I have a final and I need a bit of help

[ohsimba]

For my Modern political theory class I've been asked to write a paper about Nietzsche's famous statement about the death of God, it's meaning, and if I agree or disagree. Before I answer that question I need to know something about Nietzsche though. I know that many of his earlier manuscripts were tainted by his sister so I don't really have much

Comments

[satyadaimoku]

As some of the comments are starting to show, you should always be wary of statements that begin with "What Nietzsche believed was..." (and you should be wary of making such statements yourself). Nietzsche is not a systematic philosopher. His writing style is intentionally expressive and invites a more genuine relationship with the reader than a statement of philosophical principles, and indeed his ideas suggest that such a statement is neither possible nor desirable. This is one of the ways that Nietzsche is rightly credited as a forerunner of existentialism - Nietzsche's primary target is not an objective statement of truth, but a phenomenological account of people's subjective experiences. Translating Nietzsche's words into objective language thus always loses something in the process

[ohsimba]

Do you think Nietzsche would go for a, "we willed together?" or, "in the same direction as far as we can both tell."?

[satyadaimoku]

Probably not, although of course just because Nietzsche wouldn't agree with that doesn't mean that you shouldn't view things that way. Nietzsche did not have any positive relationships in his personal life. He considered his entire family (who were entirely women - Nietzsche's father and brother died when N was young) controlling and manipulative, and indeed his Nazi sister Elisabeth seems like a heinous human being. His only romantic relationship (w Lou Salome) ended in complete disaster, as did his only close platonic friendship (w Paul Ree). As far as Nietzsche was concerned, almost any kind of human relationship is ultimately going to be a struggle between people for power and control. N particularly distrusts emotions like love, compassion, or charity, which he considers nothing more than a mask for establishing power relationships

[enders_shadow]

What about Cosima Wagner?

And the Basel professors whom he remained in touch with? It's unfair to say N has zero positive relationships in his personal life.

They were just damned few and far between.

[enders_shadow]

Hollowuvula had it right. God's that could dance were OK in Nietzsche's book

[ohsimba]

I've heard that N said through Zarathustra to a man who was on his deathbed or close enough, "take heart, there is no afterlife."

[enders_shadow]

Zarathustra, however, remained standing, and just beside him fell the body, badly injured and disfigured, but not yet dead. After a while consciousness returned to the shattered man, and he saw Zarathustra kneeling beside him. "What are you doing there?" he said at last, "I knew long ago that the devil would trip me up. Now he drags me to hell: will you prevent him?"

"On my honor, my friend," answered Zarathustra, "there is nothing in what you speak: there is no devil and no hell. Your soul will be dead even sooner than your body; fear nothing any more!" --Wikisourced

N argued against the afterlife, but that doesn't preclude all religion, does it? Isn't pantheism compatible with science, along with many other theistic beliefs. Heaven and hell are right here, after all.

[ohsimba]

Well, I think that heaven and hell can both be reached right here but that they are neither the earth and that whichever dominates people will unite with and rule their lives...or deaths whichever way you go. I don't really like the term "afterlife" very much because wouldn't a continued existence still be classified as living still, except perhaps in a different state of existence? I think there's only life or death and those to degrees. Choosing (go freewill racer go) to harm oneself would be a step to death while choosing to get a remedy for any sort of ailment would be going towards life. I am a follower of Christ, but not very traditionally....all the time.

I think many religions are compatible with science but that many scientists disavow religion because of supposed biases and tainting of evidence.

[peamasii]

I'd recommend reading the Will to Power, his last greatest work.

The death of God is an existentialist break with the idealist metaphysics of post-classical philosophy, as in Kant and Schopenhauer. Nietzsche was anti-scholar in his projects, and consequently anti-theology. He saw no teleogical goal in the universe, the thing about the superman is that it focuses the Dyonisian creative forces, which is more like pagan notions of the sacred. Politically though, he's not very much on the side of democracy, so I'm not sure if his atheism means that a secular morality can materialise in the form of a political state. He does occasionally express admiration for power figures like Borgia, Machiavelli, Napoleon.

[enders_shadow]

I thought the book The Will to Power was a post-mortem creation, put together by his sister, and though she used his words, the message is distorted.

He does not "occasionally" express admiration for power figures--they are his model men. Power being central to Nietzsche's thought, powerful men were noble men. Read Homer's Contest to understand more of N's respect for the power-hungry.

[ohsimba]

Thesis antithesis and synthesis. I may look at your book suggestion later but from what you know does the "overman against the dialectic" mean that one who overcomes goes past all syntheses? Or perhaps that he posits the self-willed synthesis, that it is the individual who is higher than either contradictory pole.?