This is the fifth book I have read of Nietzsche, written in the penultimate year of the author's life and read at a stage when the reader just wants to lie down and die at the bottom. Well, I just want to say one thing, that there is no translation as good as "Who am I?". And whether drunk or sober, whether good or bad, as long as there is a harmonious encounter, then thank life.

Nietzsche's works always have a unique charm that makes people think deeply. In this book, his profound thoughts and unique insights are once again presented in front of us.

Reading Nietzsche is like embarking on a spiritual journey, constantly challenging our traditional thinking and values. Although his ideas may seem radical and difficult to understand at times, they also bring us a new perspective and inspiration.

Whether we agree with his views or not, Nietzsche's works are still worthy of our careful reading and thinking. Because only by constantly exploring and thinking can we continuously improve our cognitive level and spiritual realm.

Have you ever read a book that deserved five stars and also zero? That's what happened to me with "The Antichrist".

Everyone who opens this book must be clear that Nietzsche is a racist and elitist German, who does not believe in the equality of men and whose idea of a perfect society is that of castes: an intellectual elite supported by a large base of the population raised to be mediocre.

Knowing this, the score I gave the book is based on everything else. Of course, I do not agree with these retrograde ideas of Nietzsche.

This book is a harsh criticism of Christianity, from its origins to the present. It is not the first book of this style that I read, but it has made me see new dark aspects of Christianity and its influence on Western culture that I did not see clearly. Its ideas about the harm of the immortality of the soul, sin, etc. are very interesting, whether you agree with the author (in whole or in part). I was surprised to find comparisons with other religions such as Islam and Buddhism.

The brevity of the text and the shortness of its chapters help the agility of reading, but it leaves a feeling of erratic direction in the main thread of the discourse. And it really is a discourse, you can almost imagine Nietzsche spitting out each word. There are plenty of insults and degrading comments towards Christianity, perhaps too many. The great paradox that subtracts points from this work is that it speaks about a Christianity based on hate... from hate.

What a fascinating and intriguing little book this is!

It is much more complex and challenging than its title perhaps suggests. Anyone familiar with Nietzsche's work will have encountered his hostility to Christianity. His opposition to Christianity is not insignificant; in fact, it is key to understanding some of his most fundamental positions. It is in Christianity that Nietzsche identifies the antithesis of all that he finds beautiful and inspiring in life. Towards his later works in particular, he starts to see the key dynamic of life as being between the Dionysian and the Christian. Here, the Dionysian represents all that affirms life, the intoxicated Yes to life and all that flows therein; the Christian, on the other hand, represents the negation of all that is living, proud, and positive; it is the great No to all that lives. In this book, one will find Nietzsche's trademark polemical attacks and rampages against Christianity; yet, Nietzsche here takes his battle far further than elsewhere.

Whilst in other places Nietzsche's confrontations revolve primarily around the weaknesses he sees as inherent to Christian morality and the hypocrisies that he sees lying beneath its 'holy' sheen, here he actually gives us a thorough evaluation and analysis of the religion's history, genealogy, and transformations. Indeed, much of the historical vigour and genius that Nietzsche so famously displayed in his On the Genealogy of Morals is also present here. The Antichrist is truly a fascinating genealogical exercise. One cannot understate the boldness of Nietzsche's task here: he attempts no less than a re-interpretation of the entire history of Christianity. Nietzsche the philologist.

In order to understand the peculiar growth and character of this most holy of religions, we must first seek out the soil within which it took root. Nietzsche is very clear on this point: Christianity must not be understood as a reaction against Jewish values; it is, rather, the product of these very values; Christianity was not the revolt against the Jewish order but rather the extension of it. On Judaism, too, Nietzsche is famously known. Although accusations of antisemitism often spring from a rather superficial reading of Nietzsche's work, one that misses the complexities and subtleties that underlie all of his conceptual grappling, he does nevertheless see the Jews as a fundamentally weak and lowly race, albeit a particularly ingenious one. Nietzsche sees the Jews as the slavish race par excellence. And yet, Nietzsche here has many positive things to say about the early Israel. His characterisation, in fact, of the early years of the United Monarchy resembles that of a rather noble race. A people who were relatively prosperous; a God who was respected for the blessings he had brought them. However, as fortune began to favor the Jewish people less and less, as their enemies began to encroach more and more, they were faced with something of a contradiction: how could they continue to believe in a God who was proving to be more useless by the day? It is at this point, Nietzsche points out, that they should have abandoned their God altogether. What happened instead had seismic repercussions. Rather than abandoning a God-become-impotent, the Jewish people transvaluated him. With great cunning and a keen eye for self-preservation, the Jews performed the most fatal of all inversions. Crudely put: the weak became the good; the strong became the evil; the lowly and depraved became the blessed.

It is along these lines that we can understand the coming to power of the priest. In point of fact, when Nietzsche criticises Judaism, when he criticises Christianity, what must be understood is that Nietzsche is really criticising a certain type of man: the priestly type. The priest represents the will to domination of the weak. It is a will to dominion born out of revenge, ressentiment. It must be understood that the strong, the powerful, rule as second-nature; they have no difficulty in enforcing their will, and they easily find the courage to see it through. For a weak man, however, a much higher level of cunning is required; intelligence is needed to the highest degree. As Nietzsche says in Twilight of the Idols: "one must have a need of intelligence first, in order to acquire it... the strong have no great need of intelligence." This also brings us back to the question raised by Deleuze: how do we reconcile the fact that, in Nietzsche's philosophy, where the will to power is such a central concept, we witness the weak come out on top over the strong, again and again? The answer, of course, is that the weak do not come to rule on the basis of strength, even a composition of strength across their majority; they come to rule precisely on the grounds of weakness; they come to rule by contagion, by infection. Whence we find the germination of the concept of sin. The priest requires sin. Sickness, distress, bad conscience, these are not feelings that can be eradicated by a priestly religion; rather, these feelings are necessary to their very modus operandi. Without these forms of suffering all priestly religions immediately lose their foundations.

Against this backdrop of priestly Judaism Nietzsche juxtaposes the coming of Christ. This is where the book becomes truly fascinating. You see, Nietzsche, in an incredibly bold move, believes that the whole of Christianity has entirely misunderstood the symbolism of Christ; the life of Jesus was not that of a militant; in Christ there is no revenge, there is no animosity; there is not even any opposition at all. Christ does not deny or oppose the values of Judaism; he is in fact fundamentally incapable of even understanding these points view. He lives life through a pure spirit of life, of 'light'. He cares nothing for established values and law; he is blessed by a truly divine impetus of life, desire, in the Deleuzian sense. He does not promise the kingdom of God, he lives it. In him, all notions of sin, of guilt, of punishment, become not just irrelevant, but incomprehensible. Nietzsche describes the life of Christ in a sort of Taoist light, a pure flowing. In this sense Christ becomes a real radical; he has no use whatsoever for the priestly notions of repentance and suffering. He lives in such a way that he feels he is in heaven; he feels at one with God; he knows that he is the son of God, not as one concrete and specific person, but by way of life. The kingdom of heaven is a way of life, and he lives it, blissfully, blessedly. The rise of Christianity is nothing short of a vile tragedy upon the life and symbolism of Christ: "at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

"The kingdom of God is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow... it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere."

I've heard Nietzsche quoted an astonishing number of times, especially by political libertarians. This constant exposure led me to make the decision to start reading him. Perhaps I should have begun with "Will to Power". However, as a Christian, another of his works attracted me.

It was supposed to be an unassailable critique of Christianity, and I was intrigued to hear his arguments. But upon reading, I found them rather underwhelming. What struck me more forcefully, though, were the emotional undertones that should make anyone suspect his claim to reason. He doesn't simply state the claims of Christianity and then refute them. Instead, he expresses his disdain and then offers his own interpretation from which he constructs his argument.

It's extremely difficult to have a reasoned debate when the two parties are starting from different premises. And that, in a nutshell, is my summation of this work. When you argue based on your own perception of your enemy, you will always come out victorious in your own mind.

Having said all that, I still remain uncertain (although I have my guesses) as to why my libertarian and sometimes conservative friends are so attracted to Nietzsche. This particular book did little to enlighten me in that regard. So, I suppose I'm now off to explore "Will to Power" in the hopes of finding some answers.

For a book with such few pages, this took ages for me to get through.

It is a rough, passionate novel by Nietzsche about his condemnation of Christianity, hatred for modernity, and nihilism.

It's truly interesting, but there's a lot to take in.

[Edit 22.11.23]: A more in-depth review is below, because I enjoyed this book so much and while I haven't yet read it again, I always think about it and have since learned a lot about it, so I'm going to expand. -Tobi

Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844 in Germany, led a life filled with intellectual brilliance, philosophical innovation, and tumultuous mental health challenges.

The Antichrist is a bold critique of Christianity and its effects on Western society. Published after Nietzsche's death, this book reflects his personal struggles and discontent with Christian morals, which he believed were stifling human potential and hindering individual growth.

Nietzsche showed intellectual prowess from a young age and excelled academically. He studied classical philology and theology at the University of Bonn and later at the University of Leipzig. His studies in theology, combined with a deep interest in philosophy and literature, influenced his later critiques of religion and morality.

In this book, Nietzsche fiercely challenges the foundations of Christian morality, arguing that its emphasis on self-denial and otherworldly values undermines life's affirmation and restricts human excellence. His critique stems from his own experiences in a society shaped by Christian ideals, along with his declining health and growing isolation.

Nietzsche's life was plagued by deteriorating mental health. In his mid-20s, he suffered a severe health crisis, often attributed to syphilis, which had a great impact on his physical and mental well-being. He endured episodes of intense headaches, vision problems, and eventually, a mental breakdown that led to his early retirement from academic life.

Probably influenced by this, Nietzsche's relationship with religion was always complex. Growing up in a Lutheran household, he was deeply influenced by Christian teachings, but as he matured intellectually, he began to question and critique religious doctrines. He became an outspoken and well-known critic of Christianity, especially its moral values, which he saw as inhibiting human potential and life's affirmation.

People often view Nietzsche's arguments as too aggressive and lacking nuance, accusing him of oversimplifying and being biased against Christianity without acknowledging its positive contributions to culture and ethics. I'm not sure I agree.

During the latter part of his life, Nietzsche's mental health continued to decline. He experienced periods of profound depression and isolation. In 1889, he had a mental breakdown and was committed to a mental asylum until his death in 1900. A common misconception about The Antichrist is that Nietzsche is advocating complete moral rejection or nihilism. In reality, while critiquing Christian morality, Nietzsche is seeking a revaluation of values, aiming for a culture that celebrates individual creativity and self-determination.

Nietzsche's philosophical contributions, despite being controversial in his time, have had a lasting impact on Western thought. His ideas on the "Übermensch" (Overman), the "will to power," and the critique of traditional morality continue to influence fields such as philosophy, psychology, literature, and cultural studies.

A controversial yet thought-provoking critique, reflecting personal struggles and a quest for a culture that values human potential and life-affirming principles over restrictive moral norms, the passion and wonder radiating from this book have inspired me since I first picked it up.

Nietzsche's life was a juxtaposition of intellectual brilliance and intense personal struggles, marked by mental health challenges that greatly influenced his philosophical inquiries, particularly his critique of religion and morality. His legacy as a revolutionary thinker continues to provoke debate and inspire intellectual exploration, and while I am a known hater of his books, I am also a huge appreciator of his philosophy and his story.

Book challenge [3/30]

As a Christian, I found this particular book to be quite good. It offered some interesting perspectives and insights that really made me think.

The author's writing style was engaging, and I was able to easily follow the story and understand the message being conveyed.

Although I didn't give it a specific rating, I would definitely recommend it to others who are interested in exploring themes related to Christianity and faith.

It's always refreshing to come across a book that can touch on these important topics in a meaningful and thought-provoking way.

I look forward to reading more books like this in the future as part of this book challenge.

A friend of mine characterized the book as "the gravestone of Christianity." Maybe he was right...

Just like all of Nietzsche's books, it is a difficult-to-read book with many thoughts, but always wonderful!

It proves with arguments that we do not need Christianity, and especially the representatives of the Church in our lives, to be ethical. Of course, Nietzsche's top philosophical work for me remains Zarathustra.

Nietzsche's ideas have always been controversial, but they cannot be ignored. His criticism of Christianity and traditional morality challenges our long-held beliefs and makes us think deeply about the meaning and value of life.

Although his writing style is often difficult to understand, it is precisely this difficulty that makes us work harder to understand his thoughts. Reading Nietzsche's books is like embarking on a journey of exploration, where we can discover many new and exciting ideas.

In conclusion, Nietzsche's books are not for the faint of heart, but for those who are willing to think independently and challenge the status quo, they are a source of inspiration and enlightenment.

I give this one a 5-star rating not merely based on the merits of his writing but because of his radical ideas. However, I will not review the book. I am simply flabbergasted at his ideas and how his psyche worked. I loved this book not just because I am an atheist but because some of the points that he makes are actually true. Oh! And the dry sarcasm that surfaces every now and then was as wonderful as his ideas.

"I don't know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn't know the way out or in - so sighs the man of today. This is the sort of modernity that made us ill, we sickened in lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern yea and nay. This tolerance and largeur of the heart that "forgives" everything because it "understands" everything is a sirocco to us. Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such winds!"

This is intrinsically true even today. We often find ourselves in a state of confusion, not knowing which way to go. Modern society seems to be filled with lazy peace and cowardly compromise. The so-called modern virtues, with their false tolerance and understanding, can sometimes feel like a suffocating wind. It is refreshing to read such radical ideas that challenge the status quo and make us think about the true nature of our existence.

Nietzsche's views on religion and related topics are quite controversial and complex.

He once said, "I have never seen anyone speak like Nietzsche! Have Christians and Jews read his books? And if they have, are they convinced that abandoning this religion is a virtue?" Nietzsche himself claimed that his books were only for a few people. Maybe they were those who could understand Zarathustra. But how could he mix himself with those who had been prepared for a long time? After all, only then was his time. Because most people are born after death.

Nietzsche quoted many philosophers and praised Buddhists and Zarathustra, but he clearly hated Judaism and Christianity. He thought that everything considered religious truth must be wrong, and any thing that could be more quickly destroyed than work, thought, and feeling without inner necessity, without deep personal choice, and without pleasure was like an automatic machine driven by duty.

Kant had become stupid, and this was a disaster. The German philosopher had considered this a spider-like disaster at that time, and he still did.

In Christianity, there is no morality or religion that touches a single point of reality. There is only a collection of false reasons (God, soul, self, spirit, free will or even unfree will), a collection of false results (sin, salvation, mercy, punishment, forgiveness of sins), relationships between imaginary beings (God, spirits, souls), fictitious natural sciences (human centrality, complete absence of the concept of natural cause), imaginary psychology (remorse, stinging of conscience, temptation of the devil, approach to God), and imaginary theology (kingdom of God, day of judgment, eternal life).

Christianity is the hatred of reason, courage, freedom, and lack of reason; the hatred of the senses, dullness of the senses, and general joy. Buddhism is a hundred times colder, more realistic, and more objective than Christianity.

The Christian church, compared with the "holy people," lacks all the aspirations for authenticity. This is precisely what makes the Jews the most believing. In the history of mankind, they have exerted their subsequent influence on humanity through falsehood, which makes the Christian today also feel hostile to Judaism without being able to understand that he is the final result of Judaism.

The Jews are a group of old, pitiful, deceitful beings who have comfortably enslaved themselves to the concepts of "God, truth, light, spirit, love, wisdom, and life" and their synonyms, by setting a boundary between them and the world. The Jews, who are suffering from swelling, are good for all kinds of cures for the insane. They have reversed all the valuable directions they want for them.

The Lord on the cross! Didn't we breathe in the precious idea hidden behind this symbol? Christianity has been the greatest disaster known to humanity so far. The minds are skeptical, and Zarathustra is also skeptical. Therefore, the power and freedom that come from energy and the surplus of energy clarify themselves through skepticism.

(I didn't understand what "chandelier" meant, but a friend just told me that it means a scattered stimulant.)

Inequality does not lie in the inequality of rights, but in the demand for "equality" of rights. Judaism distorted the idea of God and the idea of morality, but the Jewish sacerdotal institution did not stop at this point. They seem to think that they can do without all the history of Israel. These sacerdotal people have achieved miracles in their false work, making an important part of the Bible a testimony to them. With unparalleled contempt for all traditions and all historical facts, they have given a religious interpretation to the past of their people.

A Christian expression in itself is a misinterpretation, because in reality there was only one Christ, and he died on the cross. "The Gospel" died on the cross. And what has been called the Gospel since that moment has been, from the very beginning, the opposite of what Christ lived.

From the very first sentences, it was truly arduous to fathom his philosophy. However, the more I delved into the book, the more I developed an affinity for it.

I would not advocate this book for devout Catholics. It remains a highly rebellious work, even in our contemporary era. I concur with numerous of the author's musings. Christianity, according to the author, is a "disease" that transforms us into mental patients. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to adequately describe this book. It is not meant for everyone to peruse. It has the potential to both insult and inspire one to become an independent individual. Moreover, one must be extremely focused when reading this book as it presents profound philosophy.

I particularly liked the part where the author demonstrated that in an ancient Hindian book, it was shown that women are good and possess pure bodies, yet Christianity alters this perception. The author evidently has a greater fondness for orient religions compared to our Western religions. It is also rather peculiar that a German philosopher "hates" Germans. But this aspect truly inspired me. So, hating one's own nation is not necessarily a bad thing. I understand his thoughts regarding his own nation. Since you understand the people with whom you live, you can better observe them. Consequently, you can easily discover aspects about them that you may despise. I believe there is a rationale for hating one's nation. You simply know them too well.

Well, I liked this book because I am not overly religious, and now I have a plethora of thoughts in my mind to contemplate about life.

In a society where "Glory to God" has been raised as a prototype of communication among people, a book titled "The Antichrist, Anathema against Christianity" seems contrary to good ethics with just these 6 words, words placed so provocatively that people who dare to pass their eyes even from the spine of it will immediately look guiltily from the other side.

And since until today I had not read the entire work of Nietzsche but only excerpts of it, and knowing its impact on the work of Kazantzakis whom I have admired chronically, I admit that I remained with my mouth open.

Nietzsche began to study theology (!) at the University of Bonn but dropped out in the middle (what a prototype) because none of his teachers gave answers to his basic questions. He himself began to write, initially seeing life with romanticism, continued by choosing the feeling, but in "The Antichrist" he really shows to have lost his way. Written in his most mature writing period, the great psychologist-philosopher shows to know who is the enemy of the spiritual rebirth of man, the enemy of progress, the enemy of knowledge, the enemy of beauty, and in an incredibly thunderous text he does not hesitate to give answers to all those things that none of us dares even to think how he can think. He is not submissive to anyone. He feels, and therefore he is free to say all those things that he has in his mind. He does not hide behind deep-rooted fallacies, he is not afraid of the meaning of words, on the contrary, fully understanding their meaning he uses them as spheres which he shoots against all those who believe in things that they do not see, in variegated, dull, spiritual (;) movements, which do not hesitate to move the finger as they see fit and always based on the interest of those to whom this finger belongs.

A book of standing, a difficult read, it puts things in a definitely unclear order for some, but definitely an order.

If Jesus - peace be upon him - truly knew his intention
If he knew him without the interference of the Christian clergy, he would never have mentioned him badly at all
His intention moves his hatred for the Christian clergy. He thinks everything related to Christianity, whether good or bad
Hating people for their religion or prophet or even for God often falls most of their burdens on the clergy and their misguided interpreters...

Jesus, the revered figure, had his own intentions. If only those intentions were known truly and without the influence of the Christian clergy. It is sad to think that perhaps his true thoughts about Christianity were misrepresented. The hatred that some may feel towards the clergy can cloud their perception of the entire religion. But we should remember that not all clergy are the same, and there are many who strive to understand and interpret the teachings of Jesus in a positive and meaningful way. We should look beyond the actions of a few and try to see the true essence of the religion and the message that Jesus was trying to convey.