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

Re: Nietzsche (On Metaphysical Judgments)

Expand Messages
  • jkneilson
    ... perhaps ... What is this all about? A quick history: 1. I posted a question about Nietzsche s dictum that grand metaphysical judgments express attitudes,
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > Now I'm really curious, Martin. If the inquisition is over,
      perhaps
      > you can begin to explain to me what this is all about. Frankly,
      > though, I doubt that you and I would be able to come to an agreed
      > definition of the word, 'soul'. Louise

      What is this all about? A quick history:

      1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
      metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.

      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."

      4. I said that I've read Heidegger and that it was an unpleasant
      experience.

      5. This statement rankled you.

      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
      soul."

      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.

      8. So I asked how it contributes to your torture.

      9. But you identified me with the Grand Inquisitor and said it was
      quite impossible to speak about torture to someone who didn't enjoy
      reading Heidegger.

      Pause. Deep breath. And now we're up to speed.

      While it's true that I greatly prefer Kierkegaard and Nietzsche -
      even Quine! - over Heidegger, my original question remains: Why /
      how does the distinction discussed in (3) and (6) contribute to the
      torture of your soul? I'll accept any definition of soul for the
      sake of better understanding your point.

      Fyodor

      P.S. The Grand Inquisitor has a plain way of speaking and was after
      all quite correct about the Christian church. Literary references
      don't offend me, especially complimentary ones.
    • louise
      Sighs. Over twenty-one months I have been at this list. Keep having to explain the most basic facts about my own normal human reactions, before we can even
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Sighs. Over twenty-one months I have been at this list. Keep
        having to explain the most basic facts about my own normal human
        reactions, before we can even think about philosophical discussion.
        So I shall tackle the awkward emotional part, in suitably restrained
        fashion, first of all, before answering the philosophical content of
        your post in my next message.

        1. I am puzzled as to why you signed off 'Martin', whether such is
        really your name, or whether you were in some way pretending to be
        Heidegger?? No, that sounds strange, yet I wish people would be
        straightforward, then I could come out from among my pseudonyms and
        spare myself the indignity of my unwanted existlist role, qua
        receiver of serial aspersion-casting. You see, my grammar extends,
        runs in its distress to inversions and genitives, flops into
        objective mode. Why do I mention my distress?? Because I am an
        existentialist. Feeling, in relation to ideas, is part of life,
        part of the art of living. It is one of my theses here [existlist]
        that personal or social suppression/repression of feeling produces
        political conflict, and undermines individual health. Frankly, I am
        bewildered, and it might be over nothing at all. Maybe your name is
        Martin, and you just sign off that way when you feel like it, and
        not at other times, in which case, fine. If, however, it is
        connected in any way with Martin Heidegger, my own sensibility is
        wounded thereby, because you have not evinced any respect for him.
        This is extremely painful to speak about, because I am still
        exhausted by last year's moderation battles, in which I received
        warnings on just this account, namely that I took personally any
        perceived insults directed toward, in that instance, Kierkegaard and
        Nietzsche. This is intrinsic to what I am. Honour is a concept
        from which I cannot separate my existence. Without it I die,
        spiritually.

        2. In assertion 5 below you state that when you told me reading
        Heidegger was an unpleasant experience, this rankled with me. Not
        at all. That's an incorrect inference. I am never offended or
        otherwise discomforted by honest emotional narrative, if it is
        within a context of philosophical discussion, with agreed rules,
        observed by both parties in all good will. It is my contention that
        the mutual respecting of rules and a mature sense for what good will
        really entails can take quite some time to establish, especially
        when participants to a discussion are strangers to each other,
        living in different countries, etc.

        Negotiation, negotiation, negotiation.

        Yep, it's an obstacle course.

        These forays into the border country, where prose meets poetry, are
        an aspect of my existentialism. I'm a Nooist. Hearing the sounds
        of the shackles fall, I envisage, oh, I know not what, it is too
        different, too good. In the meantime, we have life on earth as it
        is. Committed I am, to the duty of argument, and it shall follow.

