Philosophical Speculations

JustinG wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:32 am

..deeply rooted psychological i.e. metaphysical realities..

These 'metaphysical realities' sound like more 'truths', which are actually the product of social and historical circumstances.

Also, sorry, I think I misread your response before the last one.

I can see now that when you said "I don't think it is possible, actually. That sentiment you quoted runs through his entire philosophy", you meant that it is not possible to appreciate a lot of what Nietzsche said whilst also condemning some of his sentiments. So it seems that your position is that Nietzsche's philosophy must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.

Are you therefore agreeing with Nietzsche that the weak and the botched should perish?

Yes I agree, keeping in mind that my entire critique, starting from my first post and running throughout, was of the metaphysical split which treats the world of mind separate from the world of 'objective facts', which you are calling 'truths'. That is my critique which I derive from Nietzsche, among others. There are no 'truths' which exist independently of our psycho-spiritual purposes in life. In response to my question, BK characterized it very well:

BK wrote:My position on telos, motivated not only by my own pondering, but also those of Jung, Barfield, Gebser and others, is that nature seems to be driving, at tremendous cost in suffering and time, towards the development of meta-consciousness (a.k.a. self reflection, conscious metacognition, re-representation, self awareness, etc.) in both breadth and depth. This seems to be our role, and that of our suffering: to take explicit notice of nature and its unfolding, in the mirror of our reflections.

What is "weak" and "botched" are not individual physical bodies of human beings, as no doubt it is interpreted by most casual commentators, but the living aspects of our being which prevent us from realizing the above telos. As I have remarked elsewhere, in response to something you asked if I recall correctly, Nietzsche (along with Jung) conceived of the individual organism as an array of 'under-souls' who are alive in the most real sense of that word, which is a view necessitated by objective idealism. It is the same conception as that which we find in the teachings of Christ, i.e. our lives must be sacrificed as an 'offering' to God (who, under monist idealism, is not other than our Self) so that we may be born again in his Spirit.

If we simply accept the metaphysical split which separates mind from body, God from man, supernatural from nature, etc., then we will run into all sorts of irresolvable 'paradoxes' in the works of all of these great thinkers, from the Biblical scripture right through idealist philosophers of the 19th-20th century. We will think it is "common sense" to understand Nietzsche as referring to cruel and unusual punishments which make him a racist, proto-fascist, etc. No doubt both his Christian and Marxist critics would love nothing more than for that to be true. But it simply isn't... and once we read him in his proper metaphysical light, the following words become very clear and we wonder how we could have missed it this whole time:

Nietzsche wrote:This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my “Zarathustra”: how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?— First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously

The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me— I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops— and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him... He must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner— to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm... Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self.....

Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?— The rest are merely humanity.— One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,— in contempt.
-Preface to The Antichrist (emphasis in original)

... a form of individualism that is not based on a quid pro quo "I did this, therefore I deserve that" market mentality, but the self-fulfilling individualism of Zarathustra's child at play; "The child is innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelling wheel, a first motion, a sacred Yes.”

I like this. Now being called, "Abundance Consciousness".

What is "weak" and "botched" are not individual physical bodies of human beings, as no doubt it is interpreted by most casual commentators, but the living aspects of our being which prevent us from realizing the above telos.

Whilst the weak and the botched does refer to 'living aspects of our being', I think it is pretty clear that Nietzsche was also referring to actual people who embody these aspects. He uncritically absorbed the social Darwinism of his day, just like many uncritically absorb the neoliberalist individualism of today. Like Heidegger, I expect he probably would have approved of Hitler.

JustinG wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:11 am

What is "weak" and "botched" are not individual physical bodies of human beings, as no doubt it is interpreted by most casual commentators, but the living aspects of our being which prevent us from realizing the above telos.

Whilst the weak and the botched does refer to 'living aspects of our being', I think it is pretty clear that Nietzsche was also referring to actual people who embody these aspects. He uncritically absorbed the social Darwinism of his day, just like many uncritically absorb the neoliberalist individualism of today. Like Heidegger, I expect he probably would have approved of Hitler.

OK so we are back to lazy character assassinations, are we? Then I'll take that to mean you concede my argument and call it a night.

OK so we are back to lazy character assassinations, are we? Then I'll take that to mean you concede my argument and call it a night.

I haven't seen much of an argument to which I could concede. You still haven't shown how Nietzsche's epistemological stance (truths are provisional) is consistent with his moral stance (all heil to the heroic individual). I support retaining the former and ditching the latter.

To reiterate my previous point, this book review of Losurdo's Nietszsche, The Aritocratic rebel is worth a read (https://www.koersjournal.org.za/index.p ... /view/2492). An excerpt:

"This is a truly ground-breaking work that at a stroke undermines many of the intellectual
developments of the past fifty years during which Nietzsche and his ideas have gained
increasing currency influencing many trends in the humanities and social sciences. Losurdo’s
book ought to cause scholars to rethink their understanding of Nietzsche and such popular
intellectual movements as postmodernism and post-colonialism which are influenced by
Nietzsche’s writings.

The arguments Losurdo presents are backed by the systematic presentation of evidence that
undermines the popular view of Nietzsche as a progressive thinker. Losurdo demonstrates
that slavery lies at the core of for Nietzsche work not as a symbolic metaphor but as a
social reality that has to be preserved at all costs. Throughout his book Losurdo provides
numerous references to Nietzsche’s papers that show that when Nietzsche spoke about
slavery he meant human bondage as slavery manifested itself throughout history (Losurdo,
2019, 9-10).

Consequently, when Nietzsche made statements like it is “nature as such” that condemns
“the mass of humans” to slavery he was not using a metaphor or an analogy. He was
expressing his own view about the true basis of society. This is how he understood life and
believed it ought to function if civilization was to exist at all (p.355). Only by restoring slavery
to its true role as the basis of society and having no qualms about its necessity for their
survival of anything worth preserving in human culture could an elite group of intellectuals,
whose task it was to shape society, face the future with confidence."

So what are we to make of the following excerpts and commentary re: The Twilight of the Idols or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, a book Nietzsche supposedly considered to be a nutshell introduction to his greater body of ideas.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:49 am Defenders of this reading usually tend to identify Nietzsche’s philosophy with the theories of the main nihilistic characters of Dostoevsky’s great novels. So, for instance, the maxim “nothing is true, everything is permitted”, which appears both in Nietzsche’s oeuvre and posthumous fragments, is interpreted as analogous to Ivan Karamazov’s idea, according to which if there is no God and no immortality of the soul, everything is permitted. Before this analogy can be accepted as valid, the following basic questions, which are generally overlooked, need to be answered: is Nietzsche really affirming that nothing is true and, therefore, everything permitted? If so, in what sense? And, on a more general level, can Nietzsche’s moral position be identified with that of Ivan? As will be shown, a deeper analysis of Nietzsche’s use of the maxim shows that the analogy is deceptive on several levels...

[/quote]
It might be true that the deep and metaphorical meaning and existential position of the overman that Nietzsche was implying and trying to convey may have little to do with Dostoevsky's Ivan's and Rodion's positions. However, that deep meaning (it there is indeed one) would be so deeply encrypted in the Nietzsche's works that the vast majority of the ordinary readers would have no clue about it and would interpret the overman as “nothing is true, everything is permitted” existential position, following the literal interpretation. It took a century for the most advanced philosophers to figure out that it may not be what Nietzsche actually meant. However, in his writings Nietzsche used very approachable language to address a general auditory, not only professional philosophers. Was he aware how the majority of the general auditory would interpret his ideas and metaphors? When people have an ambition to proclaim worldviews or ideas, they should not only think of how they would be rightly understood and accepted by humanity, but also how they may be mis-interpreted and abused. There is little doubt that Nietzsche's writings were very influential in the development of the German Nazism, and one may argue that such influence was a consequence of mis-interpretation of the Nietzsche's position, but that still does not count, because if he would be a true sage, he would be able to easily foresee how people might misinterpret it (by simply a literal understanding of his texts) and what consequences such misinterpretation would lead to. Based on that, IMO, Nietzsche was definitely an outstanding philosopher, but he would not qualify as a spiritual sage.

JustinG wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:01 am

OK so we are back to lazy character assassinations, are we? Then I'll take that to mean you concede my argument and call it a night.

I haven't seen much of an argument to which I could concede. You still haven't shown how Nietzsche's epistemological stance (truths are provisional) is consistent with his moral stance (all heil to the heroic individual). I support retaining the former and ditching the latter.,

I have but you refuse to see what i am writing on that point. Your axiomatic definition of "truth" is what is being questioned. You are using the rationalist/materialist/dualist definition of truth, while Nietzsche is using the pragmatic definition of truth. And I would argue metaphysical idealism necessitates the pragmatic definition. Do you understand the distinction there or do you need me to elaborate further?

To reiterate my previous point, this book review of Losurdo's Nietszsche, The Aritocratic rebel is worth a read (https://www.koersjournal.org.za/index.p ... /view/2492). An excerpt:

"This is a truly ground-breaking work that at a stroke undermines many of the intellectual
developments of the past fifty years during which Nietzsche and his ideas have gained
increasing currency influencing many trends in the humanities and social sciences. Losurdo’s
book ought to cause scholars to rethink their understanding of Nietzsche and such popular
intellectual movements as postmodernism and post-colonialism which are influenced by
Nietzsche’s writings.

