"I wish I could be like the Cool Kids..."
April 12, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
...'Cause all the cool kids, they seem to fit in.
Echosmith
Echosmith
1
We note the word “seem” in the above quote, and since philosophy teaches that appearance tyrannizes over truth, we are in agreement with plain meaning of the quotation. Beaky, an eternal contributor to my work, has recently brought to my attention that during Nietzsche's youth, he was stigmatized by various appellations: dork, dweeb, freak, nerd and wierdo. Perhaps Fred's famous aphorism, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, has its origins in the taunts of mediocre youths.
If Nietzsche is misunderstood today, then we suggest the responsibility lies with Fred. If he wrote in a clear and forthright manner, and without unnecessary commentary and frequent infelicities, then his reputation might not need “rehabilitation”; his thoughts, clarification. Of course, Fred knew his target audience-young men who like to think. How did Fred's reputation as a gifted philologist transform into one of a critic, and in its final form, into one as a practical philosopher? On this question, we offer two reasonable answers: firstly, Fred himself, and, secondly, those who attempted to describe or compartmentalize him and his writings. Suffice to say, philologists are never considered “cool”, and everyone is a critic, so their individual value is suspect. It seems that posterity has settled on the fact that philosophers can be promoted, for lack of an accurate term, than either brilliant philologists or exceptional critics.
We remind the reader that during Fred's lifetime, his works were printed in limited editions and his reputation grew in the century after his death. If he lived in previous centuries, his writings may be understood as originating from an atheist philosopher. We know of Fred's reputation today, if only because students can earn a doctorate in Fred's philosophy, where we suggest that his philosophy is more received opinion than it is demonstrable evidence, that is, compounding assumptions upon error. We suggest that if Fred wrote clearly, then his writings would be assigned the same quality, and assigned the same status as Ignatius Donnelly or Edward Lytton – the fantasy land where Atlantians and amphibians have free reign among the credulous, all too credulous.
The Gentle Reader needs to always keep in mind that Fred never strays far from his only true love or the object of his obsession: Christianity. Although we will provoke the collective ire of tenured professors, we seriously suggest that Fred has taken Christian terms, renamed them and described these concepts in non Christian phrases. This transformation has beguiled almost everyone who has read Fred's writings. Why are there conflicting opinions of Fred's books? Either Fred did not understand the implications of what he himself was writing, that is, he was a careless and thoughtless writer, unable to process subtleties and nuances of his own writings; or scholars are profoundly and gravely mistaken regarding Fred, and although either one of the answers is a possibility, we will error on the side caution and state that great minds are not liable to be the author of confusion.
Fred wrote that man is a bridge to the superman, and commentators and politicians have taken his words and plain meaning in extraordinary ways. We will ignore these feeble attempts of understanding and remain focused on Fred's only obsession. The idea that that man can become or transform into a Superman is not found in western Christian tradition, yet by researching the eastern Church we seem to find our answer. What is the idea of the Superman, but another description of the Orthodox concept of theosis? Whereby the individual becomes Divine, but not God, and beyond good and evil, and above the morality that the western churches promote as the impossible to achieve goal of humanity.
The Superman will be cruel and we suggest that the severity of the Superman cannot be applicable to any one person, but this cruelty can be ascribed to the Second Coming and the final judgment of Christ. On the dreadful day of judgment, we envision, for example, Modern liberal minded Christians decrying Christ's supreme judgment as lacking in- what shall we say? Better still, what would Fred write [“WWFW”] regarding the modern mind experiencing the judgment seat of Christ? - This isn't fair! There is no compassion! This doesn't feel right! I believed! Yes, Gentle Reader, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when Christ says “I never knew you: depart from me” and “go away into everlasting punishment”.
In light of my suggestions, the curious reader will be forced to review Fred's works, notably “Antichrist” or the Vicar of Christ. We remind the reader that although Fred writes contemptuously about various aspects of Christian behavior and practice, we caution the reader that these criticism are applicable only to western Christianity, that is, Protestantism and Papalism, not Orthodoxy. The veracity of this statement will be confirmed by the thoughtful reader.
In the introduction to the “Antichrist”, Fred wrote: “First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.” Firstly, this passage can be understood as meaning that certain individuals will be vindicated by the passage of time, wherein their writings can be understood, their intention revealed and their worth fully realized. Secondly, the passage could be understood as referring to three days: today, tomorrow, and “the day after tomorrow”. This is simply a variation on the three days of Christianity: yesterday, the hylic; today, the physic; and tomorrow, the pneumatic, where the physic message of salvation is contrasted with the pneumatic gospel of redemption.
Finally, to be born posthumously means literally being born after death, and correctly understood in light of Fred's only obsession, what is “birth after death” than a rewording of the final Resurrection, where “some”, but not all men, go to the resurrection of life?
