JESUS AND NIETZSCHE: IS MY PERFECTION MY SALVATION?

JESUS AND NIETZSCHE:

IS MY PERFECTION MY SALVATION?

Dr. Nebojsa Nash Jocic

In this paper, I aim to argue that both Jesus and Nietzsche advocated for individual perfection. While Friedrich Nietzsche is commonly associated with embracing perfectionism, particularly with the concept of the Ubermensh (Over Man), I contend that Jesus also sought perfectionism and did not merely offer an egalitarian approach. Contrary to the notion that Jesus died on the cross solely to save all of us, I propose that his sacrifice was meant to demonstrate how to live a perfected[1] life. However, throughout history, the Church has presented a different interpretation, creating a moral framework that deviates from Jesus's original message.

To bolster my argument, I will draw upon relevant verses from the Gospels in The New Testament[2] and quote Nietzsche's thoughts from his corpus. My focus will be on Nietzsche's relation to Jesus rather than his views on the Christian dogma that emerged after Jesus's death. The nature of parables, which form the basis of Jesus's teachings in NT, allows for diverse interpretations. I will endeavour to connect the dots and shed light on the possible hidden messages in Jesus's teachings and interpret Nietzsche's aphorisms and metaphors in a similar manner.

In this exploration of Jesus and Nietzsche's philosophies, I aim to reveal the underlying similarities in their perspectives on individual perfection. By delving into their writings and teachings, I hope to offer a nuanced understanding of their messages and uncover the common threads that unite their philosophies.

Throughout my analysis, I will interpret concepts such as God, the Kingdom of God, Heavenly Father, and Heaven primarily as metaphors for unconditional love. It is my belief that Jesus sought to shift the focus of moral evaluation from a metaphysical heavenly creator to the human heart, emphasizing that morality originates from within people. Rather than an external imposition from above, morality is an inherent need of individuals. As Jesus expressed in NT, Matthew 15: 11[3], it is not what enters a person that matters, but what emanates from within. Thus, I will argue that unconditional love, which represents the essence of perfection and divinity, is inherently humanly impossible to fully attain. Nevertheless, it serves as an ideal of perfection, akin to God himself.

However, I will assert that this ideal of perfection, symbolized by unconditional love, only appeals to the bravest and strongest individuals who can wholly dedicate themselves to it. For the majority, the Church offers an easier alternative, providing guidelines and doctrines to follow. A prime example of a devoted follower embodying unconditional love would be Father Zossima from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov[4], whose consistent kindness and compassion earned him peace and trust.

Contrary to the belief that Jesus's teaching promised everyone salvation equally, I will argue that his way does not reject anyone's right to strive for perfection according to their own strengths and abilities. Rather than promoting an egalitarian approach, Jesus's teachings recognize that the pursuit of perfection demands a profound commitment and dedication, distinguishing between those who can fully embrace it and those who may find solace in adhering to the Church's creed.

By examining these profound aspects of Jesus and Nietzsche's philosophies, I hope to shed light on the complexities and shared elements in their respective visions of individual perfection, ultimately leading to a deeper appreciation of their enduring influence on human thought and values. In my analysis, I will endeavour to illustrate that both Jesus and Nietzsche shared a perspective on perfectionism, which revolved around optimizing human spiritual capabilities. By spiritual capabilities, I refer to the inner drives that govern our motivation, emotions, thoughts, and actions in our relationships with ourselves and others. Both Jesus's way of life and Nietzsche's teachings emphasized a pursuit of perfection that involved pushing the boundaries and transcending traditional values, dogmas, fears, and weaknesses that hindered the complete development of our spiritual essence.

I will explore whether Jesus advocated for a higher community or a higher individual. I will examine whether it is accurate to claim that Jesus valued community over the individual, while Nietzsche held the opposite view. I define Agape as unconditional love, distinct from fraternal affection (Fila) or romantic love (Eros), which is often rooted in physical desire. While Eros centres on receiving affection and can lean towards self-interest, Fila embodies reciprocal love among friends. In contrast, Agape exemplifies selfless love, marked by acts of sacrifice and a deep regard for others irrespective of circumstances, without the anticipation of reciprocation. Both Jesus and Nietzsche's concepts of self-overcoming demanded immense effort and perseverance to reach a state of unconditional love (Agape) in Jesus's case and embrace the constant process of becoming one's true self in Nietzsche's philosophy. Achieving such freedom from traditional and cultural constraints was paramount in attaining unconditional love or becoming in their respective approaches.

Furthermore, I will argue that both Jesus and Nietzsche attributed meaning to suffering, viewing it as a challenge rather than an obstacle. They both accepted suffering as an inherent part of their chosen paths, understanding that it played a crucial role in achieving their respective goals: Agape for Jesus and self-overcoming for Nietzsche.

In conclusion, I will delineate the primary differences between their teachings and delve into the reasons behind them. I intend to demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, Jesus and Nietzsche's teachings had more similarities than typically assumed. By emphasizing these shared elements, I aim to highlight the deeper connections between their philosophies, underscoring the notion that both great thinkers offered profound insights into the human pursuit of perfection.

Jesus’ unconditional love

The moral message of Jesus, which includes loving one's enemies and forgiving those who wrong us, is undeniably challenging and not easily achieved even among the majority of Christians or people of other faiths. The teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels of the NT, set a high standard for ethical conduct and spiritual growth. As Jesus advocates: ‘But I say to you that listen, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you’ (NT, Luke, 6: 27). Even fewer people are ready to give away their material wealth and enter the Kingdom of God: ‘Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God’ (NT, Luke, 18: 25), or to respond with compassion to violence and aggression. So, implementing Jesus’ moral demand was impossible for the great majority in the past and in our time. What has become of the Church, as one of the most influential institutions in almost every society based on power and wealth, is far from his moral dream. As Leo Tolstoy asserts:

The churches as churches are not, as many people suppose, institutions that have Christian principles for their basis, even though they may have strayed a little away from the straight path. The churches as churches, as bodies that assert their own infallibility, are institutions opposed to Christianity. There is not only nothing in common between the churches as such and Christianity, except the name, but they represent two principles fundamentally opposed and antagonistic to one another. One represents pride, violence, self-assertion, stagnation, and death; the other, meekness, penitence, humility, progress, and life. (KG, p. 29)[5]

But, at the same time, there are some thinkers who suggest that his teaching intrinsically did not aim at the masses and institutions, but rather at rare individuals who have understood the great task and burden of unconditional love. Hence Dostoyevsky’s Great Inquisitor, who, as the representative of the Wholly (Catholic) Church and the modern world, stood up to Jesus and criticised him for his inability to convince and convert the most of humanity to his teaching. As Fyodor Dostoyevsky puts it:

And if for the sake of the bread of Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the sake of the great and strong? No, we care for the weak too. (KB, p.521)

According to the Great Inquisitor the rescue of the world and the unaccountable masses of humanity through the centuries, depended on the Wholly Church in which they all found salvation. Not through Jesus but through the Church. By positioning itself as the intermediary between humanity and God, the Church corrupted people's consciousness, leading them to believe that animosity should be directed toward the enemy and that evil should be confronted with aggression, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Tolstoy vehemently cautioned against these transgressions of the Church, expressing:

Not only have the churches never bound men together in unity; they have always been one of the principal causes of division between men, of their hatred of one another, of wars, battles, inquisitions, massacres of St. Bartholomew, and so on. And the churches have never served as mediators between men and God. Such mediation is not wanted, and was directly forbidden by Christ, who has revealed his teaching directly and immediately to each man. (KG, p. 30)

Jesus wants us to love unconditionally. However, in the following paragraph, he signals that unconditional love is not an easy task to be achieved:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. (NT, Luke, 6: 32)

Unconditional love, also known as Agape, refers to the love of God for all humanity, irrespective of individual characteristics. However, this concept raises several thought-provoking questions. Can humans genuinely love with agapeic love? If so, can they love everyone, regardless of their character traits and differences? Or is it limited to loving the idea of a person rather than the person themselves? If humans are created in the image of God, it would suggest that they can love themselves through their creation. But what does Jesus mean by encouraging us to embrace this unique self-love?

If only God can love unconditionally, then the one who can love in such a manner must be God, but since there can only be one God, can anyone else truly love unconditionally? Does this imply that unconditional love is the sole pathway to entering God’s realm? If God loves us with agapeic love, why would he do so? Are we not made in his image and thus already perfect? Why would we need additional benefits from his love? If we are imperfect as creations of God, does it imply that God, too, is imperfect?

Furthermore, why does God extend his unconditional love to both the followers of Jesus' teachings, who are merciful and compassionate, as well as to thieves, criminals, and murderers? Does God's love for wrongdoers justify their actions? If that were the case, could they argue that since God loves them regardless, they are free to do whatever they want, including stealing and killing?

Traditional interpretations of unconditional love leave us with numerous unanswered questions. Perhaps a more sustainable answer can be found by exploring Agape through an aesthetic lens. This perspective may provide a deeper understanding of the complexities and nuances of unconditional love, shedding light on its nature and significance. According to Schopenhauer's philosophy, the feeling of beauty arises from comprehending the artist's idea of an object expressed through a particular medium of art. Ideas, being the first form of objectification of the will and closer to the essence of the will than material objects, allow us to experience a state of freedom and willingness when grasped through artistic creations. In these rare moments, we become free from the compulsions of the will, ‘the Wheel of Axion’ stops running and a sense of subject-less existence emerges. Thus, Schopenhauer's view prompts us to seek another explanation for understanding Agape.

Jesus' quest to introduce humanity to unconditional love aimed to offer salvation in life full of suffering through love of the idea of a person. From a human perspective, Agape can only be love for the idea of a person. Like Schopenhauer's aesthetic liberation from suffering, Agape also provides a form of salvation, possibly more enduring. Just as art continues to attract us as we engage with the idea it represents, Agape draws us in through the comprehension of the ideal person or God as we walk the path of unconditional love.

Loving unconditionally becomes possible only when directed towards an idea rather than a real individual. This requires an element of illusion, as is common in every aesthetic experience. In the context of Agape, this illusion is akin to faith, a deep, meditative state akin to a dream, that allows us to identify with the absolute, with perfection. In this state, we create our vision of the ideal, an aesthetic experience that cannot be epistemically justified but exists purely on an aesthetic level.

In Agape, we artistically create the perfect idea of a person or God, which becomes the sole reason for loving unconditionally. This artistic creation of the idea of a person or God taps into the divine element that Jesus believed exists in all individuals but in varying degrees. By recognizing our origin in the original idea of a person, Agape allows us to experience total surrender and attraction to the beautiful perfection, despite the often-corrupted individual characters we encounter.

In conclusion, the experience of Agape is comparable to the experience of beauty. It involves recognizing the idea of a person or God as pure perfection, transcending the imperfections often found in actual individuals. Agape leads us to surrender to this beautiful perfection, drawing us closer to the essence of the concept Jesus sought to introduce to humanity.

Perfection is inherently beautiful and never ugly, making the necessary aesthetic element present in our creation of Agape, for which some individuals are more capable than others. Jesus' statement, ‘For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be open’ (NT, Luke 11:10), implies that those who possess certain qualities will experience unconditional love, but it does not apply to everyone. The word ‘who’ in this context refers to the curious (those who ask), the brave and persistent (those who search), and those ready to give up everything for the Kingdom of God within themselves (those who knock).

This stance unquestionably contradicts Schopenhauer's moral perspective, wherein he portrays Jesus as an embodiment of the will-to-live. As Schopenhauer articulates: ‘We ought to consistently interpret Jesus Christ in the universal sense, as the emblem or embodiment of the renunciation of the will-to-live…" (WWR I, p. 405)[6]. Constrained by his own philosophical framework that champions pessimism and strives to establish that the moral significance of existence lies in renouncing life (PP II, p. 183)[7], Schopenhauer failed to grasp the original intent of Jesus and the essence of his message, Jesus's teachings, rooted in the encouragement of inquiry, persistence, and perseverance, serve as a testament to embracing life rather than rejecting it.

In reality, Jesus' call for inquiry underscores the necessity of active volition, opposing the embrace of pessimism. It emphasizes the continual aspiration for self-improvement. This perspective stands in contrast to Schopenhauer's interpretation, highlighting the importance of not yielding to pessimism and instead consistently striving to better oneself.

This is why Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of God is within us, not elsewhere (NT, Luke 17: 20, 21). To enter this Kingdom, one must make great sacrifices and efforts, as Jesus stated (NT, Luke14: 25-33). These sacrifices involve understanding oneself, breaking free from ossified external values, boundaries, and norms, and creating a new artistically pleasing harmony of passions and emotions. Through this self-transformation, individuals become capable of recognizing the beautiful perfection in the idea of a person or God.

In conclusion, the experience of Agape entails comprehending and embracing our inherent connection to the Kingdom of God within ourselves. It demands a transformative journey of self-discovery and liberation from societal constraints to foster an aesthetically harmonious and loving outlook towards the idea of a person or God. Genuine experience of Agape's profound beauty is reserved for those with the essential qualities of curiosity, courage, persistence, and a willingness to make sacrifices. Only through these attributes can one truly immerse themselves in the profound beauty of Agape.

We may further inquire whether Agape is an eternal condition achievable by humans or merely a temporary escape from suffering, similar to Schopenhauer's momentary liberation through art. It seems that eternal Agape might be exclusive to God, and humans can only experience it temporarily. Jesus' death serves as evidence that he entered into eternal Agape, which leads to another question: if Jesus loves eternally like God, is he God incarnate? Did God manifest in the human form of Jesus and come to Earth as the 'way' to teach us? If so, Agape should be understood as guidance on how to live and shape our characters, rather than being a final stage attainable by humans. Only the bravest may experience Agape momentarily, similar to Schopenhauer's brief liberation from the will achieved through art.

As previously explained, human love is influenced and conditioned by various factors that will always be present. Attempting to follow the path of unconditional love, as described in the gospels, is an incredibly challenging and harsh endeavour. It demands relinquishing many cherished possessions, customs, and relationships one has believed in (NT, Luke 12: 49-53) and devoting oneself entirely to the pursuit of unconditionality. While moments of reaching such a state may occur through prayer or meditation, it is not possible to sustain this state permanently.

In conclusion, Agape presents a profound challenge to human nature, requiring immense courage and dedication. While Jesus exemplified eternal Agape, humans may only experience fleeting moments of this divine love. It serves as a guiding principle for how to live and shape our characters, but achieving eternal Agape may remain beyond human reach.

Nietzsche’s perspectivism

Nietzsche's perspectivism challenges the notion of absolute knowledge and belief in metaphysical truth or authority dictating our values. According to this view, nothing exists beyond our phenomenal world, the world we experience within time, space, and causal relations. The concept of the ‘thing in itself’ is rejected, as everything is perceived through individual perspectives. However, Nietzsche emphasizes that not all perspectives hold equal validity. Our perspectives are shaped by our unique characters and experiences, making access to absolute truth impossible. Consequently, there can be no epistemically warranted justification for life.

For Nietzsche, life can only be justified as an aesthetic phenomenon, characterized by our perspectival views rooted in the aesthetic experience of the world. Since we are also aesthetic beings, our understanding of the world remains subjective and inherently perspectival. This contrasts sharply with the Church's offering of an egalitarian concept based on collectively justified acceptance and understanding through absolute truth in God. Perspectival views, as Nietzsche argues, vary in their quality, with some being superior to others. The better perspectival views are comprehensive, free from resentment and dishonesty, open to revision, and bear unity and style, originating from nobler sources. Nietzsche critiques the notion of fixed doctrines and emphasizes the contingent nature of our perspectival views, encouraging us to avoid being ensnared in yet another absolute system of values. Instead of adhering to preordained values, he invites us to embrace a new way of life by letting go of old values, engaging in reimagining and creating new ones.

His anti-egalitarian stance is evident in his critic of the herd mentality, which may suit most people, but to inspire specific individuals to transcend and overcome the herd's universalization of values and its hostility towards anything exceptional ‘Ideas of the herd should remain in the herd’ (WP, 287)[8]. Nietzsche believes that such a herd mentality stifles the potential of extraordinary individuals and hinders cultural breakthroughs that can only emerge from exceptional minds.

One might argue that perspectival views can be true to individuals, but this leads to a myriad of individual truths, undermining the very concept of truth itself. Shouldn't truth be singular? However, attempting to apply Newtonian logic to the complexities of the human microcosm reveals the fallacy in seeking an absolute truth for all. Our physiological, psychological, and emotional differences, despite being members of the same species, render the imposition of an absolute truth impractical and nonsensical. Thus, expecting an epistemically warranted human condition in the form of life justification becomes unacceptable in such circumstances.

We can employ Nietzsche's concept of eternal recurrence as a poignant reminder of perspectival truths. In his celebrated aphorism 341 from The Gay Science, Nietzsche poses a compelling question:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy… will have to return to you…” Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: “You are a god and never I heard anything more divine.” (GS, 341)[9]

Nietzsche's aphorism poses an existential question of profound significance, underscoring the value of perspectival truths. It serves as a sharp blade, cutting through the veneer of mediocre egalitarianism that assumes we are all alike and subservient to the absolute truth of a higher being. The question challenges us: Would we embrace the idea of living our lives countless times over?

For those who have experienced life as an unending struggle, burdened by inescapable suffering, the thought of repeating the same existence would be met with refusal and despair. They might long for an escape, hoping for a new and improved life beyond this one.

Conversely, those who derive satisfaction from overcoming adversities and view life as a continuous process of growth and becoming would welcome the notion of living their lives again. To them, the prospect of reliving their journey would be overwhelmingly positive news.

The response to this question becomes a perspectival reflection, varying among different individuals based on their unique outlooks and experiences regarding the affirmation of life.

Jesus view on perfectionism

In the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous demands that call for nothing less than a perfect attitude towards others: ‘Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (NT, Matthew 5:48). He emphasizes the importance of unconditional love for all, which necessitates total commitment, even to the point of relinquishing material possessions: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (NT, Matthew 19:21). It's crucial to interpret the terms ‘Heavenly Father’ and ‘heaven’ used in the parables as metaphors for this profound concept of unconditional love.

Nietzsche expressed suspicion that some of Jesus' original teachings might have been altered by his disciples, especially Paul, to create a more palatable and agreeable version of Christianity that would be embraced by the majority. Their aim was to fashion a redemptive nature of Christianity, contrasting with Jesus' uncompromising approach to overcoming suffering through unconditional love.

The subsequent paragraph presents a compelling example of Dostoyevsky's perspective on the church's promise:

No matter. He is holy. He carries in his heart the secret of renewal for all: that power which will, at least establish truth on the earth, and all men will be holy and love one another, and there will be no more rich nor poor, no exalted nor humbled, but all will be as the children of God, and the true Kingdom of Christ will come. That was the dream in Alyosha’s heart. (KB, p.54)

However, abandoning all material possessions is undeniably challenging, and Jesus himself affirms this difficulty: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God' (NT, Matthew 19:24). His pursuit of perfection stands in stark contrast to the conventional understanding of relationships, which many people find difficult to comprehend:

Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three, they will be divided. Father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (NT, Luke, 12: 51)

To love unconditionally, one must liberate themselves from the kind of love that restricts them to a select few, often limited to family members, and instead, embrace all individuals as if they were family. Jesus emphasizes this inclusive perspective: ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you. But he said to them, the mother and the brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it’ (NT, Luke, 8:20-21).

Jesus adopts a discerning approach, issuing a stark warning to those who wish to follow him: ‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple’ (NT, Luke, 14:26-27). He demands absolute dedication and commitment from his disciples, meaning that no traditional values, including family ties, should hinder one's complete surrender to unconditional love. In the path to Agape, no conventional boundaries and values should remain.

Another example of Jesus' explanation of unconditional love is illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan (NT, Luke, 10:25-37). Despite Jews and Samaritans being traditional enemies, the Samaritan demonstrates compassion for an unconscious, robbed, and beaten man lying on the road. In contrast, a Jewish priest and a Levite pass by without offering help. The Good Samaritan, driven by his heart, stops to aid the unfortunate stranger, even though he knows nothing about the man – whether he is diseased, dead, or even of the same tribe.

The Samaritan dismisses any fear for his safety, disregarding the traditional law of purity that forbids touching a dead body. He did not know if the troubled man was a Jew or not. He helps without hesitation, not knowing if the injured man will be able to repay him for his kindness or if they share any close connection. This boundless and anti-pragmatic approach highlights that unconditional love transcends religious, national, and other conventional boundaries, as well as the expectation of reciprocated love or appreciation for the good deed.

Of particular significance in this parable is the fact that Samaritans and Jews are longstanding enemies. By portraying a Samaritan aiding a Jew, Jesus emphasizes his insistence on loving even those considered as enemies.

From his teachings, we can deduce that Jesus did not draw a sharp distinction between this worldly existence and a separate "heavenly" realm as God's domain, awaiting believers in the afterlife. Instead, he embraced the idea that there is no inherent guilt and punishment. In Jesus' view, there is only one world, one life, and thus, the kingdom of God must be found here and nowhere else. Dostoyevsky's spiritual hero, Alyosha, echoes this sentiment, expressing that: ‘Life is a paradise, and we are all in paradise, but we won’t see it; if we would, we should have heaven on earth the next day’ (KB, p. 589). Jesus presents this opportunity to everyone. Those who perceive life as a paradise and find the kingdom of God within themselves experience it. However, as history shows, the majority placed their faith in the reward of an afterlife, lacking the ability to see this paradise in their midst.

Jesus' teachings underscore the significance of our actions in this present life. It is not solely about what one believes, but rather, it is about what one does. Therefore, actions hold paramount importance in shaping both one's life and their experience of the kingdom of God. The inner state of individuals, their psychological disposition, is affirmed and confirmed through their actions. Merely holding static wishes and ideas, while contradicting them with one's actions, does not fulfil the true mission. In essence, Jesus encourages us to align our beliefs with our actions, embracing the potential paradise of life here and now, rather than solely relying on the promise of an afterlife.

Nietzsche’s view of perfectionism

Similar to Jesus, Nietzsche rejects traditional values present in religious doctrines, national biases, and societal hierarchies. He advocates for a revaluation of all values, placing the individual at the centre of his philosophy. However, Nietzsche's interest lies not in any ordinary individual, but in those who are prepared to embark on an arduous journey without a clear destination. This perpetual overcoming of resistance he calls the will to power, which he views as the essence of all living beings. He proclaims, ‘This world is the will to power - and nothing besides! And you yourself are also this will to power - and nothing besides’ (WP, 1067).

As living creatures do not simply will to live but rather strive for power, Nietzsche sees a hierarchy among humans based on their differing levels of the will to power. Those with the strongest conflicting drives (passions and instincts) who can channel them into productive outcomes through artistic creativity are regarded as higher individuals, noble spirits. Their purpose is to maximize their own potentials and, through their masterpieces in science, art, and philosophy, establish guideposts for future generations.

Nietzsche's higher man does not pursue happiness (TI, Maxims and Arrows, 12)[10], unlike a Christian or a Schopenhauerian pessimist who avoids suffering in search of peace and happiness. Instead, strong characters do not fear or attempt to eliminate suffering. They embrace it as an opportunity for the affirmation of life, recognizing that only through overcoming suffering have all the enhancements of humanity been achieved. Nietzsche eloquently states, ‘The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far’ (BGE, 225)[11]. And also:

If you experience suffering and displeasure as evil, hateful, worthy of annihilation, and as a defect of existence, then it is clear that besides your religion of pity you also harbour another religion in your heart that is perhaps the mother of the religion of pity: the religion of comfortableness. How little you know of human happiness, you comfortable and benevolent people, for happiness and unhappiness are sisters and even twins they either grow together or, as in your case, remain smalltogether (GS, 338)

Nietzsche' emphasis on suffering is crucial for understanding his concept of perfectionism. The higher man does not shy away from suffering; in fact, they welcome and even love it. The reason behind this is the indispensable role suffering plays in affirming life. Without suffering, life lacks the challenges to be overcome, rendering it devoid of affirmation. For Nietzsche, the will to power revolves around surmounting resistance. The absence of resistance or suffering would signify the end of the will to power, which is the essence of all existence. As long as suffering holds meaning, higher individuals willingly embrace it.

Among these higher men, those with the most prominent will to power willingly seek greater suffering as a way to test and strengthen their resolve. Simultaneously, these strongest characters are also the most spiritual beings, encompassing a profound connection with the higher aspects of life:

The most spiritual men, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in hardness against themselves and others, in experiments. Their joy is self-conquest: asceticism becomes in them nature, need, and instinct. Difficult tasks are a privilege to them; to play with burdens that crush others, a recreation. (A, 57)[12]

The essence of Nietzsche's perspective is that only exceptional individuals are willing to endure the hardships of overcoming suffering to reach their full potential and become role models for humanity. Therefore, he posits that the state's most critical role should be the cultivation of such individuals: ‘...society must not exist for society's sake but only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to the higher state of being’ (BGE, 258).

According to Nietzsche, the great man must devote himself entirely to the perpetual pursuit of greatness by constantly surpassing his own limitations. His greatness lies in his willingness to expend himself fully, suspending the instinct for self-preservation: The great man cannot spare himself to the point that: ‘His greatness lies in the fact that he expends himself…The Instinct for self-preservation is as it were suspended’ (TI, Expeditions of an Untimely Men, 44). He can never be content with past achievements, as complacency might lead him to embrace the status quo. Instead, he must continually seek new challenges and creative endeavours. Embracing a solitary life, the great man must be prepared to make significant sacrifices, rejecting traditional values, relationships, and recognition.

Nietzsche cites Goethe as a prime example of the higher man:

He did not sever himself from life, he placed himself within it; nothing could discourage him and he took as much as possible upon himself, above himself, within himself. What he aspired to was totality; he strove against the separation of reason, sensuality, feeling, will… he disciplined himself to a whole, he created himself. (TI, Expeditions of an Untimely Men, 49)

From this paragraph, it becomes evident that Nietzsche believes only those individuals with a comprehensive and well-rounded character can be considered higher men. According to Nietzsche, the exceptional act of self-creativity, referred to as giving the style to one's character, is a feat achieved solely by the strongest and bravest individuals. In Nietzsche's perspective, this act embodies the essence of the will to power.

Contrary to historical misinterpretations of his will to power (e.g., by Nazis), Nietzsche clarifies that the will to power is not about overpowering others. Instead, it involves a formidable effort to control and transform conflicting inner drives within oneself, channelling them towards significant accomplishments. Nietzsche describes the nobleman as the ‘one who has power over himself’ (BGE, 260). In essence, Nietzsche perceives the enhancement of humanity as contingent upon individuals who embrace this self-mastery and engage in the profound act of self-creation:

One thing is needful. – “To give style” to one’s character – a great and rare art! It is practiced by those who survey all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and fit them into an artistic plan until every one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. (GS, 290)

Nietzsche on Jesus

While both Nietzsche and Jesus share an anti-pragmatic approach and they do not insist on some ‘must do’ normative ethics, but rather offer guidance on how to live, there appear to be significant differences between their teachings, according to conventional thinking. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that there are more similarities than differences in their philosophies. Nietzsche himself shows great respect for Jesus in his writings, often praising Jesus' actions and way of living, which stands in contrast to the Christian interpretations that followed. For example, Nietzsche says: ‘In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The Evangel died on the cross. What was called ‘Evangel’ from this moment onwards was already the opposite of what he had lived.’ (A, 39) And also: ‘What did Christ deny? Everything that is today called Christian.’ (WP, 158) Nietzsche reveres Jesus as the embodiment of certain character traits that he values in his concept of the higher man:

- A strong commitment to the idea of unconditional love

- Readiness to confront and overcome suffering/resistance instead of avoiding it

- A refusal to succumb to resentment

- Living as teaching

- Rejecting traditional values and rigid social and religious customs

- Emphasizing the Kingdom of God within the hearts of people, shifting the focus from metaphysical heaven (as the Archimedean point) to the present life (as represented by Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God).

These shared attributes, along with Nietzsche's admiration for Jesus' life and death, highlight the fundamental similarities in their teachings. Nietzsche's respect for Jesus emerges from their alignment on essential principles that depict the ideal higher man.

The following paragraph will best illustrate Nietzsche’s view of Jesus:

One could, with some freedom of expression, call Jesus a “free spirit” – he cares for nothing that is fixed: the word killeth, everything fixed killeth. The concept, the experience ‘life’ in the only form he knows it is opposed to any kind of word, formula, law, faith, dogma. He speaks only of the inmost thing: ‘life’ or ‘truth’ or ‘light’ is his expression for the inmost thing… Such a symbolist par excellence stands outside of all religion, all conception of divine worship, all history, all natural sciences, all experience of the world, all acquirements, all politics, all psychology, all books, all art – his ‘knowledge’ is precisely the pure folly of the fact that anything of this kind exists. (A, 32)

Community for Jesus and Nietzsche

The concept of the neighbour, as understood by Jesus, can be paralleled with Nietzsche's idea of the friend as the overman. Both notions can be seen as ideals of humanity. Jesus' understanding of the neighbour encompasses all of humanity, reflecting an aspirational concept that can only exist as an idea – exemplified through Agape. Similarly, Nietzsche's overman represents the same non-existent perfection, which should serve as a guiding principle for our endeavours.

