I think our current situation is summed up by Romans Ch 1... essentially a nation that forgets God is destined to be handed over to a reprobate mind and its enemies.., Europe that forsook Christ was invaded by Islam, unrepentant they now face fascism...
The answer isn’t tied up in many words, it’s simple return to God, repent.. and he will have mercy... the alternative is captivity of which covid was but a taste...
Without knowing history in detail it’s seems the 1700s with Whitefield and Wesley brought a reawakening to Christ... a dependency of God and the humility to know all man is sinful..and only the cross provides a cure
Yet the so called Enlightenment with people like Marx and Neitch.. brought self reliance on man kind with it prideful attempts to better the world without God... without dealing with the fallen nature of mankind...without the cross..
The west wants to live without God.. they forget that Jesus clearly stated there was an enemy... who has no pleasure in the life of men..who is the father of lies ..
You can lament all you like but reality is upon us.. read Solzhenitsyn’s warning, evil loves death and had no limits to cruelty where God is rejected..Jordan Peterson sees it clearer than most..
Pandamania's greatest gift has been the abundance of good hearts and great minds emerging as an organic crowd sourced research project to see what's broken and ponder solutions.
"‘creative minorities’ to state-proof civilized life"
I haven't thought about this topic as deeply as you! My thoughts finalized back then with the Sumerian King who, perhaps, implemented the first hierarchal design and after conquering all competing nations in the surround, declared himself to be the one true god, really is dead. But the hierarchal design lives on! Jesus Christ being a rebel against hierarchy. The hierarchy flipped Christ's motivation (you'll be crucified if you rebel against the hierarchy). And Nietz must have been eating a terrible diet of nutrition less agriculture food to have broke down as he did in later years. But hey, your post has sparked renewed interest!
cbullshit has been oppressive, inversive, wretched, and a disgrace to humanity. There has to be accountability. As perspicacious/excellent as this article is, it is also, inevitably, somewhat depressing. I created an oil painting "beyond good and evil" in 1987 : the Nietzsche/Jung inscribed influence...underpinning the twisted morphing of fascism as a 'will to power'...against/within the eternal peace of nature. I read much of Nietzsche in my youth...and spent almost three years 'studying' Jung with regular attendance at meetings organised by the Jungian Society, Durban with lectures by Gloria Gearing. Philosophically that lead on to Campbell in particular and then Tolle.
"Unveiling of the true political reality beneath the veneer of democratic discourse."
What a treat it is to learn some of the heavier academic subjects I successfully avoided in my education but in small bits with relevant context. One thing that the Covid experience has taught me, especially with respect to Substack, that great teachers can make any subject interesting and understandable. It's a thought that has crossed my mind countless times in the Internet age when drawn into some new subject; imagine how many terrible teachers it takes to acquire reflexive rejection of so many topics. Hat tip, kudos and thanks for inspired learning! :~)
What an interesting read, thank you. No wonder Nietzsche went mad, as he saw so much cruelty and contradiction in man. The need to practice power over others, sadly, is also very real in interpersonal relations, not just institutionally. Without a strong foundation of faith, for me Christianity, it would be a life of hopelessness and despair, or of apathy, as I interpret in many people.
This post reminded me of two of my favorite writers, GK Chesterton and CS Lewis. It is good to see the world and the people in it as it really is.
This is a great article. Here is something I just published which touches on a similar theme from a very different perspective, but not coming to very different conclusions.
I have a few technical quibbles, perhaps of interest mainly to the author but let's see.
When you say "we imagined": who is "we"? I think it would be better to say "there existed a certain liberal myth to the effect that..." because honestly I am not sure how many people believed that and I think it has long been in decline. It sounds totally naive to me. But perhaps my article casts some light on this as "anomie".
I think we should remember that Nietzsche was not a sociologist. I don't think he thought everyone was driven by the will to power and certainly not to a comparable extent. Most people just go along for the ride. The will to power is some sort of "elite", or as you put it "aristocratic" phenomenon (notwithstanding the etymology, the aristocracy in question are a mixed bunch). I don't think this makes a major difference to the argumentation though.
Nietzsche has a *deserved* reputation for amorality because he definitely did not believe in a moral code or even, I think, what should truly be labelled a moral sense: at least this term introduces more problems than it solves. You are just trying to sell him (understandably enough) to people for whom this is the equivalent of being a devil-worshipper. But for Nietzsche, the good life doesn't need morality. Nature and esthetics are enough, they are actually better guides. In my opinion, what we need is spiritual *experience* but if you find that in Nietzsche let me know; I don't think it is there. Although his passion for hiking is functionally the same thing, and he writes as if he agrees with me though never daring to say it (of course it is a purely inward thing and those who claim to have it mostly do not).
On the end of the Enlightenment, yes, I think this is true but it is also a *myth* of the Enlightenment that we are talking about and it is not the only or a complete lens through which to view what happened in Europe after 1648 either. To understand the end of the Enlightenment myth we need to go back to its beginnings; that is what I try to do in my article. These facts were certainly not common currency in Nietzsche's time.
