Beyond Good and Evil :: Illuminating the Prejudice of Philosophers...

Given the opacity of much of Nietzsche's thought and written style I considered it prudent to better refine what I understand him to be discussing within this first chapter because it's pretty good stuff. I hope to get around to looking at other chapters shortly but I'll outline what I understand so far below...

This first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil could be described loosely as both a criticism of (a) what human beings value, and (b) critical thinking as a way to discover what is valuable. Nietzsche notes that human beings for thousands of years have sought to distinguish "truth" from "untruth". Lately this has led questions such as "What is truth?", "What can I know?" and "Why do I want to know what is true?". What Nietzsche suggests is a more salient question to ask is why is this important? Or more precisely why is this of value? Why should individuals not prefer untruth? Nietzsche acknowledges that despite the human preoccupation with truth-seeking, ideas that are false appear to be those most indispensable. For example fictitious and false fabrications of the imagination lead society forward, offer visions of a better future, reveal fantastic worlds and can be found in the greatest works of literature. Yet these are not true representations of reality. 

Nietzsche asks the question that if nature is indifferent to what human beings value; is it not possible that there is greater value in pretence? Is it possible that things humans value most greatly are only valuable because of their insidious relationship to that which is evil? If nature is truly disinterested, why believe that such things exist at all, or that what truth-seekers claim to have found is anything more than a sample? Nietzsche would suggest that this highlights the need for philosophers to reflect upon their own critical faculties. He asserts that we are predisposed to particular ways of thinking; this is no more apparent than in how we value certainty over uncertainty, justice over injustice, love over hatred. He notes that our "discoveries" in critical thought reflect this. Philosophers claim to have formed opinions based on the "cold indifferent dialectic", yet if this dialectic was truly disinterested how could a synthesis be achieved? By this I mean why choose one outcome over the other? To achieve such a synthesis would be to offer a confession of your own value base, it would demonstrate what you consider to be of greatest value. Critical thought is therefore forced into very definite channels contingent upon what we esteem: justice, certainty, truth. In our pride we construct the world in our own image and perceive nature differently than it actually is. We perceive it falsely. Our own prejudice is all too perceptible when we perceive the world as an abhorrent mess. Yet if nature is indifferent why is it a mess? It is a mess to us because we see it so through the lens of our own moral prejudice. 

Nietzsche identifies other common value judgements that impair critical thought such as the assumption that sense data is all there is. That there is nothing beyond what can be seen, tasted, touched, smelt or heard. Yet he acknowledges this was not always a prejudice common to man. Plato sought to develop conceptual networks of ideas and disregard sense data entirely. Nietzsche suggest then that perhaps such a sensualist prejudice is necessary now for the survival of human beings, in the same way that conceptual networks were to Plato then. Nietzsche highlights other elaborate assumptions such as a belief that "freedom of the will" is anything more than the complex state of delight in triumphing over obstacles and attributing this to our own liberty of the "will". Or a belief that "non-freedom of the will" is able to employ symbolic language [logical fictions to aid mutual understanding], develop pure concepts such as "cause" or "effect", mix such ideas with reality and not produce a cocktail of mythology in much the same way as religion. 

Nietzsche notes that philosophical ideas much like the flora and fauna of a continent spring up from the value base appropriated by humans at a particular time. Such values are as fickle and whimsical as those that embody them; our discovered truths nothing more than elaborate fictions pending replacement in a millennia or two much like Plato's. What then can be of lasting value for human beings in an indifferent world? Perhaps this is the wrong question for such a world, perhaps we should ask the question what will keep me alive? What is life-promoting or life-prserving? What is it that makes human beings flourish? Nietzsche notes that herein lies the danger in such thought. In such a world what is life-furthering or life-promoting may be the most insidious or greatest thing; yet irrespective these must be further developed if life is to be further developed. By accepting such a view Nietzsche notes man blazes a trail away from what is valuable to join nature in cold mutual disinterest; positioning himself beyond good and evil.

Beyond Good and Evil :: Prejudice of Philosophers

[1] Nietzsche suggest that within man in the insessant desire for truth he refers to as the "Will to Truth". A desire which sees mankind ask strange and at time perplexing questions. Yet in the thousands of years within which man has been engaged in this pursuit it seems as though little progress has been made. Nietzsche notes that philosophy of his time has moved toward questioning both the origin and nature of such a desire but Nietzsche suggests a more apt question is of the value of such a desire. Why not prefer untruth, uncertainty or ignorance? Nietzsche suggests that there is perhaps no greater risk than raising such a question. 

[2] Nietzsche describes the typical claims of metaphysicians centre on the belief that nothing can arise from it's opposite; as such the things of highest value [Justice, Righteousness, Sacrifice] are not derivative of this transitory, seductive, illusory world. Such things are found in the "lap of being", the "concealed god" or perhaps in the "thing-in-itself". Nietzsche questions why we should believe that such "highest" things exist at all? Furthermore if these ideas are the antithesis of values found in this paltry world why should we believe that the claims of the metaphysicians are anything more than provisional perspectives? Nietzsche notes the possibility that despite the value of that which is true, there may be greater value in pretence, delusion and selfishness. Further still he suggest that what is good in respect to these things is derivative of their insidious relation to the evil elements. Nietzsche notes that such thinking requires new philosophical minds given the dangers of such ideas. 

[3] Nietzsche notes that "conscious" thought itself is often influence by instinct. It is forced into definite channels based on the individuals own prejudice. For example the belief that certainty is worth more than uncertainty, illusion is less valuable than truth, justice is preferable to injustice and so on. It is very possible that our critical faculties are dependent upon making such superficial valuations; that such value judgements are necessary for the survival of such beings as ourselves. 

[4] Nietzsche notes that simply because an opinion is false is not reason alone to object. The question should be is such an opinion life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-rearing. Without comparison between the real world and the imagined, without a recognition of logical fiction man would be alive but not truly live. The falsest ideas are often those that are entirely indispensable to us. The individual that recognises that untruth is a condition of life impugns [dispute the truth] traditional ideas of value dangerously and places himself beyond good and evil. 

[5] Nietzsche notes that the error then of metaphysicians and philosophers in general are not oversights but the lack of reflection upon our own critical faculties, and the assumption that we are not predisposed to certain ways of thinking. Nietzsche highlights that many philosophers claim to have formed opinions based on discoveries made through he "cold indifferent dialectic". Whereas what has more likely taken place is a refinement in their own values by means of prejudicial critical thought defended with arguments sought after the event. 

[6] Nietzsche explains that is has become clear that every great philosophy is nothing more than the confession of it's originator. The individuals own involuntary and unconscious autobiography. Where the moral (or immoral) purpose in such ideas constitute the germ from which springs the plant that has grown. A Philosophers morality offers a clear testimony as to who he is and in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand. 

[8] Nietzsche that this no more apparent than at the point whereby the "conviction" of the philosopher appears on the scene. 

[9] Such philosophers claim that their desire is to live in "accordance with nature" [presumably in accordance with values they have discovered within nature], yet Nietzsche suggests they overlook that whilst nature is boundless and extravagant she is also entirely indifferent without pity or justice. But what man seems to be disposed to value is living contrary to this indifference; is not living valuing, being just or unjust, loving? What such individuals probably mean is "living in accordance to life" and this is comical; how can individuals do otherwise? Nietzsche asserts that man in his pride wishes to dictate and incorporate his morals and ideals to nature; a nature made in his own image. Nietzsche notes that given his predisposition for the love of truth man perceives nature falsely. He explains that the moment a philosophy begins to believe itself it creates a world in it's own image and cannot do otherwise. This is the will to power. 

[11] Nietzsche asserts that within German philosophy a period existed within which individuals became fixated on the discovery of human faculties. Kant was proud of his discovery of the synthetic judgement and subsequent faculty for the moral, schelling his faculty for the transcendental but how are such judgements possible? More importantly why is belief in such judgements necessary? Are they relevant to the preservations of creatures such as ourselves? 

[13] Nietzsche asserts that the primary instinct of an organic being is not self preservation but to "discharge it's strength"; life itself is "Will to Power" [I understand this to mean the drive to actualise it's maximum potential] and the most frequent result of which is self-preservation [presumably because you cannot actualise potential if you are dead]. Nietzsche urges caution in relation to "superfluous teleological principles" 

[14] Nietzsche asserts that Natural philosophy is only a world-arrangement in our image, not an explanation. It is based on the belief in the narrative of popular sensualism; that which can be seen and felt is all that there is. Yet mankind did not always think like this; the Platonic mode of though consisted in resistance to obvious sense data and the development of conceptual networks. In this there was an enjoyment distinct from the physicists of today who assert where there is nothing more to see or grasp there is nothing further for men to do. This may be distinct from Plato but it may be the most appropriate imperative for a laborious race of individuals with nothing but hard work to perform. 

