GENIUS FORUMS

I didn't even dub him as an "ism."

You called him a postmodernist. That is false. Defending Nietzsche as a postmodernist, even in later life, would be much harder than defending him as a Christian (if Christ and Kierkegaard are Christians, Nietzsche most definitely is), a classicist (someone who was fascinated by ancient Greece), and Christian apologist (someone who writes nearly exclusively about Christianity, defending his own particular interpretation of scripture).

How can you tell where he was being ironic and where he was being sarcastic, or plain honest and serious?

It's difficult to tell. You have to make a judgement call in each case, based on your own understanding of him, his time period, and philosophy in general. But blanketing everything he says as perfect seriousness is way worse than assuming that he couldn't tell a joke.

He told puns for goodness sakes. How can you imagine someone who speaks in puns to be dry and serious?

...for that will cause too much confusion, second-guessing and factions.

He's a confusing writer. Accept that. You certainly read him wrong.

Nietzsche stereotypes rarely reflect his writings at all, only the prejudices of poor readers.

If they're very much conscious, then what's the problem with free market capitalism?

Free market capitalism is not conscious, but the people within it are. How hard is that to understand? There is no contradiction in calling a process unconscious, and guided by unconscious forces, while still recognizing that the people immersed in it are very much conscious.

Wait a minute, you said people were very much conscious during their waking lives, and now? Oh, "they don't always end up assessing the value of the product." Righttt, more like you want to tell them what to buy.

Could you please define consciousness for me? It seems you are confused as to what it is.

Like what? It doesn't force anyone to buy their products. What else?

It is run by a non-elected monarch, who has complete sway over the lives of all his employees. Their only hope is to flee (or to be banished) to another empire, but at the risk of their reputation.

In many cases, the monarch (CEO) can leave his entire empire to his children.

Once again, those are public works projects meant to serve whole populations out of necessity, not a business making a product that individual people may buy.

You just changed your opinion. Earlier you distinctly claimed that there is no such thing as public interest. Now you have shown that there is.

Why should businesses not work toward public interest?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:You called him a postmodernist. That is false. Defending Nietzsche as a postmodernist, even in later life, would be much harder than defending him as a Christian (if Christ and Kierkegaard are Christians, Nietzsche most definitely is), a classicist (someone who was fascinated by ancient Greece), and Christian apologist (someone who writes nearly exclusively about Christianity, defending his own particular interpretation of scripture).

Nietzsche is a postmodernist when he says LOUSY subjective shit like this, "there are many truths and consequently there is no truth," or "there are no facts, only interpretations," bla bla bla bla and so on and so on bla bla bla bla, I always catch glimpses of it here and there, it's obvious that he was trying to severely escape his finite life. Again, you STILL have NOT shown any proof or any evidence AT ALL that he was a Christian, especially when he criticizes it all the time and completely crushes it all the way to his death. Show me the proof. Who cares if he's a classicist? Many people are "fascinated" by ancient greece, the funny thing is is that he dismissed alot of important things of it. Such as knowing that the apollonian must in the end control the dionysian, or else you get the Nietzsche Nervous Breakdown Syndrome. He didn't NEARLY EXCLUSIVELY write about christianity either, he had alot of other things to say about a lot of other stuff. I bet you didn't even read Santayana's criticism at all.

It's difficult to tell. You have to make a judgement call in each case, based on your own understanding of him, his time period, and philosophy in general. But blanketing everything he says as perfect seriousness is way worse than assuming that he couldn't tell a joke.

AH HAH, there it is! "Based on your own understanding of him." I knew it. Clearly this shows the problem of trying to objectively figure out exactly what he meant and what he wanted to do and convey if he was "joking" alot of times and being ironic. Shit, they're just fucking words on a screen, I don't see any way that we can find about him objectively if we have to concern ourselves with irony and satire and sarcasm etc etc.. No wonder conservatives, nazis, socialists, capitalists, aristocrats, murderers can all find meaning in nietzsche.

He told puns for goodness sakes. How can you imagine someone who speaks in puns to be dry and serious?

Which puns are you talking about? Show them.

He's a confusing writer. Accept that. You certainly read him wrong.

Yes I read him wrong because he's CONFUSING!! Fuck, anyone would get that. Lack of clarity is always a sign of dishonesty and a desire to hide some important things and realizations that you don't want to be known about yourself, ie Nietzsche.

Nietzsche stereotypes rarely reflect his writings at all, only the prejudices of poor readers.

Ahahah yeah right. I used to think like this, "no no he wasn't an untamed beast really. No no, he wasn't about overcoming morality and dominating others, really. bla bla bla bla, and so on and so on.

Free market capitalism is not conscious, but the people within it are. How hard is that to understand? There is no contradiction in calling a process unconscious, and guided by unconscious forces, while still recognizing that the people immersed in it are very much conscious.

Very fucking hard to understand according to logic!! How the fuck can a system be unconscious if the people running it aren't?? Wtf?? This is a terrible contradiction, and you're going to have to explain yourself and show some proof and evidence from the real world instead of spattering indolence.

It is run by a non-elected monarch, who has complete sway over the lives of all his employees. Their only hope is to flee (or to be banished) to another empire, but at the risk of their reputation. In many cases, the monarch (CEO) can leave his entire empire to his children.

WTF? Have you ever heard of a fucking trade union moron? Trade unions can get and do have so much power they can literally cause a revolution. There's no complete sway these days because there's the stock market, and share holders and investors are many times the employees of the same company. What risk of reputation? You can start a business you know, and if you're good enough maybe you might make it. What's wrong with inheritance? That's like saying you can't give your house to your children after paying its mortgage. Inheritance is actually very risky too, if the children don't know what the hell they're doing, so it's not as easy as you think.

You just changed your opinion. Earlier you distinctly claimed that there is no such thing as public interest. Now you have shown that there is.

Wrong. Public interest is public necessities. Many businesses deal in "wants." Now just because you're not materialistic, doesn't mean that others shouldn't be either. The only public interest that businesses have to deal with, is not being allowed to lobby and control government no matter how much wealth they have.

Why should businesses not work toward public interest?

They do. They make stuff that people want and need, you're really not being clear at all.

Your opinion changes wildly from post to post. The incoherence of this last one (swearing, etc.) is likely a sign that you've suddenly agreed with my initial points. Honestly, it is really silly when the person I'm arguing with starts yelling my own points back at me as though the realization was his own.

I have no interest in continuing this debate, as it will only result in you feeling more and more foolish, and becoming more and more hostile in the process.

And, just so you don't believe that I'm backing out due to lack of ability, but rather because I honestly don't think you have any ground to stand on:

My point that Nietzsche is difficult to read, and you did not understand him, is completely validated by the number of questions and misconceptions you threw out in the last post. It's obvious you are still in the process of discovering what he meant. You admit that you don't see any way to figure out his irony (and satire and sarcasm) "objectively". Quite simply: if you are incapable of seeing the irony of Nietzsche on your own, you do not have the background to understand him. You call him unclear due to the confusing nature of his writings, but Nietzsche is crystal clear to the right readers (ie. people who put the effort into it, and don't just read the dubious interpretations of Nietzschean scholars whose only desire is getting their over-creative, academic, counter-intuitive theories accepted).

This is a bit elitist, but it's the honest-to-goodness truth. If you don't care about understanding Nietzsche, don't bother -- you might as well just spend your time trying to understand any number of other philosophers. Just don't pretend that you understand him if you haven't put any effort into it.

(Christ, I feel like I'm arguing that The Simpsons is funny to someone who doesn't know a thing about the last 50 years of America.)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:And, just so you don't believe that I'm backing out due to lack of ability, but rather because I honestly don't think you have any ground to stand on:

My point that Nietzsche is difficult to read, and you did not understand him, is completely validated by the number of questions and misconceptions you threw out in the last post. It's obvious you are still in the process of discovering what he meant. You admit that you don't see any way to figure out his irony (and satire and sarcasm) "objectively". Quite simply: if you are incapable of seeing the irony of Nietzsche on your own, you do not have the background to understand him. You call him unclear due to the confusing nature of his writings, but Nietzsche is crystal clear to the right readers (ie. people who put the effort into it, and don't just read the dubious interpretations of Nietzschean scholars whose only desire is getting their over-creative, academic, counter-intuitive theories accepted).

This is a bit elitist, but it's the honest-to-goodness truth. If you don't care about understanding Nietzsche, don't bother -- you might as well just spend your time trying to understand any number of other philosophers. Just don't pretend that you understand him if you haven't put any effort into it.

(Christ, I feel like I'm arguing that The Simpsons is funny to someone who doesn't know a thing about the last 50 years of America.)

What the hell? This is a terrible joke, and a terrible rebuttal. Your first sentence already shows that you really are backing out on the lack of ability. My questions about Nietzsche aren't misconceptions at all, they are very good and you're unable to answer them. I am capable of seeing the irony of Nietzsche, and the irony is that he was desperately trying to escape reality, by being impulsive and letting out his beastly passions, and by taking the road of cowardly subjective attitudes instead of facing absolute reality. It's obvious his irony was not purposefully done but sort of subconsciously realized, as he falls into a nervous breakdown hugging a flogged horse, wow. What's funny is that you claim that I can't understand him, but you provide no help or clear explanation of what he really meant and why. You do none of this important analyzing about his writings. He's crystal clear to the right readers? WTF? Yeah right, I do put effort into it, and the fact is is that he was trying to escape reality, it's crystal clear. Why else would he be "ironic" and satirical? It's the "irony" aspect that makes it confusing because he quite literally could not and did not want to see the terrible truths, subsequently he comes up with bullshit phrases like, "there are no facts, only interpretations," bla bla bla bla that sounds pure postmodernist. Why would he be terribly risky with his reputation in the future, by being so badly satirical and ironic? It's not a joke to be laying in murkiness with this stuff because it totally jeapordizes your legacy.


I don't read any interpretation of scholars, I read it raw, and I realize his pathetic tragedy. Then after reading Santayana's criticism, I was like, "Ahah, there it is again." What makes you think I don't care about understanding him? Honestly, you're so fucked. If I didn't care about understanding him, then why would I keep replying to this stupid thread about him? That's obviously retarded of you. You literally say it too, "if you don't care about understanding him, don't bother." Wtf? This statement is counter-intuitive.

You have no explanation for those low-grade postmodernist aphorisms that he wrote, ones that carry a hell of alot of significance. You only hide behind your veil of "irony and sarcasm" and claim that only YOU know what he means exactly.

Your first sentence already shows that you really are backing out on the lack of ability.

Let's see this brilliant deduction:
1. Premise: Trevor says that he's not backing out due to lack of ability.
2. Assumption: Everything Trevor says is the exact opposite of the truth.
3. Therefore, Trevor is backing out due to lack of ability.

Honestly, I didn't read past this, because it's pretty clear you're just disagreeing because you want to disagree, and don't really care what the truth is. I have no interest whatsoever in reading any more of your mindless streams of insults. It's not an argument, but a series of contradictions.

This "me or him" mentality has made arguing with you an unpleasant chore, like doing someone else's dishes.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Your first sentence already shows that you really are backing out on the lack of ability.

Let's see this brilliant deduction:
1. Premise: Trevor says that he's not backing out due to lack of ability.
2. Assumption: Everything Trevor says is the exact opposite of the truth.
3. Therefore, Trevor is backing out due to lack of ability.

Honestly, I didn't read past this, because it's pretty clear you're just disagreeing because you want to disagree, and don't really care what the truth is. I have no interest whatsoever in reading any more of your mindless streams of insults. It's not an argument, but a series of contradictions.

This "me or him" mentality has made arguing with you an unpleasant chore, like doing someone else's dishes.

Pfft ok. the fact is is that I'm not disagreeing because I want to, it's because you haven't provided enough evidence for what you think Nietzsche really meant and was, you just said your views, but you didn't prove them at all with his own writings.

I have too much taste to go around spoiling jokes by explaining them.

It's worse with Nietzsche because not only does explaining the joke completely kill it, nine-tenths of many of his jokes is the fact that they are written so as to be misinterpreted. He says things with double- and triple- and quadruple- meanings, that only get funnier the closer you get to his actual meaning. You have to be a genuine philosopher yourself in order to understand him. Once you do understand him though, his humour is pretty easy to pick out. Being good at reading Nietzsche is about as magical as picking out the humour of any TV show -- the sole difference being that it's not written for the lowest common denominator.

But, I sense your incredulity, so I will take a simple example, and I'll explain the first chuckle you should get out of the joke. Hopefully the bad karma this causes will balance out all the good karma I wracked up in an earlier life.

At the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he says soemthing like "supposing truth were a woman -- what then? Haven't all philosophers up to now been really bad with women?"

The fact is, philosophers (Nietzsche included) are notoriously bad with women. You can almost say if a philosopher is any good, he's gonna have some pretty shitty relationships with women. It comes with thinking incredibly logically. It turns women off. Maybe, says Nietzsche, they've been turning off truth as well, and for the same reason they've been turning off women.

Alternatively, truth isn't a woman, because it's a masculine thing, and being bad with women is a good thing... and what does that mean about women? What does it mean about the drive to truth?

All of this should have been pretty clear. It is the first chuckle you get out of his comment, because, like most absurd humour, it leaves you thinking that something isn't quite right with what he said. There's more to this joke, but if I say more, I'll kill Nietzsche worse than anyone killed God.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I have too much taste to go around spoiling jokes by explaining them.

It's worse with Nietzsche because not only does explaining the joke completely kill it, nine-tenths of many of his jokes is the fact that they are written so as to be misinterpreted. He says things with double- and triple- and quadruple- meanings, that only get funnier the closer you get to his actual meaning. You have to be a genuine philosopher yourself in order to understand him. Once you do understand him though, his humour is pretty easy to pick out. Being good at reading Nietzsche is about as magical as picking out the humour of any TV show -- the sole difference being that it's not written for the lowest common denominator.

But, I sense your incredulity, so I will take a simple example, and I'll explain the first chuckle you should get out of the joke. Hopefully the bad karma this causes will balance out all the good karma I wracked up in an earlier life.

At the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, he says soemthing like "supposing truth were a woman -- what then? Haven't all philosophers up to now been really bad with women?"

The fact is, philosophers (Nietzsche included) are notoriously bad with women. You can almost say if a philosopher is any good, he's gonna have some pretty shitty relationships with women. It comes with thinking incredibly logically. It turns women off. Maybe, says Nietzsche, they've been turning off truth as well, and for the same reason they've been turning off women.

Alternatively, truth isn't a woman, because it's a masculine thing, and being bad with women is a good thing... and what does that mean about women? What does it mean about the drive to truth?

All of this should have been pretty clear. It is the first chuckle you get out of his comment, because, like most absurd humour, it leaves you thinking that something isn't quite right with what he said. There's more to this joke, but if I say more, I'll kill Nietzsche worse than anyone killed God.

I don't know why he would delibrately write to be misunderstood, it obviously jeapordizes your legacy terribly, ie Nietzsche. And the problem with this also leads to a muddled interpretation which will only lead us farther away from the real Nietzsche, and everyone wants to think that they have him down, and know him objectively, bla bla bla, based on their own prejudices. But the problem is that there WAS an objective Nietzsche, and him being delibrately misunderstood is a stupid idea. For example, you claim that he was a Christian, this, is ridiculous for most honest Nietzsche philosophers. You would have to provide alot of evidence for this. He certainly doesn't speak of God and Christianity like Kierkegaard, and he wholly embraced atheistic paganism.It's not about the "lowest" common denominator, it's about getting to the bottom of what a philosopher actually meant and knew, not joking around like a child. And explaining the jokes isn't "spoiling it," I have a good feeling this is just a mask to hide the deficiencies.

Not all philosophers are bad with women, ie Kierkegaard, Sartre (although Sartre was not perfect he was still a philosopher) Buddha, Lao Tzu (i would imagine these people's embrace of "detachment" has great power in attracting women), Goethe (close to a philosopher). But yes, most of the time we are bad with women and yes because we're very logical.

About the "suppose truth is a woman" quote. He might have been joking, but I think what he also meant was the behaviour of truth and women. That is, how they exist and behave is hidden but it more or less can be uncovered. This quote does have multiple meanings, because it affirms what you said about it, but from the tone of it you can also tell that Nietzsche wants to actually get women and seems to be somewhat "idolizing" of women, because he says "leaving philosophers discouraged and frustrated," etc.. So another meaning of it is, "you're going at it the wrong way, the truth wants to hide itself."

Also, if you say more about the "joke" you won't really kill Nietzsche. I don't know why you think that, seems pretty queer concerning discussing philosophy.

I don't know why he would delibrately write to be misunderstood, it obviously jeapordizes your legacy terribly, ie Nietzsche.

It didn't damage Nietzsche's legacy, so much as gave him his much-deserved reputation of being easily misunderstood.

And the problem with this also leads to a muddled interpretation which will only lead us farther away from the real Nietzsche, and everyone wants to think that they have him down, and know him objectively, bla bla bla, based on their own prejudices.

Anyone who takes the time and effort to understand him can. The people who misunderstand him the greatest are those who just started reading him, are mislead by his reputation, or didn't read very much before giving up. Like any difficult author, he can be understood by a diligent reader. He's a little easier to read than Goethe, but harder than Dostoevsky.

For example, you claim that he was a Christian, this, is ridiculous for most honest Nietzsche philosophers. You would have to provide alot of evidence for this.

I'm an honest Nietzsche philosopher, and I find the idea of Nietzsche being Christian not ridiculous in the least. I actually find most theories of Nietzsche proposed in contemporary books completely absurd -- it seems that most publishers like off-the-wall, "creative" interpretations. Honestly, Nietzsche fits into the same category as Christ or Kierkegaard. He follows the exact same train of thought -- rejecting Kantian-style philosophy outright.

It's not about the "lowest" common denominator, it's about getting to the bottom of what a philosopher actually meant and knew, not joking around like a child.

What is about that? This conversation? Or Nietzsche's writing? Nietzsche's writings are so full of jokes, double-entendres, puns, and silliness that I can't imagine a conversation about him that doesn't involve some humour being anything but pedantic.

But yes, most of the time we are bad with women and yes because we're very logical.

Isn't that funny, though?

So another meaning of it is, "you're going at it the wrong way, the truth wants to hide itself."

I think it's just a cheap joke, to tell the truth. It's much better than that terrible pun in Thus Spoke Zarathustra that went something like, "if you bring the fire into the valleys, be careful the people don't think you're an arsonist." I mean come on. IMHO, that ranks among the top five worst jokes Nietzsche ever wrote.

http://www.relationshipsforum.org.au/aboutus/index.html

Recent Ozzie report about working patterns and family breakdowns

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm an honest Nietzsche philosopher, and I find the idea of Nietzsche being Christian not ridiculous in the least. I actually find most theories of Nietzsche proposed in contemporary books completely absurd -- it seems that most publishers like off-the-wall, "creative" interpretations. Honestly, Nietzsche fits into the same category as Christ or Kierkegaard. He follows the exact same train of thought -- rejecting Kantian-style philosophy outright.

Again you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to prove that Nietzsche was a Christian. You have to try alot harder than just stating your damn opinion to be convincing. You have to prove this with his own text, and The Anti-Christ doesn't help you AT ALL with this. Rejecting Kant? Wtf? The categorical imperative is hugely similar to Christianity, you're going way off the wall here. He even SAYS THIS HIMSELF! I remember one line from one of his long aphorisms, something to the effect, "and Kant's categorical imperative, which is really Christianity in disguise."

You have to prove this with his own text, and The Anti-Christ doesn't help you AT ALL with this.

I could just as easily make the case that the title of the text "The Anti-Christ" implies that he is dealing almost exclusively with Christian philosophy. Stop trying to pretend that your case is the default position, since your case is coming across as poorly substantiated yelling and moaning.

Personally, I no more want to go through every single reason why I consider Nietzsche a Christian than I want to explain every single reason I find him humorous -- a large part of what convinced me that he is Christian involved a series of discussions on Nietzsche with several Christians. During the course of these conversations, I found that they were in complete agreement with his statements, and were able to find correspondances between his writings and the Bible. (There was, in fact, a sect of Christianity in the early half of last century that tried to marry Nietzschean ideas with modern theology.)

Quite frankly, I think trying to prove that Nietzsche is not a Christian (in the sense that Jesus Christ is a Christian) is actually a lot harder, and more suspect, than trying to prove that he is one. Books are released with this argument because it is the more interesting position to hold -- not necessarily the more accurate one.

The categorical imperative is hugely similar to Christianity, you're going way off the wall here. He even SAYS THIS HIMSELF!

Then Nietzsche said something false about Christianity. The categorical imperative is not Christianity in a nutshell. Nietzsche either misidentified Christianity -- or he was pointing out a specific strain of pseudo-Christians and attempted to use the tone of his writing to indicate that he did not mean all Christians.

Nietzsche is not the least bit Christian. He was simply an individual who thought in a philsophical manner. Forget these tags you dudes are placing upon him.

I can't say the same for Kierkegaard, who consistently sprouted dead-end Christ-like crap, amongst an occassional gem. Bit like the Buddha really.

Nietzsche was an ex-christian. I don't know why more people do not consider him through this reality. As an ex-christian, he had many things to say about it - all (but Christ) to his distaste. And as an ex-christian, he is most pious about his impiety.

but more importantly, a destroyer of god the metaphysic, and creator of god the man.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

You have to prove this with his own text, and The Anti-Christ doesn't help you AT ALL with this.

I could just as easily make the case that the title of the text "The Anti-Christ" implies that he is dealing almost exclusively with Christian philosophy. Stop trying to pretend that your case is the default position, since your case is coming across as poorly substantiated yelling and moaning.

Quite frankly, I think trying to prove that Nietzsche is not a Christian (in the sense that Jesus Christ is a Christian) is actually a lot harder, and more suspect, than trying to prove that he is one. Books are released with this argument because it is the more interesting position to hold -- not necessarily the more accurate one.

This is poor quality in terms of arguing your point. You simply refuse to prove it. If you think it's easier to prove that he was a Christian, then do it. Oh, and it's actually NOT the more interesting position, don't know where you got that one. Your idea that he was a christian is actually much more interesting, since it seems inconceivable.

Hello Parham,

If you believe your opinion of Nietzsche, in regards to his views on truth, is fairly accurate, why aren't you making a response in the cage thread that is wholly focussed on that topic? You did start it after all .......


Kelly

This is poor quality in terms of arguing your point. You simply refuse to prove it. If you think it's easier to prove that he was a Christian, then do it. Oh, and it's actually NOT the more interesting position, don't know where you got that one. Your idea that he was a christian is actually much more interesting, since it seems inconceivable.

Yes, it is a very low-quality argument for my point. I realize this, and regret it.

But I'm forced by other concerns to leave it at this for now. The argument for Nietzsche's Christianity is not something I would be willing to leave half-done, although I find it perfectly acceptable to leave it unstarted. I know the scope of the argument even before I begin: I understand the number of concessions that need to be made (Nietzsche was an exceptional thinker in both senses of the term: he was very good at thinking, and he always created exceptions to his positions), the careful definition of what it means to be Christian, the comparisons to other thinkers....

And in the end, I know that my argument will leave you not much farther than where we started. If, in the ideal scenario, you gave me the benefit of the doubt the whole time, you'll have made so many concessions that calling Nietzsche "Christian" would end up not meaning a hell of a lot. (Basically: "Okay, Nietzsche is Christian... so what? You still didn't say anything, or provide any insight into him.")

So, given that I have other things to think about, revisiting Nietzsche in this amount of depth for so little benefit for either of us would not be very intelligent of me. And, since I had only really brought up the "Nietzsche is a Christian apologist" thing to help you reconsider the wisdom of applying any label to him, it would also be against my initial intention.

Kelly probably has better thoughts about Nietzsche anyway. :)

I was just wondering why Parham's not replying to the main forum thread with the same topic. There's no difference between it and this one, really.

Did I do something wrong?

-

Kelly Jones wrote:I was just wondering why Parham's not replying to the main forum thread with the same topic. There's no difference between it and this one, really.

Did I do something wrong?

-

No. I've been very busy lately so the right time will come soon.

I'll be away for roughly six weeks come next Wednesday. I may be able to continue with the discussion if I find cheap internet cafes.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

This is poor quality in terms of arguing your point. You simply refuse to prove it. If you think it's easier to prove that he was a Christian, then do it. Oh, and it's actually NOT the more interesting position, don't know where you got that one. Your idea that he was a christian is actually much more interesting, since it seems inconceivable.

Yes, it is a very low-quality argument for my point. I realize this, and regret it.

But I'm forced by other concerns to leave it at this for now. The argument for Nietzsche's Christianity is not something I would be willing to leave half-done, although I find it perfectly acceptable to leave it unstarted. I know the scope of the argument even before I begin: I understand the number of concessions that need to be made (Nietzsche was an exceptional thinker in both senses of the term: he was very good at thinking, and he always created exceptions to his positions), the careful definition of what it means to be Christian, the comparisons to other thinkers....

And in the end, I know that my argument will leave you not much farther than where we started. If, in the ideal scenario, you gave me the benefit of the doubt the whole time, you'll have made so many concessions that calling Nietzsche "Christian" would end up not meaning a hell of a lot. (Basically: "Okay, Nietzsche is Christian... so what? You still didn't say anything, or provide any insight into him.")

So, given that I have other things to think about, revisiting Nietzsche in this amount of depth for so little benefit for either of us would not be very intelligent of me. And, since I had only really brought up the "Nietzsche is a Christian apologist" thing to help you reconsider the wisdom of applying any label to him, it would also be against my initial intention.

Kelly probably has better thoughts about Nietzsche anyway. :)

Actually if you are able to convince me that he was a christian, then I would be surprised. So the ball's in your court.