One of the most famous of pithy statements of the last few centuries is Nietzsche's "God is dead." As to the existence of an specific individual entity, whether dead or alive, somehow outside of life, naturally all is pure speculation, though if we accepted the working hypothesis of 'his' existence, then the declaration of his death would seem the height of presumption. Presumably what Nietzsche meant was the death of the concept of God, though here we have the limitless vistas of irrelevance as to agreeing as to what exactly is the nature of the human concept in the first place, then the desirability of the existence or not of this concept and all the rest of it. Nietzsche on the one hand seemed to feel it to be the opening of an existential space of pure being into which freedom the new man could stride magnificently, but on the other hand, double edged sword that the concept was, that 'God' had died because of a shrinking of man's horizons. Pettiness and egotistical barbarism were the future for the masses, while a more napoleonic egotism of power were the future for the liberated hero. Which all in all amounts to little more than points of perspective from which to view 'the antheap'.
Though the whimsical thought that has led to the words above ushering forth from my mind was a look at why this God, a living being, not a concept, might have died. And that little thought being that God received word and formed his understanding of man, just like so many of our exalted men, from the medium of the mainstream media. And naturally from the picture of reality that emerges from these effluences, God had little choice but to open his veins in shame and despair.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Civil Law used to be based on a congruency with interpretation of natural moral law. Now, natural moral law isn't even mentioned in US law schools. This is what Nietzsche was talking about.
Oh it's all relative now. The line by The Old MAn of the Mountain comes to mind:
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
Judeo-Christianity has been replaced with the myth of Christian Atheism. The state can achieve the broad social goals of Christianity with atheism. It is an impossible myth.
Good post. I agree with what you say about the paradox and ambivalence innate to Nietzsche's feelings about the 'Death of 'God''. He rejoiced in it for its liberating consequences (no more boring life denying Christianity!), while regretting
,I think, because of an inherent high sensibility and taste for the
subtle and refined -
which is not enough remarked on about him - what he took to be the inevitable coarsening and bastardisation of the future that would arise as a result of it.
Indeed, as your good line puts it:
"Pettiness and egotistical barbarism were the future for the masses, while a more napoleonic egotism of power were the future for the liberated hero."
How right he was to feel troubled.
Still it is arguable whether he saw the convulsions of the upcoming 20th century as a phase or as a permanent destiny for humanity. Just as there is uncertainty how and in what ways one might consider him an optimist or a pessimist about humanity's
long term desitny.
Certainly the "last man" (our current circumstance)is not the final reality, since in his demise rises the "Superman". I guess his pessimism should be located most squarely in the understanding that not everyone could or would be such supermen. But I guess he imagined it would be rather nice for those who would be...?
Something people never seem to notice is the irony implicit in an atheist asserting the 'God is dead'.
After all, as far as Christianity is concerned, God has already died once and risen from the dead..so why can't he do it again?
What kind of an inhibition is death exactly supposed to be for something that created the universe and all life?
You're right to cast light on what was exactly meant by this word God
I agree Tony..impossible..
Ahead: Dark Age, or a returning to the higher light.
Though 'Chrisitianity' is such a vague word. For me it simply relates to the words of Jesus in the Gospels, whether for example this character lived, or whether an equally profound person wrote these thoughts 'externally' as an artist is largely irrelevant to me. It's the same truth either way, so I don't find this Christianity in any sense life-denying or boring. This would be the same as calling life life denying and boring since I regard the essence & extraordinary genius of this view of life as absolutely true. 'Christianity' as a thing existing in time, with hierarchical power structures, dogmas, etc can be something very different. And I have no problem differentiating the two, just as Westlife doing a shite cover of The Beatles Day in the Life isn't gonna make me feel any different bout the origninal.
I don't find Christianity boring, either, but this is perhaps becasue I've kind of crafted my own self-styled approach to it all - which, incidentally, I would wager everyone should really, in so far as at the heart of the Gospel is the idea that everyone is suppsoed to be having a personal relationship with god through Christ. Since there are a multitudes of persons, so too would there be a multifude of Christianities - understood as ways of relating to God.
Thing is, this presumes that everyone is happy about being individuals, whereas in reality most are not. With respect to my fellow men, most people like to conform and replicate themselves as copies of other people, since this, it seems, is how they actually feel themselves to be?
Actually, this is the way in which I reconcile myself to the established Churches. God doesn't only love individuals, he also loves the conformists who either want, or need, to exist by and through, non-individuated, shared systems of orientation and relation.
Nietzsche had a very high regard for Jesus, though he seemed to see him as some kind of doomed Buddhist figure.
His own personal hatred of post-Pauline Christinaity, a hatred I don't share but do I think understand (?), was that it had repressed all the vital, asssetive, proud and creative human instincts which he associated most clearly with pre-Socratic Greek culture.
His ideal humans, then, would be akin to the Greek Gods, in whom human attributes are beautified and glorified. The very opposite then of the grovelling, shamefaced monk, perpetually ashamed of his sins and, indeed, of being human at all.
Post a Comment