[15] Nietzsche alludes to the assumption within biology that the sense organs are not phenomena. To conclude otherwise would be reductio ad absurdum given phenomena are interpreted by my sense organs. The external world as I perceive it is the work of my organs. My body is part of the external world. My sense organs are part of my body. My organs are the work of my organs. If Causa Sui [something which is generated within itself] is assumed to be absurd the world is not the work of our organs. 

[16] Nietzsche notes that some individuals believe assertions such as "I think" or "I will" are immediate certainties. He explains that "immediate certainty", "absolute knowledge" and the "thing-in-itself" involve a contradiction in terms. It requires proof that it is "I" and that I grasp what thinking is. If I have already decided within myself what standard could I use to falsify or distinguish what is happening now from "feeling" or "willing"? Furthermore comparison with other states has no immediate certainty; why presume that because it is not "feeling" that it is thinking? Whilst it is improbably you are not mistaken, why should it be the truth? 

[17] Nietzsche expands upon his point noting that thoughts attend when they wish and it is a perversion of the facts to say "I" is the condition of the predicate "think". "One" may think, but the term "One" is merely contains an interpretation of the process and does not belong to the process itself. 

[18] Nietzsche jests that "free will" owes it's continued presence in current thought to the fact that it is refutable. Bold individuals that feel strong enough to refute it continue to present themselves. 

[19] Nietzsche asserts that Philosophers make the assumption - notably Schopenhauer- that the "will" is something well understood. Nietzsche suggests this is an exaggerated popular prejudice. Nietzsche uses the term "complicated" as a unity only in name noting that in a name popular prejudice lurks. He elaborates on his interpretation of "will" noting his sensation of the condition away from, towards, and from and towards which we travel. He includes the accompanying muscular sensations, thoughts and emotions. Nietzsche suggest that which is termed "freedom of the will" is the emotion of supremacy in respect to him who must obey. Nietzsche highlights a man who wills commands something within himself which renders obedience (or certainly appears to him to render obedience); yet in this complex affair we are both the commanding and obedient party. In as much as we disregard this duality we use the term "freedom of the will" and arrive at a whole series of erroneous conclusions. The "will" has become attached to the act of "willing"; he who believes with certainty that "will" and action are one consider this a success, and enjoys the sensation of power that accompanies all success. "Freedom of will" then according to Nietzsche's is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition [faculty or power of using one's will] as they triumph over obstacles and consider it their own "will" that overcame them. 

[20] Nietzsche notes that philosophical ideas are neither independent or autonomous but grow up in relationship. They appear in great history of thought much like the flora or fauna of a continent. Their appearance is far less a discovery than a return or home-coming to an ancient common-household of the soul. A kind of atavism [return to ancient things] of the highest order. Nietzsche notes this accounts for the resemblance between Indian, Greek and German philosophy given the affinity of language that prepares the successive chain of philosophical systems. 

[21] Nietzsche asserts that Causa Sui [that which is generated within itself] is the best self contradiction conceived. The desire then for "free will" to bear ultimate accountability for one's actions absolving god, the world, ancestors, chance and society involves nothing less than to become Causa Sui and as such to pull oneself up into existence by the hair. Yet if one is to ignore the absurdity of "free will" one should also ignore the absurdity of "non-free will" a misuse of cause and effect. Nietzsche notes that cause and effect are pure conceptions; logical fictions for the purpose of designation and mutual understanding not for explanation. We have devised symbols such as cause, law, freedom, motive, constraint and to intermix the symbol-world with reality is to act mythologically. Individual prejudice then falls such that some will give up "responsibility" and their personal right to their "merits" whilst others do not wish to be answerable or responsible for anything. 

[22] Nietzsche highlights that the assumption that nature is bound by "conformity to law" is a naively human perversion of meaning. It is interpretation not substance. 

[23] Nietzsche notes that psychology has become waylaid by moral prejudice
and timidity and Nietzsche advocates psychology as the means by which human beings are transformed and develop to attain their potential. Moral prejudice has distorted the impartial and indifferent world around us to become injurious and abhorrent. Yet if the Psychologist were to view hatred, envy, covetousness as life determining emotions these must be further developed if life is to be further developed. Nietzsche highlights the dangers of such ideas given we sail right over morality by daring to make such a voyage, yet of what importance are human beings to an indifferent nature? By making such a sacrifice Psychology does not sacrifice the intellect and blazes a path to the fundamental problems.

