In Nietzsche’s Book 5 of The Gay Science he explains what the beholder of metaphorical deicide is left to do. His clarification of “God is Dead” in the 343 of the 5th book is “that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable,” meaning we can longer reasonably and authentically use religion as a foundation of morality and source of a teleos. Throughout the book he opens the readers’ eyes to the self delusional acceptance of a blinding logic, which heretofore has convinced many to sacrifice the substance this life for the mythical after-life. Thus he tears away our Judeo-Christian, and later Eastern, teleos of a purpose in life and leaves us with a cold and naked feeling of insecurity and hopelessness. That is until he replaces this emptiness with a re-envisioned life, a new interpretation of our motivation for this life--the will to power.
Thus, the step after our liberation from antiquated moralities from killing god is to rejoice in the act and affirm the independent life. This newly discovered existential freedom cannot be filled with an objective will to truth, because as he points out in 344 that is to presume its worthy of faith, unfounded belief, which he just previously attacked. Truth, morality, divinity, immortal salvation are all preconceived values. But what does not have a preconceived value? I think he answers: the power over the self, power is the source of value. Conventionally Jesus and the Buddha were simply able to convince people that the way they were living was the good life and thus bring them together and bind them with power over convention. The admirable form of power is not conventionally binding others but the prequel to this, the freedom of the will, the ability to independently place a value on things. Though, this is limited in 354 by our need to communicate our personal desires to others through a socialized language, which ironically diminishes the personal into the social. Perhaps the frustration from this fact, that to get what we want we must distort our perceptions of our desires and turn them into a form a social utility, is the reason he thinks we must use our power over others instead.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Gay Science Book 2 & 3
Nietzsche’s critique of conviction, his characterization of German, and of course his expression “God is dead” were among some of the more interesting topics in Books 2 and 3 of The Gay Science.
In Book 2 he writes:
“Independence of the soul!-that us at stake here. No sacrifice can be too great for that: one must be capable of sacrificing one’s dearest friend for it, even if he should also be the most glorious human being, an ornament of the world, a genius without peer-if one loves freedom as the freedom of great should and he threatens this kind of freedom. (150)”
Meaning perhaps that a person should be willing to sacrifice anything, including friendship , for the sake of some faith in independence. Independence of the soul seems to be a major them in the book. He goes on later in Book 2 to criticize his idols Schopenhauer and Wagner, thus proving his independence from them and tearing down their status in his mind as idols. There seems to be many reason why intellectual independence, and independence of various other sorts are important, but I can not put my finger on why Nietzsche holds it to be important. As he often does he doesn’t formulate and write an argument only present a piece of criticism. In another part, I can’t locate it now, he attacks conviction itself which seems to be a part of independent of the soul. He hints that a brave person is able to challenge not only others’ convictions, but also their own. I couldn’t tell if he meant that it is pointless to hold convictions, or simple that we should be open to questioning them; it seems consistent with his amorality that we do not need convictions.
I wonder if his thoughts on the German language can be understood by a native-English non-German speaking person. The German language to me sounds rough, commanding, and the pronunciation of German words require a unique inflection. Perhaps this is what he means when he says that German was becoming militarized. How much of this is an indication of how a later German statesmen who used a German voice to unite the German people and convince them to accept atrocities?
His conception that “God is dead,” in passage 108 and 152 titles the New Struggles and The Madman, is challenging. This is where I think he expresses his disdain for how people use religious traditions to formulate an ethical code and direct their lives. Yet, if he is smart enough to understand that the rest of us are smart enough to know we no longer need a conception of God, then why can’t the rest accept it. Its highly controversial and a mere statement is not compelling. And if he doesn’t care to compel or convince why did he write and publish?
In Book 2 he writes:
“Independence of the soul!-that us at stake here. No sacrifice can be too great for that: one must be capable of sacrificing one’s dearest friend for it, even if he should also be the most glorious human being, an ornament of the world, a genius without peer-if one loves freedom as the freedom of great should and he threatens this kind of freedom. (150)”
Meaning perhaps that a person should be willing to sacrifice anything, including friendship , for the sake of some faith in independence. Independence of the soul seems to be a major them in the book. He goes on later in Book 2 to criticize his idols Schopenhauer and Wagner, thus proving his independence from them and tearing down their status in his mind as idols. There seems to be many reason why intellectual independence, and independence of various other sorts are important, but I can not put my finger on why Nietzsche holds it to be important. As he often does he doesn’t formulate and write an argument only present a piece of criticism. In another part, I can’t locate it now, he attacks conviction itself which seems to be a part of independent of the soul. He hints that a brave person is able to challenge not only others’ convictions, but also their own. I couldn’t tell if he meant that it is pointless to hold convictions, or simple that we should be open to questioning them; it seems consistent with his amorality that we do not need convictions.
I wonder if his thoughts on the German language can be understood by a native-English non-German speaking person. The German language to me sounds rough, commanding, and the pronunciation of German words require a unique inflection. Perhaps this is what he means when he says that German was becoming militarized. How much of this is an indication of how a later German statesmen who used a German voice to unite the German people and convince them to accept atrocities?
His conception that “God is dead,” in passage 108 and 152 titles the New Struggles and The Madman, is challenging. This is where I think he expresses his disdain for how people use religious traditions to formulate an ethical code and direct their lives. Yet, if he is smart enough to understand that the rest of us are smart enough to know we no longer need a conception of God, then why can’t the rest accept it. Its highly controversial and a mere statement is not compelling. And if he doesn’t care to compel or convince why did he write and publish?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)