After the discussion of Nietzsche today, I believe that he came to some pretty odd conclusions. What I mean to say by this is that he comes to the exact conclusions as Christianity, or borrows a conclusion from Christianity, and portrays them negatively when religion portrays them positively. I actually had a hard time reading this piece and understanding him correctly because I didn’t know where he acquired his adverse opinion.
The biggest example I found of Nietzsche’s coming to the same conclusion of Christianity was at the end of paragraph 2 where he said, “But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.” I will say that as far as I see it, that yes, the Christian religion is designed to be hostile to this life and it is perfectly fine with being that way. Now is a life full of sin and sinful desires and what is most important is preparing for eternal life after death.
Another similar point is one mentioned in class, that anti-morality seeks understanding and not judgment but that Christianity also, in its interpretation as following the life of Jesus, teaches not to judge others but to accept them.
I just found this to be a strange observation that both Nietzsche and the Christian religion argue from the exact same position most of the time but argue in very different directions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Whether it is trying to understand Nietzsche's arguments or following a religion of choice, everyone is looking for an unbiased analysis and acceptance. This was brought up in class today at a very crucial point on our discussion of Nietzsche. When analyzing anything, it is so easy to become caught up in specificities. It takes a strong person to step away from the shallow argument and see the points becoming addressed from a place of non-judgment. Scott states a version of this idea in his blog, "I just found this to be a strange observation that both Nietzsche and the Christian religion argue from the exact same position most of the time but argue in very different directions." This is so interesting because from far away, the two views seem to be anything but similar. However, just as Atheists fight for their "no God, no religion" views, they, in this way, create a religion for themselves. According to Dictionary.com, a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." Therefore, Atheism, or really any set of beliefs regarding any subject, could be considered a religion. This one definition connects us all in a way. We are all unified whether we agree or disagree upon a certain subject because of the way we argue for understanding.
I think Kayt makes a great point. People fight against religion and all the different beliefs when in all reality they have their own set. If that is the definition of religion Kayt gives then I to would have to agree that atheists have their own form of religion. It makes sense. However, I think its a good thing people have different beliefs and stand up for different things. If everyone agreed yeah there may be a little more peace but would life be as interesting? Would people actually learn life lessons if everyone believed the same exact thing? It's a question left unanswered.
Post a Comment