aphil.org

Aphorisms -- in context.

User Tools

Site Tools


en:nietzsche:werke:ac:ac-34

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

en:nietzsche:werke:ac:ac-34 [2015/07/19 11:59] (current)
babrak ↷ Page moved from en:nietzsche:works:ac:ac-34 to en:nietzsche:werke:ac:ac-34
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== FN.-AC. §34 ======
 +===== The Antichrist. =====
 +<​tab>​If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only //​subjective//​ realities as realities, as “truths”–that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the //God// of this typical symbolist, of the “kingdom of God,” and of the “sonship of God.” Nothing could be more un-Christian than the //crude ecclesiastical//​ notions of God as a //person//, of a “kingdom of God” that is to come, of a “kingdom of heaven” beyond, and of a “son of God” as the //second person// of the Trinity. All this–if I may be forgiven the phrase–is like thrusting one’s fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to //​world-historical cynicism//​.... But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols “Father” and “Son”–not,​ of course, to every one–: the word “Son” expresses //​entrance//​ into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude),​ and “Father” expresses //that feeling itself//​–the sensation of eternity and of perfection.–I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story((Amphytrion [Amphitryon] was the son of Alcaeus, King of Tiryns. His wife was Alcmene. During his absence she was visited by Zeus, and bore Heracles.[--Ed.])) at the threshold of the Christian “faith”?​ And a dogma of “immaculate conception” for good measure?... //And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness//​–\\
 +<​tab>​The “kingdom of heaven” is a state of the heart–not something to come “beyond the world” or “after death.” The whole idea of natural death is //absent// from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The “hour of death” is //not// a Christian idea–”hours,​” time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of “glad tidings.”... The “kingdom of God” is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a “millennium”–it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....
  
 +===== Similarities to aphorisms by Nietzsche =====
 +
 +===== Similarities to aphorisms by others =====
 +
 +===== Academic interpretations =====
 +
 +===== Other connections =====
Back to top
en/nietzsche/werke/ac/ac-34.txt · Last modified: 2015/07/19 11:59 by babrak