Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:06 am

Leo Strauss wrote:It is however the history of man hitherto, i.e. the rule of non-sense and chance, which is the necessary condition for the subjugation of non-sense and chance. [...] Hitherto suffering and inequality have been taken for granted, as "given," as imposed on man. Henceforth, they must be willed. That is to say, the gruesome rule of nonsense and chance, nature, the fact that almost all men are fragments, cripples and gruesome accidents, the whole present and past is itself a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident unless it is willed as a bridge to the future (cf. Zarathustra, 'Of Redemption'). [Strauss, ibid., §§ 34-35.]

What Zarathustra says in "Of Redemption" is this:

"All 'It was' is a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident---until the creating Will saith thereto: 'but thus I willed it!'
---Until the creating Will saith thereto: 'But thus I will it! Thus shall I will it!'"

Volam!
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby lizbethrose » Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:17 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Leo Strauss wrote:It is however the history of man hitherto, i.e. the rule of non-sense and chance, which is the necessary condition for the subjugation of non-sense and chance. [...] Hitherto suffering and inequality have been taken for granted, as "given," as imposed on man. Henceforth, they must be willed. That is to say, the gruesome rule of nonsense and chance, nature, the fact that almost all men are fragments, cripples and gruesome accidents, the whole present and past is itself a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident unless it is willed as a bridge to the future (cf. Zarathustra, 'Of Redemption'). [Strauss, ibid., §§ 34-35.]

What Zarathustra says in "Of Redemption" is this:

"All 'It was' is a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident---until the creating Will saith thereto: 'but thus I willed it!'
---Until the creating Will saith thereto: 'But thus I will it! Thus shall I will it!'"


Volam!


Does this mean, then, that the "creating Will" is the complementary man; the Master; the Philosopher; or the god whose 'death' N. mourned? It's interesting (to me) that N. capitalized the 'w' in 'will' and not the 'c' in 'creating.' Otherwise, the phrase would sound very religious--as in, God willed it and it was done--or God, the Creative Power. Is N. envisioning a future wherein a new species of homo sapien, a species 'ruled' by philosophy, becomes dominant?
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:59 am

lizbethrose wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Leo Strauss wrote:It is however the history of man hitherto, i.e. the rule of non-sense and chance, which is the necessary condition for the subjugation of non-sense and chance. [...] Hitherto suffering and inequality have been taken for granted, as "given," as imposed on man. Henceforth, they must be willed. That is to say, the gruesome rule of nonsense and chance, nature, the fact that almost all men are fragments, cripples and gruesome accidents, the whole present and past is itself a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident unless it is willed as a bridge to the future (cf. Zarathustra, 'Of Redemption'). [Strauss, ibid., §§ 34-35.]

What Zarathustra says in "Of Redemption" is this:

"All 'It was' is a fragment, a riddle, a gruesome accident---until the creating Will saith thereto: 'but thus I willed it!'
---Until the creating Will saith thereto: 'But thus I will it! Thus shall I will it!'"


Volam!

Does this mean, then, that the "creating Will" is the complementary man; the Master; the Philosopher; or the god whose 'death' N. mourned? It's interesting (to me) that N. capitalized the 'w' in 'will' and not the 'c' in 'creating.' Otherwise, the phrase would sound very religious--as in, God willed it and it was done--or God, the Creative Power. Is N. envisioning a future wherein a new species of homo sapien, a species 'ruled' by philosophy, becomes dominant?

Nietzsche wrote in German, my dear. This makes your comment about capitalisation nonsensical.

The creating will is the will that creates---in this case creates nature, the eternity of nature, by postulating the eternal recurrence (see the first post in this thread). In this case, therefore, it is the will of the complementary man.

