The Anti-Christ
Monumento de escandalo para idiotas, arma arrojadiza en manos torpes, o cumbre postuma del inquietante pensamiento y de la palabra pasional y devastadora de Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). El Anticristo, como toda la obra filosofica del insigne aleman, ha sido interpretado de muy diversos modos; dos, tres o hasta mas sentidos se encierran en una hermeneutica precisa pero desconcertante, destructora pero germen de una libertad desconocida hasta entonces: la del 'superhombre'. Nietzsche es el anticristo, la subversion a un lastre de siglos que han desvirtuado la religion; no es una negacion, es la apertura de un calendario a una nueva existencia, fechada "en el dia primero del ano uno (30 de septiembre de 1888 de la falsa cronologia)".
Stats for nerds
1recommend
3mentions
2people
2018–2019years
33% recommend67% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- The Anti-Christ by Friedrich Nietzsche. It made me question my faith and my entire existence.
- I wouldn't say Nietzsche "embraced the nihilism". Embraced atheism, sure. Even The Anti-Christ I think says not a word against Jesus, who he seems to admire, but is aimed against the corruption of Jesus' teachings by priests and the Church. His teacher Schopenhauer–the first atheist modern western philosopher?–has much more of that nihilistic vibe - it would be better not to live, happiness is negative, lasting happiness impossible, the world is essentially annoying and horrible etc. Schopenhauer's also very Buddhisty–even had a bust of Buddha in his house–although I think arrived at his conclusions independently. Nietzsche at least tried to say Yes. Music was very important to both of them–S played flute, Nietzsche piano–and music was even more important in S's philosophy than Nietzsche's. Only through art, especially music, can we escape the miserable pressure of the Will, i.e. unconscious/life force/animal nature. Reading Schopenhauer's main book seems like Freud + Darwin. One of the essays in N's first book is the fascinating Schopenhauer as Educator. The chapters on S and N in Santayana's very readable and funny Egotism in German Philosophy are maybe the best, most insightful thing written about them.
I read a lot of Kierkegaard years ago - for a while he and Nietzsche were my two best friends! I avoided K's christian stuff - way too angsty for me, and over issues that mean nothing to me. (Well, I did have a religious phase where I could agree with him that christians are nowhere near christian enough!) But I love a lot of his other stuff. Maybe my favourite is Either/Or - some parts of it - the aphorisms, Crop Rotation etc. It's very funny stuff. He's either very compressed or extremely long-winded. And the endless whining about Regine gets very tedious..
- "A volume"? The very first book on Nietzsche published in English, no less, I believe. (1907)
I read it, it's very good. He says in several places (to paraphrase) "This idea of Nietzsche's is absolutely insane." - something no scholar of Nietzsche comes within a mile of doing nowadays.
Your whole post sounds like a third-hand report. Have you read his writings on American democracy? He couldn't be more scathing about the people who in fact do rule.
"It was Americans who invented the curious doctrine that there is a body of doctrine in every department of thought that every good citizen is in duty bound to accept and cherish; it was Americans who invented the right-thinker. … In the face of this singular passion for conformity, this dread of novelty and originality, it is obvious that the man of vigorous mind and stout convictions is gradually shouldered out of public life. He may slide into office once or twice, but soon or late he is bound to be held up, examined and incontinently kicked out. This leaves the field to the intellectual jelly-fish and inner tubes." – Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, 26/7/1920
Incidentally, have you read Anti-Christ? I doubt it. It's not "the Anti-Christ" (i.e. the devil) but Anti-Christ (i.e. something written against, arguing against Jesus) - which it's not, actually. I don't think it says a single word against Jesus, of whom Nietzsche seems very fond - it's against the church and priests and their corruption of the original christian message. I thought it made a lot of sense. (As do all of Nietzsche's books - well ok, parts of Ecce Homo sound loony)
Reading you again.. you're explaining Mencken's supposed racism by that he was a Nietzschean? Hmm. I don't see the connection. Oh, is it a Nazi-Nietzsche connection? Well, read Nietzsche - no trace of racism. He was embarrassed by German nationalism, never said anything positive about it or Germany, was far fonder of French writers, was more likely to say something against Germans than against Jews. And he thought Emerson was the greatest writer of the 19th C - about whom the worst Nietzsche could say was that he was too influenced by German thought. Actually Emerson wrote a lot of Nietzsche-sounding anti-democratic-sounding stuff, a lot more than Nietzsche did. Nietzsche wasn't very political at all, hardly wrote about it.
edit: Could downvoters please explain why? thank you.
