Posts
The importance of criticism: Western philosophy has tended to develop that way; Socrates
criticises the Presocratics for example, and shows how his view differs
to theirs; Christian philosophers criticised pagan philosophers and so
on. Famously, Schopenhauer vented much spleen on Hegel, calling him a
charlatan. And more recently 'Anglo-Saxon' philosophers have denounced
much 'Continental' philosophy.
So Nietzsche is no exception here, and is actually in that way, part of
the tradition.
Nietzsche argues [and he backs
up his argument when he looks at well-known philosophers] that
philosophers have been wont to put forward their own prejudices [hence
the title of this first chapter of BGE] as if they were Universal
Truths, when they were only particular truths of the philosopher
concerned. He widens that argument by showing that particular cultures,
linguistic systems and racial types tend to have their own peculiar
truths also, and philosophers are but products of those. In fact he goes
further to suggest that philosophy is a matter of physiology, rather
than objective, platonic truth.
This view can be found amongst the ancient Sophists, albeit less
developed, who were vilified by the Platonists for their relativism.
He does not say that 'no new ground has been made'; in fact the working
out of certain philosophical conceptions over the centuries [such as
Truth, the thing-in-itself, the soul, atomism etc.-atomism is a case in
point; that ancient hypothesis later became a corner-stone of Western
Science.] has done much to draw the bow string of European culture taut,
ready to launch a philosophy of the future [I refer here to the BGE's
Preface, of course].
The great philosophers he refers to genuinely thought they were
discoverers of THE Truth. They were fooled because they assumed that the
Platonic Idea was to be taken as read, and gone on from there. They had
not come to think about Perspectivism and the VALUE of falsehood.
Nietzsche's philosophy begins from that latter position; it is not
surprising then, that apart from Presocratics, he finds little in
Western Philosophy to FULLY agree with.
It is a travesty to suggest that he is having a 'dig' at philosophers.
You may have this impression because you do not get the allusive nature
of Nietzsche's approach. Nietzsche is demanding because he expects of
his readers; 1) A thorough knowledge of Western Philosophy and Religion
[at least], and 2) A thorough knowledge of Nietzsche's own writing from
his first book to the last.
So when he says that Socrates was not a Greek, because he was ugly [in
Twilight] this is not merely personal abuse of the pug-faced
philosopher, but alludes to the question of the Greeks as an ethnos,
Nobility in philosophy, and Greek conceptions of beauty.
Obviously, if his point is that there is no objective trans-human
other-worldly Truth out there, then his own philosophy is going to be a
perspectival one. His argument is that it can be nothing else;
Nietzsche’s innovation is to philosophise in full awareness of that
fact.
Nietzsche would argue that there
is nothing un-flawed [i.e., Perfection is a Platonic Idea (l)], and that
your philosophy CHOOSES YOU. Your philosophic viewpoint is down to the
quantum of Will that you exert.
To philosophise without God [and Nietzsche begins from the premise that
'God is dead'] is to philosophise with as much of one's own Will to
Power as possible.
The God-believer gives himself up to his Lord Jesus [or the
'submission’, literally 'Islam’, of Mohammedans to their Allah and so
on], and so abrogates some of his power. As Nietzsche says, the Godly
are never alone [all-one], as their God is always THERE. Nietzsche is
one of the few to philosophise in actual Solitude. Again, to Nietzsche
one is CHOSEN oneself by Solitude, and not the other way 'round. A
favourite phrase is 'How One Becomes What One Is'. Arguments on the
existence of God become academic; the question is; how much will do you
assert?
But after going beyond those things, he had to take the next
step.
He actually had to AFFIRM values of his own. That is why he said that
because he went 'beyond good and evil’, does not mean he went 'beyond
good and bad' (i.e., noble values).
It is this crucial step, this positive step (otherwise Nietzsche is
only viewed as a critical philosopher), that few make today.
Yes, the first chapter of BGE is largely critical, but the next
chapter,’ The Free Spirit’, begins to sketch in those positives.
This next section, on the 'Free Spirit' is of vital importance to all
of us here; we do desperately want to know how we are to 'be'.
