FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Nietzsche and the search for God

 


Victoly
Nietzsche is perhaps most famous for writing that "God is dead" in The Gay Science (though the phrase was also spoken by the madman in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and is perhaps better known from that work). Despite one's initial inclinations when reading such a phrase, I believe that this statement of Nietzsche's has by and large been misinterpreted as a claim to atheism when it is in fact nothing of the sort.

Before I begin, a quick note and question: While this phrase is most often attributed to Nietzsche, it was also used by Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit (which predates Nietzsche), and Hegel there attributes the statement to Martin Luther. Does anyone have any further insight into the historical origin of this term?

Nietzsche's statement that God is dead is quickly followed by affirming that "we have killed him." One should perhaps first note that it would seem odd for a true atheist to claim that something nonexistent to be "killed" or "dead". But who is the "we" that has killed God? Nietzsche does not directly specify, but the specific "who" is of little importance. However, given the presentation of the phrase in Zarathustra, it is clear that Nietzsche does not only mean to refer to like-minded individuals; he is not presenting us with a triumphant cheer of victory for those who would want to kill God. It would be more appropriate to interpret either everyone in Nietzsche's age or his fellow scholars and intellectuals as the "we" of which he speaks.

The "how" of the death of God is the much more significant issue here. For Nietzsche it was the rationality of the thinkers of his time that killed God. Utilitarian ethics had just started to gain notice in Great Britain - an ethics which claimed to be without the need for a God, but (so claims Nietzsche) nonetheless relied on and espoused primarily Christian values. The scholars of his time (Nietzsche included, certainly) attempted to describe things in such a way that no God was necessary for the explanation. This is what "killed God" for Nietzsche.

However, as noted above, many of these philosophies nonetheless held firm to what Nietzsche saw as basic Christian principles: preventing suffering, pity, putting value on the common man, etc. Nietzsche thus wrote that the shadows of God were still all around us and that we lived in those shadows.

Nietzsche believed that the Christian interpretation of God would not hold under the critical eye of scholarship to come. However, this was not simply a good thing for Nietzsche. While it is true that Nietzsche contested many of the common Christian values, it is not true that Nietzsche sought a meaningless world without any value at all - he saw that world approaching in the wake of the death of God and he feared it. Nietzsche described nihilism as the great unseen enemy that would need to be fought against, not as somehting to be embraced. Nietzsche believed that the remnants of the Christian value system would not be enough to fight against nihilism, and so he attempted to clear out our "shadows" of Christianity so that they might be replaced by a new system of values - perhaps a new God or a new religion even?
Indi
Victoly wrote:
Before I begin, a quick note and question: While this phrase is most often attributed to Nietzsche, it was also used by Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit (which predates Nietzsche), and Hegel there attributes the statement to Martin Luther. Does anyone have any further insight into the historical origin of this term?

I'm not sure that such a pursuit would be possible, or even meaningful. People have probably been saying "God is dead" for one reason or another since the birth of the idea that God is alive. I've seen it used to taunt people of another religion ("your god is dead"). I've seen it used as an expression of lament (a person looks over the aftermath of a bloody battle and weeps, saying "God is dead").

So the phrase itself is too generic for simply tracing the origin of the words, but what about tracing the underlying meaning of what Nietzsche meant by it?

If that's what you're interested in, then I believe you pretty much have to start with Nietzsche. Hegel's use of it has nothing in common with Nietzshe's. And Hegel got it from Johann von Rist, not Luther, who wrote it in a hymn called "O traurigkeit, o herzeleid". The line in German is: "Gott selbst liegt tot", which translates as "God himself lies dead", but in the translation there it's translated as "God's Son is dead". As you can see, that bears no relationship whatsoever to Nietzsche's meaning.

So tracing the origin of the wording of the phrase strikes me as a pointless endeavour, and tracing the origin of the meaning of the phrase pretty much stops at Nietzsche.
Victoly
Indi wrote:
So the phrase itself is too generic for simply tracing the origin of the words, but what about tracing the underlying meaning of what Nietzsche meant by it?

If that's what you're interested in, then I believe you pretty much have to start with Nietzsche. Hegel's use of it has nothing in common with Nietzshe's. And Hegel got it from Johann von Rist, not Luther, who wrote it in a hymn called "O traurigkeit, o herzeleid". The line in German is: "Gott selbst liegt tot", which translates as "God himself lies dead", but in the translation there it's translated as "God's Son is dead". As you can see, that bears no relationship whatsoever to Nietzsche's meaning.

So tracing the origin of the wording of the phrase strikes me as a pointless endeavour, and tracing the origin of the meaning of the phrase pretty much stops at Nietzsche.


It's been my experience that in philosophy very little pursuit "stops" with anything earlier than the Greeks, but that's just my own bias. :)

You were right to note that the pursuit of the "historical origin of [the] term" is misguided, and that's not what I meant. I was more interested in looking at the roots of that idea in German thought and what it has meant for various thinkers. That said, I'm not so sure that Nietzsche's use of the phrase has nothing to do with Hegel's, as I am of the view that Nietzsche was very influenced by Hegel in a number of ways (though he certainly disagreed on a number of issues as well). Furthermore, as Nietzsche was raised Lutheran, I was mildly curious about a possible influence on that front. Also, I don't have my copy of the Phenomenology of Spirit handy, but the phrase "God is dead" is directly attributed to Luther by Hegel there. Could you be more informative regarding Hegel's possible influence from Johann von Rist? Could it not be that von Rist also got the phrase from Luther? Also, is the translation of which you speak a translation of Hegel, or of Johann von Rist? Could it not be an interpretive difference in translation?
Kaneda
With Nietzsche poetically being so influenced by Heinrich Heine, I'd say that Heine's "Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland" is at least as important as Hegel as a predecessor of "God is dead" - even if Heine doesn't use the exact phrase "Gott ist tod". It's much closer to the meaning Nietzsche intended (or I think he intended Wink) - the death of deism as a moral ideology.

Heinrich Heine wrote:
We will speak of this catastrophe, of Deism's 21st of January, in the next part. A peculiar "horror", a strange piety, does not allow us to write further at present. Our chest is filled with terrible pity - it is old Jehova himself who is preparing for death ["es ist der alte Jehova selber, der sich zum Tode bereitet"].

We have known him so well, from his cradle in Egypt, brought up amongst divine calves, crocodiles, holy onions, ibises and cats. We have seen him, as he said farewell to these playmates of his childhood and to the obelisks and sphinxes, and became, in Palestine, a small God-King to a poor shepherd people, living in his own temple palace.

We saw him later, how he encountered the Assyrian-Babylonian civilization and abandoned his all too human passions ["allzu menschlichen Leidenschaften", see later], no longer spewing wrath and revenge, or at least not thundering about every small misstep - we saw how he emigrated to Rome, the capital, where he abandoned all his national prejudices and proclaimed the heavenly equality of all people, and created, with such beautiful phrases, opposition against the old Jupiter, and intrigued for so long that he came into power and reigned from Capitol to city and world, urbem et orbem.

We saw, how he made himself more and more spiritual, how he whimpered tenderly, how he became a loving father, a common friend of all of humanity, a benefactor to the world, a philanthropist.

And nothing could help him. Do you hear the bell ringing? Kneel down. They are bringing the sacraments to a dying God ["Man bringt die Sakramente einem sterbenden Gotte"].

(My own translation from German, since I have no English version. I also split it into paragraphs for better readability)


The "21st of January of Deism" (January 21 being the date Louis the XVI was executed) that Hegel refers to is (explicitly, in the paragraph before the quote) the publication of Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft". Heine obviously isn't speaking of God/Jehova as an antropomorphic divine being, but as a human concept, born out of Egypt's polytheism, transformed into monotheism, and slowly spreading to the rest of the world.

