Nietzsche and Christianity - Metaphysical Idealist Critique

[AshvinP]

That makes sense. Where we likely disagree is whether that is also the ontological position of certain Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions. I say it is, and in fact a good case could be made it was directly adopted from ancient Indo-Chinese tradition, even though that argument is not necessary to the conclusion.

No, I would agree that it's not the ontological position of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions, may be with the exception of Gnosticism (see the section "The Inexpressible One" in The Apocryphon of John which describes the One in pretty much non-personal terms).

I was claiming it is the position of many Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions, just without the non-personal part. Any tradition with a "Godhead" and/or a pantheon of Gods seems rather personal to me. Most would call these 'esoteric' traditions in the West, but I would also point out they are necessitated by a metaphysically idealist perspective on the foundational texts.

[AshvinP]

First off it’s worth being clear that just because I’m pushing back on elements of panentheism, does not mean I’m pushing back on idealism. I think our modern cartesian disease pollutes a lot of the way we look at these things. Schopenhauer claimed that his Metaphysics were the same as Buddha and Eckhardt, but assumed that Eckhardt had to “clothe his views in Christian myth”. In fact Eckhardt was influenced by his contemporary Dominican Dietrich of Freiberg, who was himself influenced by the early Christians such as Augustine and psuedo Dionysius. Yes you could call the metaphysics more neoplatonist than idealist, but I would argue that refers to the theological hierarchy rather than the substantial ontology.

I only came across Dietrich of Freiberg in a podcast last night (History of Philosophy without any Gaps), and he has a really interesting metaphysical framework that resonates with me in many ways. He has the concept that Stanford translate as “universe of beings”, which is essentially all ‘created things’ as a unity, but a unity that is not separate from god.

Dietrich develops a particular version of the hierarchy of being based on this Neoplatonic One. By identifying the One of Proclus’ Elements of Theology with the creative God of Christian theology he introduces a dynamic element into the hierarchy of being whereby God brings beings into existence out of nothing and marks them with a resemblance or similitude to himself. The universe is thus like God and each productive being in its hierarchically ordered series of causes is also like God. Dietrich specifically cites propositions 146 and 147 of Proclus which emphasize the rôle of similitude in this hierarchy:

Prop. 146: In the procession of all divine things the ends are assimilated to their beginnings, sustaining a circle without beginning and without end by turning to the beginning.
Prop. 147: The highest of all the divine orders are assimilated to the last of those positioned above them

I’ve gone off on a tangent because I’ve been absorbed in finding out more about Dietrich this morning, but if you also didn’t know about him, I’d recommend reading sections 7 (The Hierarchy of Being) to 12 (Empirical and Transempirical Consciousness) here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dietrich-freiberg/

Thanks I will have to look more into his take. It sounds somewhat similar to Jacob Boehme, who I think represents the panentheist perspective very well.

So back to your question of “then don't we have a huge problem if we assume God is not partaking in our fallen nature? How can we say God incarnate in Christ took on the true burden of our fallen nature if He did not participate in it?”.

So I don’t really understand this. The fallen nature refers to the way in which our nature became unaligned to god. God is by nature “good”, and by this is meant a kind of perfection. For created beings to remain in the image of god - as they were created - they must align with this “original state”, which involves following natural law (essentially love). Once nature has been diverted from this, it’s like a stone thrown in water such that the ripples effect everyone, and then everyone creates their own ripples. It’s a self sustaining process. What made Jesus unique is that his divine nature transcended his arrival in the stormy pond, and he was able to not bob about on the surface. In fact he was able to then calm the surface for others who swam towards him.

If he was/is the pond, then the deep layers of meaning in this all get distorted.

I'll admit my view of the Fall and it's relationship to the Godhead is not aligned with traditional mainstream theology in any way (but then again neither is any metaphysically idealist view IMO). Boehme seemed to recognize this as well - "Another place where Böhme may depart from accepted theology (though this was open to question due to his somewhat obscure, oracular style) was in his description of the Fall as a necessary stage in the evolution of the Universe". Jung also hints at this perspective in his Answer to Job:

...what does man possess that God does not have? Because of his littleness, puniness, and defencelessness against the Almighty, he possesses... a somewhat keener consciousness based on self-reflection: he must, in order to survive, always be mindful of his impotence. God has no need of this circumspection, for nowhere does he come up against an insuperable obstacle that would force him to hesitate and hence make him reflect on himself.
...
The unconscious wants to flow into consciousness in order to reach the light, but at the same time it continually thwarts itself, because it would rather remain unconscious. That is to say, God wants to become man, but not quite.

Jung's view of God as non-self-reflective may or may not be metaphysically accurate, but I find the basic underlying idea of God needing humanity to save Him as much as we need Him to save us is very profound and aligned with scripture, especially with the Incarnation. The new testament texts go on at length between the relationship of the Fall to the life and passion of Christ, i.e. he is the 'second Adam' and so forth. I actually think the entire Christian concept of redemption rests on Christ partaking in the very essence of our fallen nature, yet being the archetypal representation of a human who may come to transcend such a nature through the deepest Self-knowledge.

I don't know the exact relationship either, but we do not need to assume knowledge of that for our purposes here. We can just acknowledge that it is impossible for God to be immanent if He does not permeate all. Paul also says, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me." We do not need to assume that we are, in essence, any different from Paul. Those are perhaps the most important words in all of his epistles, assuming we are prepared to hear them.

I agree completely but would change it to “We can just acknowledge that it is impossible for God to be immanent if He is not able to permeate all”. It’s a big difference. Note that before the road to Damascus, christ did not live in Paul (as he himself says).

I can agree to that, but then the question is what makes us 'saved' so that we may be born again in the Spirit of Christ like Paul? Is it merely an assent to a set of propositions about who Christ is and what He can do for us? Is it choosing to trust that He will deliver us from evil at some later time? I do not think so. Rather I think it is a trust that when we diligently seek for Christ within ourselves, we will find Him, even if we have never even heard of Him.

[AshvinP]

So back to your question of “then don't we have a huge problem if we assume God is not partaking in our fallen nature? How can we say God incarnate in Christ took on the true burden of our fallen nature if He did not participate in it?”.

So I don’t really understand this. The fallen nature refers to the way in which our nature became unaligned to god. God is by nature “good”, and by this is meant a kind of perfection. For created beings to remain in the image of god - as they were created - they must align with this “original state”, which involves following natural law (essentially love). Once nature has been diverted from this, it’s like a stone thrown in water such that the ripples effect everyone, and then everyone creates their own ripples. It’s a self sustaining process. What made Jesus unique is that his divine nature transcended his arrival in the stormy pond, and he was able to not bob about on the surface. In fact he was able to then calm the surface for others who swam towards him.

If he was/is the pond, then the deep layers of meaning in this all get distorted.

I'll admit my view of the Fall and it's relationship to the Godhead is not aligned with traditional mainstream theology in any way (but then again neither is any metaphysically idealist view IMO). Boehme seemed to recognize this as well - "Another place where Böhme may depart from accepted theology (though this was open to question due to his somewhat obscure, oracular style) was in his description of the Fall as a necessary stage in the evolution of the Universe". Jung also hints at this perspective in his Answer to Job:

Jung's view of God as non-self-reflective may or may not be metaphysically accurate, but I find the basic underlying idea of God needing humanity to save Him as much as we need Him to save us is very profound and aligned with scripture, especially with the Incarnation. The new testament texts go on at length between the relationship of the Fall to the life and passion of Christ, i.e. he is the 'second Adam' and so forth. I actually think the entire Christian concept of redemption rests on Christ partaking in the very essence of our fallen nature, yet being the archetypal representation of a human who may come to transcend such a nature through the deepest Self-knowledge.

Let me expand on the above a bit. We can forget all of the theological labels and references for a moment. All we are assuming is metaphysical monism-idealism, because without that, all of our experiences and concepts kind of dissolve into fragmented islands of meaning without any necessary relation to each other. We can discuss why that is if we must, but I am assuming almost everyone here agrees. I am also assuming everyone agrees that the individual human organism can be thought of as an attentive network of instincts-motivations, feelings and thoughts (the "human soul").

Under idealism, we reach the conclusion that the human soul is not other than ideal forms, i.e. it is all mental activity. It is also pretty clear that these forms can be thought of as beings in their own right, "under-souls", sub-personalities, "luminosities", etc. Regardless of what sort of mental activity they have attained, they are volitional beings. They are dependent on us and we are dependent on them. We can also tentatively extrapolate that 'upwards', as we are individual organisms who are also social and embedded within various collective forms, some of which are rather obvious to us and some of which we do not currently perceive (such a view is also rather undeniable in Judeo-Christian scripture and tradition).

So what does it mean to seek deep Self-knowledge in this view? It means nothing less than exploring all of the possible relations between us and the volitional beings within and without. And what does it mean to have faith in Christ? Nothing less than trusting that if we authentically seek these relations, we will find them. That "with God, nothing is impossible". God becomes man so that man can become God. It is a theosis which works in all directions. The Fall is not something which could have been avoided, as it is with the typical theological conception; something which God desired us to avoid, thereby obviating the need for all post-Fall history, including the Incarnation.

Jung remarks, "God needs man in order to become conscious, just as he needs limitation in time and space. Let us therefore be for him limitation in time and space, an earthly tabernacle... God wants to be born in the flame of man’s consciousness, leaping ever higher." Again we do not need to assume any metaphysical reality here, only to observe the spirit of his remarks. Bringing it back to Nietzsche, the biggest philosophical influence on Jung, and also a great (yet certainly fallible) source of wisdom for Steiner, we can see how his concern and fight for freedom relates. How can we be free if we do not know the relations between ourselves and the beings which influence our evolution?

