Nietzsche's "new philosophers".

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

“One can conceive philosophers as those who make the most extreme efforts to test how far man could elevate himself-- Plato especially: how far his strength will reach. But they do it as individuals; perhaps the instinct of the Caesars, of founders of states, etc., was greater, as they pondered how far man might be driven in his evolution and under “favorable conditions.” But they had an insufficient understanding of the nature of favorable conditions.”
[The Will to Power, section 973.]

From this it follows that Nietzsche’s “new philosophers” (as mentioned in Beyond Good and Evil) shall be philosophical
Caesars: rulers whose creation (and destruction!) is based on wisdom - on actual knowledge of what “favourable conditions” are. Nietzsche describes some of these conditions elsewhere:

“danger, severity, violence, danger in the street as well as in the heart, inequality of rights, concealment, stoicism, the art of experiment, devilry of all kinds, in short the opposite of all the herd thinks desirable”.
[WtP 957.]

It is up to the new philosophers to create such conditions. And to this end they must first envision them, paint them, advocate them.

2

Why don’t you begin, therefore, by using your own brush and colors?

I, for one, am interested in what will come out when you are untethered from your mentors canvas.

3

You recently wrote that you found my “dedication frightening and admirable all at once.” Well, the implication you seem to make in that remark is right: I am a maniac. And what’s most frightening is, I think, that there’s so much method in my madness.

I do feel like I have been exploring the limits of what is Nietzschean lately. These limits have to do with the Overman. As I recently wrote on a message board;

What is to be “preserved” is the quality of Overmanhood, the ascending (overall) line in one’s life. And the creation of Overmen outside oneself means the creation of exemplars of the “type of ascending life”, which Nietzsche juxtaposes with a “type of decay, disintegration, weakness” (in The Will to Power, section 857) - that is, with the type of descending life: which aims at approximating a horizontal line in its life (the last man!).

You must understand that I do not wish to back away (down?) from Nietzsche; I wish, if not to move ever deeper (or higher) into his philosophy, to move (rise?) beyond it - that is, beyond his limitations, which I take to be, if anything, moral limitations. He was always occupied with overcoming his own morality. Did he ever cease being occupied with this? And if not, should we Nietzscheans not continue also this work? Ah, but here I’m making the same mistake he may have made. The only good reason to do anything is never a moral reason; it is an aesthetic reason, it is that we enjoy doing it. My conception of the Overman is like Nietzsche’s conception of Heraclitus: one only concerned with play, with the joy of action (and passion!); and it seems to me that great joy would lie in working artistically on mankind as a whole - as “philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants”, as Nietzsche says in The Will to Power, section 960.

4

I’m sure there is a method to your madness.

I just sense that there’s also this distance between you and what is said.
You haven’t made it yours or you still admire it from afar, fearing it and being intimidated by its source.
Your keep it away from you, within quotation marks and coming from another. Like you still want to remain a surrogate.

Hellas is the source.
He is the rediscovering one.

This cultural environment is anti-artistic.

5

Interesting, this. It makes me understand your criticisms better.

At first I thought you were talking about Nietzsche - even when I’d read your last remarks.

Now the statement “Hellas is the source” reminds me of the following line:

“Ye constrain all things to flow towards you and into you, so that they shall flow back again out of your fountain as the gifts of your love.”
[Zarathustra, Of the Bestowing Virtue, 1.]

According to Nietzsche, “the Greek was the first great union and synthesis of everything Near Eastern, and on that account the inception of the European soul” (The Will to Power, section 1051).

The Greeks made everything their own, even the Dionysian: which flowed back again out of their fountain as the Apollinian Dionysus.

To rediscover the source, one should rediscover the (Greek form of) the Dionysian, according to Nietzsche:

“There can be no doubt that the Greeks sought to interpret the ultimate mysteries “of the destiny of the soul” and everything they knew concerning education and purification, above all concerning the immovable order of rank and inequality of value between man and man, on the basis of their Dionysian experiences: here is the great depth, the great silence, in all matters Greek–one does not know the Greeks as long as this hidden subterranean entrance lies blocked.”
[ibid.]

I connect the Dionysian throng with the heat of battle. As Jung writes:

“Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence mainly on women. The maenads were a species of female storm-trooper, and according to mythical reports were dangerous enough. Wotan confined himself to the Berserkers, who found their vocation as the blackshirts of mythical kings.”
[Jung, Wotan.]

The Dionysian ecstasy, the Berserker rage - these point to a phenomenon that lies deeper than religion: it points to shamanism. Shamanism, as I understand it and have practiced it, is the method of overcoming one’s fear of life by becoming as terrible as life itself. And this, in turn, seems to me to be the way to Overmanhood, as the Overman is an image and isolated example of existence in general, of Nature.

It is true that I am thinking these ideas rather than living them. Then again, is there a place for living these thoughts? I already overstep my bounds almost daily. And that’s only in preserving what I have attained, not in creating more (true destruction). I already saw this when I had my first superhuman experience, over ten years ago: there is no place for this in our society, no secret garden for Dionysianism. A garden for Epicurianism is another matter: Epicurians do not overstep their bounds. No, there is no question of a citadel for us; our Dionysianism will destroy society as we know it, transform society - destroy the present form of society. And for this reason we have all of present society, all the “good”, all the truly conservative, against us and our art. I am a great cultural pessimist. And thus I confine myself more or less to my bounds, I limit my Dionysianism (watching, though, that this doesn’t make me too anemic), and I paint and advocate the destruction of society as we know it.

What destroys “civilised” society most certainly? - Eros. There is no eros in consumerist sex. It is eros, in the non-sexual sense, that drew me to Nietzsche, that draws others to me, and beyond: out of civilisation, and into true culture: the foundation of which is the Dionysian.

As Socrates said (in Plato’s Ion), rhapsodes are attracted to Homer even as Homer was attracted by a god; this god acts as the magnet who attracts iron rings which in turn are magnetised, attracting other pieces of metal. In our case, this god is Dionysus: Nietzsche and others were magnetised by him, attracting others, and forming long chains of people in their wake. It is my current business to be a link in that chain. And yes, I’m also looking beyond the link that secondly attracted me (Nietzsche), even as I found that link beyond the one that first attracted me. Nietzsche, however, was directly attracted by Dionysus (or Wotan, as Jung has it). I found my Wotan in the wrathful deities of greater India. I am indeed again and again made to think that my next step must be there.

That your roots lie in Hellas I don’t doubt. Whether mine or Nietzsche’s do is another matter. What is certain, however, is that they lie deep - down…

6

For me - I can’t remember who said it - understanding forces a change.
To understand is to be changed by what is understood, or else you have not.

Once understanding has occurred, one leaves it’s proxy aside, as a valued member of one’s kind, because what has been understood is now a part of you. You are that which has been understood.

The Christian, for example, who has truly understood his chosen ideal and dogma, is changed by it. His demeanor and character represent that which has changed him.
He is the product of this understanding, to whatever degree it has occurred.

A terrible fusion of the feminine and masculine.
Dionysus/Apollo
Disorder/Order

The children of the light.
Rooted in the feminine but striving towards the masculine.
Wasn’t it Jung that beleived that the outwardly masculine had a feminine soul and the outwardly feminine had a masculine soul.

I’ve already stated that for me one is characterized by what one is striving towards.
The Hellenes were this striving towards omniscience/omnipotence; the absolute end - order.
This is how science and philosophy reached such heights with them. The spirit of challenging and unyielding intolerance. The spirit of questioning.

But their sensitivity and aesthetics were very feminine. Dionysus was in their heart.

I see Apollo as that which seeks to harness Dionysus to a goal and use that blind, madness and its passions.
I think of the Greeks as this attempt to fuse both aspects of the human condition.
This returning to the source, from whence you sprung out from, but this time as its awakened dominator rather than its blind victim - as a God.

There’s a reason the Greeks had such a low opinion of females. They represented everything they didn’t want to be controlled by.

Yes, Dionysus is a feminine spirit to me, or should I say a more feminine spirit than Apollo; the masculine and the feminine perfectly fused.
Apollo is the mad one. He runs from life, trying to correct it.

We live in an Apollonian age. Apollo does not tolerate any challengers, including human males.
All must be leveled and subjugated before him.
This is why man is feminized.
This masculine god will not tolerate any other masculine energy.

Yes.

I think you avoid speaking with your own words.
You prefer using these surrogates as your front-men.

This is what I meant by keeping distances.

Yes.

I have no time to comment now, but I hope to return to this later.

To be Greek you must think Greek. Paideia.
It has little to do with nationality.

If a German can be an awakened Hellene then so can a Swede.

7

I do enjoy the primordial synthesis of mythology, nietzsche, jung and others sauwelios has going on. I am still wondering how is able to have so many quotations at hand.

8

I don’t know if I share your opinion that Dionysus is (more) feminine whereas Apollo is (more) masculine. I have already once, albeit in a somewhat chaotic manner, introduced you to the thesis that Apollo and Dionysus represent the two poles of the Greek male; and that the real antithesis between the sexes is not Apollo versus Dionysus, but Achilles versus Penthesilea, or Greek versus Amazon. If Apollo and Dionysus are the two poles of the Greek, which are the poles of the Amazon? I suggest the following:

First, the god we call Dionysus is himself a relation between two tendencies, the Apollinian and the Dionysian - as is Apollo. In Apollo, the Apollinian predominates over the Dionysian; and in Dionysus, the other way 'round.

When a fellow gets drunk, the Dionysian comes to predominate in him: as Heraclitus says;

“A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless lad, tripping, knowing not where he steps, having his soul moist.”

And:

“The dry soul is the wisest and best.”

I use the Aristotelian and Hindu systems of the Classical Elements to illustrate my thesis.

The four Classical Elements are Fire, Air, Water, and Earth. Earth and Water are traditionally held to be feminine; Air and Fire, to be masculine. According to Aristotle;

Fire is hot and dry;
Air is hot and wet;
Water is cold and wet;
Earth is cold and dry.

So the Apollinian male, when he drinks, goes from Fire to Air.

“Hinduism” knows the same four Classical Elements, only it does not characterise them with heat and dryness, but with the three gunas: Sattva (harmony), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (darkness).

In Fire, Sattva predominates over Rajas;
In Air, Rajas predominates over Sattva;
In Water, Rajas predominates over Tamas;
In Earth, Tamas predominates over Rajas.

If we identify Sattva with the Apollinian and Rajas with the Dionysian, we see that the Dionysian (but not Dionysus!) is indeed present in the two “feminine” elements.

So what is the second quality present in the feminine elements? It is the direct antithesis of the Apollinian. I call it the Artemisian.

Artemis was the sister of Apollo; and according to one J. Vurtheim, “all the Amazons were Dianas, as Diana herself was an Amazon”. Diana was the Roman name for Artemis. The Qabalist Dion Fortune says about her:

“Yesod [a sphere on the Qabalistic “Tree of Life”] is essentially the Sphere of the Moon, and as such comes under the presidency of Diana, the moon-goddess of the Greeks. Now Diana was primarily a chaste goddess, ever-virgin, and when the over-presumptive Actaeon annoyed her he was torn to pieces by his own hunting-hounds. Diana, however, was represented at Ephesus as the Many-breasted, and regarded as a fertility goddess. Moreover, Isis is also a lunar goddess, as indicated by the lunar crescent upon her brow, which in Hathor becomes the cow-horns, the cow being among all peoples the especial symbol of maternity. In the Qabalistic symbolism, the generative organs are assigned to Yesod.
All this is very puzzling at first sight, for the symbols appear to be mutually exclusive. Carried a step further, however, we begin to find connecting links between the ideas.
The Moon has three goddesses assigned to her, Diana, Selene or Luna, and Hecate, the latter being the goddess of witchcraft and enchantments, and also presiding over child-birth.
There is also a very important moon-god, none other than Thoth himself, Lord of Magic. So then, when we find Hecate in Greece and Thoth in Egypt both assigned to the Moon, we cannot fail to recognise the importance of the Moon in matters magical. What then is the key to the magical Moon, who is sometimes a virgin goddess and sometimes a fertility goddess?
The answer is not very far to seek. It is to be found in the rhythmical nature of the Moon, and, in fact, in the rhythmical nature of sex-life in the female. There are times when Diana is many-breasted; there are times when her hounds tear the intruder to pieces.”
[Dion Fortune, The Mystical Qabalah, XXIV, 23-27.]

I forgot to mention that the four Classical Elements form a closed circle. Each is linked to two others by their common quality (heat, dryness, etcetera):

I say that it is in the quality of wetness or moistness that the male and the female meet, in sex. It is when the man has become intoxicated (with lust), and the woman is in her fertile (and voluptuous) period, that the twain seek out each other. On the other hand, it is in her “virgin” dryness and wisdom, and in his “bearded” dryness and wisdom, that the twain may meet intellectually (Zeus and Pallas Athena come to mind).

9

Maybe I didn’t express myself adequately.
I believe Dionysus is a more feminine Apollo. A better mixture of both the feminine and masculine parts.
Masculine still but embracing the feminine in him, as one embraces his nature, mother earth, his past, instinct.

10

But if he is “better”, why should anyone want to become Apollinian?

Can you relate to my characterisation of the god Dionysus as symbolising a predominance of passion or emotion over, say, reason (of the Dionysian over the Apollinian)? Whereas Apollo symbolises the converse? This would mean that neither Apollo nor Dionysus were completely balanced. The object would then be to find a rhythmical, a cyclical harmony between Apollo and Dionysus. A solar cycle (I have been told that, while both men and women have both solar and lunar cycles, the former is more important to men and the latter to women).

You also wrote:

“We live in an Apollonian age. Apollo does not tolerate any challengers, including human males.
All must be leveled and subjugated before him.
This is why man is feminized.
This masculine god will not tolerate any other masculine energy.”

This I understand in the light of your earlier assertions that institutions are the new alpha males. In this light it is in complete agreement with Nietzsche’s statement that “the State is Apollo” (in The Greek State). I think the main thing that is to be deplored in our times is the degeneration of means to ends in themselves (Nietzsche thought this was an expression of decadence). For instance, the degeneration of sexual pleasure from a means to an end in itself (naturally it is a means to drive us to have sex, which (sex) is in turn our means to procreation). Likewise, the State, whose proper aim is “the Olympian existence and ever-renewed procreation and preparation of the genius” (again The Greek State), has degenerated into an end in itself - as if it were itself the Overman, the meaning of human life!

11

I do agree, by the way, that Hellas is the source, for Westerners, at least. The only true Western education is a Classical education (and Nietzsche deplored the fact that Western man sought to emulate the Hellene in mind only, and not rather in body!).

12

The attraction of Apollo is his promise of control. The ideal.
Man wishes to dominate all and so his ultimate goal is omnipotence.

But the absolute is absent and so this pursuit is absurd, in its extreme.

Yes.
I see the perfect balance that of Apollo controlling, not everything, but his own passions.
Apollo harnessing Dionysian madness.

I see the balance, the μετρον, in the control of passions by reason, but not their complete obliteration or repression.

The state, being masculine, or Apollonian, stifles all masculinity beneath its power; it ties Dionysus up and denies his existence.

What many in the Feminization of Man thread don’t realize, or can’t realize under their cultural prejudices, indoctrinated oblivion and trained reactions, is that a return to a masculine male is an embracing of femininity; an acceptance of the feminine spirit as it is, as nature intended it andf not as this culture wishes to reshape it.

13

By this do you mean an embracing of a feminine social order (i.e. dispersing the masculinity and alpha maleness of the state across the genetic males that comprise it, rendering the state or social order more feminine in nature) or are you referring to a liberation of the Dionysian? Or maybe they’re the same phenomenon and not distinct…

14

I’m saying placing femininity where it’s supposed to be: controlled, under masculine reason, directed by masculine reason.

The feminine passions, first subdued, by masculinity, in the individual and then in the world.
Not denied or sublimated, but controlled.
Denied would lead to nihilism.

The masculine is the director and the feminine the melody.
Passion with control.

If you allow femininity free-reign then you have irrational, instinctive hedonism.
The animal unleashed.

Asceticism.

Dionysus unleashed is total chaos.
Dionysus must be controlled by Apollo.
The two are inseparable in a human being.
All others are sub-human irrational failures.
Look around you;. There are plenty of examples.

Control this in yourself and then figure out what to do with it in the other.
First, know thyself. Be master of your self.
Then the other becomes easy.
His weaknesses become pliable.

15

Ah, thank you for clarification. I see now by using the term ‘embracing’ this does not imply placing the feminine in primacy over the masculine, merely a recognition and embodiment of femininity as it naturally occurs, and that you are saying it is only through artificial masculine constructs (the state) that femininity is outright suppressed by masculinity.

Ha- no wonder their simple minds are having trouble here; to the culturally indoctrinated mind, the only connotation that terms like ‘embracing’ probably ignite in them is the conception of embracing a female-dominated world- or at least an egalitarian one (which is arguably female-dominated at root). Embracing femininity as it naturally occurs is probably interpreted by them as an evil ‘patriarchial suppression’. Oh well, what more can you expect from the other 95% of the human species?

Interesting. One of the virtues I embody in my philosophy of askesis- temperance of emotions -closely resembles this process. I define temperance of emotions by two distinct steps: First, harnessing control of emotional impulses. Second, with this control, stifling emotions where they are detractive to askesis (or training), and organizing them into a concentrated driving force in areas that are conducive to askesis. I believe this is a direct example of the Apollinian controlling and directing the Dionysian as you describe it below.

I read your essay, and I must say I essentially agree with it in its entirety. It mirrors much of my own philosophy of askesis and asceticism (which I’ve only developed quite recently), just using different terms. Your description of the positive striving against the negative, and as asceticism being a controlled exposure to pain and suffering is what I denote as conflict, and your description of the paradoxical results of this suffering- physical and mental superiority and development -is essentially how I conceive of flourishing (human flourishing in my askesis ethical system being the abstract ideal and highest goal of this flourishing). Although you put it more eloquently than I.

Indeed.

I’m curious as to how you implement asceticism in your own life- do you make a regular effort to abide by it? Abstain from junk foods and other forms of satisfying transient hedonistic impulses? Regularly submit your mind to intensive training and practice?

16

The state, representing the masculine monopolized alpha-male, suppresses all masculinity. It challenges its authority; its control.

Even the father is denied imbuing the child with his ideals and heritage that may challenge the status quo, the state.
The father must only pass on the cultural ideals. He is only a man by proxy; a representative or symbol of the true male.

Thusly even a woman can fulfill this role.

Their feminism is anti-feminine in its core. They just don’t know it.
They feel embarrassed by their nature and they try to distance themselves from it, make it into a fiction imposed upon them by men.
Not being able to be masculine themselves they try to pull it down to their level. It must be “purified”, culturalized, made effeminate.
Then they complain about the absence of ‘real’ men or being unable to reach orgasm.

Yes. Asceticism, as I think of it, is not a denial of pleasure or life.
It can be used for such a nihilistic purpose and it does in the traditions of Christianity and Buddhism and others.
The total denial of self, of life.

For me it is a training, just like exercise is for the body, so as to be more efficient with your energies.
To not be lost to passions and needs but to control them and direct them.

The root is habituation.
When the mind/body is habituated to a level of suffering - suffering being the conscious awareness of existence of the flow - then anything below this is felt as comfortable or pleasurable when it is far below this.

This is how decadence results in weakness.
Becoming habituated to more and more comfort you eventually reach a point where everything is distressing, uncomfortable and painful - you suffer more one you become used to comfort.

I try to live a Spartan lifestyle.
Although once married this has become almost impossible. My wife isn’t used to such lifestyles, so I have to make concessions and I compromise.
I’ve recently bought things I never thought I would ever do.

Nevertheless…
Less is more.
Less acquisitions.
Less relationships.
Less responsibilities.

Selectivity. Discrimination.

Live Lightly is my motto.
By doing so I am less attached to things and to relationships and to circumstances.
I can lose them or walk away, at any minute, and not be overly bothered.

I’m not saying I always succeed or that I do not indulge - in fact indulging is part of it -, but I try to control it
, as much as possible.

I try to maintain a regiment of exercise, reading and writing.

Mind/Body training.

17

Detrop has asked to tell you both that you are idiots and to post following here:

Regards,

18

isn’t it past lock-down time?

If he wanted to remind us that, he too, is an expert in all things Nietzsche or the embodiment of this ideal, then what a wonderful way to do it, using a proxy.
=D>

19

haha