Also note that "allzumenschlich" - "all too human" isn't, and never was, a common word in German, yet Nietszsche also uses it in the title of another very important work of his: "Menschliches, allzumenschliches" (Human, all too Human).

So (anyway), Heine traces God's execution to Kant (even if Kant wrote God into his moral philosophy). And I'd say the meaning of Heine's "sterbenden Gotte" is the same as Nietszche's "Höhlen [...] in denen man seinen Schatten zeigt" (shadows of God). I.e., what Heine saw as a dying God was, according to Nietzsche, merely the shadows of a God already dead.

Some other points... Yes, Nietzsche didn't embrace nihilism, but the death of God was, to him, not the harbinger of nihilism. According to Nietzsche, Christianity itself is nihilistic, as is any religion or belief that places all value in a future life (such as "kingdom of heaven") or a world beyond (platonism) - exactly because it devalues the here and now.

His new system of values could never be a new God - both for the reason above, and because the original introduction of a monotheistic God meant the end of individualism. Polytheism was an expression of indivualism, while:

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
Monotheism, on the other hand, this rigid consequence of the doctrine of one normal human type— the faith in one normal human god beside whom there are only pseudo-gods—was perhaps the greatest danger that has yet confronted humanity. It threatened us with the premature stagnation that, as far as we can see, most other species have long reached; for all of them believe in one normal type and ideal for their species, and they have translated the morality of mores definitively into their own flesh and blood. In polytheism the free-spiriting and many-spiriting of man obtained its first preliminary form—the strength to create for ourselves our own new eyes—and ever again new eyes that are even more our own: hence man alone among all the animals has no eternal horizons and perspectives.

149. The failures of reformations

Among the Greeks several attempts to found new Greek religions failed—which speaks for the higher civilization of the Greeks even in rather early times. It suggests that there must have been in Greece at an early time large numbers of diverse individuals whose diverse needs and miseries could not be taken care of with a single prescription of faith and hope.

(Fröhliche Wissenschaft in English translation)


Religion to Nietzsche wasn't created to explain the unexplainable (as many other philosophers and people here like to suggest), but rather to defend the individual's norms. To say "It wasn't me, not me, rather a god through me!". Polytheism allowed for individual (moral) norms in a time where any "new" norms would be frowned upon. Monotheism, in turn, imposed a single individual's norms on all people.

But in the end, even polytheism only serves as an excuse for your own morality. It's not the final answer. So for a new system of values, no deistic religion - polytheist, pantheist or monotheist - would suffice.

It's not that hard to find the source of the new system of values, though, since it's Nietzsche's second most famous concept... The Übermensch, who doesn't need a god to defend his own morals, a (former) human, who can take absolute responsibility for his own life. And part of the reason Nietzsche didn't believe he'd see such an Übermensch in his lifetime is that the "shadows of God" are still all around us (and also that no human could be perfect all the time, all of his life).
Indi
Victoly wrote:
It's been my experience that in philosophy very little pursuit "stops" with anything earlier than the Greeks, but that's just my own bias. Smile

Not into eastern philosophies, hm? ^_^

Victoly wrote:
That said, I'm not so sure that Nietzsche's use of the phrase has nothing to do with Hegel's, as I am of the view that Nietzsche was very influenced by Hegel in a number of ways (though he certainly disagreed on a number of issues as well).

When Hegel (and Rist) said "God is dead", they are specifically referring to "God" dying on the cross. In their theology God and Jesus are interchangeable because Jesus is God and God is Jesus. So, according to common understanding, Hegel didn't really mean "God is dead", he meant "Jesus is dead" - and there is a whole understanding of what that means and the implications of it, that, while interesting, have nothing to do with what Nietzsche meant by "God is dead".

http://www.svu2000.org/issues/halik2.htm wrote:
Hegel related the sentence "God is dead", the expression of the desolation of modern man, to the event of the cross, on which the one who was both Man and God died. For Hegel, the cross is not just an event of the remote past, but it is a part of the "history of Being." The "death of God" is an inner moment of "God´s biography", the roads of God through history. Modern atheism is participation at the "Good Friday of history", an important but not the last stage of the history of the spirit.


Victoly wrote:
Also, I don't have my copy of the Phenomenology of Spirit handy, but the phrase "God is dead" is directly attributed to Luther by Hegel there. Could you be more informative regarding Hegel's possible influence from Johann von Rist? Could it not be that von Rist also got the phrase from Luther? Also, is the translation of which you speak a translation of Hegel, or of Johann von Rist? Could it not be an interpretive difference in translation?

I know of no instance where Luther used any form of the phrase "God is dead". If anyone does, I'd be as interested as anyone to hear it cited.

What I have read is third hand reports that Hegel was either mistaken or simply not bothering to do research when he made that attribution. Rist's hymn, which is what I quoted and translated, is apparently "traditionally" attributed to Luther by some people. Hegel probably didn't think it worth the trouble to research who actually wrote the hymn that inspired him, and assumed it was actually Luther (which is probably what he was told in passing).
Victoly
Indi wrote:
Victoly wrote:
It's been my experience that in philosophy very little pursuit "stops" with anything earlier than the Greeks, but that's just my own bias. :)

Not into eastern philosophies, hm? ^_^


I'm not as experienced with Eastern philosophies, but from what I am aware their timeline goes back as far as (if not farther than) the Greeks - thus the statement still holds.
bobthesmiley
Um, the whole point of Nietzsche's statement "God is dead" is that God, the center of all Christian morality, was no longer apparent in his time--God was dead as a matter of cultural fact. The message was for the individual to assume not amorality or immorality but create his own morality on his way toward becoming the Ubermensch. This affects later philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and the other Existentialists because they sought the same moral freedom from the constraints and restraints of twentieth-century society.
loyal
I'm very confused. Wasn't Jesus supposedly rose from the dead in Christianity, never died in Islam and isn't god, isn't god in Judiaism.

How then can this philiosper claim that god is dead?
Indi
bobthesmiley wrote:
Um, the whole point of Nietzsche's statement "God is dead" is that God, the center of all Christian morality, was no longer apparent in his time--God was dead as a matter of cultural fact. The message was for the individual to assume not amorality or immorality but create his own morality on his way toward becoming the Ubermensch. This affects later philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and the other Existentialists because they sought the same moral freedom from the constraints and restraints of twentieth-century society.

Um, we know that. We had all said as much. Did you have a point?

loyal wrote:
I'm very confused. Wasn't Jesus supposedly rose from the dead in Christianity, never died in Islam and isn't god, isn't god in Judiaism.

How then can this philiosper claim that god is dead?

Nietzsche is not talking about Jesus, and his statement is not meant to be taken literally. The full quote (translated) from The Gay Science is:
Quote:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?
The underlying philosophy behind the statement is really interesting, and I'd recommend looking into it. But the "... for dummies" explanation of it is that Nietzsche was basically saying that man had now evolved (or would soon evolve) morally and intellectually to the point where we are drafting our own morality, without the help of God's guidance. Or to put it another way, we have now come to the point where we're smart/wise enough that we can start choosing right or wrong for ourselves.

Once we can do that, we don't have need for God (or religion in general) anymore. Since God serves no real purpose (intellectually speaking) other than to serve as a source of moral guidance and an example to strive to, once we no longer need him for that he effectively ceases to exist - that is, his continued existence serves no purpose to us. He exists because we need him to exist, so when we no longer need him to exist, he ceases to exist. We effectively kill him.

But the real question Nietzsche is interested in is... what comes next? What do we do after we "kill" God? As Kaneda said, and contrary to what most people believe, Nietzsche didn't think that what came after was nihism (although most, if not all, nihilist philosophers use the same idea as a jumping off point for their ideas). Kaneda actually explains it well in his post above.

So, in summary: Nietzshe wasn't talking about Jesus, יהוה, or الله specifically, he was talking about the death of an idea, due to the end of the need for that idea.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.