"Yes, but ultimately Nietzsche's philosophy leads to nowhere. It either ends in darkness or a vicious circle."
Nietzsche advocates active Nihilism. Mainly that life will lead to nowhere, since we die and thats it, but thats actually fine since it allows us to give life true and rwal value.
Among others there are the following:
1) Suffering is natural to us
2) Suffering helps us grow closer to God and others
3) Suffering is trasformative, ultimately, only if it is seen through the Cross.
Of course I agree suffering is natural to everyone. Suffering helps us grow close to God and others, there in my opinion lies the problem. Christians will say that is the main and best purpose of suffering, am I correct there? Being a Nietzschean I can't really dig that idea, since it once again limits suffering as to having a limited purpose. "I don't agree or believe you can substantiate that Christianity denies life-affirming aspects when you look at its history of art, music, architecture, scholarship, literature and more."
Will you please expand on that more? I think I get what you're saying, but do expand please.
I would say that suffering loses value when the end equals heaven or hell, because then we don't feel the need to suffer or truly suffer, since a Christian in suffering will just cling to God and then their faith becomes stronger, but not them.
"There is no redemption without suffering, but suffering does not equal redemption either. Suffering occurs on many different levels for many different reasons and Christianity has never denied nor diminished it, so I don't see where you got these ideas."
Okay, of course suffering doesnt equal redemption, since everyone suffers. I would say Christianity has diminished its value, by giving it this inherent value and making life just a pursuit to God. The value mainly becomes "closeness with God"
Nietzsche advocates active Nihilism. Mainly that life will lead to nowhere, since we die and thats it, but thats actually fine since it allows us to give life true and rwal value.
Among others there are the following:
1) Suffering is natural to us
2) Suffering helps us grow closer to God and others
3) Suffering is trasformative, ultimately, only if it is seen through the Cross.
Of course I agree suffering is natural to everyone. Suffering helps us grow close to God and others, there in my opinion lies the problem. Christians will say that is the main and best purpose of suffering, am I correct there? Being a Nietzschean I can't really dig that idea, since it once again limits suffering as to having a limited purpose. "I don't agree or believe you can substantiate that Christianity denies life-affirming aspects when you look at its history of art, music, architecture, scholarship, literature and more."
Will you please expand on that more? I think I get what you're saying, but do expand please.
I would say that suffering loses value when the end equals heaven or hell, because then we don't feel the need to suffer or truly suffer, since a Christian in suffering will just cling to God and then their faith becomes stronger, but not them.
"There is no redemption without suffering, but suffering does not equal redemption either. Suffering occurs on many different levels for many different reasons and Christianity has never denied nor diminished it, so I don't see where you got these ideas."
Okay, of course suffering doesnt equal redemption, since everyone suffers. I would say Christianity has diminished its value, by giving it this inherent value and making life just a pursuit to God. The value mainly becomes "closeness with God"
Nietzsche advocates active Nihilism. Mainly that life will lead to nowhere, since we die and thats it, but thats actually fine since it allows us to give life true and rwal value.
If that's the case I've yet to see that value produced from it other than something already done a million times before.
Christians will say that is the main and best purpose of suffering, am I correct there?
Not really, or it's a very weak understanding of an elaboration on the subject.
Will you please expand on that more? I think I get what you're saying, but do expand please.
It's hard to expand on a whole history of literature, culture, theology, and philosophy.
I would say that suffering loses value when the end equals heaven or hell, because then we don't feel the need to suffer or truly suffer, since a Christian in suffering will just cling to God and then their faith becomes stronger, but not them.
Well, since that's not actually what Christians, or more properly speaking, Catholics believe I can't help you there.
I would say Christianity has diminished its value, by giving it this inherent value and making life just a pursuit to God. The value mainly becomes "closeness with God"
Again, that's an oversimplification and not actually what is being said. You reduce one of the goals from the necessary and deeply involved intermediate stages. In the sense you are speaking of you are talking about a devaluation that actually isn't there.
If that's the case I've yet to see that value produced from it other than something already done a million times before.
Christians will say that is the main and best purpose of suffering, am I correct there?
Not really, or it's a very weak understanding of an elaboration on the subject.
Will you please expand on that more? I think I get what you're saying, but do expand please.
It's hard to expand on a whole history of literature, culture, theology, and philosophy.
I would say that suffering loses value when the end equals heaven or hell, because then we don't feel the need to suffer or truly suffer, since a Christian in suffering will just cling to God and then their faith becomes stronger, but not them.
Well, since that's not actually what Christians, or more properly speaking, Catholics believe I can't help you there.
I would say Christianity has diminished its value, by giving it this inherent value and making life just a pursuit to God. The value mainly becomes "closeness with God"
Again, that's an oversimplification and not actually what is being said. You reduce one of the goals from the necessary and deeply involved intermediate stages. In the sense you are speaking of you are talking about a devaluation that actually isn't there.
"If that's the case I've yet to see that value produced from it other than something already done a million times before."
Even if something has been done a million times before, that doesn't matter. At that point you just become a passive Nihilist, which can also be called Negative Nihilism. Also I imagine you value your family, friends, music, culture and so on. There is some value, that does not need God
"Christians will say that is the main and best purpose of suffering, am I correct there?"
Tell me what is true then, so that I can be informed
"It's hard to expand on a whole history of literature, culture, theology, and philosophy."
Okay, well anyways will you at least expand on the line of argument you were making with that?
"Well, since that's not actually what Christians, or more properly speaking, Catholics believe I can't help you there."
Inform me on the truth then
"Again, that's an oversimplification and not actually what is being said. You reduce one of the goals from the necessary and deeply involved intermediate stages. In the sense you are speaking of you are talking about a devaluation that actually isn't there."
What is being said? How am I reducing one of the goals and how am I taking part in a devaluation that isnt there?
Even if something has been done a million times before, that doesn't matter. At that point you just become a passive Nihilist, which can also be called Negative Nihilism. Also I imagine you value your family, friends, music, culture and so on. There is some value, that does not need God
"Christians will say that is the main and best purpose of suffering, am I correct there?"
Tell me what is true then, so that I can be informed
"It's hard to expand on a whole history of literature, culture, theology, and philosophy."
Okay, well anyways will you at least expand on the line of argument you were making with that?
"Well, since that's not actually what Christians, or more properly speaking, Catholics believe I can't help you there."
Inform me on the truth then
"Again, that's an oversimplification and not actually what is being said. You reduce one of the goals from the necessary and deeply involved intermediate stages. In the sense you are speaking of you are talking about a devaluation that actually isn't there."
What is being said? How am I reducing one of the goals and how am I taking part in a devaluation that isnt there?
Even if something has been done a million times before, that doesn't matter. At that point you just become a passive Nihilist, which can also be called Negative Nihilism.
Not my point, exactly. What I mean is that what is formulated as any branch of nihilism isn't anything new, nor anything that follows. It's just something rehashed from a previous generation with a new paint job.
Also I imagine you value your family, friends, music, culture and so on. There is some value, that does not need God
There are many types of values, but I don't see your point. You're saying Christians take value to be univocal.
Tell me what is true then, so that I can be informed
it's hard to describe in full detail because the nature of suffering is not something that can be fully understood. My issue is your diction, especially the use of "the best" purpose of suffering. To say that is just making your own argument as to why we siphon personal suffering as 'existing for the sake of something else' but in a narrow manner.
Suffering can exist for no purpose or it can exist for some purpose. Purposeful suffering requires that suffering both be seen as what it is (in the measure that it is) but it also must be seen as what the suffering can become. When suffering can be recognized as something more than the moment (since suffering is something that happens to us and we, in turn, are more than what we suffer).
You also claim we "give" suffering a value, which is true in a very specific sense (Christofied suffering) but false in other senses (we just 'say' that it's nothing in itself).
Okay, well anyways will you at least expand on the line of argument you were making with that?
All I'm saying is that you have only to look at the great minds of the Church who lived and were influenced by Catholic Christianity in their respective fields and ask, critically, if they didn't affirm life at all.