As the oft-quoted saying goes, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

[Eugene I]

Rather I think it is a trust that when we diligently seek for Christ within ourselves, we will find Him, even if we have never even heard of Him.

[SanteriSatama]

Rather I think it is a trust that when we diligently seek for Christ within ourselves, we will find Him, even if we have never even heard of Him.

[AshvinP]

Rather I think it is a trust that when we diligently seek for Christ within ourselves, we will find Him, even if we have never even heard of Him.

Thanks, that was really good. I actually ordered the audiobook of Dark Night of the Soul recently and have been listening to it. Your post also reminded me of this fantastic poem by Anastasius Grün:

"As children once were digging in a meadow
They brought a shapeless thing of iron to light,
It seemed too straight, too heavy for a sickle,
For plough it was too slender and too slight.

With toil they dragged it home as new found treasure;
The elders see it, yet they know it not;
They call the neighbors round within the circle,
The neighbors see it, yet they know it not.

There is an ancient greybeard, wan and sallow,
Whose lifetime lingers on like tale forgot
Into the present world of busy dealing,
They show it to him, but he knows is not.

Well for them all, that they have never known it,
Else must they weep, and still must be deplored
The folly of their fathers, long since buried,
For what was known by no one was a sword!

Henceforth it shall but cleave the earth as ploughshare;
Shall point the seed-corn's path into the ground,
The sword's new hero-deeds are peaned
When sun-filled airs with song of lark resound.

Once more it came to pass, that in his ploughing
The farmer struck what seemed a piece of stone.
And as his spade unloosed the earthy covers,
A structure of a wondrous shape was shown.

He calls the neighbors round within the circle;
They look at it but still they know it not.
Thou wise and aged one, thou'lt surely tell us?
The greybeard looks at it, yet knows it not.

Though known to none, yet with its ancient blessing
Eternal in their breast it stands upright,
Scatters its seed around in every roadway;
A Cross it was, this stranger to their sight!

They saw the fight not, and its bloodstained symbol,
They see alone the victory and the crown,
They saw the storm not, and the lashing tempest
They only see the rainbow's glistening shine.

The Cross of stone they set up in the garden;
A venerable relic strange and old,
Flowers of all species lift their growth above it,
While roses climbing high the Cross enfold.

So stands the Cross weighty with solemn meaning
On Golgotha, amidst resplendent sheen;
Long since 'tis hidden by its wealth of roses;
No more, for roses, can the Cross be seen."

[Simon Adams]

I'll admit my view of the Fall and it's relationship to the Godhead is not aligned with traditional mainstream theology in any way (but then again neither is any metaphysically idealist view IMO). Boehme seemed to recognize this as well - "Another place where Böhme may depart from accepted theology (though this was open to question due to his somewhat obscure, oracular style) was in his description of the Fall as a necessary stage in the evolution of the Universe". Jung also hints at this perspective in his Answer to Job:

I don't have a problem with the fall as necessary or inevitable - if you look back in this thread I said "Creation was good - primal, pristine innocence - but by necessity fell when man became self conscious". But yes I'll admit my view is more traditional than Jung's. To use a term from psychology, he seems to me to project human development characteristics onto god. There is an element of approaching god where he becomes like a mirror, the closer you get the more his light reveals our own darker elements. It's too shocking at the start of the journey to reveal the full picture of our shadow side, so it's a gradual refining process. If I remember Theresa of Avila covered some of this in The Interior Castle".

Of course this is just my opinion and I'm aware that I'm generally fairly ignorant on these things, so I’m adding arrogance to that by claiming that Jung thought he was more detached from his own shadow than he really was, but that's my impression anyway.

Jung's view of God as non-self-reflective may or may not be metaphysically accurate, but I find the basic underlying idea of God needing humanity to save Him as much as we need Him to save us is very profound and aligned with scripture, especially with the Incarnation. The new testament texts go on at length between the relationship of the Fall to the life and passion of Christ, i.e. he is the 'second Adam' and so forth. I actually think the entire Christian concept of redemption rests on Christ partaking in the very essence of our fallen nature, yet being the archetypal representation of a human who may come to transcend such a nature through the deepest Self-knowledge.

I think god has an innate need for us, it's not just us that have an innate need for him. Love is always a two way relationship. I also think Christ did partake in the fallen world just by his incarnation into it. But I believe that in the garden of gethsemane he somehow absorbed humanity's guilt from across time, which immediately brought what Radiohead might call the Karma Police down on him. Within a day he was crucified and took this mountain of guilt with him into hell. I don't believe he got out of hell by a miracle, by cheating, it was purely because none of it could stick to him.

I can agree to that, but then the question is what makes us 'saved' so that we may be born again in the Spirit of Christ like Paul? Is it merely an assent to a set of propositions about who Christ is and what He can do for us? Is it choosing to trust that He will deliver us from evil at some later time? I do not think so. Rather I think it is a trust that when we diligently seek for Christ within ourselves, we will find Him, even if we have never even heard of Him.

I don't see those as conflicting options, though I would think that all non protestant christians at least would say that the latter is the way, the former is just an outer sign which means nothing by itself. I would add something that Jonathan Pageau stressed a lot to Jordan Peterson in their recent interview. When I first became a christian, I tried going to church a few times, but it really didn't fit well with me. When I was an atheist I used to cringe when the UK TV program "Songs of Praise" was on TV, it was a visceral kind of revulsion, and something of that to some extent had stayed with me. So I just found my own way and thought my changed understanding would be enough, with reading some appropriately inspirational books now and then. It was at first, but looking back it was like this story in Luke;

24 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ 25 When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26 Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.”

There is something about being part of a community, of having that weekly rhythm, the rituals and the spiritual reality behind them, that grounds this process that John the Baptist described as "I must become less, and he must become more".

[Simon Adams]

Let me expand on the above a bit. We can forget all of the theological labels and references for a moment. All we are assuming is metaphysical monism-idealism, because without that, all of our experiences and concepts kind of dissolve into fragmented islands of meaning without any necessary relation to each other. We can discuss why that is if we must, but I am assuming almost everyone here agrees. I am also assuming everyone agrees that the individual human organism can be thought of as an attentive network of instincts-motivations, feelings and thoughts (the "human soul").

Under idealism, we reach the conclusion that the human soul is not other than ideal forms, i.e. it is all mental activity. It is also pretty clear that these forms can be thought of as beings in their own right, "under-souls", sub-personalities, "luminosities", etc. Regardless of what sort of mental activity they have attained, they are volitional beings. They are dependent on us and we are dependent on them. We can also tentatively extrapolate that 'upwards', as we are individual organisms who are also social and embedded within various collective forms, some of which are rather obvious to us and some of which we do not currently perceive (such a view is also rather undeniable in Judeo-Christian scripture and tradition).

So what does it mean to seek deep Self-knowledge in this view? It means nothing less than exploring all of the possible relations between us and the volitional beings within and without. And what does it mean to have faith in Christ? Nothing less than trusting that if we authentically seek these relations, we will find them. That "with God, nothing is impossible". God becomes man so that man can become God. It is a theosis which works in all directions. The Fall is not something which could have been avoided, as it is with the typical theological conception; something which God desired us to avoid, thereby obviating the need for all post-Fall history, including the Incarnation.

I'm not sure what in this I'm supposed to disagree with from a "typical theological conception". The catchecism says the fall was the result of man "preferring himself to god... against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good". It seems to me that this is exactly what god would have expected. You see with spoilt children that get everything they want and more, they loose the correct perspective of the relationship with their parents (and others). So I don't think god wanted it to happen, but there is a reason why we have to go through hardships in this life.

Jung remarks, "God needs man in order to become conscious, just as he needs limitation in time and space. Let us therefore be for him limitation in time and space, an earthly tabernacle... God wants to be born in the flame of man’s consciousness, leaping ever higher." Again we do not need to assume any metaphysical reality here, only to observe the spirit of his remarks. Bringing it back to Nietzsche, the biggest philosophical influence on Jung, and also a great (yet certainly fallible) source of wisdom for Steiner, we can see how his concern and fight for freedom relates. How can we be free if we do not know the relations between ourselves and the beings which influence our evolution?

As the oft-quoted saying goes, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

As before I see this first part as projection onto god. We need this life in order to be refined. Even some of the angels, created perfect and seeing the full picture rather than the shadow we see, turned against god, by their free will chose the absence of god. There is something about tasting what it's like to be weak and helpless in the face of trials, if we choose to respond to them with courage, perseverance and love, that helps us overcome our own innate arrogance and lack of empathy. When we see ourselves as we truly are, not as this constrained, limited version of ourselves, we need to have absorbed and be living this wisdom (difficult as it is!).

[Simon Adams]

Rather I think it is a trust that when we diligently seek for Christ within ourselves, we will find Him, even if we have never even heard of Him.

I love John of the Cross, an authentic mystic if ever there was one. I came across him when I was going through that first period of spiritual dryness, and thought I must be doing something wrong. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall during his discussions with Theresa of Avila, one of those "must be on the list" things when they invent a time machine

[SanteriSatama]

Anointing by continuing to fall into the deep sea and beneath, into the furnace where pressure of thickening dark turns rock and iron into source of light and warmth.