"...Again one may think of the different kinds of interest we have distinguished. There are not only 'physiological' and 'psychological' interests in the useful and agreeable: man also has an 'ontological' interest in another state of being -- and Nietzsche 'teaches us to differentiate between the real and apparent advancements of human happiness: how neither riches nor honors nor scholarship can raise the single one out of his profound discouragement over the worthlessness of his existence, and how the striving for these goals can receive meaning only from a high and transfiguring over-all aim.'"
-Pg. 279 from Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist 4th edition, by Walter Kaufmann
This is something that has been on my mind for a while. (A) the false sense of advancement in human happiness. While contemporary life has no doubt allowed us to advance our ability to attain psychological or physiological "happiness" (or atleast momentary pleasures) the overall happiness of our innermost being knows that the best thing for humans to do is die. Camus said, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." The first time i heard it I really didn't know what to make of it, but when such a bold statement is made by a man reputed to be great I was unwilling to dismiss it and rather hold on to it, chew it over, and at the very least figure out what he could mean (but, of course, not necessarily agree with it). I've led a pretty priveleged life and my upbringing taught and trained me how to be "happy." I never once considered suicide (until I broke up with my first serious girlfriend, and this desire for suicide i was able to quickily see as nothing more than an irrational attempt to get back at her or win her attention). This "happiness" though is extremely superficial and its appeal crumbles when you attempt to look past it. Not even including the great amount of willfull illusions that seem to accompany most happiness (not the least of which is "love" - what most people consider their "raison d'etre"), the problem with this happiness is expressed by these two quotes:
"Man loves, and loves what vanishes, there is nothing else to say" - W.B. Yeats
and
"...A hypothetical world from which the sacred had been swept away would admit of only two possibilities: vain fantasy that recognizes itself as such, or immediate satisfaction which exhausts itself. It would leave only the choice proposed by Baudelaire, between lovers of prostitutes and lovers of clouds: those who know only the satisfactions of the moment and are therefore contemptible, and those who lose themselves in otiose imaginings, and are therefore contemptible. Everything is then contemptible, and there is no more to be said." - Leszek Kolakowski
This I now see as exemplifying the "problem of suicide" that needs to be adressed.
For a while my solution to the question of suicide was simply "I am guaranteed to one day experience death and non-existence, I might as well try life." This is, of course, rather insufficient and doesn't do anythin to escape the verdict of the above quotes.
I think what Nietzsche proposes --that we have ingrained in our nature an "ontological interest" that needs to be fulfilled to attain happiness (whatever that might be) -- is right on and is really the heart of his philosophy. Since "God is dead" what purpose, MEANING, does life have. God used to give us meaning and purpose (and quench our ontological desire), but we killed (the illusion of) God. It seems in his place, if the world is as purposeless and meaningless as it seems and our modern science seems to tell us, the only thing that will quench our ontological desire, the only route we have to attaining a TRUE advancement in happiness is a different illusion.
Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not a good thing. In fact, the drive to turn over every rock and destroy every illusion seems to me to guarantee that one will not attain true and real happiness.
Coming to this point a few questions arise though. Can an illusion be effective if you know it is an illusion? What type of illusion should we strive for? This is the point where existentialist say we must create the meaning of our lives.
I propose that the meaning we give our lives be one of discovering human nature and experience, living in harmony with our innermost drives and instincts. This harmony though, is no doubt a changing one and most likely not always a peaceful one. We must create a utopian vision that we can continually strive for. Yes we will eventually be dust in the ground, but before that happens let us experience life and experience it to its highest degree of "happiness."
This, of course, still does little to escape the verdict established above and what i think nietzsche hints at in his philosophy, which my explanation basically shadows, is that if we have a "cloud to strive for" we will have more "prostitutes" along the way and our interaction with these prostitutes (momentary pleasure) will have an enhanced meaning. Goals both give us something to strive for and in the striving the moments of pleasure we have gain additional significance.
The next step, and only way to truly and fully satisfy the ontological interest is to create an "after-life" myth on top of this.....Nietzsche attempts to deny this and ground everything in "this life" and attacks the "afterworldly" but I don't see how it is possible (he relies mostly on the faulty "eternal recurrence") I think one can be created so that one can be on one's death bed and be ontologically happy - I just don't know what that would be...and it seems like it would require you to create it forget that it is contrived and have unquestioning belief in it.
