For him the Idea of God is itself man made

or something like: a higher man in our age of egalitarianism would necessarily go mad.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Sounds like you don’t have any idea about Nietzsche much less the concept of truth. It baffles you for this reason.

@@bryanutility9609 Sounds like you have a concept of Truth that is illogical and contradictory.

@@Artisan_GenZ Nietzche’s position on truth is only incomprehensible to you because you lack the capacity necessary to comprehend it-hence your misrepresentation of it and your alignment of yourself with basket-cases such as Plato. This expression of yours, among other things, betrays your own hubris and feelings of fear. You believe wholeheartedly in the notion of ‘objectivity’. You can’t even begin to imagine yourself believing otherwise. You align yourself with whatever is familiar to that notion and to you, take refuge in whoever advocates for it and validates you and your belief in it-and lash out at whoever doesn’t… And I don’t blame you whatsoever for doing so; as I, myself, have done and believed in the same, and then acted out of a need for comfort, consolation, and contentment that is not at all dissimilar from yours. Mark my words, though: only the weakest and the dumbest of men rely on such nonsense as metaphysics to go about living their wretched little existences. You will go your entire life without affirming yourself, and will be marked most notably by your miserable easement and obsolescence of opinion, if you stay set upon it. If you are content with that, then-by all means-stop reading here. Go on about your day. Forget the challenge I’ve posed to your perspective. If you do, you will almost certainly live a lengthy life replete with simplicity and equanimity. For some men-even for most-this is the best kind of life that could ever be lived. If, on the other hand, you do not want to live the lowly life of an insect; if you do not simply ignore me and move on; if you find yourself stuck to my words and filled with hostility at my challenge; if a feeling of rage bubbles up inside you at my poking and prodding of your belief-or if even all you feel in response to me is a mild indignance or intrigue at my assertions-then prepare yourself either for the uprooting of your perspective and an even greater emotional upheaval than the one which you currently experience, or for the further solidification of your dogma and the greater development of your madness; for I am about to describe to you in just what ways exactly your belief system is a heap of trash that deserves only to be thrown into the wastebins of human history and left to rot there with the rest of man’s idiocy. I don’t expect that the expression of my perspective will change your mind on the matter, and, in all honesty, my intention is not to change your mind at all, nor is it my intention to express myself for anybody’s sake but my own. Frankly speaking, I only say what I say here out of an enjoyment of myself-which, in my mind, ought not to be taken as an act of charity or benevolence, as such ‘selflessness’ does not exist anywhere except in the imagination of Christians such as yourself. I only appear magnanimous or megalomaniacal to those without a sense for themselves-while, in reality, I am as selfish, covetous, deceptive, and petty as any other man is, himself, selfish, covetous, deceptive, and petty. I take pride in my words, feel powerful in expressing through them my most intense passions and deep-seated convictions. I am like you in that way, and so, too, are you like me. Thus, I implore of you that you heed my words well, even while understanding that you will not do any such thing; for you, like me, have only yourself before yourself, and are unconcerned altogether with anything that is not you or yours. You will only take from me what you already ‘know’, for you have only the ears to hear whatever is soothing, near and dear to you. And yet, to you, I still say this: The notion of “truth” which you cling to so desperately is absolutely rife with contradiction. It presupposes, first and foremost, that there is an object, a subject, and a perspective which acts as a mediating force between the two of them. As its ‘source’, this perspective has the latter, and as its ‘aim’, it has the ‘impassionate representation’ of the former, the ‘self-preservation’ of the latter, and so on. “Truthfulness” is a purported quality of this perspective, whereby it corresponds-or is ‘observed’ by the ‘subject’ to correspond-in some way, with that ‘object’. But-how might one go about performing such an observation? How, in other words, might one verify that their perspective comports with this ‘object’ when all that one is familiar with, in any way, is their perspective itself, and when this ‘object’ exists entirely independently of that perspective and themselves? Can one remove oneself from oneself; can one observe without observing; can one exit their own perspective and view those ‘things’ which exist ‘outside’ and ‘apart’ from it “objectively”? Indeed, how might one verify that there even is such an ‘object’ in the first place if they are completely incapable of proving it to themselves by way of such observation? Is not ‘seeing’ as good as ‘believing’? Moreover, where in the world of appearances does one view anything ‘fixed’, ‘independent’, or otherwise? Is there any such thing, or are these terms simply inventions and impositions upon some ‘X’ of which one is altogether uncertain of the character-or of whether or not there even is such a character? Does a thought have its ‘source’ in anything-does any ‘thing’ have as its ‘first cause’ anything else-or, rather, is thinking simply one of a variety of unique processual phenomena that are occurring simultaneously in a single, undivided-yet chaotic, and synchronous-whole? Is the notion of ‘I’ reflective of any ‘real-state-of-things’, or is it simply an abstraction: a picking-and-choosing of sorts? Are things really existent ‘in-themselves’, or are ‘things’ just “the boundaries of man?” Conversely, is there any particular ‘source’ or ‘cause’ for the stimuli of sensation, or is this, itself, an oversight and a mischaracterization? Finally, can a man act ‘impassionately’ at any point in his life, or is he fated always only to act in attendance to whater passion predominates within him in each given moment-even in reasoning, for example? Food for thought. Heraclitus, who I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this thread, put it best, I think. Of metaphysicians such as yourself, he said, “I see nothing other than becoming. Be not deceived. It is the fault of your own myopia, not of the nature of things, if you see ‘land’ in the ocean of coming-and-going. You name things as if they were rigid, as though they persistently endured-yet even the ‘stream’ within which you stepped a second time is not the same as the one stepped into before.” To paraphrase, and to apply the statements to you and your perspective specifically: “[Y]ou assume there to be a stable reality independent of your own interpretations, which you refer back to from moment to moment and place to place, but even the phenomena you’ve interpreted a second time is not the same as the one interpreted before…” In other words, you’ve set yourself on a fantasy, and have devalued the only world and person given to you to experience and to be as a consequence. This is the very crux of the argument against the notion of ‘truth’; not only that it is unprovable, but, even more importantly, that it is harmful to believe in. If you value this truth over and above yourself, then all well and good with you. You will live your life at length, and will likely become as embittered and embattled of an old man as those with whom you identify. You will be in the company of Plato, Paul the Apostle, and so on and so forth. If you take solace in that, all well with you. If, on the other hand, you value yourself and life more than ‘truth’, and if you do not want to become a weak old man mired in the mirages of your mind like Plato, then re-read what I’ve said and re-read Nietzsche as well until you’ve been sufficiently shaken from your seat of security and all that is certain to you is the uncertainty of certainty!

@@Artisan_GenZ You’re not saying anything of substance & you’re just wrong.

​@@bryanutility9609 The word "wrong" has absolutely no meaning coming from the likes of you.