Inform me on the truth then
Again, it's hard to write a whole long thing responding to a misconception without the fear of running into another misconception. So, I will be brief in order to root out those further misconceptions in hopes of coming to the origin or (a) pillar of that line of thinking.
Your claim is "I would say Christianity has diminished its value, by giving it this inherent value and making life just a pursuit to God. The value mainly becomes "closeness with God.""
This I can simply say is false. For starters I'm not sure how I can combat your claim "we diminished its [suffering's] value" since I don't see how it's true. You've reduced the Christian meaning of suffering to "just a pursuit of God" when I already stated that that's not the case. It's personally trasformative as well.
How am I reducing one of the goals and how am I taking part in a devaluation that isnt there?
You reduce it by saying 'all it is is growing closer to God' among other things.
Not my point, exactly. What I mean is that what is formulated as any branch of nihilism isn't anything new, nor anything that follows. It's just something rehashed from a previous generation with a new paint job.
Also I imagine you value your family, friends, music, culture and so on. There is some value, that does not need God
There are many types of values, but I don't see your point. You're saying Christians take value to be univocal.
Tell me what is true then, so that I can be informed
it's hard to describe in full detail because the nature of suffering is not something that can be fully understood. My issue is your diction, especially the use of "the best" purpose of suffering. To say that is just making your own argument as to why we siphon personal suffering as 'existing for the sake of something else' but in a narrow manner.
Suffering can exist for no purpose or it can exist for some purpose. Purposeful suffering requires that suffering both be seen as what it is (in the measure that it is) but it also must be seen as what the suffering can become. When suffering can be recognized as something more than the moment (since suffering is something that happens to us and we, in turn, are more than what we suffer).
You also claim we "give" suffering a value, which is true in a very specific sense (Christofied suffering) but false in other senses (we just 'say' that it's nothing in itself).
Okay, well anyways will you at least expand on the line of argument you were making with that?
All I'm saying is that you have only to look at the great minds of the Church who lived and were influenced by Catholic Christianity in their respective fields and ask, critically, if they didn't affirm life at all.
Inform me on the truth then
Again, it's hard to write a whole long thing responding to a misconception without the fear of running into another misconception. So, I will be brief in order to root out those further misconceptions in hopes of coming to the origin or (a) pillar of that line of thinking.
Your claim is "I would say Christianity has diminished its value, by giving it this inherent value and making life just a pursuit to God. The value mainly becomes "closeness with God.""
This I can simply say is false. For starters I'm not sure how I can combat your claim "we diminished its [suffering's] value" since I don't see how it's true. You've reduced the Christian meaning of suffering to "just a pursuit of God" when I already stated that that's not the case. It's personally trasformative as well.
How am I reducing one of the goals and how am I taking part in a devaluation that isnt there?
You reduce it by saying 'all it is is growing closer to God' among other things.
"Not my point, exactly. What I mean is that what is formulated as any branch of nihilism isn't anything new, nor anything that follows. It's just something rehashed from a previous generation with a new paint job"
It does not matter if we are making new forms of Nihilism or not. All that matters is how we deal with Nihilism. We deal with them in 2 main ways Active or Passive Nihilism
"There are many types of values, but I don't see your point. You're saying Christians take value to be univocal."
Not quite univocal, since I believe univocal means that everything has only one value. I would say that Christians would say that God is the ultimate value and that all else is unimportant when confronted by God. What im trying to say is that they demean life for no good reason. Also earlier you seemed to think that Nietzsche's philosophy ending in Nothingness is bad. Its really quite fine, but I thought you were going to be one of those people that seem to think that refutes Nietzsche/ promotes the idea that without God life has no value.
"This I can simply say is false. For starters I'm not sure how I can combat your claim "we diminished its [suffering's] value" since I don't see how it's true. You've reduced the Christian meaning of suffering to "just a pursuit of God" when I already stated that that's not the case. It's personally transformative as well."
But wouldn't the transformation only be good if it made you closer to God or more Godly? So the value would still become "closer to God/ More Godly" I would also say that the idea of Christofied suffering is still limiting, since it just makes you rely on faith instead of yourself. Also we could say that all suffering has purpose, since the Christian would say that it gets us closer to God or makes us have a transformation. As a Nietzsche fan I would just say suffering makes me stronger and sometimes even more rational.
The reason why suffering for some deity is bad, is because it mainly limits me and tells me that im below God and thats the farthest I can go. Mainly it comes down to Nietzsche's "Death of God" theory. Mainly when you use suffering as an excuse to grow closer to God, you limit yourself, which I would argue is bad.
"All I'm saying is that you have only to look at the great minds of the Church who lived and were influenced by Catholic Christianity in their respective fields and ask, critically, if they didn't affirm life at all."
When it comes to great minds of the Church I tend to think John Calvin and Martin Luther, of course I am sure there are heaps of others, but lets talk about those 2. Calvin doesn't affirm life, since he says we just live out of Gods grace and you cant even affect the outcome of you going to Heaven or Hell. What he was like as a person idk. Im 16 and in High school so my information on him came from a paragraph in a history book. Martin Luther was anti-semetic and at one point even allowed bigamy at one point. Can't really say he sounds all that delightful, though I will admit Nietzsche might have been a sexist, so most "great" people have their flaws.
It does not matter if we are making new forms of Nihilism or not. All that matters is how we deal with Nihilism. We deal with them in 2 main ways Active or Passive Nihilism
"There are many types of values, but I don't see your point. You're saying Christians take value to be univocal."
Not quite univocal, since I believe univocal means that everything has only one value. I would say that Christians would say that God is the ultimate value and that all else is unimportant when confronted by God. What im trying to say is that they demean life for no good reason. Also earlier you seemed to think that Nietzsche's philosophy ending in Nothingness is bad. Its really quite fine, but I thought you were going to be one of those people that seem to think that refutes Nietzsche/ promotes the idea that without God life has no value.
"This I can simply say is false. For starters I'm not sure how I can combat your claim "we diminished its [suffering's] value" since I don't see how it's true. You've reduced the Christian meaning of suffering to "just a pursuit of God" when I already stated that that's not the case. It's personally transformative as well."
But wouldn't the transformation only be good if it made you closer to God or more Godly? So the value would still become "closer to God/ More Godly" I would also say that the idea of Christofied suffering is still limiting, since it just makes you rely on faith instead of yourself. Also we could say that all suffering has purpose, since the Christian would say that it gets us closer to God or makes us have a transformation. As a Nietzsche fan I would just say suffering makes me stronger and sometimes even more rational.
The reason why suffering for some deity is bad, is because it mainly limits me and tells me that im below God and thats the farthest I can go. Mainly it comes down to Nietzsche's "Death of God" theory. Mainly when you use suffering as an excuse to grow closer to God, you limit yourself, which I would argue is bad.
"All I'm saying is that you have only to look at the great minds of the Church who lived and were influenced by Catholic Christianity in their respective fields and ask, critically, if they didn't affirm life at all."
When it comes to great minds of the Church I tend to think John Calvin and Martin Luther, of course I am sure there are heaps of others, but lets talk about those 2. Calvin doesn't affirm life, since he says we just live out of Gods grace and you cant even affect the outcome of you going to Heaven or Hell. What he was like as a person idk. Im 16 and in High school so my information on him came from a paragraph in a history book. Martin Luther was anti-semetic and at one point even allowed bigamy at one point. Can't really say he sounds all that delightful, though I will admit Nietzsche might have been a sexist, so most "great" people have their flaws.
Sigh. (about the last section)
It does not matter if we are making new forms of Nihilism or not. All that matters is how we deal with Nihilism. We deal with them in 2 main ways Active or Passive Nihilism
You think so? I think you need to study philosophy more.
Not quite univocal, since I believe univocal means that everything has only one value.
In this case univocal means speaking of a single term in the same way, not necessarily the same value.
I would say that Christians would say that God is the ultimate value and that all else is unimportant when confronted by God.
Well, all--in a sense--is important if and only if properly prioritized.
Also earlier you seemed to think that Nietzsche's philosophy ending in Nothingness is bad.
Not really. Rather, as an idea it's inferior and for a person it's bad.
But wouldn't the transformation only be good if it made you closer to God or more Godly?
It's purpose it not being closer to God just personally but bringing everyone closer to God, if you need a brief answer.
I would also say that the idea of Christofied suffering is still limiting, since it just makes you rely on faith instead of yourself.
Ha ha ha, then you don't understand faith well--or you didn't read my most recent piece closely enough. It's actually not limiting at all.
As a Nietzsche fan I would just say suffering makes me stronger and sometimes even more rational.
At 16, give it some time, my friend.
Mainly when you use suffering as an excuse to grow closer to God, you limit yourself, which I would argue is bad.
As I've said, that's your formulation and you critique a phantom because that's not really what Christians say. Nor have I affirmed that in any of my words above.
When it comes to great minds of the Church I tend to think John Calvin and Martin Luther, of course I am sure there are heaps of others, but lets talk about those 2.
Sigh. Double sigh.
1) Let's not.
2) Seeing as they are not Catholics, no they are not great thinkers of the Church.
3) They were very intelligent and historically minds with great merit, but at the end they are not great thinkers of Christianity like the other men and women I posited.
Calvin doesn't affirm life, since he says we just live out of Gods grace and you cant even affect the outcome of you going to Heaven or Hell.
Which is not Catholic so it doesn't concern me.
Can't really say he sounds all that delightful, though I will admit Nietzsche might have been a sexist, so most "great" people have their flaws.
Well my friend, I can say that if you just read modernity, and even if you read the classics through the lens of modernity (which will probably be the case) it will only be to your intellectual detriment.
I should know, since I tried Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard and thought I knew everything and could critique anything about former systems and ways of thought. As it turns out I was just an idiot who indoctrinated myself with pride and the pride of thinking that this was real philosophy--in reality, my studies have ever so slowly revealed that what I hated was more sound and complete than what I had once enjoyed a great deal, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard among the top two.
Not that they or modernity is bad, but in the end I feel that the history and philosophy I have studied for some time points to their false assumptions, which are more more assumptive than any proper Christianity (primarily housed in Catholicism).
It's easy to have opinions when you're young and have only read a little bit. It's tougher to throw out opinions about these matters when you've spread the whole history of thought in front of you. Even if my knowledge isn't perfect in that regard (and whose is?) having done it I can say it with some confidence nevertheless.
It does not matter if we are making new forms of Nihilism or not. All that matters is how we deal with Nihilism. We deal with them in 2 main ways Active or Passive Nihilism
You think so? I think you need to study philosophy more.
Not quite univocal, since I believe univocal means that everything has only one value.
In this case univocal means speaking of a single term in the same way, not necessarily the same value.
I would say that Christians would say that God is the ultimate value and that all else is unimportant when confronted by God.
Well, all--in a sense--is important if and only if properly prioritized.
Also earlier you seemed to think that Nietzsche's philosophy ending in Nothingness is bad.
Not really. Rather, as an idea it's inferior and for a person it's bad.
But wouldn't the transformation only be good if it made you closer to God or more Godly?
It's purpose it not being closer to God just personally but bringing everyone closer to God, if you need a brief answer.
I would also say that the idea of Christofied suffering is still limiting, since it just makes you rely on faith instead of yourself.
Ha ha ha, then you don't understand faith well--or you didn't read my most recent piece closely enough. It's actually not limiting at all.
As a Nietzsche fan I would just say suffering makes me stronger and sometimes even more rational.
At 16, give it some time, my friend.
Mainly when you use suffering as an excuse to grow closer to God, you limit yourself, which I would argue is bad.
As I've said, that's your formulation and you critique a phantom because that's not really what Christians say. Nor have I affirmed that in any of my words above.
When it comes to great minds of the Church I tend to think John Calvin and Martin Luther, of course I am sure there are heaps of others, but lets talk about those 2.
Sigh. Double sigh.
1) Let's not.
2) Seeing as they are not Catholics, no they are not great thinkers of the Church.
3) They were very intelligent and historically minds with great merit, but at the end they are not great thinkers of Christianity like the other men and women I posited.
Calvin doesn't affirm life, since he says we just live out of Gods grace and you cant even affect the outcome of you going to Heaven or Hell.
Which is not Catholic so it doesn't concern me.
Can't really say he sounds all that delightful, though I will admit Nietzsche might have been a sexist, so most "great" people have their flaws.
Well my friend, I can say that if you just read modernity, and even if you read the classics through the lens of modernity (which will probably be the case) it will only be to your intellectual detriment.
I should know, since I tried Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard and thought I knew everything and could critique anything about former systems and ways of thought. As it turns out I was just an idiot who indoctrinated myself with pride and the pride of thinking that this was real philosophy--in reality, my studies have ever so slowly revealed that what I hated was more sound and complete than what I had once enjoyed a great deal, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard among the top two.
Not that they or modernity is bad, but in the end I feel that the history and philosophy I have studied for some time points to their false assumptions, which are more more assumptive than any proper Christianity (primarily housed in Catholicism).
It's easy to have opinions when you're young and have only read a little bit. It's tougher to throw out opinions about these matters when you've spread the whole history of thought in front of you. Even if my knowledge isn't perfect in that regard (and whose is?) having done it I can say it with some confidence nevertheless.
"You think so? I think you need to study philosophy more."
Yes, I do need to study philosophy more, but I don't see why we need new forms of Nihilism. I think Nietzsche nailed it and its fine to leave it there.
"Well, all--in a sense--is important if and only if properly prioritized"
But you would still say God is the ultimate value. Would you say life loses meaning without God?
"Not really. Rather, as an idea it's inferior and for a person it's bad."
I would say that ending with Nothingness isn't bad for a person at all. I felt relieved and free when I became an atheist.
"At 16, give it some time, my friend."
Yes, but even at this age I have seen great benefits from suffering of almost any kind.
"Well my friend, I can say that if you just read modernity, and even if you read the classics through the lens of modernity (which will probably be the case) it will only be to your intellectual detriment."
Why would it be to my intellectual detriment?
"I should know, since I tried Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard and thought I knew everything and could critique anything about former systems and ways of thought. As it turns out I was just an idiot who indoctrinated myself with pride and the pride of thinking that this was real philosophy--in reality, my studies have ever so slowly revealed that what I hated was more sound and complete than what I had once enjoyed a great deal, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard among the top two."
But it seems you do still advocate Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to some degree. I assume you were at one point atheist and at one point a non virtue ethicist.
"Not that they or modernity is bad, but in the end I feel that the history and philosophy I have studied for some time points to their false assumptions, which are more more assumptive than any proper Christianity (primarily housed in Catholicism)."
So you would say that all of Nietzsche's and other philosophies critique on Christianity don't apply to Catholicism?
"It's easy to have opinions when you're young and have only read a little bit. It's tougher to throw out opinions about these matters when you've spread the whole history of thought in front of you. Even if my knowledge isn't perfect in that regard (and whose is?) having done it I can say it with some confidence nevertheless."
May I have some suggestions of people to read?
Yes, I do need to study philosophy more, but I don't see why we need new forms of Nihilism. I think Nietzsche nailed it and its fine to leave it there.
"Well, all--in a sense--is important if and only if properly prioritized"
But you would still say God is the ultimate value. Would you say life loses meaning without God?
"Not really. Rather, as an idea it's inferior and for a person it's bad."
I would say that ending with Nothingness isn't bad for a person at all. I felt relieved and free when I became an atheist.
"At 16, give it some time, my friend."
Yes, but even at this age I have seen great benefits from suffering of almost any kind.
"Well my friend, I can say that if you just read modernity, and even if you read the classics through the lens of modernity (which will probably be the case) it will only be to your intellectual detriment."
Why would it be to my intellectual detriment?
"I should know, since I tried Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard and thought I knew everything and could critique anything about former systems and ways of thought. As it turns out I was just an idiot who indoctrinated myself with pride and the pride of thinking that this was real philosophy--in reality, my studies have ever so slowly revealed that what I hated was more sound and complete than what I had once enjoyed a great deal, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard among the top two."
But it seems you do still advocate Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to some degree. I assume you were at one point atheist and at one point a non virtue ethicist.
"Not that they or modernity is bad, but in the end I feel that the history and philosophy I have studied for some time points to their false assumptions, which are more more assumptive than any proper Christianity (primarily housed in Catholicism)."
So you would say that all of Nietzsche's and other philosophies critique on Christianity don't apply to Catholicism?
"It's easy to have opinions when you're young and have only read a little bit. It's tougher to throw out opinions about these matters when you've spread the whole history of thought in front of you. Even if my knowledge isn't perfect in that regard (and whose is?) having done it I can say it with some confidence nevertheless."
May I have some suggestions of people to read?
Yes, I do need to study philosophy more, but I don't see why we need new forms of Nihilism. I think Nietzsche nailed it and its fine to leave it there.
In that sense I don't see why we need nihilism at all (we don't).
Nietzsche didn't nail it down, in fact he regretfully claimed that he couldn't escape it.
But you would still say God is the ultimate value. Would you say life loses meaning without God?
You've more imposed a yes-no answer on me that's not yes or no. People who do not believe in God may still have value, some valid others invalid. But you're the one calling God a value but that construction is meaningless to me.
I would say that ending with Nothingness isn't bad for a person at all. I felt relieved and free when I became an atheist.
Feeling free at 16 is nice, I guess, but life and philosophy both require more experience and more study.
Why would it be to my intellectual detriment?
For starters, you are trying to understand a continuum by only looking at one or two points.
Likewise, you are starting at the end of the book, in a manner of speaking. I found, having done that myself, that as time goes on what you are reading will only become more and more incoherent and not less.
But it seems you do still advocate Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to some degree. I assume you were at one point atheist and at one point a non virtue ethicist.
Nope. Catholic my whole life long. My philosophy ranges in influences but remained primarily Christian. As to whether I lived up to it is sometimes another story.
So you would say that all of Nietzsche's and other philosophies critique on Christianity don't apply to Catholicism?
Some do and some don't, and for some it's a mixture of yes and no. Nietzsche most certainly speaks on Catholicism, but one has to understand the lens and angle from which one speaks as well.
May I have some suggestions of people to read?
Plato's Gorgias, Republic
Aristotle's Poetics, Nichomachean Ethics
Augustine's Confessions
Anselm's Prologion and Monologion (but very difficult)
Aquinas' Division and Method of the Sciences, Summa Theologica [difficult]
In that sense I don't see why we need nihilism at all (we don't).
Nietzsche didn't nail it down, in fact he regretfully claimed that he couldn't escape it.
But you would still say God is the ultimate value. Would you say life loses meaning without God?
You've more imposed a yes-no answer on me that's not yes or no. People who do not believe in God may still have value, some valid others invalid. But you're the one calling God a value but that construction is meaningless to me.
I would say that ending with Nothingness isn't bad for a person at all. I felt relieved and free when I became an atheist.
Feeling free at 16 is nice, I guess, but life and philosophy both require more experience and more study.
Why would it be to my intellectual detriment?
For starters, you are trying to understand a continuum by only looking at one or two points.
Likewise, you are starting at the end of the book, in a manner of speaking. I found, having done that myself, that as time goes on what you are reading will only become more and more incoherent and not less.
But it seems you do still advocate Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to some degree. I assume you were at one point atheist and at one point a non virtue ethicist.
Nope. Catholic my whole life long. My philosophy ranges in influences but remained primarily Christian. As to whether I lived up to it is sometimes another story.
So you would say that all of Nietzsche's and other philosophies critique on Christianity don't apply to Catholicism?
Some do and some don't, and for some it's a mixture of yes and no. Nietzsche most certainly speaks on Catholicism, but one has to understand the lens and angle from which one speaks as well.
May I have some suggestions of people to read?
Plato's Gorgias, Republic
Aristotle's Poetics, Nichomachean Ethics
Augustine's Confessions
Anselm's Prologion and Monologion (but very difficult)
Aquinas' Division and Method of the Sciences, Summa Theologica [difficult]
View all replies