Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: "Beyond Good and Evil"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786

    "Beyond Good and Evil"

    It is very hard for people who never get the truth from any media outlet including schools and the pulpit, to understand what 'evil lurks in the hearts of men' (Green Lantern). I do not believe in evil or death (of the soul) and I think I understand what people mean by the word evil very well. I do not think they have studied the concept of evil throughout history and they cannot scientifically or otherwise prove it exists. The continuum of behaviour from good to it's opposite (bad) can be extreme but there is nothing more opposite to good than calling freedom of any sort (including written literature) an evil. I would agree their should be laws restricting the dissemination of hate and extreme pornography, but I cannot imagine a book which is more of either of those things than the Bible. It ranks very high in sedition and treason against any race or nation in it's interpretations by every side of most issues including sexuality as well. Mein Kampf is a safer and more interesting study of morality.

    So why would James Joyce have his books banned or burned? Is it the fact that he wrote about the 5,000 year nightmare we have which passes for government and religious hegemony? I can understand Yeats being banned in Church circles including cults like Scientology which needs to control the every thought of it's members in fear they might actually learn what is being done to them and where their fearless leader got his supposed technology from. I suppose Shaw's support for socialism or common decency was threatening, but most average people could not even begin to interpret Ulysses.

    "In the mid-1920s, the Minister for Justice established a Committee on Evil Literature to examine Ireland’s censorship laws. The Committee’s conclusion was that the laws were insufficient, and a Censorship of Publications Act was passed in 1929. The Act established a Censorship of Publications Board to assess individual publications and to advise the Minister.

    In his letter of invitation to Joyce, Yeats explained that the planned Academy was to be “a vigorous body capable of defending our interests, negociating [sic] with Government, and I hope preventing the worst forms of censorship.” Perhaps to encourage Joyce to join, he added that all the writers who would form the Council of the Academy were ‘students’ of Joyce’s work. Apart from Yeats and Shaw, Padraic Colum, Sean O’Faolain, Frank O’Connor, Austin Clarke, Lennox Robinson, and St John Ervine were among the members.

    Joyce didn’t reply to Yeats’ letter immediately, and he received another letter of invitation from Bernard Shaw shortly afterwards with a copy of the rules of the Academy. Joyce replied to Yeats on 5 October 1932, reminding Yeats that it was thirty years since Yeats first offered Joyce help and thanking him and Shaw for their invitation. Though he wished them success in their venture, he claimed he could see no reason why his name should have been considered for the Academy. In a letter to Harriet Weaver, he claimed he was declining it because he lived abroad and his eyesight was poor.

    Given Joyce’s experiences with censorship in America and in Britain, it seems strange perhaps that he did not want to join the Academy. Curiously, though Joyce’s Ulysses was banned in the US and had been destroyed by customs officers in Britain, it was never banned by the Censorship of Publications Board in Ireland."


    http://jamesjoyce.ie/on-this-day-2-september/

    People have a tendency to call artists by names they do not deserve due to the prevailing ignorance of the moment. Joyce was called many things including a genius and arrogant. If you call him a genius today it is assumed you understand what he wrote and that will make you seem pretty smart to the insecure and semi-illiterate folk who will call him unreadable or arrogant. Here are a couple of reviews or reactions and responses to Ulysses.

    "Popular Answered Questions

    I have tried reading this book twice but could not get past 30-40 pages. I even read Iliad and Odyssey before starting this book as the book is supposed to draw some parallel with Odyssey. Is it readable?

    6 likes · like ·
    one year ago ·
    See all 16 answers

    Rene Quezada You can and should read the Shmoop Summaries of each episode after reading the episode. Understand, and accept that you will not understand…more

    Is joyce a true genius? Is he arrogant?? does he know it is difficult to follow sometimes ? i am really enjoying it so exciting so different


    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/338798.Ulysses

    I do not think Joyce "invented" interior monologues, puns or invented words (see other Green Language authors like Shakespeare and Swift or even Carlyle's Sartor Restartus which was published in the century he was born). His use of mythology was derivative of Homer and other bards before and after Homer, so that tells you how much the academics who say those things do not know or want you to know about other sources of such insight and truth. Jung kept the Iliad by his bedside for 20 years because these myths and integrations of words have very deep meanings or archetypes or memes.

