"Even if god existed that would make no difference" What would Nietzsche say?

Who cares? Nietzsche . . . the young man's profound philosopher.

Sounds like homework ...is it ?

It is part of an assignment, yes. I'm trying to get some ideas going to think outside of my own head. My thoughts so far is that Nietzsche would disagree due to his own philosophy. But there is always a chance for agreement.

Fresco, do university philosophy professors routinely inflict Nietzsche on their undergrafuates these days? Certainly there is much worth while to read in his work, although i think much of it is alluring to young, immature intellects who lack the life perspective to judge it at its true worth. Of course, a lot of is pure drivel, too--Thus Spake Zarathustra being embarrassingly bad writing with no redeeming wisdom to offer.

Tha's a serious question, by the way. We get a lot of people here who seem to be enamored of Nietzsche.

IMO the philosophical significance of Nietzsche was his overdue attempt to remove "God" from ontology. Indeed he predicated his views of "existence" on that removal, and his work on "will", later adulterated by relatives, was an element in the thinking of the Nazis. But in terms of a philosophy assignment described here, I assume that the student is required to display his knowledge of the train of reasoning which followed from Nietzsche via phenomenology and Heidegger, to Sartre. The more able student, having made such a critical examination, might even be expected to deconstruct his analysis in the manner of Derrida,, who argued that all interpretation of text is contingent and situational. For example, only Sartre knew what Sartre meant by "God existing", and even that changed according to communicative context, Dragging a hypothetical Nietzsche back from the dead
to have a conversation with post Nazi Sartre is somewhat futile in terms of conflict of Zetgeist.

It is more than essay issue?

Consider my reply to Setanta as an indication of how to proceed.

I believe it was his witless sister who fiddled "The Will to Power" and offered it up to the NSDAP. However, you've kind of side-stepped my question. Do contemporary professors of philosophy emphasize Nietzsche, or is this just a function of the fascination he seems always to have for the young? When i was in university, not being a philosophy major, Nietzsche was just one of the crowd about whom we were expected to superficially learn.

I have been "out of it" for some years, but as far as I can tell, Nietszche per se has no particular contemporary significance. On the other hand his investigation of language for example pre-dates that of Heidegger, Wittgenstein and the post-modernists. I therefore think he can validly be included in current courses.

I cannot help but wonder what the professor who gave the assignment would say if you replied, “Beats the piss out of me…and it is my opinion that anyone making a guess on this would be making a blind guess.”

Merely an observation, Ace. I do not suggest you respond in that way.

One of your comments interests me, though, and may impact on what you eventually do use as a response. You wrote:



Hummm. Is that something you know for a fact…or is it merely unwarranted speculation about what any god that might exist may or may not have done?

I'm sure of that part, Nietzsche's interest for me was always his philology. I guess i'll just assume that he continues to be popular with young men, and that that accounts for how much we hear about him here.

You can be such a "snide son of a bitch", Setanta. Nietzsche was rejected by his colleagues in philology because of his ventures into philosophy. And Nietzsche's fanclub consists of far more than just "young men." He is probably one of the most influential philosophers in this postmodern era. Reading him is probably more powerful a personal spiritual exercise than it will ever be in academic philosophy classes.

I didn't say he was only popular with young men, just that he is very popular with them, and it can be seen here with the emphasis on him by them. I have in no way suggested that he is not worth reading. Specifically, i have pointed out that the value in reading him increases with one's life experience--that maturity is required to understand the contribution he is making.

As for "spiritual experiences," i'll leave that to you and the other Buddhist phonies.

What exactly do you mean by "buddhist phonies" and "spiritual experiences"?

Go play your idiot games with someone else. There was no incivility, no discussion of the personalities of members until you showed up. There was just a discussion of Nietzsche. What a creep.

Wow! you are complex. You dislike being call uncivil (which I don't recall doing) yet you have developed uncivility more than most. Take a pill, Butch.

I said nothing about being called uncivil. I did say, and it's true, that there was no incivility in this thread until you showed up. Maybe you should take a pill, Bitch.

That's clever. I called you "Butch" not "Bitch." Butch was the name I and my brothers called a nieghborhood bully. I don't think I have been generally uncivil during my many years in A2K. That happens only when I encounter bullies like you (are capable of being). But believe it or not I still admire much about you--bitch.

"Even if god existed that would make no difference" What would Nietzsche say?

Nietzsche wasn't stupid enough to claim that God doesn't (or does) exist. Such claims can only be meaningfully made about empirical items, as Kant pointed out. Nietzsche was well versed in Kant's philosophy.
Here is a quote from Nietzsche:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

As to Sartre's statement you have quoted, not knowing the context in which it was made makes it difficult to interpret. Taken in the context of Kant's philosophy, we might say that because we can never know the answer to such a question, or even if it is a meaningful question, then God's existence or non-existence could make no conceivable difference to human life.
Having said that, whether or not one BELIEVES in the existence of God could make a great difference to their life.