Nietzsche and the death of God

 From what I know of Nietzsche I tend to think that he has been much misunderstood, and not only because he is often seen as some sort of precursor of the Nazi's. As Ernst Krieck, a prominent Nazi ideologue, sarcastically remarked "apart from the fact that Nietzsche was not a socialist, not a nationalist and opposed to racial thinking, he could have been a leading National Socialist thinker." It was his sister, who did in fact "think racially", who, in dealing with his unpublished writings after his death, did great damage to his reputation.

I'm often lost when reading philosophical works, and prefer the biographies of various thinkers. This puts flesh and blood onto their words, which often sends me off on a tangent from how they are normally perceived.

There is a very good biography of Nietzsche, by Sue Prideaux called "I Am Dynamite". Yes, he was dynamite! His thought has influenced many of the 20th centuries greatest thinkers, many of whom could be called "spiritual", even defenders of theism. They recognise the actual direction and intent of his writings, beyond the headline grabbing "God is Dead" nonsense.

Here is Sue Prideaux:-

Instead of emphasizing a kind of human essence which all human beings share and which must be actualized (and from which one might derive ethical standards), Nietzsche stresses the uniqueness of each individual, almost as if each of us is a species unto ourselves. Accordingly, the conditions for flourishing and self-actualization will vary widely from one person to the next.This in turn means that individuals cannot rely unthinkingly on their own socialization or inherited traditions in order to determine how best to actualize their own potential, since the customs and traditions in question are not sufficiently tailored to the individual case. Consequently, the discovery of the means to self-actualization must be left to the individual’s own experimentation.

Can no one else see how this would relate to the promise of God to write his Law upon the human heart rather than on tablets of stone? The promise of redemption? That "Christ came that we might have life"?

Describing Nietzsche's viewpoint further, Sue Prideaux writes:-

One must be fleet of foot; one must dance. Life was not simple. If, one day, man would dare construct an architecture corresponding to the nature of the soul, that architect would have to take the labyrinth as the model. To give birth to a dancing star, one must first have chaos within. Inconsistency, changes of mind and urges to wander were a duty. A fixed opinion was a dead opinion, a made-up mind was a dead mind, worth less than an insect; it should be crushed underfoot and utterly destroyed.

Can no one else relate this to the difference between the Word as Text and the Living Word? Surely we must call into question ideas of good and evil as eternal absolutes rather than as fleeting conventions? What is "good" is ever new, it can unfold in each moment, "good" then, for that moment - and "absolute" in that moment only.

Nietzsche said that he distrusted all systematisers and avoided them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity. As I see it, this is much the same with theology, no matter whose, that seeks to turn the spirit that blows where it will into some creedal, dogmatic "one way" assertion where allegiance to just "one name" dictates just who can be "saved".

Dynamite!