I have previously neglected to read and think about Nietzsche’s philosophy because of his blatant, and criticizing of Christians and the Christian faith. I was recently told by an uncle of mine, that if I am to teach philosophy in the future (which that is the plan), I need to be able to teach both sides. Hearing this, and realizing my unreasonable bias against this atheist philosophy, I understood it was wrong of me to condemn all Nietzschean philosophy, and I started to read the AntiChrist because it addresses my issues with Nietzsche’s philosophy. Forgive me if my opinions further show my adamant bias against atheism. Here are the AntiChrist propositions 2 through 6 (omitting 4)
II
Nietzsche defines the good: everything that increases the feeling of power, the will to power, and power itself in men. Evil: everything that is based in weakness. Joy: emotion of power increasing, of a resistance overcome. Using these definitions he claims that men are not content in their amount of power, but they have joy and good in claim to more power, and waging war for more power. He claims that people without power are condemned and cast out. He carves out from those without power as the weak and misbegotten leading to the slogan: they should be helped to sink. He lays out all these definitions to carve out the weak as Christianity: “What is the most harmful vice? – pity shown to the misbegotten and the feeble- Christianity” (Nietzsche). Because he notes evil to be those based in the weak, and he also notes Christianity to be the misbegotten and the feeble so we are able to make the connection that Christianity to him is evil. Before going into my dislike for Nietzsche’s philosophy against Christianity, I want to note upon his definition of the good. The good involves to a smaller extent things based in power, and more on things based in goodness towards others and ourselves, which power more often than not does not correlate with. When one thinks of the good, power is not what immediately comes to mind. I think of good as Plato thought of it: knowledge, good to others and ourselves (often love). The good is what God wants us to take upon ourselves to benefit all within and around us. Good’s definition is understood as what most everyone else thinks of it as, usually not of power. I can understand that he thinks of Christianity as misbegotten and feeble because little hard evidence endorses it, but faith does, which is something he lacks the intelligence to have. Finally, Christianity is not something that sees or takes pity anyway, so his greatest vice is not one that matters. I totally disagree with his second proposition.
III
The third proposition again slams Christianity when he concerns the form of man that will evolve and rule many of the people. The man he concerns to evolve is the one that: “shall be evolved, shall be willed as having the highest value, as being the most worthy to live and the best guarantor of the future…”(Nietzsche). He concerns what type of man will change into the kind that rules by government and by influence for the future, to hopefully be better. He states that he has seen a similar kind of man to his qualifications, that has faded in and out, and has become high in recgonizance by luck and not by his own choice. Nietzsche states that this man is feared from terror, and aims for man to evolve towards a higher form. He labels this feared man doomed to fail as the Christ type. I understand his conclusion and the connection between the terror instilling/ feared man and the Christ type because some who label themselves as Christians do not live their lives as so. These hypocritical Christians are hypocritical because they wrongly exercise power, and do things righteous Christians would not do. These hypocrites give Christianity a bad vibe because these are the Christians seen by the mass public, making all Christians look like this hypocrite model of terror. I agree with Nietzsche that the man that emerges out of luck this way and assumes power and instills terror that labels himself with the Christian name is one that is bad for everyone. Nietzsche makes the connection that because these people that label themselves as Christians probably means that all Christians are like this (power hungry, terror instilling, feared). If Nietzsche really knew the real Christian he would not think this way, and he would know how good real Christians are (and I DON’T mean Nietzsche’s definition of good). I even hate to talk this way because by saying this I say that I do not sin, when really I sin also, just like the power hungry hypocritical Christian Nietzsche talks about. I therefore equalize myself and all other real Christians with this hypocrite and all people in general because in God’s eyes, all sins are equal (and can all be forgiven equally). But the sins of the Christian Nietzsche exemplifies make Christianity look differently from what it really is, making Christianity look bad, leading to Nietzsche’s philosophy in the AntiChrist.
IV (omitted)
V
This higher stronger man taken to his position by will is something Nietzsche wants to occur, but he states that Christianity goes against this strong man, and aims to destroy it. He claims that Christianity employs evil upon everything (evil meaning weakness, and misbegottenness). The biggest and most interesting point in V is when Nietzsche says that Christianity takes sides with the good/weak and feeble by telling people to go against their better instincts, and it eats through reasoning and instincts. The main thing I get from V is that Christianity telling people to go against their better instincts prevents the rising of a strong man that comes to power by will that evolved into a better man above the rest. First, I do not think throughout these propositions that Nietzsche’s evolved man coming to power through will (the strong man) would be any better in tyranny and terror than the hypocritical Christians. Also, I do not think that a person should come to power by will, because this would lead to tyranny and terror. I just do not see Nietzsche’s picture of the perfect ruling strong man to be any better than the rest simply because being a strong man, he would have the same or even more faults just like everyone else. If he could have given a better definition of this strong man, and explained why he would do better than anyone else, I would find his philosophy about this evolved man better. Second, Christianity causes men to go against their better instincts, this I agree with. The part I do not agree with is Nietzsche’s opinion that men going against their better instinct is bad. We are supposed to have faith enough in God to trust that He knows better about ourselves than we do. He is infinitely bigger than us, as we are infinitely smaller than He. Because of this, going against our better instincts is the best thing to do, as our better instincts are faulty and will more often than not lead us astray. For instance, the Bible tells us to go against our better instincts when it tells us to turn the other cheek against our enemies. No man in his better instincts would do that, but it always works better for us when we turn the other cheek. Going further in this biblical example, if we turn the other cheek, the enemy declines to attack us further, but if we retaliate against the enemy by striking back, the enemy stricks again back at us, and the conflict does not end, leading to dismal results. Here, going against our better instincts is best, and in instances where we cannot find a reason to do what God says, we have to have faith enough to know that it will work out if we obey God. These beliefs in obeyance of God would seem stupid to Nietzsche but again he was too ignorant and instinct based to understand any of this.
VI
“It is a distressing, a painful spectacle that appears before me: I have drawn back the curtain which conceals the putrescence of mankind” (Nietzsche). By putrescence he means that mankind is putrid because of its decadence, by decadence he means decrease of the mental state specifically by losing the use/the having of instincts.
“I define an animal, a species or an individual as decadent when it loses its instincts; when it adopts and when it even prefers what is injurious to itself” (Nietzsche). Decadent= loss of instincts. Instincts to Nietzsche are what promote survival, good (powerful) things, and other things promoting the wellness of the being. The importance of instincts promote power of an organization for Nietzsche, and the tight organization of that group. Instincts for Nietzsche promote wellness as a being and as any grouped organization.
My opinion is against the importance of instincts. Instincts are what are small unknowing brain tells us what we should do when its knowledge is small in nature and is nothing to be relied on. If we rely on anything it should be God, and we should have faith and trust in Him if we want to preserve ourselves and our eternal destiny. We never lose instinct, but when we stop relying on it, and turn to God is when we actually preserve ourselves. Instinct means nothing for our preservation and wellness.
Thanks again for the support. @reply on Twitter, comment below, or email at cosmosuniversez@yahoo.com to correct me if I thought something wrong, or if you have any opinions.
Deleuzeional Plane of Immanence 