The Fable of Knowledge, Friedrich Nietzsche

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject:

LAwrence: So, are you saying Theopoetics, like I say critical thinking, is the medium for Nietzsche to reach his übermensch condition?

Nietzsche's Ubermensch is a fascinating topic, and like you say above, is an integral component to his overall project. Of course, I'm not really clear what his overall project was, nor do I think he knew exactly what he wanted to achieve...and I think this inconclusivity is captured beautifully in the strange and wondrous Ubermensch. So, in some sense, yes...Nietzsche is employing a kind of theopoetical brush to his ubermenschian canvas...I say this because Zarathustra brings the good news of the Ubermensch in a prophetic manner, using parabolic speeches and pervasive poetry to deliver humanity's most affirmative doctrine: the eternal return of the same...I think there are inescapable threads of messianic hope and world salvation expectation involved too...as well as hyperbolic impossibilities...and a dead God or two.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject:

Interbane: Skepticism is most definitely a virtue.

Nietzsche might ask: and why not be skeptical of virtue...especially skeptical of the virtue of skepticism?

Robert Tulip · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject:

Lawrence · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: übermensch

Well Robert we meet again. My understanding of Nietzsche's use of übermensch is not your understanding of Superman - master slave. Neither do I see "Zarathustra is Nietzsche's messianic exemplar of paganism." I see him more as Don Quixote searching for the goal of humanity free from the constraints of dogma. In order to do that he had to very dramatically "kill god." I personally don't think Nietzsche was an atheist in that he did not discount that it may indeed be a "god" that he finds as übermensch. I mean let's face it Robert, if all of the people in Christianity can rationally conclude that Jesus was (is) a god, why can't an honest searching critical thinking human being like Nietzsche consider the face of god could be discovered in a different context such as übermensch. As I understand it, it is man made dogma that made Jesus a god and Mary a virgin. übermensch may still be out there waiting to be discovered. Wasn't that what Kant did with his catagorical imparitive?

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject:

Robert,

I hoped you would join in! I think Superman is an unfortunate and inaccurate translation of "ubermensch" which I think is best left as is: with our interpretations struggling to make sense of what he means by something or someone, or an event, beyond humanity: the overcoming and crossing over of humanity into something more beautiful, less resentiful, and eminently more masterful in thought, deed and creativity...the Ubermensch as something/someone/some event able to absorb the milleniums' colossal flow of human mendacity and ignorance, the whole history of human ugliness, bitterness, and reckless disregard for what is precious and real...able to affirm all of this with a joyous affirmation that seeks not heaven, but eternity: to relive and return every last moment with each passing detail- eternally, again and again and again...and to find this possibility as the most radical, far reaching and intimately present, act of love imaginable...an eternal love and love of eternity.

Nietzsche's critique of Christianity, Christians and Jesus (and Paul) is as complex as is his affirmation of Judaism and Jews, as well as his utter disdain for anti-semites, German nationalists and other "race swindlers" as he called them. I think his criticism requires proper historical context: which means, in relation to late 19th Century German and European intellectual, cultural, political and religious experience. When seen within this matrix, Nietzsche becomes a dangerous foe to German nationalists and Christian anti-semites: someone who exposed the scholarly lies, political abuses and religious resentiment that was fueling a catastrophic combination of forces that would nearly shatter the 20th century into oblivion.

Robert: I interpret his 'God is dead' statement as a subconscious expression of collective human guilt about the murder of Jesus, perhaps channelling Paul through Kant?

This is very close to Freud's interpretation of the birth of monotheism...early bands of brotherhoods killed their father-figure and were left with an unbearable moral guilt...which could only be assuaded by projecting an imagined ominpresent Father to whom each would be accountable and from whom they could receive forgiveness of their terrible deed....

For Nietzsche, I think "God is Dead, and we have killed him"...takes on a variety of meanings and can be traced to just as many sources...For instance, belief in God as Christians have traditionally believed is no longer believable...or, God's death is a necessary precursor to new life...

GentleReader9 · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject:

Well about Theopoetics, Dissident Heart, it is certainly appealing sounding. What would be some examples in print for any interested booktalkers to peruse?

And about the critical thinking piece as you describe it, Lawrence, also very interesting and convincing-sounding. It certainly is easy to believe in the inherent problematic nature of certainty.

And about the mutual exclusivity of gnomes versus dwarves below the Earth's surface, Interbane, I would like to be able simply to say, "Don't be silly," but I'm afraid my flippant treatment of your straw man would make you sad again and I truly don't want you to be sad. But I mean, don't you think that's a little silly? There are different ways things are true: metaphorically, symbolically, literally, mathematically. Comparing apples and oranges is beneath us. Are you going to look under your chair now to see whether there is fruit there with a little gnome studying disparate types under a magnifying glass and taking notes? If there isn't does it mean I don't have a point? If some poor person of lesser intellect than yourself thinks there are these goings on when they hear me say it does that make my point null? And if some meglomaniac seizes this as an excuse to burn at the stake anyone who says that there aren't really gnomes comparing fruit centuries after I die, am I wrong and evil for getting all that started? No. No. No.

Interbane · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject:

Sorry for my colorful analogies. I should clarify that sometimes I use extreme analogies not to stretch my argument, but to make the idea easily understood. More in line with what I mean is Bigfoot, who lives just outside my parents property in Upper Michigan. Or the ship my great uncle was on that disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle. One of my favorites is the mysterious floating light that has had every explanation known to man, somewhere a few hours from where I was born and raised. There was a web site on that, I'll have to find it. Talking on your cellphone while pumping gas could blow you up too. Any less ridiculous with familiarity, or still completely ridiculous? Of course some sketchy ideas have a dash of truth, enough to muddy the waters. Whatever the case, we must be able to filter the crap, and skepticism is key. If only people would apply this on their own when getting an email from Zimbabwe saying they are needed to hold funds in escrow...

DH: "Nietzsche might ask: and why not be skeptical of virtue...especially skeptical of the virtue of skepticism?"

I would agree with Nietzsche, and go further to add that you should be skeptical of everything and anything, unless someone is holding their throat, choking, and you are skeptical that they are faking it. Then being skeptical of skepticism is more virtuous than the virtue of skepticism. Hmm

Robert Tulip · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject:

Wikipedia has a good summary of Nietzsche's philosophy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Philosophy

N presents a goal of 'mastery' and appears to see this exemplified in Homer. My view is that this is a sick vision, as the Homeric ideal does not present a useful wholistic path for the world today. Sure, there are admirable values in the Iliad, but there is also an intense glorification of violence and domination. Along this line 'mastery' can easily morph into a racist indifference to the 'untermensch' even if N did not share this logical corollary. Ubermensch presents a celebration of master morality in which the weak are identified as bad. Walter Kauffmann says "Nietzsche calls for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their own power, health, and vitality upon the world" in the face of the what N saw as the domination of Europe by slave morality. "The will to power" continued this fevered vision with a strange social darwinism which would be well served by a thousand year reich. And people wonder what Hitler and Goebbels saw in this guy?

I don't see how Superman is a bad translation of übermensch. Superman embodies the American dream of world domination, including in his battle against the personification of Germany in Lex Luthor. The idea that mild-mannered ordinariness can have an extraordinary alter-ego, delivering truth and justice through violence, has a strong resonance with the sense of mastery at the heart of Nietzsche's idea. Sure, Superman is tempered by a Christian compassion, but the underlying theme is don't mess with the master.

N was responding to the pathological confusion of European thought in his time. For example, the Christian trinity divides goodness in three as an object of worship. By contrast, the Hindu trinity, Brahma, Krishna and Shiva, recognises creation, sustaining and destruction as the basic cosmic forces. The Christian rejection of destruction and death as an object of religion, replacing Shiva/Kali by the holy spirit, allowed the natural force of destruction to express itself in irrational ways, expecially in the great fury of the twentieth century world wars. Here we see what Freud analysed as the return of the repressed.

N was giving voice in a confused way to an intuition that European thought was out of kilter with reality, but he does not provide a clear path forward. Heidegger continued this confused prophetic role with his claim that the role of poets in a destitute time is to sing the traces of the fugitive gods.

As I see it, the re-valuation of all values can be achieved by a reformation of Christianity rather than a rejection of it. From the start Christianity saw God in the death of the saviour, just as a seed dies in order to shoot. So yes, DH is right to say N was calling attention to the reality that God's death is a necessary precursor to new life and that belief in God as Christians have traditionally believed is no longer believable. I just think N was very confused about these themes. He had profoundly deep intuitions which are highly unreliable because they are not grounded in a rigorous worldview.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:34 am Post subject:

THEOPOETIC/THEOPOLITIC by John D. Caputo/Catherine Keller http://www.crosscurrents.org/Caputowinter0607.htm is a good launching pad into the world of the theopoetical, and theopolitical.

