"God is dead" was technically not edgy at the time. When properly interpreted, it had the same meaning as the modern day stereotype of the 80 year old grandmother complaining about immorality. The full paraphrased quote is "God is dead, we have killed him," Nietzsche was actually warning that turning away from God would lead to the loss of Christian morality and the destruction of Europe, as seen in the 20th century.
Nietzsche was far from being a fan of Christian morality though. And I doubt the 80 year old grandmother would say, "Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Will we not have to become Gods ourselves to seem worthy of it?"
@KanzazKyote Stop spreading lies, Nietzsche was the complete and total opposite of a christian apologist and he was in fact advocating for the abandonment of religion, which he saw as severely detrimental to humanity. He welcomed the death of god as a release of the moral shackles that enslave people and impede the full realization of our human potential. There are no debates about the matter, no two sides to it, no commentator on philosophy anywhere ever has interpreted it that way, and if you bothered to read Nietzsche's books instead of talking out of your ass, you'd realize your statement is patently false.
Hi Ferbin. I'm going to leave this comment up, but please be more polite in the future. This isn't the level of discourse that we generally allow.
That said, I've read some of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and I can tell you it doesn't make a lot of sense. People can read whatever they want into it. Perhaps Nietzsche's other works are more coherent.
Sorry, got carried away there for a bit. It's just that, as a person who studied philosophy in College, it pissed me off that someone would so patently lie like that. And yeah, I've read Zarathustra too. It's obscure in its prose, but it does makes sense if you have the tools to understand it. I could read a book on quantum physics and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any, or that it's open to any kind of interpretation. The major points of Nietzsche's philosophy are in fact coherent, in Zarathustra and his other books. And while his esoteric writing leaves a lot open to interpretation, such a fundamental part of it as his opinion on religion is not one of those things. To compare with another philosopher, it would be like saying Plato was a defender of democracy. The very notion is preposterous.
Wouldn't agency be a better term than branch for the Putin question, since technically branch would refer to either the legislative, executive or judicial branch?
This is just a suggestion, as titans being "gods" is generally accepted by many, but while I guess they could be considered similar to gods, technically speaking titans are most certainly not gods themselves; that is what divides them from those who overthrew them in the Titanomachy.
I tried security for the Putin question but that was obviously not sufficiently specific. Perhaps the question might specify that a particular agency is required.
The flight in question from Tahiti has been discontinued - still an interesting question, but perhaps worth adjusting the verb tense in the next update. The longest regularly scheduled domestic flight that is currently operating *does* still result in the same answer, it just doesn't originate in Tahiti.
That said, I've read some of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and I can tell you it doesn't make a lot of sense. People can read whatever they want into it. Perhaps Nietzsche's other works are more coherent.
Go Greta!