|
Philosophy that cannot be applied, and does not support anything that can be applied, is useless. Literally. "Can't be used"="useless." Thought is only relevant as a prelude to action.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, is a pile of broad social constructs about how things ought to be, not bothering to suggest how to implement any of those constructs. We ought to feel this way, we ought to be ruled that way. Well, that doesn't appear to be within the limits of our human nature, but ol' Friedrich doesn't let that get in his way. He simply denies that there is a human nature, and that moral law, despite its readily evident commonality across cultures, was pulled from the collective rectum of the cosmos. Most ridiculously of all, he denies the importance of morality without a god but doesn't even question his belief of the intrinsic value of knowing the ultimate truth. If we're not gonna be tested, why do we need to even study? Gah.
Japher: From what I have read of Orthodox theology, at least (I know there are some wacky things going on in some parts of the Christian world), my "religious philosophy" is sharply oriented on the individual and his/her responsibility. How people can think religion is not about personal responsibility in the face of the infamous "burn in hell for your sins" preachers is beyond me.
Note that the devil does not justify our actions. He is merely an accomplice, and his presence or absence doesn't affect our judgment, only the harshness of the sentence after we are judged, so to speak. There were mitigating circumstances but we still done wrong, and all that. There is no claim that I've ever heard from any faith that divine forgiveness annuls all earthly consequences of sin either.
__________________
"May I be forgiven for the ills that I have done/Friends I have forsaken and strangers I have shunned/Sins I have committed, for which others had to pay/And I haven't met the whiskey that can wash those stains away."
-Brady's Leap, "Wash."
|