There are many Nihilists here who want to avoid this knowledge; such
dogs will as usual cold shoulder this study. Let them rummage around in
their filthy yards of ignorance and prejudice--they are stuck at the
first hurdle of Nietzsche's Preface to BGE. They are not ready (and
never will be) for this book of books.
Those of us who are both READY AND WILLING will be thinking about this
second chapter...
So let us read much CLOSER here and carefully weigh every word, phrase
and paragraph.
Let's get embarrassingly INTIMATE with this text.
I have covered the generalities of 'truth' and 'will’, and the soul
etc., in the first chapter; Here I want us to pick this text
apart!-subject it to the most intense interrogation!
Is anyone here, apart from myself, UP TO THIS TASK!
|
What is suggested here at the beginning of the second chapter
is an exposition of NEW philosophical attitudes. He has moved
from the mostly critical nature of the first chapter to what is
here a positive mode of CREATING VALUES
He is shifting perspectives, taking on a different
persona. |
|
A praise of untruth, and a condemnation of the FOLLY of
dying for the TRUTH.
|
|
The Golden Ball was always rolling. |
'O sancta simplicitas!';This
was said to be uttered by John Huss (1369-1415) when being burnt at the
stake, on seeing an old woman hurrying with a bundle of firewood to
throw on the pile-'Oh,holy simplicity!'
Huss was an early Reformer who, after preaching in defiance of a papal
bull, was excommunicated in 1411.
In 1413 Huss published his main work 'De ecclesia’; and due to the
heresy of this work he was summoned before a General Council at
Constance, and burned at the stake after REFUSING TO RECANT.
That last is the important point; Huss was one of those who willingly
died for 'the truth'. The folly of such martyrdom is explored in the
next section [25].
Nietzsche argues in this section [24], that "the best knowledge
[Wissenschaft]...loves error".
Strangely the standard commentaries on BGE in English have not picked
up on this important reference as far as I know.
|
This is a long term project where I can imagine people going
back to older threads on single sections in months to come,
adding original thoughts. |
'I believe....'
In what, my dear, in what.
How VERY Christian!
I await your com-petition.
'Eternal Soul' is very UNNietzschean. He said that the soul is just
another name for the body, and therefore is as perishable as this
body.
And what nonsense do you believe in?-Oh, you believe in nothing!
-Why, WE call that Nihilism.
The Will
Of
Power
|
Amor Fati |
Nietzschean Paganism has its gods and goddesses.
It has its rules, its laws and its principles.
It has its goals.
It has its prophecies.
It has its histories.
It is not a mere philosophy.
It is also intent on producing a New type of Being, The Over-Man, out
of the Will Of Power.
This is your first task:
At every turn 'transvalue every value' you come across.
For every 'yes' find your 'no', for every black your white, and so on.
The trope - forever twist and turn.
Why?
Because there is no stasis, all is in flux.
No meaning is stable.
Not even this one.
I came to Nietzsche via the route of
Existentialism.
I have little sympathy for Existentialism now - a few concepts,
perhaps, but I find in Existentialism too much of the *ascetic
priesthood*.
Existentialism is like some kind of secularised Christianity in many
ways.
Kierkegaard is an example of a Christian Existentialist, of course [and
he is seen by many as the founder of Existentialism].
The thing is that even in atheistic Existentialism it is almost as if
Christian concepts are rebranded as Existentialist ones.
For example, that sense of being 'deserted' they talk about is like 'sin'
[and the idea that man is somehow depleted if he doesn't have (Christian)
morality to "guide him" as they say].
The concept of 'inauthenticity' is even referred to as 'limbo' [a
theological concept] by some Existentialists.
Also the tendency to emphasise free-will and responsibility is very much
like the Christian 'blame culture'.
And Tillich and others were able to absorb Existentialist concepts into a
[Protestant] 'Godless theology'.
Indeed, Existentialism may be seen as the logical development of
Protestantism [see Nietzsche's critique of Christianity's "will to truth"
- this ultimately means that Christianity will have to declare itself as
'untrue'].
I have nothing against the spiritual, of course.
However, Nietzsche teaches us to recognise the difference between the
slave moral of Christianity and the master moral of Paganism.
Existentialism chooses the former; Nietzscheanism chooses the latter.
Become hard!
To understand Nietzsche's morality, and his philosophy generally, one
needs to appreciate his
ad hominem
position.
