[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment