What Do you Suppose Nietzsche meant by "God is Dead"?

[Gjallarhorn]

The result was not subjective morality and meaning defined by humanity, but a lack of both, and only those who could stomach this would endure. This is quite in line with the views of his contemporaries and those who followed him, such as Sartre, Freud, Camus, and even Kant (a forebear).

I guess it depends on how we define morality. Assuming you're not considering personal goals and desires a form of morality, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I guess it depends on how we define morality. Assuming you're not considering personal goals and desires a form of morality, I'm inclined to agree.

As I said, I don't think Nietzche viewed morality as a meaningful concept anymore.

 

[atanu]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

To understand we need the context and I believe that Legion has shown it. Particularly, "------ when we loosed the earth from its sun........", is, IMO, the crux.

 

[WyattDerp]

I think Nietzsche wasn't a fan of nihilism, he warned of it. The Übermensch finds - or rather, makes - meaning beyond it, not in it.

The alienation, our consumerism, the trappings of materialism and the constant wars, the exploitation and deception in the word; this is how we, generally insane, mediocre and weak as we are, fill that void.... we killed (our) God(s), never had the guts to even face that, and instantly made new ones out of people and ideologies, or iPhones. We haven't missed a beat, and Nietzsche screamed his head off for next to nothing.

Nietzsche said we was "too early" then; sometimes I wonder if that would not be even more the case today, instead of less so, and wether the enlightenment isn't long since in decline.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think Nietzsche wasn't a fan of nihilism, he warned of it. The Übermensch finds - or rather, makes - meaning beyond it, not in it.

I mostly agree, but I don't know if I'd say he "warned" of it. This suggests, IMO, that he thought it could be avoided. I would say he believed it to be a necessary step, or a realization. The death of God and the subsequent loss of any meaning were inevitable realizations which he realized early (according to him anyway), but that eventually everybody would face. And once that occurred, only then could those strong enough do what you said- make meaning beyond it.

The alienation, our consumerism, the trappings of materialism and the constant wars, the exploitation and deception in the word; this is how we, generally insane, mediocre and weak as we are, fill that void.... we killed (our) God(s), never had the guts to even face that, and instantly made new ones out of people and ideologies, or iPhones. We haven't missed a beat, and Nietzsche screamed his head off for next to nothing.

I don't think Neitzsche was correct. Although with widespread literacy and education things have changed somewhat, not many people have either the inclination, time, or energy to dedicate to philosophical questions the way the Neitzsche did. People before and after him have always tended to do what people do: define meaning through cultural inheritence, social connections, family, and activities. Even when Christianity was ubiquitous, I don't think most people spent time trying to understand the deep theological and philosophical implications of their belief system. They believed in the bible (and the Church if they weren't protestant), Jesus, God, heaven, and mostly did what they were supposed to (or not) and went about their business. And when Christianity began to increasingly give way to atheism, agnosticism, other religions (including new age, eclective, non-European religions, etc.), they continued to do what they had before with more of a change in routine than in underlying cosmological, philosophical, and moral understanding.

Nietzsche said we was "too early" then; sometimes I wonder if that would not be even more the case today, instead of less so, and wether the enlightenment isn't long since in decline.

Enlightenment was always about the intellectual elites. By intellectual, I don't mean the smart guys. Lots of geniuses aren't intellectuals in the enlightenment sense. It is those like Neitzsche, who believe that it is important to deal with issues most deem too trivial to devote years of study to who continue to wrestle with the issues Neitzsche did.

 

[1137]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

I always took it as accepting that God is a simple idea existing only within the mind, and that that idea is dead (at least for Nietzsche).

 

[ChristineES]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

I can only interpret the way I see it here and out of context: Being that Nietzsche was atheist, maybe he saw that religion and God were no longer needed in the modern world.

 

[Tbone]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

It was simply an admission of his ignorance.

 

[jtartar]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

Sunstone,
The term God is dead, has nothing to do with the Almighty God, who is eternal, but has to do with mankind. To the vast majority of mankind on earth God is dead to them, meaning they do not recognize His authority to make rules for man, and expect men to obey them.
If a person repents and turns to God, he has actually moved from death to life, John 5:24, Eph 2:5, 1John 3:14.
If a person does not turn to God, Jesus did not die for him, so he will die in his sins. Any person living at this time is in a very precarious perdicament, because this is the time that Jesus is coming back to earth, and everyone not knowing God and obeying Jesus will go into the Lake of Fire, The Second Death, Rev 20:14,15, 2Thes 1:6-10, John 17:3.
God does not want to destroy anyone, 2Pet 3:9, but God is going to make this earth a paradise, by Jesus and it cannot ever be a paradise if there are people living who do not want to obey God, so He must destroy all who do not love Him and Jesus, 2Pet 3:10-15, Rev 21:1-5, Rom 3:5,6, Matt 6:9,10, Amos 5:18-20, Zeph 1:14-18, Jere 25:29-33, Zech 14:12.

 

[dust1n]

"God is dead" = A new era had come in which God was determined to be no longer needed.


General religious debate? Ehhh...

 

[Infinitum]

For me the phrase takes me back to Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, where God is pictured as a dying man without the mental capability to control the universe anymore. God isn't part of our everyday life the way he used to be. His influence has been decreasing and, according to some, lost the battle to science and become obsolete. I think Nietzsche might well have believed this, but I haven't read his writings myself yet.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"Dead are all Gods: now we want the overman to live."

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

The only way I can find natural of interpreting it is by understanding that he saw God as last-resort hope that (most) everyone deep down doubted to exist in any literal sense, and the time in history had come for such a hope to be discarded, because it began to cause more sorrow than it averted.

I happen to agree with that interpretation, regardless of whether that is what Nietzsche truly meant.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I think Nietzsche wasn't a fan of nihilism, he warned of it. The Übermensch finds - or rather, makes - meaning beyond it, not in it.

The alienation, our consumerism, the trappings of materialism and the constant wars, the exploitation and deception in the word; this is how we, generally insane, mediocre and weak as we are, fill that void.... we killed (our) God(s), never had the guts to even face that, and instantly made new ones out of people and ideologies, or iPhones. We haven't missed a beat, and Nietzsche screamed his head off for next to nothing.

Nietzsche said we was "too early" then; sometimes I wonder if that would not be even more the case today, instead of less so, and wether the enlightenment isn't long since in decline.

I would agree:

To create new values -- that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred "No" even to duty -- for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values -- that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. Verily, to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved "thou shalt" as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.
But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes." For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred "Yes" is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world.

 

[Obsrvr]

How do you interpret Nietzsche's statement, "God is dead"? Just curious.

Nietzsche never faced death. He didn't know any better.