Was Nietzsche a panpsychic?

[fuse]

@Sauwelios

@fuse

Sauwelios,

I’m looking at the Kaufmann translation of that BGE passage (§ 36). It’s definitely a lot more obscure than the straightforward one that I posted. I think N. is taking the reader on a little ride in this passage.

[size=85]the so-called mechanistic world […] as a more primitive form of the world of affects […] --as a kind of instinctive life in which all organic functions are still synthetically intertwined along with self-regulation, assimilation, nourishment, excretion, and metabolism–as a pre-form of life.[/size]
So I guess he’s wondering whether the universe isn’t also a “reality of drives” and all its occurrences “effects of will”. You’re right, the question is how literal is Nietzsche’s aim with this comparison between our “world of desires and passions” and the “mechanistic world”.

I don’t think Nietzsche, in such a polished published work as BGE, was just “wondering”. I agree with Leo Strauss here, who says:

[size=95]“Aphorism 36 presents the reasoning in support of the doctrine of the will to power. Nietzsche had spoken of the will to power before [in BGE], but only in the way of bald assertion, not to say dogmatically. Now he sets forth with what is at the same time the most intransigent intellectual probity and the most bewitching playfulness his reasons, i.e. the problematic, tentative, tempting, hypothetical character of his proposition. It could seem that he does not know more of the will to power as the fundamental reality than what he says here.” (Source: Strauss, “Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil”; emphasis mine.)[/size]

As I said, Nietzsche is taking the reader on a ride here and it is a tricky passage.

@Sauwelios

@fuse

[size=85]In the end not only is it permitted to make this experiment; the conscience of method demands it. Not to assume several kinds of causality until the experiment of making do with a single one has been pushed to its utmost limit (to the point of nonsense, if I may say so) […][/size]
He kind of approaches causality in the opposite way a material determinist would. He takes the experience and phenomenon of will in life and asks whether it is will that really underlies everything in the universe, whereas a determinist takes the physical laws honed from scientific observation of the the world and asks whether it is these same physical laws which really underlie all the activity of life, including intelligent, conscious life. It’s really not clear, though, what is intended by this experiment. For instance, why does he suggest that this experiment leads to nonsense?

He does not say that it leads to nonsense, but only that one would have to push it to the point of nonsense before one would be permitted to assume multiple kinds of causality. Reductio ad absurdum would be the only disproof of the existence of only a single kind of causality. But in fact, Nietzsche shows here that pushing the experiment to its utmost limit does not lead to nonsense.

Okay, I will assume you’re right about his use of ‘nonsense’. Moving on-- How are you – how is anyone – qualified to say that reductio ad absurdum would be the only disproof possible of the existence of a single kind of causality? Is it impossible disprove singular causality through empirical knowledge? (How?) I think all Nietzsche is saying is that it’s not completely nonsensical to think that will is the causal force of the world. He wants to plant the idea that it’s possible (for all people presently know about the world).

@Sauwelios

@fuse

[size=85]In short, one has to risk the hypothesis […] whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will.[/size]
What is the relationship between will in general and will to power? Or are they the same thing (could “will to power” be substituted for every mention of “will”)?

They are the same thing according to Nietzsche, and it might be possible to always make that substitution, yes.

I’ll keep this in mind when I resume my Nietzsche reading. I will also be keen to study every passage I come across that explicitly mentions will to power to see if Nietzsche further suggests or implies that it is the fundamental reality. I’m only halfway through GoM and I’ve still never read TSZ, I’ve been saving it until I’ve read all of N’s major works, of which GoM is the last major work I haven’t finished. Then I still need to read Antichrist, Will to Power and other unfinished/unpublished works.

[gib]

Don’t mind me everyone; carry on your conversation about how to interpret the N-man.

For my own part, I’m still struggling with how to imagine a will without consciousness. I’m fairly certain at this point that N-ster did see a Schopenhauerian will in everything, but if I know our good friend Freddy (which I don’t), he wouldn’t have (necessarily) equated that with consciousness (thus coming just shy of panpsychism).

But the more I think about it, the more parallels I see between Fred’s concept of WTP and basic Newtonian physics (I’ll get to Darwinism later). Newton’s 3rd law: for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. What this says is that if that I push a huge bolder, that bolder is going to resist me. Physicists call this inertia, Nietzch calls this WPT. My will has overpowered the bolder. But if that bolder was twice its size, I may not be able to push it–the bolder’s will has overpowered mine.

It’s right there–written in the laws of physics.

[lizbethrose]

Sauwelios wrote:

Well, there is idealism and idealism. Nietzsche (usually) used the word in its non-technical sense, i.e. in the sense of entry # 2. Considering what you said about “a striving for ‘the ideal’, perfection”, etc., I believe that that is indeed the sense in which you mean the word.

Yes, it was–Is N. saying humanity should ‘strive’ toward perfection?

Well then, was Nietzsche an idealist? The doctrine of the will to power may indeed be put in terms of idealism:

"Every drive that desires to be satisfied expresses its dissatisfaction with the present state of things: what? is the whole perhaps composed of dissatisfied parts, which all have desiderata in their heads? is the 'course of things' perhaps precisely this 'away from here? away from actuality!' eternal dissatisfaction itself? is desirability perhaps the driving force itself? is it—deus?" (Source: Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 331; Kaufmann translation.)

There is, however, a caveat here—one which may mark another important difference from Schopenhauer. For Nietzsche, willing is not the same as desiring. I quote again from section 668 of The Will to Power:

"'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, demanding: it is distinguished from these by the affect of commanding.
[...]
It is part of willing that something is commanded[.]"

If willing were simply desiring, it could not be enjoyable; desire is not a feeling of overfulness, but of lack.

Again, I think I understand. The word ‘command’ has much more weight than ‘strive.’ N., then, is saying, “Don’t strive–Do! Become more than what you are without any outside help. You, humanity, as a group or as an individual, have the ability within you.”

I usually use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for philosophical definitions, rather that Wiki. It’s more precise, imm. I’ve also only read Also Spracht Zarathustra and bits and pieces of WTP. I read Zarathustra in HS in an advanced English class. My desire to understand more about N. comes from the influence he had on the German people leading up to Hitler and WWII. I think of Germany as where I grew up and I love the people who helped me as I was growing. I need to know if what I was taught by my English class teacher was valid. Is that understandable?

According to modern science, evolution has no goal. And I don’t see why we could only understand the cosmic process as having a goal.

I’m not saying that we can; I feel it’s easier for people who are goal-oriented themselves (as so many Americans seem to be) to view the universe as being equally goal-oriented. Even our language encompasses a beginning (subject) and an end (predicate.) In that sense, it achieves a (general) goal. It’s damned difficult to comprehend a universe–or ourselves–without purpose. That’s what philosophy and science are all about. We look for patterns and designs because we want them to be. Man created God(s) in his own image for that reason.

Folks, to see what I said that Sau answered with the following, go back and read his post to me.

The former is unknowable; the latter is certain.

“Philosophers as philosophers do not go with their families. The selfish or class interest of the philosophers consists in being left alone, in being allowed to live the life of the blessed on earth by devoting themselves to investigation of the most important subjects.” (Source: Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, “Classic Natural Right”.)

No, the universe as a whole is not, because the universe as a whole consists of many “centers of force”. The Wikipedia article on panpsychism says: “Panpsychism is related to the more holistic view that the whole Universe is an organism that possesses a mind[.]” However, even though the doctrine of the will to power may be considered a kind of panpsychism, it’s still definitely incompatible with such a “more holistic view”: Nietzsche keeps repeating that there is no overarching cosmic consciousness.

I agree the universe isn’t endowed with mind, nor have I found that N. thought so, whether or not one uses Wiki for definitions.

I’m most pleased ILP has given me things to think about, and I thank you, Sauwelios, for leading me to at least a rudimentary way of my understanding of Nietzsche’s basic thought. I’m probably not completely accurate with what I think, but it’s a good start for me. I don’t need to quote N. to be able to start working on reconciliation with his thoughts.

[Sauwelios]

@fuse

@Sauwelios

@fuse

Sauwelios,

I’m looking at the Kaufmann translation of that BGE passage (§ 36). It’s definitely a lot more obscure than the straightforward one that I posted. I think N. is taking the reader on a little ride in this passage.

[size=85]the so-called mechanistic world […] as a more primitive form of the world of affects […] --as a kind of instinctive life in which all organic functions are still synthetically intertwined along with self-regulation, assimilation, nourishment, excretion, and metabolism–as a pre-form of life.[/size]
So I guess he’s wondering whether the universe isn’t also a “reality of drives” and all its occurrences “effects of will”. You’re right, the question is how literal is Nietzsche’s aim with this comparison between our “world of desires and passions” and the “mechanistic world”.

I don’t think Nietzsche, in such a polished published work as BGE, was just “wondering”. I agree with Leo Strauss here, who says:

[size=95]“Aphorism 36 presents the reasoning in support of the doctrine of the will to power. Nietzsche had spoken of the will to power before [in BGE], but only in the way of bald assertion, not to say dogmatically. Now he sets forth with what is at the same time the most intransigent intellectual probity and the most bewitching playfulness his reasons, i.e. the problematic, tentative, tempting, hypothetical character of his proposition. It could seem that he does not know more of the will to power as the fundamental reality than what he says here.” (Source: Strauss, “Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil”; emphasis mine.)[/size]

As I said, Nietzsche is taking the reader on a ride here and it is a tricky passage.

True.

@Sauwelios

@fuse

[size=85]In the end not only is it permitted to make this experiment; the conscience of method demands it. Not to assume several kinds of causality until the experiment of making do with a single one has been pushed to its utmost limit (to the point of nonsense, if I may say so) […][/size]
He kind of approaches causality in the opposite way a material determinist would. He takes the experience and phenomenon of will in life and asks whether it is will that really underlies everything in the universe, whereas a determinist takes the physical laws honed from scientific observation of the the world and asks whether it is these same physical laws which really underlie all the activity of life, including intelligent, conscious life. It’s really not clear, though, what is intended by this experiment. For instance, why does he suggest that this experiment leads to nonsense?

He does not say that it leads to nonsense, but only that one would have to push it to the point of nonsense before one would be permitted to assume multiple kinds of causality. Reductio ad absurdum would be the only disproof of the existence of only a single kind of causality. But in fact, Nietzsche shows here that pushing the experiment to its utmost limit does not lead to nonsense.

Okay, I will assume you’re right about his use of ‘nonsense’. Moving on-- How are you – how is anyone – qualified to say that reductio ad absurdum would be the only disproof possible of the existence of a single kind of causality? Is it impossible disprove singular causality through empirical knowledge? (How?) I think all Nietzsche is saying is that it’s not completely nonsensical to think that will is the causal force of the world. He wants to plant the idea that it’s possible (for all people presently know about the world).

Empirical data must still be interpreted. Only if it cannot be interpreted in terms of a single kind of causality is one permitted—and then indeed obliged—to assume multiple kinds of causality—two at first. This is because the number of kinds of causality one assumes is otherwise quite trivial: it will at best tell one something about oneself, one’s own perspective—one’s partiality, prejudices, limitations. And that’s not yet philosophy.

@Sauwelios

@fuse

[size=85]In short, one has to risk the hypothesis […] whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a force is active in them, will force, effects of will.[/size]
What is the relationship between will in general and will to power? Or are they the same thing (could “will to power” be substituted for every mention of “will”)?

They are the same thing according to Nietzsche, and it might be possible to always make that substitution, yes.

I’ll keep this in mind when I resume my Nietzsche reading. I will also be keen to study every passage I come across that explicitly mentions will to power to see if Nietzsche further suggests or implies that it is the fundamental reality. I’m only halfway through GoM and I’ve still never read TSZ, I’ve been saving it until I’ve read all of N’s major works, of which GoM is the last major work I haven’t finished. Then I still need to read Antichrist, Will to Power and other unfinished/unpublished works.

I find it a bit odd that you’d only read TSZ after having read certain unpublished material. The Will to Power is just a selection from the Nachlass (“leave-behind”)—so why not read all of the Nachlass before TSZ, then? I myself began with TSZ, and I’d do it again—even though Nietzsche himself says one “cannot” begin with that. Anyway, whatever floats your boat.

GoM actually contains a passage I forgot when I said the limitation of the will to power to life, as opposed to all of existence, could only be defended if one disregarded the Nachlass and BGE 36. It’s near the end of GoM II.12—and when you get there, you may want to compare BGE 22.

[Sauwelios]

@gib

Newton’s 3rd law: for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. What this says is that if that I push a huge bolder, that bolder is going to resist me. Physicists call this inertia, Nietzch calls this WPT. My will has overpowered the bolder. But if that bolder was twice its size, I may not be able to push it–the bolder’s will has overpowered mine.

Yes, very good. And what is consciousness if not the resultant of a great complexity of neurophysical reactions?

[Sauwelios]

@lizbethrose

Sauwelios wrote:

Well, there is idealism and idealism. Nietzsche (usually) used the word in its non-technical sense, i.e. in the sense of entry # 2. Considering what you said about “a striving for ‘the ideal’, perfection”, etc., I believe that that is indeed the sense in which you mean the word.

Yes, it was–Is N. saying humanity should ‘strive’ toward perfection?

Well then, was Nietzsche an idealist? The doctrine of the will to power may indeed be put in terms of idealism:

"Every drive that desires to be satisfied expresses its dissatisfaction with the present state of things: what? is the whole perhaps composed of dissatisfied parts, which all have desiderata in their heads? is the 'course of things' perhaps precisely this 'away from here? away from actuality!' eternal dissatisfaction itself? is desirability perhaps the driving force itself? is it—deus?" (Source: Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 331; Kaufmann translation.)

There is, however, a caveat here—one which may mark another important difference from Schopenhauer. For Nietzsche, willing is not the same as desiring. I quote again from section 668 of The Will to Power:

"'Willing' is not 'desiring', striving, demanding: it is distinguished from these by the affect of commanding.
[...]
It is part of willing that something is commanded[.]"

If willing were simply desiring, it could not be enjoyable; desire is not a feeling of overfulness, but of lack.

Again, I think I understand. The word ‘command’ has much more weight than ‘strive.’ N., then, is saying, “Don’t strive–Do! Become more than what you are without any outside help. You, humanity, as a group or as an individual, have the ability within you.”

Yes, excellent. Thus Nietzsche repeatedly spoke of “becoming what one is”—in other words, actualising one’s potential. In fact, Kaufmann at one point translates wollenden Subjekte as “active subjects” (probably because “willing subjects” would suggest that the subjects were quite passive, which is quite the opposite of what Nietzsche meant). So willing to power means actively actualising the potency that’s already in one, like a flower is in the seed. The will to flower, then!—though not in the sense of “flower power”, but in the sense of flourishing… Not peace and love, but war and love: Ares and Aphrodite.

I usually use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for philosophical definitions, rather that Wiki. It’s more precise, imm. I’ve also only read Also Spracht Zarathustra and bits and pieces of WTP. I read Zarathustra in HS in an advanced English class. My desire to understand more about N. comes from the influence he had on the German people leading up to Hitler and WWII. I think of Germany as where I grew up and I love the people who helped me as I was growing. I need to know if what I was taught by my English class teacher was valid. Is that understandable?

Sure.

According to modern science, evolution has no goal. And I don’t see why we could only understand the cosmic process as having a goal.

I’m not saying that we can; I feel it’s easier for people who are goal-oriented themselves (as so many Americans seem to be) to view the universe as being equally goal-oriented. Even our language encompasses a beginning (subject) and an end (predicate.) In that sense, it achieves a (general) goal. It’s damned difficult to comprehend a universe–or ourselves–without purpose. That’s what philosophy and science are all about. We look for patterns and designs because we want them to be. Man created God(s) in his own image for that reason.

Well, I think Nietzsche wanted precisely to get rid of such Gods and teleology. Thus he says:

[size=95]“Can we remove the idea of a goal from the [cosmic] process and then affirm the process in spite of this?— This would be the case if something were attained at every moment within this process—and always the same. […] Every basic character trait that is encountered at the bottom of every event, that finds expression in every event, would have to lead the individual who experienced it as his own basic character trait to welcome every moment of universal existence with a sense of triumph. The crucial point would be that one experienced this basic character trait in oneself as good, valuable—with pleasure.” (Source: Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 55; Kaufmann translation, with my amendment.)[/size]

He then goes on to suggest the will to power as this basic character trait, and I think the pleasure is found in the commanding aspect of the will to power.

Folks, to see what I said that Sau answered with the following, go back and read his post to me.

The former is unknowable; the latter is certain.

“Philosophers as philosophers do not go with their families. The selfish or class interest of the philosophers consists in being left alone, in being allowed to live the life of the blessed on earth by devoting themselves to investigation of the most important subjects.” (Source: Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, “Classic Natural Right”.)

No, the universe as a whole is not, because the universe as a whole consists of many “centers of force”. The Wikipedia article on panpsychism says: “Panpsychism is related to the more holistic view that the whole Universe is an organism that possesses a mind[.]” However, even though the doctrine of the will to power may be considered a kind of panpsychism, it’s still definitely incompatible with such a “more holistic view”: Nietzsche keeps repeating that there is no overarching cosmic consciousness.

I agree the universe isn’t endowed with mind, nor have I found that N. thought so, whether or not one uses Wiki for definitions.

I’m most pleased ILP has given me things to think about, and I thank you, Sauwelios, for leading me to at least a rudimentary way of my understanding of Nietzsche’s basic thought. I’m probably not completely accurate with what I think, but it’s a good start for me. I don’t need to quote N. to be able to start working on reconciliation with his thoughts.

And I thank you, and gib, for showing me that I’m not a total failure as a teacher. You quoted my signature, by the way, which does not have directly to do with any of this.

[lizbethrose]

You’re a very good teacher, Sauwelios, and you’ve given me a lot to ponder. Please excuse me if I take some time off from the thread to think.

[gib]

Sauwelios,

Would it be fair to say that Nietzsche thinks of “will” as an alternative to Newtonian “force”?

And where Schopenhauer is concerned, would it be fair to say that both he and Nietzsche understand that this driving force within us called the “will” is obviously what brings about our behavior, and whereas that which brings about the behavior of other supposedly inanimate objects is typically thought to be these Newtonian forces, the term “force” here is just a place holder for some inner driving that we don’t see, and we don’t understand? So why not, Schopenhauer says followed by Nietzsche, something like the will we find in ourselves?

It’s still hard for me to see this sans consciousness, but it is a step in that direction. It sounds to me, so far, that Nietzsche at least contemplated the possibiliy of consciousness pervading everything.

[Sauwelios]

@gib

Sauwelios,

Would it be fair to say that Nietzsche thinks of “will” as an alternative to Newtonian “force”?

And where Schopenhauer is concerned, would it be fair to say that both he and Nietzsche understand that this driving force within us called the “will” is obviously what brings about our behavior, and whereas that which brings about the behavior of other supposedly inanimate objects is typically thought to be these Newtonian forces, the term “force” here is just a place holder for some inner driving that we don’t see, and we don’t understand? So why not, Schopenhauer says followed by Nietzsche, something like the will we find in ourselves?

I’m not sure about Schopenhauer, as I’m not a Schopenhauer expert, but this is definitely pretty much what Nietzsche is saying. The thing is that, according to Nietzsche, we only have inside experience of force as will. That is to say, we do not really know force, but only its “accompaniment”, the feeling we call “will”. Therefore, we could only really understand force as will-force.

It’s still hard for me to see this sans consciousness, but it is a step in that direction. It sounds to me, so far, that Nietzsche at least contemplated the possibiliy of consciousness pervading everything.

Yes, the doctrine of the will to power ascribes at least a rudimentary form of consciousness to every center of force. The will itself is “a pressing feeling”.

