User Profile

In general, great theologians, while may not be creative and novel in comparison to philosophers (if philosophers are really, genuinely creative), are far more insightful than philosophers when it is about human soul, perhaps due to their genuine engagement with the world. They're often priests who need to do pastoral works, and this requires deep human understanding. In the case of Catholicism they're often prohibited by their authority to write and teach, which leads them to try to comprehend why themselves are prohibited and genuinely reflect. Further, they need to take responsibility for their actions and their thoughts, unlike intellectuals. Finally, they need to learn to be patient towards stupidity manifested by atheists which is virtually everywhere, in particular from those utterly dogmatic philosophy students who cannot tolerate a simple word "God" but can be so unreasonable that it's nearly torturing. These four factors may prevent theologians from doing those so-called ground-breaking works, but when a theologian is potentially deep in his own soul, these factors endow more profoundity to their depth. They humbly learn, they try to understand, and their moves are often much more complex than intellectuals. They may be revolutionary privately, but they won't be subject to the clutches of hubris. Hence when writing about other people's thought, great theologians are oftentimes surprisingly impartial, charitable, and insightful. When something should be criticized, they criticize, but when criticisms towards their religion is justified, they plainly admit. This move is extremely rare in the case of philosophers. Henri de Lubac was in particular one of the greatest hermenueticians who excelled at isolating out the essential spiritual depth of thoughts. He researched on Buddhism, he didn't avoid Origen, and was an advocate and defender of Teilhard de Chardin's thoughts - while this didn't make him avant-garde or un-orthodox. In his this writing on atheism, one can actually feel the true spiritual profoundness manifest itself.

Creative and spiritual men must realize that there is an ultimate and decisive difference between genius and holiness. Men must learn to recognize the human and the divine spheres. Nothing would do the average intellectual more good than a little reverence for the genuine monk. Such reverence is a recognition of the indestructible independence of the spirit. Without a degree of asceticism no spiritual activity can prosper. This asceticism should be a characteristic of the new ‘monk’ who lives in the world and is open to it. It is the image and reflection of that other, higher asceticism in which everything “human” is given to receive everything “divine”. This sacred exchange is not ridiculous, as intellectuals for five hundred years have pretended.

This is better seen in action than by words, and here is that action.

So there's a tendency in Nietzsche's fans that whenever you criticize Nietzsche they think that's because you don't understand him. In this aspect Nietzsche is very similar to Wagner: if you criticize Wagner it must be that you don't understand the passionate solemnity of Wagner.

This is a great work but equally a profoundly flawed work. In fact I never liked it. I liked Nietzsche's other writings, in spite of their self-contradictions and outright stupidities, I liked, but this book is just much too theatrical. It's a work for the moderns who no longer understand what "solemnity" precisely means. So they'll be immersing themselves in Wagner's, Mahler's, and Bruckner's nearly hysterical sound masses and exclaim "solemn" and "magnificent" without realizing that this sensual chaos has nothing that solemn or "transcendental" per se. I used the word "transcendental", then Nietzsche's fans will be like, no I don't want transcendence I want immanence and I'm faithful to the Earth or whatever. So there's a universal lie that acts as an rhectorical device to segregate Nietzsche's fans from other people who they think are inferior.

Whether they're superior I don't know, it seems plain to me that they're not trying to understand others since this very act of trying to understand leads them to believe that they may not be that unique and that passionate - there's a hidden insecurity in their passion. Anyway, in this childish, hysterical display, I can only see something lamentable rather than something admirable.

Of course they don't want to be admired I know perfectly well. Just see how much resentment and defence they have regarding their uniqueness and passion.

Futile struggle that accomplishes the very feeling of struggle and Amor Fati by means of acting it out. Seeking its own destruction as if it is meaningful somehow. Give it up seriously. This really is a badly written work. It's good for some people, but whomever has read and actually understands this work can only pity and lament Nietzsche's downfall.