The Perspectives of Nietzsche

[unnamed525]

For instance: People who comprehend a thing to its very depths rarely stay faithful to it forever. For they have brought its depths into the light of day: and in the depths there is always much that is unpleasant to see. - Human, all too Human, s.489, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

Comments

[thesandsabrase]

I feel that about must religions I have dealt with.

[tyrell]

The other reason they don't stay faithful to it is because it no longer has mysterious hidden depths.

On the other hand, I agree with him about Christianity just being unpleasant.

[unnamed525]

Pagan religions aren't too pleasant, either: druidic human sacrifices, and that on a massive scale with the Aztec's, basically.

[tyrell]

Oh, no argument here. Although I'm not sure it was that frequent... the majority seem to be either self-sacrifice of failed warriors (similar to seppuku) or a sacrifice to bless the opening of a new building (which is hardly unique - several Cathedrals have dead cats and other animals in the cornerstones).

But yes, paganism (as opposed to neo-paganism) certainly included all kinds of sacrifices. As far as the quote goes, I think it didn't pretend to hide the nasty stuff in the depths, and so less people were surprised when they brought it to the light.

[eididdy]

You should go with Kaufmann as a translator rather than Hollingdale.

?

[unnamed525]

http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/index.htm

Re: ?

[eididdy]

Not sure what that link was supposed to be a response to.

Re: ?

[unnamed525]

Do you think it's a workable translation?

Actually, I should just get out Kauffman out of the library if they have him.

[ambiance_zebra]

I don't usually agree with Nietzsche, but that's true.

I'm not saying that I am the deepest thinker in the world, but I always seem to see the faults with the things I advocate. I think the inconsistencies become more glaring when you mull it over a lot.

It's a good reason not to believe anything, actually...

[unnamed525]

... or at least to not worry about inconsistencies so much.

What you believe ultimately only really matters, and I'd say only really shows itself, when you have to act upon what you believe; I agree with William James that a belief is something upon which one is willing to act. This justifies non-evidentialist beliefs, logically, while they're justified empirically, I think, by confidence levels being positively correlated with performance; if you believe you'll do well, you're apparently more likely to do well.

[uberreiniger]

Most people never reach the depth of understanding in the first place. Thus the theory is seldom put to the test.