The arguments Losurdo presents are backed by the systematic presentation of evidence that
undermines the popular view of Nietzsche as a progressive thinker. Losurdo demonstrates
that slavery lies at the core of for Nietzsche work not as a symbolic metaphor but as a
social reality that has to be preserved at all costs. Throughout his book Losurdo provides
numerous references to Nietzsche’s papers that show that when Nietzsche spoke about
slavery he meant human bondage as slavery manifested itself throughout history (Losurdo,
2019, 9-10).

Consequently, when Nietzsche made statements like it is “nature as such” that condemns
“the mass of humans” to slavery he was not using a metaphor or an analogy. He was
expressing his own view about the true basis of society. This is how he understood life and
believed it ought to function if civilization was to exist at all (p.355). Only by restoring slavery
to its true role as the basis of society and having no qualms about its necessity for their
survival of anything worth preserving in human culture could an elite group of intellectuals,
whose task it was to shape society, face the future with confidence."

Based on the excerpt, that article is not even worth consideration. If the book review is that ludicrous on its face, I can't imagine how ludicrous the book itself may be. I also wonder if you are aware of the vast scholarship that has been done debunking the alleged Nazi-Nietzsche connection, involving his sister editing his works after he was sick and took control over his estate? Apparently Rudolf Steiner was set to work on his archive as he did for Goethe but decided not to after meeting the sister. Nietsche himself praises the European Jews for their perserverance in face of extreme persecution over thousands of years and calls them "more virtuous than all of the saints" if I remeber correctly.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:59 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:49 am Defenders of this reading usually tend to identify Nietzsche’s philosophy with the theories of the main nihilistic characters of Dostoevsky’s great novels. So, for instance, the maxim “nothing is true, everything is permitted”, which appears both in Nietzsche’s oeuvre and posthumous fragments, is interpreted as analogous to Ivan Karamazov’s idea, according to which if there is no God and no immortality of the soul, everything is permitted. Before this analogy can be accepted as valid, the following basic questions, which are generally overlooked, need to be answered: is Nietzsche really affirming that nothing is true and, therefore, everything permitted? If so, in what sense? And, on a more general level, can Nietzsche’s moral position be identified with that of Ivan? As will be shown, a deeper analysis of Nietzsche’s use of the maxim shows that the analogy is deceptive on several levels...

It might be true that the deep and metaphorical meaning and existential position of the overman that Nietzsche was implying and trying to convey may have little to do with Dostoevsky's Ivan's and Rodion's positions. However, that deep meaning (it there is indeed one) would be so deeply encrypted in the Nietzsche's works that the vast majority of the ordinary readers would have no clue about it and would interpret the overman as “nothing is true, everything is permitted” existential position, following the literal interpretation. It took a century for the most advanced philosophers to figure out that it may not be what Nietzsche actually meant. However, in his writings Nietzsche used very approachable language to address a general auditory, not only professional philosophers. Was he aware how the majority of the general auditory would interpret his ideas and metaphors? When people have an ambition to proclaim worldviews or ideas, they should not only think of how they would be rightly understood and accepted by humanity, but also how they may be mis-interpreted and abused. There is little doubt that Nietzsche's writings were very influential in the development of the German Nazism, and one may argue that such influence was a consequence of mis-interpretation of the Nietzsche's position, but that still does not count, because if he would be a true sage, he would be able to easily foresee how people might misinterpret it (by simply a literal understanding of his texts) and what consequences such misinterpretation would lead to. Based on that, IMO, Nietzsche was definitely an outstanding philosopher, but he would not qualify as a spiritual sage.

But Nietzche himself makes clear he is not writing for a general audience or even people living at the time he was writing. Read the preface to The Antichrist I quoted above in the thread. He could not be any more clear on that point without turning his poetic philosophy into a series of academic lectures. Beyond that, there is no evidence his writings truly inspired Hitler or the German people if that's what you are referring to. There is plenty of evidence that Nietsche wrote things anathema to German nationalism and anti-Semitic propaganda. There is just no connection there, unlike that between a thinker like, let's say, Marx and the genocides inspired by his economic and political philosophy.

Indeed, one does begin to tire of the tedious trope of somehow yoking someone, however remotely, to the murderous insanity of Hitler, is used to make the case that they are equally culpable for genocide. This article paints a different picture ... How the Nazis Hijacked Nietzsche, and How It Can Happen to Anybody