Hey everyone. It was nice seeing the classroom come alive with discussion about Nietzsche just yesterday. Here, I want to continue that discussion, or provide you my thoughts.
I mentioned in our discussion that in certain passages of text, even though Nietzsche himself does not pose questions, what he wants us to ask ourselves is apparent.
In the second paragraph, Nietzsche says, "One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life." Here I wonder how Nietzsche believes the world came to be. Does everything return to nothing which the world once was? Why then, does he want us to look inside his world, to consider for even a moment that it is significant enough to merit some time from the admirer (the reader of his essay), if this world should cease to exist the moment we cease to exist?
To build on what I just said, at the end of the third paragraph, Nietzsche says, "That haughtiness which goes with knowledge and feeling, which shrouds the eyes and sense of man in a blinding fog, therefore deceives him about the value of existence by carrying in itself the most flattering evaluation of knowledge itself. Its most universal effect is deception; but even its most particular effects have something of the same character." Here, it seems like Nietzsche is saying that knowledge is a quest to understand the world. Knowledge gives humans a purpose and makes them feel proud and distinguished from the rest of the world, the rest of the perspectives. But even with that said, I believe he wants us to focus on the fact that this arrogance that results from deeming ourselves superior makes us blind to why we actually exist; our arrogance shrouds any real meaning,which we seek.
Continuing this train of thought, in the fourth paragraph, Nietzsche asks why knowledge must appear in the form of deception: "...nothing is more incomprehensible than how an honest and pure urge for truth could make its appearance among men." But in searching for this truth, why is it that we find ourselves living in vain, imitating others at an attempt to achieve contentment? "[Our] ignorance [has us] hanging in dreams, as it were, upon the back of a tiger." Why is it that we cling onto the hope or urge that there is more to life than reality?
In class, we also wondered why Nietzsche chose to associate implicitly "peace" with "truth." Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not--we will never know. Curiously and hesitantly, I tie this thought to his notion of "concept," the residue of a metaphor. In the tenth paragraph, he mentions that "the illusion which is involved in the artistic transference of a nerve stimulus into images is, if not the mother, then the grandmother of every single concept." This leads me to wonder whether he believes that the millions of concepts we have today all branched from one single illusion.
Alas, I hear rumblings of thunder. So I must walk, with slow steps, away from this article for now (or risk missing dinner and rambling for another unpredictable number of pages).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In regards to your statements on the second paragraph "Does everything return to nothing which the world once was?"
ReplyDeleteI believe Nietzsche would say the impact of human intellect is so minute there would be no need to "return." Also, I do not believe Nietzsche states the world is "nothing" without human intellect.
"Why then, does he want us to look inside his world, to consider for even a moment that it is significant enough to merit some time from the admirer (the reader of his essay), if this world should cease to exist the moment we cease to exist?"
All of mankind is already looking inside this world of human knowledge. It is not Nietzsche who believes this world to be significant, but the rest of the human race. I believe he has made an observation of such a belief and offers up this essay as a critique.
Continuing on to your third paragraph comments. "Here, it seems like Nietzsche is saying that knowledge is a quest to understand the world"
Again, I do not believe this is Nietzsche's opinion. I believe Nietzsche is stating that it is the rest of mankind's opinion regarding knowledge.
"But even with that said, I believe he wants us to focus on the fact that this arrogance that results from deeming ourselves superior makes us blind to why we actually exist; our arrogance shrouds any real meaning,which we seek."
I do not believe Nietzsche states our blindness arises from our arrogance. It seems to me Nietzsche is stating the deception is inherent in knowledge itself. Suppose we remove arrogance from the equation, the arguments Nietzsche brings forth regarding language "the stone is hard..." as well as concepts " No leaf wholly equals another..." are unaffected.
"In class, we also wondered why Nietzsche chose to associate implicitly "peace" with "truth." Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not--we will never know."
Nietzsche does explicitly state "But because man, out of need and boredom, wants to exist socially, herd-fashion, he requires a peace pact and he endeavors to banish at least the very crudest bellum omni contra omnes from his world. This peace pact brings..." Peace as a prerequisite for Nietzsche's truth can be derived from the text's definition of truth as "a regularly valid and obligatory designation of things" By "peace" I believe Nietszche refers to any instance of social interaction between humans. In lecture, I was under the impression that others believed "peace" to mean "an absence of war." I would welcome discussion on the matter.
But Nietzsche is a part of mankind. How can he distinguish himself from us? He, as well, lacks the power to shy away from these metaphors upon which the foundation of our knowledge is built.
ReplyDeleteImplication: knowledge is a form of arrogance that is apparent. So if arrogance is inherent in knowledge, and "deception is inherent in knowledge," then arrogance causes deception. Ultimately, I believe Nietzsche acknowledges that there is no way we can look past language, a manifestation of our arrogance.
Peace, an absence of war?
"Nietzsche claimed the 'death' of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth. Instead we would retain only our own multiple, diverse, and fluid perspectives. This view has acquired the name 'perspectivism'.
"An important element of Nietzsche's philosophical outlook is the
'will to power' (der Wille zur Macht), which provides a basis for understanding motivation in human behavior. But this concept may have wider application, as Nietzsche, in a number of places, also suggests that the will to power is a more important element than pressure for adaptation or survival."
How can one not love Wikipedia? and headaches that result from philosophizing too much?
Lan said... "Implication: knowledge is a form of arrogance that is apparent. So if arrogance is inherent in knowledge, and "deception is inherent in knowledge," then arrogance causes deception.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the text would you say Nietzsche implies that knowledge/truth is a form of arrogance? I agree Nietzsche is a part of mankind, and recognizes he is struggling against the same constraints of language and concepts as the rest of us. However, by acknowledging those limits I believe he has alleviated himself of the sin of arrogance.
A piece of knowledge or truth would be as follows: A "rich" man has lots of money. I do not believe Nietzsche would say there is any arrogance inherent in that statement. I believe he would say the arrogance would arise when men presume that "rich" is the ideal word or has some universal connotation to represent a man with lots of money.
Therefore by acknowledging the word "rich" as simply a random connection of letters/sounds used to represent the imperfect concept of a man with lots of money, there is no longer any arrogance. What do you guys think?
In response to the question, "Does everything return to nothing which the world once was?”:
ReplyDeleteI think that Nietzsche is saying that as long as humans exist and have the capability to conceptualize and understand their own existence, then intellect on earth exists. If there aren’t any humans/forms of life that are capable of doing so, how can the world’s knowledge and history be perceived? This reminded me of the old question: “If a tree falls down in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?” If the sound isn’t perceived, then the tree didn’t make a sound. In the same sense, I believe Nietzsche is saying that if humans weren’t around to understand the world’s knowledge and history, then the world’s history would not really exist. So, if for some reason, humans were to spontaneously disappear from the earth, then the world would go back to what it once was; it would be just another planet—nothing more—rather than a bustling world of history, culture, and knowledge.
In response to the end of the third paragraph and response “I believe he wants us to focus on the fact that this arrogance that results from deeming ourselves superior makes us blind to why we actually exist; our arrogance shrouds any real meaning, which we seek”:
I think that Nietzsche believes that humans exist on earth the same way that the rest of the animals and organisms exist on earth: to simply live and reproduce in order to maintain its species. But, since humans are the only organisms on earth that are intellectually capable to perceive and comprehend knowledge, we are able to question what the purpose of life is. With this being said, humans are the ones that propose to go on a “quest to understand the world.” Humans undergo the inevitable quest for “truth,” simply because we are capable of questioning such philosophical thoughts; by believing that there is more to this life than just “existing,” humans’ lives become that much more intriguing and interesting—it allows humans to believe they have something to live for.
In response to “Why is it that we cling onto the hope or urge that there is more to life than reality?”:
I believe we “cling onto the hope that there is more to life than reality” because we possess the mental capacity to formulate such deep thoughts and we, humans, naturally thrive off of three things in life: “something to do, something to love, and something to hope for.” Even if in reality there is nothing waiting for us at the end of the road, the hope that there is something waiting for us at the end keeps us striving for our goals/aspirations and strengthens our faith that we are living for a specific purpose.
In response to the tenth paragraph and “This leads me to wonder whether he believes that the millions of concepts we have today all branched from one single illusion”:
I believe that this is true, that Nietzsche believes that all the concepts that man has today all branched from “one single illusion.” Since we live life based off ideas, examples, and role models, it is easy to believe that everything we have today is connected together. The knowledge we possess in order to create “new concepts” or ideas, originated from passed concepts and ideas that we learned at one point (right?), so is any concept/idea we think of really “new” or "original"?