RTulip: N presents a goal of 'mastery' and appears to see this exemplified in Homer. My view is that this is a sick vision, as the Homeric ideal does not present a useful wholistic path for the world today.

You are right that Nietzsche's thought is in many ways a reflection of what he called in a very early essay, "Homer's Contest"...where he explores the ancient Hellenic ideal of individuals struggling to be the greatest...especially students exerting their efforts to be the best, most beautiful, the strongest and most exemplary model of genius, talent and virtue...a perpetual contest that fueled the development and health of the greater polis.

And there is no doubt that this contest is althruout Nietzsche's work: his life's contest against Schopenhaur, Wagner, Goethe, Emerson, Plato, Paul, Jesus and Socrates permeates his corpus. It reaches manic proportions in his final work of mad brilliance, Ecce Homo where he has chapters titled like, "Why I am a Destiny" or "Why I Write Such Great Books" or "Why I Am So Clever" or "Why I Am so Wise".

But I think Nietzsche's vision of greatness and wholeness in humanity is worthy of consideration, even in its limitations. Here are a few quotations:

Lawrence · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: wow

Wow! DH that was a tour de force. I'm going to your hypertext site now.

I read Caputo and Keller's articles. If you read my essay you will see why I believe they are in error. You can't get to where they want to be as long as they fail to recognize that a belief in an infinite being can not possibly be a finite fact. Politics deals with the reality of our existence together. My essay shows that as long as people live under a belief that the religion of their choice is the only true statement of the purpose for life we will continue to live in strife.

Nietzsche didn't go there. He didn't even try. He got stuck trying to construct a substitute for the god of organized religion and went nuts before he came to a resolution (assuming such a resolution can be had). Please do not misunderstand, I really enjoy seeing how Nietzsche squirmed struggling with his reality. He shows us so much in our own attempt to answer the unanswerable question, "Is there life after earth?" My answer is "there is no answer, only belief. The individual, personal, and unique belief of each person who answers the question.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject:

Lawrence: You can't get to where they (Caputo/Keller) want to be as long as they fail to recognize that a belief in an infinite being can not possibly be a finite fact. Politics deals with the reality of our existence together. My essay shows that as long as people live under a belief that the religion of their choice is the only true statement of the purpose for life we will continue to live in strife.

Actually, I think Keller and Caputo would agree with you- at least partly. Neither endorse belief in an infinite being, a kind of supreme ontological primacy above all other being...what is traditionally understood as a kind of monotheism...a kind of Supreme Being that can be named, numbered, evaluated, and given appropriate status and dominance...this would misunderstand them entirely. Because this onto-theology of supreme hierarchy is really a political statement: a desire for absolute power writ large and projected onto an imaginary being...a Ruler to hold the universe together, protect the chosen few, and punish the evil many.

In a Nietzschean sense, this is the poison of ressentiment in its purest, or basest, theological form: FINALLY, revenge for all of life's miseries and injustices...a super force of unstoppable vengeance sent to crush those who have hurt, humiliated and disempowered me...and, really, this is Empire after all.

I think Keller and Caputo are reaching (lurching and leaping perhaps) for a different kind of power...a different kind of arche...an an-archic force of sheer weakness...they use the term "Event" as a way to avoid forcing a monotheistic Supreme Something...the word "God" contains this event, and it doesn't contain it very well, because the event is really uncontainable and un-namable.

Lawrence · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: Your defense of Caputo/Keller

I understand what you are saying Caputo/Keller are alluding to and that they do not represent it as "god." However, I say that is a difference with no distinction. Mental masturbation if you will. I believe that is the same thing Kant did with his Categorical Imperative. If you hang the concept with all of the attributes that organized religion hangs on their "gods" you have a god by some other name. I do not believe Nietzsche got to such a conclusion. Chapter One of my essay is on my blog if you want to see how I develop that thought.

GentleReader9 · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: My, but this string is fun!

To quote a friend of mine who once yelled this off of the roof of the administration building of a fine liberal arts college in the middle of the night, "Fun! This is so much fun! I haven't had this much fun since I created the universe!" (after which campus security made him come down and go to the infirmary, not entirely in that order, and he had a lot less fun....)


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT