Yet There Is Method In It

The Philosopher Leszek Kolakowski who rejected his former Marxism and embraced a humanistic rationalism proposed this law of the infinite cornucopia.

Which suggests that for any given doctrine one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which one can support it.

An example given is theology and the bible. For any doctrine a biblical theologian wants to believe there is never any shortage of biblical evidence to support it.

The centre of Kolakowski’s conceptual universe was the individual – a rational and freely acting subject, aware that there is a spiritual side of life, yet eschewing absolute certainty of either an empirical or transcendental sort: “I do not believe that human culture can ever reach a perfect synthesis of its diversified and incompatible components”, he said. “Its very richness is supported by this very incompatibility of its ingredients. And it is the conflict of values, rather than their harmony, that keeps our culture alive.” (extract from the Daily Telegraph Obituary of Kolakowski in 2009)

What role then the philosopher?
It was not the philosopher’s role to deliver the truth, but to “build the spirit of truth” by questioning what appears to be obvious, always suspecting that there might be “another side” to any question. The true philosopher should approach any issue with scepticism and humility: “A modern philosopher who has never once suspected himself of being a charlatan must be such a shallow mind that his work is probably not worth reading”, he said.

A quick recap on these two arguments:

• We observe that universe has certain properties
• These are consistent with properties that we would expect from a designer (with good intentions)
• Therefore the universe was designed

• Bad things happen
• A good and omnipotent God would prevent bad things from happening
• Therefore God is not both good and omnipotent
• A Defence: what apparently is “bad” might have be “good” but we cannot fully comprehend it from our current point of view.

Recently, I noticed an interesting thing. If we admit this defence of “bad things” are really good, we therefore say “we are not in a position to assess the attributes of the universe”. This statement may then be applied to the design argument, which undermines the first axiom of us observing the “designed” attributes of the universe. So these arguments are in fact the same argument, two sides of the same coin! So things that appear designed at this point in time might be the work of a short sighted designer, only to backfire later (or as the product of many other origins). This possibility cannot be distinguished from a competent designer using the design argument.

(I omit discussing the other objections to both these arguments, false dichotomy being the most obvious.)

Anti Citizen One

PS Happy new arbitrary length of time!

PPS Ireland’s anti-blasphemy laws come into effect that forbid causing “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion”. Nice step backwards. They need to amend their constitution to remove the moronic basis for this law. Given the hysterical nature of many religions, we can look forward to curtailment of free speech… idiots.

PPPS A topical quote that illustrates some of the above issues:

“God is ultimately responsible for the earthquake in Haiti and has a reason that is beyond our ability, trapped in time, to understand or comprehend. But it would be theological ignorance coupled with absolute arrogance to try and interpret God’s actions as a judgment against a particular person or nation.” — Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, for Newsweek.

A first reaction on CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity: he really likes inductive arguments and arguments by analogy. He attempts to use these to argue for the existence of objective morality. But, given that both these forms of argument require some subjective value judgments, how is it possible to arrive at a non-subjective conclusion? Or to put it another way, if he needs to subjectively decide on what basis an analogy is valid, the conclusion must be equally subjective. Or to put it a third way, subjective axioms lead to subjective conclusions.

And don’t get me started with his comparisons of a-priori/tautological knowledge (e.g. mathematics) and a posteriori knowledge (morality in this case).

Anti Citizen One

PS Perhaps I should have followed Zarathustra’s advice (emphasis mine):

But Zarathustra came not to say unto all those liars and fools:
“What do ye know of virtue! What could ye know of virtue!”

by Ben Dupre

It’s a good refresher for many key ideas in philosophy. He advances each theory with sincerity and also states the main objections to the idea. That most or all ideas in philosophy have very strong objections is itself revealing. Many of the ideas I had heard in far more depth – for example the design argument (for and against) is covered in 4 pages – after I have read Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. But many ideas I had not considered, such as the main themes in aesthetics and Nagel’s ideas on moral luck. I was again reminded of the total incoherance of morality in the section of supererogatory acts and various others. The clarity of presentation of each idea was surprising; I guess it was good he did not try to discuss Hegel! But, no discussion of existentialism… anyway, a good read in all!

Next to read, Mere Christianity. (Why do I think I will need some “fresh air” after reading that book?)

Anti Citizen One

I recently finished a long term personal project: an audiobook reading of Nietzsche’s Joyful Wisdom aka The Gay Science. The running time is about 13 hours and much longer than I expected. It partly explains my lack of blogging!

Curiously the first chapter and appendix are both collections of poems. It is rather odd for his reputation to thing of him being a poet. The book is also valuable (to me anyway) as it was written just before Zarathustra and acts as a kind of preface. I think I understand some of the metaphors better than before.

One day I might do a selection of highlights but for now I need a rest from it!

AC1

Just read this fantastic section that is both informative, provacative and tongue-in-cheek from the excellent book “God’s Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion” by Vatican Astronomer and Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno. I will eventually write a review of sorts. Suffice very briefly to explain that the book is not a missionary work, Consolmagno seeks not to gain any converts, rather it may be described as a sociological work outlining how and why (to quote the blurb) “scientists and those with technological leanings can hold profound, “unprovable” religious beliefs while working in highly empirical fields.”

Philosophical Preamble

A little boy prays to God for a red bicycle, when it doesn’t magically appear the following day he decides that God is a fake. However, more worryingly if the little brat does get a red bicycle the following morning (i.e. by generous parents) then he may conclude that it is his prayer that caused the red bike to appear. “A faith based on a lie is worse than no faith at all.”

This type of faith is a fallacy – mistaking chance for cause. Although it is a fundamentally basic concept in our thinking that the cause always comes before the effect – it is really misleading.

Because event A occurs before event B we are sometimes deluded into thinking that A causes B.

Logicians refer to this fallacy as post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “after that, therefore because of that.”

What event B following on from event A can tell us at a basic logical level is that B cannot be the cause of A. It is useful information but it does not equate with A therefore B.

Pigeon Superstition

“B. F. Skinner, the famous behavioural psychologist, performed a classic experiment describing “superstition in pigeons” in the late 1940’s. He had developed a method of training pigones by making them hungry (starving them to 75 percent of their normal weight) and then putting them in a box that would provide food whenever they did whatever he wanted them to do – stepping in a certain pattern, say, or pecking at a certain image. But as he describes in a paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1948, he also put some hungry pigeons in boxes that would feed them at regular intervals with no reference at all to what they were doing. He reported that the pigeons would train themselves to do whatever it was they were doing the first few times they were fed, as if their behaviour – walking in circles, pecking at the left side of the food dish, or whatever – was the cause of their feeding. This, Skinner said, was an example of how superstitions arise among people. More aggressive skeptics have used this result as an explanation for why people are so foolish as to believe in religion itself.” p.84-85

The Moral

Consolmagno states here that the skeptics have a good point, a religion that is adopted solely for the percieved benefits of what it might grant (afterlife, winning the lotto etc.) is one that descends easily into superstition, even if the percieved benefits are forthcoming (by chance).

“Superstition is faith based on quicksand. And when it fails, as inevitably it will, it can at the very least destroy your capacity to believe in better things and at worst pull you down and destroy you, the way that trusting in a quack medicine can kill you if it prevents you from taking a real cure.” p.85

This type of faith is the fallacy of “after that, therefore because of that.”

The Paradox (and the fun)

Lets consider the Pigeons.

“Consider their theological system from their point of view. If a pigeon walks in a circle and then gets fed, causing it to think that there’s a connection between its walk and its food, what is it really believing in? It believes that there exists a Big Food Server (we’ll call him BFS for short) who lives outside of its cage – which is true. It believes that this BFS, who has the power to feed it, is actually watching it, to see what it is doing – which is also true. And it believes that the BFS is delighted every time that it does its meaningless little dance – which, I am sure, is true again, as I can imagineB. F. Skinner chortling and pointing out the behaviour of those silly pigeons to his friends and colleagues and planning how he would write up his paper expposing their superstitious behaviour. So in what way was this pigeon theology false?” p.85-86

Just thinking about different existential stages of existence, as one does… Kierkegaard’s spheres of existence were the aesthetic, moral and religious. In the aesthetic sphere, a person seeks new experiences while avoiding commitment or choice. The pathos of this stage is that all worldly and finite experience is fleeting and results in despair. In the moral stage, a person recognises universal law exists but again despairs of following this law. Perhaps this is similar to SK’s knight of infinite resignation, who as a tragic hero, hopeless follows laws to self destruction. The pathos of the moral stage is the unavoidably of sin. In SK’s third stage, the religious, a person acts in accordance to God’s infinite will while existing in the finite world. Because knowledge of the infinite is, rationally speaking impossible, a leap is made into the absurd to achieve this synthesis of finite and infinite. This is perhaps an echo of the Hegelian dialectic.

This stuck me as similar to Nietzsche’s early writings of Dionysus, Apollo and tragedy. Dionysus mirrors SK’s aesthetic stage in the appreciation of transient reality. On the other hand, FN compares this to the tragic hero as the hero’s downfall is a reflection of the finite world and can be celebrated as such. The Apolloian ideal of knowledge, reason, wisdom and visual beauty represents ideals that exist beyond time and are finite, in a similar way to SK’s moral sphere of striving for an unattainable ideal. The only way this can desire can be satisfied in the finite world is the intervention of the divine. Nietzsche comments that deus ex machina is used to replace aesthetic and tragic theatre. SK argues that the religious stage can be achieved by a personal relationship with God. The third stage for Nietzsche is also a synthesis of the other two stages. Since finite humans have competing desires and impulses, the ideal of Dionysus and Apollo are unattainable and people must exist between the two states. To be only one or the other is harmful to a person since their goals are unattainable.

If FN had read SK’s spheres of existence, he might have appied this discription to the moral sphere:

The true [infinite] world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative. (At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian [Kantian].) Twilight, FN

Both thinkers where influenced by Hegel at the start of their writings but eventually distanced themselves from him. Another three stages of life advanced by FN are the three metamorphoses, as stated in the first chapter of Zarathustra but I will only outline them briefly. The metaphorical names of the stages are the camel, the lion and the child. The camel is perhaps similar to SK’s moral sphere. The lion is a process of complete rejection of the infinite and a most likely a backward step according to SK. The third stage is in a word the superman, but in this context could be expressed as asking “why does the aesthetic sphere necessarily lead to despair?” and redefining the purpose from pursuit of happiness to some self chosen goal. But even in the child there is a hint of the infinite which is more fully expressed in the eternal return (of the finite), evoked here by the metaphor of perpetual motion:

Art thou a new strength and a new authority? A first motion? A self–rolling wheel? Zarathustra, FN

This is again a synthesis of the finite and infinite which ties into his Dionysian/Apollonian model as well as a parallel to SK’s religious sphere. I might even call SK an objective existentialist and it would be necessary to transcend the normal bounds of those labels for his position to make any sense… FN is more of an existential monist as he applies the meanings of finite and infinite to everything.

Anti Citizen One

PS My question now is can we suppose we can know these spheres exist from an existential starting point, the aesthetic?
PPS This dilemma is again referenced in the title of “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”
PPPS I have slightly revised the conclusion of this post.

I have been lacking in posts recently as I have been both lazy, mentally drained and suffering from sporadic cut-offs thanks to a shoddy modem/router.It is with pleasure then I announce “I’m back!”

I was interested to see AC1 comment on recent news as I was planning on doing so myself – and at the same time air some of my more unusual views.

There are really three main news items that are capturing my attention at the moment:

1) The lifting of the excommunication on a holocaust denying Bishop.

2) The Edinburgh “Gay adoption” row, and

3) The Christian Nurse.

Holocaust Denial

The first story is troubling for me as a nominal Catholic, although I should celebrate the hoped for “return to the fold” of schismatic Catholics to the church – a precursor for a greater ecumenical push between world religions – I am dissappointed that the Holocaust Deniar Bishop Williamson has not been publicly disciplined.

There is an interesting tension here that revolves around freedom of speech – a matter much discussed on this blog. We needn’t repeat the arguments over and again – suffice to say though that I feel extraordinary pain that in the name of freedom of conscience Bishop Williamson’s evidentially wrong and misinformed beliefs concerning the scale and nature of the holocaust should be permitted the oxygen of publicity that his office and his rehabilitation to the Church has afforded him.

