Q: Is vagueness anathema to science?
KvD: Put a magnifying glass to many scientific concepts and you find vagueness.
Note to self: subjectivity does not necessarily mean knowledge is impossible…
AC1
Written History is a subjective faction/fiction that is constructed according to the agenda of its author – who creates a narrative account that may or may not correspond to the facts-as-they-are.
The anxiety generated by an acknowledgement such as this – is that as the mists of time ever seperate us further from the events – so too are we further removed from that “evidence” which ought to be most compelling.
In this part of my review I wish to briefly explore Harries discussions on the postmodern view of language. He is attempting to describe the views of Anthony Freeman the postmodernist theologian who has ceased to believe in a supernatural or transcendent God – seeing Him rather as being a projection of human ideals. Much of postmodernism has its roots in relativism, subjectivism and a sort of late Wittgensteinian Philosophy of Language.
A simple exposition of this philosophy goes like this:
mind is a social reality and language a public phenomenon. We see mothers bending over their prams making noises at their babies. In due course the noises are reciprocated and come to be recognized as talk. Soon this talk becomes internalized as thought. But the talk is prior and public and this enters into the very soul of our thinking. Because language is a public possession, written texts are particularly important. How those texts are intepreted or read still depends very much on the interests and outlook of the readers and these in turn will reflect the ineterests and concerns already built into the language that we use to intepret the texts. If we say we want to find out what a particular text really means, we are stymied, for the language we used to interpet it ourselves is a given, which will shape how we read…
Harries, again somewhat suprisingly is not completely anti-pomo. He accepts a certain degree of interpretative and cognitive relativism. However he rejects total scepticism and abandonment of truth and meaning notions – correctly suggesting that such a position would dissolve philosophy into just one of many methods of literary criticism.
I would just add by means of a clarification that although language is public and in turn shapes our ways of thinking this should by no means be used to suggest that speech is thought, or that absence of speech indicates absence of thought. (I could write much more here on my theories of unthought-thoughts and vocal-thought-thinking-thoughts or about the conscious and unconscious but I will digress.)
I will finish with a quote from Anthony Freeman that illustrates what one may call a postmodern view of religion – it is this view which Harries is ultimately attempting to challenge with recourse to realist arguments.
“A false distinction within Christian doctrine itself between an essential core and a negotiable husk. In presenting the faith to this generation I am bound to be presenting a different faith from that which my forefathers presented. Not just a different interpretation of the same essential core, but a different faith. This is because there is no essence of inner core. The interpretation is not like taking the shell off a nut. It is like peeling the layers off an onion: the interpretation goes all the way down. All is intepretation. That is the essence.”
Here is my long overdue book review on Richard Harries “The Real God“. Published in 1994 it is a short work on the philosophy of religion and basic theology by the then Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries. The full title of the book is The Real God: A response to Anthony Freeman’s God in Us. Thus this may be seen as being part of a dialogue, however to Harries credit it is not necessary to have first read the other book in order to make sense of this work.
This book is essentially a Realist apologetic for Christian belief and its remit is neatly summed up in the blurb by the question “If God exists, how can we know this?”
Immediately this should get materialist atheists and varying degrees of agnostics interested as the question seems to imply discussion on the physical and empirical basis of theistic belief. This should also interest students of “language games” who may wonder at the degree to which Harries seeks to straddle the science-religion divide. (Note this is really a false dichotomy – as Wittgenstein rejected the notions of islands of discourse – similarly in terms of hypothesis and narratives of origin religion and science have somewhat overlapping interests).
Significantly though this book was not written with the average Dawkins supporter in mind – and predates the “God Delusion” by some years. It may be interesting and informative to compare the different God-hypothesis both authors present (but thats a whole ‘nother task!)
Primarily as noted this book was a response to Anthony Freeman’s “God in Us”. Freeman was an Anglican priest and member of the “Sea of Faith” theological school who argued from a postmodern perspective about the human origins of religion. He eventually left the institutional church after
arguing that God as a metaphysical entity was not real, but that God was a projection of human ideals.
The Sea of Faith network have been variously described as Christian Atheists and Christian Humanists. Though as befits a postmodern school of thought they evade precise definition by virtue of holding many differing views without proferring any particular orthodoxy. Perhaps the most important position they do hold in common is that irrespective of the divine or human character of religion, the reality or non-existence of a deity, religion can play a positive role both personally and socially.
Harries responds to this with the intent that he is going to present a realist thesis on God. And although I have more sympathy for arguments that come from a via negativa (a negation of talking about the attributes of God) and am described variously by many as an anti-realist, I must confess that I enjoyed Harries arguments and style of writing.
He begins by exploring the character of God. What type of a person or being is he? Interestingly he is not concerned with obscure theological points (like how many angels can dance on a pinhead) but with human projections of divinity. He argues quite sympathetically that one of the prevailing themes in modern secularism and irreligiosity is liberation from an oppressive judgemental and rule-weilding God. And then goes on to propose that the projection of the divinity that we make (as reflected in art, prayer and theological themes) changes with society. Thus at different stages of history God the creator dominates moreso than God the judge etc. An example he gives is the Medieval triumphalism of God the King – an image that has less impact, significance and relevance to the modern mind.
This interesting chapter serves to illustrate that the conception of God is multifaceted as indeed is our experience of religion. And thus it is a reminder both to the individual believer, to the unbeliever who has left religion and to the religious institution itself that theistic-themes need to be constantly re-explored, re-invigorated and re-described.
Over a series of posts I will continue this review focusing on the various themes that Harries presents, and particularly at those themes that are of interest to this blog, and finish with some of my concluding thoughts.
Part 2 will deal with belief and disbelief, specifically with attempts to argue from design, and the psychology of belief and disbelief and its irrelevance to the notion of “proof”.
Part 3 will explore a postmodern analysis of faith.
Part 4 will deal with talking about that which we call “soul”, existential fulfilment of our lives here and now, and miracles and the laws of nature.
Part 5 will explore rationalism, the nature of scientific proof, relatvism, the eschatology of genuine “truth” with regards certain philosophical speculations and an apologetic for Christian Rationalism. Plus some concluding notes from me.
Unspeak by Steven Poole
Another insightful book on the power of words and how they can be used to control how a debate is conducted – and ultimately the outcome of a debate.
[Unspeak] represents an attempt to say something without saying it, without getting into an argument and os having to justify itself. At the same time, it tries to unspeak – in the sense of erasing, or silencing – any possible opposing point of view…
So called “Unspeak” uses ideas we associate with words to control how we think about other idea. I suppose this is a standard technique in rhetoric. Once something is labeled with a word, that word brings associated value judgments to the bear. So to control vocabulary is to control thought. This is well known in politics and public relations.
Wolfowitz acknowledged that, according to international law, the US was in fact engaged in ‘occupation’, but still argued that they shouldn’t have ‘accepted that label’. In other words, he seemed to think that if they had simply called it something else – perhaps a mass sleepover – then no one would have noticed that the occupation was actually an occupation.
You may notice that the US and UK parliments do not have “wars” any more – at least they are not declared. We now are told we have peace keeping operations, liberation operations, etc. And the author points out the word “operation” has medical and beneficial connotations. How easy it is to accept another’s language!
The case of the ‘insurgents’ was a small triumph of journalistic resistance to propagandistic terminology.
… we should at the very least expect, and demand, that our newspapers, radio and television refuse to replicate and spread the Unspeak virus.
The book claims a small triumph against Unspeak was the media (or a subsection of it) rejecting the word terrorist – which instantly condemns the subject – and substituting the word “insurgent”. This word supposedly had no prior meaning so had no previous value judgments. This is a compromise between calling them “freedom fighters” or “terrorists”. The catch is the word “insurgents” previously had no meaning at all and so conveys no information. Is it the job of the media to invent neutral vocabulary? In the extreme they might invent a new word for everything to make everything “objective” – but this would make the media void of meaning.
Naturally, in such a book, it is impossible that I will not myself have committed barbarous acts of Unspeak. I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to identify them.
I take it as a gauntlet thrown down! 
The very concept “Unspeak”, subtitled “Words are Weapons” implies it is a bad thing and should be avoided. But the book does not say why “Unspeak” is bad! It also avoids the point that all words contain value judgments. “Unspeak” implies that some ideal “Speech” exists. It does not exist, as has been outlined many times on this blog. Invent a word and apply it to a set of “stuff” requires someone to do some valuation (see the Will to Power). What is needed is not a rejection of Unspeak but more critical thinking.
Anti Citizen One
PS “Do not all words lie to the light ones?” FN
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
The Castle, by Franz Kafka, is the novel describing K.’s arrival at a village and his struggle to contact the officials who reside in an inaccessible Castle. The Castle is held in awe by the villagers but The Castle’s motives are illusive, as are the official’s identities, physical appearance and their communication skills. This is a world away from todays world of political propaganda and suspicion of authority.
K.’s engagement as the Land Surveyor is thrown into doubt when it is revealed as a rare mistake of the system. There is apparently no need of a land surveyor. His is offered the role of school caretaker but there is also no need of a caretaker. Incidentally there is an interesting piece on the BBC about finding meaning (or lack of meaning) in the workplace.
One of the only elements that keeps the readers sanity is K’s epic efforts to make sense of his situation. He is apparently very observant but still prone to occasional mistakes without complete information. There are lengthy monologues of the villagers explaining the ways of the village but sometimes I wish K. would just ignore them, for the readers benefit, and for his; they usually do not help him gain access to The Castle. He also seems to swing between being physically tenacious and physically helpless due to the snow – even the weather is kafkaesque in The Castle!
If I may abuse Kafka, I will paraphrase the whole novel as:
Landlady: It transpires that we have no need of a land surveyor.
K.: I want to talk to someone in charge about this.
Landlady: Your childish misunderstanding of the workings of the Castle are almost beyond belief and can only be because you are an outsider. Having an interview with an official from the castle is quite impossible. You will never be admitted to the Castle.
People’s actions seem meaningless to K. and to other villagers but are later explained as completely necessary and unavoidable to the participant. This is perhaps the point of the novel – if it has any. Hasty assumptions and generalizations on incomplete information lead to misunderstandings and despising (or feeling gratitude) without any real justification. This is all very existential and postmodern. This is similar to the shifting realities of the movie Rashomon in which it is clearly impossible for everyone’s version of event to be correct, but it is left unstated as to which, if any, is true. It also strongly reminds me of the X-Files episode “Bad Blood” where the two FBI agents recount their recent adventure in turn but misunderstand and half mock the other agent due to their subjective viewpoint.
An even greater overlap is with Gilliam’s movie Brazil. The insane decision making process of The Castle’s anti chamber is similar to Mr Warren’s barking of seemingly arbitrary answers to questions. There is a certain anonymity of the authority figures in both. Sam only reaches the Deputy Minister – not the Minister him/herself. Confusion of names is also a common theme: buttle/tuttle, sortini/sordini are routinely confused; in fact it is a central plot point for Brazil.
SAM: Excuse me, Dawson, can you put me through to Mr Helpmann’s office?
DAWSON: I’m afraid I can’t, sir. You have to go through the proper channels.
SAM: And you can’t tell me what the proper channels are, because that’s classified information?
DAWSON: I’m glad to see the Ministry’s continuing its tradition of recruiting the brightest and best, sir.
SAM: Thank you, Dawson.
One difference is The Castle’s authority is only maintained by the villagers deference to it’s authority. There is no mention of guards or prisons. Brazil is quite the opposite and takes its methods indirectly from Orwell’s 1984. There is also a hint of Gormenghast but expressed in The Castle as from the lowest rank rather than the highest. Steerpike easily subverts the bureaucracy and I wonder what would result if K. seriously attempted to infiltrate the castle, possibly as a semi-official messenger (through the same channels as Barnabas). I wonder if the Count of The Castle is a victim of bureaucracy as K. and the Earl of Gormenghast.
The writing style of The Castle is frankly rather painful. Rather like a river, it starts swiftly, windingly and clear. The story ends slowly and murkily. The blame cannot be assigned to anyone in particular, least of all Kafka as the book was published from an incomplete text that probably had been abandoned by the author. But was the author trying to frustrate the reader as K. is frustrated?
The closest experience one can have to conveniently experience the alienation of The Castle is to telephone a large company using a call centre and being put on hold. When you eventually get to talk to someone, they are the lowest underling and misinterpret your meaning (sorry to readers who work in call centres!). To apply a concept from the novel, how do you know you are talking to the company and not an impostor? There are people who have no business answering the phones in the call centre but they pick them up on a whim and one should not believe a word of their pranks!
Anti Citizen One
I attended an interesting debate on surveillance and privacy. Interestingly they presented both sides of the argument: that surveillance can have positive, as well as negative, effects – easy access to medical records, shopping reward schemes, more efficient government services, etc. The fact is our current life style is dependent on the surveillance infrastructure that has been established by governments and companies.
On the other hand, are the risks of identity fraud, personal details appearing the public domain, espionage or state suppression of dissidents. The defenders of surveillance often mention is maxim: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” That may be true as far as it goes but who does not have something to hide?
One of the panellists mentioned a few items that some people have a need to hide: their contact details if they are escaping from an abusive relationship, their address if they work in animal testing or abortion clinic, if they have suffered from a health problem that carries a social stigma (for example mental health), if they have suffered from a crime that carries a social stigma (for example rape). Other ideas that were mentioned were: the food that your purchase (which might be interesting if you want private medical insurance or life insurance), your driving habits (car insurance), your friends and group associations (which can be profiled, with debatable accuracy, to show personality traits, sexual characteristics, political tendencies). Just look at the Jeremy Clarkson fraud incident.
If you don’t have anything to hide that is fine. But it is extremely arrogant to extend that principle to the whole of the population. There are currently at least two UK government committees looking at the impact of surveillance on society with their reports due this summer and autumn.
A recent government report cast doubt on the effectiveness of CCTV. One self admitted post-modern panellist said that he still supports CCTV as it comforts the public even if it does not reduce crime. I would agree that crime and the public perception of crime are distinct but interrelated issues, but I would prefer to use resources on measures that actually reduce crime rather than just make everyone else feel secure. (I don’t feel safer since I know its a placebo!)
Anti Citizen One
PS I am reading Kafka’s The Castle which shares some similar themes. And who could forget the movie Brazil?
Nietzsche’s concept of the Will to Power is fundamental to his philosophy and yet often misunderstood. It is also constantly discussed by commentators but they seem to state the history of its interpretation rather than interpreting the idea itself. Indeed, Nietzsche warned against this view of ideas – of collecting and cataloging them:
Everything that philosophers handled over the past thousands of years turned into concept mummies; nothing real escaped their grasp alive. Whenever these venerable concept idolators revere something, they kill it and stuff it [...] (Twilight)
Another mistake of commentators is to say what the will to power isn’t – most typically in relation to the will to existence. I will try not to use this method and positively define the Will to Power. Most of the ideas are Nietzsche’s own but I am contemporized them in places.
1) The Will to Power is the force that determines good and evil. (Read in a footnote but I forget where.)
If I may assume for a moment that morality has an earthly origin, what else can we say of its source? The source by definition must be outside morality. Or more directly, the source of morality is immorality. For example if we say “it is always good to tell the truth”, we are in fact lying since we are just inventing a false objective truth.