The more science discovers about the world that narrower the possiblity for myth is, but it is still out there, atleast for the "masses" who would not be able to, nor always have the desire to, turn over every rock. This might lead to a class of mythmakers who basically sacrifice their own happiness (they know its an illusion) for the good of the rest of humanity.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Nietzsche and Counter-culture
I have been finishing up grad school applications and writing a paper on Nietzsche and War and thus have not been able to devout any time to this blog right now...but one thing I hope to talk about is the way experimenting with drugs could potentially involve exploring the many nooks and cranies of human experience, which is something Nietzsche praised (I understand, of course, how against drugs - even caffeine - that Nietzsche himself was)
BGE 205
"And if a man today is praised for living "wisely" or "as a philosopher," it hardly means more than "prudently and apart." Wisdom - seems to the rabble a kind of escape, a means and trick for getting well out of a dangerous game. But the genuine philosopher - as it seems to us, my friends? - lives "unphilosophically" and "unwisely," above all imprudently, and feels the burden and the duty o a hundred atempts [Versuchen] and temptations [versuchungen] of life - he risks himself constantly, he plays the dangerous game."
Monday, December 15, 2008
Nietzsche the Preacha
I sometimes wonder if it Nietzsche is a bigger draw for people with religious dispositions. I myself grew up believing the world had purpose and meaning and that there was a real goal to my life. After the plane I was co-piloting with God crashed, there was definitely a hole, a yearning, etc... in my life. I hate to draw the inevitable conclusion that I replaced Christianity with Nietzsche. I am not dogmatic about Nietzshce...really, I'm not.....honestly.... It horrifies me when i deconstruct my interest in Nietzsche this way.
With all that said, I do feel, with the vehement language and war metaphors Nietzsche is intentionally trying to appeal to the emotions and passions of his readers - contrary to what normal academic philosophy can be. This is rightly considered repulsive for those who know that truth requires objectivity, etc., etc.. While there are many Nietzschean replies to this (that knowledge only goes so far and can only tell you so much - this gives you the "other" knowledge and should be coinciding, or more likely, objectivity is an illusion, the best perspective you can have is one where you take care of your passions), the main point I'd like to make is that Nietzsche wants to appeal to people with the "warrior spirit" and it is almost a marketing/propaganda concept of getting people riled up and ready to fight....for truth, for the Overman. He isn't competing with Kant, he's competing with Che.
He inspires, he motivates...when you are feeling lazy, bored, ennui to the darkest degree, Nietzsche counters your decadence with fighting words and purpose.
With all that said, I do feel, with the vehement language and war metaphors Nietzsche is intentionally trying to appeal to the emotions and passions of his readers - contrary to what normal academic philosophy can be. This is rightly considered repulsive for those who know that truth requires objectivity, etc., etc.. While there are many Nietzschean replies to this (that knowledge only goes so far and can only tell you so much - this gives you the "other" knowledge and should be coinciding, or more likely, objectivity is an illusion, the best perspective you can have is one where you take care of your passions), the main point I'd like to make is that Nietzsche wants to appeal to people with the "warrior spirit" and it is almost a marketing/propaganda concept of getting people riled up and ready to fight....for truth, for the Overman. He isn't competing with Kant, he's competing with Che.
He inspires, he motivates...when you are feeling lazy, bored, ennui to the darkest degree, Nietzsche counters your decadence with fighting words and purpose.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Descartes and Golf
Nothing to do with Nietzsche directly, so I hope that all of my many readers will forgive me...but my mom was excited to tell me that the Devil Rays manager reads philosophy and puts inspirational quotes from Camus up in the lockerroom. Strangely, this really pissed me off. I think it probably has something to do with my guess that the quotes are used to show off intellect and use the authority of some famous intellectual to push a point, and I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark, but i bet that the point made by the Mr. Sports is not how the quote is intended or the point the philosopher was trying to make.
I have my own humorous example of this. I played college golf and my coach was a big believer in the "mental game" and "positive thinking." In support of his positive thinking he would say "it is just like Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am.'" As if Descartes meant anything remotely close to the "power" of positive thinking. Its an amusing interpretation though. After dismantling all his beliefs he came to a first principle which was: if you want to hit a good golf shot the key is to think and believe that you can hit a good golf shot.
If you are sincerely trying to find some intellectual backing for this Golf strategy there are plenty of other more accurate sources you can pull from, like "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know" which we all know are substantial, respectable, first-rate philosophies....
