Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Postby Jakob » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:57 pm

Dunamis wrote:
Jakob wrote:If we interpret him as y, we allow him to work towards y.

I have no desire, nor interest in "allowing" him to do anything. I owe him nothing. In fact his conception of "y" is remarkably un-y-like, as he has exemplified it.

It is about allowing yourself something. He is dead, has no use for your allowing him anything.
He failed. There is no reason why I should listen to what he says about "y" because he made "y" up to make himself feel better, a delusion as is exemplified by his exemplification.

He did not fail - enough people listen to him. Do you honestly think your opinion determines his victory or faillure?
I think that Sauwelios has got a pretty good read on Nietzsche, how he meant his exemplifications to be understood as just what it meant to be "y"; he has done well not to turn him into a Hallmark Card for generation "x". As such, he has both embraced Nietzsche as Nietzsche understood his truth to be, but also has suffered from the same weakness. You, and other self-proclaimed "creative geniuses" (not my phrase) have made Nietzsche a slogan machine for one's self-infatuations, and deprived yourself and others of the critique that Nietzsche was offerring.

I have made Nietzsche into what he aimed to be; a friend who offers challending advise and teaching. You try to make him into something he aimed not to be - his weakest, most helpless self, so he is no match for you. I think that tells something about our natures.
It is known as a poisoned well (a dog fell in it). You can either climb down and with great difficulty drink from it, grow intoxicated, spasm and die (under the delusion of your own greatness); or you can drop pennies into it from above, looking into its murk, see your distorting reflection and think your wishes will be granted. I say, walk on. There are other more interesting things in the world.

Nice metaphor. But if that's really the statement you want to make, then why linger?
In all of this, I still have not seen an "argument" from you. Only a plea.
You clearly haven't understood it.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Twilight of the Idols » Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:10 pm

Entertaining thread.

If I may, the most powerful statement of the lot is this:

Dunamis wrote:The first and last rule of reading Nietzsche is to overcome Nietzsche.


With that said, I have also identified this to be at least partially true, not only in this thread, but in others:

Jakob wrote:You [Dunamis] try to make him into something he aimed not to be - his weakest, most helpless self, so he is no match for you.
User avatar
Twilight of the Idols
Jenseits von Gut und Böse
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:25 am

Postby Dunamis » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:29 am

Jakob wrote:It is about allowing yourself something.


I have read him closely. I have no desire to help myself to the poison that he choked on. Nor the poison that others choke themselves on.

He did not fail - enough people listen to him. Do you honestly think your opinion determines his victory or faillure?


I have little respect for the average listener of Nietzsche. I think Nietzche made several interesting points, but really very little of what he said drunk, Spinoza had not already said sober.

I have made Nietzsche into what he aimed to be;


He is so lucky to have had your help. Surely he is appreciative.

Nice metaphor. But if that's really the statement you want to make, then why linger?


Occasionally one puts a sign up by a poisoned well, for those that are lost. For those enamored with those waters, more pleasure to you. I must say though, for those that climb down in to the well, like Sauwelios, I have a bit more respect. There is something bold about it, even in something misguided.

You clearly haven't understood it.


Yes. the Intellectual arugument (that is what you called it I believe), is something "I just can't handle". Given what you take for what constitutes an intellectual argument, I understand better why you like Nietzsche so much. He has arguments, even intellectual arguments, but I see no argument here.
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby Gobbo » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:57 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Old_Gobbo wrote::wink:

You hold on too tightly to your perceptions.

''Tis' a shame it would take a demonstration of quotes and such to demonstrate this.

Shame on you, then.



"Jokes. A joke is the epigram on the death of a feeling."


"With a talent, one is also the victim of that talent: one lives under the vampirism of one's talent."


'Now I am light, now I fly, now I see myself beneath myself, now a god dances through me!'