On a different note, I find it interesting how Zarathustra phrases what he says. For it shows that the creative will says "thus I willed it" by saying "thus I will it, thus shall I will it"; only by avowing that it wills it now and promising that it will will it in the future does it ground its assertion that it willed it in the past: for the present is the past of the future. And:

"To redeem what is past, and to transform [i.e., by transforming] every 'It was' into 'Thus I willed it!"---that only do I call redemption!" (ibid.)
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby lizbethrose » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:25 am

No, it doesn't sau. By using the upper case for 'will', N. made the word a noun rather than a verb. (All nouns are capitalized in German, which is why I thought it interesting.) As a noun, it borders on being religious. I'm surprised that Strauss wrote "complementary man" with man in the lower case, for this reason. Although Strauss was German, he wrote his essay in English, and yet he capitalized 'will.'

About the 'complementary man:' Is he a mirror-image of the true Philosopher, or does he add to the Philosopher in order to make the Philosopher a whole person?

In your OP, you wrote, "The highest, the most difficult problem is that people are abolishing the prerequisites of human greatness---suffering and inequality---and there are no assignable limits to that abolition." But, it seems to me, you're only paraphrasing Strauss's essay when he says, "...at the summit of the hierarchy is the complementary man. His supremacy is shown by the fact that he solves the highest, the most difficult problem..." which, for N. is nature in all it's forms. Science, in N.'s time, was starting to unravel the 'secrets' of nature through medicine, for example, which relieves suffering, and technology, with automation, which started to 'equalize' people.

Nietzsche wanted philosophy to be ascendant over science, so he proposed the 'eternal return' of everything in Nature in what seems to me to be a coil-like structure, if it were to be diagrammed, rather than a cyclic recurrence. If N. envisioned eternal, cyclic, recurrences in nature, I think he was in error. It's impossible to abolish knowledge and start all over again from scratch, so to speak. Nature, as in flora and fauna, also evolves. But N. seems very wary of science.

As for any religiosity in Nietzsche, I think it's there. Nietzsche said the god of Christianity was no longer needed by Western philosophy, which was primarily German. But people have a psychological need for something. Nietzsche gave them the Ubermensch, which Germans didn't understand and, instead, interpreted as Germany and the Germanic races as superior to all Mankind. The world, therefore, saw the Third Reich emerging in the 1930s and being crushed in the 1940s.

Was Nietzsche nationalistic? From what I've read--yes.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:31 am

lizbethrose wrote:No, it doesn't sau. By using the upper case for 'will', N. made the word a noun rather than a verb. (All nouns are capitalized in German, which is why I thought it interesting.) As a noun, it borders on being religious. I'm surprised that Strauss wrote "complementary man" with man in the lower case, for this reason. Although Strauss was German, he wrote his essay in English, and yet he capitalized 'will.'

Er, no, Strauss didn't do that, the translator Thomas Common did.


About the 'complementary man:' Is he a mirror-image of the true Philosopher, or does he add to the Philosopher in order to make the Philosopher a whole person?

The complementary man is complementary in that he complements the rest of existence. I identify him with the true philosopher.


In your OP, you wrote, "The highest, the most difficult problem is that people are abolishing the prerequisites of human greatness---suffering and inequality---and there are no assignable limits to that abolition." But, it seems to me, you're only paraphrasing Strauss's essay when he says, "...at the summit of the hierarchy is the complementary man. His supremacy is shown by the fact that he solves the highest, the most difficult problem..." which, for N. is nature in all it's forms. Science, in N.'s time, was starting to unravel the 'secrets' of nature through medicine, for example, which relieves suffering, and technology, with automation, which started to 'equalize' people.

Nietzsche wanted philosophy to be ascendant over science, so he proposed the 'eternal return' of everything in Nature in what seems to me to be a coil-like structure, if it were to be diagrammed, rather than a cyclic recurrence. If N. envisioned eternal, cyclic, recurrences in nature, I think he was in error. It's impossible to abolish knowledge and start all over again from scratch, so to speak.

You mean, start over again from one-celled organisms? That's quite unlikely, yes. But cataclysms like the one mythologised in the story of Noah's Ark and the like are possible and have probably actually happened (and have not Christianity and Islam also been cataclysms in that sense?).


Nature, as in flora and fauna, also evolves. But N. seems very wary of science.

As for any religiosity in Nietzsche, I think it's there. Nietzsche said the god of Christianity was no longer needed by Western philosophy, which was primarily German. But people have a psychological need for something. Nietzsche gave them the Ubermensch, which Germans didn't understand and, instead, interpreted as Germany and the Germanic races as superior to all Mankind. The world, therefore, saw the Third Reich emerging in the 1930s and being crushed in the 1940s.

Was Nietzsche nationalistic? From what I've read--yes.

Only in the early days.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby lizbethrose » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:06 am

Leo Strauss wrote an essay "A Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil." Are you saying he wrote it in German, even though he was living in the US at the time and meant it for publication here?

It really doesn't matter. I only pointed it out because it reinforces N.'s use of the word 'will' as an active 'thing.' This explains a Nietzschean concept to me in my continued attempts to understand him--and he did leave a lot up to individual interpretation, didn't he.

You continue to define words using the same word--"The complementary man is complementary in that he complements the rest of existence." Okay. What does 'complement' mean?

By the way, Google has listed some of your quotes about N.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Only_Humean » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:21 am

lizbethrose wrote:It really doesn't matter. I only pointed it out because it reinforces N.'s use of the word 'will' as an active 'thing.' This explains a Nietzschean concept to me in my continued attempts to understand him--and he did leave a lot up to individual interpretation, didn't he.


I hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but if you want to understand Nietzsche, wouldn't you be better off reading what he said, rather than critiquing someone's critique of Strauss' critique of what he said? It would in any case seem like a more efficient way to go about things, and a good place to start. :) It just seems like you're trying to learn how to knit by unstitching a sweater, this way around.

If you want to specifically understand his conception of will, you might want to read Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation too. It's not a light read, but it clarifies a lot about the metaphysical Will-with-a-capital-W that Nietzsche's talking about - it's Freddie's starting point. In any case, it's not "an active thing". It's more the fundamental nature of all things.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby lizbethrose » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:52 am

I'm trying to read N., humean, I'm also trying to read as much as I can about him in order to give me some sort of insight into N. as a poet, philosopher, and man within his time. Along with that, I'm trying to overcome a learned negative response to his philosophy. It takes time, so I ask others for their interpretations. Sometimes, I understand their interpretation; sometimes, I don't. I'm the low level wattage in a three level bulb.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:18 pm

There is a deep ambiguity in Nietzsches concept of Will. But to understand it at all you have to know that he did not believe that will can be anything else than will-to-power. This is an "active thing" in the sense that it is meant to denote the subject. But it is also a "nature of things" in that it means to describe "the World".

I believe that it describes neither the subject nor "the World" but rather the conditions by which the subjects exist in / form worlds. Nietzsche did not distinguish between the collectivity of subjects and the structure/nature of a subject itself.

A subject wills-to-power over other subjects, it wills to assert itself to itself as itself. Nietzsche defines happiness in these terms - the feeling of the power to assert oneself as oneself, to not succumb to circumstances, to not have to compromise, to not feel overpowered, imprisoned, disabled. But all this speaks to a sense of identity that Nietzsche nowhere addresses as phenomenologically as he addresses its conditions.

The best way to read Nietzsche is to start at the beginning, at the Birth of Tragedy. Here he deals explicitly and logically with Schopenhauers phenomenology of the subject (principium individuationis) in terms of the Apollonian. He then adds to this a layer both below and on top of it it by introducing the titanic Dionysian and the tragic Dionysian. He encloses the subject in its conditions. He appears to have identified the entire subject. But since these conditions to the subject can only be understood as conditioned by the subject... there is a circularity which' logical, core level is avoided, and allowed to exist only on a poetic level in the form of the Eternal Recurrence.

Hence, "the ER must be affirmed" -- the logical circularity implicit in the reflection on the subject has to be incorporated into some aspect of the philosophy, but this is done without logically addressing it, the circularity has to be made into a "cosmic ring". This signifies that Nietzsche had not yet abandoned the idea of objectivity altogether, had not embraced perspectivism as a true ontological ground. Perhaps because this would have undone the work of presenting the will-to-power as God, as an omni-present entity, as a great mother-like being in which all are enclosed.
A new day, new dawn.../A grasshopper jumps and makes /The fresh dew scatter
- Pezer
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7640
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:36 pm

lizbethrose wrote:Leo Strauss wrote an essay "A Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil." Are you saying he wrote it in German, even though he was living in the US at the time and meant it for publication here?

No, I'm saying you've mixed up the quotes (I always provide the source, so just read back and you should see your error).


It really doesn't matter. I only pointed it out because it reinforces N.'s use of the word 'will' as an active 'thing.' This explains a Nietzschean concept to me in my continued attempts to understand him--and he did leave a lot up to individual interpretation, didn't he.

Certainly. But TSZ is very poetic, so you shouldn't take the fact that the creative will speaks too literally.


You continue to define words using the same word--"The complementary man is complementary in that he complements the rest of existence." Okay. What does 'complement' mean?

To be a complement to, in the sense of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complement noun 1 a.


By the way, Google has listed some of your quotes about N.

You mean I'm getting famous? :mrgreen:
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby WL » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:18 am

Dear Sauwelios,

I wonder, does the vacuity of FixedCross's sanctimonious label-juggling here ever remind you of the way I participated in KDH debates & the BGE studies with Bill Osborne?

-WL
WL
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:29 am

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:52 am

WL wrote:Dear Sauwelious,

I wonder, does the vacuity of FixedCross's sanctimonious label-juggling here ever remind you of the way that I had written, in KDH debates & the BGE studies with Bill Osborne?

-WL

Dear WL,

Are you asking me whether FixedCross now ever reminds me of you then? Only of you in the very beginning of those debates, and only vaguely, and only now that you mention it. You seemed to understand Nietzsche's "superhuman being" as some kind of transhuman being back then. But you soon stopped clashing with Bill about your and his apparently incompatible interpretations, and became a student rather than a self-appointed teacher. It seems sanctimoniousness and self-appointed teacherhood go well together.

It definitely does often seem to me that the things you said back then about the entity or non-entity behind the pseudonym Fixed Cross are still quite applicable today.

Best regards,

Sauwelios
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby WL » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:34 am

Thank you for commenting candidly, I consider it very educational to have that on record.
Behold, the Eternal Recurrence of the Same! New Osbornes are needed. New shock&awe studies of BGE.
Truly, to study philosophy is to meddle with a magic cauldron, as what you put into it is never what you think you had put in, and what you get out is never what you thought you got out.

Label-juggling does not survive contact with the witchbrew.

-WL
WL
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:29 am

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Pezerocles » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:40 am

WL wrote:Thank you for commenting candidly, I consider it very educational to have that on record.
Behold, the Eternal Recurrence of the Same! New Osbornes are needed. New shock&awe studies of BGE.
Truly, to study philosophy is to meddle with a magic cauldron, as what you put into it is never what you think you had put in, and what you get out is never what you thought you got out.

Label-juggling does not survive contact with the witchbrew.

-WL


boo-ya
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby lizbethrose » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:10 am

Sau, forgive me for again intruding, but I once again reread your OP. You give an excerpt from Leo Strauss's essay, but don't mention a translator. This led me to looking for the essay, because I found it helpful. I never found the essay itself--either in English or in German--and never found the name of a translator of Strauss's essays, so I assumed it had been written in English.

So the Complementary Man completes Man. Does that then mean the Complementary Man is the Ubermensch? That's certainly a lot easier to say than "der außergewöhnlicher Mann"--the extraordinary man. lol

I don't know if being cited on Google means that you're becoming famous, exactly--but--you never know! You may become known as Googley Goodone, Savant Sauwelios--but probably not. :D
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby lizbethrose » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:34 am

FC, thank's for your input. I'm okay with it up to your last sentence:

"Hence, "the ER must be affirmed" -- the logical circularity implicit in the reflection on the subject has to be incorporated into some aspect of the philosophy, but this is done without logically addressing it, the circularity has to be made into a "cosmic ring". This signifies that Nietzsche had not yet abandoned the idea of objectivity altogether, had not embraced perspectivism as a true ontological ground. Perhaps because this would have undone the work of presenting the will-to-power as God, as an omni-present entity, as a great mother-like being in which all are enclosed."

Did N. present the will-to-power as God, or was that some one's interpretation of N.?
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:54 pm

Ah, Bill. Were it only that he could see this little reunion... he would surely weep!
I did sense that it was going to be like this. Back then I was already the only one who suspected that Nietzsche would have to be conquered, overcome by the very means he provided, in order to do justice to these means. But what do you peasants understand of this.

What is here?

The need for a commandment to affirm the given. This is all that could be acquired from the witchbrew?

You can't possibly be serious.
A new day, new dawn.../A grasshopper jumps and makes /The fresh dew scatter
- Pezer
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7640
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby WL » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:54 pm

Dear FixedCross,

The trouble is that F.Nietzsche refers to something using the words you and I both see. If somebody takes the words as the only matter at hand, then the witchbrew ingredients are denatured. It becomes well-mashed and shaken and stirred water, but water nonetheless. This is how I had come to imagine (in Nietzsche) the transhuman possibilities that intoxicate me, and how you deal today with the Recurrence. However, niether of those constructs was Nietzsche's, but only yours and mine.

I refer to your omnipresent arguments of the form: "The philosopher claims he sees red. If red is a colour, then it is part of the rainbow, and therefore what concerned Nietzsche was atmospheric precipitation. Luckily today we have much better data on this. We may overcome Nietzsche using this data and my logics." Meanwhile, the red may have been there as a sign of danger, or simply to agitate the bullheaded.

This note is to caution you against drawing semantic conclusions from the linguistic or logical behaviour of English labels.

-WL
Last edited by WL on Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
WL
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:29 am

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:57 pm

lizbethrose wrote:Sau, forgive me for again intruding, but I once again reread your OP. You give an excerpt from Leo Strauss's essay, but don't mention a translator. This led me to looking for the essay, because I found it helpful. I never found the essay itself--either in English or in German--and never found the name of a translator of Strauss's essays, so I assumed it had been written in English.

The quote is from Strauss's essay "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil", which was originally written in English. So far so good!


So the Complementary Man completes Man.

Not just man, the rest of existence.


Does that then mean the Complementary Man is the Ubermensch?

I think so, yes.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:47 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Then it does seem that I was right in locating the problem [of nature] there [i.e., in willing the eternal return also of the weak and the failures].

No. The solution is "willing the whole natural order, the whole natural process". A part of that willing, of that solution, logically cannot be the problem.

As I explained, I have developed the means to will that natural order naturally, where your absurd "will to will" logically fails there.
Your argumentation amounts to "need to will", meaning only "lack of will".

I think this deserves a response now, if only in the light of WL's question.

The will to the eternal recurrence, the supreme will to power, is indeed the "will to will". And this is indeed related to a need, though not to a need to will but to a need for will. Thus in BGE 56, the only section of BGE devoted explicitly to the eternal recurrence, Nietzsche describes the complementary philosopher as the human-superhuman being who "has need of precisely this spectacle [i.e., the spectacle of "that which was and is" (ibid.), of "the whole natural process"]---and makes need of it: because he ever again has need of himself---and makes need of himself".

Lampert translates Nietzsche's Not ("need") as "necessity" when he interprets this section, and says that it "is not a physical or cosmic necessity but a lover's necessity, erotic necessity" (Lampert, Nietzsche's Task, page 119). And in his latest book, he defines philosophy as "the highest eros of a whole that can be [rationally] understood as eros and nothing besides" (Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic, page 13). The phrase "eros and nothing besides", being entirely reminiscent of Nietzsche's phrase "will to power and nothing besides" (BGE 36 and WP 1067), implies that "eros" is the Socratic or Platonic name for the same phenomenon for which Nietzsche's name is "will to power", and this is confirmed on page 417. The Nietzschean equivalent of the phrase "highest eros of", however, is then "highest will to power over". Philosophy, Nietzscheanly defined, is the highest will to power over a whole that can be rationally understood as will to power and nothing besides. And this highest or supreme will to power is the most spiritual or intellectual (geistig) will to power (BGE 9; cf. WP 617): it does not seek to "change the world", it only "interprets the world differently" (Marx, Theses on Feuerbach)---it wishfully or willfully interprets the world as eternally recurring will to power and nothing besides.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby WL » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:14 pm

The idea of "the complementary man" stands to be related to the ascetic ideal. If one wanted to be charitable to the text and give credence to its many criticisms of this traditional ideal, then it could simply be renamed, becoming the "esoteric ascetic ideal", or just the esoteric ideal.

This should rightly fascinate lizbethrose to no end, how it had happened that at the pinnacle of Nietzsche studies one would find formulas like the one shown by Sauwelios. A higher man of affirmation, who does not shirk from the "problem of suffering", but on the contrary praises its erotic necessity, and by whom the eternal return is ASSERTED, niether logically proved nor even shown to be true, but willed, out of inherent perfection, to be true.

The eternal return means: "everything as it is, forevermore!", and is in more than one sense equal to the spiritual purport of the familiar "thy will be done...", as understood by those who understand, and not merely choose to recite it.--- The proof-less affirmation spoken of before means: to formulate a faith out of the core of being, done in such a way that it cannot be otherwise, in all eternity. Is this not an endlessly captivating surprise for some outside observer, how a classicist comes to present the essence of faith, though not the evacuated christian faith, to be sure?

-WL
WL
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:29 am

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:03 pm

Dear WL.
Nothing has changed!

""everything as it is, forevermore!", and is in more than one sense equal to the spiritual purport of the familiar "thy will be done...", as understood by those who understand, and not merely choose to recite it."

You have always been a Christian, and tried to draw Nietzsche into the Christian. This is why Bill detested you. I have been mild with you out of respect for your graceful prose.

I leave you and Sauwelios to celebrate your struggle to affirm the world.
This never was Bills concern, of course -- affirmation was in his blood, and he needed no tricks to attain to it.

Neither was it ever my concern.
I rather needed to understand why even when seeing it for all its suffering, I found it impossible not to affirm the world.

With value ontology I finally have the proper logos of such a natural affirmation.

Sauwelios -- I'm not sure what makes me want to tolerate your utterly disgraceful way of addressing me... pity, I suppose. But that would leave no question that pity is a disgraceful sentiment. So to hell with you.
A new day, new dawn.../A grasshopper jumps and makes /The fresh dew scatter
- Pezer
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7640
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:48 pm

Lizbethrose -- Nietzsche did leave open the possibility of a God, of an eternity, of an all-encompassing being in which the individual may eternally take part.

True, it would be an immoral God*, but at its ground is still an appeal to the illogical and an expression of desire for eternity.

As I see it, Nietzsche is most rational and insightful in his value-studies. If you read much of him, this is the point at which he always comes back; how and what different types of people value, the type of cultures resulting from this, the types of value systems resulting from that. This is Nietzsche staying true to the Earth. The proclamation of the death of God is a call to invent new values. He did his own part in following this call, in attempting to positively valuing all existence by willing the Eternal Recurrence of it. In his notebooks however he writes that, where he attributed to Zarathustra the power to affirm the recurrence of all things, he himself could not (of all things, it seems that his family situation troubled him too deeply to affirm its recurrence). So the ER is a proper religious method of subjection - put forth as a trick, a lure promising greatness, not as an insight. This is the folly of formulating a religiously doctrinal need to affirm the world -- all that speaks out of it is that such affirming is a problem. This is a common problem, but not one that warrants being exalted to a religion. A properly affirmative religion would/did simply call to celebrate life in all its aspects. This was the Greek way. A typical Greek would see the opposite of a problem in affirming the eternal recurrence of the world as it is. He would enjoy the idea of it, but realize that it is unfortunately not very likely, so proceed to find meaning within the transience. The sense and taste for the tragic was this honesty's final consequence in the Greeks.

* immoral in the sense of being beyond good and evil, what is sought after is an affirmation of nature by denying its transience.
A new day, new dawn.../A grasshopper jumps and makes /The fresh dew scatter
- Pezer
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7640
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:01 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Sauwelios -- I'm not sure what makes me want to tolerate your utterly disgraceful way of addressing me... pity, I suppose.

If you're referring to my response to what you said about a "will to will": I wasn't addressing you at all there! :mrgreen:

If you interpret my "will to will" as a "struggle to affirm the world", you don't understand the main insight I gained from Strauss's paragraph 35, which insight was what inspired me to create my "Nietzschean Übermensch" website (though that's only an attempt, an experiment). I specifically gained that insight from the last two sentences of that paragraph. Paradoxically, what led me to my insight was Lampert's interpretation of these sentences which I consider to be probably a misinterpretation:

"In the final two sentences of his paragraph on the complementary man's solution to the most difficult problem [i.e., paragraph 35], Strauss names two different actions with two different actors, an act by one who paves the way for the complementary man, and an act by that 'highest nature' itself. 'While paving the way for the complementary man'---and just what paving the way consists of Strauss does not say---'one must at the same time say unbounded Yes to the fragments and cripples.' This Yes is part of the unbounded Yes 'to everything that was and is,' the part that Zarathustra himself found most difficult. This affirmation leads to the act of the complementary man: 'Nature, the eternity of nature, owes its being to a postulation, to an act of the will to power on the part of the highest nature.' Nature complements nature in this most spiritual action, the highest individual nature willing the eternal return of nature." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 108.)

As I told Lampert:

My question [to you] is: Did you mean that said two different actors have different identities, or just that they represent two different phases in the development of one man (e.g., Zarathustra)? Did you mean that the non-Übermensch Zarathustra said unbounded Yes to the fragments and cripples---thereby being able to say unbounded Yes to everything that was and is and become the Übermensch---, and that the Übermensch Zarathustra then performed the act of the complementary man (note that I consider the terms "Übermensch" and "complementary man" synonymous)? In other words, that the first act is the act of "biting off the head of the black snake", while the second is the subsequent act of laughter [these are references to TSZ "On the Vision and the Riddle"]? So that the two actors have different identities only in the sense that, after biting off the head of the black snake, the shepherd is "[n]o longer a shepherd, no longer a human being,---a transformed one" (TSZ 'On the Vision and the Riddle')? This is the only way in which I can reconcile what you wrote with my insight. But even then, Strauss says:

"While paving the way for the complementary man, one must at the same time say unbounded Yes to the fragments and cripples." (emphasis added.)

Paving the way consists of saying "unbounded Yes to everything that was and is, i.e. the affirmation of the eternal return" ("Note on the Plan", paragraph 34), and saying unbounded Yes to the fragments and cripples is only the most difficult part of that. So the act of paving the way is the same as the act that that paving prepares. By openly and exuberantly proclaiming one's will to the eternal return of suffering and inequality---"the prerequisites of human greatness" (ibid. 35)---, one wills present and future suffering and inequality, and thereby commands and legislates future such greatness. In other words: through unconcealed genuine-philosophic greatness, one commands and legislates future such greatness.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Strauss's "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's _BGE_", § 35.

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:06 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:You have always been a Christian, and tried to draw Nietzsche into the Christian. This is why Bill detested you.

Actually, WL praised Christianity---Catholicism---for precisely the same reason as Nietzsche did:

"Let us not forget in the end what a Church is, and especially in contrast to every 'State': a Church is above all an authoritative organisation which secures to the more spiritual men the highest rank, and believes in the power of spirituality so far as to forbid all grosser appliances of authority. Through this alone the Church is under all circumstances a nobler institution than the State." (Nietzsche, GS 358; cf. BGE 61 and AC 57.)

The only thing Nietzsche had against Churches in this sense---Churches for which religion is a means, not an end (see BGE 62)---is that they needed so-called "noble" or "holy" lies. In Nietzsche's time, which I think is also ours, such lies are no longer necessary. But philosophy's ideal State is still the same as it was in Plato's time: a hierarchy based on spirituality. Such a hierarchy very basically consists of three classes: from low to high, those who are characterised by love of well-being and ease, those who are characterised by love of honour, and those who are characterised by love of wisdom. And you, Fixed Cross, seem to belong among the second of these: after all, when you first became interested in Eastern astrology, you put special emphasis on your belonging to "the most ambitious [eerzuchtig, lit. "honour-addicted"] of all the Dragons"; and as in the meantime, you still haven't been accorded the honours you so crave, you recently exalted yourself for your great ambition: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=176444. According to your logic, however, such a will to honour implies a lack of honour... Add to this your wishful thinking of yourself as an "arch-father", a hero of the people, and I'm apt to conclude that you're a Daedalus:

"Daedalus is the ancient hero fit for the Baconian tasks of invention and engineering for the public good. But Daedalus lacked the public spiritedness essential to Bacon's undertaking; he was treacherous and lawless, serving only himself in his apparent service of others. How can Bacon dare to entrust the rule of Bensalem to the Daedaluses?
[...] [T]hey can be 'convicted by their proper vanity'; they can be made to bridle themselves, Bacon hints, if attention is paid to their nature, to what they are rather than what they ought to be. The ancients knew the nature of the Daedaluses: they are, of all men, those most troubled by envy. Their envy is the most bitter and most implacable kind. And their envy never lets them rest. The ancients attempted to reform or repress that ineradicable envy and to make the Daedaluses superfluous. Bacon attempts to use that envy, to direct it by nurturing it in a society that thinks the Daedaluses indispensable.
[...] Bacon brings the envious Daedaluses under Minos by allowing them to be the envy of all. More exactly, he allows the Daedaluses to usurp the powers of Minos and ascend to the positions of rule because he has found a way for their vanity to channel their powers. The vanity of the Daedaluses, the product of their envious natures, requires that they be acknowledged as the singular geniuses they think they are. Uneasy in their self-regard, they crave recognition both by the many and by the few who are like themselves. They are lovers of honor consumed by the passion to be looked upon as marvels and to outstrip those already honored, and in Bacon's New Atlantis they are given what looks like free reign.
Bensalemite society is calculated to feed the envious natures of the Daedaluses. [...] [T]o be fed in their vanity these Daedaluses must put their genius to one use only: the common good. [...] Bensalemite society [...] satisfies the Daedaluses only when they satisfy others, when they turn their pliable talents to the well-being of those not driven by implacable envy, the great majority driven by nothing higher than a desire for well-being and ease. The envious natures of the Daedaluses are turned to the common good when those natures are fed on all the honor and gratitude their beneficiaries can bestow. And Salomon's House administers punishments as fitting as these rewards: behavior inappropriate to their powers brings 'ignominy and fines'---wounded [vanity] and diminished wealth. Such rewards and punishments channel the genius of the Daedaluses by satisfying their natures; they are domesticated, made virtuous or civil by that novel, Baconian form of society that believes Daedalus's gifts to be worthy of the highest public esteem." (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times: A Study of Bacon, Descartes, and Nietzsche, pp. 35-37.)
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users