Skip to main content

Nietzsche's Sex-Abuse Worldview vs. the Christian Worldview

Below is a brief correspondence I had with a reader:

Mr. Martinez,

I found your article online [Sex-abuse Worldview Vs. Christian Worldview], titled as above in the subject field. I was very interested in the subject matter you discussed, the moreso because I myself have been greatly influenced by Nietzschean ideas (this doesn't mean I'm passionately anti-christian; only that I tend to fall more on the side of Nietzsche's way of seeing things, as opposed to the way of traditional Christianity). I would like to begin a correspondence with you via email on this topic, as there were some areas you brought up which I wished to explore further. Some things I would like touch upon are, for instance, this whole notion of the degree to which Adler was influenced by Nietzsche. I realize that Adler's ideas on power dynamics were derived from Nietzsche's philosophy, but I'm not so sure about his ideas on self-actualization. 

Granted, there's a definite intonation in Nietzsche's writings which rings strongly of something like self-actualization, but could the similarities here to Adler's theories be mostly a matter of coincidence (although Munch obviously thinks the contrary)? After all, Adler was also influenced by Christian thinkers like Dostoevsky, and there are similarities between Nietzsche's and Dostoevsky's psychological observations. I was also curious as to what your thoughts were on Soren Kierkegaard, another Christian thinker who capitalized on notions of self-actualization. Kierkegaard viewed the process of becoming an authentic individual as being indispensable to genuine Christianity.

I'm aware that your article was primarily on the loss of Christian values in American culture, and how this loss seems somehow to be tied in with this Nietzschean-Freudian-Jungian-Adlerian emphasis on individuality. To the best of my understanding of Nietzsche, however, he doesn't consider all values/opinions to be of equal worth. He believed that vital qualities in a human being determine his choice of values, as a venu of self-expression. He favored value systems that were "life-affirming"; a future which is willed is only worth as much as it is an affirmation of life (i.e., without a vision the people perish). Individual self-creation also becomes necessary in a world which has become deprived of meaning after the death of God, insofar as lack of meaning is life-negating. But Nietzsche's self-creative act is to be something lofty and reverential, not an exercise of petty narcissism. When postmodernists speak of a "value-free" ideal in which -- so it seems to me -- "self-actualization" is in fact an exercise of petty narcissism, I think what's being represented isn't so much Nietzschean as it is the product of liberal democracy. The bourgeoisie are, after all, diminutively selfish creatures who foster the edict, "live and let live" -- private citizens who are concerned only with their own lives and how to make themselves "happier". They have little or no social consciousness. Nietzsche hated democracy as much as he hated Christianity. 

Ken X

Mr. X,

Below are my reponses to your questions.

 WSU Professor Paul Brians disagrees with you. Please read:


The two grandfathers of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961), both had a deep admiration for Nietzsche and credited him with many insights into the human character.

Alfred Adler (1870-1937) developed an "individual psychology" which argues that each individual strives for what he called "superiority," but is more commonly referred to today as "self-realization" or "self-actualization," and which was profoundly influenced by Nietzsche's notions of striving and self-creation. The entire "human potential movement" and humanistic psychology (Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Rollo May, etc.) owes a great debt to this line of thought. Even pop psychologists of "self-esteem" preach a gospel little different from that of Zarathustra. The ruthless, self-assertive "objectivism" of Ayn Rand (1905-1982) is difficult to imagine without the influence of Nietzsche.


 There is a difference between Kierkegaard's:

"The more superior one person is to another whom he loves, the more he will feel tempted (humanly speaking) to draw the other up to himself, but (divinely speaking) the more he will feel moved to come down to him. This is the dialectic of love."

And Nietzsche's:

"Master morality," which was different from Christian morality – or "slave morality," as he called it. He thought the weak have the morality of obedience and conformity to the master. Masters have a right to do whatever they want; since there is no God, everything is permissible.

There is the same difference between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche.



Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.



Popular posts from this blog

"Remember when Trump was up by 600,000 votes in Pennsylvania?": A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

  Matthew H @MattH_4America Remember when Trump was up by 600,000 votes in Pennsylvania? 1:07 PM · Jul 13, 2022 · Twitter Web App [] 10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborator

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Alone Bishop Gracida openly proclaims "Resist!" & Actively Works towards the Removal of Francis

    "You cannot give Holy Communion to the abortionists, to the abortion promoters and providers, to the divorce and remarried. You cannot do it. St. Paul said you do not feed the Eucharist to dogs..."   "Right now they [the laity] are suffering in silence. They need to object. The laity, the sensus fidelium is that common sense among the laity who have accepted the magisterial teaching of the Church which is the foundation of their faith."     "Having accepted that when they hear something that is contradictory to the magisterial teaching of the Church, the sensus fidelium is a impulse that causes them to speak out and say no."     "That is not true. Don't say that. Stop! That is the sensus fidelium in action!"     "Not to sit and suffer in silence. That's crazy. That's weird. That's wrong. Speak up! Resist! " - Bishop Rene Gracida [ ] We are in the greatest crisis in the history