The Antichrist Literary Elements

Philosophy

Because ‘’The Antichrist’’ is a philosophical book, there is not setting. The narrator simple presents his point of view in a person and clear manner.

The ideas presented in the book are presented from the perspective of a first person subjective narrator. This means that the ideas presented are given a touch of individuality because it is clear they are the thoughts of the author.

The tone in the book is a neutral one, be it fatalist in some cases when the narrator talks about the way in which a true intellectual must chase knowledge even if that means giving up everything else.

The antagonist is presented here as being Christianity while the protagonist is the cold rationality presented here as being desirable and even ideal.

The major conflict in the book appears to be between rationality and everything that goes against it. In fact, the author criticizes everything he thinks will affect rationality in a negative way.

Because this is a philosophy book, there is no climatic moment because there is narration and no plot. The characters also are absent from this book and so it is impossible to pinpoint the climax.

When the narrator claims he does not agree with pity because it makes people feel weak and promotes it, it also foreshadows the idea presented later according to which the narrator claims that pity goes against natural selection because it stops the weak from dying as they should.

The narrator criticizes religion time and time again because, in his opinion, it is a fairytale that influences people and makes them rely on fate. On the other hand, the narrator describes almost every religion as being nihilist, that is, a philosophical movement that does not exist in the existence of a higher power or a God. Thus, the second argument makes the first one be an understatement because by calling a religion as being nihilist, the narrator transmits the idea that the religion in question does not believe in God.

One of the things alluded in the book is the idea that no free will exists. This idea is important because the narrator claims that everything we do is a response to a stimulus we receive from outside.

An important case of imagery that appears in the beginning of the book is that of the modern person as someone who is lazy and incapable of hard work. The narrator compares the man from today with the man from the past and the idea transmitted through this image is that the modern person is by all means inferior to the one from the past.

One of the paradoxes presented in the book is the idea that man people search for the truth in religion. The narrator agrees that for many, the spirit represents the truth but he points out that this is not true and it is in fact the opposite. For him, the spirit represents pure lies and so for him it is paradoxical that humans in general try to look for the truth in religion, the institution which for him represents the ultimate lie.

In the book, the narrator draws a parallel between Buddhism and Christianity. The reason why the two are compared is because while the narrator clearly does not like Christianity, he agrees in part with Buddhism because it does not focus on God and because it choses instead to analyze questions that have a direct link with human suffering. In this sense, Buddhism is superior to Christianity and the narrator draws a parallel between the two in order to prove this.

The narrator uses in the book the term ‘’religion’’ to make reference to anything he does not agree with and to make reference to any practice he frowns upon.

No personification can be found in the book.