[Ornello]

@gib

Nietzsche talked about the Will to Power. Anyone who knows a thing or two about Nietzsche knows that his concept of the will was inspired by Schopenhaurer, and anyone who knows a thing or two about Schopenhauer knows his was a response to Kant. Kant certainly philosophized a lot about the mind, and I’m not sure how the will can, or ever was, torn away from the will. The Will to Power, in other words, must be a mental force.

Add to this that the Will to Power was seen, by Nietzsche, to pervade all of nature, not just human power struggles. What does that mean? Does it mean that Nietzsche was a panpsychic?

It would help you to read a lot more by Nietzsche. He clarifies Der Wille zur Macht (the desire for power) here and there. It’s vitalism of a sort. Your analysis is not very warm. It has more to do with 19th c German biological theorists than philosophy.

[Arminius]

@Hobbes Choice

Here’s an interesting quote from Wiki …

According to Santayana, Nietzsche considered his philosophy to be a correction of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. In his Egotism in German Philosophy,[27] Santayana listed Nietzsche’s antithetical reactions to Schopenhauer.

The will to live would become the will to dominate; pessimism founded on reflection would become optimism founded on courage; the suspense of the will in contemplation would yield to a more biological account of intelligence and taste; finally in the place of pity and asceticism (Schopenhauer’ s two principles of morals) Nietzsche would set up the duty of asserting the will at all costs and being cruelly but beautifully strong. These points of difference from Schopenhauer cover the whole philosophy of Nietzsche.

These emendations show how Schopenhauer’s philosophy was not a mere initial stimulus for Nietzsche, but formed the basis for much of Nietzsche’s thinking.

Hope it is useful.

I think this is quite right. Nietzsche was as antithetical to Schopenhauer as Marx was to Hegel. Until Marx’ death Marx had been a pupil of his teacher Hegel, and until Nietzsche’s death Nietzsche had been a pupil of Schopenhauer. Interesting is the question who was or is synthetical to Hegel (“Thesis”) and Marx (“Antithesis”) and who was or is synthetical to Schopenhauer (“Thesis”) and Nietzsche (“Antithesis”).

Put in the right name:

Hegel (“Thesis”) + Marx (“Antithesis”) = . . . . . . . . . (“Synthesis”).

Schopenhauer (“Thesis”) + Nietzsche (“Antithesis”) = . . . . . . . . . (“Synthesis”).

Good luck!

[James_S_Saint]

Oh… I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a “pan-psychotic”…

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

Oh… I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a “pan-psychotic”…

No, he said “panpsychic”, but I don’t know, whether he meant “pan-psychotic” …

[Arminius]

@Sauwelios

@lizbethrose

I don’t know a whole lot about Nietzshe’s philosophy as I’ve said many times. I’ve tried to read him but I give up because he seems to change the meanings of his words from page to page. German and English are very rich languages with a lot of undertones and nuances. (Handschusheheimerland Strasse, for example, means the street to the glove/mitten maker’s home, translated literally. But a lot depends on the gender of the nouns and the declension of any verbs, once the nouns are separated out of the whole. Handschuhe means shoes for the hands–I can’t remember if it’s masc. or neuter. Deutschland, Germany,–uber alles in der Welt–over (superior, greater, leading) alles (all, all countries) in der (masc) Welt–Germany is the greatest (country) in the entire world. Sounds normally patriotic, doesn’t it? Until it took on other meanings.)

All of which is to say Nietzshe’s ‘will to power’ is difficult to accurately translate–now matter how good the translator. Even if we lived in 19th century Germany it would be difficult to understand because it’s used in more than one way.

Der in the phrase in der Welt is not masculine, but feminine; not nominative singular masculine, but dative singular feminine, to be precise. (Handschuhe is plural, by the way; the singular, Handschuh, is masculine.)

The phrase der Wille zur Macht literally means “the will to the might”; but the second “the” should be left out, just as in die Wirklichkeit, “reality”, not “the reality”; and the German Macht is broader than the English “might”, which is why “power” is indeed the best translation in this context.

What is it exactly that “depends on the gender of the nouns and the declension of any verbs, once the nouns are separated out of the whole”?

