Is what I said to my newly acquired book. And it strikes me so strongly how I used to be intelligent but not discerning. Rereading and rethinking. Absolutely devouring this book.
So many things to challenge, to counter. Yet, I also recognise the need just to sit back and read and to accept his views.
Let me begin with a fast one for now. "By saying "God sees into the heart" it denies the deepest and the highest desires of life and takes GOD for the enemy of life...the saint in whom God takes pleasure is the ideal castrate..life is at an end where the "kingdom of God" begins.."
Well, I refute. Firstly and quite simply, it is suffice to say that I am delineating from the Christian theological point of view and/or argument. As always, my approach is one of an all-encompassing morality and religion. The "kingdom of God" begins when men is living. When man realizes that he has to live as man, life and the achievement of the "kingdom of God" then goes had in hand.
And secondly to me, the saint is the man who exercises himself in betterment, with the end goal of personal and species betterment. True, he may not be exercising his will to power as Nietzsche advocates. But he is exercising his will, this cannot be refuted. Language and ideas are the weapons of the weak, so he argues. True enough, I can give him that. But resistance is still resistance, weak or otherwise. It may not last, it may be stamped out but it is still an exercise in will. And when we are stripped bare of all and compared with all, we are similar in this respect, our possession of a will. It is our basal weapon. But I am not done here yet. So it may be a little dodgy. I should not be even cross-examining his arguments on organised religion right? Since I am coming from the angle of general philosophy. So let's just leave these refutations as that.
But he does touch on some regarding the will. And I feel inclined to challenge.
Will carry on this thread tomorrow. Can't wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment