Thursday, April 30, 2009

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil part 1 -- paraphrased exerpts

Beyond Good and Evil


Paraphrased Exerpts.



Platonism has long bestrode the earth in monstrous form, and now is finally incarnating into a subtle beauty. In Europe, the tension between Platonism and Materialism is the greatest tension yet achieved on earth, for us it is felt as a tension of need and desire: we good Europeans and very free spirits feel this need of the spirit and the use and goal to shoot with so tense a bow.

Part One


The will to truth, what is it truly a will towards? And what is the value of truth?


Some dangerous maybe’s to consider: maybe things originate from their opposite. Maybe there are no opposites values at all. Perhaps what is most valuable to life is deception, selfishness, and lust. New philosophers with a new taste for philosophy are called for to handle these questions.


Most of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly guided and forced into certain channels by his instincts, from the type of life-form he is.


Untruth is a condition for life. Such as number and belief in causality.


For all their mooning over the truth, philosopher start with an “inspiration” of the heart, and then rationalize reasons to support it. They should be more exuberant and learn to mock themselves. Amuse yourselves at the hocus pocus and intellectual forms they clap over their prejudices!


The moral aim of a philosophy is the clue to the rest, all the ontological claims. And the moral aim is the voice of some drive that is master of the philosopher, which learns to philosophize to instate its will to power. Unlike the scientist, the philosopher is nothing impersonal. His morality is central to him, and this is determined by what order of rank the innermost drives of his nature have been stood in relation to each other.


Philosophy is mostly play-acting.

As in the stoics, who want to tyrannize even nature by imposing their morality upon her. This is an ancient eternal story: what formally happened with the Stoics still happens today, too, as soon as any philosophy because to believe in itself  it will always create the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power to the “creation of the world,” to the cause prima.


What philosopher prefers even a  handful of “certainty” to a whole carload of beautiful possibilities? The nihilist, the weary soul. Perhaps he is even trying to win back the intellectual right to belief in an immortal soul? Or other ideas that are more cheerful than “modern ideas.” The positivist makes motley ideas…but what they aim for is good enough. They ought not return to the old seductive ideas, but to new better ones beyond modernism.


Kant philosophized with profundity and curlicues to hide the inanity of his ideas.

Instead of asking how “a priori judgments were possible?” he should have asked “why are they necessary?”


Materialistic atomism is waging victory over the senses. As in Boscovich who defined atoms as centers of force. We ought to get rid of the idea of soul as atom. What about new ideas such as “mortal soul” “soul as subjective multiplicity,” “soul as social structure of the drives and feelings.”


Living things don’t seek to exist, but only secondarily; they actually wish to discharge their strength: life itself is a will to power. Beware superfluous teleological principles. Let your method be more economical.


Plato was noble because he wanted to discover hidden matters not sensual. He was resistant to obvious sense-evidence, unlike Physics. His was a higher triumph of the masters, and so also a higher enjoyment than the physicians. However, love of atomism is good for technicians.


Immediate certainties only appear so till you dissect them. Such as Descartes “I think therefore I am.” What the “I” and what “thinking” are is by no means self-evident or even immediate.


The theory of free will is charming because every new philosopher likes to refute it.


Will is complex, and therefore also not an immediate certainty. It is a unity only as a word. It stands for various things such as habit, body sensations, the joy of commanding, even the sensation of being commanded. It is a complex state of delight, but to prove a causality from it is presumptuous. Underwills and undersouls must be there in the body to be commanded. The will is a social structure. When it is an aristocracy, the willer sees its happiness as proof that society is successful.

Hence, a philosopher should claim the right to include willing as such within the spheres of morals—morals being understood as the doctrine of the relations of supremacy under which the phenomenon of “life” comes to be.


Individual philosophical concepts evolve as part of a great ecosystem, cannot be understand individually, and torque the mind of the philosopher who uses them. All philosophy is alike because it uses the same words, the same philosophical grammar, which, owing to the unconscious domination and guidance by similar grammatical functions, determines what a philosopher will discover.


The words for cause and effect: “number, freedom, motive, purpose” are a symbol world that cannot be imposed on the things of experience, or ,if so, only mythologically. There is no free will nor unfree will, but only a strong will and a weak will.

Those who want responsibility for all their actions are the vain races. Those who want to blame something else, and sympathize even with criminals, are the self-contemptuous.


Talk of “the laws of nature” is poor interpretation. We might as well say “the tyranny of nature without laws.” for that is interpretation each a likely fit to the text of facts.


We need a new psychology of the will to power. Moral prejudice has sunk too deep into the spiritual world, so that unconsciously these investigators see wrongly.




Take care, Caretaker!

Your innermost is the sacred!




No comments: