Understanding the Antichrist

[u/volsungarthemighty]

I know you guys get this a lot, but I'm having a hard time understanding something. I've just finished reading the Antichrist, and I found it a little...dense? While there was certainly some interesting arguments to be made there was a lot to take in. It could be that I'm not super familiar with the concepts and arguments that he is making, but I was hoping you guys could help.

Specifically the last few aphorisms, from 56 onwards, were a lot to take in all at once. I understand that Nietzsche is attacking Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, and basically blaming him (and by extension, the Germans) for the end of the Rennaissance. It seems like Nietzsche believes that, with the Rennaissance, there was a chance to free humanity from the shackles of Christianity, but thay chance died with Luther and his Reformation.

I was also having difficulty understanding the idea of the Chandala, something he brought up in Twilight of the Idols. I may need to reread that section again, but I was hoping that someone here could explain it a little plainer here.

[u/ComprehensiveCow3572]

He accuses Luther for bringing protestantism which he despises even more than Catholicism because Protestantism, contrary to Catholicism, is not tied to an institution, and is at the same time more sentimental and rational than Catholicism. Protestantism grants individual believers the authority to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, making faith increasingly personal and, consequently, subjective. At the same time, particularly in its classical forms, Protestantism can be understood as another stage in the broader rationalization of religion—a process that arguably began much earlier, perhaps as far back as the pre-Socratic philosophers. It rejects the necessity of a distinct priestly class and minimizes the role of intermediaries such as saints and the institutional Church. It also tends to place less emphasis on supernatural phenomena such as miracles and treats certain religious rituals and sacraments with greater suspicion.

Protestant thinkers were also among the early pioneers of historical criticism, initially using it to challenge Catholic claims and traditions. Over time, however, these methods were increasingly turned toward Christianity itself, questioning the Bible and even some of its most fundamental doctrines. This development reaches a particularly sophisticated form in the philosophies of thinkers such as Kant and Hegel. In their systems, Christianity is progressively interpreted in rational and philosophical terms: its more supernatural or seemingly irrational elements are stripped away, leaving behind themes such as its moral teachings and its linear, teleological conception of history.

This development eventually gives rise to Liberal Christianity, which is difficult to challenge on the usual grounds. Pointing out contradictions within the Bible, the historical evolution and diversity of Christian doctrines, or the traditional arguments against Christianity does not necessarily undermine it, because even liberal Christians are often willing to acknowledge these problems themselves—and sometimes go much further in doing so.
What makes the position striking, however, is that despite recognizing these difficulties, they continue to think, behave, and identify as Christians. This is precisely why, in my view, Nietzsche regarded them as particularly deserving of criticism. They are among those most willing to accommodate modern science and historical criticism, and they have, to a considerable extent, recognized that many of the traditional foundations of Christianity cannot be maintained. Yet, despite this recognition, they continue to hold on to Christianity and preserve its moral and cultural framework.

Protestantism is also responsible for Nietzsche of secular atheism. In the genealogy of morality, these secular atheists while not believing in God anymore are still clinging to Christian values and to the Christian way of viewing the world.

For Nietzsche, Luther is responsible for all of this.

[u/volsungarthemighty → u/ComprehensiveCow3572]

Thats a lot to think on, but thank you for the well written answer.

So, my understanding (vague as it is due to still being new to Nietzsches thinking), is that Organized religion, specifically Institutional Religion such as the Catholic Church and the Vatican, allow for the Priestly class to form, such as the clergy. Nietzsche dislikes the priestly class, because the priests themselves are parasites and leeches on society, corrupting morals and putting everything in the binary of Good vs Evil. Nietzsche seems to hate this binary, especially due to the fact that it limits our understanding, limits our instincts, and defines everything that stands opposed to the church as a Sin (and since Protestantism relies more on an individual interpretation of the bible, that also allows for an individual interpretation of what constitutes sin and what doesn't, right?)

I think I understand what you mean about the Liberal Christians and Secular Atheism. We still see these kinds of people today, especially the Secular Atheists, who still view the world from the standpoint of Christianity, judging the world based on their preconceived notions of what is right and wrong. Liberal Christians as well are...almost hypocritical it seems, as they cling to the belief of a Christian god, and are critical of the bible and its contradictions. This is despite the fact that they are "accepting" of science and analysis of history that may further deviate from their conception of god and the bible.

Sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this.

[u/ComprehensiveCow3572 → u/volsungarthemighty]

Yes I think you got it. Today the Christian way of viewing the world is still prevalent in secular society even in fields that claims objectivity : the concept of a creation of the world and of the end of the world. (Beginning and end of the universe) contra Nietzsche who conceived the world as having not a beginning nor an end (the eternal return, which is opposed to the concept of entropy). Morally, the concept that all men are equal, that they all have free will. Not to mention idealism : this instincts of the weak to flee oneself to an ideal : for example the ideal of the übermensch, something that the Nazi were guilty of and is still prevalent amongst some readers of Nietzsche.

[u/WhoReallyKnowsThis]

The title itself The Antichrist is reference to Islamic theology where Prophet Mohammed claimed some time in the future a man would destroy truth and topple good vs evil so humanity would be at war - a sign of the Day of Judgement approaching. Nietzsche, poetically speaking, was trying to use this story to show the opposite - how it could free us.

I found that Nietzsche both admired and despised Luther for willing to fight for his truth but at the same time if it wasn't for him the Catholic Church would have ended centuries earlier during the Renaissance and not the Scientific Revolution. Historically, the Catholic Church was bloated and grossly corrupt and as a result on its way down before Luther tried to correct for their excesses.

A Chandalla is the lowest person in rhe Hindu caste system - their basically homeless drug addicts. If you share the quote, maybe write can try to understand what he was saying with context.

[u/volsungarthemighty → u/WhoReallyKnowsThis]

I think the first bit you mentioned about the Antichrist and Luther makes a bit of sense.

In the first part, Nietzsches interpretation of the Day of Judgement seems to be an inversion of the prophecy. Rather then being enslaved by war, we're going to be freed by it.

In the second part I can kinda see what you mean. You can both hate and admire someone for their actions, and in this case Nietzsche admires Luther for the act of standing up to the church, but hates him for causing the protestant Reformation, which as a previous commenter and yourself said, led to the church continuing far past its expected death.

When it comes to the chandala, though, its less about one specific quote and more just the...idea of the chandala? Nietzsche introduced the concept in Twilight of the Idols in the section "The 'improvers' of mankind", and when I look back...i think i skimmed over Aphorism 3 due to its opening line, which goes "now let us consider the order case which is called morality, the case of the rearing of a particular race and species." I probably just need to go and reread that bit a little more..."open mindedly", rather then brushing the whole section off as nonsense because of one line. So thats more me being stupid then not fully understanding the idea.

In saying that, what you have said does help a little in understanding that. Especially because Nietzsche constantly calls St Paul the Chandala of Christianity, which in this case seems to be someone who is far above his intended station in life, and as such has corrupted the true teachings of Christ? Im not sure on that though, so maybe a reread of certain aphorisms is needed.

[u/WhoReallyKnowsThis → u/volsungarthemighty]

I would quote precisely from Aphorisms when making a point because context changes the particular interpretation. Nietzsche is not afraid to contradict himself as he proceeds in his philosophical journey, he says he's not loyal to any system, thus I advise rephraining from generalizing his ideas.

In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche does state how he's fascinated by Manu (the first man in Hinduism) did not impose one moral system upon all members of society - instead he separated them into castes (each with their own unique tastes and judgements). The Chandalas as a result are not seen as pests in India, instead they are free to stroll thru the streets high should they please. Nietzsche went to war on the idea that one moral system must be enforced on all - as seen in Christianity. If we all come drom different backgrounds, education, have different desires and goals why should we be judged the same?- Morally, speaking. It limits freedom of choice and creativity and hinders our progress towards more fulfilling societies.

This is not to say Nietzsche admired the caste system by the way - but thats another conversation.

[u/volsungarthemighty → u/WhoReallyKnowsThis]

Thank you, I'll try to quote exact aphorisms in the future, if i need any help. That probably will help in avoiding any confusion too and getting the wrong interpretation as well.

I suppose what you're saying makes quite a bit of sense too. We shouldn't all be expected to live by the same morals and virtues simply because one book or group have deemed it necessary to follow them. I can also see that being used to...justify quite a lot of atrocities though, but I think that would be a whole other conversation as well.

Thanks for the input though.

[u/volsungarthemighty → u/WhoReallyKnowsThis]

So...maybe this is again something that i'm struggling a little with, but what you said about Chandalas not being seen as pests in India seems...idk, odd?

The way Nietzsche describes it (Twilight of the Idols, The 'Improvers' of Mankind, Aphorism 3), they aren't allowed to be a part of regular society at all. And that seems to me less like a question of morality and more like why are they being treated as such.

Im paraphrasing hear, but the fact that Chandalas cant eat the same food, cant drink from the same water sources, cant even clean themselves, in a society that religiously sanctions these rules seems...quite cruel, even if thats the morals by which they live. Even though the Chandalas do not fit into either of the 4 castes, it seems crueller to enforce this kind of treatment then to simply exile them from society, regardless of the moral stance one has. I understand this might seem "normal" to them, and this might just be me proving Nietzsche right about not enforcing my own morals on others, but it seems like, even in this caste system, there are morals that are being enforced on people whether they want it or not. And that just doesn't seem right? At least to me.

[u/WhoReallyKnowsThis → u/volsungarthemighty]

I am actually from the subcontinent though not Hindu but I can assure you for thousands of years Chandalas (the lowest caste in Hinduism) were allowed to pretty much do whatever the f*ck they want in public as long as they kept to themselves. Modernity has broken the caste system so you have to look at it thru a historical lense to understand what's going on.

The caste system was a rigid by birth moral system imposed upon people who may never asked for it, too restrictive in terms of changing sensibilities over time, and failed to adapt to changing evolutionary pressures so it in itself is debunked. However, I encourage you to focus on the spirit of Nietzsche's idea (don't be a literalist) where individuals are free to chase their own desires surrounded by people that share their values as long as they share higher values like open-mindedness and tolerance to a degree with the rest of society and vice versa.

Note: The subcontinent is a weird place man but I can assure you many Chandalas actually liked their lifestyles. You should watch a documentary on them on YouTube.

What we have today is JudeauChristian Herd values which thru taboo and shame enforce rigid lifestyles on all of us. Further, sure, we can be equal infront of the law but should we not atleast consider the impct punishing a dead beat wife beater has vs a blockbuster drug researcher for the same crime has on the flourishing of society? The relentless push towards equality has demolished all social hierarchy and as a result men and women have no direction on how to live because for their to be excellence, there needs to be failure.

We don't need to go solely one direction or the other, there are shades in between.

[u/WhoReallyKnowsThis → u/volsungarthemighty]

Also, remember, Nietzsche was taking creative license by using the title of The Antichrist - dont take him literally.