Yet There Is Method In It

I have been broadening my reading around Kierkegaard and I have concluded that both Nietzsche (FN) and Kierkegaard (SK) wrote in the same spirit and similar style – writing as a psychological investigation rather than a traditional discussion of abstract concepts. This is not too surprising considering they were almost contemporaries and have similar biographic details. On the other hand, the conclusions they arrive at are wildly different but I am delaying that analysis until a later time.

Common Themes of SK and FN

Both tried to find some truth outside of the common prejudice. This alienation from the mainstream is fundamental to both but is a break from other philosophical systems: in that neither SK or FN desire to establish a system and the impossibility of the majority to agree with their point of view.

The spiritual man differs from us men in being able to endure isolation, his rank as a spiritual man is proportionate to his strength for enduring isolation, whereas we men are constantly in need of “the others,” the herd; we die, or despair, if we are not reassured by being in the herd, of the same opinion as the herd, etc. The Instant No 5, Christianity of the Spiritual Man

“LIFE is a well of delight; but where the rabble also drink, there all fountains are poisoned.” “How have I flown to the height where no rabble any longer sit at the wells?” 28, Zarathustra

He certainly would not at once have allowed these thousands to call themselves disciples of Christ. No, He would have held back more stoutly. Therefore in three and a half years He won only eleven – whereas one Apostle in one day, may be in one hour, wins three thousand disciples of Christ. SK, The Instant No 5, A Genius / a Christian

“Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound! To allure many from the herd – for that purpose have I come.” FN, Zarathustra
“You seek followers? Seek zeros!” FN, Twilight

Both appeared to reject making objective valuations of life. At other times, they paradoxically do just that. To be fair to SK, he wrote under various pseudonyms and probably sought to examine concepts from various angles – possibly none of which are is personal view (although I am tempted to think books under his own name are his personal view). FN’s view evolved through his writings from being clearly influenced by Hegel and Schopenhauer to rejecting their views. But apart from this he attempted to be paradoxical in the same book (e.g. his view of women ranging from highly praising to being highly critical).

… assume that we are all thieves, what the police call suspicious characters [...] then to be that = 0; this is not to say that it does not mean anything much; no, it means nothing at all. The Instant No 5, When we are all Christian

…there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare, or sentence his [a man's] being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole. But there is nothing besides the whole. Twilight, FN

Based on both SK and FN’s writings, attitudes towards women where quite different in the nineteenth century (to put it mildly). Both associate women with deception. Nietzsche was specifically critical of the early feminism movement, possibly due to the implication that women were “victims” and sought the goal of “equality”. A quick hunt on the Internet on SK and feminism give me the impression that SK was critical of feminism if a superficial interpretation is used, but a more sophisticated reading reveals things are more complex.

(I am considering doing an analysis of FN’s infamous “Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy/the whip!” line but Zarathustra is like a riddle. Women are almost certainly not meant as women generally. Exercise to the reader: what does she represent?)

And the long robes – in fact that is feminine attire. Thereby thought is led on to something which also is characteristic of official Christianity, the unmanliness of using cunning, untruth and lies as its power. The Instant No 5, SK

Progress of the idea: it [idealism?] becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. (Twilight, FN)

An interesting parallel is the concept of the transitional nature of “human” was not lost on these writings. Both used the concept of man arising from animal (or what I prefer to called non-human) beginnings. Again, a superficial reading of this could be interpreted as a eugenics but neither writer intended to imply that human was objectively “higher” than a beast. But the difference between human and non-human were not ignored either.

In the New Testament sense, to be a Christian, in a upward sense, as different from being a man as, in a downward sense, to be a man is different from being a beast. The Instant No 7, SK

I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? [...] What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. (Zarathustra, FN)

As I mentioned, both were interested in psychological explanations of belief and behavior. Both realized that a maladjusted human (who is “sick”) causes him to choose self harming behavior. Popular “wisdom” says the reverse: we are “made sick” by our “vices”. SK goes further than FN and claims sickness is the natural state for humans. For FN’s view of this analysis, see “Backworldsmen” and “The Problem of Socrates” (and its not agreement!)

For it is an ordinary accompaniment of illness to desire most vehemently, to love most of all, precisely that which is injurious to the sick man. But, spiritually understood, man in his natural condition is sick, he is in error, in an illusion, and therefore desires most of all to be deceived, so that he may be permitted not only to remain in error but to find himself thoroughly comfortable in his self-deceit. SK, The Instant No 7

Instinctively to choose what is harmful for oneself, to feel attracted by “disinterested” motives, that is virtually the formula of decadence. FN, Twilight

AC1

PS I am going an audio book of the Gay Science and it is sucking up so much time. The final duration is looking like more than 12 hours. Let’s just say it takes much longer than that to record and edit it to the final version.

Common Themes – The Fire Chief and the Superman

I was interested in “What Says The Fire Chief?” and thought it had overtones of Nietzsche’s superman. I have read comparisons of the superman with Kierkegaard’s Knight of Faith but I can’t comment on that without more research.

The Fire Chief begins by saying, in promoting any cause, the one thing that is more dangerous than it’s enemies is well intentioned incompetent allies. The footnote in my Lowrie translation says “Evidently S. K. was embarrassed by his would-be defenders” but SK’s point might be generalized to any popular support for a cause. When called into “serious” activity, the fire chief takes control and any who obscruct his work are dismissed as “a company of twaddlers”. This is a un-democratic view but in modern military or nautical emergencies, one person commander is in usually most effective. The core idea seems to be the fire chief is capable of action that is independent of the twaddlers. “If he has a notion that it is they [the twaddlers] who are to help, and that he must strengthen himself by union with them, he eo ipso is not the right man.”

Kierkegaard applies this principle to “all matters of the mind, and so it is also in the religious field”. What exactly independent action would imply in this domain is not simple to deduce. It certainly implies that the “mind” fire chief is capable of disagreeing with the majority view. But presumably the fire chief still has a responsibility to extinguish fires (and similarly, the Knight of Faith obeys God).

This has some overlap with Nietzsche’s superman. Both seem to be beyond considering the sensitivities of bystanders. Both realize they are separate from the majority view on what action needs to be taken. The differences are perhaps subtle – for example the fire chief’s work is “serious” while the superman’s view of his role cannot easily be categorized. “Innocence is the child [the superman], and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self–rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. (Zarathustra)”

Kierkegaard describes the fire chief is a public figure and probably was modeled after his own situation. The superman, in contrast, is rarely a public figure “around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve; inaudibly it revolveth. (Zarathustra)” except perhaps becoming a public feature after death. Nietzsche probably did not consider himself to be a superman (although I would be interested if someone thinks so) but probably associated himself more with Zarathustra – the self appointed herald of the superman.

To mix metaphors, if there was a fire and the superman was first at hand, he would probably ask himself “of what value is fire to me? what value is extinguishing the fire to me?” before acting. The fire chief has a set relationship with fire – to extinguish. Even the twaddlers agree the fire should be extinguished. Of the superman, very little can be assumed in his fire fighting opinion.

“Are you one who looks on? Or one who lends a hand? Or one who looks away and walks off? Third question of conscience.” (Twilight)

Anti Citizen One

I started reading Kierkegaard (SK) due to is alleged similarity to Nietzsche (FN). For SK’s later work, I was struck by the similarities to FN and pleased by SK’s style which is generally straight forward and clear. His pamphlet series The Instant and articles in The Fatherland had a general readership in mind. Since they were published separately, there is a certain amount of repetition but this must be forgiven as circumstantial. I have decided to focus on comparing the similarities between SK and FN. I am less sure how they would have disagreed, if they had actually met beyond the obvious point that one was an atheist and the other Christian.

(Although SK said he is “not a Christian” – this reminded me of Confucius: “When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honor are things to be ashamed of.” Analects of Confucius)

Christian Suffering

The main thrust of SK’s late writings was that the “official” Danish church of 1850′s had diverged from New Testament Christianity into paganism or Judaism. His main justification for his argument is that Christianity is a religion of earthly suffering. This is also the assessment of FN and their agreement on this point could hardly be stronger!

The religion of suffering has become the religion of mirth, but it retains the name unchanged. SK, The Instant No.4 (What is really shocking)

Above all beware of the priests! It is a mark of being a Christian (if one is to be a Christian in such a sense that it will hold good in the Judgment) that one has suffered for the doctrine. SK, The Instant No 5

What can be remembered eternally? Only one thing: to have suffered for the truth. If thou wouldst have a care for thine eternal future, take heed to suffer for the truth. SK, The Instant No 8

ONCE on a time, Zarathustra also cast his fancy beyond man, like all backworldsmen. The work of a suffering and tortured God, did the world then seem to me. FN, Zarathustra

Ye cannot divine how sorely prophetic men suffer: ye think only that a fine “gift” has been given to them, and would fain have it yourselves [...] But it never occurs to us that it is their sufferings –that are their prophets! FN, Gay Science, 316

But how did such an “improved” Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? [...] there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a “Christian.” FN, Twilight of the Idols

Both thought that suffering should be sought but for different ends – SK to prove that a man was a true Christian and eventual self annihilation. FN demanded suffering to follow his ideal of “what does not kill me makes me stronger”.