My chief proposition: there are no moral phenomena, there is only a moral interpretation of these phenomena. This interpretation itself is of extra-moral origin. WtP 258
Personally, I am greatly influenced by the “it-ought” problem. I have not yet seen a satisfactory solution and I provisionally conclude there is no external source of ought statements. I do accept that “ought” statements are necessary. “Ought” statements provided by society may be tolerated but are not truth. I conclude that morality is completely discretionary. If course I would still suffer the consequences if I was caught breaking the law but there is no truth at work here.
Another theme in Nietzsche is the how much primitive superstition is loaded into language. Morality is not justified by language, rather language is shaped by moral judgments. A linguistic argument for morality is, by definition and by virtue of needing outside definition, not objective and therefore not truth. This foreshadows Wittgenstein’s concept of language games. The Will to Power’s voice is the language game.
Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself — he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself “man,” that is, the valuator. (Zarathustra, The Thousand and One Goals)
2) The Will to Power is the force that determines knowledge.
Truth is the kind of error without which a species could not survive. (WtP?)
All philosophers love to argue “logically”. Why logic? Why not rather illogical argument? That accusation we can put to all a-priori discussions. The reason for accepting logic is that it seems to be reflecting in the testimony of our senses (a posterior experience). For example, we generally don’t see things as simultaneously X and not X. Therefore any tendency to argue logically is, in fact, an acceptance of the natural world. To disprove naturalism by logic is self contradictory.
Inductive reasoning has the problem of potential over generalization. We may always discover a counter example to a given rule. As Shaw once said “The golden rule is that there are no golden rules”. But we still hold that concepts such as time, space, causality, substance, properties really exist. The ability to do this has no objective basis but we must impose a schema on sensory experience to understand it. To accept that these concepts are real, we must effectively ignore the problem with inductive reasoning – this is an exercise of the Will to Power. We assign value to sensory phenomena and call them arbitrary things: words, language, computer, screen, blog, etc. Note that none of these concepts have any reality except in our minds. But act as if they do – that is valuation.
Science cannot escape the flaw in inductive reasoning but it attempts to mitigate its effect. So called scientific “dogma” is all conditional knowledge and not objectively true – this is an acceptance of the limitation of induction. Also to use valuations of things but to be economical as possible with valuations is an interesting guideline (also known as Occam’s Razor). But since some valuation is necessary to do any science, objective truth via science is unachievable. But ignore the impossibility of the task and do it anyway – that is Will to Power. This economy of valuation causes science to find a description of reality rather than an explanation of reality. The “explanation” could only exist in our minds.
3) The Will to Power is the abstraction of all other drives e.g. Will to Existence, Will to Knowledge, Will to Virtue, Will to Wealth, Will to Political Influence, etc.
4) Will to Power is a discharge of gathered potential for action. The Will to Power is an abstraction of the source of happiness.
What is happiness? The feeling that power increases, that a resistance is overcome. (The Anti-Christ)
This means we should not seek to abolish resistance to our will since it is necessary for exercise of the will. It is therefore a freedom from ressentiment and slave morality (which states what harmful agents are “bad” and should be eliminated). (Note: happiness is not a proof of truth.)
I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage; I do not account the evil and painful character of existence a reproach to it, but hope rather that it will one day be more evil and painful than hitherto— WtP 382 Emphasis mine.
5) Existentially, the Will to Power is a rejection of nihilism.
Ironically, Nihilism claims “life is meaningless” or more accurately “life should be meaningless”. That is itself a valuation of life and therefore a use of the Will to Power. The flaw in nihilism is it is a valuation of life that says there is no “true” valuation. There fore it is a self contradiction.
6) All life has the Will to Power. Throughout history, only a few individuals have ever exercised it on a grand scale.
People always get worried when there is mention of imposition of views from one charismatic leader. The comparison is always of a totalitarian leader and guilt by association. This is not logical. Let me state: “you may not impose ideas on others” is this not ITSELF an idea? And it is value imposed on modern society? This is a self contradiction!
All art and all creating is a value judgment “The world lacks X and should have X. I will create it.”