Nietzsche said we should never betray our highest aspirations. He knew that the notion of God was a shorthand for these aspirations and this explains why he said what he said to Ida Overbeck.
We treat rational governance as a religion because it has ALWAYS been a religion. It just used to be a noble religion practised by persons of integrity. As science has pervaded society it has lost, demographically, this aristocratic ethic. It is corrupted by self-interest. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, or any great scientist was not driven by self-interest. They were very spiritual people, in fact much MORE spiritual than the "religious" cretins who persecuted someone like Galileo. Giordano Bruno was to all extents and purposes a religious reformer (see Frances Yates's book).
The last section of the essay, I think, reads a bit too much of Sartre into Nietzsche. For me, Nietzsche retains a metaphysics, he believes (or at least, speaks as if he believes) that nature has some kind of transcendent esthetic directionality (intentionality would be too strong a word). When you pursue the self-transcendence of the Ubermensch you arrive necessarily in similar territory to anyone else engaged in the same project. It is not by virtue of adopting a moral code or aiming at something, it is just embedded in nature. By contrast, for Sartre there really is no such thing, and the choice to live a life which can only be objectively meaningless as if it did have meaning becomes purely esthetic. I don't find this helpful. For me it doesn't resonate with my experience. I do indeed encounter a spontaneous convergence of will when I am in the company of people of integrity. Of course one may say that they are simply still influenced by the residues of archaic paradigms, but in saying this one is already taking sides and not being objective. I think we cannot do better than to adopt as a working hypothesis that there is a true transcendent unity reached by honest enquiry and spiritual experience.
Finally, if Nietzsche really distresses someone's religious or moral sense, please read Kierkegaard. You will also find what you need. In the end, truth is one.
I think our current situation is summed up by Romans Ch 1... essentially a nation that forgets God is destined to be handed over to a reprobate mind and its enemies.., Europe that forsook Christ was invaded by Islam, unrepentant they now face fascism...
The answer isn’t tied up in many words, it’s simple return to God, repent.. and he will have mercy... the alternative is captivity of which covid was but a taste...
Without knowing history in detail it’s seems the 1700s with Whitefield and Wesley brought a reawakening to Christ... a dependency of God and the humility to know all man is sinful..and only the cross provides a cure
Yet the so called Enlightenment with people like Marx and Neitch.. brought self reliance on man kind with it prideful attempts to better the world without God... without dealing with the fallen nature of mankind...without the cross..
The west wants to live without God.. they forget that Jesus clearly stated there was an enemy... who has no pleasure in the life of men..who is the father of lies ..
You can lament all you like but reality is upon us.. read Solzhenitsyn’s warning, evil loves death and had no limits to cruelty where God is rejected..Jordan Peterson sees it clearer than most..
The choice couldn’t be clearer..
Lovely piece with much truthiness!
Pandamania's greatest gift has been the abundance of good hearts and great minds emerging as an organic crowd sourced research project to see what's broken and ponder solutions.
"‘creative minorities’ to state-proof civilized life"
Can we vote for that as PANDA's new tag line? <3
The new tag line is: Science. Sense. Society. The idea of decentralisation (in other words minorities) is key,
I haven't thought about this topic as deeply as you! My thoughts finalized back then with the Sumerian King who, perhaps, implemented the first hierarchal design and after conquering all competing nations in the surround, declared himself to be the one true god, really is dead. But the hierarchal design lives on! Jesus Christ being a rebel against hierarchy. The hierarchy flipped Christ's motivation (you'll be crucified if you rebel against the hierarchy). And Nietz must have been eating a terrible diet of nutrition less agriculture food to have broke down as he did in later years. But hey, your post has sparked renewed interest!
Agreed on all 3 counts of 1) psychology, 2) covid events, and 3) Nietzsche's ideas. I've posted a few (spontaneous and informal) mentions of N's relevance today, especially re nihilism: https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/health-homework-62-video-overcoming
Magnificent post! Thank you very much.
A very good article, well done.
cbullshit has been oppressive, inversive, wretched, and a disgrace to humanity. There has to be accountability. As perspicacious/excellent as this article is, it is also, inevitably, somewhat depressing. I created an oil painting "beyond good and evil" in 1987 : the Nietzsche/Jung inscribed influence...underpinning the twisted morphing of fascism as a 'will to power'...against/within the eternal peace of nature. I read much of Nietzsche in my youth...and spent almost three years 'studying' Jung with regular attendance at meetings organised by the Jungian Society, Durban with lectures by Gloria Gearing. Philosophically that lead on to Campbell in particular and then Tolle.
"Unveiling of the true political reality beneath the veneer of democratic discourse."
What a treat it is to learn some of the heavier academic subjects I successfully avoided in my education but in small bits with relevant context. One thing that the Covid experience has taught me, especially with respect to Substack, that great teachers can make any subject interesting and understandable. It's a thought that has crossed my mind countless times in the Internet age when drawn into some new subject; imagine how many terrible teachers it takes to acquire reflexive rejection of so many topics. Hat tip, kudos and thanks for inspired learning! :~)
I wish I could offer some substantive feedback, but all I can say is, "Powerful read!" Thank you.
What an interesting read, thank you. No wonder Nietzsche went mad, as he saw so much cruelty and contradiction in man. The need to practice power over others, sadly, is also very real in interpersonal relations, not just institutionally. Without a strong foundation of faith, for me Christianity, it would be a life of hopelessness and despair, or of apathy, as I interpret in many people.
This post reminded me of two of my favorite writers, GK Chesterton and CS Lewis. It is good to see the world and the people in it as it really is.
Interestingly, I wrote an MA on Chesterton, and a Phd on Nietzsche, and have always loved Lewis, who introduced me to Chesterton.
This is a great article. Here is something I just published which touches on a similar theme from a very different perspective, but not coming to very different conclusions.
https://anewearth.substack.com/p/the-crisis-in-science
I have a few technical quibbles, perhaps of interest mainly to the author but let's see.
When you say "we imagined": who is "we"? I think it would be better to say "there existed a certain liberal myth to the effect that..." because honestly I am not sure how many people believed that and I think it has long been in decline. It sounds totally naive to me. But perhaps my article casts some light on this as "anomie".
I also wrote an earlier article on the illusion of rationality which is here: https://anewearth.substack.com/p/the-illusion-of-rational-argument
I think we should remember that Nietzsche was not a sociologist. I don't think he thought everyone was driven by the will to power and certainly not to a comparable extent. Most people just go along for the ride. The will to power is some sort of "elite", or as you put it "aristocratic" phenomenon (notwithstanding the etymology, the aristocracy in question are a mixed bunch). I don't think this makes a major difference to the argumentation though.
Nietzsche has a *deserved* reputation for amorality because he definitely did not believe in a moral code or even, I think, what should truly be labelled a moral sense: at least this term introduces more problems than it solves. You are just trying to sell him (understandably enough) to people for whom this is the equivalent of being a devil-worshipper. But for Nietzsche, the good life doesn't need morality. Nature and esthetics are enough, they are actually better guides. In my opinion, what we need is spiritual *experience* but if you find that in Nietzsche let me know; I don't think it is there. Although his passion for hiking is functionally the same thing, and he writes as if he agrees with me though never daring to say it (of course it is a purely inward thing and those who claim to have it mostly do not).
On the end of the Enlightenment, yes, I think this is true but it is also a *myth* of the Enlightenment that we are talking about and it is not the only or a complete lens through which to view what happened in Europe after 1648 either. To understand the end of the Enlightenment myth we need to go back to its beginnings; that is what I try to do in my article. These facts were certainly not common currency in Nietzsche's time.
Nietzsche said we should never betray our highest aspirations. He knew that the notion of God was a shorthand for these aspirations and this explains why he said what he said to Ida Overbeck.
We treat rational governance as a religion because it has ALWAYS been a religion. It just used to be a noble religion practised by persons of integrity. As science has pervaded society it has lost, demographically, this aristocratic ethic. It is corrupted by self-interest. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, or any great scientist was not driven by self-interest. They were very spiritual people, in fact much MORE spiritual than the "religious" cretins who persecuted someone like Galileo. Giordano Bruno was to all extents and purposes a religious reformer (see Frances Yates's book).
The last section of the essay, I think, reads a bit too much of Sartre into Nietzsche. For me, Nietzsche retains a metaphysics, he believes (or at least, speaks as if he believes) that nature has some kind of transcendent esthetic directionality (intentionality would be too strong a word). When you pursue the self-transcendence of the Ubermensch you arrive necessarily in similar territory to anyone else engaged in the same project. It is not by virtue of adopting a moral code or aiming at something, it is just embedded in nature. By contrast, for Sartre there really is no such thing, and the choice to live a life which can only be objectively meaningless as if it did have meaning becomes purely esthetic. I don't find this helpful. For me it doesn't resonate with my experience. I do indeed encounter a spontaneous convergence of will when I am in the company of people of integrity. Of course one may say that they are simply still influenced by the residues of archaic paradigms, but in saying this one is already taking sides and not being objective. I think we cannot do better than to adopt as a working hypothesis that there is a true transcendent unity reached by honest enquiry and spiritual experience.
Finally, if Nietzsche really distresses someone's religious or moral sense, please read Kierkegaard. You will also find what you need. In the end, truth is one.
And their sorcery is pharmakia ...
Their religion is Rothschildism.
This put me in mind of "The Genius of the Crowd" by Charles Bukowski:
.
"and the best at murder are those who preach against it
and the best at hate are those who preach love
and the best at war finally are those who preach peace
.
those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love
[. . .]
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world
not being able to love fully
they will believe your love incomplete
and then they will hate you
and their hatred will be perfect "
This is superb
A magnificent essay
Looking forward to more on “Caesars with the Soul of Christ.” Great piece.