On the previous post, Nietzsche’s conception of pity came up. On that subject I suggested Deleuze’s Nietzsche and Philosophy as an excellent source; surpassed only by reading Nietzsche himself. However this video also came to mind and in spite of its portrayal of mostly caricatures, it could perhaps still be helpful in laughing at some of the underlying assumptions we have of both figures. True to form, the youtube comments in French are spot on (not that I read French but I’m indebted to the modern google gods for their primitive google translations).They are quick to point out that the debate between the two is wrong. Nietzsche is not opposed to Jesus (although they differ on the issue of pity, Jesus is still viewed as a creative free spirit) but rather Nietzsche forcefully opposes Christianity. The interviewer would have been more honest to put Nietzsche against a priest, a theologian or more vitally, St. Paul instead of Jesus.
“Jesus him self had done away with the very concept of “guilt,” he denied that there was any gulf fixed between God and man; he lived this unity between God and man, and that was precisely his “glad tidings”…. And not as a mere privilege!—From this time forward the type of the Saviour was corrupted, bit by bit, by the doctrine of judgment and of the second coming, the doctrine of death as a sacrifice, the doctrine of the resurrection, by means of which the entire concept of “blessedness,” the whole and only reality of the gospels, is juggled away—in favour of a state of existence after death!… St. Paul, with that rabbinical impudence which shows itself in all his doings, gave a logical quality to that conception, that indecent conception, in this way: “If Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain!”—And at once there sprang from the Gospels the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality…. Paul even preached it as a reward.”(The Antichrist, § 41)
as always please feel free to comment, critique, and/or complain.