Why the philosopher rarely turns out well

Now how the philosopher might come to deal with these respective challenges put before him by red thread that he is, precariously strung between his own historic nature an the destiny of mankind.

1. a tremendous multiplicity of qualities; he must be a brief abstract of a man, of all man’s higher and lower desires;

Against a tremendous multiplicity must stand a powerful simplicity, a will to break branches off as carelessly as one lets them grow, the tendency to retreat into the stem, become indifferent to what is around and grow only upward. If he is not able to cut himself off from his experiments despite these works containing his own blood, he will perish.

danger from antitheses,

Antithesis can not be dealt with by withdrawal into either of the two theses; it must instead be “molten together” by fire, hammer and anvil in the forge known as the artists mind, which even for this purpose alone the philosopher must possess; antitheses last the longest but can be endured the least; no artist of influence is without them, and the philosopher survives them in the same way as the artist, except that his material is harder and requires far greater passion to melt and forge. In other words, alchemy is required; and Nietzsche’s own work is inscrutably magnificent because it is such an alchemy of contradictions, where mans greatest contradictions are brought together in new qualities.

also from disgust at himself;

Here, a much simpler remedy is called for, or rather several ones; first; exercise and aesthetic discipline release the grip of disgust, and then, a cool glance into the world puts ones own ideal in a new light, and one can accept that one is indeed only a struggling human, but that this is the very point; the beauty of the overcoming would not exist if the state was already perfect. From this sobering insight, it stands to reason, the myths of innocence and sin are derived - but these myths do not suffice to do justice to the imperfection; only very little poetry does in fact reach into the heart of this matter; Milton, in his descriptions of the bad guys, and William Blake to my mind, but also parts of the Edda’s, those rough and unshapely myths of values and fortitudes too deep to express indirectly, make of imperfection a kind of disciplinary nectar - which in terms of evolution, it is. Imperfection is also what allows compatibility. A philosopher may seek out artists that reflect his own weaknesses, make music with which he can grow disgusted, transfigure, improve. He can never rest in his state - he must accept the ill quality as a doctor, not merely as a patient. In as far as the philosopher is prone to disgust with himself, he must be a ‘witch doctor’, someone who knows how to use the art of transfiguration purposefully. If he is not such a shaman, he will be known merely as a literator, an ironist, a writer, not a thinker. Thoughts must be pure, and self-disgust leads to pure thoughts of a world where one is not - thoughts about a clean death, a warriors death, a death wherein aesthetic justification is found that was lacking in life. Creative spirits commit suicide when that is their last shot at setting a standard.

2. he must be inquisitive in the most various directions: danger of going to pieces;

Same as contradictions; the directions of the wind must ultimately lead back to the center. Here again; luck, fortune, fate. But these are always the great stimulants; this is why one sails into an open sea; a philosopher is constantly testing fate.

Going to pieces; also Walhalla, the warriors death rewarded by the daily fight with Odin, being torn apart and being put back together, followed by a drunken banquet, until the end of the days of the gods. But the philosopher must fulfill the Odinic task of pulling himself together from what to a normal mind would be sure insanity.

3. he must be just and fair in the highest sense, but profound in love, hate (and injustice), too;

He must be profound in love and hate because according tot he highest justice it is good that he is a man, and good men are profound in love and hate - his subtle and far reaching conscious values demand that his instinctive values be taken seriously; unlike the scientist, he understands that he does not stand outside of the equation, that his logic will only be consequential if he is a not only god but also beast.

4. he must be not only a spectator, but also a legislator: judge and be judged (to the extent that he is a brief extract of the world);

The same; he must partake in the world in order to be consequential. Primarily because this gives his thoughts the proper consequences for himself; he has to take himself seriously, he has to dare to correct mistakes.

5. extremely multifarious, yet firm and hard. supple.

This entry contains its own resolve; multifarious, yet firm, thus supple.

Overall the philosopher must be a dancer who knows how to lead his own mind, and sometimes to follow an inscrutable higher drive that appears in a state of exceptionally good or bad health; the god, Dionysus, the raging one who makes paths where no creature has gone, or Apollon the marksman who crosses distances the human eye can not see. A philosopher does not come far without now and then evoking his gods, and believing in them, innocently in the full awareness of the folly of it - the philosopher understands that man is healthier with than without his illusions; and that to be a philosopher, he also needs to be a man, from time to time; what for a priest is a matter of the gravest ceremony and obedience, for the philosopher is a moment of silly child’s play; both talk to their god; the priest asks for a trade of favors; sacrifice for fortune - the philosopher invites the god to come play with him - which is a way of inviting himself to play with the world. Nietzsche’s playtime with gods is extensive, so is Plato’s - it is to a degree a measure of the philosophers self-confidence, of his willingness to be attacked, his desire even to be attacked - the suppleness of the natural fighter.

So don’t try to be a philosopher.
Be a man, first, and best.
Strike out the word philosopher, who was Nietzsche?
Whatever they end up calling you - philosopher, clown, hero, degenerate, average - it wont really matter.

Let disgust lead to action. Number five - yes.

Look at number six. A person may see the stupidity of many goals, but, in the end, goals small and large are necessary for anything that is more than mere animal. To avoid all goals is impossible if you want to live.
For each of these questions, we answer more towards one side or the other. What’s of worth isn’t necessarily the side we choose, the victory won or conceded, but the struggle between, if, and how we endure.

Philosophy is like baking a cake. Is the cake made to suit a dog or a human?
That is a serious question.
The audience, is at least half the battle.

philosophy rarely turns out well, because it’s only an ancient mirror which tries to decipher a series of images, quickly turned into temporal order, in natural sequence, or not.


Very serious indeed. Imagine a cake baked for humans to be fed to a dog.Terrible mixup.

Orb - philosophy is precisely what does turn out well, what becomes standard for centuries. This is why it is such an elite and precarious calling. One only divines that one is apparently fit for this task, and that it is the only task that would satisfy the potential, it is not a calling anyone chooses out of several options. Those who choose philosophy of voluntary, free accord are likely to misunderstand the term to mean a general moral- intellectual preoccupation.

I am sticking to the context as Nietzsche outlines it here. To me that makes sense, N understands what it is to live like I do. And of course, if this wasn’t clear, this thread is about myself, and the difficulties I have and to overcome and the contradictions I had to integrate to become a philosopher of this supreme lineage.

Just because the doctor can’t quite ever cure the disease, doesn’t mean that the doctor is a fool for trying.
Just because the disease keeps getting spread, doesn’t mean the doctor isn’t needed so as to at least treat it.

Thats one way of putting it. At least here is a conception of the interests at stake, and the fatedness of the task.

This sort of disgust is the mark of introspection. The ability to recognize those qualities born of competing desires and interests in oneself, full of doubt and contradiction. To conclude that I am but an animal amongst animals; a profound insignificance that becomes in itself significant.

I think thats half of the factors making for the philosophers self-disgust. The other half consists of his aspirations which in such a light seem madness, vanity, idiocy. Hence the countering method, of which Zarathusra’s transfiguration is a form.

Simply accepting that one is merely an animal is the privilege of the literator, the cynic and self depreciating artist. Camus writes on this with experience and wonderful honesty.

The word “philosopher” is pompous. Why use philosopher when you can say thinker? And if you want to differentiate yourself from inorganic thinkers, you can simply say you are an organic thinker . . .

Thinker: a man who thinks a lot.
Organic thinker: a man who thinks a lot out of genuine need.
Inorganic thinker: a man who thinks a lot in order to escape/deny his needs.

But there is this obsession, this inorganic passion, to write a book, a philosophy, with the aim to intellectually impregnate minds of future generations and achieve some sort of fame. Kinda stupid, this is. Rather inorganic, if you ask me.

This is what happens when people end up confusing consequences with goals. Fame is a consequence, it should never be your goal.

Magnus, let’s not go too far in depreciating the philosopher, or thinker, as You may, to soak some pomposity out of it.

Neverthe less such thinking may make a big difference in some people’s minds, even here , but what can be said of the past? That even if some philosophical notions actually bettered the fortunes, - not necessarily the famed of some, is indisputable.
The also effected infamy, as where certain ideas have caused great suffering and needless victims of philosophically inspired conflicts. This too,is indisputable.

The victims amount to hundreds of millions, based on this premise. Re: The pen is mightier then the sword.

I can not imagine seeing Nietzsche without the actual Nietzsche, the man who did what he did and was what he was, the philosopher or however else you wish to call the guy you know because you’ve read his texts. As if you can cut up a man into different qualities, and still be left with that man! What is the ground of this idea?

Transfigurative action; “seeking death” – going into the wilderness.

Even though this is not related directly, it certainly can be made to relate.

The philosopher has to be both extremely multifarious and completely single-minded.

The philosopher is both overflowing with a strange and overwhelming, yet sometimes almost invisible happiness - his sorrow is deep, but somehow it drive his happiness - they are part of the same elementary state which produces both the wisdom and the folly.

Exacting, absolutely; but to become a an, self-contentment must be feigned, specifically to oneself; one must become actor and enact a relaxed demeanor, so that the nerves can rest as the mind operates on a slightly lesser standard. Here I am speaking for myself; my ind is driven by intense nervous energy, I have no choice but to be an occultist, I needed to control this stuff, when it got out of hand. The exacting is a form of shaping circuitries in which the absolute questioning can become a thing in itself, an engine for producing thought on a specific level. I have machines running in my brain, and often I’m unaware how to interpret their data. …
( did I say that out loud? )

Another ‘both’ answer. The pathos for all of life is rather extreme, which due to the nature of life which is a conflict that is often benevolent but often enormously painful, forces one to become inhuman in conceptual reflection.
This intense difficulty has slain many young brilliant mens nervous systems and minds. The omnipresence of information about hell on earth and the knowledge of absolute absence of power to alter it plays a hard beat on the fine constitutions of ‘empathic extraverts’ which is a category to which the philosopher must belong, if he is to care as much as to reach as deep and to push as far his questions about what he perceives to be errors. Why would he care? Why write? To be famous after death?

Ruthless versus standing ideas and especially opinions, prudent versus method, high logic. In more earthly and affective frames, the philosopher will appear immensely brutish at times, when he is being prudent to some arcane principle of his own, and be prudent where all others rush ahead.

One wants to set a goal that will be a goal long after one is no longer walking the earth. Attaining a goal means perceiving new goals.

Or hated. It is always the aim to slay a certain branch of mankind, to incapacitate a certain breed of culture. In hate there is always fear.
To be despised means to have broken idols. There is no way of avoiding that. Respect is never an issue of want; it is rewarding but it also distract - unless it comes from people whose judgment one considers to be of very high value. But this is running into banalities.

A seducer, but not to oneself, but to a way of thought - and a tyrant in this same sense; to dictate ones values, a tyrant has to seduce. Hitler was a great seducer Napoleon even greater - who found the supreme seducer in Jesus - a reflection, in the context of philosophy at least, of Socrates the seducer-martyr. Plato is the tyrant who institutionalized Socrates - etc etc.
Where does seduction end and coercion begin? Is not the idea of hell, of eternal suffering as punishment for specific deeds that one wishes to perform, both intensely seductive and tyrannical? It seduces into fear. Using the same language, a philosopher must seduce into power.

It is strange to be proud to have suffered to a very serious degree all these things; but indeed I have, and they were all friends - pushing me into solitude, into which my highest happiness has always seduced me.
Indignation and self contempt, exile and suffering as means to happiness - this quite well sums up the way the god plays with the beast in the philosopher. My philosophy, pure and clean as it is, didn’t come from an immaculate conception.

I’d say that atoms have a sleeping, subliminal valuing, but yeah, they do a heck of a lot of work to exist. There’s no such thing as being, instead there is becoming and re-becoming. The closest thing to a being is a cycle that remembers itself as it gravitates around what it has the most to do with. I thought you were some kid I guess i thought wrong.

No, no, forget the word philosopher for a minute because there is too much stock put into a word (and a singular vision of the philospher) and less on the man himself and all his qualities. That is what I meant.

That is remarkably accurate.

Fuse - Of all humans that I know of, Nietzsche inspires the most love and respect in me. I cannot, like you seem to do, think of N as anyone other than the man who lived his life to disclose humanity to itself, the man who woke up each day to horrible pain and managed to produce the most joyful and liberating insights in recorded history. His courage and generosity are beyond normal human standards, which is why, for all his physical feebleness, it is right that he set the standard for our species’ brightest possible future.

Men of philosophy simply Are their thinking. It is their heartbeat and not for a waking second will they be truly distracted, which is why they have such taxing lives, are such failures in the eyes of those who judge them by social and societal standards.

Hey that was well said.

I wasn’t making a statement about Nietzsche - in fact I hold his work in the highest regard. I was trying to make a point about linguistic baggage and the role of the word “philosopher” in the context of this thread. “Strike out the word philosopher, who was Nietzsche?” I wasn’t saying - as I can now see it might’ve appeared - that Nietzsche was nothing divorced from philosophy. Nietzsche was Nietzsche - whether we label him ‘philosopher’ or otherwise. Instead, I was trying to suggest that the word ‘philosopher’ might be over-full with meaning that we (everyone) have imputed to it. For instance, Nietzsche’s vision of “the philosopher” entails quite a bit more than your average dictionary definition of the word. It gives the idea of the philosopher an air of tragedy, e.g. “qualities that usually destroy a man.”

Incidentally, I am also reminded of the notion that smart people (those with higher IQs) are more prone to depression/mental illness.

I can see your point better now. On the one hand, it’s a title he chose for himself, a word he used to describe his plight and privilege; on the other hand it’s a title attributed to very different types of men. And yes, I do love Nietzsche for being the philosopher Nietzsche, rather than for being a size=85 [/size]philosopher.

Na, this doesn’t destroy a man. Perhaps it destroyed Nietzsche, but depression is healthy. Could you imagine a person who never experienced it? Something must be wrong with them. Permanent depression however, in which it ends without overcoming it, well, something must be wrong with them. Balance of course. Wondering when the next time I experience depression. Will I? Will it be extreme sorrow instead? Devastating events throughout life are inevitable; the longer we go without one, perhaps the less prepared we will be. Philosophy prepares us for these events, we are aware of things, we ponder them. We ponder hypotheticals in our mind, keeping our minds “tuned up” for whatever may come, for whatever may not come.

It is interesting that there is no direct correlation between brain states and emotional attitudes. A person who has an abnormality in the brain, whether physical or chemical, can exhibit absolutely no depressive tendencies or behaviors, while a perfectly healthy person can be a miserable cretin.

How much of the emotional attitude is generated by language as if by some kind of magical property. How can a ‘happy narrative’ literally make a person who should be miserable because they’re wired wrong, quite the opposite? This happens all the time. What are the philosophical-psychosomatic implications of language use? How can thoughts affect emotional attitudes?