Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
>
Part 7, Our Virtues
date
newest »
newest »
Thomas wrote: "Can we trust the judgment of someone whose understanding is so sui generis that it can't be explained? Would we willingly follow orders we can't understand, given by a commander who can't be understood?..."What do we do now?
Bryan wrote: “What do we do now?” We keep provoking each other until the “dynamite” blows up.
Thomas wrote: “The philosopher is like Stendhal's banker who sees clearly, somehow, into what is. Psychology, instinct, and even fate (231) play a role in this, but education surely does not. ”
But Tom, remember this?
Thomas wrote: “Nietzsche wrote to one of his colleagues the following:
"It is absolutely unnecessary, and not even desirable, for you to argue in my favor; on the contrary, a dose of curiosity, as if you were looking at an alien plant with ironic distance, would strike me as an incomparably more intelligent attitude toward me." ”
What if he wrote ↓ to provoke you to fight him?
Nietzsche wrote: “What a philosopher is, that is hard to learn because it cannot be taught: one must 'know' it, from experience...”
Who wouldn’t be provoked to fight back? Oh I know who: the ones who aren’t born to do philosophy. (Which is fine, we all have different telos, different purposes, different virtues...)
Socrates had infuriating dialogues with his interlocutors, not because he actually believed in whacky things (I hope), but to enact his strategy of philosophical education. Education not by reciting congealed facts for rote-memorization, but by initiating them into the process, the experience, the participation of back and forth dialectical reasoning, by making them fall in love with wisdom.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Nietzsche was doing a written (!) version of that (that’s like ... going beyond Plato the dialogue-writer!). The whole point of BGE seems to be to educate philosophers of the future — by cultivating in them a different set of prejudices, values, the sentiments. It’s not a package of knowledge handed down from teacher to pupil, it can’t be “taught,” it’s a kind of habituation, a practice, an experiential set ... the most you can do is to initiate them...
The idea that you’re either born with the full set of philosophical free-spritieering abilities with no need for education; or else you’re fated to be a slave with no possibility of cultivation, education, development, becoming ... is so contrary to the rest of the treatise, I just can’t read that at face value.
Bryan wrote: "What do we do now? "Don't we ask leaders to be accountable for their actions? To literally provide a "logos," an explanation? I know our power as citizens is limited, but even if our leaders refuse to provide an account, we still search for an objective truth, uncover evidence, and believe in public knowledge. I'd like to think that the ability to "see things as they are" is available to every person with the basic human capacity to understand the world, not just free spirits.
Our artists. Our forgotten, mostly ignored, poor, underpaid artists. Keep in mind we’re talking about a bunch of unacknowledged legislators, not actual “kings” or “leaders.”
Lia wrote: "But Tom, remember this?Thomas wrote: “Nietzsche wrote to one of his colleagues the following:
"It is absolutely unnecessary, and not even desirable, for you to argue in my favor; on the contrary, a dose of curiosity, as if you were looking at an alien plant with ironic distance, would strike me as an incomparably more intelligent attitude toward me." ”
Somehow I do remember that... and it's what I'm doing, I think. Or trying to do. I have no need to fight Nietzsche, and I don't find him as provocative as I do puzzling.
The whole point of BGE seems to be to educate philosophers of the future — by cultivating in them a different set of prejudices, values, the sentiments. It’s not a package of knowledge...
The idea that you’re either born with the full set of philosophical free-spritieering abilities with no need for education; or else you’re fated to be a slave with no possibility of cultivation, education, development, becoming....
One of the puzzling things about this book is that it is almost entirely negative, concerned with religion, philosophical "laborers", morality, bourgeois stuff that he wants to obliterate -- and he gives us nothing in the way of positive direction. I think he doesn't do this because then he would have to blow that up too. It's like a philosophical mosh pit. It's not so much about music as it is about the sheer expenditure of emotion.
I think this goes back to an earlier question about the 'historical sense.'It was a standard point of view in the 19th C. that Hegel had done for the 17th and 18th C what Aristotle had done for 'presocratic' philosophy.- synthesized the disparate insights of various philosophers into a coherent 'system.'
For instance Parmenides: "Being is one," with Heraclitus "All is flow."
Thales "Water," (whoever) "Fire," and so on to the four elements.
So Aristotle's system was a result of dialectic.
Likewise, Hegel achieved the quest for wisdom with a history of philosophy which recognized the freedom of every adult non-moronic individual within a regime which recognizes that right, and then claims legitimacy and obedience.
(with Kant in the role of Plato to Hegel's Aristotle)
So, Nietzsche is writing this book in the 'third heroic age' of philosophy. He is a post-Hegelian, and hence a pre-Socratic.
(one way of looking at it)
Thomas wrote: “I don't find him as provocative as I do puzzling... it is almost entirely negative, concerned with religion, philosophical "laborers", morality, bourgeois stuff that he wants to obliterate -- and he gives us nothing in the way of positive direction. ” Fair enough, my point is that (per your quote) I don’t think this is meant to be read as a straight forward account of “this is what I assert and these are my evidences.” I’m vaguely classifying BGE with works like Plato’s aporetic dialogues, or Joyce’s puzzling novels — what I like to call “ergodic literature”. You have to work at it to get through it. If you just passively skim through the surface without labor, what you get out of it is not “real and earned.”
So maybe you can’t have your lotus and eat it too. You can’t be a Free Spirit and lazily demand predigested conclusions IV-dripped into you. And even if Nietzsche were willing to offer that, I’m not sure he can. I don’t think Nietzsche necessarily has a fully-formed vision of what philosophizing in the future should be like, the best he can offer are “dangerous maybes,” a description of the process, an account of how we are becoming who we (moderns) are. Here and there he praises what past thinkers did right, or grudgingly admit we (FS) too have our duties, or else describe the positive side of modernity, decadent that we are. So it’s not entirely devoid of positives, but I don’t think telling us what to value is the (educational) point.
Christopher wrote: "I think this goes back to an earlier question about the 'historical sense.'It was a standard point of view in the 19th C. that Hegel had done for the 17th and 18th C what Aristotle had done for '..."
What is this “this”? I have no idea what you’re talking about and I’m intrigued. This reads like a Dan Brown masonic conspiratorial esoteric secret history novel. Gib moar.
Lia wrote: "What is this “this”?..."Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks
(one of N.'s most Hegelian writings, btw)
I think "this" was the tendency of the discussion: why does Nietzsche write in this rhapsodic, impressionistic style, instead of telling us straight up what he stands for?
I offered up that he was at a starting point in philosophy, when each philosopher only offered hints, sparks- like Thales, Anaximander (?), Empedocles on Aetna, et al.
Lia wrote: " I’m vaguely classifying BGE with works like Plato’s aporetic dialogues, or Joyce’s puzzling novels — what I like to call “ergodic literature”I like this idea, except that even the aporetic dialogues are based on the notion of a real truth. It may be an ineffable truth, but it isn't an invention. I like the notion of a novel even better. At the end of the day, I think the FS is an artist, not a philosopher.
Thanks for that, Chris. Another crazy one to read! (But Hegel made Dostoevsky cry! And Nietzsche ostensibly adored Dostoevsky. I’m going to be so conflicted.)
Thomas wrote: "even the aporetic dialogues are based on the notion of a real truth. It may be an ineffable truth, but it isn't an invention..."IIRC it was Kant who said the advantage of Plato’s Republic is that it isn’t real. Your objection (? Is that an objection?) reminds me: why not untruth? Have we decided? Is untruth even the opposite of truth? Or are they one and the same, contiguous?
Why did Heidegger turn from Philosophy to Poetry late in his career? Why did T.S. Eliot turn down Harvard philosophy department tenure offer in order to become a poet? Why did Rorty, a high profile philosophy professor, quit the philosophy department and transfer to teach literature instead?