And according to the New Testament what is it to love God? It is the will to become, humanly speaking, unhappy for this life, yet blissfully expectant of an eternal blessedness – in no other way can a man love God who is spirit. The Instant No 6, Fear most of all to be in error

For enjoyment and innocence are the most bashful things. Neither like to be sought for. One should have them,- but one should rather seek for guilt and pain! FN, Zarathustra

One point of disagreement between the two is their valuation of earthly life. But both have, at least, considered the possibility that non-existence is preferable to existence.

Suppose now that this child in its naiveté were to say to its parents, “But if this is such a bad world, and if this is what awaits me, then indeed it is not well that I have come into this world.” Bravo, my little friend, thou has hit the mark! SK, The Instant No 7

[Quoting Silenus:] Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this — to die soon. FN, Birth of Tragedy

I have yet to discover why SK and FN came to opposite views on Silenus’s challenge – is earthly life to be valued highly or lowly. Since SK believed in an afterlife, he could arguably afford to highly value the spiritual world while being pessimistic about earthly life. FN seemed to alternate between saying earthly life is “good” while also saying to assign a value of life is in fact meaningless.

To be continued…

Anti Citizen One

To preface by comments on Kierkegaard, I thought I would reproduce his and Nietzsche’s favourite* quotes from the Bible. The verses they use share a common theme, so well done if anyone recognises which philosopher used a particular quotation. At least one verse is used by both.

And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, Mark 12:38, Luke 20:46

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Matthew 19:21 (also Luke 12:33)

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Matthew 18:9

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. Mark 12:38-44, Luke 20:45-47

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Matthew 5:34-35, James 5:12

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1 Corinthians 1:27

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

I will save any reaction until after I have finished reading my current book.

* my knowledge of Kierkegaard is still very narrow so their might be even more relevant quotes. Plase add any additional verses as comments.

Anti Citizen One

I found a series of fictional advertisements in the style of political negative campaigning against various “candidates”. Most amusing.

Kierkegaard in ’08
Descartes Attack Ad
Down with Hume

AC1

Update: Found two more Kant related spoofs: Kant: The Motion Picture and Kant Book Review.

Pre-Game Coin Toss Makes Jacksonville Jaguars Realize Randomness Of Life

in other news, Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain.

AC1

Compared to the other Nietzsche books I have read – Will to Power (fragmentary and repetitious) and Birth of Tragedy (obscure but rather conventional), the Gay Science is a refreshing blast of fresh mountain air. As part of the middle period of the authors works, it is written in Nietzsche’s iconoclastic and aphoristic style. What is unusual about the book is the lightheartedness and humour with is contained in the prose and poetry.

This book contains ideas and many turns of phrase that recur in his next book Thus Spake Zarathustra. In some ways the key ideas of Zarathustra are already expressed in The Gay Science but I don’t feel it is repetitive because, although Nietzsche distrusts systemization of philosophy, the narrative story is a weak system. Some ideas are again restated in Twilight of the Idols but that book seems to be intended as an overview and written in a highly condensed style to the point of the ideas being crush under their own weight. Things are expressed more expansively in The Gay Science and is as good a starting point as I know into Nietzsche.

As usual, it is impossible to summarize the content of the book since it contains many disparate lines of thought. But that perhaps is the message? He claims it is untruthful to rob existence of its ambiguous nature. To provide a final immovable answer, as most ancient philosophy and theology attempts to do, is a flat denial of the ambiguous world. Nietzsche quickly points out that the ambiguous and apparent world is the only world. His explains why he is often misunderstood by others (including Bertrand Russell). I have heard it asked that if he can be misinterpreted, does he share the responsibility of how is works are misused? Interestingly, this argument is also leveled at the Bible, Koran and other holy books as a way of disparaging religion. This argument can be rebutted by considering any and all language can be misinterpreted to support any action, so to assign guilt to an author would be to potentially condemn all writing and speaking (reductio ad absurdum).

“All philosophical idealism has hitherto been something like a disease…” 372

‘One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also – quite certainly – not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author, – perhaps he did not want to be understood by “anyone”.’ 379

The mind boggles.