If I may talk for a moment beyond Good and Evil, we have to be more questioning of our ideals. And yes I am questioning of my tendency to be questioning!
Most influential sources of western culture: Equality (Christianity), The soul (Plato), Right to divorce (Henry VIII), Pursuit of branded goods (Marketing departments), Environmentalism (???)…
7) In some ways, the act of defining the Will to Power IS the Will to Power – since it is act of valuation.
As Brian was accused in the Life of Brian, I am also guilty: “He’s making it up as he goes along!” That is almost the point of The Will to Power. Also a bit like the Wizard of Oz himself: the will to lie to maintain so called “truth” as true. It also reminds me of the justification used by parents though the ages: “Why? Because I said so.”
The one who exercises the Will to Power is closely related to the concept of the superman.
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self–rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. (Zarathustra)
Anti Citizen One
PS I am half way though Nietzsche’s book called, confusingly, “The Will to Power”. I will explain why sometime later.
Some time ago I posted on extraterrestrial philosophy, these were mere speculations as to how other ‘cultures’ and lifeforms may view themselves, the universe and its great questions.
In the introduction to a book I’m reading at the moment came a nice little passage that sets the scene for both existential and postmodern thought.
In a passage that has always remained with me, the young Friedrich Nietzsche envisaged the following scene. Once upon a time, on a little star in a distant corner of the universe, clever little animals invented for themselves proud words, like truth and goodness. But soon enough the little star cooled, and the little animals had to die and with them their proud words. But the universe, never missing a step, drew another breath and moved on, dancing to its cosmic dance across endless skies. – Philosophy & Theology by John Caputo
I dont instantly recognise the words of Nietzsche here and where they came from (perhaps AC-1 can be of some help), but the influence of Nietzsche is unimistakeable.
Leaving aside any indepth argument or discussion on this matter, the following thoughts occured to me.
Quite clearly the first target of Nietzsche here is the notions of Objective morality and truth – that something is absolutely always the case at all times and in all places. Secondly (as is the case with Nietzsche) it is that the whole basis of such speculation, including specifically terminological distinctions such as good or bad, true or false, are quite subjective human inventions.
A petty aside may ask, isnt such speculation upon the speculation an equally subjective invention? Such a thought could lead to a reductio ad absurdum or perhaps even to claim that the whole idea is self-refuting. But I wont get into that maze for now!
With regards then Alien Philosophy it occured to me that this analysis of the inventiveness, not to say arbitrariness of human moral and epistemic speculation is rather important. Lets assume there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and that much like us they are interested in philosophical speculation. Lets also assume that much like us they have not (despite the possible existence of many Wittgenstein types) have resolved all the questions that philosophy raises. Would they have what Derrida called binary opposites built in to our thoughts like Good/Bad, True/False and so on? Would they similarly have a notion of objectivity, or would they have their own ‘antichrist’ (as Nietzsche famously labelled himself) debunking the lofty and idealistic claims to objectivity of thought?
And finally in an open-ended and therefore irritating question, lets say we discovered countless extraterrestrial cultures all of whom had similar philosophical speculations and all of whom struggled with the idea of objectivity… what would it take to convince a Nietzcshe that such an objectivity existed?
If we encountered a large number of alien cultures that believed in objective moral values and truths, would – by virtue of their number and perhaps rhetoric – we be consoled into accepting objectivism because they too could believe in it? Or would we be always searching for the exception to the rule – which lets face it when confronted with a vast expanding universe and a near infinite number of possibilities (not to mention parallel and multiverse possibilities) – could provide us with the exception we seek?
Or is it just as likely that even if all these alien cultures believed in objectivity we would just be compelled to extend Nietzsches analysis to all of them – that the “delusion” could be bigger than we all imagined?
I provide no answers. And find but some consolation in the Indian philosopher Samsara’s principle that “what seems, could be” – as unconvinced of objectivity (as opposed to subjectivity) I may be can I really conclusively refute it for now and for all times?
Recent Comments