezsche himself may have claimed to go beyond objectivicvity and subjectivity, what I myself mean by "subjectivity" is:
Judges 21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
That is, I grew up listening to Ravi Zacharius and R.C. Sproul teaching the "Law of Non-Contradiction." Non-contradiction would be "objectivity". Subjectivity would be a moral free-for-all. When Nietezche says that morality is nothing but "aestics" that is what I would say is up to private interpretation---or that is morality is up to "subjective" interpretation.
Nietzsche was a vagabond. He was homeless. He was on crusades against friends. He was delusional and foaming at the mouth most of the time. I do not respect him any more than I would respect Bob Marley the pot-smoking Reggee singer.
Nietezsche wasn't brilliant or deep but crazy and a burnout and vagabond and violent.
There is a mystic around both Bob Marley the pot-smoking Regge singer and there is a mystic around Nietzsche. Both of them were foaming at the mouth.
Both of them violated objectivity and therefore were nothing but "subjective".
There might be something "Beyond" subjectivty and we might all be "a spec of dust underneath the figernail of a giant" (a quote from a pot-smoking scene from the movie of the rebelious frat-house "Animal House" with John Belushi)
But I am afraid that unless one is smoking pot we are probably not a spec of dust underneath the fingernail of a giant--nor can we be a "Rastafarian" Reggee singer. And in addition to that unless we are mentally ill nor can we claim to go "Beyond Good And Evil".
Ther are only two choices: Either we are good or we are evil. We either have understanding or we are contradictory. We are ether objective or subjective.
There is nothing beyond subjectivity. Maybe there is facsim or nazism where an entire group holds together in the single same subjective anti-objectivity--but that doesn't mean that nazism was beyond subjectivity.
At the back of the Penguin Classic "The Nietezsche Reader" there is an article called "The Genuious Of The Human Heart."
Nietezche believed in subjective heart-knowlegde as opposed to objective rational head knowelge.
Nietezche was emotional and dramatic and UNTHINKING and foaming at the mouth and full of nonsense and bullshit. But there is a mystic around him by people who claim to understand him--by people who claim that he was understandable--by people who claim that he was a philosopher--and they have disagreeable subjective intrepretations of him.
He was not a philospher but a bullshit artist and only modern day bullshit artists understand him--and have diagreements.
The way to understand Nietezsche is that he was arguing for Social Darwinism--a subjective survival-of-the-fittiest free for all. Every man for himself in the live-and-let-die kill-or-be-killed subjective rat race. There is no transcendance beyond subjectivity or evil unless we are mentally ill.
But Nietezche is worshipped in subjective rat race acedeama like the University of Chicago, which is full of nothing but potheads and bullshit artists--who all say that he was RATIONAL THINKER-A PHILOSPHER WITH MEAT! AS IF THER WAS SOMETHING TO TAKE AWAY OR GAIN FROM READING HIM! AS IF HE WERE A DEEP THINKER! AS IF HE WERE UNDERSTANDABLE OR POSSESED AN UNDERSTANDING HIMSELF!
I ended up in the mental home my sophmore year of college. But before that somewhere along the way I came to the conclusion that whenever I got a bad grade on a test it was because the teacher graded it wrong not me.
Oh well. blah blah blah.
"just give me one thing that I can hold on to"-- John Prine
http://youtube.com/watch?v=St9RvdtvLeE
Nietzsche's "foaming at the mouth" resulted from tertiary syphillis, not his philosophy.
Nietzsche did not advocate Social Darwinism or a survival of the fittest. In fact, he thought it was the mediocre who survive, precisely out of sheer force of numbers and their collective resentment against those who turned out well, whom they then persecute and eliminate, often later refashioning those they have eliminated into something more in their own image and likeness to give credence to their mediocrity.
Of course he was no philosopher. He though philosophy was impossible, an illusion, based on the assumption that our words refer to anything more than the meanings we supply them, so the philosopher no less than the theologian or priest simply peddles illusions that demonstrate nothing other than that under certain circumstances language functions in a certain way. In either case, what are simply assigned values are mistaken for reality itself.