        Louise


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
        >
        > > Now I'm really curious, Martin. If the inquisition is over,
        > perhaps
        > > you can begin to explain to me what this is all about. Frankly,
        > > though, I doubt that you and I would be able to come to an
        agreed
        > > definition of the word, 'soul'. Louise
        >
        > What is this all about? A quick history:
        >
        > 1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
        > metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.
        >
        > 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."
        >
        > 4. I said that I've read Heidegger and that it was an unpleasant
        > experience.
        >
        > 5. This statement rankled you.
        >
        > 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
        > soul."
        >
        > 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.
        >
        > 8. So I asked how it contributes to your torture.
        >
        > 9. But you identified me with the Grand Inquisitor and said it was
        > quite impossible to speak about torture to someone who didn't
        enjoy
        > reading Heidegger.
        >
        > Pause. Deep breath. And now we're up to speed.
        >
        > While it's true that I greatly prefer Kierkegaard and Nietzsche -
        > even Quine! - over Heidegger, my original question remains: Why /
        > how does the distinction discussed in (3) and (6) contribute to
        the
        > torture of your soul? I'll accept any definition of soul for the
        > sake of better understanding your point.
        >
        > Fyodor
        >
        > P.S. The Grand Inquisitor has a plain way of speaking and was
        after
        > all quite correct about the Christian church. Literary references
        > don't offend me, especially complimentary ones.
        >
      • louise
        [JKN] 1. I posted a question about Nietzsche s dictum that grand metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts. Louise This refers to your post 36583.
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          [JKN]
          1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
          metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.

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

          [JKN]
          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."

          Louise
          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.

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

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

          [JKN]
          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
          soul."

          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.

          Louise
          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 ...
        • jkneilson
          ... you ... assumptions ... Hi L, I don t know what a Nooist is, but I m pleased to meet you. I go by neither Martin nor Fyodor. On group lists, I go by K,
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > Louise:
            > 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. >

            Hi L, I don't know what a Nooist is, but I'm pleased to meet you. I
            go by neither Martin nor Fyodor. On group lists, I go by K, short
            for my real name. I too am committed to argument, in Socratic
            fashion. I'm new to the group. Instead of lurking, I posted a
            question about Nietzsche, aiming to discover the lay of the land.
            Your distinction between the art-of-living and the theory-of-the-art-
            of-living is clearer to me now. Still, I don't see how it
            contributes to soul torture. Perhaps you mean that the process of
            examining the assumptions of our life is exacting, onerous, painful -
            or that such reflection leads to the discovery of something
            ("ontological categories?") that is painful. But I'm just guessing
            here. Cheers, K
          • louise
            ... forethought, ... (if ... theory- ... I ... art- ... painful - ... Within my existential world, you most certainly do not exist, whatever name or initial
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > > Louise:
              > > 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. >
              >
              > Hi L, I don't know what a Nooist is, but I'm pleased to meet you.
              I
              > go by neither Martin nor Fyodor. On group lists, I go by K, short
              > for my real name. I too am committed to argument, in Socratic
              > fashion. I'm new to the group. Instead of lurking, I posted a
              > question about Nietzsche, aiming to discover the lay of the land.
              > Your distinction between the art-of-living and the theory-of-the-
              art-
              > of-living is clearer to me now. Still, I don't see how it
              > contributes to soul torture. Perhaps you mean that the process of
              > examining the assumptions of our life is exacting, onerous,
              painful -
              > or that such reflection leads to the discovery of something
              > ("ontological categories?") that is painful. But I'm just guessing
              > here. Cheers, K
              >

              Within my existential world, you most certainly do not exist,
              whatever name or initial you employ. So we have not met. Just
              think me of a trusting fool, apt to fall into the same cycle of
              mistakes as the months go by. George was right. What a shitty
              world. I am not committed to Socratic argument, rather to Iliadic
              dialectic, in the light of philosophic love. You are quite entitled
              to your perspectives, to your methods, and I would guess you won't
              be anxious that I cannot participate in any discussions your
              interests may generate. However, there's no knowing if I might
              change my mind. Recognition, the precondition for clarity. By the
              way, I'm very pleased you don't know what a Nooist is. My own
              awareness thereof is somewhat lost to memory at present.

              regards,

              louise
              ... maintaining her neurons ...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.