In his Geneology of Morals, Nietzsche identifies the former flawed reasoning of the noble mode of evaluation. He challenges that the slave mode of evaluation, what he would say that we have today, is similar to the ideas espoused by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount ("blessed are the meek, etc. for they shall inherit the Earth.) By inverting the noble mode of evaluation, the slave mode asserts that those who are beloved by God for what the noble mode has called failings and flaws are good because they embody the "be attitudes," listed in the Sermon on the Mount.
But how does this goodness ascend upon such persons? How is Jesus a role model for goodness - or for God-ness, for that matter?
A crucified God subject, as Nietzsche has argued, is fundamentally out of order with the identity of who God is understood to be. The Christian Bible recounts Jesus as having endured much suffering and many mixed feelings about being crucified. Yet he had the free will to take his own "cup" from himself, and and did not.
Was Jesus's demonstration of strength (God) acting as weakness out of order with goodness? With these ideas of Nietzsche in mind, what do you think? Are we misunderstanding the character of God? Or, was Jesus not a satisfactory enough representation of God, or even God at all, according to the "gospel" of Nietzsche?
To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world looks rationally back. --G.W.F. Hegel
I admit, I'm not as familiar with these stories as you seem to be. I want to try to give this a go though, so here goes: the most important thing we need to remember is what Nietzsche means by strength and goodness. Or, what christians mean by strength and goodness. Despite the tenants of christianity, many christians operate according to a sort of noble articulation of strength. Historically, we can look towards religious justifications for war; battles of holy land; executions for 'unchristian' behavior, etc. So, clearly, we have a de jure articulation of strength, laid out in the gospels, and a de facto articulation of strength, acted out in the world. I'm not sure the latter articulation has any ground except in the ways in which people conceive of themselves. Now, that being said, strength takes on a much wider meaning, also. In a world where physical strength cannot (legally) settle disputes among citizens (lets forget about international violence, for a second), a new kind of strength takes hold, one which devalues dialogue and recognition. I'd almost prefer we duke it out with swords if it meant that, at the end of the day, we could actually have a chat. At this moment, the juridicial body has superseded a need for communication and negated the need for truth. At this point, cunning, manipulation, and double speak are more relevant to success than pure physicality. The same could be said with Christianity, which posits a law for all to follow. As a mediator between subjects in dispute, this method seems anachronistic at best.
ReplyDeleteTo build on Tim's point, I think Nietzsche believes that this mode of evaluation that elevates Jesus is "clever" and almost a trick to make people think in a different way. Weak people hold up with model because their weakness gets turned into strength. For Nietzsche, this has distorted what is, I suppose, a more natural and true view of strength that does not uplift the meek etc. I think this question also circles around to shown strength vs. potential strength. Jesus, as God, should have been easily able to not have been crucified. However, even showing such weakness i think is what seems anathema to Neitszche
ReplyDelete