Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slacker · 07-22-2002, 06:32 PM

... and as a foundation for "free-spirits" to express their will.

Consider this, excerpted from Beyond Good and Evil 61, emphasis mine.

Quote:

The philosopher as we understand him, we free spirits�as the man of the most comprehensive responsibility who has the conscience for the collective evolution of mankind: this philosopher will make use of the religions for his work of education and breeding, just as he will make use of existing political and economic conditions. The influence on selection and breeding, that is to say the destructive as well as the creative and formative influence which can be exercised with the aid of the religions, is manifold and various depending on the kind of men placed under their spell and protection. For the strong and independent prepared and predestined for command, in whom the art and reason of a ruling race is incarnated, religion is one more means of overcoming resistance so as to be able to rule: as a bond that unites together ruler and ruled and betrays and hands over to the former the consciences of the latter, all that is hidden and most intimate in them which would like to exclude itself from obedience; and if some natures of such noble descent incline through lofty spirituality to a more withdrawn and meditative life and reserve to themselves only the most refined kind of rule (over select disciples or brothers), then religion can even be used as a means of obtaining peace from the noise and effort of cruder modes of government, and cleanliness from the necessary dirt of all politics. Thus did the Brahmins, for example, arrange things: with the aid of a religious organization they gave themselves the power of nominating their kings for the people, while keeping and feeling themselves aside and outside as men of higher and more than kingly tasks. In the meantime, religion also gives a section of the ruled guidance and opportunity for preparing itself for future rule and command; that is to say, those slowly rising orders and classes in which through fortunate marriage customs the strength and joy of the will, the will to self-mastery is always increasing�religion presents them with sufficient instigations and temptations to take the road to higher spirituality, to test the feelings of great self-overcoming, of silence and solitude�asceticism and puritanism are virtually indispensable means of education and ennobling if a race wants to become master over its origins in the rabble, and work its way up towards future rule. To ordinary men, finally, the great majority, who exist for service and general utility and who may exist only for that purpose, religion gives an invaluable contentment with their nature and station, manifold peace of heart, an ennobling of obedience, one piece of joy and sorrow more to share with their fellows, and some transfiguration of the whole everydayness, the whole lowliness, the whole half-bestial poverty of their souls. Religion and the religious significance of life sheds sunshine over these perpetual drudges and makes their own sight tolerable to them, it has the effect which an Epicurean philosophy usually has on sufferers of a higher rank, refreshing, refining, as it were making the most use of suffering, ultimately even sanctifying and justifying. Perhaps nothing in Christianity and Buddhism is so venerable as their art of teaching even the lowliest to set themselves through piety in an apparently higher order of things and thus to preserve their contentment with the real order, within which they live hard enough lives�and necessarily have to!

IMHO Thats pretty powerful stuff. So how many people here think religion is in fact appropriate for some (or most) people?

--slacker

Vogelfrei · 07-22-2002, 08:01 PM

Depends on what you mean by appropriate, I think.

I was always taken by another comment of Nietzsche's (from who-knows-where); paraphrase: "not everyone is *worthy* of rejecting God". But then, Nietzsche certainly doesn't have the "naive rationalist" view of good that's common in atheistic circules...

On the other hand, the passage you quoted nonwithstanding, Nietzsche would clearly have huge issues reccomending Christianity as a religion for anyone; it's obvious to me that he suggested it only rhetorically. Other religions (religions-as-culture) might fare differently.

Samhain · 07-23-2002, 12:10 AM

In order to give those who cannot find ultimate meaning in their lives without the hope of an afterlife or a benevolent creator? Perhaps.

As a ultimate worldview which dictates forms of racism/intolerance, political views, morality, speaks against progression through science, speaks against other worldviews as being ultimately "wrong", perpetuates violence against others with differing ideas or opinions, deluding followers in order to establish theocracies or create church-businesses, and appeals to ignorance because of that worldview though? I'd say not in any case.

scumble · 07-23-2002, 12:37 AM

On the whole, Nietzsche is against fixed systems of morality. Beyond Good and Evil has an awful lot in it apart from that.

phaedrus · 07-23-2002, 01:48 AM

I dont think he said religion is appropriate, it is more like he looking down upon the qualities of beings who subscribe to religion. It was the buildup before he introduces the ubermensch or overman - the solution to the problems.

Quote:

I teach you the Overman. Man is something which shall be surpassed.

Quote:

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss... What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...

If that sounds like transhumanism or eugenics, well maybe.

scumble · 07-23-2002, 03:28 AM

It sounds better in German. He says that man must be overcome (uberwinden).

ObjectivistForum.Com · 07-23-2002, 04:29 AM

The above is basically an insult to the religious...

It basically says that the small person who is too lazy to educate themselves and to utilize their brain need religion to keep themselves feeling important in their own neurotic world.

philechat · 07-23-2002, 05:44 AM

Makes sense. Plato said similar things about educating "false religion" to the masses, so as to produce an ordered society.

It seems that, according to Nietzsche, religion is a necessary subject of study for the philosophers, though the philosophers would not depend their lives upon any one system of religion. It was the weak-minded that looks to religion with hope and love, unable to escape the mindset of the One True Religion (TM). More descriptive than perscriptive, the passage shows the lack of intellectual stimulation in many religious teachings.

Religion is a means to a freer kind of spirituality (according to him) for the philosophers, but something final for the "ordinary man".

Tom Sawyer · 07-23-2002, 06:55 AM

One of Nietzsche's main points in Beyond Good and Evil was that there are two main types of morality that people have. one is a master morality, wherein people define for themselves what's right and wrong and the other is a slave morality, where people have those concepts defined for them.

Nietzsche didn't think that the majority of people had what it took to define morality for themselves, so they needed something to come along and define it for them. Religion serves that purpose and keeps them working hard and under control so that they don't get in the way of people who are actually doing useful things. Also the people who are doing useful things don't have to worry about the small things in life, like picking up the garbage and cleaning the streets, because there are the little people around to take care of that so they can concentrate on moving society forward.

Nietzsche was a real elitist who thought that the concept of everyone being equal slowed society down and brought everything to the lowest common denomenator. I have problems with that worldview and the thought that some people are inherently better than others, but I do agree that there are many people in the world who aren't able to think for themselves without outside help. Those people aren't, IMHO, any less valuable than people who are able to, but they do need something around to tell them what to do.

slacker · 07-23-2002, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scumble:
<strong>On the whole, Nietzsche is against fixed systems of morality. Beyond Good and Evil has an awful lot in it apart from that.</strong>

I agree that he is "against" fixed systems of morality, but I don't think he is against it for everyone. Or better put, unless you are one of the unique free-spirits (or overmen, or new philosophers, etc), you don't have a chance to set yourself apart from any fixed system of morality. Thus religion is appropriate for the rabble.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2002, 08:01 PM	#2
Vogelfrei Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: NY Posts: 37	Depends on what you mean by appropriate, I think. I was always taken by another comment of Nietzsche's (from who-knows-where); paraphrase: "not everyone is worthy of rejecting God". But then, Nietzsche certainly doesn't have the "naive rationalist" view of good that's common in atheistic circules... On the other hand, the passage you quoted nonwithstanding, Nietzsche would clearly have huge issues reccomending Christianity as a religion for anyone; it's obvious to me that he suggested it only rhetorically. Other religions (religions-as-culture) might fare differently.

07-23-2002, 12:10 AM	#3
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	In order to give those who cannot find ultimate meaning in their lives without the hope of an afterlife or a benevolent creator? Perhaps. As a ultimate worldview which dictates forms of racism/intolerance, political views, morality, speaks against progression through science, speaks against other worldviews as being ultimately "wrong", perpetuates violence against others with differing ideas or opinions, deluding followers in order to establish theocracies or create church-businesses, and appeals to ignorance because of that worldview though? I'd say not in any case.

07-23-2002, 12:37 AM	#4
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	On the whole, Nietzsche is against fixed systems of morality. Beyond Good and Evil has an awful lot in it apart from that.

07-23-2002, 03:28 AM	#6
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	It sounds better in German. He says that man must be overcome (uberwinden).

07-23-2002, 04:29 AM	#7
ObjectivistForum.Com Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US Posts: 3	The above is basically an insult to the religious... It basically says that the small person who is too lazy to educate themselves and to utilize their brain need religion to keep themselves feeling important in their own neurotic world.

07-23-2002, 05:44 AM	#8
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Makes sense. Plato said similar things about educating "false religion" to the masses, so as to produce an ordered society. It seems that, according to Nietzsche, religion is a necessary subject of study for the philosophers, though the philosophers would not depend their lives upon any one system of religion. It was the weak-minded that looks to religion with hope and love, unable to escape the mindset of the One True Religion (TM). More descriptive than perscriptive, the passage shows the lack of intellectual stimulation in many religious teachings. Religion is a means to a freer kind of spirituality (according to him) for the philosophers, but something final for the "ordinary man".

07-23-2002, 06:55 AM	#9
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	One of Nietzsche's main points in Beyond Good and Evil was that there are two main types of morality that people have. one is a master morality, wherein people define for themselves what's right and wrong and the other is a slave morality, where people have those concepts defined for them. Nietzsche didn't think that the majority of people had what it took to define morality for themselves, so they needed something to come along and define it for them. Religion serves that purpose and keeps them working hard and under control so that they don't get in the way of people who are actually doing useful things. Also the people who are doing useful things don't have to worry about the small things in life, like picking up the garbage and cleaning the streets, because there are the little people around to take care of that so they can concentrate on moving society forward. Nietzsche was a real elitist who thought that the concept of everyone being equal slowed society down and brought everything to the lowest common denomenator. I have problems with that worldview and the thought that some people are inherently better than others, but I do agree that there are many people in the world who aren't able to think for themselves without outside help. Those people aren't, IMHO, any less valuable than people who are able to, but they do need something around to tell them what to do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.