This book is the most pro-science I have read of Nietzsche. He is, as always, an acute observer and discusses the bounds that science may address. He is again skeptical about Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nietzsche’s idea of power and the abundance of power does not seem compatible with his perception of evolution and its “struggle for life”. I think this is Nietzsche’s misinterpretation and he perhaps would have accepted the gene centric view of evolution which was popularized in the book “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins.

The most famous section is the “God is dead” speech. I won’t reproduce it again since it is already easy to find on the internet. The speech is put into the mouth of a madman – probably Nietzsche’s concept of his own public image or perhaps a foreshadow of himself considering his mental collapse in 1889. Obviously, “God is dead” is not meant literally. One interpretation might be “the concept of God has come to an end”. The madman speaks to the onlookers who were already atheist. Why is it necessary to proclaim the death of God to atheists? The speech is a statement of existential removal of the foundations of civilization and a call for their reestablishment on new footings. When he finishes the speech, the crowd look at him in amazement. The madman realizes the news of God’s death has not yet reached them but is still on its ways to the ears of men. This is probably in reference to the assumptions and ideals that were taken from Christianity were carried into the secular societies of the modern world without being closely examined. The news of the death of God would call them into question as not being timeless and objective.

I love the end of book 4 of The Gay Science (aphorisms 340-342). It is rare that just two pages can contain so many ideas and written in such a vibrant manner.

340 Discusses the death of Socrates and its implication for his philosophy. This has huge significance for the modern world as much of this as been intellectually passed down through St. Augustine and the Catholic Church. Socrates, at his trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, goaded the court into sentencing him to death. Socrates’s last words (according to Plato) were “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don’t forget to pay the debt.”

“For him who has ears, this ludicrous and terrible “last word” implies: “O Crito, life is a long sickness!” “Socrates, Socrates had suffered from life! And he also took his revenge for it…” “We must surpass even the Greeks!” 340

Nietzsche attempts to connect Socrates’s denial and hatred of life to idealism and to equate the two. This connects with the idea of the ambiguous world being the only world. To claim a thing exists “in itself” is to value a non-existent thing above an existent thing. Hence, Nietzsche’s fondness for accusing idealism of nihilism.

Aphorism 341 is the first statement in his writings of the thought of the Eternal Return. This circular view of time again emphasizes the apparent existence on earth as the only existence. It perhaps is simply an inversion of the thought of an afterlife. This ideal is the core idea of Zarathustra and also a theme in the Unbearable Lightness of Being. The “lightness” is perhaps the terror and uncertainty at the lack of external significance of life – considering eventually the universe will suffer heat death and also from the death of God. The novel also discusses the “weight” provided by the Eternal Return (“It must be so! It must be so!”). If each of our actions are to be repeated for eternity, we are almost forced to place a massive but subjective significance on every action we perform. Nietzsche seems to regard the thought of the Eternal Return as a thought experiment and a requirement for the Superman. In the Will to Power his seems to have the intention of arguing for the physical reality of the concept. Eternal Return is a form of Eternalism and Hard Determinism. I hardly need add that Nietzsche argued against “free will”.

Aphorism 342 is simply the first section of Zarathustra’s prologue. I suppose I find self quotation and interconnections of ideas amusing. The Gay Science’s close connection is again confirmed when Zarathustra “quotes” Nietzsche:

When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!” Prologue, Z

Since I was too busy enjoying The Gay Science, I forgot to record interesting quotations. I also lack an electronic copy of the book. I normally would have included more quotations but I hope you can overlook their absence.

Anti Citizen One

I have returned from holiday and I have been busy reading.

Yes Man by Danny Wallace

After enjoying his previous book “Join Me”, I was looking forward to a new series of adventures of Danny. He vows to say YES to every opportunity or suggestion that presents itself. This temporarily leads to his new appreciation of life and to enjoy embracing opportunities. After a time this reverses to a weariness of this irresponsible life style.

‘…I don’t want to be like I was, but I’m so sick of saying Yes. All it does is tire me. It was supposed to help. It was supposed to be exciting.’
Ian put his pool cue down, and nodded, sadly.
‘What Yes giveth,’ he said, ‘Yes also taketh away.’

Danny begins to question the value of Yes and the existential value of his project.

What was I doing with my life? I mean, really? What was the point in all this? To waste six hours of my day on a train? To wake up confused and bewildered in a Dutch hotel room? To severely annoy my ex-girlfriend? What was I gaining from this, really? Apart from a car and some mild abuse?

He does find new energy to persist saying Yes to life. It begins to become instinctual and effortless.

…I wasn’t saying Yes because I was playing the Yes game. I’d all but forgotten about that. I wasn’t saying Yes to prove anything to myself any more, or to Ian, or to anyone else. I was saying Yes because I wanted to. I was saying Yes because all of a sudden it was coming naturally.

The book ends with a transition away from “Yes” to a more settled and mature way of life. To gratuitously quote Nietzsche, he would have approved of Danny’s embrace of life:

“Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life” Zarathustra

but probably would not have agreed with saying Yes to all opportunities. Sometimes No is necessary.

“All-satisfiedness, which knoweth how to taste everything, that is not the best taste! I honour the refractory, fastidious tongues and stomachs, which have learned to say “I” and “Yea” and “Nay.” To chew and digest everything, however- that is the genuine swine-nature! Ever to say YEA that hath only the ass learned, and those like it!” Zarathustra

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson

The Gospel is a parody and reductio ad absurdum against the Intelligent Design movement. The core argument is if religion can be taught in schools and given legal protection, then this spoof religion, featuring the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) as God, is equally deserving of the same benefits.

I think we can all look forward to a time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one-third for Intelligent Design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

The book takes several of the classical arguments (First Cause, Ontological, Design, Logical arguments) and adapts them to suit the FSM. The fact that their logic is flawed is presumably intended as a criticism of the original arguments. There is also an amusing spoof of Genesis featuring the FMS as a very incompetent, slightly insane, ego-maniacal creator God. One or two sections are intended as an improvement of Christian values. The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” basically reduce to “be tolerant of others”, “have a good time” and “don’t be religiously pretentious”.

All in all a good read for people interested in the Intelligent Design movement.

I will write a review of Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig when I have a chance.

Anti Citizen One

The Birth of Tragedy discusses the world view and theatre of the ancient Greeks and how it applies to the culture of his day. Nietzsche borrows several ideas from contemporaries, notably Hegelian dialectic and applies it to Dionysus (thesis), Apollo (antithesis) and Greek Tragedy(synthesis). The Dionysian and Apollonian tendencies were both said to be an answer to the “wisdom of Silenus”.

…King Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, without capturing him. When Silenus at last fell into his hands, the king asked what was the best and most desirable of all things for man. Fixed and immovable, the demigod said not a word; till at last, urged by the king, he gave a shrill laugh and broke out into these words: ‘Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of change and misery, why do ye compel me to tell you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is beyond your reach forever: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But second best for you – is quickly to die.’

This idea was echoed more recently by Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus – is a pointless task (or pointless life) better abandoned?

Nietzsche says there are three traditions that answer this question:

1) Dionysus, god of Wine and bringer of ritual ecstasy. His followers rejoice in life as it actually is including all tragedy and discord. Nietzsche closely identifies Dionysus with music, without words, as a mirror of the world in a similar way as Schopenhauer’s concept of music as pure will. In theater, Dionysus is linked with all tragic heroes caught in epic downfalls and myths. Reality is a subjective and is intuitively and instinctively understood.

The truly Dionysian music presents itself as such a general mirror of the universal will: the conspicuous event refracted in this mirror expands at once for our consciousness to the copy of an external truth. Section 17

Here the most profound instinct of life, that directed toward the future of life, the eternity of life, is experienced religiously — and the way to life, procreation, as the holy way. Twilight of the Idols

2) Apollo, god of the Sun and bringer of knowledge, reason, wisdom and plastic (visual) beauty. This movement flatly rejects Silenus and instead holds that man’s goal is to pursue knowledge which in turn leads to beauty, virtue and happiness. The lyricist takes precedence over the musician and the music only supports the words of the writer. The theater, characters become more like the audience and given realistic emotions. The protagonists are now intelligent slaves and cunning men and women while the classic heroes are parodied. This use of realistic characters often makes the story impossible to fit with the expected Apollonian outcome (intelligence/beauty is rewarded) so deus ex machina is used to resolve the story. This shift in style is attributed to Euripides and ultimately to Socrates. Mythology and subjectivity are destroyed and replaced by the theoretic, the objective and history.

