nihilism and the language of interpretation

[d63]

No doubt: angst is a bitch. But it is the payment me make for the freedom you describe.

But you remind me: I really do need to read Barrett's book. Given the mess you describe, the one consolation we do get is to be able to articulate it -even if it doesn't always allow us to do it clearly.

That said, you need to send me a link to something to help me better understand how you are using Dasien. Heidegger was never one of my strong points.

[iambiguous]

That said, you need to send me a link to something to help me better understand how you are using Dasien. Heidegger was never one of my strong points.

I don't know how to link.

Seriously.

But I believe my own thread here, "A man amidst mankind: back again to dasein", captures my own existential sense of "what" "dasein" "means".

[d63]

I'll check it out.

Also, if you want to link: just copy the address and paste it on to the post.

If you don't know how -just in case- select the address, hit ctrl+c then ctrl+v on the post.

[d63]

There are times I clearly agree. Ambiguity is what makes human freedom such a...rich experience? But also, at times, it can precipitate some truly wrenching ordeals.

If there was no ambiguity, human freedom would revolve basically around choosing to do or not to do the right thing. Simple. Either/or. Only here the Good would replace God in a world of mere mortals.

But the suffering that is inflicted on so many because we are unable to resolve conflicting moral narratives makes me yearn at times for a world in which the philosopher kings might prevail.

But then there are terrible realities of living in a world where one or another such "authoritarian" mentality has in fact prevailed.

The world of the dreaded [and the dreadful] "isms".

I’ve come to realize, ambiguous, that there is an interaction between 3 elements you bring up here (Angst, universal rules, and the authoritarian) that may be a source of angst in a cultural sense:

First of all, I would say our embrace of angst (and its freedom) is a result of our embrace of the nihilistic perspective and the skeptical expression of it, or the sense that no matter where we are or what we’re thinking, we’re never on as solid ground as we would like to think. And one of the reasons we do so is that it acts as a kind of antidote to the authoritarian. As long as there is no solid ground for any assertion, there can be no solid ground for any absolute they might base their rule on. But if we think about it, we might recognize that while angst and the nihilistic perspective does act as an anti-dote, it may also be these things upon which the authoritarian is empowered by offering a pseudo-absolute that the angst-weary can latch on to.

But we, as freedom loving guys, can’t have that. Therefore, we might abandon our present position, take the route of Mo, and seek out a universal system that would work under any circumstance. Only, it couldn’t just be universal. It has to be a perfect universal system in that it would be a truth that must be like a fact in being beyond interpretation (much like Kant was attempting). Otherwise it would be susceptible to the interpretation of the authoritarian. This alone should be enough to discourage us since we, being of a skeptical orientation, have doubts as to whether a perfect universal system can exist. But, at the same time, our skepticism, being an inductive position, is subject to the same limits as any inductive argument in that it can only be said to be true pending any further evidence against it. In other words, the only thing we can truly assert is that there appears to be no absolute truths because, thus far, we have yet to find one. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. However, should we decide to set out and find the Holy Grail of the perfect universal system, we run the risk of having our project cut off at an incomplete point and hijacked by the authoritarian who exploits the work we’ve done that has brought the system closer to perfection than ever which, in turn, makes the system even more dangerous than any before it because it is less vulnerable to scrutiny -that is since we have forged it through scrutiny.

And this is our dilemma and source of our angst: we can stay with our skepticism and thereby leave angst weary subject to the authoritarian pseudo-absolute while maintaining the leverage we have against it. Or we can set to work to find the perfect universal system that we’re not even sure exists and run the risk of having it hijacked prematurely by an authoritarian interpreter who will then have one of the most powerful tools ever, that is after we have abandoned the skepticism that was the primary anti-dote to such systems. It’s a no win situation.

I know it sounds a little allegorical. But if you think of it in terms of a kind of group angst, you begin to see how it relates to the skeptical nihilists like us and the classicists like Mo. Our conflicts might be the product of this angst.

[iambiguous]

First of all, I would say our embrace of angst (and its freedom) is a result of our embrace of the nihilistic perspective and the skeptical expression of it, or the sense that no matter where we are or what we’re thinking, we’re never on as solid ground as we would like to think. And one of the reasons we do so is that it acts as a kind of antidote to the authoritarian. As long as there is no solid ground for any assertion, there can be no solid ground for any absolute they might base their rule on. But if we think about it, we might recognize that while angst and the nihilistic perspective does act as an anti-dote, it may also be these things upon which the authoritarian is empowered by offering a pseudo-absolute that the angst-weary can latch on to.

Regarding nihilism and angst, sometimes I eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats me. For me, freedom's double edged sword has precipitated emotional reactions [and philosophical reflections] that ranged from exhilaration to despair. It is always situated out in the world of an actual [existential] frame of mind.

To paraphrase Shane, nihilism is as good an experience or as bad an experience as the man who happens to embody it. And for me it has often been embodied in contexts that were very, very good and very, very bad.

But we, as freedom loving guys, can’t have that. Therefore, we might abandon our present position, take the route of Mo, and seek out a universal system that would work under any circumstance. Only, it couldn’t just be universal. It has to be a perfect universal system in that it would be a truth that must be like a fact in being beyond interpretation (much like Kant was attempting).

I'm still trying to grasp more clearly the manner in which Mo differentiates [morally] the objective truth from a truth said to be universal. "Out in the world" they are basically just two ways of saying the same thing to me. But he seems focused far more on getting them right "technically". He wants us to grasp them didactically as Durant's "epistemologist" would.

Claiming that morality can be rooted in objective truths or translated universally into duties and obligations is [to me] closely related to what Wilhelm Reich construed as [psychologically] the authoritarian personality. Reich then rooted this [largely] in sexual repression.

But that, I suppose, is a discussion for another day.

[d63]

Claiming that morality can be rooted in objective truths or translated universally into duties and obligations is [to me] closely related to what Wilhelm Reich construed as [psychologically] the authoritarian personality. Reich then rooted this [largely] in sexual repression.

But that, I suppose, is a discussion for another day.

Well that is the cornerstone of the authoritarian along with the inability to question itself.

It's like I've always said: it's not the hypocrite you have to watch out for; it's the one that is perfectly consistent with themselves that worries me.

[James L Walker]

Those in power create a scripted reality of morality, ethics, and values in order to control the lives of others.

They are the authors and while they like to pretend to be divinely inspired or cling onto a objectivity that they claim to understand with the ability to interpret they create these valued scripts out of pure selfishness in order to control the lives of others.

See how simple it is?

Yeah, Joker.... or I mean James, but maybe the reason they are able to get away with this is because there are no solid foundations under any moral or ethical assertion we can make. Perhaps it is uncertainty and ambiguity that allow those who would abuse it to impose certainty and absolutism upon the situation.

Nicely put. It actually is that uncertainty and ambiguity that allows them some level of bullshit to work with when it concerns imposing bullshit moral certainty or absolutism upon situations of others.

Very clever and crafty bullshitted fictional scripts they are written, authored, or tailored by equally bullshit individuals with the powerful means to impose them. Think of it as bullshit imposed on others by bullshit individuals.

When you are going to create a fictional script pretending that is certain and unquestionably absolutle a large level of bullshit is needed if your going to bullshit others into doing your bullshit bidding.

[iambiguous]

It's like I've always said: it's not the hypocrite you have to watch out for; it's the one that is perfectly consistent with themselves that worries me.

Oh, indeed!

And the killing fields are filled with the folks who got in their way.

[d63]

Nicely put. It actually is that uncertainty and ambiguity that allows them some level of bullshit to work with when it concerns imposing bullshit moral certainty or absolutism upon situations of others.

Very clever and crafty bullshitted fictional scripts they are written, authored, or tailored by equally bullshit individuals with the powerful means to impose them. Think of it as bullshit imposed on others by bullshit individuals.

When you are going to create a fictional script pretending that is certain and unquestionably absolutle a large level of bullshit is needed if your going to bullshit others into doing your bullshit bidding.

Yes, you pretty much articulated what I meant when I pointed out that the authoritarian feeds on angst. It always offers itself as a solution.

Also, this may well offer an answer to the question that bothered thinkers like Marcuse and Deluez and Guatarri: why it is that some people seem to seek out their own oppression, will submit to it as they had chosen it themselves. Or as Marcuse put it (and think you will especially appreciate this):

The strange thing isn't that people steal when they're hungry or strike when they feel exploited; it's that they're not doing it on regular basis.

It may be that the simple answer is that they do out of intense repulsion to angst.

[d63]

It's like I've always said: it's not the hypocrite you have to watch out for; it's the one that is perfectly consistent with themselves that worries me.

Oh, indeed!

And the killing fields are filled with the folks who got in their way.

Yes. And it takes expression in less catastrophic ways such as Fent's endorsement of the Neo-Cons because of their consistency with no real regard for justice. The scary thing is that while it seems irrational to us; to him it seems perfectly rational in a self referencing kind of way based on his emphasis on consistency. And we don't even have the benifit of pointing out the hypocrisy that could undermine it. In other words, there is always a killing fields in the making.

[James L Walker]

Nicely put. It actually is that uncertainty and ambiguity that allows them some level of bullshit to work with when it concerns imposing bullshit moral certainty or absolutism upon situations of others.

Very clever and crafty bullshitted fictional scripts they are written, authored, or tailored by equally bullshit individuals with the powerful means to impose them. Think of it as bullshit imposed on others by bullshit individuals.

When you are going to create a fictional script pretending that is certain and unquestionably absolutle a large level of bullshit is needed if your going to bullshit others into doing your bullshit bidding.

Yes, you pretty much articulated what I meant when I pointed out that the authoritarian feeds on angst. It always offers itself as a solution.

Also, this may well offer an answer to the question that bothered thinkers like Marcuse and Deluez and Guatarri: why it is that some people seem to seek out their own oppression, will submit to it as they had chosen it themselves. Or as Marcuse put it (and think you will especially appreciate this):

The strange thing isn't that people steal when they're hungry or strike when they feel exploited; it's that they're not doing it on regular basis.

It may be that the simple answer is that they do out of intense repulsion to angst.

A centralized authority offering itself as the bullshit solution to everything is all apart of the gimmick to control.

Sucker enough people so that you can direct and rule their lives but do it discreetly so that they don't take notice of what you are actually doing to them.

[iambiguous]

From Thomas Hibbs, Shows About Nothing:

The demonic villian takes center stage, and his personality transfixes the audience. By means of didactic speeches and grotesquely offensive acts, all of these incarnations of evil mock fundmental features of contemporary American life: the cowardly mores of conventional society, the arbitrary system of American justice, and the intellectual poverty of our standard mechanisms...for understanding evil....American society is feeble, shallow, and complicit in the very evil that it supposedly wants to eradicate.

Cultural critics bemoan these attacks on civility and traditional morality, and they may well be right about the corrorsive effects of these attacks on American culture. But these critics too often misconstrue the target of these films, which they assume to be the segment of American society committed to so-called traditional values. Wittingly or unwittingtly, the real target of these movies is Enlightenment politics and science. The utopian, rationalist vision of the Enlightenment, luring us with the promise of eliminating both physical and moral evil, is no longer credible. Contemporary horror films mercilessly unveil the bankruptcy of contemporary sociology, law and psychology---all Enlightenment discipline.


In my view, the conjectures in this passage are so far off the mark, one hardly knows where to begin.

First off, in this particular chapter, "The Quest For Evil", Hibbs concentrates his attention on 3 popular films: The Exorsist, Cape Fear and The Silence of the Lambs.

These are, of course, Hollywood productions. Another way of saying that the intellectual and philosophical depth leaves a lot to be desired. In other words, name me a film that comes out of Hollywood in which the whole point of making it is not [far and away] to make a bundle of money? This means that, if you are going to attract as wide an audience as possible, you can't tax their collective intelligence to any significant degree; and the violence and mayhem are, in fact, part and parcel of the cultural nihilism that generate these audiences.

In any event, the pop culture corporate moguls who feed on these audiences do so by, first of all, creating them. They could not care less about Cape Fear's impact on "traditional" mores. They are out to make a buck. Period. And if Pillow Talk and The Philadelphia Story would still attract "teens" by the millions to the cinemaplexes on Friday and Saturday nights, they would still be mass producing those, instead. Again, where did our intellectually bankrupt McCultural come from---Schopenhauer? Nietzsche? Foucault? Derrida? Lacan? Rorty? Blanchard? Adorno? Beckett? Eco? Baudrillard? Camus? Lyotard?

The irony being that philosophical nihilism is, indeed, pointing out just how intellectually shallow and impoverished American "conventional society" is. We [those of us who are American citizens] all know the stats on illiteracy; we all know the dilapidated state of public education; we all cringe when American citizens can't name their Governor, Congressperson or the Presidential candidates; we all laugh when Leno stops folks at random on the street and notes how they can't differientiate Vladimir Putin from Saddam Hussein...or think the Bill of Rights is in the Bible. Ha!Ha!Ha! Our own appalling ignorance reduced to entertainment on Late Night TV.

So, where does that manifestation of cultural nihilism come from---folks like me?

[Only_Humean]

The irony being that philosophical nihilism is, indeed, pointing out just how intellectually shallow and impoverished American "conventional society" is. We [those of us who are American citizens] all know the stats on illiteracy; we all know the dilapidated state of public education; we all cringe when American citizens can't name their Governor, Congressperson or the Presidential candidates; we all laugh when Leno stops folks at random on the street and notes how they can't differientiate Vladimir Putin from Saddam Hussein...or think the Bill of Rights is in the Bible. Ha!Ha!Ha! Our own appalling ignorance reduced to entertainment on Late Night TV.

So, where does that manifestation of cultural nihilism come from---folks like me?

Cultural nihilist my foot.

If there are no cultural values worth elevating, you can't criticise Hollywood for its profit motive or American culture for valorising ignorance. It's just culture. It seems to me that you're claiming cultural nihilism as a front for cultural snobbery, which is a different thing entirely.

The archetypal "Cultural Nihilist (tm)" who denies values but only watches European art house films (with or without subtitles? Hmm, which is more authentic?) and attends only the obscurest gallery openings, is an unwitting parody of the French avant garde existentialism of the '50s and '60s. A movement that was never really much given to self-critique, I think it's fair to say, being far too busy being disgusted at everyone else.

In any case, a profit motive is no guarantee of bad art, whatever that may mean to you; the producers deal with the money, the director and cast/crew with the art. There are conflicts, but they are by no means one-sided. There is also money to be made from the people who want to be challenged; the educated have entertainment budgets too. Take Kubrick's films - all (as far as I know) made within the Hollywood studio system.

[iambiguous]

If there are no cultural values worth elevating, you can't criticise Hollywood for its profit motive or American culture for valorising ignorance. It's just culture. It seems to me that you're claiming cultural nihilism as a front for cultural snobbery, which is a different thing entirely.

I'm just making the distinction between Hibb's rendition of nihilism [rooted in the collapse of Enlightened thnking brought on by the Nihilists!] and the "lifestyle" mentality rooted in pop culture, rampant consumerism and a celebration of the Warholean pursuit of our 15 minutes of fame. I'm channeling Network here.

Do serious thinkers look around at the world we live in today and think, "Seinfeld? Smash hits about...nothing? That's Nietzsches's fault!"

Yeah, apparently, some do.

I'm just not one of them.

[iambiguous]

From Shows About Nothing by Thomas Hibbs:

[Max] Cady practices the virtue of courage, of heroic individualism, the virtue most lacking in modern society. Like Nietzsche, he is obsessed with Christianity...Desipte similarities [however], Cady is not a neat fit with Nietzsche's superman. He promotes making strength out of fear and is motivated by resentment and revenge, the motives not of Nietzsche's superman but of the petty and sickly soul of the slave. His destructive tendencies are ordered to no great re-creation of higher ideals. His crude and uncomprehending recitation of fragments of a philosophy of the superman are precisely what result from a popularization of Nietzsche's teaching, from the confused attempt of the lower type of soul to live out the destiny of the higher type.....Although Nietzsche would certainly find Cady's character wanting, even comical, his criticisms would not be those commonly associated with traditional morality. If Nietzsche's project was to induce a state of chaos into society to incite a search for new modes of life, then he could have little objection to Cady, except to say that neither Cady nor Scorsese should be confused with artists of the highest rank.

Hibbs's tentative juxtaposition of Cady and the Uberman is, in part, right on the money. But how infuriating it can be for someone who takes Nietzsche seriously as a philosopher to see him caricatured by the intellectually challenged script writers in Hollywood; as either a sadistic monster [like Max Cady from Cape Fear] or as a pinhead buffoon [like Kevin Kline's character in A Fish Caled Wanda].

Cady was a rapist, a murderer, a cold blooded thug. He is the product of an amoral cultural nihilism that turns pathology and violence and dehumanization into....entertainment. The producers and the actors and the screen writers and all the other folks responsible for putting the film together were paid a lot of money so that it would make others a lot of money when it was "a hit" at the box office.

The only irony on display, perhaps, was the manner in which "the victums" [the family Cady stalked] were portrayed as, by and large, amoral caricatures themselves; the far more "passive" and "conventional" sort so much better portrayed in the film The Ice Storm.

There isn't a single major character in Cape Fear who is not the product, in some way or another, of cultural nihilism. And while it would be absurd to say that philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and other postmodernist thinkers had no influence whatsoever on contemporary culture [that would be like saying they had no influence on fascists and or Nazis] the "role" they played pales in comparison to what the "the system" itself mass produces year in and year out. Nothing, after all, is beyond the limits of "traditional morality" if someone can make a buck on it.

[phyllo]

So:
Making money is bad.
Script writers are all stupid hacks.
'The system' produces garbage.

No stereotypes here.

[iambiguous]

So:
Making money is bad.
Script writers are all stupid hacks.
'The system' produces garbage.

No stereotypes here.

If you are content to reduce the points I am trying to make here down to this, fine. But lots and lots and lots of folks share my opinion about the relationship between Hollywood films and...intellectual depth?

But I have always been careful to point out that words like "bad" and "stupid" and "garbage" are useful only in narratives. Narratives rooted in dasein. I have mine and, of course, you have yours.

So, what's your take on Hollywood and the manner in which nihilism is portrayed? Is Hibb's narrative more accurate ?

[Only_Humean]

If there are no cultural values worth elevating, you can't criticise Hollywood for its profit motive or American culture for valorising ignorance. It's just culture. It seems to me that you're claiming cultural nihilism as a front for cultural snobbery, which is a different thing entirely.

I'm just making the distinction between Hibb's rendition of nihilism [rooted in the collapse of Enlightened thnking brought on by the Nihilists!] and the "lifestyle" mentality rooted in pop culture, rampant consumerism and a celebration of the Warholean pursuit of our 15 minutes of fame. I'm channeling Network here.

Do so, by all means; but don't claim yourself to be on the side of the nihilists. The point of Network is the reaction against amoral nihilism.
"You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!""
I mean, it doesn't get much clearer.

But lots and lots and lots of folks share my opinion about the relationship between Hollywood films and...intellectual depth?

And what opinions do lots and lots and lots of folks share about Nietzsche, for example?

[phyllo]

Hollywood movie studios are in the business of producing entertainment. They do not produce 'historical' archives or 'educational' films or 'philosophical' theses. Sometime times these are produced in the course of making entertainment. The product reflects the interests and therefore the culture of the times.
Scorsese tends to make movies which make you think. Cape Fear is less superficial than most movies. Interesting choice of director and film ... in a book about nothing.

Intellectually challenged script writers

There is a mix of abilities distributed on a bell curve - most writers are mediocre. Most people are mediocre. That's how mediocrity is defined.

Cady was a rapist, a murderer, a cold blooded thug. He is the product of an amoral cultural nihilism that turns pathology and violence and dehumanization into....entertainment.

People went to see public executions long before nihilism was 'invented'. Maybe people are fascinated by violence. Maybe some animalistic hormones are still flowing through our veins.

The producers and the actors and the screen writers and all the other folks responsible for putting the film together were paid a lot of money so that it would make others a lot of money when it was "a hit" at the box office.

Nothing, after all, is beyond the limits of "traditional morality" if someone can make a buck on it.

Making money really seems to bother philosophers.

[iambiguous]

Hollywood movie studios are in the business of producing entertainment. They do not produce 'historical' archives or 'educational' films or 'philosophical' theses. Sometime times these are produced in the course of making entertainment. The product reflects the interests and therefore the culture of the times.

Fair enough, but the motivation behind my post was reacting to Hibb's speculations about particular films coming out of Hollywood and the manner in which they reflect on the philosophy of nihilism. And, in particular, the philosophy of Nietzsche.

To wit:

If Nietzsche's project was to induce a state of chaos into society to incite a search for new modes of life, then he could have little objection to Cady, except to say that neither Cady nor Scorsese should be confused with artists of the highest rank.

So, even Hibb's agrees that Hollywood does a half-assed job here. Still, there is just enough to make the connection.

Much of what most of us garner about nihilism comes from the "popular media". Yet all they care about is producing their sub-mental "entertainment" aimed at making money at the expense of both Nietzsche and nihilism.

Even Oliver Stone's clearly ironic Natural Born Killers was viewed by many folks who thought Stone was actually celebrating the mindless mayhem of Micky and Mallory.

Capitalism equates "entertainment" with pop culture, mindless consumerism and even more mindless worship of celebrity. So much of what "entertains" so many is reduced down to the lowest common denominator approach to sex and violence.

There are other ways to make money.

[d63]

In the introduction to Best American Short Stories 2010 the edition editor, Richard Russo, describes when Isaac Bashevis Singer came to the college he was assistant professor at. Before he did his reading, they had a question and answer session in which sat at a table with students. The first asked was what he thought the function of literature was. His answer was simple:

First it must entertain, then inform.

This, of course, was counterintuitive to everyone in the room who were immersed in a more academic notion and idealism about what it was literature should do. Therefore, the question kept getting repeated in different ways to which the response was always the same:

First it must entertain, then inform.

It was, at some point, asked for him describe the value of it in the face of the various social and political issues of the time. But he still gave the same answer. Russo, as would be assumed by his mentioning it, finally conceded. But the question, to me, seems a little irrelevant since literature has shown how it can entertain as it leads to the bigger issues.

But let’s take this further. It has been said that making a sandwich implies the philosophical question of whether life is actually worth going on with. So why shouldn't it be so your average commercial movie. For instance, I remember watching First Blood and recognizing how it reflected a common will to power. It satisfied, through fantasy, a common human need, at the time, to think that an individual could overcome anything. In other words, in more mainstream movies we can see human desire in action. It presents itself for analyze. Furthermore, we have to recognize, in turn, that one of the shortcomings of art house films is that, by virtue of their coming from an intellectual source, they tend to come from an outsiders point of view.

Now this is not to undermine the value of alternative theater. It’s just to point out that when it comes to popular mainstream art, it would benefit us to look at it in the same way we might mythology.

[d63]

The thing is, going from experience with short stories (and I'm sure it's the same with movies), you go from what gives you pleasure. To worry about getting some point across is suicide to a writer. For me, I had to forget I knew anything about philosophy in order to pull it off. You have to let ideas work their way in on their own.

[iambiguous]

Some folks, of course, find entertainment in being informed. Hollywood however seems ever intent on informing us about nihilism by entertaining the idea this is best done through acts of mindless mayhem embodied in thugs or clowns; and by way of ignoring what folks who take nihilism seriously have to say about what propoels Hollywood to sink ever more into the depths of the lowest common denominator: pop culture, the crassest of consumerism and the adoration of the most dimwitted celebrities.

[d63]

One need only look to the propagation of reality TV to make your point. Luckily though, there are always artists out there who see the same thing as you, and who seek out the nomadic lines of flight. There is still good stuff being produced. You just have to look for it. Plus that, there are always good critics like Roger Ebert who can steer you to it.

[iambiguous]

From On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche:

Except for the ascetic ideal: man, the animal man, had no meaning up to now. His existence on earth had no purpose; 'What is man for, actually?' -- was a question without an answer; there was no will for man and earth; behind every great human destiny sounded the even louder refrain, 'in vain!' This is what the ascetic ideal meant: something was missing, there was an immense lacuna around man, -- he himself could think of no justification or explanation or affirmation, he suffered from the problem of what he meant. Other things made him suffer too, in the main he was a sickly animal: but suffering itself was not his problem, but the fact that there was no answer to the question he screamed, 'Suffering for what?' Man the bravest animal and most prone to suffer, does not deny suffering as such: he wills it, he even seeks it out, provided he is shown a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. The meaninglessness of suffering, not the suffering, was the curse which so far blanketed mankind, -- and the ascetic ideal offered man a meaning! Up to now it was the only meaning, but any meaning at all is better than no meaning at all...

There will always be those who spend endless hours trying to ponder, to grasp and then to assert definitively what Nietzsche meant by this. And with nary a whit [or a wit?] of irony. What is the "ascetic ideal"? And once you have rejected the religious rendition [or those proffered by either various proponents of Eastern philosophy or New Age gurus] what is to be put in its place?

I don't pretend to understand what Nietzsche's "lesson" is above. My own, however, subsumes any ideal in the futility of ascribing Meaning to human existence. It is meaningful only insofar as you have come believe it is in a particular way. Until, of course, something changes and you come to believe it is something else---less meaningful, more meaningful, no longer meaningful at all.

Which is just another way of saying that, essentially, it is meaningless.

In other words, why speak of ideals at all? There may be no way in which to grasp the Meaning of life. There may be no point beyond that which we name. And haven't we been embracing conflicting and contradictory points since we first came out of the caves?

Some argue that [in his own way] Nietzsche too seemed to suggest we must look beyond our worldy existence, our material accouterments, our existential pains and pleasures, our will, our sense of self and discover what life is really all about. And then to master it as the Superman. But life is really only about the lives we choose to live. Or the lives others impose on us. There will always be masters and slaves. Or, rather, their cultural and historical equivalents.

In the end, "mankind" is not about anything at all other than accounts---accounts of our sojourns from dust to dust. Sojourns filled, hopefully, with a minimal of pain and suffering. And along the way forming social relationships with others that, hopefully, minimize the misery for as many as possible for as long as possible. The rest is just the smoke and mirrors of idealism as [ultimately] a political construct.