"Some souls one will never discover, unless one invents them first."
User avatar
Gobbo
Choronzon
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:23 am
Location: The Belly

The Lion

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:49 pm

The Lion is closely connected to Bhairava, and thus, to shamanism:

"In the form of the ‘Man-Lion’ Narasimha, especially popular with the esoteric Pâñcarâtras, and also as the equally tantricized ‘Boar’ Varâha, Vishnu does closely approach Bhairava in character, to the point of emerging like Bhairava from the sacrificial (stake-)pillar. The myth then reveals two different, but complementary, faces of the bhakti-ideology incarnated in Vishnu: an orthodox face linked to Brahmanism and preoccupations with purity and the other, secret, face turned towards the transgressive valorization of impurity symbolized by Bhairava."
http://www.svabhinava.org/brahmanicide/Vishnu-Bhairava/default.htm

As for Bhairava;

After Zarathustra sings the first "Dancing Song," he goes on to sing the "Tomb Song" which parallels the second dance of Siva.

The second well known dance of Siva is the Tandava, and belongs to His tamasic aspect as Bhairava or Vira-bhadra. It is performed in cemeteries and burning grounds, where Siva, usually in ten-armed form, dances wildly with Devi, accompanied by troops of capering imps . . . The tandava dance is in origin that of a pre-Aryan divinity, half-god, half-demon, who holds his midnight revels in the burning ground.
(Coomaraswamy, "Dance of Siva," p. 57)

In his most destructive aspect, Rudra (Siva) becomes Bhairava, the fearful destroyer, who takes pleasure in destruction. The Devi represent energy, the creative aspect of divinity. The Vira-bhadra are fearful spirits. This is not the universal destruction and recreation of heavens and earths as in the first dance. Then what does Siva destroy? And what are the burning grounds?

It is not the place where our earthly bodies are cremated, but the hearts of His lovers, laid waste and desolate. The place where the ego is destroyed signifies the state where illusion and deeds are burnt away: That is the crematorium, the burning grounds where Sri Nataraja dances, and whence He is named Sudalaiyadi, Dancer of the burning ground.
(ibid. p. 61)

[...]

So in "The Tomb Song" Zarathustra is dancing, warring with his enemies whom he wants to destroy. They tried to teach him to give up the powers of the Self for the prison of ego and "little reason." So Nietzsche's dance in "The Tomb Song" is a battle for his heart and the divine loves of his youth. It is a battle for the freedom of dance itself. Zarathustra's will, which is the necessary movement of the will to power, is what killed his enemies (those who would tie him to dismal and gloomy ideas, ideas of "little reason") and revived the tombs of his youth (reawakening the parables of the highest things). [...] Like Siva in his tandava dance, Zarathustra destroys his enemies to allow a new birth and resurrection of the Self.

[Claudia Crawford, Nietzsche's Dionysian arts: dance, song, and silence.]

It is not necessary, let alone desirable, to be a Lion all the time:

"Naturally there can be no question of a total extinction of the ego, for then the focus of consciousness would be destroyed, and the result would be complete unconsciousness. The relative abolition of the ego affects only those supreme and ultimate decisions which confront us in situations where there are insoluble conflicts of duty."
[Jung, Aion.]

The for the ego insoluble conflict of duty in Zarathustra's speech Of the Three Metamorphoses is that between the dragon's "Thou shalt" and the spirit's own "Thou shalt":

"[T]he lion fails to win freedom from the imperatives of morality as such. For although the old tablets are shattered, they are replaced with new ones upon which are engraved solemn commandments: Thou shalt sacrifice what is most dear [i.e., the dragon's "Thou shalt"] for the sake of the truth; Thou shalt be free; Thou shalt revere reverence; and Thou shalt utter a sacred yes by willing your own will. The lion's apparent defeat of the dragon reveals itself as a stunning victory for morality, or the spirit's higher morality, inasmuch as right and obligation are conspicuously at work throughout the spirit's transformations and in its highest instantiation. Since the idea of the sacred persists and indeed is regenerated in the final metamorphosis of the spirit [i.e., the child], the dragon, the symbol of morality, lives on and prospers in the spirit's heart."
[Peter Berkowitz, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist.]

