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

Re: Nietzsche (On Metaphysical Judgments)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.