Beyond Me
Hmmmm. This is the Wed when everything gets messy in the Nietzsche class. We start BGE tonight – and on the heels of what we’ve been doing the past several weeks with Zarathustra I’ve got a sort of dilemma re: where to go next. Nit tells us through his “created” Zaratustra that: “Verily men gave themselves all their good and evil.” Now we deal with what’s after “good and evil” – and that’s what I’m wondering about…
BGE is the one book of Nietzsche’s that has captivated me more than any of the others (or at least more than Nit’s other books). Ecce Homo is funnier – more pleasing to read – and I’ve read it more times than BGE and all of Nietzsche’s other books combined. But BGE – my friends who have read more books than I have – they can’t understand why I read the same damn books over and over again. BGE and the Ethics are two perfect examples of why I engaged in such Sisyphusian activities. Those books are fucking mysteries to me and the more I read ‘em the more mysterious they get. Nit himself – in a letter to (I think?) Peter Gast says: “Please read this new book (BGE) it says the same things as my Zarathustra, but differently.”
And it’s this “differently” that is driving me crazy. Does Nit instruct us as to how we move on once we have discovered that we (humans) give ourselves all that we “esteem”? Nit’s way “in” to most of this stuff – especially the famous “deaths” of things that need to be “overcome” – has a lot to do with science – or the state of the art notion of what it means to know (relative to Nit’s world in the 19th Century). He offers this wonderful critique of positivism (or what might be called the “positivistic critique of knowledge”) – and shows how it has affected (or infected) the study of history – the humanities in general – and how positivism – this unabashed belief in the stuff of the scientific method – is, in itself, a belief or an assertion. The objectivity deemed so important by the positivists is only important because WE SAY SO. Right, the boring old ‘subjective nature of the demand for objectivity’ crap…
…but where Nit goes w/ this, that’s what’s interesting. He sees – first – the limits of positivism and the attending problems – AND he takes advantage of this opportunity to say what “by definition” we humans can no longer believe in (without ending his sentences w/ a preposition…which, I don’t know if that’s verboten in German…).
So he does this in the On the Uses and Disadvantages of History and the Gay Science – but after Z – where many say Nietzsche gives us his “complete” (or more complete) philosophy…he goes directly to this question (I think?): “What to we do after all this hullabaloo about good and evil?” See, it’s too easy to think that after creating the myth in the previous work – Nit now shows us how to recreate philosophy – or philosophic poetry in BGE. But my instinct suggests there is a lot more going on here – including focusing the same sort of critique (that came earlier in the realm of 19th century science and phil) to this critique of moral philosophy and/or philosophy in general.
“How could anything originate out of it’s opposite?”
…and while Nit doesn’t use the example of Soc at this point – the example comes screaming off the page – What is the Soc claim to wisdom? – get it?
The playful suggestion at the end of Sec. 3: “Supposing, that is, that not just man is the measure of all things” –
The reference here to Protagoras – the foil of Socrates – and this statement associated with the sum of Protagoras’ thought – supposedly the theoretical foil of all that is Socratic philosophy.
I’m not sure if I’ve even done a good job explaining my problem with teaching this crap…
Maybe this is better – and if you are someone that doesn’t know much – or doesn’t care about Nietzsche – see if you can make sense out of the following statement of my problem:
MY PROBLEM: “What is going on in Beyond Good and Evil? Is Nietzsche telling us how we create our “valuations” after the discoveries he’s previously discussed? Or, is Nietzsche continuing the previous line of questioning applied to science, history and the humanities of his time – and applying that criticism to philosophy in general?”
And that’s where I am…it will probably get worse.
(here's a bigger problem - I can't get my stupid blog to do italics...What the fuck!)
BGE is the one book of Nietzsche’s that has captivated me more than any of the others (or at least more than Nit’s other books). Ecce Homo is funnier – more pleasing to read – and I’ve read it more times than BGE and all of Nietzsche’s other books combined. But BGE – my friends who have read more books than I have – they can’t understand why I read the same damn books over and over again. BGE and the Ethics are two perfect examples of why I engaged in such Sisyphusian activities. Those books are fucking mysteries to me and the more I read ‘em the more mysterious they get. Nit himself – in a letter to (I think?) Peter Gast says: “Please read this new book (BGE) it says the same things as my Zarathustra, but differently.”
And it’s this “differently” that is driving me crazy. Does Nit instruct us as to how we move on once we have discovered that we (humans) give ourselves all that we “esteem”? Nit’s way “in” to most of this stuff – especially the famous “deaths” of things that need to be “overcome” – has a lot to do with science – or the state of the art notion of what it means to know (relative to Nit’s world in the 19th Century). He offers this wonderful critique of positivism (or what might be called the “positivistic critique of knowledge”) – and shows how it has affected (or infected) the study of history – the humanities in general – and how positivism – this unabashed belief in the stuff of the scientific method – is, in itself, a belief or an assertion. The objectivity deemed so important by the positivists is only important because WE SAY SO. Right, the boring old ‘subjective nature of the demand for objectivity’ crap…
…but where Nit goes w/ this, that’s what’s interesting. He sees – first – the limits of positivism and the attending problems – AND he takes advantage of this opportunity to say what “by definition” we humans can no longer believe in (without ending his sentences w/ a preposition…which, I don’t know if that’s verboten in German…).
So he does this in the On the Uses and Disadvantages of History and the Gay Science – but after Z – where many say Nietzsche gives us his “complete” (or more complete) philosophy…he goes directly to this question (I think?): “What to we do after all this hullabaloo about good and evil?” See, it’s too easy to think that after creating the myth in the previous work – Nit now shows us how to recreate philosophy – or philosophic poetry in BGE. But my instinct suggests there is a lot more going on here – including focusing the same sort of critique (that came earlier in the realm of 19th century science and phil) to this critique of moral philosophy and/or philosophy in general.
“How could anything originate out of it’s opposite?”
…and while Nit doesn’t use the example of Soc at this point – the example comes screaming off the page – What is the Soc claim to wisdom? – get it?
The playful suggestion at the end of Sec. 3: “Supposing, that is, that not just man is the measure of all things” –
The reference here to Protagoras – the foil of Socrates – and this statement associated with the sum of Protagoras’ thought – supposedly the theoretical foil of all that is Socratic philosophy.
I’m not sure if I’ve even done a good job explaining my problem with teaching this crap…
Maybe this is better – and if you are someone that doesn’t know much – or doesn’t care about Nietzsche – see if you can make sense out of the following statement of my problem:
MY PROBLEM: “What is going on in Beyond Good and Evil? Is Nietzsche telling us how we create our “valuations” after the discoveries he’s previously discussed? Or, is Nietzsche continuing the previous line of questioning applied to science, history and the humanities of his time – and applying that criticism to philosophy in general?”
And that’s where I am…it will probably get worse.
(here's a bigger problem - I can't get my stupid blog to do italics...What the fuck!)
posted by edP | 7:37 AM
4 Comments:
First of all, Ed, you must be drinking an incredible amount of coffee to be this worked up at 7:37 in the morning. Try a little decaf.
Second, I don't think I ever got a conclusive answer in any philosophy class or from any philosophic, discussion or book (except those involving Star Wars) in regards to good and evil. Mostly, I just got more questions. After a while, I started to drive myself a little crazy with it and decided the "Because I said so." approach is much more conducive to maintaining some semblance of sanity. Then again, I am not expected to teach a class on the subject.
Good luck to you!
Just make a real monkey and end it at that.
Okay Ed, You asked for it.
This is the way that I interpreted BG&E - Keep in mind I read it when I was in my teens (outside of a classroom setting), so there was little structure to my interpretation:
I interpreted that the concepts of Good and Evil were socially implemented constructs that could be evolved beyond (Ubermensch). Once an individual has achieved awareness, it is implied that binary concepts are over-simplified, and that truly great men (sorry ladies) will be able to see that there are only vague constructs that dictate behavior.
Nietzsche recognised the frailty of "truth" and specifically of the questionable claims of written "history". I see this as an ingrained skepticism in the purest definition of existential thought. Therefore, the only true laws to which man should adhere are the mores of the individual's consciousness.
That's what I took away from it. Then again, that was over a decade ago and I was prone to engage in psychedelic leisure activities. So that's what I think, for what it's worth.
Feel free to give me an "F".
this hurts my head & i think it's supposed to hurt my soul.
Post a Comment
<< Home