    If you read about memes you are often going to be told they are a recent invention as well, but government social engineers have used them for the 5,000 years Joyce spoke about according to Joseph Campbell who was a fair wordsmith and Mythologist himself. Campbell struggled in his work on Joyce's books, so do not expect to suddenly get the depth of meaning. Did you understand Shakespeare at first? There were some people in Britain who probably could understand Joyce very well, and they were probably afraid he might generate the kind of political action that people like Swift had done, I am not sure about this though. I think Joyce knew how difficult it would be to even get his own countrymen to wake up to the fact that the Catholic and Anglican rituals are the same thing or that the so-called Protestants were only fighting because of the payoffs they received and continued getting from their British Masters who had engineered this hatred and near war over more than a millennium.

    Jonathan Swift was a Hibernian gifted in Green Languages but he was also an able craftsman of legal or other tongue and paper products; and a Member of Parliament. He supported the Irish as the English were intent on using the issuance of coin to prevent Irish merchants and traders from competing. Here is a little of the matter for your consideration.

    “‘To give, therefore, a short view of our case, it is thus; We can have English coin but by stealth, there being an act of parliament forbidding the exportation of English coin; if, therefore, we should send our gold or silver to England to be coined, we cannot have it back again, or if we could, we cannot keep it for the reason above; we cannot for the same reason have foreign silver; let us add to these, that by the act of navigation and other acts, we cannot make our markets of buying where we make our markets for selling; though we might have the commodities we want much cheaper there, than we can have them in England, viz. all East India and Turkey goods, with many others: nor is it to be expected that any nation will trade with us with their silver only, when we will not exchange commodities with them. Except, therefore, England designs entirely to ruin Ireland, a kingdom by which it is demonstrable that she gains yearly thirteen or fourteen hundred thousand pounds, she ought to think of giving us some relief.’ (“History of St. Patrick’s,” pp. xciii-xciv). [T.S.]]” (7)

    I suspect Shaw was influenced by Conor Mac Dari - I cannot prove it, but they were addressing the same harmonic and lived at the same time. The Gnostics are traceable to at least the builders of the Great Pyramid which the Septuagint (Greek Bible) intimates when it says the family of Jesus and Joseph were "arch-tectons" or architects. This was the hardest thing to confirm from the writings of Conor MacDari along with the fruit of 'direct cognition' which comes from this harmony of yin and yang evident on the Giza Plateau and elsewhere around the world. This video gets it right about 'direct experience'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4x8DvWEdY

    This old article of mine will give a good insight into many things.

    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Irish-Issue&id=35604
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-18-2016 at 07:09 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786
    Hopefully you can get a free look into this book.

    Twentieth-Century Ireland (New Gill History of Ireland 6): ...


    https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0717159434

    Dermot Keogh - 2005 - ‎History
    He believed in ancestral spirits and offering sacrifices to the Great Goddess of the ... They were a remarkable people with no distinction in their culture between the ... The best of the Irish writers were added to the list: Kate O'Brien, Seán O'Faoláin, ... saw him as a politician rooted in feelings rather than thought, who had an ...


    I used a lot from The Story of the Irish Race in my research and books which started out as a confirmational attempt to make sense of MacDari's book Irish Wisdom (which is linked here and elsewhere for free - but was not available anywhere when I started this effort in 1991). This poor rendition of an excerpt from MacManus's book gives you the Milesian Keltoi or Celts (But not at all what he implied was real. He had censors looking over his efforts.) or Merovingians but I knew a lot less about their roots when I started writing. Threads like the Ainu and Phoenicians will give you the gist of the truth.

    http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=383

    Some day before I die I should definitely be in Ireland and giving a speech on their real history. Hopefully I will have 'protection'.

    "James Joyce had worked on the novel for seven years, and Ulysses was serialized in the United States in the magazine The Little Review in 1921, the year prior to the publication of the full novel. The 13th chapter, also known as the Nausicaä episode, shocked many readers with its masturbation scene. The New York-based publishers of the magazine, Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap, were successfully prosecuted in New York for obscenity for mailing the Nausicaä episode issue through the U.S. post. Heap and Anderson were charged with the violation of the Comstock Act of 1873, which criminalized the sending of any “obscene, lewd, or lascivious book…” in the mail. For the next twelve years, Ulysses was banned in the United States and was only available to Americans who got smuggled copies from Paris, as the book was banned in Great Britain as well.

    At the time of Ulysses’ publication, the Hicklin test, from the English court case of Regina v. Hicklin 3 L.R. – Q.B 360 (1868) was used by the U.S. courts as the legal definition of obscenity. The Hicklin test was “…whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those minds who are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” Bennet Cerf, the founder of the American publishing firm Random House, wanted to publish Ulysses in the United States. He worked with Random House legal counsel and co-founder Morris Ernst to orchestrate the seizure of one copy of Joyce’s Ulysses by U.S. customs, sent to Cerf from Paris in May 1932. Ernst believed that the only way to defend Ulysses was to “…convince the government to declare the Ulysses a modern classic” (Birmingham, p. 297); there is an exemption for classics in the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USCA § 1305). Cerf arranged to have literary reviews pasted inside the front cover of the book that the customs officer seized.


    Mayor Hague battler favors Ludlow Amendment. Washington, D.C., May 10. New York Attorney Morris Ernst, writer and lawyer who battled Mayor Hague in civil liberty cases, appeared as witness today before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to favor the Ludlow resolution to place the power of declaring aggressive war in the hands of voters. Ernst said that the founding fathers intended that the power be given [to] the people, but that interpretation and usage had disallowed it [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hec.26659]

    Cerf and Ernst both wanted federal Judge John M. Woolsey to decide the Ulysses case, as Woolsey had a reputation for being a man of letters. By a piece of luck, Woolsey was assigned the case (Birmingham, 290). Prior to hearing it, Woolsey read the entire book, from the opening “stately plump Buck Mulligan” to the last yes, paying particular attention to the sections the government marked with large black Xs as potentially obscene (Moscato and LeBlanc, 309 and 480). One of Ernst’s briefs entered in the case included the comments of librarians stating their desire to have a copy of Ulysses in their libraries, and a list of words and associated page numbers from Ulysses showing the “forbidding polysyllabic barriers” to the reader of the book (e.g., houyhnhnm, crubeen, videlicet and sinhedrim). {Could this be an integration of "sin" and "sanhedrin" and "grim or him"?}

    Woolsey’s decision in United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” determined that Ulysses could be admitted into the United States. In his remarks, Woolsey noted that “…in Ulysses, in spite of its unusual frankness, I do not detect anywhere the leer of the sensualist” (Moscato and LeBlanc, 310). Further, “‘[Joyce] has honestly attempted to tell fully what his characters think about’, no matter the consequences. Some of those thoughts were sexual, but, he pointed out, ‘it must always be remembered that his locale was Celtic and his season spring.’” (Birmingham, p. 309) Woolsey wrote, “In many places … it seems to me to be disgusting,” but nothing, he added, had been included in it as “dirt for dirt sake.” He noted that Joyce’s stream of consciousness literary technique required him to reflect the thoughts of his characters, even if the characters were people a reader might not want to meet. “But when a real artist in words, such as Joyce undoubtedly is, seeks to draw a true picture of the lower middle class in a European city, ought it to be impossible for the American public legally to see that picture?” (Moscato and LeBlanc, 311).

    While other major works of literature also created tests to the legal application of the definition of obscenity—Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Fanny Hill, An American Tragedy—Joyce’s Ulysses and Woolsey’s decision changed the future of publishing in the United States. The decision of the American courts to allow publication of the work also set a precedent for other countries to allow Ulysses to be distributed, although that took more time—Britain did not end its ban on Ulysses until 1936; Ireland never banned it, but it never sold there until decades after its release either. Once reviled and burned in both the United States and Great Britain, Ulysses is now a universal cultural artifact. Bloomsday is celebrated all over the world, and Ulysses is, as Joyce predicted, keeping professors busy arguing over what he meant for a century and counting."


    http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/02/jam...-of-obscenity/

    Who says Shaw was not a good comedian?

    "Sir, - The opera management at Covent garden regulates the dress of its male patrons. When is it going to do the same to the women? On Saturday night I went to the Opera. I wore the costume imposed on me by the regulations of the house [...] Not only was I in evening dress by compulsion, but I voluntarily added many graces of conduct as to which the management made no stipulation whatever. I was in my seat in time for the first chord of the overture. I did not chatter during the music not raise my voice when the opera was too loud for normal conversation. I did not get up and go out when the statue music began. My language was fairly moderate considering the number and nature of the improvements on Mozart volunteered by Signor Caruso, and the respectful ignorance of the dramatic parts of the score exhibited by the conductor and the stage manager - if there is such a functionary at Covent Garden. In short, my behaviour was exemplary. At 9 o'clock (the Opera began at 8) a lady came in and sat down very conspicuously in my line of sight. She remained there until the beginning of the last act. I do not complain of her coming late and going early; on the contrary, I wish she had come later and gone earlier. For this lady, who had very black hair, had stuck over her right ear the pitiable corpse of a large white bird, which looked exactly as if someone had killed it by stamping on its breast, and then nailed it to the lady's temple, which was presumably of sufficient solidity to bear the operation. I am not, I hope, a morbidly squeamish person, but the spectacle sickened me. I presume that if I had presented myself at the doors with a dead snake around my neck, a collection of blackbeetles pinned to my shirtfront, and a grouse in my hair, I should have been refused admission. Why then is a woman to be allowed to commit such a public outrage? [...] I suggest to the Covent Garden authorities that, if they feel bound to protect their subscribers against the danger of my shocking them with a blue tie, they are at least equally bound to protect me against the danger of a woman shocking me with a dead bird. [Shaw, III, 585ff.]"

    http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol2/shaw.html
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-16-2016 at 12:59 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786
    We are so lucky to have so many great books available in the web for free. Now more than ever you need people who are well-versed in study to interpret it all - or else a lot of free time. Nietzsche's preface tells us the Germans invented gunpowder. I did not know there even were Germans when the Chinese had it - but to say anyone invented any explosive after Greek Fire (no one knows who invented it) is a moot point I think.

    "SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen, that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared: perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition, has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. The philosophy of the dogmatists, it is to be hoped, was only a promise for thousands of years afterwards, as was astrology in still earlier times, in the service of which probably more labour, gold, acuteness, and patience have been spent than on any actual science hitherto: we owe to it, and to its "super-terrestrial" pretensions in Asia and Egypt, the grand style of architecture. It seems that in order to inscribe themselves upon the heart of humanity with everlasting claims, all great things have first to wander about the earth as enormous and awe-inspiring caricatures: dogmatic philosophy has been a caricature of this kind—for instance, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia, and Platonism in Europe. Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be confessed that the worst, the most tiresome, and the most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error—namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, WHOSE DUTY IS WAKEFULNESS ITSELF, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of the PERSPECTIVE—the fundamental condition—of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?"

    But the struggle against Plato, or—to speak plainer, and for the "people"—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals. As a matter of fact, the European feels this tension as a state of distress, and twice attempts have been made in grand style to unbend the bow: once by means of Jesuitism, and the second time by means of democratic enlightenment—which, with the aid of liberty of the press and newspaper-reading, might, in fact, bring it about that the spirit would not so easily find itself in "distress"! (The Germans invented gunpowder—all credit to them! but they again made things square—they invented printing.) But we, who are neither Jesuits, nor democrats, nor even sufficiently Germans, we GOOD EUROPEANS, and free, VERY free spirits—we have it still, all the distress of spirit and all the tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the duty, and, who knows? THE GOAL TO AIM AT...."


    He continues to demonstrate his command of the teachings of Socrates and the need to consider all points of view and interrogate each of those points, plus question them fully before even starting to formulate a proposition, much less a theory.

    "1. The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions! It is already a long story; yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced. Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful, lose patience, and turn impatiently away? That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves? WHO is it really that puts questions to us here? WHAT really is this "Will to Truth" in us? In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will—until at last we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question. We inquired about the VALUE of this Will. Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and RISK RAISING it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.

    2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES.... For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous "Perhapses"! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent—philosophers of the dangerous "Perhaps" in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.

    3. Having kept a sharp eye on philosophers, and having read between their lines long enough, I now say to myself that the greater part of conscious thinking must be counted among the instinctive functions, and it is so even in the case of philosophical thinking; one has here to learn anew, as one learned anew about heredity and "innateness." As little as the act of birth comes into consideration in the whole process and procedure of heredity, just as little is "being-conscious" OPPOSED to the instinctive in any decisive sense; the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts, and forced into definite channels. And behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, there are valuations, or to speak more plainly, physiological demands, for the maintenance of a definite mode of life For example, that the certain is worth more than the uncertain, that illusion is less valuable than "truth" such valuations, in spite of their regulative importance for US, might notwithstanding be only superficial valuations,... Supposing, in effect, that man is not just the "measure of things.""



    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-13-2016 at 04:38 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786
    Is Nietzsche always sarcastic or ironic? Is he held in high esteem for words other people said he meant? That does often happen but in his case I see genuine humor and insight.

    "24. O sancta simplicitiatas! In what strange simplification and falsification man lives! One can never cease wondering when once one has got eyes for beholding this marvel! How we have made everything around us clear and free and easy and simple! how we have been able to give our senses a passport to everything superficial, our thoughts a godlike desire for wanton pranks and wrong inferences!—how from the beginning, we have contrived to retain our ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, thoughtlessness, imprudence, heartiness, and gaiety—in order to enjoy life! And only on this solidified, granite-like foundation of ignorance could knowledge rear itself hitherto, the will to knowledge on the foundation of a far more powerful will, the will to ignorance, to the uncertain, to the untrue! Not as its opposite, but—as its refinement! It is to be hoped, indeed, that LANGUAGE, here as elsewhere, will not get over its awkwardness, and that it will continue to talk of opposites where there are only degrees and many refinements of gradation; it is equally to be hoped that the incarnated Tartuffery of morals, which now belongs to our unconquerable "flesh and blood," will turn the words round in the mouths of us discerning ones. Here and there we understand it, and laugh at the way in which precisely the best knowledge seeks most to retain us in this SIMPLIFIED, thoroughly artificial, suitably imagined, and suitably falsified world: at the way in which, whether it will or not, it loves error, because, as living itself, it loves life!

    25. After such a cheerful commencement, a serious word would fain be heard; it appeals to the most serious minds. Take care, ye philosophers and friends of knowledge, and beware of martyrdom! Of suffering "for the truth's sake"! even in your own defense! It spoils all the innocence and fine neutrality of your conscience; it makes you headstrong against objections and red rags; it stupefies, animalizes, and brutalizes, when in the struggle with danger, slander, suspicion, expulsion, and even worse consequences of enmity, ye have at last to play your last card as protectors of truth upon earth—as though "the Truth" were such an innocent and incompetent creature as to require protectors! and you of all people, ye knights of the sorrowful countenance, Messrs Loafers and Cobweb-spinners of the spirit! Finally, ye know sufficiently well that it cannot be of any consequence if YE just carry your point; ye know that hitherto no philosopher has carried his point, and that there might be a more laudable truthfulness in every little interrogative mark which you place after your special words and favourite doctrines (and occasionally after yourselves) than in all the solemn pantomime and trumping games before accusers and law-courts! Rather go out of the way! Flee into concealment! And have your masks and your ruses, that ye may be mistaken for what you are, or somewhat feared! And pray, don't forget the garden, the garden with golden trellis-work! And have people around you who are as a garden—or as music on the waters at eventide, when already the day becomes a memory. Choose the GOOD solitude, the free, wanton, lightsome solitude, which also gives you the right still to remain good in any sense whatsoever! How poisonous, how crafty, how bad, does every long war make one, which cannot be waged openly by means of force! How PERSONAL does a long fear make one, a long watching of enemies, of possible enemies! These pariahs of society, these long-pursued, badly-persecuted ones—also the compulsory recluses, the Spinozas or Giordano Brunos—always become in the end, even under the most intellectual masquerade, and perhaps without being themselves aware of it, refined vengeance-seekers and poison-Brewers (just lay bare the foundation of Spinoza's ethics and theology!), not to speak of the stupidity of moral indignation, which is the unfailing sign in a philosopher that the sense of philosophical humour has left him. The martyrdom of the philosopher, his "sacrifice for the sake of truth," forces into the light whatever of the agitator and actor lurks in him; and if one has hitherto contemplated him only with artistic curiosity, with regard to many a philosopher it is easy to understand the dangerous desire to see him also in his deterioration (deteriorated into a "martyr," into a stage-and-tribune-bawler). Only, that it is necessary with such a desire to be clear WHAT spectacle one will see in any case—merely a satyric play, merely an epilogue farce, merely the continued proof that the long, real tragedy IS AT AN END, supposing that every philosophy has been a long tragedy in its origin.

    26. Every select man strives instinctively for a citadel and a privacy, where he is FREE from the crowd, the many, the majority—where he may forget "men who are the rule," as their exception;—exclusive only of the case in which he is pushed straight to such men by a still stronger instinct, as a discerner in the great and exceptional sense. Whoever, in intercourse with men, does not occasionally glisten in all the green and grey colours of distress, owing to disgust, satiety, sympathy, gloominess, and solitariness, is assuredly not a man of elevated tastes; supposing, however, that he does not voluntarily take all this burden and disgust upon himself, that he persistently avoids it, and remains, as I said, quietly and proudly hidden in his citadel, one thing is then certain: he was not made, he was not predestined for knowledge. For as such, he would one day have to say to himself: "The devil take my good taste! but 'the rule' is more interesting than the exception—than myself, the exception!" And he would go DOWN, and above all, he would go "inside." The long and serious study of the AVERAGE man—and consequently much disguise, self-overcoming, familiarity, and bad intercourse (all intercourse is bad intercourse except with one's equals):—that constitutes a necessary part of the life-history of every philosopher; perhaps the most disagreeable, odious, and disappointing part. If he is fortunate, however, as a favourite child of knowledge should be, he will meet with suitable auxiliaries who will shorten and lighten his task; I mean so-called cynics, those who simply recognize the animal, the commonplace and "the rule" in themselves, and at the same time have so much spirituality and ticklishness as to make them talk of themselves and their like BEFORE WITNESSES—sometimes they wallow, even in books, as on their own dung-hill. Cynicism is the only form in which base souls approach what is called honesty; and the higher man must open his ears to all the coarser or finer cynicism, and congratulate himself when the clown becomes shameless right before him, or the scientific satyr speaks out. There are even cases where enchantment mixes with the disgust—namely, where by a freak of nature, genius is bound to some such indiscreet billy-goat and ape, as in the case of the Abbe Galiani, the profoundest, acutest, and perhaps also filthiest man of his century—he was far profounder than Voltaire, and consequently also, a good deal more silent. It happens more frequently, as has been hinted, that a scientific head is placed on an ape's body, a fine exceptional understanding in a base soul, an occurrence by no means rare, especially among doctors and moral physiologists. And whenever anyone speaks without bitterness, or rather quite innocently, of man as a belly with two requirements, and a head with one; whenever any one sees, seeks, and WANTS to see only hunger, sexual instinct, and vanity as the real and only motives of human actions; in short, when any one speaks "badly"—and not even "ill"—of man, then ought the lover of knowledge to hearken attentively and diligently; he ought, in general, to have an open ear wherever there is talk without indignation. For the indignant man, and he who perpetually tears and lacerates himself with his own teeth (or, in place of himself, the world, God, or society), may indeed, morally speaking, stand higher than the laughing and self-satisfied satyr, but in every other sense he is the more ordinary, more indifferent, and less instructive case. And no one is such a LIAR as the indignant man."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,786
    It is not easy to critique the critic who never stops being critical of all points of view. As I said earlier - he questions enough to be the re-incarnation of Socrates but if you do not study what Socrates studied you would not know where he was headed. I do not know the extent of Nietzsche's madness or his study. I doubt very much that reading all of his books would tell you what the answer to those questions is, because he developed his own style. But here is one point of view from those at this site. If the critic making the criticism is talking about a definition of madness which says what is true in the face of what is not true - then he is correct. That requires some time to grasp, I think.

    "Emilio Cecconi, BA Philsophy, Notre Dame

    Rolf-Peter Horstmann gave an excellent account to why many people don't see value in Nietzsche's works in his introduction to Beyond Good and Evil. Excerpt below:

    There are quite a number of thinkers who would insist that it makes no sense at all to attribute greatness to any of Nietzsche’s works. For these readers, all of Nietzsche’s writings are flawed by serious shortcomings that justify fundamental complaints, ranging from accusations that they are utterly irrational, or devoid of informative content, to the conviction that they contain nothing but silly proclamations based on unwarranted generalizations – or a mixture of both. According to proponents of this view, the best way to think of Nietzsche’s works is as the disturbing documents of the creative process of someone who was on the verge of madness. To call any of his works great would therefore amount to a categorical mistake [1].

    1.Nietzsche, Friedrich (2001-11-22). Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (Kindle Locations 97-102). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition."

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-b...inst-Nietzsche
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-13-2016 at 07:52 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •