Both Buddhism and Nietzsche\u2019s philosophy point in the direction of nothingness. Nietzsche studied Buddhism at a young age due to his training as a classical philologist and it most likely accompanied him throughout his life as one of the cornerstones to his thought alongside his great educator Schopenhauer. Buddhism as a philosophy lacks breadth and depth, unlike Nietzsche who is a far-reaching philosopher writing on many topics in a variety of ways. It is an articulation of the application of emptiness and becoming onto all things in the universe – subtle in its poetic method of reducing many things\u2019 Being to empty becoming. Buddhism is direct yet allusive in its brevity, a feat somewhat lacking in Nietzsche\u2019s numerous aphorisms: there is so much character and enthusiasm in Nietzsche\u2019s many articulations of nothingness and his many affirmations of life, forcing the discussion at hand to demand that portions be ignored, to allow other parts to make sense. So that Nietzsche may compliment Buddhism and Buddhism may compliment Nietzsche, the discussion will dissect Nietzsche\u2019s most pure nihilisms from his array of articulations and applications of nihilism, in order to be able to compare their likeness to one another. The discussion will likewise only have eyes for Madhyamaka interpretations of the Buddha\u2019s doctrine through Nagarjuna. Importantly, Nietzsche and the Buddha will be discussed within the milieu of their contextual origin, which will poke at the purpose of their philosophy: the Buddha\u2019s extinction through nirvana demanded by his Indian peers (post-Brahmanical annihilation), and Nietzsche\u2019s edified affirmations of life, attempting to provide the facilities for all to see \u2018it\u2019 for what \u2018it\u2019 is, in Europe upon God\u2019s death. This discourse is a deliberately polemical approach to nihilism for the sake of being able to discuss Nietzsche\u2019s selected philosophy and Buddhism mutually, improving ones ability to see where the two agree and disagree at the cost of excessive hyperbole.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Finlay M. Dunning, 2021, Stage 3<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8792,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[311,22,123],"tags":[205,174],"class_list":["post-2330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-311","category-abstracts","category-stage-3-abstracts","tag-nietsche","tag-religion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8792"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/philosophy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}