Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

36613Re: Nietzsche (On Metaphysical Judgments)

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Nov 1, 2005
      1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
      metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.

      This refers to your post 36583. The word, 'grand', did not appear,

      2. You replied that I implicitly raised the question about
      terminology, adding that the term "symptom" implies causality.

      3. You added that I failed to notice (2) because I was concerned
      about the "ontical," not the "ontological," and that there's a
      dichotomy between "the art of living" and the "theory of living."

      All human beings and all non-human sentient beings are concerned
      with the ontical. It is what we cannot help, for as long as we
      physically survive. Whether you discourse about Arundhati Roy or
      about the marrows grown on your allotment, whether you paint a wall
      or a portrait, you involve yourself with the world-at-hand. What is
      most rare is the desire to understand exactly what are the
      implications of what you do, EVEN IF THAT INVOLVES SURRENDERING
      EVERYTHING YOU EVER LOVED AND LIVED FOR, once a new truth comes into
      view. The ontological categories can be studied at a distance, so
      to speak, contemplatively, and it may be that Heidegger did this.
      Nietzsche, however, willingly surrendered comfort and security in
      order to purify and make hard his will. He made of the relative
      categories he found underlying Christian values, into an absolute;
      he discovered and enacted the illusory shifting nature of truth ...
      and loved her, without reserve, for truth is a woman. Kierkegaard
      did the same, quite differently, by surrendering his love for Regine
      in order to win that love again, through the absolute categories of
      Christian love, which surely tortured his soul, all his life. He
      did this because he wanted her to be happy, and he himself to be
      eternally happy.

      4. I said that I've read Heidegger and that it was an unpleasant
      5. This statement rankled you.

      I've answered this, of course, earlier today.

      6. Referring to the dichotomy in (3), you said, "You and I must
      separate, methinks. It is not a distinction which helps me
      ontically. On the contrary, it has contributed to the torture of my

      7. Torture, I'm familiar with this, the pain and suffering that's
      unique to being human. But what's not familiar to me is the idea
      that the art-of-living / theory-of-living distinction contributes to
      the torture of one's soul.

      No, I think torture is experienced by non-human sentient lives as
      well. It may even be worse for them, given the absence of our type
      of articulated language.
      The distinction I make is between the art-of-living as something you
      do, hour by hour, whether in spontaneous mode or with forethought,
      which carries with it long refinement of thought and instinct (if
      one is serious existentialist), and, on the other hand, the theory-
      of-the-art-of-living, which examines the accuracy of the assumptions
      carried within that process. Physical survival can sometimes be a
      matter of chance, at least from our human vantage-point, but for the
      existentialist it can also be a kind of proof, for those ultimate
      spiritual ventures. To risk all, to lose all, then to find all
      restored, with interest, as it were, Jesus taught this, and
      Nietzsche practised it, in a sense.

      I'm too tired to continue now. The definition of 'soul'. Now
      there's a challenge ...
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic