Finally picked up Rufus Wainwright's Want Two album. The first song gave me chills from its beauty. Then again, I'm a whore for self-indulgent swoopy vocals (e.g. Morrissey). I'm in the midst of the 2nd song right now, which is more reminiscent of his older stuff. Loving it so far though...

After a long break, I've returned to Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. I decided to skip around instead of trudging through chronologically (I was thoroughly bored with Aristotle and still haven't finished his sections). Last night I read the highly entertaining Nietzsche chapter (which was my first encounter with Nietzsche's ideas in any way, embarrassingly enough, other than vague references to nihilism when I studied Faulkner in high school). Russell makes no attempt to hide his contempt for Nietzsche's misogynism and elitism, and finishes the chapter with a hilarious hypothetical argument between Nietzsche and Buddha, who are trying to convince God about the kind of world He should create. Nietzsche, of course, argues against sympathy and love, and promotes the sacrifice of most for the glory of a select few. Buddha argues for salvation in the form of universal love, offered to everybody. Russell, unsurprisingly, agrees with Buddha. As do I, after reading Russell's highly biased account of the argument...but in order to give Nietzsche a fair chance, I'll have to read his actual words, instead of just adopting Russell's opinions as my own.

Russell points out that Nietzsche "condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear," yet his superman's "lust for power...is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them." He then goes on to say that a certain breed of Christians justifies Nietzsche's criticism (Pascal and Dostoevsky are Russell's examples); these are "saints by fear" who only behave like good Christians in order to avoid punishment (hell) and to reap reward (heaven). However, according to Russell, there are also "saints by nature" who have "a spontaneous love of mankind; [they do] good because to do so gives [them] happiness." Nietzsche is not able to conceive of "saints by nature" because "he is so full of fear and hatred that spontaneous love of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of the man who, with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain because he has no wish to do so."

I like this argument, and it articulates a problem I always had with Christianity. I never liked the idea of following a religion simply to avoid punishment (hell), or to be rewarded (heaven). I don't have all that much admiration for people who are Christians in talk, and perhaps in action, but not at heart. They're hypocrites, who are only behaving that way because they're afraid of going to hell, or because they're afraid of what others may think of them. I believe one should follow a religion because it coincides with how one genuinely views the world and wishes to behave, regardless of what punishment or reward might result from it. Of course, this is highly idealized...religions should appeal to the better parts of our nature, not the baser parts. If one had antisocial instincts, I don't believe it would be admirable to follow a religion which promoted those instincts. But what bugs me the most is when Christians vociferously proclaim their own greatness, and their own imminent rewards, while condemning others. For example, when evangelists try to recruit others to the religion through fear, with those "fire and brimstone" speeches. And Mr.Bush is, of course, the textbook example of the kind of Christian I loathe. I'm much more impressed by those Christians who simply live and act according to the teachings of Christ, and inspire others to follow them--not because of what may happen after death, but because of the spiritual awards they reap during life. In other words, a true community of love, support, acceptance, and charity. This may seem strange, but I don't think it matters much whether or not heaven exists. Sometimes I think that the idea of heaven is most useful as a balm to the living, particularly those grieving a loved one, or those facing death themselves. Sometimes I think that the idea of heaven is more important than the truth of its existence.

It's so strange, that in the past, I was so obsessed with truth, as I defined it. Cold, hard facts--no matter how scary, no matter how hurtful, no matter how dangerous--would be sought and proclaimed by fearless me. Ha! I was so self-righteous. While I don't dismiss the importance of facts, and of expanding knowledge, I no longer seek an objective truth in religion. I'm more interested in a way of life that can offer me solace when life becomes nigh unbearable, that encourages the better aspects of my nature -- generosity, kindness, sympathy, love. Religion as more of a life philosophy, I mean.

Oh lordy...Rufus is now singing about The Metropolitan Museum--and paintings by Rubens, Rembrandt, Turner. Stop it, boy! Don't tempt me to make out with my CD player.