I flipped through The Gay Science the other day and came across a few aphorisms, more or less at random; and I found myself fascinated with trying to explain them to someone, because they were all so…crazy. It’s aphorisms #134, #140, and #141; and all of them apply kind of vaguely racist perspectives to the critique of God that Nietzsche develops in this book. The core idea of the book—that God is dead and we have killed him—is that God stopped existing because we stopped believing in Him; and if our lack of belief was enough to kill God (deicide), then that means the converse is true, that our belief is what created God. God was invented by human will—and human will is not really such a great thing. So Nietzsche probes the concept of God for traces of human weakness, and builds his critique of God from that.
Assumptions should constantly be challenged to check for where revision might be needed. I've Kaufmann’s Nietzche, who assures that Nietzche was in no way an antisemite. Princeton University has published Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem, which I've not read. It argues that Nietzsche’s “anti-anti-Semitism” more likely stemmed from Nietzsche’s aversion to German nationalism than the anti-Jewish prejudices of the day. Could it be that Nietzsche harboured anti-Jewish sentiment but loathed German nationalism even more? This wouldn't be too surprising, but I'd have to read that book to see how well that point is argued.
If I’m correct, Nietzsche regards Buddhism as a nihilistic and decadent religion. The remark about rice-dependent Indians was probably his way of mocking how Buddha wouldn’t suffer any scarcity of food, but what did the practitioners of Buddhism achieve with all their asceticism, nothing but a denial of life (profound dislike of existence)?
About the Too Oriental aphorism, is Nietzsche contrasting the Old with the New Testament? Is the New Testament too oriental in its metaphysics by being too concerned with correct inward motivations and inclinations, like how modern-day Bible teachers emphasise that one must have the right emotional attitude to God? The Old Testament is more blunt with its honour codes, vindictiveness and punishment, and, therefore, more “Western” in its emphasis on human dealings and practice. It could be a snarky remark that the Christian religion simply evolved and became more mystical, hence the term oriental.
I love these nibbles of reflection.
Assumptions should constantly be challenged to check for where revision might be needed. I've Kaufmann’s Nietzche, who assures that Nietzche was in no way an antisemite. Princeton University has published Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem, which I've not read. It argues that Nietzsche’s “anti-anti-Semitism” more likely stemmed from Nietzsche’s aversion to German nationalism than the anti-Jewish prejudices of the day. Could it be that Nietzsche harboured anti-Jewish sentiment but loathed German nationalism even more? This wouldn't be too surprising, but I'd have to read that book to see how well that point is argued.
If I’m correct, Nietzsche regards Buddhism as a nihilistic and decadent religion. The remark about rice-dependent Indians was probably his way of mocking how Buddha wouldn’t suffer any scarcity of food, but what did the practitioners of Buddhism achieve with all their asceticism, nothing but a denial of life (profound dislike of existence)?
About the Too Oriental aphorism, is Nietzsche contrasting the Old with the New Testament? Is the New Testament too oriental in its metaphysics by being too concerned with correct inward motivations and inclinations, like how modern-day Bible teachers emphasise that one must have the right emotional attitude to God? The Old Testament is more blunt with its honour codes, vindictiveness and punishment, and, therefore, more “Western” in its emphasis on human dealings and practice. It could be a snarky remark that the Christian religion simply evolved and became more mystical, hence the term oriental.