The language and style of Nietzsche really pushes my buttons. I often miss out on the big picture because I am hung up on some of his individual -- and incendiary -- statements.
Sartre's writing on atheistic existentialism is much easier for me to understand, and is helping me piece together Nietzsche. Nietzsche can mention the word "rape" and he's easy to refute as an extremist. Sartre, not so much!
My professor asked me how I would argue against Nietzsche's view without appealing to scripture. I honestly don't know how I would argure against atheistic existentialism without appealing to scripture. One person presupposes the existence of God as a starting point and, another doesn't. How is that gap bridged? Any ideas out there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The name Nietzsche makes me shudder. Not because of his writings but because he reminds me of a professor I once had. Blech!
I can't remember any specifics about Nietzschean philosophy but as you said that one person presupposes the existence of God as a starting point and another doesn't. So, can you actually start from a point of presupposing a Creator even if you don't use Scripture. I think there is lots of evidence which might be used to create a foundation for such a starting point.
I used to have a friend who said he couldn't believe in God because I couldn't prove to him mathmatically that God exists. My response was simply that he couldn't prove to me mathmatically that God didn't exist. We canceled each other out. Although Nietzsche's views perhaps were juxtaposed against a society that largely accepted the presence of God, I think it is possible to simply make that choice to disagree with supposition and move on.
This is of course, easy for me to say, because I don't have to do it. ;) I have a good friend who is brains personified. I'm going to ask him about this and see what he says.
Sartre's point on the existence of God is not that God does not exist but that it is impossible to know if God exist. Given this premise he argues assuming there is no God because that is the best we can do.
With Nietzsche I would say his view of God is that the people no longer have a correct view of God and in essence are using God as a means for their worldly ends.
I would agree with your professor not use the scriptures in argument because than you are open to all sorts of criticism from how it was interpreted to the actual authority of the book, after all the Bible is not an academic work. But you might find philosophers of religion such as Aquinas and Augustine helpful because they discussed such issues in very fine detail.
My thoughts on bridging the gap run along the idea that it is true that God existence cannot be logically proved without there being an equally forceful arguement opposed. However the question remains that if for every cause there is an effect and every effect is itself a cause than there must be an original cause. So I would say the best starting point is one of the unmoved mover.
Post a Comment