I’m just a humble spiritual guy from the Jersey shore. I offer some uplifting & thought provoking posts. Conscientiously, I remain respectful & appropriate in conversation.
What’s your favorite Romantic Comedy?
Mine is a low key rejected film about the nicest guy making it: Loser (2000)
Croatian philosopher Branko Malic:
From the passage below we see why Nietzsche is the king among atheists, and by the end of this thread we will understand why he is so-called. "the new atheism" of smuria. The passage refers to Nietzsche’s central thought: the battle of being is eternal to return the same/equal.
Nietzsche's idea of eternal restoring it is often explained as an example of "poetic opinion", or intellectual wooden iron, where one does not actually mean what is said, but we are supposed to act as if we have said exactly what is meant.
The author of the passage below, Michael Gillespie, thinks, rightly, differently: when Nietzsche says that every single moment in eternity returns, and hence has always been infinitely times and infinitely times will be, he expects to take it literally. /2
That's a different story, but I will still point out: Nietzsche understands eternity as infinite time. Here he stands in the tradition of German philosophy that is obsessed with time and history and, unlike traditional metaphysics, the eternity of thoughts from time, and not the other way around.
Why does Nietzsche think that the will cannot want to “reverse” death pain? Is it because we have an experience of "being thrown into the world" where we have to make the best of what we have been given that is not God-knowing? Or is it that every conscience is impure?
No answer of common sense can explain Nietzsche's claim on will slavery, because this writer with reason, healthy or unhealthy, tries to forgive and does so in an exemplary consistent way.
The reason Nietzsche cannot accept that will cannot “want backwards” is that then it cannot be creative will. At the same time, under creation, he thinks of something quite specific, namely no less no more than the uncreated first cause of everything that is.
"Past" or past is the weather vector of cause. If we think about causes and consequences - and otherwise, despite all modern escapades, nor can we - the cause in this relationship is always the first thing that already has to happen in order for the other to happen. First cause hence no cause.
The will is not the first cause, because it does initiate, but does not cause itself. We want that which has always been given in some way, that is real or seems to be real. The cause of the will is the purpose, and this purpose of the will can only be chosen, not created.
Whatever people think of Nietzsche, he knows very well what he wants and how to get it. Namely, he wants to open the horizon for the arrival of beings whose will is creative, i.e. the one that causes its object by itself. Such a will is, strictly sense, God's will and he knows it.
Since God allegedly "died", God's will must be carried by another being. That being, however, is not human, because he cannot bear the "deepest thought"; the thought that everything comes back and that, moreover, one must want that everything comes back. Thus the term Nietzsche calls the creature is: "superhuman".
Why a man - and still counts himself under the people of Nietzsche - cannot withstand the eternal return of it? The reason is simple: it is not easy to be God. For God, that is, everything that is the product of His own will; whoever wants to replace Him must see things equally.
He who wants to live without God must say for everything that was: "I wanted so", because only in this way can he accept the world as a whole, i.e. what is originally not his work; his will must justify the truth and beauty of everything, and not only hers and to say: "yes".
The implications of Nietzsche's thoughts are scary.
Nietzsche’s atheism accurately hits the property of God that matters most—namely, the fact that everything that is created is good by itself. All things strive to be and to maintain their survival. Hence follows the traditional attitude towards which what you strive for is good.
For Christianity, to which Nietzsche generally refers traditional ancient metaphysics, especially platonism, evil is a deprivation that manifests itself in a variety of ways: decay, disease, weakness, lie and, finally, death. The cause of evil, on a cosmic level, is the original sin.
Christian teaching about original sin not only negates the reality of good after a fall - it, on the contrary, measures all the horror of the human situation precisely on the basis of the abundance of good that exists concurrently with the abundance of evil. The greater the good, the more horrific his inconsiderate fall into evil.
In the light of learning about the Fall, the fact that one man can live life in the greatest happiness imaginable is only a measure of the amount of evil experienced by the one who lives his life in the greatest misfortune imaginable. The death of one man is the death of all men. Nietzsche is perfectly aware of this.
His atheism is creepy - far creepy than the structured, but extremely superficial, posthumanistic fantasies - so he wants to say to this exact state: "Yes" and add: "I wanted it so." Nietzsche's superhuman must accept responsibility for good and evil as a whole.
A Nietzschean atheist lovingly accepts the goodness and beauty of the moment a child is born as well as the next moment when the same child is strangled by his own mother. In order to make sense first, he has to say to the other: "Yes".
When Dawkins' "new atheist" says, "There probably is no God, so quit worrying and enjoy your life," Nietzsche's conclusive conclusion. However, being an infantile cunt, he chooses not to pull it. Well, never mind. Conclusions eventually pull themselves out.
Nietzsche’s atheism is consistent; he knows that the death of God implies the taking of God’s qualities, and these qualities are not primary, as it is often thought, immortality and boundless power, but the distinction between good and evil, and the ability to redeem good from evil.
Within a world where everything is eternally coming back, redemption is the acceptance and equalization of good and evil through the decision to both "want to". As the will tends to the future, and the future has been there infinitely many times, Nietzsche sees it as a consistent conclusion, and as the only consistent one. And she is right.
