http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yHMwIgieUY
Sometimes we do something that we think might have been an example of our bad judgment, because the outcome was mixed or even bad -- but looking at it from the point of view of the Bataille/Nietzsche nexus, that was a pure act of your individuality. All the more so if you feel badly about it, that is a sign that your action took you off the beaten path and made you question it from the point of view of regular thinking, which is herd morality.
Bataille faces what he would like to repress. In doing so, he drives himself mad. But he also feels better for it.
Already, my recent reading of the book "On Nietzsche", by Bataille, has been instructive. There is an intro by an academic, who basically takes the line that Nietzsche's philosophy has an overall consistency that can be understood. He implies that Bataille's philosophy went against a particular grain, in Nietzsche. Bataille, however, argues in the same book that Nietzsche is not, overall, consistent with himself. Rather, he says, the overman type is someone who is "mentally confused, but with an undeniably vigorous constitution". Bataille sees Nietzsche and himself in that way. They are confused because they don't accept the dominant mores. Reality is not as clear to them as to those like the academic who introduces the text -- who sees everything clearly, but also sees clarity where there isn't any. That is, he sees logical consistency in Nietzsche when there isn't any, because when one's mind explodes and one looks at the pieces, one has to be honest and say that the pieces of anyone's mind do not automatically cohere, not least of a mind that has exploded.
Sometimes we do something that we think might have been an example of our bad judgment, because the outcome was mixed or even bad -- but looking at it from the point of view of the Bataille/Nietzsche nexus, that was a pure act of your individuality. All the more so if you feel badly about it, that is a sign that your action took you off the beaten path and made you question it from the point of view of regular thinking, which is herd morality.
Bataille faces what he would like to repress. In doing so, he drives himself mad. But he also feels better for it.
Already, my recent reading of the book "On Nietzsche", by Bataille, has been instructive. There is an intro by an academic, who basically takes the line that Nietzsche's philosophy has an overall consistency that can be understood. He implies that Bataille's philosophy went against a particular grain, in Nietzsche. Bataille, however, argues in the same book that Nietzsche is not, overall, consistent with himself. Rather, he says, the overman type is someone who is "mentally confused, but with an undeniably vigorous constitution". Bataille sees Nietzsche and himself in that way. They are confused because they don't accept the dominant mores. Reality is not as clear to them as to those like the academic who introduces the text -- who sees everything clearly, but also sees clarity where there isn't any. That is, he sees logical consistency in Nietzsche when there isn't any, because when one's mind explodes and one looks at the pieces, one has to be honest and say that the pieces of anyone's mind do not automatically cohere, not least of a mind that has exploded.
No comments:
Post a Comment