MaHS :: Approaching the Unconscious :: The role of Symbols

Jung notes that medical psychologists are concerned with natural rather than cultural symbols. The former can be found within the unconscious contents of the psyche. The latter however are those that express "eternal" truths and have religious connotations, yet experience many transformations as they are constructed. Cultural symbols evoke deep emotional responses and function like prejudices. They may be considered absurd and irrelevant, but remain important constituents or our make up. They cannot be eradicated without serious loss. The loss of cultural symbols can intensify that which is foremost in the unconscious - tendencies that have not yet been permitted existence within the conscious mind. Jung considers that these tendencies form a potentially destructive shadow of the conscious mind; and notes that even beneficial tendencies can become daemons when repressed. Jung notes that many are afraid of the unconscious and with good cause. It is possible to see what it is to open the gates of hell when considering Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

Jung notes that modern man's rationalism has destroyed his capacity to respond to symbols and ideas. As such he is disorientated and dissociated from himself. Anthropologists have discovered that as people groups loose meaning social order declines resulting in moral decay. Yet modern man does not even realize what he has lost given his spiritual leaders preoccupation with saving institutions rather than the mystery that the symbol presents. Jung notes that faith and thought are not mutually exclusive; many believers are so afraid of science they turn a blind eye to the numinosity that forever directs man's fate. Jung explains that as instinctive concepts well up in the mind of primitive man he would integrate these into a coherent psychic pattern. Yet modern man is deprived of the means in which instinct can be assimilated by virtue of his "advanced" consciousness. For example "mother earth" is a profoundly emotive description of all we see around us yet modern man employs the term "matter". Modern man has become disconnected from natural phenomena as they loose their symbolic implications, and feels isolated in the cosmos as he withdraws from nature [the sublimation of the imagination; the universe looses it's magic as one comes of age]. No rivers contain spirits, no caves a daemon; he has lost a significant emotional energy that this symbolic connection supplied. 

Jung notes that Dreams express their contents in the language of nature which is intelligible to us, as we have discarded all superstition [or have we?]. Jung notes man retains certain infantile prejudices such as the number 13 or touching wood and this confusion is the man and his symbols for the clinician to scrutinize. Man is a synthesis of critical thought, scientific conviction, prejudice and remnant habits of thought. Jung explains the clinician must discover if such prejudice relate to personal experience or are chosen for a purpose. One can speak of Archetypes when both mythological images and emotions are simultaneous; the image becomes numinous and consequence flows from it. Jung explains this is because Archetypes are pieces of life; images connected to the individual by threads of emotion. To miss the emotional tone then, is to assemble a jumble of mythological concepts that are meaningless. 

Jung notes that the symbol-producing function of dreams draws the original mind of man to consciousness. This mind, he asserts, has never been subject to critical self reflection; consciousness has never known this mind discarded in the process of evolution. The unconscious has preserved primitive characteristics of the original mind to which dream symbols reference; illusion, fantasies, thought forms and instincts. These are not neutral relics but highly charged and emotive; they can evoke fear and are often repressed. Jung explains the search for such memories are a symptom of the greater search for the primitive self. Dreams aid recollection and such recollection can have remarkable healing effects. Jung explains the infantile memory gap represents a positive loss and recovery can promote wellbeing. Much of the infantile mind is based on prehistoric psyche and in infantile amnesia highly numinous mythological fragments appear. Recollection in adults can cause profound disturbance, miracles of healing or religious conversion; often bringing back a piece of life that was missing. 

Recollection alone however is insufficient but requires appropriation. Integration of such recollections into the conscious mind will modify the personality and broaden horizons. The patient may brush off symbols yet this re-establishes neurotic conditions inhibiting synthesis. Disregarding the emotional energy as mere words has similar negative effects. A patient will glide from Archetype to Archetype in their limitless permutations and attain nothing. The numinosity of the types remains a fact representing the value of the Archetypal event. Numinosity must be acknowledged throughout and it is easy to stray for this given the diametric distinction between thought and feeling. Jung asserts that Psychology is the only science that must account for value, because it is the link between physical events and life. This is often perceived as a criticism but Jung notes that critics fail to recognize the practical necessity of the due consideration of feeling.