This is a very pertinent essay and very well written. I'd be interested in what you have to say concerning human rights – which 3/4 of the planet doesn't believe exist anyway. I would also think the concept of freedom of association would be a powerful argument against the sacred victim, entitled parasite culture. FoA ended in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education, a mere 70 years ago.
Excellent essay. I have two comments so far, don’t want to forget them.
1) “Another upside to Christianity is that it is incompatible with egalitarianism.” — I have bad news for you. The two are very compatible.
2) I think Nietzscheanism may in fact have a metaphysics: the Will to Power as sort of the animating principle, the Holy Sprit, the God of the Universe. I haven’t yet read that book so I am just speculating on Nietzsche’s beliefs. But as for me, I think his will to power is absolutely compatible with divinity.
I admit much can be made of the Christian's "heart for the poor"--it can even look like a "preference for the poor," which is how Nietzsche is able to interpret it the way he does.
And I agree, the Will to Power does much of the same work as metaphysics, hence Meier's "aristocratic metaphysics" title. But there is a reason Nietzsche wished to avoid such associations...
There is a choice that philosophers have that isn't really a choice. They can say the truth, that all philosophers actually agree, or they can say that they are right while some other philosophers were wrong. No one believes all the philosophers agree--I mean, some do, like me, but most do not---because the points of agreement are not very obvious, not the SEEMINGLY big things people often care about.
So what is Nietzsche going to do? Is he going to say "all the metaphysical and theological thinkers, who've been doing this for thousands of years, were just making some mistakes. I'm finally the one." That's hard to believe. More believable is the claim that such pursuits are, as a whole, an error human beings are prone to make but that he, Nietzsche, along with all the scientists, is free from that error.
Science fixed an error: no more metaphysics and theology nonsense. But Science was beholden to a new error contracted while fixing the old. So now Nietzsche fixes that error. -- That is a more believable claim.
My take is that Christianity is fine and that as Boomer passivism ages out, Zoomers and the youth will reassert themselves because the problems of modernity are falling much harder on the young in this vampiric system. People believe what they want to believe, church leaders are asleep at the wheel, and unfortunately they refuse to learn, so this is going to continue for a long time.
I think there are serious obstacles to Christianity succeeding as it is--that is, you could be right, but even the more committed and rightwing young Christians I know still struggle to come to grips with what is ailing them. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.
In either my next essay or one after my next one (I might do a Holiday essay) I will say the things I think need saying and maybe I can add a section "the obstacles I find to Christians saying these things."
You're a good writer, we desire similar ambitions for reform, and I enjoyed your work. The first half of the essay was extremely strong, the second half was well-written but more speculative. Providing solutions is always more difficult than describing long-accumulated problems of course, and every frog who writes about the crises of modernity struggles to articulate an escape, a revolt against the modern world, including myself.
"Corruptio optimi pessima" or, The corruption of the best is the worst.
The degree of entropy in the system right now is immense. What's important right now is to filter through it and creatingsome semblance of order in your life. Learn some basic information management skills (mind palace, curating your sources, visualization, etc.), learn to be intentional with your actions (your phone is welcoming in diversion into your mind), learn how to understand others as well as you can (tone, motivation, not trying to change them or preach or tell them things).
It's too soon to "organize," unfortunately. No one is ready to "organize." People need the proverbial punch in the face before they begin to learn—even if you think you do understand what's going on. It's simply too easy to skirt accountability within the current monolithic systems everyone is dependent on.
This is a very pertinent essay and very well written. I'd be interested in what you have to say concerning human rights – which 3/4 of the planet doesn't believe exist anyway. I would also think the concept of freedom of association would be a powerful argument against the sacred victim, entitled parasite culture. FoA ended in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education, a mere 70 years ago.
If I can be of service to your project in some way, let me know. I’m quite far from Montana physically but very close in spirit.
Your support is very much appreciated! I'll reach out through substack messages.
Excellent essay. I have two comments so far, don’t want to forget them.
1) “Another upside to Christianity is that it is incompatible with egalitarianism.” — I have bad news for you. The two are very compatible.
2) I think Nietzscheanism may in fact have a metaphysics: the Will to Power as sort of the animating principle, the Holy Sprit, the God of the Universe. I haven’t yet read that book so I am just speculating on Nietzsche’s beliefs. But as for me, I think his will to power is absolutely compatible with divinity.
I admit much can be made of the Christian's "heart for the poor"--it can even look like a "preference for the poor," which is how Nietzsche is able to interpret it the way he does.
I have written a few essays on the topic. Here is the first one I did: https://amphictyonicleague.substack.com/p/an-aristocratical-christianity
And I agree, the Will to Power does much of the same work as metaphysics, hence Meier's "aristocratic metaphysics" title. But there is a reason Nietzsche wished to avoid such associations...
What's the reason?
There is a choice that philosophers have that isn't really a choice. They can say the truth, that all philosophers actually agree, or they can say that they are right while some other philosophers were wrong. No one believes all the philosophers agree--I mean, some do, like me, but most do not---because the points of agreement are not very obvious, not the SEEMINGLY big things people often care about.
So what is Nietzsche going to do? Is he going to say "all the metaphysical and theological thinkers, who've been doing this for thousands of years, were just making some mistakes. I'm finally the one." That's hard to believe. More believable is the claim that such pursuits are, as a whole, an error human beings are prone to make but that he, Nietzsche, along with all the scientists, is free from that error.
Science fixed an error: no more metaphysics and theology nonsense. But Science was beholden to a new error contracted while fixing the old. So now Nietzsche fixes that error. -- That is a more believable claim.
Good article, I disagree with your comments on Christianity.
Dear Billionaire,
If you give me just a few of your millions of millions, I will personally arrest the widespread decline of Christianity.
kek
My take is that Christianity is fine and that as Boomer passivism ages out, Zoomers and the youth will reassert themselves because the problems of modernity are falling much harder on the young in this vampiric system. People believe what they want to believe, church leaders are asleep at the wheel, and unfortunately they refuse to learn, so this is going to continue for a long time.
I think there are serious obstacles to Christianity succeeding as it is--that is, you could be right, but even the more committed and rightwing young Christians I know still struggle to come to grips with what is ailing them. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.
In either my next essay or one after my next one (I might do a Holiday essay) I will say the things I think need saying and maybe I can add a section "the obstacles I find to Christians saying these things."
You're a good writer, we desire similar ambitions for reform, and I enjoyed your work. The first half of the essay was extremely strong, the second half was well-written but more speculative. Providing solutions is always more difficult than describing long-accumulated problems of course, and every frog who writes about the crises of modernity struggles to articulate an escape, a revolt against the modern world, including myself.
Christianity was not cucked 200 years ago, I don't think Christianity is the problem.
"Corruptio optimi pessima" or, The corruption of the best is the worst.
The degree of entropy in the system right now is immense. What's important right now is to filter through it and creatingsome semblance of order in your life. Learn some basic information management skills (mind palace, curating your sources, visualization, etc.), learn to be intentional with your actions (your phone is welcoming in diversion into your mind), learn how to understand others as well as you can (tone, motivation, not trying to change them or preach or tell them things).
It's too soon to "organize," unfortunately. No one is ready to "organize." People need the proverbial punch in the face before they begin to learn—even if you think you do understand what's going on. It's simply too easy to skirt accountability within the current monolithic systems everyone is dependent on.
Read Ivan Illich