(23-09-2025, 06:31 AM)ΛΟΓΟΣ Wrote: and fuck off with schopenhauerian and nietzschean and other eastern nonsense
i am ecclesiastes tier

(23-09-2025, 01:25 PM)Honest Wrote: youre clearly not geographypilled either

(23-09-2025, 01:30 PM)ΛΟΓΟΣ Wrote: im pointing out to those philosophers being enamored by eastern religions. it was something very common in 1800s, it started with east india company, which is how darwinism (bs) came about

(23-09-2025, 01:33 PM)Honest Wrote: where does nietzsche espouse eastern philosophy?

Quote:

One common and general feature shared by both Nietzsche and Buddhism is the
centrality of man in a godless cosmos, in the sense that both look to man, and not any
external power, being, or numinous source, for their respective solutions to what they

perceive as the problem(s) of existence. Another feature shared by both, and
which is the main theme of Part II, is that their respective goals are to be
achieved through a process of ‘self-overcoming’ (Selbstüberwindung in
Nietzsche's case, citta-bhāvanā in Buddhism's), and this self-overcoming is
understood as the spiritual expression of a more basic and natural force (will to
power in Nietzsche's case, taᓧhāā in Buddhism's).

Although Nietzsche's proposed answer to the prospect of nihilism — the creation
of new values — was a task he did not complete, he did leave us with his
monistic alternative and replacement for God, which would have functioned as
the arbitrator in his proposed creation of new values — his vision of existence
characterized as Wille zur Macht or ‘will to power’. It is only through this notion
that one can make overall sense of Nietzsche. As a principle of explanation, it
brings together and unites much that in isolation seems contradictory and even
bizarre, and it is also the maxim which underpins his thinking on subjects such
as culture, art, morality, philosophy, religion, as well as providing a continuity
between his earlier and later writings, despite the fact that the will to power did
not explicitly appear until Zarathustra. This chapter shows that it is an
explanatory principle gleaned from Nietzsche's understanding of human nature
and the natural sciences, and it provides a new and interesting perspective on
human history and culture as well as providing the new Weltanschauung upon
which the post-nihilistic future would be built.

Quote:Buddha against the ‘Crucified’. Among the nihilistic religions, one must
always clearly distinguish the Christian from the Buddhist. The Buddhist
religion is the expression of a fine evening, a perfect sweetness and
mildness—it is gratitude toward all that lies behind, and also for what is
lacking: bitterness, disillusionment, rancour; finally, a lofty spiritual love;
the subtleties of philosophic contradiction are behind it, even from these it
is resting: but from these it still derives its spiritual glory and sunset glow.
The Christian movement is a degeneracy movement composed of reject
and refuse elements of every kind: it is not the expression of the decline of
a race, it is from the first an agglomeration of forms of morbidity crowding
together and seeking one another out.... it is founded on a rancour against
everything well-constituted and dominant:...It also stands in opposition to
every spiritual movement, to all philosophy: it takes the side of idiots and
utters a curse on the spirit. Rancour against the gifted, learned, spiritually
independent: it detects in them the well-constituted, the masterful. (WP
154)110

This is the main distinction Nietzsche makes between the two nihilistic religions:
Buddhism has no ground in ressentiment against life whereas Christianity—or,
as we might say, Christendom—is a product of it. Both are ‘anti-life’, but whereas
the former is coolly and rationally led to this view, the latter forms it reactively
as an expression of ressentiment—ressentiment against ‘everything well-
constituted and dominant’. The Buddha understands that ‘nothing burns one up
quicker than the affects of ressentiment’,111and therefore forbids it. Christianity,
however, is fuelled by it, and takes ‘the side of everything weak, base, ill-
constituted’.112 The villain of the piece, however, is not Jesus, but Paul. For
Nietzsche, ‘Christendom’ was Paul’s creation. In the Antichrist he says: ‘The
word “Christianity” is already a misunderstanding—in reality there has been
only one Christian, and he died on the cross’.113 Then along came Paul, ‘the
antithetical type to the “bringer of glad tiding”, the genius of hatred, of the
vision of hatred, of the inexorable logic of (p.29) hate’.114 Through Paul,
Christianity, which Nietzsche saw as a ‘beginning to a Buddhistic peace
movement’,115 became ‘mankind’s greatest misfortune’.116

Buddhism is also ‘a hundred times colder, more veracious, more objective’ than
Christianity,117 and is ‘the only really positivistic religion history has shown us’.
‘[I]t has the heritage of cool and objective posing of problems in its composition’,
and ‘arrives after a philosophical movement lasting hundreds of years’.118
Christianity, on the other hand, has nothing but ‘contempt for intellect and
culture’,119 and teaches ‘men to feel the supreme values of intellectuality as
sinful, as misleading, as temptations’.120 Nor does Buddhism deceive as does
Christianity by promising fictitious goals and fearful fables such as a God on the
cross,121 but goals that are real and can be actually achieved.122

Thus, although Buddhism, along with Schopenhauer and Christianity, adheres to
the view that it is ‘better not to be than to be’,123 it offers a healthier or more
‘hygienic’ response to life. Unlike Christianity, ‘it no longer speaks of “the
struggle against sin” but, quite in accordance with actuality, “the struggle
against suffering”. It already has—and this distinguishes it profoundly from
Christianity—the self-deception of moral concepts behind it’.124 And it is because
Buddhism is more health-promoting, and is not an affront to the cultured and
intelligent, that it is slowly gaining ground in Europe as a cure for ‘diseased
nerves’.125