Below are Nietzsche's views on the role of Christianity in history:
On the destruction of Greco-Roman culture by Christianity
The whole labour of the ancient world gone for naught: I have no word to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.—(…) To what end the Greeks? to what end the Romans?--All the prerequisites to a learned culture, all the methods of science, were already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art of reading profitably--that first necessity to the tradition of culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road,--the sense of fact, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools, and its traditions were already centuries old! Is all this properly understood? Every essential to the beginning of the work was ready;--and the most essential, it cannot be said too often, are methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed by habit and laziness. What we have to day reconquered, with unspeakable self-discipline, for ourselves--for certain bad instincts, certain Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies--that is to say, the keen eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest things, the whole integrity of knowledge--all these things were already there, and had been there for two thousand years! (…) The Greeks! The Romans! Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization and administration, faith in and the will to secure the future of man, a great yes to everything entering into the imperium Romanum and palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but had become reality, truth, life . . --All overwhelmed in a night, but not by a convulsion of nature! Not trampled to death by Teutons and others of heavy hoof! But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking, invisible, anemic vampires! Not conquered,--only sucked dry! . . . Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master! Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul, was at once on top!--One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. (...)
Christianity finds sickness necessary, just as the Greek spirit had need of a superabundance of health--the actual ulterior purpose of the whole system of salvation of the church is to make people ill. And the church itself--doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal?--The whole earth as a madhouse?—(…) Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core--the instinct against the healthy, against health. Everything that is well--constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence to its ears and eyes.
On the rejection of Christian values by the Renaissance and the Reformation as the Reaction against the Renaissance
Is it understood at last, will it ever be understood, what the Renaissance was? The transvaluation of Christian values,--an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the opposite values, the more noble values. . . . This has been the one great war of the past; there has never been a more critical question than that of the Renaissance--it is my question too--; there has never been a form of attack more fundamental, more direct, or more violently delivered by a whole front upon the center of the enemy! To attack at the critical place, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more noble values--that is to say, to insinuate them into the instincts, into the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there . . . I see before me the possibility of a perfectly heavenly enchantment and spectacle (…) A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion against the Renaissance in Rome. (…) Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things! . . . And Luther restored the church: he attacked it. (…) (The Germans) also have on their conscience the uncleanest variety of Christianity that exists, and the most incurable and indestructible--Protestantism. . . . If mankind never manages to get rid of Christianity the Germans will be to blame. . . .
(The Antichrist)
6 comments:
"A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion against the Renaissance in Rome. (…) Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life!"
Luther's writings are certainly perplexing for anyone who values reason as a guide to living in this world. Luther's emphasis on grace prostrated man as nothing more than a helpless being, whose lot in life was to eek out a meek and meager existense and to hope that by some twist of fate God would smile fortune upon him.
Nonetheless, the Catholic Church that I am familiar with, is both stodgy and soul-crushing in its paternalism; yet it did give rise to the logical brilliance of the Scholastic Aquinas. Aquinas' emphasis on free will was indispensable for many Christian men in Europe to eventually insist upon freedom of conscience.
Yet Protestantism was more than the overturning of the rationality of Aquinas, it was a conceptual liberation from the dogma of the Catholic Church to the extent that men became responsible for their own destiny. Although such notions as pre-destination and mysticism continued to cloud many Protestant's minds, most sects abolished the worship of icons (the iconoclasts, of course), and removed the Pope as intermediary between themselves and their imagined God.
This was crucial because if each man's God could become his own, then the power of the church would be severely weakened, and thus secular laws instituted to make each man live according to his own conscience and to suffer his own consequences.
Unfortunately, this is not what happened. The Christian ethic of charity blended with and fed the drive of the state to confiscate and to enslave through dependency.
Needless to say, without the confusion of private charity with confiscation and redistribution on the part of many Christians, the socialists would be much more marginalized in America than they are now. In fact it was a specific strategy of Alinsky to use Christian's confusion of charity and welfare through mostly Unitarian or Universalist churches to build a mass movement so ravenous it has become as a horde of devouring locusts.
....Needless to say, without the confusion of private charity with confiscation and redistribution on the part of many Christians, the socialists would be much more marginalized in America than they are now.....
Blaming socialism on christians now I see; you used to blame it on the jews.
Anonymous, irrational emotional outbursts are not a means of finding the truth.
By the way, those who blamed it on the Jews were socialists themselves - just another variety (national socialists).
I never blamed socialism on Jews. Part of my extended family is Jewish.
ReaganX, I was looking forward to you correcting me on any mistakes I might have made in my argument. My knowledge of religious history is sketchy. Maybe I overstated, understated, glossed over something, or made an error in fact or reasoning?
=Nonetheless, the Catholic Church that I am familiar with, is both stodgy and soul-crushing in its paternalism; yet it did give rise to the logical brilliance of the Scholastic Aquinas.=
I agree that there’s nothing good per se in the Catholic Church per se. It’s a very disgusting organization. I like Aquinas qua Peripatetic and dislike Aquinas qua Catholic.
=Protestantism was more than the overturning of the rationality of Aquinas, it was a conceptual liberation from the dogma of the Catholic Church to the extent that men became responsible for their own destiny.=
Well, they rejected Catholic dogma but created one of their own, which was even more vicious. It is true SOME Protestant sects were less inclined to submit to church authority and more inclined towards “democratic” church organization. However the more “democratic” character did not prevent them from persecuting heretics and dissenters in the same way Catholics did. Refusal to submit to authority per se is not a sign of healthy, rational and pro-freedom values. After all, socialism initially developed as a movement hostile to authorities. It doesn’t mean there’s anything good in socialists. I don’t think the irrational and determinist ideology of Luther and Calvin can be construed as “assuming responsibility for one’s own destiny”. On the contrary, submitting to a divine tyrant who determines every aspect of your destiny is anathema to personal responsibility.
I admit, however, that some Protestants could have been pretty “liberal” (in the classical sense) in their outlook. But I don’t think it was BECAUSE OF Protestantism. I think they had these views DESPITE Protestantism. Moreover, such liberal ideas could be found among many Catholics as well. They were a product of the Renaissance, not of Protestantism.
One thing that can be said in favor of Protestantism, however, is that it is less ascetic than Catholicism. There is no celibacy in Protestantism, for example. Though a milder degree of asceticism is also a Renaissance influence.
Interesting observations on Protestantism. Once again I need to go back and study the Reformation. It is kind of dry, but hard to interpret religion without that historical background.
Post a Comment