One is reminded of Crowley:

"[T]his Ecstasy [in this case, the rage of the lion] is (so to say) the throe of Birth of the new faculty [notice the implication: birth -> child]. It is surely natural for an observer to be startled, for the moment, by the discovery of a new Universe. Ananda ["bliss"; cf. Shiva's bull, Nandi] must be mastered manfully, not indulged as a vice in the manner of the Mystic! Samadhi must be clarified by Sila, by the stern virtue of constraint: and then appears the paradox that the new Law of the Mind has "come not to destroy but to fulfil" the old."
[Little Essays toward Truth, Understanding.]
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

new direction

Postby krossie » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:18 pm

OK let me take it all in a new direction ignoring the fun "bitch fest" previous

Has anyone dipped into Zizek's puppet and the Dwarf - he takes a weird line Directly from GK Chesterton (from "the Thrilling Romance of Orthodoxy"- on that self same "climatic moment" in the bible the "my God my God - why have you forsaken me" bit.
For Chesterton this shows christianity as the only religion to incorporate a constant level of deep doubt. If one aspect of God doubts his main self then surely it extends to the core. For Chesterton Christianity has in some weird way taken in atheism, revolution and doubt unlike the positivism of other beliefs. Sort of kierkigaardian!?!?

Personally i think its piffle but what does any one else think? - Specially interested in views of those who would see 'emselves as christian:

...the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.


(its all on the net @ http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/bo ... y/ch8.html)
~[krossie]~

"How do you just live?"
Marilyn Monroe - Misfits

"I roll about in myself."
De Montaigne

"where philosophy ends - it's still fun to make random kind of clicky noises"
Krossie

"..just another good example of how the philosophical insane asylum started by Nietzsche is being run by the inmates."
Jonquil

twitters: @culturalfatwa
User avatar
krossie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: Unmanly Meleville

Postby Jakob » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:03 pm

Krossie; thanks for that, I didn't know there was allready thought on this weird concept. I'm not exactly a Christian, but as I believe in myths as much as in 'real' reality, I'd say this is a pretty interesting exaplanation, and it certainly places Christianity above Islam in my book. It makes of God a kind of Gambler, who just goes with his whims and passions and sometimes, when faced with the consequences, doesn't know how to deal with it. This is to me the only plausible explanation for a God who is both immanent and ominpresent. Evil, or suffering, as a risk. God losing faith in his own abilities to create a good universe - that also makes sense to me - because they are both human - hence, verifyable patters of behaviour.

It tells us something about the nature of God - that he is reckless, a mad scientist. Goethe said: "Be bold and great forces will come to your aid" But this now begs the question 'and then, what?'
There is aparently (I'm still going by the interpretation of God losing faith) no end, no paradise, no reward for total uncompromising exertion - Jesus found himself in hell at the end of his life. He had been too fanatical. God lost his faith in God's omnipotency - and saw the truth about himself, that he was just a slob like all of us.

This brings me to the Nietzschean idea that God is something which is attained - by enduring, consistent and calculated use of human minds and hands. Gods potency for manifestation depends on patience, realism - on counting on by the physical and psychological laws one has learned - not on metaphysical ones. Aparently, God is a bit autistic, and needs to be taken by the hand.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Jakob » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:45 pm

Dunamis wrote:Yes. the Intellectual arugument (that is what you called it I believe), is something "I just can't handle". Given what you take for what constitutes an intellectual argument, I understand better why you like Nietzsche so much. He has arguments, even intellectual arguments, but I see no argument here.
Let's look at your own use of the instrument of ratio; you make assertions (Nietsche is yuck!) and then reason from there. If defending assertions by circular reasoning based on that assertion is what you call argumenting, no, I have made no argument. If, on the other hand, you see argumenting as using reason as a means to get to a higher level of reason in order to understand something which is not understood from the inferior reason - then I have.

"I have always found that Angels have the vanity to speak of themselves as the only wise; this they do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic reasoning."

Systematic reasoning is the antithesis of thought. That murky pit is your own vision of the well of genius.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Dunamis » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:09 am

Jakob wrote:Let's look at your own use of the instrument of ratio; you make assertions (Nietsche is yuck!) and then reason from there.


You have misunderstood my critique of Nietzsche. The reason that he is "yuck" is his own standard of "yuck" (he corresponds to a ressentiment laden, hysterical figure). I have other critiques of Nietzsche, primarily that his conception of power is more reactive than active, despite his insistence to the contrary, when measured against other conceptions, this I do not present here. For me he fails under his own standards, and by my standards. In otherwords, his bark is worse than his bite.


Systematic reasoning is the antithesis of thought. That murky pit is your own vision of the well of genius.


Ah. I get it. What you mean by "intellectual argument" that others can't handle is any non-systematic assertion such that non-contradiction has no more bearing. By what standard this is either an "argument" or "intellectual" I don't know. But I see no "intellectual argument" on your behalf. Of course when you unleash the word "argument" so to mean anything Jakob asserts, and "intellectual" to mean anything that Jakob says, then yes, I can't handle your intellectual arguments.
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:21 am

Dunamis wrote:The reason that he is "yuck" is his own standard of "yuck" (he corresponds to a ressentiment laden, hysterical figure). I have other critiques of Nietzsche, primarily that his conception of power is more reactive than active, despite his insistence to the contrary, when measured against other conceptions, this I do not present here.

Golly, what a surprise! - Dunamis makes another assertion, which for all we know is just a sentiment, the argument for which he does not present, only conveniently mentions that it exists (Hm - what could be this sense of deja-vu?)
Never mind, Dunamis. You win. You don't like Nietzsche, I'm convinced.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:24 am

In keeping with Nietzsche's dictum, that truth can stand on one leg, but can only walk with two, I present an alternative, less poetic, description of the "three metamorphoses of the spirit":

"The road to wisdom. Tips for overcoming morality.
The first course. Revere (and obey and learn) better than anyone else. Accumulate in oneself, and let struggle among itself, all that is worthy of reverence. Bear all hard and heavy things [Alles Schwere tragen]. Asceticism of the spirit - courage. Time of community.
[The overcoming of evil, petty tendencies. The much-encompassing [umfängliche] heart: one conquers only with love. Fatherland, race, it all belongs here. (Richard Wagner prostrated himself before a profound and loving heart; likewise Schopenhauer. This belongs to the first level.]
The second course. Break the revering heart, when one is most firmly bound. The free spirit. Independence. Time of wilderness. Criticism of all that is revered (idealisation of the unrevered), attempt at inverse valuations.
[The overcoming also of good tendencies. (Unnoticed that natures such as Dühring and Wagner and Schopenhauer did not even stand at this level!)]
The third course. Great decision, whether fit for the positive position, for affirmation. No longer any God or man above me! The instinct of the creating one, who knows where he intervenes. Great responsibility and innocence. (To enjoy anything, one must approve of everything.) To give oneself the right to act.
[Beyond Good and Evil. He adopts the mechanical worldview and does not feel humbled beneath fate: he is fate. He has the destiny of humanity in his hands.]
- Only for a few: most will already perish in the second way. Plato, Spinoza? perhaps successful [geraten]?
To beware for actions that do not belong to the attained level, e.g., wanting to help those who are not significant enough, - this is false pity."
[Nietzsche, Nachlass.]
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:59 am

S; Interesting, useful elaboration.
I can see how 2 follows from 1, but how does 3 follow from 2?
I can see that the camel is at some point at the end of the struggle of his revered ideas, and a pyramid has formed. Then the will reaches for something beyond, and turns the pyramind upside down, with all possible disastrous consequences.
But what is the difference between 2 and 3, really? The way 3 is here described almost sounds more like the lion than they way 2 is described.

on a personal note:
In 3, I can clearly recognize myself in the state I was in when I made 'Oranje in Dagen van Strijd' - I gave myself the right to act, I knew where I had to intervene and did so from a sense of great responsibility - responsibility for the shred of innocence left in the state embodied by me.
This was of a short timespan, 15 months work - and then I began compromising - I had not enough experience or credentials to go on at the level I started with the increasing diffusion.

Perhaps the reverences of the 1st level hadn't been properly crystallized into a pyramid - so the 2nd level wasn't really free, so the 3rd level wasn't completely 'me'.
Makes sense. I needed Ayberk.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:06 am

Dunamis wrote:You have misunderstood my critique of Nietzsche. The reason that he is "yuck" is his own standard of "yuck" (he corresponds to a ressentiment laden, hysterical figure).

I know, it is weak, I had allready written this discussion off - but dude, please try to understand - you don't have to overcome Nietzsche, you are not Nietzsche!
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Dunamis » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:16 am

You don't understand. All Willing is Will to Power in Nietzsche. Nietzsche's Will to Power (his entire philosophy) has to be overcome, just as any other Will to Power in the world.

Of course if one rejects Nietzsche's "The entire world is a world of conflict, exploitation and over-mastering" from the start, one doesn't have to overcome Nietzsche at all, but simply become bemused by Nietzsche (and his followers).
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Re: Last word

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:08 am

MagnetMan wrote:Nietzsche simply perpetuates the immature, independent, ill-bred, stage of rebellious self-determinsim that is idolized by teenagers.

Well, as you know, life's stages correspond to the evolutionary stages of humanity. But is further evolution necessarily progress? Nietzsche thought not:

"Mankind does not represent a development toward something better or stronger or higher, in the sense accepted today. "Progress" is merely a modern idea, that is, a false idea. The European of today is vastly inferior in value to the European of the Renaissance; further development is altogether not according to any necessity in the direction of elevation, enhancement, or strength."
[The Antichristian, section 4.]

Rather, enhancement lies in the overcoming of the old by the young:

"To be sure, one should not yield to humanitarian illusions about the origins of an aristocratic society (and thus of the presupposition of [every] enhancement of the type “man”): truth is hard. Let us admit to ourselves, without trying to be considerate, how every higher culture on earth so far has begun. Human beings whose nature was still natural, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey who were still in possession of unbroken strength of will and lust for power, hurled themselves upon weaker, more civilized, more peaceful races, perhaps traders or cattle raisers, or upon mellow old cultures whose last vitality was even then flaring up in splendid fireworks of spirit and corruption. In the beginning, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their predominance did not lie mainly in physical strength but in strength of the soul—they were more whole human beings (which also means, at every level, “more whole beasts”)."
[Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, section 257.]

This is where the fault of your philosophy lies: the end is not wisdom, but power; wisdom is only a means to power.
Last edited by Sauwelios on Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:11 am

Jakob wrote:S; Interesting, useful elaboration.
I can see how 2 follows from 1, but how does 3 follow from 2?
I can see that the camel is at some point at the end of the struggle of his revered ideas, and a pyramid has formed. Then the will reaches for something beyond, and turns the pyramind upside down, with all possible disastrous consequences.
But what is the difference between 2 and 3, really? The way 3 is here described almost sounds more like the lion than they way 2 is described.

on a personal note:
In 3, I can clearly recognize myself in the state I was in when I made 'Oranje in Dagen van Strijd' - I gave myself the right to act, I knew where I had to intervene and did so from a sense of great responsibility - responsibility for the shred of innocence left in the state embodied by me.
This was of a short timespan, 15 months work - and then I began compromising - I had not enough experience or credentials to go on at the level I started with the increasing diffusion.

Perhaps the reverences of the 1st level hadn't been properly crystallized into a pyramid - so the 2nd level wasn't really free, so the 3rd level wasn't completely 'me'.
Makes sense. I needed Ayberk.

I don't think it is a question of turning the pyramid upside down; that reeks too much of slave transvaluation. But to understand what it's like, we have to turn to the other leg, Of the Three Metamorphoses:

To assume the right to new values - that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

Illusion and arbitrariness - this sounds like Dunamis's disillusionment with Nietzsche! So he, or she, may well be in the Lion stage. But now we must immediately add the following:

"Who will prove to be the strongest in the course of this [nihilist crisis]? The most moderate; those who do not require any extreme articles of faith; those who not only concede but love a fair amount of accidents and nonsense; those who can think of man with a considerable reduction of his value without becoming small and weak on that account: those richest in health who are equal to most misfortunes and therefore not so afraid of misfortunes - human beings who are sure of their power and represent the attained strength of humanity with conscious pride."
[WP 55.]

"Those who can think of man with a considerable reduction of his value without becoming small and weak on that account": does this only go for man as a whole? Or, if not, only for oneself? Or does it also go for individual other human beings - e.g., for Nietzsche? Can I, for instance, - a follower of Nietzsche's - think of Nietzsche with a considerable reduction of his value without becoming small and weak on that account? Do I dare perceive him as - human, all too human?

A more accurate question, in this case - as my admiration of Nietzsche's has nowise lapsed and is continually growing -, is: can I think of Nietzsche as a mortal human being instead of as a god? I have once, jokingly, suggested that Nietzsche be deified as the Hindu god Nitsha - and indeed, Nietzsche's Works are the stuff epics are made of. But I can bear to read the desperation in his letters, the sickness, his struggle with his meningioma. I can bear to look at his grave, and assure myself of the fact that he is dead. The great god Nitsha is dead. Ah, but rejoyce, rejoyce! He hath been reborn - I am myself the spiritual incarnation of Nietzsche in many ways.

The difference between a follower in my style and a follower in the pejorative sense is at bottom the difference between a great spirit and a believer. A believer has his backbone in his convictions; a great spirit, a strong skeptic, on the other hand, avails himself of convictions.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:55 am

What you suggest is that Dunamis takes Nietzsche too seriously. That is what I have suggested. Dunamis says the opposite.
Maybe now you understand why I considered fausts remark about Nietzsche's humor the most Nietzschean post <i>so far</i>. This was when the thread was still in development.
A believer has his backbone in his convictions; a great spirit, a strong skeptic, on the other hand, avails himself of convictions.

Someone who needs to revere Nietzsche to sustain himself would certainly not have compared him to the Great Cornholio. Dunamis missed this.

I think that your focus on women in that thread was much noo serious. Being serious with regards to women is an error to begin with. Sexuality - that is another matter. But we've covered this territory for now.

You don't understand. All Willing is Will to Power in Nietzsche. Nietzsche's Will to Power (his entire philosophy) has to be overcome, just as any other Will to Power in the world.

Of course if one rejects Nietzsche's "The entire world is a world of conflict, exploitation and over-mastering" from the start, one doesn't have to overcome Nietzsche at all, but simply become bemused by Nietzsche (and his followers).

As you hopefully see now, there are no blind followers here. All see Nietzsche in his all too human form. I cannot see Sauwelios' will, but my will is to use Nietzsche - not to overcome him. I don't care if that is inconsistent with his doctrine - in fact I am glad. And incidentally I've overcome him with that. Who cares?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Dunamis » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:11 am

More power to you. If misunderstanding Nietzsche is your way of "using" Nietzsche, may you continue to misunderstand him as much as possible. As for Nietzsche being a big joke, well of course, in this I agree.
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby detrop » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:55 am

Image
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:40 pm

Dunamis wrote:More power to you. If misunderstanding Nietzsche is your way of "using" Nietzsche, may you continue to misunderstand him as much as possible. As for Nietzsche being a big joke, well of course, in this I agree.

Well, you really sound as if you're enjoying it!

The distinction is that I take Nietzsche deadly seriously and still manage to be joyful [fröhlich] about it (cf. The Gay Science, section 382, "The great health").

You are only here to debase Nietzsche. Where is your positive teaching? You refer us to Spinoza - and what did Nietzsche say about Spinoza?

"[C]onsider the hocus-pocus of mathematical form with which Spinoza clad his philosophy—really “the love of his wisdom,” to render that word fairly and squarely—in mail and mask, to strike terror at the very outset into the heart of any assailant who should dare to glance at that invincible maiden and Pallas Athena:—how much personal timidity and vulnerability this masquerade of a sick hermit betrays!"
[BGE 5.]

The dour face of Pallas Athena is all you have shown us in this thread. Is that, then, also only - a mask?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:08 pm

Sauwelios wrote:The dour face of Pallas Athena is all you have shown us in this thread. Is that, then, also only - a mask?

It's who he really is, it seems. I've found the answer to the sour face, looked up some of his older posts to see how life afirming he is when he's not reaction but acting.
Dunamis wrote:We are all going to die. That is a fact. And, even if you have particular religious beliefs, you would have to admit that there is at least a good chance we are not coming back or going somewhere after that. So my question is, how is it that we live our lives in such a state of denial of this incredibly sure fact, death? How, maybe what is the mechanism that allows us to think, believe, act and love in a way that leaves out this missing ingredient? Sure there are moments that it really strikes us, perhaps when a parent dies, or when you reach a certain age, or when a tremendous news event happens, but that knowledge acts like a drop of oil in water. It just floats there, not integrating. And yes there are larger beliefs that one might have that seem to address this fact, but they somehow feel like abstractions when compared to our deepest motivations. Would you have done anything you did today, if you knew you were going to die tomorrow? How does knowing you are going to die eventually rather than tomorrow change that dynamic? It is a big mystery to me that particularly in the West, the biggest fact of all somehow has disappeared from daily consciousness, like an elephant that some magician threw a sheet over to make vanish. As much as I have thought about it, I am mystified by the degree to which death as a fact seems not to be included in our daily awareness. I am amazed how difficult it is to make it the central thought even. How resistant it is. I'm not sure that this is a philosophical question, or maybe it is the philosophical question, but any thoughts on this would be welcome.

I kept thinking he actually had philosophical a point, he seemed so confident of it. But rejecting Nietzsche is just a kind of penitence.
This is a nice illustration of what usually drives Nietzsche's debasers - fear to look reality in the eye.
Last edited by Jakob on Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:25 pm

Would you have done anything you did today, if you knew you were going to die tomorrow?
I suppose your anwer would be no. How predictable that you hate the idea of the eternal recurrence.
Your take on philosophy is typically modern - the numbing illusion that everyone shares your fears and inhibitions (because they are advertized on tv.)
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Dunamis » Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:57 pm

Jakob wrote:You refer us to Spinoza - and what did Nietzsche say about Spinoza?

"[C]onsider the hocus-pocus of mathematical form with which Spinoza clad his philosophy—really “the love of his wisdom,” to render that word fairly and squarely—in mail and mask, to strike terror at the very outset into the heart of any assailant who should dare to glance at that invincible maiden and Pallas Athena:—how much personal timidity and vulnerability this masquerade of a sick hermit betrays!"
[BGE 5.]


Unlike you, I don't habitually swallow whatever Nietzsche says. He, like the compulsive reative type constantly turns on those he once worshiped. What does Nietzsche say about Spinoza:

Nietzsche wrote:"I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted. I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now was inspired by ‘instinct.’ Not only is his over-all tendency like mine — making knowledge the most powerful affect — but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the differences in time, culture and science. In summa, my solitude, which as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and made my blood rush out, is at least a dualitude."


Oh poor little Nietzsche, his "dualitude" was broken when he couldn't handle Spinoza's truth, when it wasn't anthrpomorphic enough for him, when it didn't make Nietzsche grand enough for himself. The "sick hermit" whose form is meant to guard against others is of course not describing Spinoza (for his form was meant for access, not "protection". He freely discussed it with others). This is typical of Nietzsche to accuse others of his own faults. Spinoza lived with the freedom of mind that Nietzsche could only dream of, away from the shadows of an infinite paranoia which has made Nietzsche "sick".

The dour face of Pallas Athena is all you have shown us in this thread. Is that, then, also only - a mask?


It is a mask only in the mind of mask wearer, such as Nietzsche was, a hysteric. There is nothing dourer about Spinoza, it is a philosophy of joy--sans mythology and animal references--for those who have the mind to read it.
Last edited by Dunamis on Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby Dunamis » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:04 pm

Jakob wrote:This is a nice illustration of what usually drives Nietzsche's debasers - fear to look reality in the eye.


I suppose because you are driven by fear, you mistake "amazement" for some kind of negative feeling. That you see "fear" in these words, I suppose would make that your fear.
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

Postby Dunamis » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:11 pm

Jakob wrote: I suppose your anwer would be no. How predictable that you hate the idea of the eternal recurrence.


The lady doth protest too much. Such is the case of most "Nietzscheans", they announce, shriek, "thunder" their affirmation of life, in slogan after slogan, fear after fear. So much whistling past the graveyard. How many times does the "I am great" talk have to reveal to others how weak one is? The Eternal Return is nothing but a myth the frightened make up to appease their insecure minds, that somewhere, somehow (by the force of some ridiculous logic) this moment, this effort is being recorded. It is nothing more than a God's Little White Book of Deeds, and not even put into a clever disguise. It is pacifier that Little Nietzsche needed to suck on so that he wouldn't slip into his dreaded Nihilism.


Your take on philosophy is typically modern - the numbing illusion that everyone shares your fears and inhibitions (because they are advertized on tv.)


You have no idea what my philosophy is. If anyone projected his fears onto "everyone" (indeed) upon the entire universe, it was Nietzsche.
Il mundo è un animal grande e perfetto. – Del senso

The starting-point of critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, and is “knowing thyself” as a product of the historical process to date which has deposited in you an infinity of traces, without leaving an inventory. - Prison Notebooks

Ergo obiectum nostrae mentis est corpus existens, et nihil aliud. - Ethices

deus sum, commutavero. eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? -- Amphitryon

The valley-spirit (gu-shen) does not die, this is called the obscure she-thing (xuan-pin). - Tao-te ching
User avatar
Dunamis
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]

cron