“For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life...” Fourth Gospel 5:28-29
In conclusion, although Nietzsche has been misunderstood, perhaps maliciously, maligned, and misquoted, we eagerly anticipate the rehabilitation of his legacy in this world, and if not, we hope for a perfect understanding of Fred in the world to come.
If Nietzsche is misunderstood today, then we suggest the responsibility lies with Fred. If he wrote in a clear and forthright manner, and without unnecessary commentary and frequent infelicities, then his reputation might not need “rehabilitation”; his thoughts, clarification. Of course, Fred knew his target audience-young men who like to think. How did Fred's reputation as a gifted philologist transform into one of a critic, and in its final form, into one as a practical philosopher? On this question, we offer two reasonable answers: firstly, Fred himself, and, secondly, those who attempted to describe or compartmentalize him and his writings. Suffice to say, philologists are never considered “cool”, and everyone is a critic, so their individual value is suspect. It seems that posterity has settled on the fact that philosophers can be promoted, for lack of an accurate term, than either brilliant philologists or exceptional critics.
We remind the reader that during Fred's lifetime, his works were printed in limited editions and his reputation grew in the century after his death. If he lived in previous centuries, his writings may be understood as originating from an atheist philosopher. We know of Fred's reputation today, if only because students can earn a doctorate in Fred's philosophy, where we suggest that his philosophy is more received opinion than it is demonstrable evidence, that is, compounding assumptions upon error. We suggest that if Fred wrote clearly, then his writings would be assigned the same quality, and assigned the same status as Ignatius Donnelly or Edward Lytton – the fantasy land where Atlantians and amphibians have free reign among the credulous, all too credulous.
The Gentle Reader needs to always keep in mind that Fred never strays far from his only true love or the object of his obsession: Christianity. Although we will provoke the collective ire of tenured professors, we seriously suggest that Fred has taken Christian terms, renamed them and described these concepts in non Christian phrases. This transformation has beguiled almost everyone who has read Fred's writings. Why are there conflicting opinions of Fred's books? Either Fred did not understand the implications of what he himself was writing, that is, he was a careless and thoughtless writer, unable to process subtleties and nuances of his own writings; or scholars are profoundly and gravely mistaken regarding Fred, and although either one of the answers is a possibility, we will error on the side caution and state that great minds are not liable to be the author of confusion.
Fred wrote that man is a bridge to the superman, and commentators and politicians have taken his words and plain meaning in extraordinary ways. We will ignore these feeble attempts of understanding and remain focused on Fred's only obsession. The idea that that man can become or transform into a Superman is not found in western Christian tradition, yet by researching the eastern Church we seem to find our answer. What is the idea of the Superman, but another description of the Orthodox concept of theosis? Whereby the individual becomes Divine, but not God, and beyond good and evil, and above the morality that the western churches promote as the impossible to achieve goal of humanity.
The Superman will be cruel and we suggest that the severity of the Superman cannot be applicable to any one person, but this cruelty can be ascribed to the Second Coming and the final judgment of Christ. On the dreadful day of judgment, we envision, for example, Modern liberal minded Christians decrying Christ's supreme judgment as lacking in- what shall we say? Better still, what would Fred write [“WWFW”] regarding the modern mind experiencing the judgment seat of Christ? - This isn't fair! There is no compassion! This doesn't feel right! I believed! Yes, Gentle Reader, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when Christ says “I never knew you: depart from me” and “go away into everlasting punishment”.
In light of my suggestions, the curious reader will be forced to review Fred's works, notably “Antichrist” or the Vicar of Christ. We remind the reader that although Fred writes contemptuously about various aspects of Christian behavior and practice, we caution the reader that these criticism are applicable only to western Christianity, that is, Protestantism and Papalism, not Orthodoxy. The veracity of this statement will be confirmed by the thoughtful reader.
In the introduction to the “Antichrist”, Fred wrote: “First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.” Firstly, this passage can be understood as meaning that certain individuals will be vindicated by the passage of time, wherein their writings can be understood, their intention revealed and their worth fully realized. Secondly, the passage could be understood as referring to three days: today, tomorrow, and “the day after tomorrow”. This is simply a variation on the three days of Christianity: yesterday, the hylic; today, the physic; and tomorrow, the pneumatic, where the physic message of salvation is contrasted with the pneumatic gospel of redemption.
Finally, to be born posthumously means literally being born after death, and correctly understood in light of Fred's only obsession, what is “birth after death” than a rewording of the final Resurrection, where “some”, but not all men, go to the resurrection of life?
“For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life...” Fourth Gospel 5:28-29
In conclusion, although Nietzsche has been misunderstood, perhaps maliciously, maligned, and misquoted, we eagerly anticipate the rehabilitation of his legacy in this world, and if not, we hope for a perfect understanding of Fred in the world to come.