I have my own humorous example of this. I played college golf and my coach was a big believer in the "mental game" and "positive thinking." In support of his positive thinking he would say "it is just like Descartes said, 'I think, therefore I am.'" As if Descartes meant anything remotely close to the "power" of positive thinking. Its an amusing interpretation though. After dismantling all his beliefs he came to a first principle which was: if you want to hit a good golf shot the key is to think and believe that you can hit a good golf shot.
If you are sincerely trying to find some intellectual backing for this Golf strategy there are plenty of other more accurate sources you can pull from, like "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know" which we all know are substantial, respectable, first-rate philosophies....
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
What ought humankind become?
“…he dares to raise a calamitous, and previously unapproachable, question of political legislation: "what ought humankind to become?" Although this might fairly be viewed as the founding question of politics, to which all political thinkers and legislators ought carefully to attend, Nietzsche insists that it is in fact rarely considered at all.”
Daniel Conway in Nietzsche and the Political
Nietzsche's point that no-one asks this fundamental question I think is right on. I have yet to hear a politician put together a great and challenging answer to the question and then promote legislation to take us there. Obviously this is not something that could be successful in America's current political environment (atleast not with the "success" that Nietzsche (and I) want). This is why I push for more localized government, because in a smaller setting, where poeple are free to come and go an ubermensch creating society could be made.
Daniel Conway in Nietzsche and the Political
Nietzsche's point that no-one asks this fundamental question I think is right on. I have yet to hear a politician put together a great and challenging answer to the question and then promote legislation to take us there. Obviously this is not something that could be successful in America's current political environment (atleast not with the "success" that Nietzsche (and I) want). This is why I push for more localized government, because in a smaller setting, where poeple are free to come and go an ubermensch creating society could be made.
Friday, November 7, 2008
On Wager and powerful things
"...and such as i am -- strong enoguh to turn to my advantage even the most questionable and the most dangerous and thus to become stronger - i call Wagner the great benefactor of my life."
Ecce Homo part II, 6
Ecce Homo part II, 6
Still life fights step by step with the great, accident...
...Let your spirit and your virtue serve the sense of the earth, my brothers; and let the value of all things be posited newly by you. For that shall you be fighters! For that shall you be creators!
Monday, October 27, 2008
On Chastity
"Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer than into the dreams of a woman in heat?"
"And this parable too I offer you: not a few who wanted to drive out their devil have themselves entered into swine."
"Those for whom chastity is difficult should be counseled against it, lest it become their road to hell -- the mud and heat of their souls."
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, First Part, On Chastity
"And this parable too I offer you: not a few who wanted to drive out their devil have themselves entered into swine."
"Those for whom chastity is difficult should be counseled against it, lest it become their road to hell -- the mud and heat of their souls."
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, First Part, On Chastity
On Possessions
"A free life is still free for great souls. Verily, whoever possesses little is possessed that much less: praised be a little poverty!"
-Thus Spoke Zarathustra: First Part, On the New Idol
-Thus Spoke Zarathustra: First Part, On the New Idol
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Homer's Contest (1872)*
"(Man) is wholly nature and embodies its uncanny dual character. Those of his abilities which are terrifying and considered inhuman may even be the fertile soil out of which alone all humanity can grow in impulse, deed, and work."
"...modern man fears nothing in an artist more than the emotion of any personal fight, the Greek knows the artist only as engaged in a personal fight."
Portable Nietzsche, pg. 32-39
These are only parts of "Homer's Contest" which was another piece of writing that he never chose to publish. It and the essay as a whole offer a lot to talk about - I am going to choose to discuss the role of competition that it touches on. How I interpret what Nietzsche as getting at in this passage is some sort of competitive drive within each of us - a fighting instinct that is undeniably a part of what it means to be human. To think that we could somehow subdue or eliminate this instinct is unpractical and attempts to do so could be psychologically damaging or just push the drive into other areas of our lives we just aren't as aware of. As Nietzsche goes on to argue later in this essay, the Greeks had an understanding of their competitive nature and it was widely embraced and encouraged - in fact they would ostracize (literally vote to kick out) someone if they were too superior and therefore the competitive drives of that person and others were no longer engaged. Basically in every aspect of life the Greeks would compete with each other. The artists of the day would even produce their work in the competitive atmosphere of winning certain prizes. Instead of fighting with each other by going to war, they were able to channel this fighting instinct into productivity in the sphere of culture.
One can easily see how this could and does translate into today's world. I definitely feel like i have a fighting, competitive side and throughout the first twenty years of my life I channeled this into different sports. Sports I feel then, especially in the physical aspect of them, play an important role in our culture or it is atleast isn't as pointless or as much of a waste of time as is sometimes thought by those living outside of it's constructions of meaning and importance. Instead of attacking one other with swords and bullets we have channeled these urges into attacking one other in "games." This is a reversal in trend for me on my thoughts on sports and competition. As someone who was indoctrinated with the idea of doing what was best for everyone in the world, I had come to reject sports because no matter what someone always loses (as well as viewing it as overall a waste of our energies and time). The joy of a winner is never without the pain of loss being felt by one (or in my sport, golf, many). I had also been noticing all of the ugly aspects of competition - especially how it had overtaken all aspects of my life it had seem. A noticeable area where this took destructive form was with my relationships with other people. I wanted to be everyone's best friend, or be my girlfriend's top choice in every aspect of her life. My conclusion from this though is that these "destructive aspects" of competition were really a result of me just competing for the wrong things. I had been competing for a place in that person's mind, trying to make them "THINK" I was great. The healthy approach would have been to have been striving simply to "BE" great in a more objective sense - or at least one that I had defined myself and was in my realm of control. You become what you think is great, the greatest you, and then let the people in your world fall into their appropriate places - enemies, nonpersons, friends or lovers.
Nietzsche of course is talking about competing against other people and so the above, I acknowledge, is not relevant to his point but is, for me, an important trap to be aware of and avoid.** What Nietzsche describes is more like the basic competition principle behind our economics - people striving to make more money by creating better product that will get them more of the market share and bigger profits than their competitors - the profit motive continually "progressing" things. Whereas this is limited many times in our society to economics, Nietzsche says that with the Athenians (which we are to take as an ideal or atleast better society) the idea permeated every aspect of society. For the same reasons monopolies are bad for our free-market, so is the "successful artist" bad for a culture. I would go further and say that just as there are destructive or inferior ways to compete in the free-market like officious and deceitful marketing there are also destructive or inferior ways to compete in art like competing to be "thought" of as great, or by donig things like plagerize or destroy other's works.
It is also important to note that in ancient greece as in today's free market the people competing aren't trying to strike a competitive balance and make sure that they don't oversucceed and become a monopoly - they want to win to dominate, but let us hope for their good and our own they never do.
*It is interesting to note how this might be able to mesh with my thoughts in the previous point. At first glance they might appear in conflict, but I don't think they have to be or are.
**The great Greek artists Nietzsche discusses do when they compete against each other want to be "thought" of as great, but in I think in a more objective and sometimes personally-defined way...maybe?? Nietzsche gives us an enlightening quote about this by Pericles describing his wrestling opponent "Even when I throw him down, he denies that he fell and attains his purpose, persuading even those who saw him fall."
"...modern man fears nothing in an artist more than the emotion of any personal fight, the Greek knows the artist only as engaged in a personal fight."
Portable Nietzsche, pg. 32-39
These are only parts of "Homer's Contest" which was another piece of writing that he never chose to publish. It and the essay as a whole offer a lot to talk about - I am going to choose to discuss the role of competition that it touches on. How I interpret what Nietzsche as getting at in this passage is some sort of competitive drive within each of us - a fighting instinct that is undeniably a part of what it means to be human. To think that we could somehow subdue or eliminate this instinct is unpractical and attempts to do so could be psychologically damaging or just push the drive into other areas of our lives we just aren't as aware of. As Nietzsche goes on to argue later in this essay, the Greeks had an understanding of their competitive nature and it was widely embraced and encouraged - in fact they would ostracize (literally vote to kick out) someone if they were too superior and therefore the competitive drives of that person and others were no longer engaged. Basically in every aspect of life the Greeks would compete with each other. The artists of the day would even produce their work in the competitive atmosphere of winning certain prizes. Instead of fighting with each other by going to war, they were able to channel this fighting instinct into productivity in the sphere of culture.
One can easily see how this could and does translate into today's world. I definitely feel like i have a fighting, competitive side and throughout the first twenty years of my life I channeled this into different sports. Sports I feel then, especially in the physical aspect of them, play an important role in our culture or it is atleast isn't as pointless or as much of a waste of time as is sometimes thought by those living outside of it's constructions of meaning and importance. Instead of attacking one other with swords and bullets we have channeled these urges into attacking one other in "games." This is a reversal in trend for me on my thoughts on sports and competition. As someone who was indoctrinated with the idea of doing what was best for everyone in the world, I had come to reject sports because no matter what someone always loses (as well as viewing it as overall a waste of our energies and time). The joy of a winner is never without the pain of loss being felt by one (or in my sport, golf, many). I had also been noticing all of the ugly aspects of competition - especially how it had overtaken all aspects of my life it had seem. A noticeable area where this took destructive form was with my relationships with other people. I wanted to be everyone's best friend, or be my girlfriend's top choice in every aspect of her life. My conclusion from this though is that these "destructive aspects" of competition were really a result of me just competing for the wrong things. I had been competing for a place in that person's mind, trying to make them "THINK" I was great. The healthy approach would have been to have been striving simply to "BE" great in a more objective sense - or at least one that I had defined myself and was in my realm of control. You become what you think is great, the greatest you, and then let the people in your world fall into their appropriate places - enemies, nonpersons, friends or lovers.
Nietzsche of course is talking about competing against other people and so the above, I acknowledge, is not relevant to his point but is, for me, an important trap to be aware of and avoid.** What Nietzsche describes is more like the basic competition principle behind our economics - people striving to make more money by creating better product that will get them more of the market share and bigger profits than their competitors - the profit motive continually "progressing" things. Whereas this is limited many times in our society to economics, Nietzsche says that with the Athenians (which we are to take as an ideal or atleast better society) the idea permeated every aspect of society. For the same reasons monopolies are bad for our free-market, so is the "successful artist" bad for a culture. I would go further and say that just as there are destructive or inferior ways to compete in the free-market like officious and deceitful marketing there are also destructive or inferior ways to compete in art like competing to be "thought" of as great, or by donig things like plagerize or destroy other's works.
It is also important to note that in ancient greece as in today's free market the people competing aren't trying to strike a competitive balance and make sure that they don't oversucceed and become a monopoly - they want to win to dominate, but let us hope for their good and our own they never do.
*It is interesting to note how this might be able to mesh with my thoughts in the previous point. At first glance they might appear in conflict, but I don't think they have to be or are.
**The great Greek artists Nietzsche discusses do when they compete against each other want to be "thought" of as great, but in I think in a more objective and sometimes personally-defined way...maybe?? Nietzsche gives us an enlightening quote about this by Pericles describing his wrestling opponent "Even when I throw him down, he denies that he fell and attains his purpose, persuading even those who saw him fall."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Note (1870-71) - Flowerless America
"A state that cannot attain its ultimate goal usually swells to an unnaturally large size. The world-wide empire of the Romans is nothing sublime compared to Athens. The strength that really should go into the flower here remains in the leaves and stem, which flourish."
The Portable Nietzsche, pg. 32
Ahh....where to start?? I can't help but draw a comparison to the behemoth empire of America with which I reside -- or even bigger yet the so-called western civilization which is more and more becoming a single "state." As I have a habit to do, I constantly seek approval from Nietzsche. Nothing excites me more than when I can interpret a passage of his in a way that confirms a belief I already held (I understand this reveals some sort of intellectual insecurity and is scholastically dangerous, but ey...I'm working on it). This passage "confirms" my idea that a huge problem with our current state of affairs is just the massive size of our country/culture. The supposed "power" that we have in this "democracy" is our ability to vote. Your high school civics teacher as well as numerous other people try to illude you with the belief that this matters and is an actual power. I personally don't consider having 1/300,000,000ths of a say in how the laws are written and where my tax money goes really much of a say at all. I realize this all deserves a much longer discussion, which I am willing to have if anyone thinks it would be interesting and productive, but let's for now say that the smaller the democratic "state" is the more power (and thus freedom and control) you have. This, of course is not what Nietzsche is saying here, but it is, I feel, a powerful argument against the unnaturally large state.
It's the goals of a state that Nietzsche is hitting upon in this passage. America and the Romans have/had unattainable goals. A common -- and I feel correct -- critique of American culture is the constant desire for more and more whether it be a bigger vehicle, a bigger house, or just simply bigger piles of money. Beyond these unattainable goals driving individuals, it is an important and valuable task to ask what the goal of our country is. I am unable to answer this, partially because it is most likely different for different groups of Americans. One thing I believe they all have in common though, is this striving for something further-- "a more perfect union," or "peace on earth," or a nation full of evangelicals (christianexodus.org), or just the biggest most powerful country ever (so that we can spread "liberty," justice, and kill undemocratic people). Nietzsche is praising the culture of Athens for having put their strength into the flower; not necessarily just extending their stems and leaves in a striving for some unattainable utopia, but rather accepting the life and condition they were in and putting their strength into the enrichment and beautification of it. They didn't suffer from the wildly pervasive and appealing illusion most Americans have of a "light at the end of the tunnel." This right here is it, this is what you have, there's no point in continuing to reach/run for more, you will just continue to have an insipid flowerless life. We move though as if we can't resist the urge, like a mosquito, to this imaginary light which seems to be eternally just out of our reach.