To consider this nihilism is to misunderstand him completely. He does not say nothing exists or all is illusion. He says that reality is not to be mistaken for the thought systems laid over it to assist in comprehending it. Most especially, the thought systems that would reduce reality to pairs of opposites, dualities, such as good/evil, subjective/objective, etc, a manner of thinking he saw a late Greek reduction of its great poets and playwrights. He aligns with neither the head nor the heart, the objective nor the subjective, but sees them all as theories, not to be mistaken for the reality they are invented to explain.
In sum, do not confuse your theory for the reality it is used to explain. The history of religion and philosophy is the history of mistaking theory for reality, thus being false to both. Also sprach Nietzsche, not myself.
P.E.
confuse your theory for the reality it is used to explain
Ok what he said seems fair to me. The model is not the reality. Ok, though the model has its own reality - mathematically speaking at least.
It is all chemical activity then all happening in the brain, or head since there there is no object you can really touch, taste, feel or see?
That spells anarchy doesn't it? Because I gather that from him, all reality happens inside you. It collapses though when taken to its logical conclusion.
We are going off topic but philosophy was my minor in uni so I was happy to be distracted, I found it interesting.
LPC
Didn't Nietezche see "morality" as a mental con game or excuse and fantasy that truly weaker men used to dominate and decieve those that would honestly strive and survive, honestly kill or be killed.
Nietezche was obessesed with Darwin and he talked about Darwin all the time. Darwin only lived about twenty-thrity years before Nietezche and Darwin's Origin of the Species stopped at animals--mostly concerned with vegetarin, non-meat eating animals and their relationship with plants and natural reasources. Then he exprapolated random mutation, and survival of the fittest. Then he said that man was simply another genetic mutation. But Orign of the Species was about the origin of the species--not human sociology. Darwin did not neccesarily driectly promote Social Darwinism.
The only author who really really elevates the origin of animals up to Social Darwinism was Nietezsche as far as my journeys to the philosphy bookshelfs and bookstores go.
Nietzeche was obsessed with Darwin quotes and references and he used them to attack 1) the soul, 2) morality, and now you have explained to me that he rejected 3) the afterlife (i.e. the allegory of the cave) as a Platonic fantsy (and erroeously appling it to Scripture. (Confusing St. Paul for a gnostic)).
But I do know that Nietezche was more of a psychologist/sociologist than a philospher as David Hume truly was a dry thinker without being dramatic and claiming to be a prophet; and was obsessed with Darwin references.
Nietezche was a drama queen and was telling unthinking fantasies against hard objective realites. At least Hume tried to remain sober and in this world system. Hume told lies and had a false security about the future of wet dew on the grass in the morrning and the future of fire.
But Nietezche develed off into complete never never land and story time. He existed in the world of drama and fantsy and claimed to be prophet not a dry observer. Hume only claimed to be sober dry observer--full of lies yes but sober relality based lies. Nietezsche was an entertainer/prophet that was full of allgories and metaphors and prophecies and emotions and dramas--with constant refernces to Darwin to back them up.
To confuse Nietezche with Hume is a mistake.
"Beyond Good And Evil" is an entertianing/amusing escapist fantsy/allergy whether Nietezche would himself have admitted or not. HE WAS NOTHING BUT AN ESCAPIST. HUME, ON THE OTHERHAND WAS A LIAR OR DENIER BUT---OF THIS WORLD SYSTEM. NIETEZCHE DIDN'T LIMIT HIMSELF TO THIS WORLD SYSTEM.
Nietezche was not an "evdentialist"! He was a tried and true
"presupositionalist" that had no use for his five senses. Hume limited himself to denying and lying about his five senses.
"Beyond Good And Evil" was an allegory that does not apply to real life nor was it about real life.
To say that Nietezche disproved rationality is mixing apples and oranges.
He didn't concern himself with rationality.
Psychiatrists are drama queens.
Philosphers are debaters.
Nietezche was a drama queen.
When he says "Beyond Good And Evil" it is a drama not a debate!
When David Hume says "there will be no fire"--that is a debate not a drama!
The intent of my posts on Nietzsche is expository, not polemical. I am not here to convince anyone Nietzsche was right, and I myself do not think he was right, I am only here to say he said what he said, and not something else, especially the something else usually ascribed to him.
A social survival of the fittest is quite opposite from what Nietzsche espoused. It is a misconception that arises from understanding him through categories he does not use and does not believe exist, or to put it another way, from holding on to the very things he considers essential to re-value. Not reject, re-value.
I do not think he would mind at all being called a dramatist and not a debater. You could sum up his take on philosophy by saying debate is what is left after one is no longer capable of drama (or as he might put it, when one can no longer dance), when one can no longer offer representations of life and only offer sterile thought categories to impose on it -- and since they can no longer dance, they don't want anyone else dancing either, so dancing becomes "bad" and then "evil".
Yes, P.E.
I did not think for a moment that you were defending Nietzche, I took most of your comments as tongue-in-cheek.
I hope Jim does not think that you were defending him too.
The discussion has been fascinating though, has there been anyone who challenged Nietzche's premises i.e. challenged his assertions about reality?. He seems to be saying all is bull dust in the wind, thereby nullifying other philosophers in the process.
LPC
LPC,
"nullifying other philosphers..."
(Dear Past Elder. You are very auste. I am am sorry for MY LACK OF TRAINING AND COMPREHESION. YOu habe taught me much and Iam grateful. I have been thinking "outloud" as I write and struggling with/through what you are are writing in light of my own past exposure and toughts. Thank you very very much for being patient with me and thank you for enlightening me to so much.)
Yet, Lito still thinks that Nietezsche nullified other philosphers when he has failed to grasp that he is mixing apples and oranges.
Mel Brooks in History of thw World Part Two, as the character of Scotrates "nullified other philosphers" by calling himself a "bullshit artist." But Mel Brooks was not a philospher at all and the movie was a slap-stick comedy.
Summing Nietezsche's take on philosphy as amusing "dancing" ---"astetics" beyond sterile morality (good or bad) is not Nietezche's (not P.E.'s) legitimate critque of philosphy any more than asking if anyone has challenged Mel Brooks nullification of Socrates as a "bullshit artist".
I AM ACTIVELY "SRACH"ING NIETEZCHE BY COMPARING HIM TO MEL BROOKS AT BEST.
NIETEZSCHE WAS AN ENTERTIANER AT MOST AND BY NO MEANS SUCCCFULLY NULLIFIED OTHER PHILOSPHERS OR MORALITY---HE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN "TONGUE AND CHEEK" HIMSELF.
AT LEAST DAVID HUME PUT UP FIGHT.
What I meant by "foaming at the mouth" was not his siphillis per se but the the spue that he spued and ranted on paper--Nietezsche was a "bullshit artist" in ways that Hume was not.... in ways the Mel Brooks could couragouesly name HIMSELF IN A COMEDIC FARCE MOVIE. Nietezsche was a AESTIC comedic farce at best and did not nullify any philospher nor was philosphy he realm of expertise or genere.
COMEDY VS. PHILOSPHY is two ships passing in night and mixing apples and oranges.
Sorry Jim,
I was not being clear. I was not praising the Nietzche guy.
What I meant by that comment was that the Nietzche dude was being absurd and was being a comedian.
He must have had a Messiahnic complex, I wonder if the men in white took him away.
LPC
That is a good way of putting it--he did have a "Messiahic complex". He kept writing that HE HIMISELF WAS THE ORIGIN OF HIS IDEAS. He wanted worship--not only to be heard out. SO did Freud, Jung, and Adler--and all psychologists do. It is like how the Roman Catholic Church says that Peter himself--not the gospel "that was revealed to him from the Father"-is the foundation of the Church.
And P.E. is corrrect he also had siphilis and was literally
"foaming at the mouth" in a mental home at the end of his life.
That is a good way of putting it--he did have a "Messiahic complex". He kept writing that HE HIMISELF WAS THE ORIGIN OF HIS IDEAS. He wanted worship--not only to be heard out. SO did Freud, Jung, and Adler--and all psychologists do. It is like how the Roman Catholic Church says that Peter himself--not the gospel "that was revealed to him from the Father"-is the foundation of the Church.
And P.E. is corrrect he also had siphilis and was literally
"foaming at the mouth" in a mental home at the end of his life.
At first I thought it was a typo, and I pass by typos since I make them all the time myself, however, it recurs, though a little short of eternally.
So I ask: what is an Aestic?
Yeah Jim,
I am not familiar with that word too~
LPC
Post a Comment