“…hence the picture of the dying Socrates, as the man raised above the fear of death by knowledge and reason, is the sign about the entrance-gate of science reminding every one of its mission, namely, to make existence seem intelligible, and therefore justified.” Section 15

If we could conceive of an incarnation of dissonance -and what else is man? – then, that it might live, this dissonance would need a glorious illusion to cover its features with a veil of beauty. This is the true artistic function of Apollo… Section 25″

3) Buddhist tradition which, according to Nietzsche, agrees with Silenus’s nihilism.

Since it is impossible to reach either ideal completely, life and theater is said to be best understood as a synthesis of both the Apollonian and Dionysian tendencies.

For the more clearly I perceive in Nature those omnipotent art impulses [...] the more I feel myself impelled to the metaphysical assumption that the Truly-Existent [Dionysus?] and Primal Unity [Apollo?], eternal suffering and divided against itself [...] are compelled to apprehend as [...] empiric reality. Section 4.

After Socrates, Greek taste shifts towards the Apollonian and Socraties (and his cronies Plato and Aristotle) and culture is still operating under the same system today. People are still considered as rational individuals who can detach themselves from the world they are observing. The problem with the Apollonian ideal is that it is fatally flawed – as any post modernist will tell you!

And as thou hast forsaken Dionysus, Apollo hath also forsaken thee; rouse up all the passions from their haunts and conjure them into thy circle, sharpen and whet thy sophistical dialectic for the speeches of thy heroes – thy very heroes have but counterfeit, masked passions, and utter but counterfeit, masked words. Section 10

As we reach the limits of philosophic reason and consider the boundaries of science, we realize that much of the world is not yet intelligible – and most likely will never be. This fundamentally undermines the claim of Apollonian view.

“If ancient tragedy was diverted from its course by the dialectical desire for knowledge and the optimism of science, this fact might lead us to believe that there is an eternal conflict between the theoretic and the tragic world-view; and only after the spirit of science has been pursued to its limits, and its claim to universal validity destroyed by the evidence of these limits may we hope for a rebirth of tragedy…” Section 17

By emphasizing the objective viewpoint of individual members of the public (rather than subjective view of heroes), Euripides thought the “public” on stage could be a better judge of the play.

But “public,” after all, is only a word. In no sense is it a homogeneous and constant quantity. Why should the artist be bound to accommodate himself to a power whose strength lies merely in numbers? Section 11.

This instantly reintroduces the subjective back into what is intended to be objective. We are instantly drawn back to the Dionysian.

There is a great amount I did not understand in the book as Greek culture is fairly obscure. The style of Nietzsche is more restrained as he mentions other philosophers without pouring scorn on them – particularly notably are Kant and Schopenhauer – who he later rejected utterly. He does identify Socrates as a target at this early stage in his writing.

Anti Citizen One

Searle published an attempt to answer Hume’s Is-Ought Problem. It states:

Consider the following series of statements:
(i) Jones uttered the words “I hereby promise to pay you,
Smith, five dollars.”
(2) Jones promised to pay Smith five dollars.
(3) Jones placed himself under (undertook) an obligation
to pay Smith five dollars.
(4) Jones is under an obligation to pay Smith five dollars.
(5) Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.
Searle J R, How to Derive “Ought” From “Is”, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan., 1964), pp. 43-58

Searle states that the following are tautological truths:
“All promises are (create, are undertakings of, are acceptances of) obligations,”
“One ought to keep (fulfill) one’s obligations.”

With these definitions, we can see the logic to go from statement (2) to (5) because it is a tautological, according to Searle, to equate “promise” with “ought to”. It is then possible to simplify the above argument with:

(A) Jones uttered the words “I hereby ought to to pay you,
Smith, five dollars.”
(B) Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

I cannot see any way B automatically follows from A. And since this is logically equivalent to Searle’s response, we can see the original argument is invalid in going beyond step (1). Another way to state my objection is to consider if “One ought to keep (fulfill) one’s obligations” is really tautologically true? If we can say “promise = obligation”, then is “One ought to keep (fulfill) one’s promises” a tautological truth? No, it isn’t.

And, even if Smith believes he ought to pay back Smith, why ought he believe that? The whole argument is couched in social convention and definition of words – to a critical eye this reeks of faulty reasoning.

Ayn Rand’s attempt also relies on the loose interpretation of words. “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’” Which is suddenly appears similar to Searle’s answer.

Update: I also noticed Searles definition “All promises are (create, are undertakings of, are acceptances of) obligations,” does not really reduce to “promises are obligations”; the words in the brackets are important. Promises are only representations of obligations. Obligations may be represented without actually existing!

Anti Citizen One