From: http://www.dogma.lu/txt/SM-Nietzsche.htm
Certainly Rosen ascertains that Nietzsche writes with a certain degree of ambiguity about "destruction". Bataille also retains that ambiguity, as he wants to speak to the broadest range of people, each at their level of development. It is apparent in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, that Nietzsche considers there are some who need to obey in order to achieve their full capacities, whereas some can transcend obedience. Similarly in Theory of Religion, Bataille writes about "destruction" both in a very direct, concrete way and in a more suggestive, metaphorical way, simultaneously. The ambiguity is maintained because different people have different roles to play, not because Nietzsche was trying to clear the debris through political manipulation of people's consciousness.
Where I differ very much from Rosen is that I see Nietzsche as a psychologist, not a politician. It is certain that Nietzsche viewed his project in a Darwinist light, but there was no intention of political manipulation on his part. No trick was involved. Rather, he sought to bring about a new society on the basis of each person testing themselves purely in relation to themselves. To encounter "nature" as described in the first quote, above, is to encounter reality in its most direct, unmediated form, without the softening effects of the meanings furnished by society and it's organizing principles, based in metaphysics.
To encounter the lack of meaning by daring to face the negative, dark or destructive aspects of life is to face the possibility of shamanistic initiation: one either becomes stronger as a result, or one is overcome and fades away. In either case, life becomes vastly more interesting than if one does not face this encounter. An encounter with the void is nearly always intrinsically interesting in that if one resolves one's experience successfully, one's vitally it multiplied.
There is no "trick" to this -- no political purpose or manipulation, apart from giving an orientation to experience that is different from predominant moralistic and/or theological world views.
Many blame Nietzsche for the nihilistic sensibilities of the present age. Stanley Rosen presents such a case. Rosen disagrees with Heidegger on Nietzsche’s failure and with Rorty on Nietzsche’s value as a philosopher. Rosen believes that Nietzsche succeeded in his break with Western metaphysics, a feat that should be anything but celebrated. “In my opinion,” writes Rosen, “Nietzsche has no ultimate teaching of a theoretical, constructive nature. The riddle to Nietzsche’s consistency cannot be unlocked because it does not exist.”[11] For Rosen, Nietzsche’s teaching has the same outcome for which Nietzsche blames Platonism and Christianity: “it empties human existence of intrinsic value.”[12] Nietzsche’s teaching is not only contradictory; it is disquieting and dangerous. Rosen believes that even Nietzsche’s Yes-saying magnum opus, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “implodes into chaos.”[13]Rosen’s analysis derives in part from his recognition of the problem of nature in Nietzsche’s writing. “The term nature thus plays an ambiguous role in Nietzsche’s thinking,” writes Rosen.[14] “Nietzsche advocates a return to the natural order in a sense, but not in a Platonic or Aristotelian sense.” For Nietzsche, “nature is power and, still more fundamentally, chaos.”[15] Rosen, unlike Heidegger, does not see Nietzsche as having an affinity with Aristotle and dismisses such nonsense. For Rosen, the result of the two views of nature in Nietzsche’s works is nihilism. Yes, nature is the standard for values, but if nature is chaos, as it is in Nietzsche, then all values are relative to man’s will to power.I almost feel that any statement I could make to elaborate on the role of nature in Nietzsche's philosophy has already been stated in terms of Rosen's views. Nonetheless, it has not been made apparent nor understood. Here is more about Rosen's take on Nietzsche from this excellent essay of Prof. Steven Michels:
For Rosen, Nietzsche’s teaching is an appeal to the highest, most gifted human individuals to create a radically new society of artist-warriors[,]...expressed with rhetorical power and a unique mixture of frankness and ambiguity in such a way as to allow the mediocre, the foolish, and the mad to regard themselves as the divine prototypes of the highest men of the future. A radically new society requires as its presupposition the destruction of an existing society; Nietzsche succeeded in enlisting countless thousands in the ironical task or self-destruction, all in the name of a future utopia.[my emphasis]I have written quite a bit on the motifs of destruction that are present in the work of Nietzsche and Bataille, who proclaimed, "I am Nietzsche", and from this I consider that although Rosen's view is plausible, it lacks in psychological depth and complexity. Rosen, rather than allowing for the possibility that Nietzsche's work was deeply psychological not politically manipulative in the manner of the Chicago School of political thought, views Nietzsche narrowly as a shrewd political manipulator.
Certainly Rosen ascertains that Nietzsche writes with a certain degree of ambiguity about "destruction". Bataille also retains that ambiguity, as he wants to speak to the broadest range of people, each at their level of development. It is apparent in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, that Nietzsche considers there are some who need to obey in order to achieve their full capacities, whereas some can transcend obedience. Similarly in Theory of Religion, Bataille writes about "destruction" both in a very direct, concrete way and in a more suggestive, metaphorical way, simultaneously. The ambiguity is maintained because different people have different roles to play, not because Nietzsche was trying to clear the debris through political manipulation of people's consciousness.
Where I differ very much from Rosen is that I see Nietzsche as a psychologist, not a politician. It is certain that Nietzsche viewed his project in a Darwinist light, but there was no intention of political manipulation on his part. No trick was involved. Rather, he sought to bring about a new society on the basis of each person testing themselves purely in relation to themselves. To encounter "nature" as described in the first quote, above, is to encounter reality in its most direct, unmediated form, without the softening effects of the meanings furnished by society and it's organizing principles, based in metaphysics.
To encounter the lack of meaning by daring to face the negative, dark or destructive aspects of life is to face the possibility of shamanistic initiation: one either becomes stronger as a result, or one is overcome and fades away. In either case, life becomes vastly more interesting than if one does not face this encounter. An encounter with the void is nearly always intrinsically interesting in that if one resolves one's experience successfully, one's vitally it multiplied.
There is no "trick" to this -- no political purpose or manipulation, apart from giving an orientation to experience that is different from predominant moralistic and/or theological world views.
No comments:
Post a Comment