Are you sure that the “truth/invention” dichotomy is real and meaningful? That Plato invented nothing; while Joyce / Eliot weren’t doing philosophy? What if Plato, too, was an artist-philosopher whose telos was to invent a noble fiction that would justify the otherwise meaningless, decadent, paltry, unjustifiably bad human existence? He can’t train a stone to rise, or fire to burn downwards, but what if he can lift up the lived experience of people in his polis with art? What if exposing his invention as a mere invention is what made life in Europe intolerable, nihilistic?
I agree FS is an artist, I’m just not sure if he can’t also be a philosopher.
Lia wrote: "IRC it was Kant who said the advantage of Plato’s Republic is that it isn’t real. Your objection (? Is that an objection?) reminds me: why not untruth? "Plato says that the Republic is a paradeigma, an example or a model. It's a thought experiment, one that is constrained by reason and has truth as a goal. That it fails shows this. (And does anyone really believe the myth of Er? I really doubt that Plato expects his readers to believe noble fictions of this sort. They are examples as well. A paradeigma can also be a kind of warning. )
The advantage of claiming the legitimacy of untruth is that nothing fails. Any and every claim is legitimate, even self-contradictory ones. Words don't matter; they become musical. Meaning becomes a matter of taste and beauty, which I still think is the realm of the artist.
I'm throwing the towel on Nietzsche, the man is too insufferable. There is only so much biting criticism and elitist hubris I can take. I started reading this chapter, and found myself skimming ahead out of sheer boredom of this piled on venom, and stopped to read some of the paragraphs on women, and then I wondered why he would use the word "Weib" instead of "Frau." I think this was very deliberate on his part. Not only is "Weib" more old-fashioned, but the grammatical gender is neutral, das Weib. Whereas "Frau" is obviously female, die Frau. He uses the term "Frau" only once or twice, whereas "Weib" almost constantly. ...I just wanted to point this out, and everyone can draw their own conclusions. I already think he is a loony, so whatever he writes on women is irrelevant.
Well folks, I am ready to chuck this albatross for more edifying fare.
Kerstin wrote: "There is only so much biting criticism and elitist hubris I can take. ..."I guess it depends whose ox is being gored. There are certainly enough writers out there who DON'T write like Nietzsche.
Kerstin, here is a blog in German, about the two words 'Weib' and 'Frau.':
https://blog.rotkel.de/vom-weib-zur-f...
Hinter jeder »Frau« steckt am Ende ein »Herr«?
Schaut man jedoch genauer hin (oder schlägt im etymologischen Wörterbuch nach), stellt sich heraus, dass selbst die Bezeichnung wîp/wîb schon einen Ursprung besitzt, der uns an konservative Rollenbilder denken lässt: Das vermutlich vom indogermanischen abgeleitete uei-b- bzw. uei-p-, was »drehen, sich schwingend bewegen« bedeutet, soll an »die sich geschäftig hin und her bewegende Hausfrau« angelehnt sein.
Dementsprechend geht aber auch frouwe/vrouwe mit seinem Wortstamm fro auf eine althochdeutsche Bezeichnung für »Herr« zurück, sodass frouwe eigentlich dem Wort »Herrin« entspricht.
It's like calling LBJ a racist because he was always talking about "negroes." (dated, offensive, says the dictionary)
Hey, some of us uncouth barbarians can’t German. Please translate!
Lia wrote: "Hey, some of us uncouth barbarians can’t German. Please translate!"Paraphrase? It says that the indogermanic root for 'Weib' indicates a turning activity- like 'wipe' or 'weave'- so the neutral designation for 'female' already implies the bustling "hausfrau."
Whereas "frowe," the old-German word which is the modern German term for "woman," "Frau,"- used to designate only noble women, "Herrin," "Lordess" or "Mistress."
Which actually came up before- before we even started- "Weib" has gone the way of "wench."
Weave as in ... spiders weaving webs?? I WAS RIGHT ABOUT OVID!!
Lia wrote: "Weave as in ... spiders weaving webs?? I WAS RIGHT ABOUT OVID!!"
Dionysus:
Be clever, Ariadne!...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself?...
I am your labyrinth...
https://genius.com/Friedrich-nietzsch...
Dionysus would say that, wouldn’t he? Ariadne helped him out of the labyrinth. (Also, aren’t we’re in spoiler territory? I think the mod is asleep though so it’s okay 👌.)
Lia wrote: "Dionysus would say that, wouldn’t he? Ariadne helped him out of the labyrinth. (Also, aren’t we’re in spoiler territory? I think the mod is asleep though so it’s okay 👌.)"
Mod is UP! But the faint whiff of spoiler is too subtle for my equipment to detect. I had better check the equipment.
Oh Noble Mod, there’s nothing to see here, the stench is ... Nietzsche’s corpse. Nothing suspicious about this!*spins tales on my loom*
Christopher wrote: "I guess it depends whose ox is being gored. There are certainly enough writers out there who DON'T write ..."That's a way of putting it, LOL! I do give him credit for sustaining over 200 pages of patronizing venom, that takes endurance and sufficient linguistic talent. Some of his word combinations are hilarious. I just wish he had used this talent for a better purpose.
Thanks for the etymology on the words 'Weib' and 'Frau.' I must admit I rather like the connection to weaving (weben), puts us in the tradition of Penelope :)
Lia wrote: "Christopher wrote: "but does he say the truth is relative..."I’m so glad you brought this up, because I can assert with some certainty that no, he does not decisively declare “truth is relative...."
Correction: To outright say that truth is relative would NOT be a tautology, it would be a contradiction in terms! - As saying truth is relative is NOT Possibly True as it negates truth itself;
Hence truth is truth, not something that's true sometimes and false at other times, hence unchanging, permanent, i.e. spiritual,
not of "this" world - but yet a part of the world; the world that is always in flux is not the true world, the world of forms points to the realm of the unchangable.
Naturally, if one Identifies with "nationality" which is a changing thing, then one is not truly identifying with the higher reality of the I AM - which is the basis of Christianity, and I might add of Platonism > as the Charioteer who directs the horses of Will and Feeling - these lesser soul types needing purification if the SELF is to evolve into the higher self.....
Just wanted to correct the word "tautology"....
p.
A different way to think about it is that a tautology is always true, while a contradiction is always false. "Man is the measure of all things" is Protagoras' classic statement of relativism. It is a tautology because no matter what it is that is being measured, it is true for the man doing the measuring.
Phillip wrote: "Just wanted to correct the word "tautology"....To outright say that truth is relative would NOT be a tautology, it would be a contradiction in terms! "That’s the only point I was making though. Chris asked does Nietzsche say “the truth is relative”, I responded by saying I suspect he wouldn’t say that, because asserting “Truth is X” would be a tautology claim, the implicit message is that Nietzsche writes the way he does (unclear, poetic, full of digressions, irony, difficult to interpret etc) because he’s trying to avoid contradiction in terms.
There’s also the possibility that Nietzsche conceives “truth” as becoming, it’s a coherent concept, but as soon as you ink it on paper, or subject it to grammar, the becoming congeals into beings.
Incidentally, I'd say the Nietzsche writes as he writes because he was a genius who knew his Greek early on and suffered greatly due to his artistic side as well as a tendency to migraine headaches;he wrote for himself and at the end he veered into insanity though he came very close to being a saint.... the madness of genius, often misunderstood, generally poorly translated (as poetry is basically impossible to translate) - and living when he did. His critique of newspapers would n o w have to be transformed into a meta-critique of smart phones that are so ubiquitous that one wonders whether we don't deserve climate change to wake us up-?
Phillip wrote: "the madness of genius, often misunderstood, generally poorly translated ..."The final days of Nietzsche really reminds me of Plato’s account of the death of Socrates, in which Socrates really acted like a mad man, insisted on taking noble (kalos) risk, and advised his friends to sing charms. (Nietzsche also said that aphorisms are written to be remembered ... like incantations, or songs, I suppose.)
Plato obviously staged a play with Socrates’ action, madness (Dionysus?), and speech. I know it’s not very likely, (okay it’s impossible,) but the romantic side of me wants to think that the “madness” of Nietzsche is his self-creation as art, a performance, his final act of becoming.
For the record, I’m on the side of smartphones and our future AI overlords.
Actually, Nietzsche's last conscious act was embracing a horse which was being whipped. (which reminds me of Gulliver)But I do not think Socrates acted like a madman. That's a very odd interpretation. Plato depicts Socrates' last day as him doing what he'd done his entire life- discoursing about the good life.
Christopher wrote: "Actually, Nietzsche's last conscious act was embracing a horse which was being whipped. (which reminds me of Gulliver)."But not Dostoevsky?
I suppose I included other elements from Phaedo before the death scene, but I think the whole book (Phaedo) is very strange compared to other Plato texts. It’s more irrational, and full of references to poetry and mystery and rites and myths and underworld and Dionysian frenzies.
But it’s not his speeches that are strange, it’s also his actions, the way he interacted with Crito.
Could silence be an act? Ezra Pound also fell completely silence after being incarcerated in a mental hospital for treason. He consented to an interview, but then he sat there in complete silence, until he was asked about his silence, to which he responded, “Words. No. Good.” Isn’t that an act, a statement, a staged performance (for the press)?
For those still interested in Nietzsche:The group "Catching up on the Classics (and lots more!)" will be starting a group read of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (Also Sprach Zarathustra) in August.
The No Spoilers thread for general discussion about editions and translations, etc., is already open, and can be found here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
The Spoilers thread will open August 1. A more detailed schedule has not yet been posted.
(I may wind up raiding some of my posts here for comments on Nietzsche when they become appropriate there, instead of doing the work twice.)
For anyone still interested (and I assume some of you are) the New Yorker has an interesting article on Nietzsche in the October 14 issue. It is available on-line, where I found it via Pocket. See https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...It is theoretically about how all parts of the political spectrum seem to find something useful in Nietzsche, but does go into a bit of his life, and the recent history of interpretations.
I'm also posting this on the Thus Spoke Zarathustra discussion thread.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (other topics)The Nicomachean Ethics (other topics)
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (other topics)
There does seem to be some of this in certain passages: "For every high world one must be born; or to speak more clearly, one must be cultivated for it: a right to philosophy -- taking that word in its great sense -- one has only by virtue of one's origins; one's ancestors, one's 'blood' decide here, too." (213) But this doesn't clear up what virtue is.
I think it must be the case that virtue is unknowable in a common sense if it is composed of opposites entangled with each other; the contradiction of "opposite values," as real as that may be, is not logically distinguishable. There is no "logos" for a thing that is both itself and its opposite. If it cannot be expressed in common terms, i.e., language and reason, then it is for the free spirit's understanding alone. How the free spirit arrives at that knowledge is a bit of a mystery.
"What a philosopher is, that is hard to learn because it cannot be taught: one must 'know' it, from experience..." (213 again.) I guess this means that philosophy, and virtue, and their entangled opposites, are only known esoterically; they aren't learned -- perhaps they are somehow intuited. The philosopher is like Stendhal's banker who sees clearly, somehow, into what is. Psychology, instinct, and even fate (231) play a role in this, but education surely does not.
What seems to me most dangerous about all this is that this genius free spirit, who cannot explain or educate the rest of us, is also someone who exercises the "art of command." Can we trust the judgment of someone whose understanding is so sui generis that it can't be explained? Would we willingly follow orders we can't understand, given by a commander who can't be understood?