But Nietzsche's conclusion is also the basis of all forms of modern atheism, but not everyone dares to drag it to the end. Because of this, if he were alive, he would see today's regal atheists as nihilistic beans, which they are. He is interested in the dominance of nihilism.
To overcome nihilism in a world without God means to give value to everything by your own will where good and evil are said in the same way and at the same time: "yes". In this sense, superhuman is the new, earthly god who stands on the side of good and evil, and Nietzsche is his John the Baptist.
Modern "facts & logic" atheists are, from a Nietzschean perspective, consumerist-type nihilists, who just want to eat, drink, have sex and put up pictures of their underage replicas on Instagram. For Nietzsche, even the cockroach would have more relevance than them.
But those "last people" should not be neglected, whose appearance and mass were consistently predicted by Nietzsche. The measure of a superhuman is exactly such a subhuman. Namely, the tradition to which Nietzsche belongs allowed his ideas in a way that he removed the measure by which once measured man.
That measure was a second person of the Holy Trinity. German philosophy 19. St. was acutely aware that Europe already has a paradigm of man in God. A new age, and henceforth a new man, could come only if this paradigm was "deconstructed".
That is why "criticism of religion" is a presumption of any other criticism; Christ must be reduced first to an idea, which once gave center and meaning to everything, and then to the projection of man's own qualities and, finally, to nothing. Only then is it possible to talk about superhuman and subhuman.
A superhuman is the measure of everything in a world without God, the only question is, what superhuman exactly? Nietzsche thought he had found the right one, and it’s hard to disagree with him: he is the one who without fear accepts the eternal return of it.
According to Nietzsceh’s criteria, man as man is not fit for atheism; to have the experience of the death of God and at the same time deciding to take His responsibility for everything that is, is a step into insanity.
"New Atheism" is corn flakes for "the last men". In this sense, the mediation is nihilism for those who want to consume the world without God, but not take responsibility for it. By the way, it's fun to watch how a conclusion that they can't draw, pulls itself.
For example, LGBTIQ techno posthumanism grows and feeds on humus made by new atheists and similar to them, and yet they are so systematically unaware of their own responsibility, that they manage to convince themselves how to oppose it.
Every form of modern nihilism is an attempt for equalization. Nietzsche's superhuman avoids this, assuming the role of God "whose sun rises on both good and evil". "Last men" are trying to bypass good and evil by indifference to the autonomous choice of an individual.
Of course, allowing everyone to do what they want, while harming others has no positive moral content, so there the hierarchy of good and evil is seemingly suspended. However, the perception is quickly lost when it is shown that there is no morally neutral political choice.
LGBTIQ is a form of nihilism of great ambitions that parasites liberal utopia and finally destroys it, when it is no longer needed. The scene is morbidly entertaining, and I can only imagine what Nietzsche's comment on the birth of a "freak" would be like as a measure of humanity.
Of course, I wouldn't want the reader to think that I've neglected the basis of Nietzsche's "misosophy", namely: his insanity. I just want to point out that this madness is what he consistently brought to the conclusion and that every modern atheist should follow him in this.
Unfortunately, modern nihilism prefers euthanasia over acceptance of responsibility.
View all 4 posts
“First, I deal with why the New Testament is reliable in terms of basic textual issues. Second, I deal with the theology of the NT and the Book of Isaiah as it relates to the many powerful predictions of the coming of the Messiah. In the second half, I cover the Nietzschean criticism of master/slave morality, and the response to atheism - proof for the existence of God.”
Is The New Testament Reliable?
The reason that science is a bad master and a dangerous servant and ought not to be worshiped, is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the use of measurement. What does not not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or "cut, burn and poison" methods of cancer "treatment."
The so-called "scientific method" often violates the rules of evidence when it encounters data which lie outside an area which scientism has defined as containing the only possible data. Then the contradictory data are ignored because they do not fit the scientific establishment's arbitrary standard of measurement, or the data are discredited in terms of assumption of the dogmas of scientism.
The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends the huge potential for promoting secret political-occult agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable, "objective scientific truth." Since the bogey of "Science" instills in secularists a sort of blind reverence, opponents of political and occult agendas promoted through the propaganda of scientism, are quickly stigmatized as "Neanderthal," especially with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a dogma proved false by Norman Macbeth in his magisterial Darwin Retired and exposed as a cult by Gertrude Himmelfarb in Darwin.
Science, when practiced as the application of man's God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human-scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind.
Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today.
- Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare by Michael A. Hoffman II, page 49
The supposed superiority of Western Humanism to other systems of thought is founded on five primary misconceptions about Christianity and religion in general. In response to the Catholic Church's crusades and particularly brutal way of dealing with heresies, religion is commonly perceived to be the "cause of most the wars in history." The second predominant misconception is the illusion of a supposed incompatibility between reason and faith, and thirdly, between science and religion. Moreover, more recently, Christianity had been presented as excessively prudish and of characterizing as "sin" acts which are otherwise "natural," such as public nudity, extra-marital sex and so on. Lastly, there is the false conception that the Christian God can be understood in anthropomorphic terms, "an old man with a beard in the sky."
- Black Terror, White Soldiers by David Livingstone, page 3