Since the publishing of Friedrich Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" [*], there is a concept that has seen big success, this is the "hallucinated of the Ultra-World"; these would be, in Nietzsche's ideology, the people who live only thinking, waiting for, or at least conditioning their lives to the next live; it would cover all religious people (of any creed). But it is not my aim to discuss about this concept today.
The point is that in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Nietzsche exposes another concept that has not been so widely commented, and it is the reference to the "hallucinated of the Back-World". So, why the success of the "hallucinated of the Ultra-World" and the failure of the "Back-World"? The answer seems very easy to find; Nietzsche has been recurrently used as the first great philosopher to attack the power of religion. He is not one ideologist, like Marx, nor he is a writer, he is a philosopher (the nearest thing, in non religious fields, to one theologist). Besides this, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" created a big controversy after its publishing, which helped it to make it the perfect anti-religious manifesto.
The problem comes when we read about the "hallucinated of the Back-World", because it describes all people who live absolutely denying anything more that we can see and touch, the ones who declare that man is one animal and nothing more; and, of course, this is a direct criticism to the ones who used him for their pamphlet. So there remained two options: just ignore Nietzsche and wait for another philosopher to use as their ideologist, or to use only one part of his theories, and, of course, this was the option chosen by the anti-clerical movement.
And in fact, it seems quite worse to be hallucinated of the "Back-World" than to be it of the "Ultra-World", don't you think?
The point is that in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Nietzsche exposes another concept that has not been so widely commented, and it is the reference to the "hallucinated of the Back-World". So, why the success of the "hallucinated of the Ultra-World" and the failure of the "Back-World"? The answer seems very easy to find; Nietzsche has been recurrently used as the first great philosopher to attack the power of religion. He is not one ideologist, like Marx, nor he is a writer, he is a philosopher (the nearest thing, in non religious fields, to one theologist). Besides this, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" created a big controversy after its publishing, which helped it to make it the perfect anti-religious manifesto.
The problem comes when we read about the "hallucinated of the Back-World", because it describes all people who live absolutely denying anything more that we can see and touch, the ones who declare that man is one animal and nothing more; and, of course, this is a direct criticism to the ones who used him for their pamphlet. So there remained two options: just ignore Nietzsche and wait for another philosopher to use as their ideologist, or to use only one part of his theories, and, of course, this was the option chosen by the anti-clerical movement.
And in fact, it seems quite worse to be hallucinated of the "Back-World" than to be it of the "Ultra-World", don't you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment