Nietzsche - Solomon & Higgins Lecture (1-11)
May12
I posted my notes on Lecture 12 yesterday from the lecture by Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins on Nietzsche from The Teaching Company. The notes were fresh on my mind so I took the most notes on that lecture because it was primarily new to me. The earlier lectures were primarily review, but I did jot down some notes from lectures 1-11 for future reference…
- Nietzsche very often makes references to images Luther used.
- I thought this was very cool! Nietzsche thought Christianity had served an important historical function for people. In the passage about the madman, it’s not people who believe in God who the madman assaults. The madman assaults those who think they can eliminate the need God once filled in society. By simply focusing on science they can ignore the needs of humanity for something like myth. Nietzsche thinks this is ungrateful. The way to show gratitude is to think beyond the historical function.
- Nietzsche says we shouldn’t throw out our desires. What we should throw out is the idea that we can reach perfect contentment and that the attainment of perfect satisfaction is even desirable.
- Nietzsche is far more optimistic that Schopenhauer. Life involves the negative components, but we can become something that takes joy in.
- The meaning of life is not in reason, rationalism, or theology. It’s to be found in the passions.
- Camel stage - treats tradition with reverence. Says “yes” to it. Lion stage - evaluates tradition and asserts individuality by challenging what has been handed down. Say “no” to tradition. We have to fully make our way through the camel stage before the lion stage makes sense. The Child stage is a new affirmation of life. It is boundless energy for what is new. Experimentation. Creative energy - full creative response and full vitality.
- The Ubermensch is an idea. It is a way of being that involves risk taking. This is contrasted with the Last Man which seeks nothing but comfort - the ultimate couch potato.
Rationality, Romanticism, Consciousness
- Rationality has several meanings: 1) thinking ability, to reflect; 2) mathematics; 3) instrumental reasoning, to think; 4) having the right goals (Aristotle); 5) reason is the royal road to truth (modern understanding/Enlightenment)
- Nietzsche, like Aristotle, thinks reason involves having the right goals. He says that reason becomes a tyrant when it is thought of as the royal road to truth (contra-Kant).
- Kant preached a faith in reason and even brought religion into the realm of reason. Nietzsche felt this idea that reason is universal was a pretension. While France and Britain were moving toward the age of reason, Germany was involved in Romanaticism which puts its faith in the passions and not in reason. Nietzsche saw much wrong with Romanticism, too. He said it was a pretense of passions.
- Nietzsche says we are animals motivated by drives and instincts. We are natural, biological beings. The meaning of life is to be found in life itself. Not in the upper realms of reason. Like Freud, Nietzsche understood that what drives us are very often things we are not conscious of.
- Nietzsche asked where does consciousness come from? And he comes up with a theory: It developed because of the need for communication. Consciousness was created in our interactions with others (rather than the traditional view that consciousness was somehow already in the mind). If you live alone, consciousness becomes superfluous. We have cultured, sophisticated, individual instincts.
- Thinking, for Nietzsche, can be a sort of disease. It can be dangerous because it blinds us to our creativity and uniqueness. Therefore consciousness is dangerous. BUT!! It’s an important stage in our evolution. When a faculty is new (like the advent of language/consciousness), it is always dangerous at first. But as it matures, we learn to make better use of it.
- Nietzsche was very interested in how language (the new faculty which gave rise to consciousness) expresses the truth.
- Nietzsche was very critical of the romantics of his time. He said they pretended passion. He said that romanticism is a mask; an act. The reality is that passion contains a quantum of reason and reason contains quantum passion. Both reason and passion contain an amount of both the Apollonian (reason) and the Dionysian (passion).
- Nietzsche uses aphorisms because he doesn’t want followers. He knows the reader won’t understand the whole picture by reading a single aphorism so it will take some work to understand. An active readership achieved through a sort of companionship with Nietzsche.
- Most of philosophy is centered on formal deductive reasoning. Not Nietzsche. Some would say he doesn’t do philosophy at all. He uses a sequence of fallacies; aphorisms, rhetoric, literature and ad hominem arguments. He wants to stimulate our emotional experience.
- Sophistry is an appeal to emotions and understands argument as an art form because the use of strict rational argument convinces no one. Philosophy is a sort of rhetoric. Socrates was a great rhetoritician. This is what made him so powerful even though his arguments would be readily dismissed in institutions today. So it is no dis-service to say that Nietzsche is doing rhetoric rather than logic.
Truth
- Nietzsche says there is no truth, there is only interpretations. But he praises truthfulness. This idea is not antagonistic toward science. Science is experimental and Nietzsche is willing to allow any hypothesis which says “let’s try it”. Experimenting with ideas and philosophical view points is kindred with science. Nietzsche says it isn’t good enough to say God created it this way.
- Science is non-dogmatic. Most beliefs people have held turn out to be false eventually. So why think current theories are the truth? Theories are always tentative. Philosophy should be undogmatic like science. But Niezsche also sometimes opposes science. This opposition is based on the aesthetic perspective. The aesthetic view has ways of seeing that are non-scientific. If science and aesthetics are opposed, Nietzsche says that aesthetics always get the upper hand. If it doesn’t, science easily becomes dogmatic. And when it does, it loses it’s virtue.
- Nietzsche asks “Why is truth important? Why must we have truth at any cost?” Individual lives are ruined. People have been excommunicated for the truth. The truth has upset entire civilizations (Freud). Why are we willing to pay the cost?
- Nietzsche comes up with several reasons. Truth isn’t necessarily pursued for itself. It is very often pursued for other goals. The main motivation for searching for truth is sometimes status. Status is the primary objective, not truth. Truth is a means to an end, not the end in itself. “The truth shall set you free.” Truth as a means to an end is based on the idea that truth is rock hard and immovable. If you get the truth, you gain power because claiming to have the truth puts you in a privileged position.
- But Nietzsche says there is no way of getting to the bottom of things. All we have is our experience which is an interpretation based on other interpretations. It’s all experience and experience is always an interpretation of something else.
- Appearances depend on being some thing of which there are appearances. There is a gap between the experience and appearances on the one hand and what they are experiences and appearances of on the other hand. There is no way of getting around or behind the appearances and experiences to see reality itself. This is something Nietzsche struggles with. Traditional philosophy, science ancient times, makes a distinction between reality on the one hand and appearances on the other. Nietzsche thinks this is a bogus distinction. There is only the world of our experience and it doesn’t make sense to talk about anything else.
- But what do we say about our experience? Kant talked about “world in itself” which is the world as God might see it. Kant admitted that we can’t have a conception of “the world in itself”. But Nietzsche says there is no such thing as “a world in itself”. There is no God’s eye view. Even if there were a God, this God would have to see it from a god’s perspective which remains a perspective.
- What is truth from once perspective is not the truth from another perspective. But this doesn’t mean that one truth need exclude the other.
- Nietzsche holds what is now called “perspectivism”. There are lots of different viewpoints we can take on things. This does not rule out argument, debate or pursuit itself - just the understanding that it must always be perceptualized. Science, for instance, is a difinitive perspective.
- Perspectivism is not the same as relativism why says that every view is as good as any other. But it is always a matter of not taking one position and digging in. Philosophy is about shifting perspectives.
- Where is the truth? It doesn’t lie behind appearances. Philosophical truth is getting a sense of how all the perspectives tie together. You have to be able to entertain different truths at the same time.
- Nietzsche was a quasi follower of Darwin. The Darwinian notion of fitness as a pragmatic theory of truth fits with Nietzsche’s theories. Imagine a species of creatures who have built into their brains that the future will be unlike the past. If you see lightening strike a tall tree, you rush under the tree during the next storm expecting that lightening won’t strike in the same place twice twice (or having struck this tree it will strike elsewhere next time). It’s easy to see how such a species would be short lived. A species that developed and inductive mind and learns by experience is much more likely to survive and flourish.
- What are our truths? They are the indispensible errors of mankind. They are the truths without which we as a species would not survive. To ask if these truths exist apart from reality is nonsensical.
How does Nietzsche define truth? I’m inclinded to say that there are certain truths, e.g. this table is made out of wood, or the Earth is round, or the Sun is the center of our solar system. Would Nietzsche say that the Eart being round isn’t “true”? For some reason, I don’t think he would. I think he is using “truth” in a different way.
I’m quite fond of Nietzsche myself and existentialism. I’m an atheist, so Nietzsche appels to me. I’m currently reading a wonderful book by Walter Kaufmann entitled “Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist.” I look forward to reading your past and future posts about Nietzsche’s thoughts.
Hi Daniel -
I think you are correct. He is more concerned that we don’t dig in to one particular perspective and claim it to be the absolute truth. We can only understand truth through multiple perspectives.
But didn’t Nietzsche think that true reality is a reality in which God is dead? Nietzsche defined faith as “not wanting to know what is true.” There is a false reality and there is a true reality. Isn’t Nietzsche’s claim on true reality absolute? He is describing an absolute truth isn’t he?
Nietzsche was speaking against abstract absolutes altogether - secular or religious. We can grasp truths based on perspectives. But there is no way we will ever be able to perceive THE truth (if there is such a thing). Nietzsche says that any road that claims to be the royal road to truth is a tyrant. Faith in facts (like the earth is round) is still faith. That’s a scientific perspective that relies on the current constraints of language (also a perspective). It isn’t “the truth” about the earth.
I don’t know. I’m inclined to say that you can’t say that one has “faith” that the Earth is round. The Earth is round; we can see that it is. And if anything, this “faith” must be different from religious “faith.” I wouldn’t equate the two.
How does Nietzsche define “truth”? To say that faith is “not wanting to know what is true” is to claim that you know the truth. Or to say that “In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point,” is to claim that you know what true reality is.
In these statements, it seems Nietzsche is telling us what is true and what isn’t. Is he not? If so, then he is making a claim on absolute truth. Or would he say that the truth he speaks of his merely one perspective of many?
I think Nietzsche definitely considers it faith and says that we were slaves to Christianity for 1500 years and that we must now likewise refuse to become a slaves to reason. Reason is a tool, not a master.
The Enlightenment maintained the slave morality by replacing God with reason. That’s why the madman says he’s come too early.
It’s a linguistic problem. Our language is based upon a belief in an external abstract reality that can be discovered. (Subject/verb/object). Nietzsche said he wouldn’t be understood for 300 years and he’s probably right. It takes a long time to realize how stuck we are in particular mindsets (and we’ve been stuck with our Judeo-Christian/Greek Rationalism dichotomy for thousands of years now). Taking away the abstract idea of God by replacing it with belief in an abstract truth that can be understood through reason does not yet recognize that God is dead even though it claims God doesn’t exist. To argue against the existence of God upholds the belief in God. It’s ressentiment.
I think he would definitely say that the truth he speaks of is one of many. That to know truth, we have to pool our perspectives and be able to maintain many at once. That’s not to say some perspectives aren’t better than others. But one perspective (the earth is round) does not make up the whole of reality. That a human being perceives the earth as round doesn’t mean the earth is round. A creature from another planet or future human being with completely different sensibilities and a different language structure might very well perceive it in a completely different way than how we perceive it.
I think truth for Nietzsche has less to do with the factual characteristics of things than it does with facing up to the reality and truth of our experience. Ultimately, all we can know is our experience. Faith in God turned us away from our experience. Faith that the earth was flat blinded us to the reality that the earth was round for many years. Faith that the earth is round would likewise blind us to some deeper reality about the physicality of the earth if we stuck to that understanding as an absolute truth.
Thankfully, science doesn’t deal in absolutes. It’s experimental. But scientism, Nietzsche says, is a tyrant. It doesn’t yet realize that God is dead.
A few thoughts and question:
1) How does arguing against the existence of God uphold the belief in God?
2) I understand perspectivism, but some perspectives are better than others. Truth is a function of one’s perspective, but some truths are more “true” than others. Right? I feel that Nietzsche would say his perspective is more true and realistic than most people’s perspective.
3) “That a human being perceives the earth as round doesn’t mean the earth is round. A creature from another planet or future human being with completely different sensibilities and a different language structure might very well perceive it in a completely different way than how we perceive it. ”
But this still doesn’t mean the Earth is round. I guess the “Earth is round” is an absolute/universal truth for humans, but many not for other life forms. Just because another life form may have a different language and perceive the Earth different doesn’t mean that the “Earth is round” is any less true from a human perspective.
4) Science continuously experiments and questions itself, but at the same time I feel as if it does create absolute truths about certain things–for example, evolution. Some scientists go as far as saying that evolution is fact. I’m not sure I agree with such a statement, but such statements are made by science.
I have this bad habit of working in the yard, most days. As a matter of fact, but not science, if it was strictly up to me and what gets done out there, I’d spend more time outside, and less time in here writing, or discussing my works. Ok, so I have to warm my hands up. thanks
It was cold outside this morning, have loaded a wheelbarrow full of rocks that i wanna move somewhere else, and didn’t get the wife’s permission, to move anything. I only gave a pronouncement saying, “I’m moving that pile of rocks out in front of the bird feeder. ” It was met with a sour puss, and, I think a ‘why’ question. And I gave my reasons, not all being aesthetics, or correctly said. I shoulda just said nothing, but I just ran it by her. And then I got quiet, after the disagreements, and went out on my own. stubborn
So my hands are warmer now. I pulled some weeds in the garden, have three more rows of carrots to plant and cover. The deer and raccoons have no say in any of it. And we are out of coffee. Oh well, just tea. What can be said about listening? breakfast
Hi Daniel -
1) God’s existence is a particularly tricky problem for western society. It took me forever (years) to finally understand this and it was actually through a very intense conversation with a bunch of Zen Buddhists that it finally made sense. I’ll try and explain.
Existentialism says the universe is meaningless and that we give it all the meaning it has, right? There is no separate reality providing the meaning for us. We are creating it through language. Nietzsche says it is very important that we understand how it is we’ve come to our current understanding. History is important in this sense.
Very rough history but it’s the only way I know how to explain this (and you probably already know it but here goes) … In tribal times, animism was the name of the game. The tribal gods and spirits varied from tribe to tribe and were helpful for working out problems within the tribes but were of no use once civilization came into being and different tribe members were living together in civilizations. Monotheism (as in a Supreme God that is above all other gods) becomes important because it’s a way to pull all of those gods under one supreme God who would have the final say (Kings came about with Civilization, too - same concept). Constantine comes along - wants to be the One Ruler over the One Empire and decides he will use One Religion to accomplish this and decides Christianity is the most effective means. But this requires getting all Christians to conform to one understanding of Christianity. Shortly after (early 400s), Christian theologians began rewriting Christianity in terms of Platonic and Socratic Greek rationalism and this is where the idea of an abstract, separate ultimate reality is introduced into Christianity. We have created the idea of an abstract, separate ultimate reality. Religion calls it God and by the time of the Enlightenment, it became a Truth that could be known through reason (and it was thought it could be presented in one beautiful, single formula). What Nietzsche says is that this abstract separate Truth doesn’t exist. We created the idea and we we have likewise killed it, but we don’t realize it yet. There is nothing that gives rise to our meaning except individual experience. There does seem to be some legitimacy in this claim in science. What is observed is affected by the observer. Therefore, what is experienced cannot be separated from the experiencer.
Therefore, as these Buddhists were trying to get me to understand, the argument of whether or not God exists is to get stuck in a point of view that points no where but back to the view itself on both sides of the argument. The existence or non-existence of God need not hold any importance whatsoever. We Westerners made it important. If we are creating meaning, then to say there is “no God” is to uphold the view that there is a God. Nietzsche says that whatever we revolt against we uphold. That’s not to say that revolt isn’t necessary from time to time, but we need to be aware that we have placed a value (meaning) on what it is we are revolting against.
2) Yes, Nietzsche definitely thinks some perspectives are better than other perspectives but I’m not sure that this is the same as saying some truths are better than other truths. I’ll have to think about that. He definitely thinks he is far more honest and truthful than most of humanity so it follows that he would consider his perspective to be more honest and truthful than most, too.
3) Right. We focus on it’s shape and we have given that shape a name and call it round. As long as we all agree on the terms, it’s a universal truth for humans. But again, we’ve created the meaning. We’ve set the terms. These weren’t externally imposed upon humanity by an abstract external reality or absolute truth.
4) I think Nietzsche might find it problematic for science to say it has created absolute truths. It can get very clear about the truth from it’s perspective, but if someone else doesn’t share that perspective, Science has no right to lord it’s truth over them. That maintains the slave morality that was handed down to us through Christianity. Science becomes a tyrant just like religion was a tyrant. For Creation Scientists to say that they have a valid scientific view is false from a scientific perspective. But there are other perspectives that might present evolution in a very different light than science but that aren’t antagonistic with science. (Some Native American Myths, for instance, aren’t scientifically true but they present an aesthetic truth that may provide more meaning, ultimately, than a scientific truth. That doesn’t negate the scientific truth, however.)
john e - “As a matter of fact and not science”. That’s great! You are always making me smile. So did you move the rocks?
Arulba,
Thank for answering with such a lengthy reply
I appreciate it very much.
1) “The existence or non-existence of God need not hold any importance whatsoever. We Westerners made it important. If we are creating meaning, then to say there is “no God” is to uphold the view that there is a God. Nietzsche says that whatever we revolt against we uphold. That’s not to say that revolt isn’t necessary from time to time, but we need to be aware that we have placed a value (meaning) on what it is we are revolting against.”
Ah, I understand now. I agree that the issue of God’s existence shouldn’t really be of any meaning–after all, Nietzsche did think that with science and rationalism we had killed God. The death of God shouldn’t really be an issue. But, some refuse to acknowledge His death, and in turn continue to act as if he is still alive. The thing is: as long as God is such an integrated part of Western society, the debate will continue. Because the positive side (God exists) continuously advocates ideas with regards to God, e.g. ID, creationism, God is the basis of love, morality, afterlife, heaven and hell, etc, the negative side must come to show that their assumptions and ideals are false. God is dead. We must help them realize this. I think human resources can be better used than to debate the existence of God, but since the positive side still maintains God to be meaningful, so to must the negative side.
2) Yeah, that’s what I thought. He really does think he perspective is more true and real than, say, a believers perspective. Does he have the authority to say this, thought, that his perspective is more true and real than other perspectives?
3) Okay. That makes sense. We created absolute truth within the human perspective. This, however, doesn’t necessarily mean this is an “absolute” truth, though.
4) “Science has no right to lord it’s truth over them.” So would you put scientific truth on the same level as religious truth? I personally wouldn’t. There is religious truth is too subjective to be equated to scientific truth. Science does teach us things about the Earth and the universe. When religion conflicts with science, science should prevail. Religious truths–God exists, Adam and Eve existed, the Genesis story is a literal account of God’s creation–do not accurately explain the Earth and the universe.
Yes, I moved the rocks. And am presently on the “bad” list.
But I made these stakes to hold the chicken wire down in the garden, over the carrots. I can sometimes be a garbage picker, and I had these old aluminum screen frames, which I cut into foot long lengths and bent the ends over in the vice. OMGoddess!!! sorry… They are perfect, a perfect use of junk! Saves this jerk another trip to the hardware store! I thank my past.
Plus, I rescued a measuring spoon from behind the kitchen cabinet where my son had carelessly knocked it behind. Took some time, but I found it! I love finding lost stuff! Another trip for this jerk not to make to the store!
Shower time!
Daniel -
You wrote: So would you put scientific truth on the same level as religious truth? There is religious truth is too subjective to be equated to scientific truth. Science does teach us things about the Earth and the universe. When religion conflicts with science, science should prevail. Religious truths–God exists, Adam and Eve existed, the Genesis story is a literal account of God’s creation–do not accurately explain the Earth and the universe.
The religious “truths” you are providing here are rationalized/factualized versions of religious myth. In that sense, no - they are not at all equal to scientific truth. But they weren’t meant to be rationalized. They are artistic expressions. The story of Adam and Eve has some really cool truths to it when you start digging into it as an art form. (john e has had some really cool interpretations I never thought of before). Art is definitely subjective but that likewise allows it to speak to areas of emotional truth that makes science look clumsy in comparison. Science can give us the rational facts, but it can’t provide the beauty like art can. There is a natural balance between the Apollonian and the Dionysian and in reality, both contain a quantum of the other (For instance, Nietzsche says science is beautiful). But if one is set against the other, Nietzsche will always choose the Dionysian (Aesthetic truth over Rational truth).
john e - Sorry you are on the “bad” list but she must appreciate the aesthetic beauty of your creative use of junk. Maybe she just can’t let on.
She appreciates foot rubs.
But first, it’s tea here. 
Arulba,
I know that the stories of the Bible are myths and were never supposed to be taken literally or as fact. However, religious truth = myths taken as fact. I am quite a fan of mystical truth.
Yup, Nietzsche will always accept the aesthetic truth over rational truth, if they were ever to be set against each other. I just read about this not too long ago in my Kaufmann book.
Daniel - Ah!! It’s hard to know exactly where it is people are coming from. I’m sorry about explaining so much.
It is true that much of religion views myth as a factual truth. But traditional religion did not view myth as fact. That’s a fairly recent development and primarily an understanding within the Abrahamic Religions (not so much Eastern religion). We moderns, unfortunately, have a very difficult time understanding metaphor as it was used by the ancients (pre-Socratics).
john e - foot rubs work wonders!
[...] lecture by Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins on Nietzsche from The Teaching Company. (See also Lectures 1-11 and Lecture 12 ) I’ll proofread this tomorrow. Forgive any [...]
I am king of the foot, rub.
Arulba- It’s fine
Check out my blog (koios.vox.com); it may give you a better feel of what I already know and wish to learn. I agree: ancient religion did not take myth as fact. I’m sure you’ve heard of Joseph Campbell. I wish more people, especially the religious, would read his works.
Joseph is my foot rubber, figuratively, symbolically, and archetypically.
But when I read Ernest Becker’s works, I think I kinda lost something in the words… amongst other things.
Man! There are lots of mosquitoes on the screen door!
I have to get outside, and just be, One, with it!
Joseph as in Joseph and The Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat? My daughter used to watch that musical over and over and over and over and over again. Talk about losing something in the translation! I’ve never read anything by Becker.
Daniel - Cool blog! I added you to my Vox neighborhood. I haven’t used Vox in quite a while but I do keep up with certain people in my neighborhood through Google reader. Thanks!
DON’T READ BECKER! Do not.
But if you really have to, start with ‘The Denial Of Death.’
then read… ‘Escape From Evil.’
then read… ‘The Birth And Death Of Meaning.’
And don’t forget, I told you not to, maybe.
john e - It’s like telling me not to think about pink elephants!
Transference & Transcendence: Ernest Becker’s Contribution to Psychotherapy.