What does it take to be a True Man (superman?) ?
They are those true men, those who are no longer animal, the philosophers, artists and saints. (159)
What does it mean to be a true man? Especially, what does it mean to be a saint?
it does not matter so much the method and circumstances under which one examines (life) but that he actually does examine it. - Joyce
I think Nietzsche would disagree. He doesn't want us to just examine it, but to become something, a 'true man'. But how do you become a true person?
Thursday, August 28, 2003
The Philosophy Circle
I think on behalf of Wenghong and Leon as well, I would like to invite everyone to take a look and participate in The Philosophy Circle.
For those who don't know, this is a website maintained by certain individuals in our philosophy department for our philosophy department. I might prove useful as a discussion forum for other topics of interest. For example, Leon has posted something on Tolerance. Do check it out!
I think on behalf of Wenghong and Leon as well, I would like to invite everyone to take a look and participate in The Philosophy Circle.
For those who don't know, this is a website maintained by certain individuals in our philosophy department for our philosophy department. I might prove useful as a discussion forum for other topics of interest. For example, Leon has posted something on Tolerance. Do check it out!
The Oscillation between Christianity and Antiquity.
Pg.133. The explanation of this spiritlessness and of why all moral energy is at such a low ebb is difficult and involved; but no one who considers the influence victorious Christianity had on the morality of our ancient world can overlook the reaction of declining Christianity upon our own time. Through the exaltedness of its ideal, Christianity excelled the moral systems of antiquity and the naturalism that resided in them to such a degree that this naturalism came to excite apathy and disgust; but later on, when these better and higher ideals, though now known, proved unattainable, it was no longer possible to return to what was good and high in antique virtue, however much one might want to. It is in this oscillation between Christianity and antiquity, between an imitated or hypocritical Christian morality and an equally despondent and timid revival of antiquity, that modern man lives, and does not live very happily; the fear of what is natural he has inherited and the renewed attraction of this naturalness, the desire for a firm footing somewhere, the impotence of his knowledge that reels back and forth between the good and the better, all this engenders a restlessness, a disorder in the modern soul which condemns it to a joyless unfruitfulness.
One point which I'm currently endeavouring to understand is Nietzsche's view of "modern" day morals. First, there was the moral systems of antiquity. Then Christianity came along, and made these morals into lofty unattainable ideals. The word that I'm struggling to understand here is 'naturalism', but it caused apathy and disgust.
I think naturalism either means: "Definition 1. in literature, a method of depicting life that reflects a philosophy of determinism", or "Definition 3. in theology, the doctrine that religious truth derives from nature rather than from revelation. "
So when people became sick and tired of Christianity, they were left with either a washed down version of Christian morals, or some lousy antique moral system, which led to 'joyless unfruitfulness'.
So now, what is Nietzsche's solution to this problem? I long to find out...
Pg.133. The explanation of this spiritlessness and of why all moral energy is at such a low ebb is difficult and involved; but no one who considers the influence victorious Christianity had on the morality of our ancient world can overlook the reaction of declining Christianity upon our own time. Through the exaltedness of its ideal, Christianity excelled the moral systems of antiquity and the naturalism that resided in them to such a degree that this naturalism came to excite apathy and disgust; but later on, when these better and higher ideals, though now known, proved unattainable, it was no longer possible to return to what was good and high in antique virtue, however much one might want to. It is in this oscillation between Christianity and antiquity, between an imitated or hypocritical Christian morality and an equally despondent and timid revival of antiquity, that modern man lives, and does not live very happily; the fear of what is natural he has inherited and the renewed attraction of this naturalness, the desire for a firm footing somewhere, the impotence of his knowledge that reels back and forth between the good and the better, all this engenders a restlessness, a disorder in the modern soul which condemns it to a joyless unfruitfulness.
One point which I'm currently endeavouring to understand is Nietzsche's view of "modern" day morals. First, there was the moral systems of antiquity. Then Christianity came along, and made these morals into lofty unattainable ideals. The word that I'm struggling to understand here is 'naturalism', but it caused apathy and disgust.
I think naturalism either means: "Definition 1. in literature, a method of depicting life that reflects a philosophy of determinism", or "Definition 3. in theology, the doctrine that religious truth derives from nature rather than from revelation. "
So when people became sick and tired of Christianity, they were left with either a washed down version of Christian morals, or some lousy antique moral system, which led to 'joyless unfruitfulness'.
So now, what is Nietzsche's solution to this problem? I long to find out...
Applying Philosophy to Philosopy..
I like Nietszhe's views on science as a discipline. I assume that he would be fairly against a materialistic view of the world. Science, the (arguably) most influencial force in our time, is according to Nietzsche, only 'pure knowledge' and not 'truth' (137). Being partial to science myself, I wonder what others think?
Interestingly, I also wonder what Nietzsche would think of philosopy today (or some branches of it)? Are we, like Kant, only chasing 'pure' but irrelevant knowledge? What is philosophy? Is it only about "the thrill of the hunt"? Or is it about the truth? Philosopher: "lover of wisdom". Wisdom = Truth or pure knowledge? Is there even 'truth? Is the disctinction between truth and pure knowledge tenable (or maybe ineffective ;) )?
Tee How has an excellent exposition on this topic entiled "The Deign of Subjectivity", and I agree entirely with it!
I like Nietszhe's views on science as a discipline. I assume that he would be fairly against a materialistic view of the world. Science, the (arguably) most influencial force in our time, is according to Nietzsche, only 'pure knowledge' and not 'truth' (137). Being partial to science myself, I wonder what others think?
Interestingly, I also wonder what Nietzsche would think of philosopy today (or some branches of it)? Are we, like Kant, only chasing 'pure' but irrelevant knowledge? What is philosophy? Is it only about "the thrill of the hunt"? Or is it about the truth? Philosopher: "lover of wisdom". Wisdom = Truth or pure knowledge? Is there even 'truth? Is the disctinction between truth and pure knowledge tenable (or maybe ineffective ;) )?
Tee How has an excellent exposition on this topic entiled "The Deign of Subjectivity", and I agree entirely with it!
Here are some interesting philosophical questions from Nietzsche that I still don't know the answers to...
1. How can we take control (be the helmsman) of our existence? Through self-knowledge, self-enlightenment (160)? Why is this a metaphysical goal (160)? How is this the 'perfecting of nature' (160)?
2. Where does animal end and man begin? (158)
3. What is man's reason for existence? Is it for dramatic poetry (160)? The production of great men (161)?
apologies for the non-pc language;just quoting.
1. How can we take control (be the helmsman) of our existence? Through self-knowledge, self-enlightenment (160)? Why is this a metaphysical goal (160)? How is this the 'perfecting of nature' (160)?
2. Where does animal end and man begin? (158)
3. What is man's reason for existence? Is it for dramatic poetry (160)? The production of great men (161)?
apologies for the non-pc language;just quoting.
On Reading Nietzsche
There have been some posts recently on how hard it is to access Nietzsche's philosopy as he is so literary. Prof Holdbo has also refrained for answering how best we should approach Nietzsche. Maybe this is because there is no one way, but perhaps, sir, it would be helpful to share with us your view? Don't worry, I'm sure we'll formulate our own views and approaches as we read more of Nietzsche.
Good of you though, Tee How, to stand up for Nietzsche!
As another point, I find it more productive to read Nietzsche with a slant. Why I first voted (as 2nd spot) for Nietzsche is because he was described as developing a philosophy of morality for the atheistic modern man. Perhaps you too, by concentrating on one angle, will make things much easier and interesting. Best of luck!
There have been some posts recently on how hard it is to access Nietzsche's philosopy as he is so literary. Prof Holdbo has also refrained for answering how best we should approach Nietzsche. Maybe this is because there is no one way, but perhaps, sir, it would be helpful to share with us your view? Don't worry, I'm sure we'll formulate our own views and approaches as we read more of Nietzsche.
Good of you though, Tee How, to stand up for Nietzsche!
As another point, I find it more productive to read Nietzsche with a slant. Why I first voted (as 2nd spot) for Nietzsche is because he was described as developing a philosophy of morality for the atheistic modern man. Perhaps you too, by concentrating on one angle, will make things much easier and interesting. Best of luck!
Friday, August 15, 2003
...it is a painful and dangerous undertaking to thus tunnel into oneself...(UM,129)
You know, I'm curious. Painful, I'd agree, but why is it dangerous to examine who we are? So far, I think its something that everyone should do.
Ah! I found the answer from SAE (140) which gives the two dangers as isolation and despair of the truth.
p.s.Actually, as Wenghong has kindly pointed out, there is more than 2! Will write about this is another post.
You know, I'm curious. Painful, I'd agree, but why is it dangerous to examine who we are? So far, I think its something that everyone should do.
Ah! I found the answer from SAE (140) which gives the two dangers as isolation and despair of the truth.
p.s.Actually, as Wenghong has kindly pointed out, there is more than 2! Will write about this is another post.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Can we really break free of culture?
What does Nietzsche really mean when he says that we should 'be ourselves'?
Page 1 of Untimely Meditations: Nietzsche defintely has a bad opinion of culture. He thinks that people are being lazy in not 'being themselves', and that the ideal is the 'artist' or 'great thinker'.
Well, I think that Nietzsche is mostly right. We must not be lazy and become 'factory products'. (I know of many people that do not seriously evaluate their cultural paradigm).
But there are a lot of complexities that come into the way. Firstly, culture is not entirely bad, but not only does culture make us, but we are our culture. Can we actually break free and 'be ourselves' when perhaps all we can do is 'find' another culture to believe in? Secondly, 'the mass' is no more that identifiable. In today's terms, what is the mass? Almost everyone is thoroughly different in interests and opinions nowadays. Who are the factory products and who are not? I wonder.
Ultimately, it seems that all Nietzsche is saying to me is the same as what Socrates said all that time ago: 'the unexamined life is not worth living'.
What does Nietzsche really mean when he says that we should 'be ourselves'?
Page 1 of Untimely Meditations: Nietzsche defintely has a bad opinion of culture. He thinks that people are being lazy in not 'being themselves', and that the ideal is the 'artist' or 'great thinker'.
Well, I think that Nietzsche is mostly right. We must not be lazy and become 'factory products'. (I know of many people that do not seriously evaluate their cultural paradigm).
But there are a lot of complexities that come into the way. Firstly, culture is not entirely bad, but not only does culture make us, but we are our culture. Can we actually break free and 'be ourselves' when perhaps all we can do is 'find' another culture to believe in? Secondly, 'the mass' is no more that identifiable. In today's terms, what is the mass? Almost everyone is thoroughly different in interests and opinions nowadays. Who are the factory products and who are not? I wonder.
Ultimately, it seems that all Nietzsche is saying to me is the same as what Socrates said all that time ago: 'the unexamined life is not worth living'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)