Miroslav on Nietzsche

Well, just finished up reading "Twilight of the Idols" by Friedrich Nietzsche. If you've never read his stuff, let me just say that its not an easy read. Originally written in German, Nietzsche's works also contain French, Latin, Spanish, Greek, and English. To make matters worse, he often uses puns and parodies that demand an understanding of the original language. Because of this, the book that I read came with a section (equal in length as the work itself) labeled, 'Exlanatory Notes.' Several times in each paragraph, I was referred to the back of the book for explanation of a phrase that Nietzsche was using to make a statement. Nietzsche doesn't pull punches, and he uses his words with intense purpose to challenge the "old" ways of thinking.

Regarding his purpose, Nietzsche writes, "my ambition is to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book -- what everyone else does not say in a book...". Regarding Twilight of the Idols he writes, "in plain words: the old truth is coming to an end..."

Here are a couple of quotes from his writings and my thoughts.

Be warned this is a LONG post. For those who care, you should know that I think Nietzsche had a bitchin' cool mustache (I've started growing one like it today!), and somewhere in my ramblings here I refer to him as the Eminem of the 1800's.

Want to know what I'm reading now or whats next on the list? There is a section in the right-hand column towards the bottom.

Ok... carry on.

Let's see them thoughts!

"- I reduce a principle to a formula. Every naturalism in morality -that is, every healthy morality- is dominated by an instinct of life, some commandment of life is fulfilled by a determinate canon of "shalt" and "shalt not"; some inhibition and hostile element on the path of life is thus removed. Anti-natural morality-that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached-turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent. When it says, "God looks at the heart," it says No to both the lowest and the highest desires of life, and posits God as the enemy of life ... The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch ... Life has come to an end where the "kingdom of God" begins ..."

As I read this stuff, it strikes me how much of what Nietzsche writes here is accurate. There really isn't too much that I see that is in conflict with the message of Christ. Now, don't get me wrong here. I know that later in his writings, Nietzsche goes on to call God bad and our human 'natural' desires healthy and good and thereby is in direct opposition to Christ. But the point *here* in this brief paragraph is really in alignment with what Jesus taught. The Bible teaches death to self, and here Nietzsche points that out. I mean, really, doesn't the "kingdom of God" really begin when life comes to an end? The call of death to the natural man, re-birth, and denial of self are repeated over and over in the Bible.
And Nietzsche's comment on God saying 'No to both the lowest and the highest desires of life' ... that is true as well. Christ called us to both repent (speaking to the 'lowest' desires of sinful selfishness) and to "hate" our fathers, mothers, and even our own selves (and the love for each of these certainly qualify in my mind as being among the 'highest' desires).

"The most general formula on which every religion and morality is founded is: "Do this and that, refrain from this and that—then you will be happy! Otherwise ..." Every morality, every religion, is this imperative; I call it the great original sin of reason, the immortal unreason. In my mouth, this formula is changed into its opposite-first example of my "revaluation of all values": a well-turned-out human being, a "happy one," must perform certain actions and shrinks instinctively from other actions; he carries the order, which he represents physiologically, into his relations with other human beings and things. In a formula: his virtue is the effect of his happiness ... A long life, many descendants-these are not the wages of virtue: rather virtue itself is that slowing down of the metabolism which leads, among other things, also to a long life, many descendants ... The church and morality say: "A generation, a people, are destroyed by license and luxury." My recovered reason says: when a people approaches destruction, when it degenerates physiologically, then license and luxury follow from this (namely, the craving for ever stronger and more frequent stimulation, as every exhausted nature knows it). ... Every mistake in every sense is the effect of the degeneration of instinct, of the disintegration of the will: one could almost define what is bad in this way. All that is good is instinct-and hence easy, necessary, free."

This section starts off by talking about cause and effect. "Which came first... the chicken or the egg?" type of stuff. Nietzsche challenges the notion that virtue causes hapiness or that "license and luxury" cause the destruction of a people. I do wonder about this sorty of thing quite a bit. It is so easy to cite evidence of virtue by pointing to those who have found their way in life, or as Nietzsche puts it "a well-turned-out human being." And what of those who's life are not so well turned out, I often ask myself. Are they people so devoid of virtue? If we are going to cite one as evidence, we must also look at the other.
Towards the end of the paragraph, Nietzsche briefly touches on how he defines good and bad. Once again we have an odd thing. Christ promises that his "yoke is easy" and his "burden is light." And freedom is cited as one of the most wonderful benefits of faith in Christ. These are also cited by Nietzsche as critically necessary elements to true life. So both Nietzsche and Christ agree on some level. They both agree that these things are important and are evidence of good health and genuine life. But as to the source of this healthy and genuine life. Well, there we find a stark difference in their messages. Christ states with the authority of God that only upon death of self and rebirth in him is it possible. Nietzsche states (with all the boldness and moxy that he can muster up) that the exact opposite is true. Interesting stuff, ain't it?

"To derive something unknown from something familiar relieves, comforts, and satisfies, besides giving a feeling of power. With the unknown, one is confronted with danger, discomfort, and care,--the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. Since at bottom it is merely a matter of wishing to be rid of oppressive representations, one is not too particular about the means of getting rid of them: the first representation that explains the unknown as familiar feels so good that one "considers it true." ... Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a selected and preferred kind of explanation-that which has most quickly and most frequently abolished the feeling of the strange, new, and hitherto unexperienced: the most habitual explanations.- Consequence: one kind of positing of causes predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system and finally emerges as dominant, that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations.-- The banker immediately thinks of business," the Christian of "sin," and the girl of her love."

Ah ... the depths of this thought process leads to dangerous territory of the mind! But I must confess that I have had the same thoughts as these! Are we just fooling ourselves? Accepting the most comforting of messages that we find? ...
And then I wonder, when my hope for a returned faith is at its peak, that even as a Christian man I have so turned toward all the images of God in the Bible that are easy palatable: the ones that 'relieve, comfort, and satisfy.' I accept so readily the things that strike me as somewhat 'known' ... the teachings about God the Father, the idea of sacraficial love, and eternal purpose. But what about God the Jealous One? The Angry God who floods the Earth destroying all of his creation but one family? The God who hardens hearts for the purpose of destruction? ... those... I, we, seem so ready and willing to throw away... to explain away...
Oh, Nietzsche, what are you doing to my poor little brain here?

"We no longer have sufficiently high esteem for ourselves when we communicate. Our true experiences are not at all garrulous [tiresomely talkative]. They could not communicate themselves even if they tried: they lack the right words. We have already gone beyond whatever we have words for. In all talk there is a grain of contempt. Language, it seems, was invented only for what is average, medium, communicable. By speaking the speaker immediately vulgarizes himself. -- Out of a morality for deaf-mutes and other philosophers."

This little paragraph is not nearly as critical to the effort of understanding Nietzsche's world perspective. Still, I found it to be very accurate. Sometimes I feel like the moment that I try to put a thought or a feeling to words, the actual thing that I am trying to say escapes in to the vagueties of the words I use. You see ... there I go again!

"Where faith is needed.-- Nothing is rarer among moralists and saints than honesty; perhaps they say the contrary, perhaps they even believe it. For when a faith is more useful, more effective, and more persuasive than conscious hypocrisy, then hypocrisy soon turns instinctively into innocence: first principle for the understanding of great saints. The philosophers are merely another kind of saint, and their whole craft is such that they admit only certain truths: namely those for the sake of which their craft is accorded public sanction- in Kantian terms, truths of practical reason. They know what they must prove; in this they are practical. They recognize each other by their agreement about "the truths."-- "Thou shalt not lie"--in other words, beware, my dear philosopher, of telling the truth ..."

I like how this paragraph ends, more than how it begins. Though I do love the line about how 'hypocrisy turns instinctively into innocence.'
The last part ... the warning ... oh I love that line. Some people, upon hearing the truth of the status of my heart and faith, have struck out at me with such aggression. It was as if my honesty somehow unnerved them. It got under the skin. And so they had no other way of dealing with me, no other tool in their belt, than to call me unfaithful... dishonest... a bringer of harm. Not too unlike the philosophers that Nietzsche refers to here who accept one another until one of them 'tells the truth' (that is to say, one of them speaks of anything but one of the 'accepted truths').

"Morality has always been a Procrustean bed."

A what?! A Procrustean Bed ... thats what. (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) A very thought provoking metaphor to me.

"Here the view is free.-- It may be nobility of the soul when a philosopher is silent, it may be love when he contradicts himself; and he who has knowledge maybe polite enough to lie. It has been said, not without delicacy: Il est indigne des grand coeurs de répandre le trouble qu'ils ressentent [It is unworthy of great hearts to pour out the disturbance they feel]. But one must add that not to be afraid of the most unworthy may also be greatness of soul. A woman who loves, sacrifices her honor; a knower who "loves" may perhaps sacrifice his humanity; a God who loved became a Jew ..."

Speaking to the point of this paragraph, I think of Yoda. He is the sort of great soul who has deemed in unworthy to pour out the disturbance he feels. ... And then I thought of ObiWan, who died protecting the Light Side. And I said, yeah... its true. There isn't just one way to be great in soul. Some are called to fight. And others, the wise sages, live on to tell the story to the next generation.
At first I found the last part of this quote from Nietzsche to be very perplexing. It was as if he was giving kudos to the God of the Bible, citing him as an example of 'greatness of soul.' But then, I remembered the very sarcastic, witty, playful sort of writer that Nietzsche is. I realized that in referring to Christ in this manner, he was *at best* putting Christ in the category of all the other pantheon of Greek gods and godesses... but more probably Neitzsche was twisting the dagger in to the minds of his readers, those who held some level of respect for Christ. You see, Nietzsche did stuff like that, just to screw with people. And he enjoyed it. He thought it was necessary to shake their world... and sometimes, as I read this, it seemed as thought he said things just for shock value. Like an Eminem of the late 1800's. (there it is, the comparison to Eminem, don't say I didn't warn you!)

"Goethe conceived a human being who would be strong, highly educated, skillful in all bodily matters, self-controlled, reverent toward himself, and who might dare to afford the whole range and wealth of naturalness, being strong enough for such freedom; the man of tolerance, not from weakness but from strength, because he knows how to use to his advantage even that from which the average nature would perish; the man for whom there is no longer anything that is forbidden, unless it be weakness, whether called vice or virtue ... Such a spirit who has become free stands amid the cosmos with a joyous and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only the particular is loathesome, and that all is redeemed and affirmed in the whole--he does not negate anymore ... Such a faith, however, is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name Dionysus."
On Dinoysus - "In Nietzsche's later philosophy the 'Dionysian' element of (intoxicated) affirmation comes increasingly to predominate in his thinking and self-perception: the Apollonian and Dionysan are no longer in tension but allied (the former being effectively subsumed by the latter, since both are now 'conceived as types of intoxication'), for Nietzsche now conceives the crucial opposition to be that between the Dionysian and the life-denying force of Christianity, as the final words of Ece Homo make clear: 'Have I been understood? -- Dionysus against the Crucified...'

At the end of all of this, Nietzsche brings his thoughts to a fine point. He describes with almost heroic language his version of the "highest of all possible faiths." He also makes it painfully clear that his version is in direct conflict with the faith called for by Christ. And Dionysus? A Greek god borrowed from another people ... a god of many versions ... Nietzsche's version of Dionysus is a god of wine and raw instinct. You can read more here. Or more about the gnarly female followers of Dionysus, the Maenads, here.

Nietzsche applauds the natural man.
Christ calls for his death.
It can be said no more simply than that.