Jakeway 1

Eileen Jakeway Instructor: Malcolm Campbell English 1103 10/1/13 Our Existence in Limbo: Was Friedrich Nietzsche an Atheist? Niet sche!s "amous #eclaration that $%o# is #ea#&' has echoe# to all corners o" mo#ern& (estern thought) Countless philosophers an# thinkers ha*e rea# The Parable of the Madman an# conclu#e# that Niet sche was an atheist& con#emning Christian morality an# thereby #isbelie*ing in %o#) I woul# like to separate these two an# #issect Niet sche!s work a bit "urther to e+plore what I consi#er the human attempt to un#erstan# the goo# an# e*il o" this worl# through rationality) ,ather than #ispelling belie" in a %o#& Niet sche critici es the $her# mentality' that has taken o*er the Christian church as an institution) Congregations are "ollowing whate*er has been han#e# #own to them because they belie*e it is the $rational' thing to #o) -t the same time& critics argue that Niet sche $reali e# that man must un#erstan# that li"e is not go*erne# by rational principles./here are no absolute stan#ar#s o" goo# an# e*il which can be #emonstrate# by human ,eason)' 01reis& 2ecture 3: Niet sche& 3reu# an# the /hrust /owar#s Mo#ernism4 5uil#ing on this statement& it is necessary to take a look at what Niet sche #e"ine# as $%o#' an# the implications this has on the way humans un#erstan# truth. In his The Gay Science, Niet sche writes that& $.%o# is the creator& the source o" 5eing an# o" all things)))6et such a %o# is also the %o# o" truth .the philosophical pattern o" rationality an# intelligibility. 7"oun#8 re"lecte# an# incarnate# e*erywhere throughout the uni*erse)' 0-llison& 914 /his #e"inition o" %o#& which Niet sche claims to be at the root o" humanity!s belie"s& complicates

Jakeway :

our comprehension o" the worl#) I" %o# is the source o" rationality& any a#*ances we make using reason an# by e+tension& science an# technology& then are we not mo*ing closer to %o# in our mo#ern #ay an# age; /his is not what Niet sche suggests) <e argues that we are killing %o#& in a sense& e+changing him "or a new i#ol& #eity to worship) In the "ollowing =uote "rom the Intro#uction to The Gay Science, this e+change is highlighte# =uite clearly: .there was no longer "elt to be a nee# "or the >l# %o#) <is "unction as creator& con"essor& balm& ?u#ge& an# accountant was replace# by another agency& namely& by science an# by another "aith@ the "aith an# belie" in an omnipotent technology. /he Ju#eo@Christian %o# e*entually comes to be replace# by the new mar*el o" a uni*ersal scienti"ic or#er o" creation& pro#uction& an# rationally consistent e+planation. -llison& 9: /he >l# %o# was in a sense& $pushe# out' by a consensus reache# by general populations) In The Parable of the Madman, the churches are calle# $the tombs an# sepulchers o" %o#)' In a sense& %o# was locke# out by the *ery people that claime# to worship <im) /hey still atten#e# church& still went through their routine& but the intention in it was not to "in# truth) /heir truth e+iste# outsi#e& in the worl#& in the patterns an# theories presente# by science) I" they prescribe# to Niet sche!s philosophy& they woul# see this truth in#ee# reiterate# e*erywhere& but accept it as "lowing "rom %o#) (hen critics claim that Niet sche shunne# the i#ea o" a %o#& I cannot accept that he woul# accept <im as the source o" truth& without accepting him as the source o" morality) -n# in his writings& he is *ery "ocuse# in the e*ery#ay #ecisions we make that create what we percei*e as truth) -n# he belie*es that $truth has to be "ought "or e*ery step o" the way)' (hen e+ploring these assumptions& =uestions about the "un#amental characteristics o" our uni*erse arise& is it chaotic or rational to begin with& can we e*en claim to un#erstan# it; (e want to e+change one belie" system "or another& but is this ?ust a #i""erent mani"estation o" the same weaknesses an# "ears that ha*e always been present amongst human populations; >ne