I think the question how to understand Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht („will to power“, „will to the might“ ) can mainly be answered by his personal and philosophical development, and - last but not least - by his language use, and his language was of course German. Nietzscche was a philologist, a poet, and of course a philosopher.

By the way: the German word zur is a composition which includes two words: the prepostion zu („to“) and the article der („the“), in this case der is not masculine, but feminine because of dative singular. Thus der Wille zu( de)r Macht is „the will to the might (power)“.

Philosophically Nietzsche was a pupil of Schopenhauer, and this fact should not be confused, if it is said there were two or three or even four or five stages in Nietzsche’s life:

(1) childhood and youth,
(2) from his youth till his „terminated contact“ with Wagner,
(3) from his „terminated contact“ with Wagner till his „Zarathustra“,
(4) from his „Zarathustra“ till his collapse,
(5) from his collapse till his death.

Philosphical interested people interpret (probably correctly) the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stage as the main stages in Nietzsche’s philosophical life. The most Nietzscheans say that the „terminated contact“ with Wagner was the most important change in Nietzsches life, but that’s wrong. This „terminated contact“ wasn’t as much a terminated contact as it is often interpretated.

And we don’t have to forget Nietzsche’s desease because Nietzsche had been ill since a certain time. Probably was this one of the main reasons for his success - he himself often mentioned it, and many of his philosophical explanations are based on medical, physiological, especially immunological, and of course psychlogical aspects. He won or gained more or less of these aspects because of his pain, I think.

Nietzsche was perhaps a pan-immunologist, a pan-immunological philosopher, in any case a „life-philosopher“ (Lebensphilosoph) who had learned by his teacher: the „life-philosopher“ (Lebensphilosoph) Schopenhauer.

[The_Golden_Turd]

A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade’s tradition.

Wasn’t what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits.

[gib]

@Contra-Nietzsche

A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade’s tradition.

Wasn’t what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits.

Oh God! It’s not what I wanted! I’m fucking crushed!

(what is pan-psychotic?)

[Orbie]

it has to do with panning reality, and becoming totally disillusioned about what’s out there, thereby turning psychic energies into a closed, rather than an open system. De Sade turned his mascochistic , self torture into an outward directed theatre of cruelty.

[Orbie]

It may work the other way too.Upstairs, where my dear beloved son took his life, the room has exhibited noises, as if someone was walking around up there. I went there yesterday, and noticed nothing out of the ordinary. But it is not coincidental, that lately, i have been exploring channeling, and have been thinking a lot about Nietzsche.that there may be something coincidental to this phenomena in a broader range.If Nietzsche was pan-psychic, it is just possible that his aura would cover a very broad range.

[Arminius]

@James S Saint

Oh… I thought he was asking if Nietzsche was a “pan-psychotic”…

@Arminius

No, he said “panpsychic”, but I don’t know, whether he meant “pan-psychotic” …

@gib

@Contra-Nietzsche

A Pan-Psychotic Libertine of de Sade’s tradition.

Wasn’t what the op wanted, but it most certainly fits.

Oh God! It’s not what I wanted! I’m fucking crushed!

(what is pan-psychotic?)

Hello, Gib.

Please do not confuse the word “panpsychotic” with the word “panpsychism”!

@obe

it has to do with panning reality, and becoming totally disillusioned about what’s out there, thereby turning psychic energies into a closed, rather than an open system. De Sade turned his mascochistic , self torture into an outward directed theatre of cruelty.

Hello, Obe.

Well done!

@ Gib

De Sade is not the only example for “panpsychotic”.

[gib]

@obe

it has to do with panning reality, and becoming totally disillusioned about what’s out there, thereby turning psychic energies into a closed, rather than an open system. De Sade turned his mascochistic , self torture into an outward directed theatre of cruelty.

obe, you can find meaning in anything, can’t you

@Arminius

Please do not confuse the word “panpschotic” with the word “panpsychism”!

Oh great, now I have to figure out what “panpschotic” is.

Is that like a “pan-Scottish”? Like what would happen to the world is the Scots took over?