A very interesting article concerning this tension between censorship and freedom of conscience can be found on the hermeneutic of continuity blog. Where a traditionalist priest struggles with the notion of freedom of conscience and the spreading of error. His resolution interpreted in the Church’s conciliar teachings are that freedom of conscience is a responsibility rather than a right and that we have the responsibility to pursue that which is true – therefore in the context of Holocaust denial the overwhelming weight of evidence and testimony to the horrors of the “Shoah” should suffice to encourage mass censure of this mans false beliefs.

Gay Adoption

In principle I have no objection to Gay adoption. I am unconvinced by those arguments (usually motivated by a pre-existing heterosexually dominant bias) that the classic mother/father unit is always the best environment to bring up a child. There is no reason why a Gay couple (whatever their status in law i.e. married, cohabiting etc.) or indeed any couple (whether their relationship be sexual or not) cannot provide a safe, caring, loving and nurturing environment for the upbringing of children.

The role of sexuality and sexual orientation has minimal impact on the upbringing of children (indeed I may be understimating how positive such an upbringing may be in terms of encouraging a pluralistic attitude with regards human nature).

It is to put it bluntly “wrong” to suggest that a Gay couple could distort the emotional and sexual development of any children in their care. Homosexuality is a) not infectious, and b) not acquired. The sexual orientation of any children who have been placed in the care of homosexual couples is wholly incidental.

However. I am troubled by the Edinburgh case that has been in the news recently. Namely two young children have been placed in the adoptive care of a Gay couple, despite the protestations of their maternal grandparents who insist they are capable and willing to care for them themselves.

Generally where family is available – and they are deemed to be fit to bring up children – then priority should be given to the family – not because it is in the family’s interests but because it is in the childrens interests. Living with your grandparents (in theory) should be far less of a major upheaval than living with total strangers.

Edinburgh Social Services have deemed that the grandparents are unable to adopt the children because firstly they are too old (grandfather 61, grandmother 49), and secondly because they are too ill (grandfather has angina, grandmother type 2 diabetes). Having informed the grandparents of their decision they then told them that the children would be adopted by a gay couple. The grandparents claim they did not object to gay adoption (though they did not favour it) but they did object to their being disqualified. The reaction of social services was very blunt – the objection must clearly be homophobic and unless they changed their attitudes and became more open minded they would never be allowed to see their grandchildren again.

My opinions very briefly are that despite news reportage I may give some benefit of the doubt to social services – age and health should be taken into consideration regards suitability for adoption. However I would like to know if the judgement that disqualified them was made by a doctor or by a social worker. Are they medically unfit to adopt – or is this just an opinion formed by a non-medical professional?

I am also worried about the increasing power that the state is taking over society. To threaten the grandparents with permanent loss of contact unless they conform to an opinion that social services approves is potentially dangerous. Are we in thought police territory yet?

(I’m aware that in the previous section I was concerned with limitations to freedom of conscience yet here I am arguing total liberty – I’m not being inconsistent so much as highlighting the extraordinary tension between the two positions.)

My final concern is that the press have manufactured this into a homophobic issue.

Christian Nurse

This story fascinates me. The nurse asks a patient if she would like a prayer said for her, patient declines, takes no offence (though considers it weird), mentions it to the nurses colleague the following day, nurse gets suspended.

What is a nurse/nursing? My definition (which I consider fairly accurate) is that a nurse is a medical health practitioner who offers a more “holistic” service than that which can be provided by a physician.

Thus the nurse not only carries out the physicians instructions re: medication, dressing of wounds, general health care provision etc, but also provides support, basic counselling skills, caring observation of the patients welfare status and so on.

Part of this “holistic” approach focuses on the “spiritual” well being of the patient. I will post more on the beneficial uses of religion and spirtuality in health care soon (this story broke shortly after I started gathering materials for it).

The definition of “spiritual” well being in a multi-denominational and plural society necessarily needs be very broadly defined. Indeed one could describe the terms “spiritual” and “well being” as identical (i.e. not referencing any transcendent factor).

In this context then one would be hard pressed to suggest that asking a patient if they wished to be prayed for was a bad/wrong thing to do. One could argue that this approach (though overtly religious) was part and parcel of a holistic caring approach to the patient that a nurse ought provide.

Now for some problems and analysis.

1) The nurse had previously been warned about her behaviour (having been caught handing out prayer cards to another patient).

2) Though the nurse offered to pray and freely accepted the refusal such an overt statement may seem evangelical (forcing of ones beliefs).

3) Such an offer may be liable to offend.

The first issue is interesting – she has “previous” and has seemingly gone against the wishes of her local primary care trust. It is therefore (whether the policy is correct or not) an internal disciplinary matter. It is not a global persecution of expressions of the Christian faith (though one may argue it is a more localised persecution). What is more interesting though is that neither the prayer card, or prayer request patient made a complaint. Offence was neither intended nor taken – yet offence has been registered by a third non-interested party. Again (a common theme in this post) there seems to be a tension between freedom of conscience and institutional censure.

The second issue is a strange one. I dislike being evangelised (and yet I am a person of faith). Clearly a person who does not share the same faith or who is a non-believer altogether may feel irritated at being evangelised and preached to. This is a problem again with freedom of conscience and living in a plural society. Should a person of faith assume the “worst” and keep their beliefs private? Or should they be allowed the freedom to express themselves – partically when its expression has benign intent.

As I noted on a previous comment – a famous atheist once remarked (in suprisingly conciliatory tones) that if ones worldview was such that you believed in good/evil, life after death, eternal bliss etc., then you would have to really hate someone not to want to share the “good news” with them.

In this case I think offering to pray for someone – an expression of good will here – another way of saying “I hope you get better soon” – is not evangelising.

The late Irish comedian Dave Allen (no friend of organised religion) used to close his shows with the phrase “and may your God go with you.”

I think it is inevitable that in a plural society there will be a diversity of beliefs regarding God, the spiritual etc. Many of religion and many of no religion – it is therefore important that we recognise benign sincerity wherever we see it and understand though we may not share the same “language game” that good wishes may be expressed in a variety of idiomatic ways.

The third issue is curious and follows on from the other two. Offence may not be intended but may be taken – such is the fragile nature of intepretation and translation between language games. The patient in the story said she thought it unusual – insofar as though she wasnt offended she could see how some people might interpret the question “shall I pray for you?” as meaning “God you look awful – beyond medical help – you’re best chance is a miracle!”

My only comment on this is – (and again this reflects the overriding theme of this post the tension between freedom of conscience and censorship) – if were constantly vigilant to the fact that what we say may be interpreted in ways we never intended and that the seemingly benign may transform before our very eyes into something heinous – then most likely we would be struck mute for ever!

Personal Concluding Thoughts

I had the misfortune of being seriously ill a couple of years ago and of being thoroughly dependent upon the care provided by visiting nurses. None of them to my knowledge openly prayed for me or asked about my spiritual wellbeing. And yet in their actions a broadly spiritual concern was expressed – and I am perpetually grateful to them for it.

I did in my sick bed recieve from concerned individuals good wishes (of a secular variety) and also expressions of religious sentiment.

There is some research that suggests that praying for someone (and informing them of it) may be cathartic to their recovery. There is also conflicting research that suggests the effects to be negligible.

Personally I found it a) satisfying – it is nice to know people care, but also b) irritating.

I found it irritating for three reasons philosophical and theologically formed.

i) I am quite fatalistic – it is not so much that something happens for a reason, but that things happen and one must make do with ones circumstances – Although I was in pain, and distress I quickly came to be at ease with my situation – it was out of my control, therefore I let go of my attachment to suffering. Consequently my suffering became redemptive, enlightening even, and I learnt more about myself in a short space of time than I had ever known in all my previous years.

ii) I am quite cynical and humble – God (if you happen to believe in Him) surely has far more pressing concerns than to worry about little old me and my ailments. Don’t pray for me, beg him to stop earthquakes, floods, famines, war, pestilence, and so on.

iii) I am a philosophical and theological disciple of the Rhineland School of Mysticism – exemplified by the teachings of Meister Eckhart. Prayer is a human institution – a psychological reaction to circumstance – it is not bad of itself but it can become an object of fetishistic attachment. It can be an obstacle to letting go of attachments, a vehicle of selfishness and a barrier to simply “being.”

In the New Testament Jesus is reported as praying on only a handful of occasions. Usually they are private affairs. Throughout them though is one common theme – that of the resignation of the self-will -  not mine but “thy will be done.”

This is the crux of ‘Christian’ prayer as Jesus is supposed to have taught it.

Eckhart summed up the selfishness of our attachments and our abuse of prayer when he said:

but if they should fall sick they would wish it were God’s will that they should be better. These people, then, would rather that God willed according to their will than that they should will according to His. This may be condoned, but it is not right. The just have no will at all: whatever God wills, it is all one to them, however great the hardship.

Eckhart coined the phrase Abegescheidenheit which loosely translated can mean living without a why. The lucky man is attchment free and is content with whatever befalls him, sickness, health, weal or woe.

Therefore this nurse’s case is in my humble opinion – no great offence to society or to the healthcare profession. In fact I would propose that her goodwill is such that it overflows and she is a fine model of what the nursing profession can be. Her suspension is therefore heavyhanded and sad reflection of the ease of misinterpretation. I wouldnt mind betting that the patient who mentioned it in passing, now wishes she had remained silent.

What this does represent though is perhaps an immature approach to her faith and to prayer. We all wish the sick to get better, we all wish to live long and happy lives. But life is not like that – the evidence is all around us to see. For some people this is a damning condemnation of the supposed goodness of God and perhaps demonstrative of His non-existence. For others it is simply demonstrative of the selfishness of the human ego that we should seek to define God’s will as compatible with ours. Some people find the approach of the via negativa uncomfortable, is a God that allows suffering or who shows no inclination of goodness worthy of our attention and worship?

The nurse didn’t do a bad thing, and is being wrongly persecuted. But the nurse most likely should have persisted in her caring capacity without the need for a public expression of her faith. By her actions alone – and indeed by the actions of the entire medical proffession – we may judge for ourselves what manner of persons they are. And if a patient requests some form of explicit expression of benign goodwill such as a prayer then regardless of ones personal beliefs one should be willing to offer it knowing that it is part of a holistic approach to wellbeing.

I abandoned reading Harper’s “The Seventh Solitude” because it was doing my head in by its use of nihilism which was very different from my understanding of the term. There are two main definitions of nihilism, as far as I can tell.

The first is the rejection of objective moral truth. The simplest justification of this view is the is-ought problem, which argues that “ought” statements cannot be based on “is” statements. This inevitably implies that any objective meaning of life is meaningless or undefinable. By this definition Nietzsche can be said to be a nihilist.

One must stretch out one’s hands and attempt to grasp this amazing subtlety, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Twilight, FN

Kierkegaard objected to this view and implied “the eternal” was the only escape from nihilism.

If there is no eternal consciousness in a human being, if at the bottom of everything is only a wild ferment, a power that, twisting in dark passions, produces everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lies hidden between everything, what would life be then but despair? Fear and Trembling, SK

This view also highlights the common belief that nihilism is accompanied by anomie, ultra-pessimism or “immoral” behavior. I stumbled across a strange online manifesto for nihilism which uses this form of nihilism as a positive force – and I thought is website was unorthodox…

The second definition of nihilism, as used by Nietzsche, is “depreciation of life” or “will to non-existence”. Nietzsche labels any idea that implies that non-existence is preferable to existence as nihilistic. The aim in his philosophy is to make life possible without resorting to nihilistic concepts. The act of valuing metaphysical realities as higher than apparent realities was his chief objection to religion, as this necessarily devalues the apparent/realist reality.

Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self; the heavenly by the love of God. St Augustine

Nietzsche’s view of moral relativism is interesting as it treats the various moral systems as wholly within a realist world. I think of this as a type of moral/physical monistic realism. Metaphysics is not invited to the party.

There are more idols than realities in the world [...]

To invent fables about a world “other” than this one has no meaning at all [...] Twilight, FN

This ironically makes Nietzsche a nihilist by one definition and an anti-nihilist by the other! I am still trying to think of catchy terminology to clarify types of “nihilism” but without success. With the use of alternative terminology, the former definition is simply moral relativism and the later is anti-metaphysical realism.

Anti Citizen One

PS I just finished reading Fear and Trembling and Tipping Point. I need to read some fiction next! Bring on the Murakami!

PPS In comedy form, nihilism is taken to an extreme in the film “The Big Lebowski”: “We believe in nothing, Lebowski! Nothing!”. This simple claim shares elements of both forms of nihilism.

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.