In the continuous process of self-overcoming, one strives to emulate the idea of perfection. For Jesus, this translates into embodying kindness and compassion, while for Nietzsche, it involves aesthetically refining oneself. Both Jesus and Nietzsche share a common thread of aspiring towards higher ideals, urging individuals to transcend their current state and work towards a more perfected version of themselves. As Nietzsche puts it:

I teach you not the neighbour, but the friend . . . one must learn to be a sponge if one wants to be loved by hearts that overflow. I teach you the friend in whom the world stands completed… in your friend you shall love the overman as your cause” (Z I, “On Love of the Neighbour”)[13].

Both Jesus and Nietzsche reject the prevailing social and religious norms as insufficient solutions to the human condition. Instead, they both find satisfaction in the transient and individual development of oneself. For Jesus, this involves overcoming the temptations of social, religious, and material life, all of which obstruct the path to salvation found in unconditional love. Nietzsche's approach entails the contingent self-overcoming through the aesthetic creation of inner strengths and weaknesses, forming a pleasing artistic plan towards becoming the overman and escaping the meaninglessness of suffering.

Jesus died as he lived, and his path is a choice reserved for only the exceedingly strong individuals, rather than the entire community. Similarly, Nietzsche's teaching emphasizes that higher men are rare, possessing the ability to give style to their characters by assessing their strengths and weaknesses and then fit them into an artistic plan until every one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye.

However, both teachings can serve as guidance for a community, contributing to the development of saints or geniuses, as Nietzsche envisioned. The community becomes the supporting structure upon which higher individuals can ascend and maximize their potentials, aligning with the pursuit of their respective ideals.

Agape and teaching of over man

Is Agape, or unconditional love, truly attainable? If Agape represents the love with which God embraces all of humanity, then perhaps only God can truly love unconditionally. While humans may strive to approach it, complete Agape may forever remain beyond our reach. Similarly, Nietzsche's Ubermensch, or overman, poses a similar challenge. The relentless pursuit of becoming one's true self and overcoming inner conflicts demands immense effort, comparable to extreme suffering – akin to what Jesus refers to as the cross.

Both Jesus' Agape and Nietzsche's Ubermensch may seem unattainable, yet they shine like guiding stars, drawing unique individuals towards their light. Although we may never fully reach these ideals, they inspire us to embark on extraordinary journeys of self-discovery and transformation. In our pursuit of Agape and the Ubermensch, we can come closer to understanding ourselves and the world around us, propelling us towards a more profound and meaningful existence.

In the best case, both Agape and Ubermensch are instead guidance on how to live one’s life. One can justly argue that both states are a utopian vision comparing to the reality of human life. Unconditional love for others, in the world in which family and close relatives, or the same members of religion or culture have a huge advantage before the others (trust, belonging, communitarian bondage) and are loved much more than others, is in the best scenario the noble task rather than reality. Nietzsche’s over man belongs to the same noble end but is far from the real world in which grid, selfishness in a pejorative sense (not in Nietzsche’s sense), lack of self-awareness and absence of the need for self-overcoming dominate. A world in which power has totally opposite meaning than Nietzsche’s will to power is far from the realm of the over man. Their utopianism is combated daily in the real world in which it is impossible to sell everything one has and give it to the poor, or ‘only to look away’ as the form of negation of the world that is not up to the noble task.

In the best scenario, both Agape and Ubermensch serve as guiding principles for how to lead one's life. However, it is fair to argue that both states represent utopian visions compared to the realities of human existence. Unconditional love for others, in a world where family, close relatives, or members of the same religion or culture hold significant advantages (such as trust, belonging, and communal bonds), often prevails over love for others outside these circles. While noble in theory, unconditional love can be challenging to achieve in practice. Similarly, Nietzsche's overman belongs to an elevated ideal that may seem distant from the real world, where selfishness (not in Nietzsche's sense), lack of self-awareness, and resistance to self-overcoming often dominate. In a world where power often takes on an entirely different meaning than Nietzsche's concept of the will to power, the realm of the overman can feel unattainable.

The utopian nature of both concepts clashes with the realities of daily life, where it may be impossible to follow Jesus' injunction to sell everything one has and give it to the poor or to simply look away as a form of negation of a world that falls short of the noble task.

Yet perhaps it is precisely the unattainability of Jesus' unconditional love and Nietzsche's overman that makes them so compelling in the face of our existential crisis. Despite the challenges of living up to these ideals, they remain our utmost intimate necessity. They serve as beacons to aspire towards, even as the harsh realities of life relentlessly remind us of their difficulty to achieve. In this paradox, we find a profound understanding of our human condition, forever grappling with the pursuit of unconditional love and the realization of our highest potential as individuals.

Is Jesus’ teaching egalitarian?

Can we perceive Jesus' unconditional love as perspectival? If the Kingdom of God lies within each individual, then the experience of it cannot be universally uniform. Rather, it is subjective and contingent on one's personal perspective. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus underscores that the purity of relationships between people is determined by their inner dispositions, which may contradict moral rules, traditions, or tribal affiliations. As inner dispositions are inherently subjective, Jesus' teachings echo the notion of perspectival views akin to Nietzsche's perspective.

Is Agape rooted in the mind or heart of a person, or perhaps in neither? Given that both the mind and heart can be deceptive, and Agape is perceived as a perfect and unbiased form of love, it seems unattainable for humans through their conventional means. Could unconditional love be exclusive only to God, and thus serve merely as guidance for humanity to manifest it in their actions as non-violence, kindness, and compassion?

Is the ascetic who dedicates himself entirely to unconditional love another example of Nietzsche's will to power, expressed through an extreme determination towards the perceived ideal? To overcome all physical, material, and social temptations, one must possess an unparalleled will to power, as Nietzsche eloquently described: ‘I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn into his advantage (WP, 382). The ascetic's pursuit of unconditional love requires a resolute will to endure and transform adversities, aligning with Nietzsche's concept of the will to power.

Jesus' approach of not differentiating between people and addressing everyone suggests a form of egalitarianism rooted in the equality of opportunity he offered to all. However, it is essential to distinguish this equality of opportunity from the concept of equality of outcome. Jesus never claimed that the outcome of following his teachings would be the same for everyone. His perfectionism acknowledges that while everyone is free to embrace the teaching of unconditional love, only a select few will persevere on this path and truly benefit from it. In this understanding, Jesus encourages individuals to choose their own paths and acknowledges that the outcome will vary based on their commitment and choices.

Jesus’ anti-resentment

Jesus exhibited an exceptional sensitivity and a profound inclination towards suffering. Despite facing great resistance, he did not confront it with aggression or defence. Instead, he responded with unconditional love while simultaneously shielding himself from the world, absorbing the pain of rejection and disbelief deep within. He harboured no hatred towards his accusers and did not seek to defend himself or his mission as a prophet of love. Remarkably, as Nietzsche saw it, he even loved those who accused and prosecuted him (A, 35).

His unwavering belief in his righteousness was evident in his death, as he remained steadfast and undeterred. Any other behaviour during his final hours would have been a testament to doubt in his own path. Nietzsche contends that Jesus' actions were a reflection of his unique psychological makeup – a distinctive interplay of inner drives, willpower, emotions, passions, beliefs, and fears culminating in his profound teaching of unconditional love. As Nietzsche aptly expresses:

It is possible that, disguised by the holy fable of Jesus’ life, there is hidden one of the most agonizing martyrdoms of one who knows the nature of love: the martyrdom of the most innocent and most desirous heart that never had been content with any human love, that demanded love, wanted to be loved and nothing else, with mad determination and terrible outbursts against those who withheld love from him . . . and who, finally, having come to know everything about human love, had to invent a God who was nothing but love, nothing but the capacity for love, one who takes pity on human love because it is so feeble and so unknowing! He who does feel like this—seeks death. (BGE, 269)

Jesus' death served a twofold purpose: to prove to himself that unconditional love is attainable and to demonstrate to others the possibility of living in this manner. His crucifixion was not for the salvation of others in the conventional sense but rather a powerful metaphor with a different meaning. Through his sacrifice, Jesus sought to show others the path they should choose – one that involves embracing the metaphorical cross as a symbol of immeasurable suffering to be endured in the pursuit of unconditional love.

According to Nietzsche, Jesus' death was a ‘free death’ – a conscious choice he made. The profound suffering Jesus endured elevated him to the highest level in Nietzsche's perspective: ‘The spiritual haughtiness and nausea of every man who has suffered profoundly – it almost determines the order of rank how profoundly human beings can suffer’ (BGE, 270). Nietzsche further says ‘Profound suffering makes noble; it separates’ (Ibid).

In this light, Jesus' death exemplifies the capacity of a human being to endure profound suffering and emerge with spiritual greatness. His sacrifice remains a powerful testament to the transformative nature of suffering and the potential for achieving greatness through the pursuit of unconditional love.

Jesus’ actions vs passive faith and Nietzsche’s will to power

In contrast to the conventional interpretation upheld by religious institutions, Jesus imparts the teaching that the Kingdom of God doesn't exist as a remote celestial domain; instead, it manifests as a presence within every individual. As Jesus articulates in the gospel, ‘The arrival of the Kingdom of God will not be marked by observable signs; people won't announce, 'Look, here it is!’ or 'There it is!’ For, indeed, the Kingdom of God is within your midst’ (NT, Luke, 17: 20-21). While organized religion may stress conformity, dogma, and the promise of an elevated afterlife, Jesus underscores the importance of this present earthly existence and unconditional love as the true abode of the Kingdom of God.

Nietzsche posits that the essence of life affirmation lies in the ongoing process of self-overcoming, where an individual artistically fashions conflicting impulses into a masterpiece of self-creation. Similarly, Jesus extends salvation not toward a distant heavenly realm, but rather toward the here and now on Earth – within this singular life we inhabit. Consequently, Jesus’ cross can be likened to Nietzsche's concept of the will to power, as both encompass the caregous overcoming of suffering rather than mere avoidance. Hence, the Kingdom of God can be comprehended as embodying the essence of the will to power.

Nietzsche praised Jesus’ way of life and his actions. As he puts it:

The life of the redeemer was nothing else than his practice – his death too was nothing else.’’ He no longer required any formulas, any rites for communicating with God – not even prayer… He knows that it is through the practice of one’s life that one feel ‘divine’, ‘blessed’, ‘evangelic’, at all time a ‘child of God’. It is not ‘penance’, not ‘prayer for forgiveness’ which leads to God: evangelic practice alone leads to God, it is God! (A, 33)

Giving meaning to suffering

According to Nietzsche, the primary issue for humanity lies not in suffering itself but in the inherent senselessness of suffering. In his renowned aphorism 28, found in the third book of Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche observes that throughout history, humanity has grappled with the dilemma of finding meaning. The crucial question that troubled mankind was not merely, ‘Why do I suffer’, but went beyond that:

Man, the bravest of animals and the most accustomed to suffering, does not repudiate suffering as such; he desires it, he even seeks it out, provided he is shown the meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. (GM, III 28) [14]

According to Nietzsche, the true meaning of suffering can only be found in the process of becoming and perpetual self-overcoming. This transformative journey involves the artistic creation of oneself through character styling, which entails breaking away from the old and embracing imagination and the creation of a new self. Such a life, filled with self-overcoming, provides justification for suffering and renders it meaningful. In this view, Nietzsche asserts that new and higher suffering is necessary to continually reconstruct oneself, making it evident why he claims that man desires and even seeks suffering.

Likewise, Jesus also offers profound meaning to suffering through his life and death. His example demonstrates that the essence of suffering lies in unconditional love. Embracing unconditional love demands constant and perpetual self-overcoming, which, in essence, means the overcoming of suffering. In a world filled with falsehoods, envy, hatred, and violence, loving everyone unconditionally is a challenging task, requiring unwavering kindness and compassion. For those who choose the path of unconditional love, Jesus states: ‘But first he must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation’ (NT, Luke, 17:25).

By giving meaning to suffering in the ways of unconditional love and overcoming, both Jesus and Nietzsche stood against the avoidance of suffering offered by the Church and Schopenhauer. In the promise of a better afterlife, Church derailed the individual action from the path of unconditional love, which is full of suffering, to faith that does not require any suffering but rather surrenders. As the Church thought, Jesus suffered on the cross for all the people. Therefore, they do not need to suffer. Instead, they need to surrender to their faith in God. Schopenhauer waged war against suffering through repudiation of suffering, which was best achieved by renouncing all desires, hence renouncing life. Contrary to the teaching of the Church and Schopenhauer, by giving meaning to suffering, both Jesus and Nietzsche affirmed life, showing that life is worth living.

Both Nietzsche and Jesus did not anticipate that everyone would find meaning in suffering and embrace it, but rather, only a select few. Their teachings emphasized the pursuit of perfection and finding significance in suffering, indicating that their message was intended for the courageous and those willing to endure immense hardships. Jesus, in particular, expressed this idea with the statement, 'Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple' (NT, Luke, 14: 27). The cross symbolized the harsh suffering that one would bear while walking the path of unconditional love. Nietzsche's concept of perpetual self-becoming can also be seen as carrying a heavy cross on one's back.

It would be a fallacy to assume that unconditional love or self-becoming represents a static, unchanging state once attained. Just as Jesus faced challenges from the devil (NT, Matt, 4: 3-11) and during the last supper (NT, Luke, 22: 47-51) and on the cross (NT, Luke, 23: 34), he continually overcame these temptations. His triumph over suffering did not cease, and even in his final moments, he refrained from blaming or cursing anyone, demonstrating that unconditional love is not a state but an ongoing process. Hence, he proclaimed, 'The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed' (NT, Luke 9: 22). Unconditional love cannot be attained once and relied upon without further effort for the rest of one's life.

Both Jesus and Nietzsche attributed meaning to suffering through the concepts of unconditional love and overcoming, rejecting the Church and Schopenhauer's approaches to avoiding suffering. The Church, with its promise of a better afterlife, steered individuals away from the path of unconditional love, which entails suffering, and towards a faith that necessitates surrender without suffering. According to the Church's teachings, Jesus suffered on the cross for all people, negating their need to suffer, and instead, they must submit to their faith in God. On the other hand, Schopenhauer advocated combating suffering by renouncing all desires, ultimately renouncing life. In contrast, Jesus and Nietzsche affirmed life by attributing significance to suffering, demonstrating that life is worth living.

Differences between Jesus’ and Nietzsche’s ethics

The primary contrast between Jesus and Nietzsche lies in the essence of their teachings. While Nietzsche emphasizes the realization of personal existence through maximizing physiological, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities, resulting in the work of genius, Jesus focuses solely on the spiritual aspect, exemplified by unconditional love. Nietzsche's higher men, such as Beethoven, Goethe, and Nietzsche himself, embody individuals who have achieved greatness by harmonizing their strengths and weaknesses in an artistic manner, leading to unparalleled works of art (Nietzsche regarded himself more as an artist than a philosopher). These individuals fulfil their innate potential, showcasing their unique talents. For Nietzsche, life can only be justified as an eternal aesthetic phenomenon (BT, 5)[15].

On the other hand, Jesus is solely concerned with unconditional love. He does not involve himself in poetry, painting, or music, nor does he build temples or churches. His focus is on his words and living in accordance with his teachings, serving as an example for how one should live. However, we might question whether dedicating oneself solely to unconditional love is the only path one should pursue. What about other aspects of life? Jesus is known for rejecting material wealth; instead, he advises against worrying about food or clothes, as God will provide for one's needs. According to Jesus (NT, Luke, 12: 22-34), all that one should do is wholeheartedly devote themselves to unconditional love.

In summary, Nietzsche's teachings revolve around the fulfilment of personal existence through the realization of one's full potential in various realms, while Jesus's teachings focus exclusively on the power and significance of unconditional love, disregarding material concerns. Both approaches offer distinct perspectives on how to lead a meaningful and purposeful life.

Nietzsche believes that achieving 'overcoming oneself' and finding 'satisfaction with oneself' (GS, 290) does not preclude individuals from engaging in various pursuits, including science, art, philosophy, military, and political activities, exemplified by figures like Caesar and Napoleon. Expressing oneself through the products and achievements of expertise is crucial for societal progress, and Nietzsche contends that without such actions, civilization will stagnate and regress.

In contrast, Jesus' sole focus lies on promoting unconditional love. He deliberately refrains from involving himself in political matters, as he states: 'Then give the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s' (NT, Luke, 20:25). This raises the question of whether unconditional love, as preached by Jesus, also encompasses the wholesomeness of one's existence. Why does Jesus appear disinterested in other aspects of human life?

The potential explanation for the differing perspectives of Jesus and Nietzsche can be found in the historical and cultural contexts in which they lived and preached. During Jesus' time in the Middle East, the dominant issues were the oppressive Roman rule and the prevailing dogma of Judaism, which served as the spiritual authority for the local population. The world Jesus knew was plagued by fear, division, poverty, tribalism, and a vengeful mentality, all of which caused immense suffering for the majority of people. These circumstances gave rise to moral flaws and social values that hindered salvation from widespread suffering.

Envy, jealousy, corruption, and greed for material possessions, as well as the obsession with social status as a measure of value, tarnished the human soul and fostered animosity among people. This environment led to the state of bellum omnium contra omnes, the famous proverb meaning the war of all against all. Such social and cultural conditions devalued human nature and potential, rendering the suffering of people meaningless.

As previously discussed, Jesus addressed this suffering by introducing new values centred around unconditional love, which he viewed as the ultimate redeemer of the human condition. His main objective was to foster harmony among people and inspire them to love one another instead of harbouring hatred. Jesus believed that only unconditional love could achieve this, whereas other aspects of life could be managed to varying degrees. Thus, for Jesus, the foundation of a new world had to begin with Agape, the love of God for all. This priority might explain why Jesus did not focus on other aspects of life as Nietzsche did.

In conclusion, the historical and cultural context of Jesus' time profoundly influenced his teachings on unconditional love as a means to bring meaning to suffering and create a harmonious society. This stands in contrast to Nietzsche's broader focus on various aspects of human existence. Both thinkers' perspectives were shaped by the unique challenges and circumstances of their respective eras.

The historical and social context of Nietzsche's time differed significantly from that of Jesus' era. Over the course of nineteen centuries, the world had witnessed remarkable progress in scientific, technological, and philosophical advancements, as well as the flourishing of arts. Nietzsche had the advantage of a much richer cultural and social heritage to draw from, with an array of influential ethical teachers such as Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Kant, Shakespeare, and Schopenhauer. Moreover, towering figures in the arts like Beethoven, Wagner, Goethe, and others served as great sources of inspiration for Nietzsche. As a result, Nietzsche's response to the world around him needed to be comprehensive and all-encompassing.

The wholesome nature of Nietzsche's revaluation of all values encompassed the exploration and development of intellectual and spiritual potentialities through a profound understanding of science, history, art, religion, and philosophy.

Unlike Jesus, Nietzsche could not ignore the vast cultural inheritance and its diverse offerings, limiting himself solely to spiritual enhancement. While seeking to find the meaningfulness of suffering and affirming life, Nietzsche discovered the solution in artistic creativity driven by illusion as a means to transcend human existential crises. He recognized that the power of artistic expression could serve as an escape from the challenges of life, empowering individuals to find purpose and affirmation in their existence.

In conclusion, Nietzsche's response to the world was shaped by the extraordinary cultural and intellectual milieu of his time, leading him to explore diverse disciplines and embrace artistic creativity as a path to confront the complexities of human experience. His approach stood in contrast to Jesus' singular focus on unconditional love as the solution to suffering and spiritual fulfilment. Both thinkers offered unique perspectives that reflected the historical and social contexts of their respective eras.

Concluding remarks

If we accept the explanations above, we must reject the common belief that Nietzsche's inclinations lean toward individuals, while Jesus favours the community over the individual. Both Nietzsche and Jesus challenged and transcended their immanent communities. They were iconoclastic teachers who questioned and dismantled the foundational pillars of their societies, including religious creeds and dogmas related to social and material values.

Jesus and Nietzsche pursued the ideal of the perfect human being, with Jesus embodying unconditional love and Nietzsche envisioning the overman. In their quest for these ideals, they both critiqued and rejected the norms and values upheld by their respective communities. By introducing new values, they disrupted the old ones. Their emphasis on their ideals devalued those who were weak and exhibited submissive traits.

Both Jesus and Nietzsche advocated finding the divine within oneself rather than in external scripts or heaven. They promoted the notion of becoming an overman by embracing and harnessing their inner drives, transcending the confines of their communities and surpassing the concepts of good and evil.

By establishing signposts for future generations, they both aspired to foster a new and improved humanity, a community that unites all people rather than segregating or stigmatizing them based on nationalisms, traditional customs, religions, or moral values.

Understanding Nietzsche as anti-social because of his call for solitary life is also a misunderstanding. Nietzsche was anti-mediocre society but was for the culture ‘beyond good and evil’ that had for a task production of higher men. We can say the same for Jesus. Although living solitary life and acknowledging that his followers will have to face the same sacrifice to house the Kingdom of God within themselves, he was hoping that his example would lead to a better world, a better global community with more kindness, more compassion and non-violence.

Both Jesus and Nietzsche held stringent demands for unwavering commitment to their respective ideals—an ideal man capable of unconditional love (for Jesus) and the perpetual overcoming of oneself (for Nietzsche). Despite offering their teachings to all, achieving such perfectionism was attainable for only a select few. The continuous, Sisyphean effort required to overcome new resistance and suffering deterred most people, attracting only the strongest characters willing to embrace and even seek suffering.

It is a misunderstanding to view Nietzsche as anti-social solely based on his call for a solitary life. In reality, Nietzsche opposed a mediocre society but advocated for a culture that transcended conventional notions of good and evil, aiming to produce higher individuals. Similarly, Jesus, though living a solitary life and acknowledging that his followers would face similar sacrifices to embody the Kingdom of God within themselves, hoped that his example would lead to a better world—a global community characterized by kindness, compassion, and non-violence.

Their teachings are notably non-egalitarian, as evidenced by passages in which Jesus and Nietzsche highlight the exemplary behaviour of unique individuals who have broken ties with traditional customs and moral norms. For instance, Jesus illustrates this concept through parables like ‘The Parable of the Good Samaritan’ (NT, Luke, 10: 25-37), ‘The Parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus’ (NT, Luke, 16:19-31), and ‘The Parable of the Prodigal and his Brother’ (NT, Luke, 15:11-32). In these examples, the Good Samaritan, Lazarus, and the father of the prodigal son demonstrate actions beyond the ordinary, actions that most others would not undertake. Jesus uses these parables to underscore the uniqueness of individuals who follow the path of unconditional love, transcending conventional norms.

Likewise, Nietzsche's teachings, such as Amor Fati (love of fate) and Eternal Recurrence, along with the idea of giving style to one's character, emphasize that only strong individuals, those prepared to embrace suffering as a challenge for self-becoming, can affirm life. Nietzsche's philosophy values individuals with the strength and fortitude to confront and accept the challenges of existence, promoting the idea that these individuals possess the capacity to affirm and create meaning in life.

Jesus' life and death serve as powerful examples of giving meaning to suffering. In contrast, Nietzsche refutes Schopenhauer's moral philosophy and the Christian morality propagated by the Church, which sought salvation through the avoidance of suffering. For Nietzsche, the problem was not suffering itself, but rather the perceived meaninglessness of suffering. Once a person finds purpose in suffering, they will not shy away from it; on the contrary, they may desire and seek it out (GM, III, 28). Jesus, however, also exemplified the meaning of suffering, as he saw salvation through unconditional love. Understanding the purpose of his suffering, Jesus not only lived his life accordingly but also chose to fulfil the meaning of his suffering through his crucifixion.

As I have highlighted, there are significant differences between the teachings of Jesus and Nietzsche, and I have provided explanations for their possible causes. Despite their similarities and differences, both Jesus and Nietzsche leave us with a profound responsibility. Their messages carry weight and cannot be ignored if we are to fully embrace our human potential. By doing so, we hold hope for a humanity where love triumphs over envy, and each individual is empowered to discover and fulfil their unique talents.

Through this paper, I have endeavoured to demonstrate that Jesus and Nietzsche share more similarities than commonly believed. Both of them affirm life, with Jesus exemplifying eternal Agape and Nietzsche embracing perpetual becoming, which he believed would elevate him as a higher man. They both lived in accordance with their beliefs, finding meaning in their suffering. Additionally, their notions of purity in unconditional love and the overman reflect their hope for an ideal global community, free from nationalistic and religious separatism.

Jesus' message to humanity continues to be a lesson yet to be fully realized. He emphatically taught that only unconditional love can unite people worldwide, creating a global family in which every individual is cherished equally. Although his dream remains unfulfilled, it is a worthy aspiration, worth pursuing. Similarly, Nietzsche's passionate exhortation about higher men also remains a lesson yet to be fully actualized. However, the messages of both Jesus and Nietzsche still resonate today, as Nietzsche aptly observed: 'Some are born posthumously' (A, Forward).

BIBLIIOGRAPY

Dostoyevsky, F. 2009. The Karamazov Brothers, Garnett Constance (trans.) (Wordsworth Classic Series: Ware)

Nietzsche, F. 1990. Anti-Christ, Hollingdale, R.J (trans.) (London: Pinguin Books).

Nietzsche, F. 1966. Beyond Good and Evil, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

Nietzsche, F. 1974. The Gay Science, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

Nietzsche, F. 1989. On The Genealogy of Morals, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

Nietzsche, F. 1967. The Birth of Tragedy, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Nietzsche, F. 1982. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in The Portable Nietzsche, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (London: Penguin Books).

Nietzsche, F. 1968. The Will to Power, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

Nietzsche, F. 1990. Twilight of Idols, Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (London: Penguin books).

Schopenhauer, A. 1966. The world as Will and Representation I, Payne, E.F.J. (trans.) (New York: Dover Publications, Inc.).

Schopenhauer, A. 2016. Parerga and Paralipomena I, Roehr, S. and Janaway, C. (trans.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

The New Testament, 1995, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Tolstoy, L. 1894. The Kingdom of God is Within You, Constance Garnett (trans.) (New York, Cassell Publishing Company)

ABBREVIATIONS

A Nietzsche, F. 1990. The Anti-Christ, Holingdale, R.J. (trans.) (Penguin Books, London)

BGE Nietzsche, F. 1966. Beyond Good and Evil, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

GS Nietzsche, F. 1974. The Gay Science, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

GM Nietzsche, F. 1989. On The Genealogy of Morals, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

BT Nietzsche, F. 1967. The Birth of Tragedy, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

BGE Nietzsche, F. 1966. Beyond Good and Evil, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

Z Nietzsche, F. 1982. ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, in The Portable Nietzsche, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (London: Penguin Books).

WP Nietzsche, F. 1968. The Will to Power, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books).

TI Nietzsche, F. 1990. Twilight of Idols, Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (London: Penguin books).

KB Dostoyevsky, F. 2009. The Karamazov Brothers, Garnett Constance (trans.) (Wordsworth Classic Series: Ware)

KG Tolstoy, L. 1894. The Kingdom of God is Within You, Constance Garnett (trans.) (New York, Cassell Publishing Company)

NT The New Testament, 1995, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

PP II Schopenhauer, A. 2017. Parerga and Paralipomena II, Del Caro, A. and Janaway, C. (trans.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

WWR I Schopenhauer, A. 1966. The world as Will and Representation I, Payne, E.F.J. (trans.) (New York: Dover Publications, Inc.).

[1] The concept of a perfect life should not revolve around possessing power and material wealth, but rather around cultivating a life founded upon selfless love for the world. [2] The New Testament, 1995, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) [3] ‘It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles’. [4] Dostoyevsky, F. 2009. The Karamazov Brothers, Garnett Constance (trans.) (Wordsworth Classic Series: Ware) [5] Tolstoy, L. 1894. The Kingdom of God is Within You, Constance Garnett (trans.) (New York, Cassell Publishing Company) [6] Schopenhauer, A. 1966. The World as Will and Representation I, Payne, E.F.J. (trans.) (New York: Dover Publications, Inc.). [7] Schopenhauer, A. 2017. Parerga and Paralipomena II, Del Caro, A. and Janaway, C. (trans.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). [8] Nietzsche, F. 1968. The Will to Power, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books). [9] Nietzsche, F. 1974. The Gay Science, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books). [10] Nietzsche, F. 1990. Twilight of Idols, Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (London: Penguin books). [11] Nietzsche, F. 1966. Beyond Good and Evil, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books). [12] Nietzsche, F. 1990. The Anti-Christ, Holingdale, R.J. (trans.) (Penguin Books, London) [13] Nietzsche, F. 1982. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in The Portable Nietzsche, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (London: Penguin Books). [14] Nietzsche, F. 1989. On The Genealogy of Morals, Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books). [15] Nietzsche, F. 1967. The Birth of Tragedy, Kaufmann, W. (trans.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).