Jakeway 3

theory that Niet sche has propose# is religion as a power struggle) >ur #e"inition o" %o# changes base# on how we "eel we nee# to percei*e the worl#) (eakness an# $metaphysical illusions came into e+istence as a psychological compensation "or the weakness o" people who were powerless& an# this outlook triumphe# o*er the con*entionally strong an# their *iew o" the worl#)' 0Intro +4 /he #eath o" %o# is presente# as the result o" a power struggle: the weak control what they can) It was thought that "ear an# weakness generate# a nee# "or %o#& the ol# %o# but really it is the new %o# o" science an# technology that is the mani"estation o" a "ear o" humans! role in the uni*erse) /he more we are a"rai# o" our own insigni"icance& the more we seek to un#erstan# an# control through science& making it the center o" our li*es an# worship) In his =uest "or truth& Niet sche a#mits $the source o" 5eing is also the source o" *alue an# truth)' /his truth is uni*ersal an# concreteA #espite our a#*ances in science an# technology& we cannot replace the truth that has always been) <e #oes not #oubt the belie"s o" the ol# Christians who worshippe# in churchesA rather& he attacks contemporary Christians "or their lack o" true belie"& their #oubt in an ol# truth) In 5ook III o" On Geneaology of Morality, he wrote: $.)you will ha*e gathere# what I am getting at& namely& that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our "aith in science rests@that e*en we knowers o" to#ay& we go#less anti@metaphysicians& still take our "ire& too& "rom the "lame lit by the thousan#@year@ol# "aith& the Christian "aith which was also Blato!s "aith& that %o# is truth& that truth is #i*ine.' In my personal opinion& there #oes e+ist a "un#amental truth that we must "ight to unco*er) It is a li"etime challenge an# struggleA the =uintessential $meaning o" li"e' we are all looking "or) I belie*e that Niet sche was #oing e+actly that in his work& in a manner not ple#ge# to any one school o" thought) <owe*er& ?ust because his e+pression was ra#ical an# uncon*entional& #oes not mean he #i# not reach any meaning"ul conclusions) Just by *irtue o" #e#icating his li"e to the pursuit o" the #i*ine& Niet sche was a #eeply spiritual person& per my

Jakeway C

#e"inition o" the wor#) I agree with author -llison that& $<e saw the unra*eling o" Christianity as part o" the phenomenon that he calle# European nihilism& the loss o" any sense o" #epth or signi"icance to li"e)' Dince humans coul# e+plain a lot about the worl#& they #i# not bother to look any #eeper) /hey accepte# still rather ru#imentary& though scienti"ically accurate& perceptions o" the worl#) I" something #i# not check out logically& like a "aith or religion& it was #roppe# by the waysi#e& le"t behin#) <owe*er& this blocke# us people "rom seeing the interconnecti*ity o" the uni*erse as a whole an# #isregar#s belie" systems that people ha*e hel# "or thousan#s o" years) Many scholars rea# Niet sche!s work an# see it as a challenge to the Christian Church) -n# that is *ery true) >ne might e*en consi#er him an $atheist' an# be right& because it is *ery likely he woul# not belie*e in religion& as it e+ists to#ay) <owe*er& one woul# be wrong in #iscar#ing his belie" in %o#) <e belie*e# in morality an# truth an# "ought *ery har# to #isco*er it in the course o" his li"etime) /he "act that he e+plore# such a *ariety o" sub?ects in a *ery critical way: morality& truth& the #i*ine& religion as a power struggle& the will to power& the eternal recurrence& etc) ma#e it *ery easy "or other philosophers to impose their own *alue systems on his work an# interpret them through that lens) (riter -llison agrees) /he #eeply ra#ical spirit o" his work was combine# with a lack o" e""ecti*e political an# social i#eas& lea*ing a blank on which many #i""erent aspirations coul# be pro?ecte#)' 0Intro#uction& /he %ay Dcience4 Niet sche #i# not belie*e in a tra#itional %o# or the %o# that is currently worshippe# in temples an# churches) Nor is this the %o# that has always hel# that position) 5ut 3rie#rich Niet sche belie*e# in /ruth) -n# he belie*e# that it is the responsibility o" people to hol# themsel" to this truth& to make the #ecision to seek it out an# to "in# morality in that pursuit) $!-t any price!: we un#erstan# this well enough once we ha*e slaughtere# one "aith a"ter another on this altarE Conse=uently& Fwill to truth! #oes not mean FI #o not want to let

Jakeway G

mysel" be #ecei*e#! but Hthere is no alternati*e@ FI will not #ecei*e& not e*en mysel"A and with that we stand on moral ground.' <umans use ,eason to try to make sense o" the worl#) <owe*er& the morality that "lows "rom %o# an# Nature& the inherent %oo# an# E*il& is thereby blocke# out by trying to e+plain it) -ny attempts to reason an# to rationali e the e+tent o" a worl# simply outsi#e o" our grasp& are a spiritual step away "rom %o#) (ith e*ery $rational' #ecision we make& Niet sche argues that we mo*e one step "urther away "rom the morality stemming "rom %o# or Nature) Niet sche is so *ehemently oppose# to Christianity& not because he is against %o#& but because he #etests our position in the worl# as we e+ist currently) (e are simply #ri"ting unawares $away "rom all suns.plunging continually.backwar#& si#ewar#& "orewar#& in all #irections)' 0Niet sche& The Parable of the Madman4 In these arguments& Niet sche is attacking humanity& not %o#) /here is a %o#& he says in his writings& but we re"use his morality without accepting our own) /his is what Niet sche is combatting: the min#less "ollowings o" an institution that is not truly %o#ly) ,eally& this #oes not make Niet sche an atheist) It makes him a more conscious& curious Christian than most) In a way& he argues that we can ha*e it one way or ha*e it the other) 5ut instea#& we are ?ust ?oining a min#less her# mentality an# a*oi#ing the choice) /his is what Niet sche abhors& why $this tremen#ous e*ent is still on its way& still wan#eringA it has not yet reache# the ears o" men)' 0Barable4