Things/Ideas that I feel go with this passage:
- The "light at the end of the tunnel" caused me to pull from my memory a narration given towards the end of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. #2 on this page (with very nice portraits of LSD celebrities)
http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00095
- I also was reminded of what I have heard of Vonnegut's utopian ideas. I shamefully haven't read any of his works, but I did attend a friends Senior research presentation in college on what his ideal society would be. The ideal basically composed of small and completely cut off communities that would be have belief systems that worked for them and made them content and not desire expansion (it was ok if they were all false beliefs as long as everyone followed them and they never had science or culture clashes to make them question it).
- I have also read in more than one place about what size of group humans "best" function at -- our appropriate level -- which if i remember correctly is something like 125 people, slightly less than 300,000,000.
The Portable Nietzsche, pg. 32
Ahh....where to start?? I can't help but draw a comparison to the behemoth empire of America with which I reside -- or even bigger yet the so-called western civilization which is more and more becoming a single "state." As I have a habit to do, I constantly seek approval from Nietzsche. Nothing excites me more than when I can interpret a passage of his in a way that confirms a belief I already held (I understand this reveals some sort of intellectual insecurity and is scholastically dangerous, but ey...I'm working on it). This passage "confirms" my idea that a huge problem with our current state of affairs is just the massive size of our country/culture. The supposed "power" that we have in this "democracy" is our ability to vote. Your high school civics teacher as well as numerous other people try to illude you with the belief that this matters and is an actual power. I personally don't consider having 1/300,000,000ths of a say in how the laws are written and where my tax money goes really much of a say at all. I realize this all deserves a much longer discussion, which I am willing to have if anyone thinks it would be interesting and productive, but let's for now say that the smaller the democratic "state" is the more power (and thus freedom and control) you have. This, of course is not what Nietzsche is saying here, but it is, I feel, a powerful argument against the unnaturally large state.
It's the goals of a state that Nietzsche is hitting upon in this passage. America and the Romans have/had unattainable goals. A common -- and I feel correct -- critique of American culture is the constant desire for more and more whether it be a bigger vehicle, a bigger house, or just simply bigger piles of money. Beyond these unattainable goals driving individuals, it is an important and valuable task to ask what the goal of our country is. I am unable to answer this, partially because it is most likely different for different groups of Americans. One thing I believe they all have in common though, is this striving for something further-- "a more perfect union," or "peace on earth," or a nation full of evangelicals (christianexodus.org), or just the biggest most powerful country ever (so that we can spread "liberty," justice, and kill undemocratic people). Nietzsche is praising the culture of Athens for having put their strength into the flower; not necessarily just extending their stems and leaves in a striving for some unattainable utopia, but rather accepting the life and condition they were in and putting their strength into the enrichment and beautification of it. They didn't suffer from the wildly pervasive and appealing illusion most Americans have of a "light at the end of the tunnel." This right here is it, this is what you have, there's no point in continuing to reach/run for more, you will just continue to have an insipid flowerless life. We move though as if we can't resist the urge, like a mosquito, to this imaginary light which seems to be eternally just out of our reach.
Things/Ideas that I feel go with this passage:
- The "light at the end of the tunnel" caused me to pull from my memory a narration given towards the end of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. #2 on this page (with very nice portraits of LSD celebrities)
http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00095
- I also was reminded of what I have heard of Vonnegut's utopian ideas. I shamefully haven't read any of his works, but I did attend a friends Senior research presentation in college on what his ideal society would be. The ideal basically composed of small and completely cut off communities that would be have belief systems that worked for them and made them content and not desire expansion (it was ok if they were all false beliefs as long as everyone followed them and they never had science or culture clashes to make them question it).
- I have also read in more than one place about what size of group humans "best" function at -- our appropriate level -- which if i remember correctly is something like 125 people, slightly less than 300,000,000.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)