Nietzsche is right...but sucks.
David Bentley Hart (DBH) may not be German, but he is definitely one of the the best (if not best) American theologians today. Of all time. Eternity? In his book (The Beauty of the Infinite - oh man!) he starts his dogmatics by addressing the postmodern condition through its founder and strongest protagonist - Friedrich Nietzsche. Following Milbank (DBH is a one man Radical Orthodox show - Monday thru Friday 6:30 pm to 11:30 pm) in defining postmodernity as an "ontology of violence", DBH contends that Christianity gives the only answer - an "ontology of peace." Check it out.
Nietzsche is the idol sounder (Twilight of the Idols) for modernity by pointing out the "Will to Power" which undergirds all action, thought, and deed. He is violently opposed to Christianity (althought not Jesus Christ, whom he understands about as well as quantum mechanics) because "Paul's gospel" is one of total transcendence - a denial of the world and all its glory. Nietzsche blames Christianity for destroying the goodness of the world even amidst all its suffering. Instead of the crucifed Christ, Nietzsche takes up Dionysus as his saviour, one who calls for violence in the name of true humaness. Nietzsche decries the "otherworldliness" of Christianity and calls it a "castration of existence." He proposes the new morality - a striving towards violence and "becoming who you are", a romantic (?) return to the warrior virtues of Greece. To him Christianity is nothing more than the slaves (poor souls) trying to will to power over those who have rightfully gained possession of life by their virtues. Christianity is nothing more than a child responding to a bully beating "It is better to have been beaten up because now I have suffering and he does not." Christianity is a poor loser to Nietzsche and should suck it up.
What say we? Well, in so many ways Nietzsche is absolutely right. If Christianity is what he says it is, then it is just a patheitic "ontology of violence", trying to gain mastery through some pansy way of one-upsmanship. Looking around this world and saying "I can't wait for Jesus to get back and fix this place" is pathetic (as well as too evangelical!). Pat Robertson needs not only to stop calling for assassinations (and lying about it), but also needs to rethink what kind of power he is willing on everyone - a power of pure violence, although in a more "soccer-momish" way. But, is Nietzsche right in his view of Christianity - the poor man's Platonism?
DBH says absolutely not. Through creation's pure "giveness" we find not some flight from diety but rather the participation of the Triune God. Christianity is not a "next-world" event, it is rather seeing this world through the lens of an "ontology of peace", best described as beauty. Even Nietzsche saw the power of aesthetics, but is not the aesthetics of peace much more desirable than the aesthetics of violence? Is not the image of the lion and the lamb laying together much more desirable (and truthful?) than the lion eating the lamb? Christianity agrees with Nietzsche - if everything is will to power alone, then violence and "nihilism" is the ultimate result of the geneology of history. But Christians proclaim a different story. This is the power of DBH's apologetic/dogmatic, we don't take on the pagan with reason (Pascal and Hume have shown that to be ineffectual outside of a priori agreement), we lay out the story of the Triune God and the story of the will to power. If radical immanence is correct (as Nietzsche saw it), then his story is the only acceptable one. But if we don't give him that (and there is no reason to) then the Christian story is infinitely more beautiful because of its Infinite source - the creational "giftedness" by the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Gospel of the Triune God might be a total affront to Nietzsche (and his followers, which are legion), but Jesus had no other intention. "Christ showed that the world was a dext that could be read differently: according to the grammar not of power, but of agape. (122)" Christ called and still calls us to throw off the sackles of power plays and demands the story of love to defeat all evil. Nietzsche, one so concerned with aesthetics showing truth, missed the true conclusion: peace is always more beautiful than violence.
"The most potent reply a Christian can make to Nietzsche's critique is to
accuse him of a defect of sensibility - of bad taste. And this in fact is
the last observation that should be made at this point: Nietzsche had atrocious
taste. (125)"
Ummm...eat it?
posted by Hans-Georg Gadamer @ 11:21 am
7 comments
7 Comments:
I mean, what is going on?
Here's a comment from a real person that you actually know:
I like what you had to say here - though I really need to read it again without the intense veil of tiredness closing in on my eyeballs. Anyway...one of my favorite scriptures of all time is the one (that I don't know where it is) that says that the Gospel of Christ is foolishness to those who don't believe, but to thsoe who believe it is the power of God. From a rational standpoint, Christianity is not appealing. It is foolish and, yes, perhaps violent. But, to those that add the element of believe, not only is it powerful, but freeing and beautiful.
Thanks for sharing this post.
First, google's recently added a way to stop spammers who use programs to comment on your site. It's a minor inconvenince to the rest of us - we have to read some word off of the screen and type it into a box; I'm sure you've seen those before - but in your case you might want to start using it. I was going to put it on my blog, but since I only have one spam so far, I won't.
I agree - excellent post.
It's interesting, Mair, because I was thinking about that verse this very morning. I've often thought in reference to Ayn Rand that Christianity DOES seem ridiculous and foolish. Mercy and pity make little sense in a world where man must live by his wits and serve himself to survive, yet Christianity demands it anyway, and Christians find it much more fulfilling than living the more "reasonable" way.
I haven't read Nitzche, so I didn't eralize he was advocating such violence. I learned evangelically that Nitzche was the founder of nihilism and thus the arbiter of all evil. I later learned from others (including you) that Nitzche was rather arguing against nihilism by trying to show how crazy it was. Now it sounds like we're back to the first point, where Nitzche advocates violence and nihilism as the only acceptable and logical conclusion of our existence.
I read a book on Greek history the other day that noted and interesting turn in their mythology as their society developed and eventual went to the pits. In earlier more classical Greece, worship was focused on Apollo, who, while given to fits of rage and magnanomy, was the embodiment of virtue, honesty, justice, etc. As it progressed they turned to Dionysus, who was instead the god of wine, orgies, and whimsical violence. It's interesting that worship of decadence lead to waste. It seems to be the same thing Nitzche is arguing for, but he wants us to embrace it rather than work against it. This reminds me of fight club.
On that note, I'm off to throw off the sackles of power plays.
Humans - thanks for the comments! Mair, the passage is I Cor. 1.18, and it is sweetness. Rationality is only sensical in light of Christ, which makes it totally beautiful (or mean).
Redness, I think Niezsche is putting Apollo and Dionysus together - Nietzsche was all about the virtues, but he wanted to live them passionately! We can follow him to a point. Good insight.
Spam-cyborgs, go to hell.
I don't know that Nietzsche "advocates violence and nihilism"--it's more like he advocates violent (in the sense of aggressive) transcendence in the face of nihilism. I wrote this to you in an e-mail a while ago:
Nietzsche's famous phrase is "the will to power"--what this means (for him) is that, when all is said and done, the only thing that's truly real, that doesn't need a foundation, is our own will, our own creative power, our own energy. Nietzsche's superman creates knowing that he does so arbitrarily. (I bet you can see the beginning of 20th century existentialism in this.)
I do think we should follow Nietzsche to a point, as hans said. We create paths to God in a world that sometimes seems arbitrary, knowing that what we can see isn't everything that is.
hmm...good point.
Seriously, hans. turn on the spam blocker. It's in the settings on your blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home