I mean here that his view of morality is a matter of
character,
rather than one of 'deeds'.
For Nietzsche morality is about 'who one is', rather than 'what one
does'.
Similarly, Nietzsche believes that the most important aspect of a
philosophical outlook is the reflection that it makes of the *person*
[i.e., the philosopher] who puts it forward.
Clearly then, we can see that Nietzsche thinks that morality evolved
from out of the character of certain men - whether masterful men or
slavish men [or all degrees in between].
Also, Nietzsche is able to attack philosophers
ad hominem on
account
of their ideas [a sin according to most philosophers, who like to
abstract ideas and even wash their hands of them, at times].
Here we can see a direct link between Nietzsche's morality
and
his perspectivism, and ultimately his doctrine of the 'will of power'.
Some say that the Radical Aristocrat, or the Uebermensch, was a symbol of 'inner' excellence that all could attain.
This is a blatant distortion, not only of Nietzsche's writing, but of the
concept of aristocracy itself.
Nietzsche did
not believe in
equality, whether in an "inner" or 'outer' sense.
Indeed, Nietzsche was also suspicious of any supposed divisions between
'inner and outer', saying that the "soul was just another name for the body".
Only a Few could attain to the Uebermensch; it was the lot of others
could not so attain, to prepare for the Uebermensch, to serve him, and
even perish for him.
To Nietzsche, only a very few people deserved
freedom [see his
Thus Spake Zarathustra].
And just like the aristocrats of old, the Ubermensch would have the right
[the right of the will of power] to Impose his values on others.
There can be no Master morality without the existence of Slavery.
The Uebermensch, according to its prophet Zarathustra, will needs be
cruel, evil and Hard.
Such a being can only be Hard towards himself by being Hard towards
others - this is Nietzsche's
Pathos of Distance.
Slave morality has a different origin to Master Morality - we know
that.
It derives from the slavish resentment - of course.
But it also derives from the hypocritical morality of the ascetic
priest.
It is a deadly combination of these two strains: the priestly and the
slavish.
Before we try to understand how the priest entered the equation, we
must understand what a master and a slave *is* in the
Nietzschean multiverse.
A Master is an aristocrat.
Nietzsche's ultimate model for aristocratic rule is ancient
In
He had slaves and servants to wash him, feed him, clothe him and
obey his every whim.
A master could inflict cruelty on a slave without reproach.
The master had power of life and death over the many slaves who
attended to him at every moment.
The master had limitless resources and felt it his perfect right to
take whatever he wanted.
The master regarded himself to being a breed apart from those who
worked for a living. Indeed, workers - like slaves- only existed that
the master might enjoy his own godlike lifestyle.
The master was a god among men.
The Slave's existence was a 'living death'. He was continually
humiliated and beaten; his life could be ended at any moment.
He had no rights, of course, and could not marry etc.,
Nor could he join the Roman Army.
He could have no possessions.
However, many jobs - from doctors, musicians to cooks and grave-
diggers - were done by slaves.
In
for up to 40% of the total population.
There were few jobs not done
by slaves.
To
slavery.
Slaves were thought to be naturally untrustworthy and to have
criminal inclinations. They were less than human, most certainly.
Romans thought that certain races, like Jews, were born to be slaves.
So in
and the Sub-Human Slaves was *vast*.
It is on this foundation of *historical fact* [no matter how
uncomfortable] that we must approach Nietzsche's division between
Master and Slave moralities.
I prefer the term 'will *of* power' [used extensively by Chatterton-
Hill], rather than the more usual 'will *to* power', as the latter has
a teleological implication which is inappropriate to Nietzsche.
Nietzsche suggests that power manifests itself in abundance, in
overflowing, and that willing itself is rather the dominant
characteristic *of* power.
Therefore, as ultimately 'power' is the underlying truth of life [to
Nietzsche], then his particular perspective is best described as 'will
*of* power', rather than just 'power' *per se*, or the teleological-
sounding 'will *to* power.
Can you accept yourself in total?
Can you follow *amor fati*? - that is, 'the love of one's fate'?
Can you look back, side-ways and forwards without the *pang of
conscience*?
Can you will yourself and be who you are?
Your world view has no more validity than mine, it rather reflects the
degree and extent of your Will To Power, and your natural Caste.
Which is why you side with
Welcome to the Nietzschean world-view;” There is no truth, only
interpretations".
Horses for courses.
Then 'Overman' suits your peculiar interpretation of TSZ.
However, you miss the fact that Zarathustra is the teacher of the
Eternal Recurrence of the Same; which says, in Zarathustra's own words,
that all that IS has already been. That means that the Superman has
already been in numerous cycles of recurrence. Therefore some are aware
of what the Superman IS, and he is far more than an overcoming of a
cold.
And who were taken into slavery in
And who, with their Moses made their Exodus, 1225-1215 B.C.?
Those same slaves, and their religion reflected their slavery, just as
the religion of Aryans reflected their Mastery.
There is no Aryan slave state-religion because the Aryan caste either
rules or is destroyed [as rulers].
With the Jews their slavery came before their religion.
In the Semitic language the word worship comes from its root 'abad'
which means to be a slave.
David (2 Sam.vii.18) calls himself a slave of God, and so does Solomon
(2 Kings iii, 6). (Source, Gunther,'Religious Attitudes')
In Christianity the conduct of the faithful before God is freely
interpreted by the term 'humilis’ and hence humility, meaning literally
the 'slave mind’, or 'serving the tribe’, is demanded ass the essence of
religiosity. (ib.)
The oldest religious scripture is the Rig Veda, and that is Aryan. It’s
language Sanskrit is still used and understood today.
Christianity succeeded when
Who were the slaves that built the Egyptian pyramids?
"It's still more difficult to say which form of government is the
WORST--all are so bad, as for democracy, it is the worst of the whole;
for what is (in fact) democracy?--an Aristocracy of Blackguards ". (Lord Byron, 1821)
"Modern democracy is the historical form of the decay of the State".
(Nietzsche 'Human' 468)
Who hold the balance of the world? Who reign
O'er congress, whether royalist or liberal?
Who rouse the shirtless patriots of
That make old
Who keep the world, both old and new, in pain
Or pleasure? Who make politics run glibber all?
The shade of Bonaparte's noble daring?
-Jew Rothschild and his fellow Christian Baring.
[Lord Byron,'Don Juan' XII.5]
As Nietzsche said, Byron’s [noble] instinct is nearly always right.
I am glad that you have come to understand who you are and on what side
you stand. However, you are too far beneath me to be a worthy enemy.
The snake biting its tail is a symbol of the Eternal Return [as it
was for both the ancient Greeks and Nietzsche];
The Eternal Recurrence of the Same IS Nietzsche's philosophy, not a
'symbol' of it.
A Theocracy, which must be distinguished from a Monarchy; just as a
Tyranny must be distinguished from an Aristocracy. Democracy differs
from them all as it tends towards Ochlocracy, or mob-rule in one sense
or other.
Theocracies, Monarchies, Tyrannies and Aristocracies-because of their
belief in Order of Rank-all achieve a high level of art; whether in the
arts of high culture or in the art of commanding and obeying.
Film is a corporate technic which is perfect for mob entertainment;
therefore it would find favour as a propaganda tool in various polities
including tyrannies and democracies. A man of the elite would have
nothing to do with such a herd-like medium as film. Also 'recorded'
music is a travesty and an insult to Dionysos.
All music should be heard LIVE. Listening to recordings is akin to
necrophilia-better to listen to SILENCE.
That piece came from meditating on the Eternal Recurrence, thinking it
through.
This is what we must do with all these ideas; not stop at what is said
about them by others, but INCORPORATE them into ourselves.
Then, something may come out that is stamped with our own self-hood, as
in the piece you refer to.
This is what Nietzsche's philosophy is all about.
The point of those notes is to throw out sparks. They are not meant to
explain things and make knowledge of Nietzsche easy for those too lazy
to do the work themselves; they are meant to be suggestive,
momentary...personal.
As a self-professed Christian you WOULD say that wouldn't you. But that
is only a 'truth' that you have got from your man-invented God (and a
God invented by a Hebrew tribe who considered themselves 'chosen' at
that; and a 'truth' propagated by a common criminal who is supposed to
have 'risen from the dead' (?)...), that’s all.
Who's 'law' are you talking about?
Have a look around the world and you will see a multiplicity of
differing perspectives on law. Even within a culture (particularly a
Western 'multiculture') you will see all sorts of different 'laws' at
work.
Nietzscheans believe that the Noble work to a different law to the
ignoble, to the mass, to the democratic God-humpers.
YOUR LAW IS NOT MY LAW; MY LAW IS NOT YOUR LAW.
Therefore, what is crime to the Judaeo-Christian need not be considered
a crime by the Aryan Nietzschean.
MAGISTER DIXIT
'Actuality' used to depend on, what was it? ‘higher contexts’, you used
to say?
Now you say it 'depends on nothing’, it just 'is'...
That really is saying nothing; you have nothing to argue WITH.
You have even relinquished any consistency you once pretended to.
My argument is that your 'truth' is your own, and your tribe's 'truth'.
It is not anything to do with any 'higher being called God’, or any
'risen Christ'.
Your truth comes down to biology.
Free Will:
Generally I'd say that the 'difficulty' begins with not being aware of
Nietzsche's nuanced approach to philosophy.
He rejects the sort of free will posited by Christianity [I usually
spell this as one word--freewill--to suggest the distinction]. This
freewill is a piece of sophistry to get around the difficulty of
theodicy [i.e., if the world is created by an all-powerful all-good God,
why then is there such evil and suffering in his creation? Answer; he
gave man 'freewill'.
We are then led to believe that a man's actions are wholly autonomous,
and wholly his own responsibility. This denies everything we know about
the concatenation of cause and effect, the
hereditary,enviromental,psychological forces etc.
This freewill doctrine amounts to an excuse for the incoherence of the
God hypothesis, a piece of human vanity, and an excuse to punish 'those
responsible'.
Nietzsche recognises that life if underpinned by forces that are truly
trans-human [just look at the way an earthquake can reduce the best laid
plans of mice and men to dust];this is the will to power. A man can only
exert the will to power of which he is a product, and which therefore
flows through him to a greater or lesser extent.
What we call generally 'free will' now is just this feeling of will to
power within us; if we feel it as an overflowing abundance, we are of
strong will, like a great artist or a commander. If,however,we feel
helpless and depressed, then our quantum of will is weak and small.
So Nietzsche rejects freewill, in favour of strong/weak will, although
he accepts that often free will is a synonym for strong will.
Nietzsche illustrates his view of fate/destiny in the following;
"UPON THE WATERFALL.
When we look at a waterfall, we may think that we can see freewill and
choice in the innumerable turnings,meanderings,and breaking of all the
waves; but, on the contrary, everything is NECESSARY, and it is possible
to calculate every movement mathematically. And it is just the same with
human actions.
If one were omniscient, one would find it simple to calculate every
single action in advance, every advancing step on the pathways of
knowledge, every error, and every act of malice. The acting man is
entrapped in his illusion of volition.
If the wheel of the world were to stop turning for a second and an
all-knowing, calculating mind existed to take advantage of this hiatus,
he would be able to plunge deep into the most distant future of all
beings, and be able to describe every rut burrowed across the path of
the wheel.
This self-delusion of the acting man, this assumption that there is
such a thing as freewill, is also a part of the calculable mechanism".
[Nietzsche,’ Human All Too Human']
Modern Physicists have opined that if the original conditions of the
'big bang' were known, then all that happened subsequently could be
predicted. This is a similar notion, except that for Nietzsche there is
no beginning, or 'big bang'.
Music
should not be cooped-up in a zoo,frozen in ice,or mummified.
Music is a phenomenon of THE MOMENT.
It is Architecture that is frozen music.
A generation brought up on pickled music are desensitised,robotised and
zombified.
The mass-production ethic. Music as a 'product',a commodity.
Nietzsche talks much about the effects of 'mixed-breeding’, in the
widest sense. How such types would experience such self-contradictions,
called in the medical parlance,’ manic depression'.
Such creatures are ultimately botched, they are swallowed by their
abysses, and only rarely live on their mountains.
Rather, they fantasise about their mountains; in reality their live for
the most part in the slough of despond, entertaining occasional
Christianised 'revelations' fueled by ressentiment,which they mistake
for 'ascending will'.
2218
No comments:
Post a Comment