30. January, 2008
If people know only one thing about Friedrich Nietzsche it is that he is responsible for the quote “God is dead!” (Gott ist tot!). This phrase is often taken out of context and abused. There is the Christian T-shirt reaction that in a sick way celebrates the death of a great thinker (there have been other versions showing him drunk):
There are the reactions people write on the walls while in the bathroom: “God is dead. Nietzsche is dead. I live.” To which a second party often writes, “but for how long?”
When Nietzsche’s quote is left by itself for too long some people even try to use logic to show that Nietzsche contradicts his own atheism; namely, “if God is dead he must have lived at one point!”
This all overshadows what Nietzsche was trying to say, that he was actually trying to criticize atheists. Unfortunately for theists he wasn’t criticizing them for not believing in God, he criticized them for not being able to accept the consequences of their own conviction, their conviction behind their godlessness.
Unlike the atheists in the marketplace of Nietzsche’s Gay Science, Nietzsche feels the death of God to be a heavy responsibility - not only as an opening of a new horizon but akin to the experience of a small ship on stormy ocean waters. The atheists in the marketplace, not taking on this responsibility, have rid their lives of the name “God” but not of things godly.
Nietzsche’s passion is experiencing this open horizon, is being on the small ship on open waters and experiencing a wild personal freedom. God is dead. Nietzsche is dead. Try to live passionately.
4. February, 2008 at 5:40 am
[...] God is Dead, Kevin explains that Nietzsche was criticizing atheists for still clinging to the [...]
4. February, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Myself an atheist, I see only one drawback in atheism: It underlines, by negation, the importance of the idea of God. But unfortunately we are only a minority. The agenda is set by theists. So we are condemned to live with the dilemma.
4. February, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Hey Kevin. I always thought Nietzsche was telling theists to look around at all the advances science had made and realize that they no longer needed a god to explain natural phenomena, evil, etc. Science had killed God. Of course, some theists have said, “Well, that’s fine, I don’t need a God to explain my universe, but I do need a God for my salvation.” I think that theism has evolved in that it still clings to the idea of God even though the original reasons for the creation of gods have become moot.
Also, in what ways were atheists still clinging to the godly? I couldn’t tell from your essay what behaviors you were criticizing exactly.
4. February, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Christian - Well said. I prefer to call myself “non-religious” exactly because of what you said (not wanting to be a negation). I do like the fact, however, that religion no longer sets the agenda of philosophy (at least not on purpose!).
Lessie - I wouldn’t say that Nietzsche wanted people to look at scientific advancements and their “proofs” against religion (e.g. Darwin). He felt atheism to be a philosophical movement or consequent of philosophical thinking (in realizing that philosophy and religion could not be reconciled).
He was criticizing these atheists for staying under the “shadow of God”. God is dead but the shadow of his existence still exists, the concepts that should have died with him still drive the lives of the non-believers. What the madman accuses these atheists in the marketplace is of claiming to be un-Christian but not absolving themselves of the Christian worldview. Nietzsche himself didn’t claim to have escaped this worldview, he was a “prophet” to a next generation of humanity that does accomplish this act. What makes Nietzsche so angry with his contemporary non-believers is that they were unaware that there is more in overcoming 2000 years of religious tradition than saying “I don’t believe in God”. What belongs to the Christian worldview? That’s a long list of items - one important one for Nietzsche, however, was the drive or search for Truth. The scientists of his time (they no longer make this claim) thought that they finally had the tools to reveal the Truth about the world (in a metaphysical sense). This drive should have died with God. Hope that helps!
4. February, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Very interesting Kevin. I admit I’m enjoying discussing Nietzsche with someone who is familiar with him. My philosophical mentors were much more interested in the ancients and pragmatists (not that I don’t like said philosophers, but they aren’t really where my interests lie). So is that also part of why his Uber-mensch thought rejects altruism for Christian purposes? His will to power is a way to change the institutions of charity from pity to generosity from sheer will (or something like that–I’ve only studied him a history of philosophy class and then my own copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra)? I appreciate your being willing to discuss this.
4. February, 2008 at 9:39 pm
A conversation about Nietzsche is a conversation I love having :)
You are right in saying that N is against the Christian version of altruism. That being said, Nietzsche doesn’t think people shouldn’t help others - they should, however, help others for reasons different than those given by Christianity. The “reasons” he gives are vague but he does talk about helping others because you yourself are “overfull.” You aren’t looking for redemption/salvation by helping others but help others because you are full of life.
The will to power is more of a “drive” than a tool for changing institutions. However! changing an institution (or philosophizing with a hammer) can be said to be an expression of someone’s will to power.
4. February, 2008 at 9:46 pm
No, no, I know N isn’t against us helping others. But I also know a lot of people interpret him that way. I’m assuming that since you’re in Germany, you’re able to look at this without the lens of translation. Your statement about helping others because we are “overfull” has actually clarified a little of his position for me. You wouldn’t happen to know of any lay resources that make good study companions would you?
Also, you mentioned on MoF that you’re studying philosophy and hope to do something besides be a professor. I was under the impression that the liberal arts really didn’t allow for any other careers. Wanna clue me in?
4. February, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Thanks for a fine post. I haven’t read Nietzsche, but I intend to do so. What works would you recommend as a starting place?
5. February, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Lessie - Walter Kaufmann’s book, “Nietzsche; Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist” is a really helpful and informative secondary source (it also helped revolutionize Nietzsche’s reception in the United States).
As far as a career goes… Liberal Arts allow for all careers but train you for one - becoming a Professor. I honestly don’t have career plans yet and am studying philosophy because I’m deeply interested in it, not because I’m striving toward a particular job. I would say, however, that someone wanting a high paying job with lots of job opportunities should not go to graduate school in a liberal arts - it is an adventure in poverty with potential for interesting results. Sorry, I know this doesn’t really help.
the chaplain - you are welcome :)
I have 3 answers to your question:
1. If you want to work your way through his major works I would start with, “The Birth of Tragedy.” This was his first book and, although he later disagrees with many of his conclusions, it helps the reader ease into Nietzsche’s style and direction of thinking.
2. If you want to get to the meat of his philosophy in one book I would go with “Beyond Good and Evil”. It is one of his later books and he discusses many of the major themes that he is now known for.
3. If you want to know what all the Nietzsche-hype is about I would recommend “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. This is his most popular and most widely read book. It is a satire of the New Testament and is really engaging.
Good luck!
6. February, 2008 at 5:10 am
Thanks Kevin. I want to be a prof so I can stay engaged in academia for the long term. I’m certainly not going into it for the money (nobody goes into education/academia for the money). However, if I could at least make enough to support my family and provide us some health insurance (assuming our current system stays the same), then that would suffice:)
Now that I’ve been here, I may stop by more often–I don’t know a whole lot of people who are interested in philosophy.
8. February, 2008 at 4:16 am
I always felt Nietzsche was disgruntled that ignorant “god-believers” had deeply infected so much of society that it permeated other aspects wherever one turned. The idiocy of the masses believing in imaginary beings became a danger to clear minded individuals. And when the lunatic church propounded these events for their own profit and power, one had to beware of the common human herd. The very ones science was trying to help. Until this planet is purged of religious psychosis with such frauds being outlawed, there will never be “peace on earth.”
9. February, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Lessie - I hope you do decide to stick around :). And good luck with your academic pursuits!
Spectrum - I will not disagree that Nietzsche had a stringent critique of religion. What I tried to get across with this post, however, was that Nietzsche, with his “God is dead” quote, was addressing “atheists” (most literally, but not exclusively, in section 125 of the Gay Science). He was trying to make the “atheists” aware of their own religiosity not alerting theists that their God had died. Nietzsche’s critique of religion is elsewhere but his critique of his contemporary atheists find itself here, with this quote. God is dead, there is now a huge void - do not fill it with godly things (Truth, History, Spirit, etc). This is something, however, that he accused his contemporary atheists of doing.
23. May, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Some are born posthumously.” —Nietzsche
BURN
God: 1
Nietzche: 2