Today we discussed the thought experiment that Nietzsche proposed, of the demon which tells you of infinite recurrence.
I... am not sure how I would react to this quandary. I mean, from just the text, I guess I'd more than likely ask the demon to prove to me that it would be the case, because I would immediately assume that I was dreaming if a demon popped out of nowhere talking to me. Assuming that would be taken care of and I had proof or whatever, I'd probably be terribly depressed. I mean, I've had some pretty good times, but I've had far, far more bad times. Knowing that I would have to eternally live through that would be tantamount to enduring a personal hell again.
I've been through a lot that I don't really talk about; in the past 4 years, I've gotten past addiction, my mother has passed away, my younger brother has been arrested, my entire family has splintered because of the arrest and the reason for the arrest, leading to my stepmother and father to get a divorce. I broke up with my fiancé from an almost 7 year relationship and immediately hopped into a rebound that, while great for a few months, ultimately broke my heart. I'm terrified of life when I'm at my worst. I've certainly grown from these circumstances, and I've channeled my sadness into my music, but... I've tried, actively, to commit suicide in my past. I've barely clung onto life each time, and since I'm assuming that the demon would be visiting me in the future, that insinuates that I've yet to reach my lowest. Frankly, if that's the case, I don't think that any amount of self actualization could possibly bring me out of that despair.
Of course, there has been quite a lot of good, as well. I just... I dunno, I have trouble seeing it. Obviously I'm still here, so the moments or extended spans of time have been worth living for, and I certainly enjoy playing guitar enough to make it a career. Honestly, it's my lack of perspective on how to see and harness the good in life that drove me to enroll in this class; firstly, I've had an interest in existentialism for a number of years, and secondly, because Thad was the instructor, and then the pin that cemented the deal was that it was a summer class.
I took Thad's PHI 101 course my freshman year of college, back in '08, and he was my very first professor, the first professor I talked to at ASU as a student. In retrospect, I can't imagine anything more pertinent to his influence on me as an ASU student- even just looking forward from that, in September of 2011, I was extremely depressed and I remember encountering Thad in passing, walking through Coor, and he remembered me by name, and said that I had struck him at some point. I guess it's not that unique, but I only remember speaking up in PHI 101 a single time; and on that particular day, I was particularly lonely. So it it just... it sparked something in me, really. If nothing else, I knew that I was interested in taking another class with Thad. And since you're reading this, Thad, I'm sorry that I'm talking about you in third person so much, and I'm too damn shy to actually thank you for all of this in person; you've had an incredible impact on me as a person, and I thank you immeasurably for that.
Tying this back to the whole demon thing...
Now, if I had the ten years after this visitation like we talked about in class, I might fight and cling to life, building up my ability to face and transcend my past, to fight as hard as I possibly could to make sure that my life was worth something. I think that in the face of such sadness, I would have no other choice. I mean, I've fought tooth and nail to get to where I am now, and I have no plans on giving up again. This doesn't mean that I won't, and I'm terrified of that, but at this juncture, I'm certain of my ability to hold on to rational thought through adversity. I am, in fact, alive (much to my former self's dismay, though I do appreciate the humour of being depressed about being a "failure" and then ultimately failing at suicide.) and with that in mind, I'm doing only myself a disservice by not continuing to look to personal improvement.
So really, I don't know. If I ever meet this demon, I guess I'll found out. Until then, I think I'll just pretend that I have, and face my past as though I've still got the next ten years to live. Because if I've learned anything from my life, it's that there are moments to be found in the future that make it worth living.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Friday, July 26, 2013
Tenth proof of my existence: On why Nietzsche is bullshit
Reading about "Master Morality" and "Slave Morality" makes me insane. Like, I can grasp the concepts in perspective, but it just seems so... asinine to define humanity in that way. I get that there are people out there that are total dicks and that don't care about anybody else, but to me, good and evil and good and bad are the same thing. I'm not sure if I'm just getting hung up on semantics or what.
Even the analogy that Nietzsche is using, I feel, does not really fit the observations, in my opinion. People are so much more complicated than sheep and hawks, and I feel that it does society, and ethics, a disservice to try to so neatly compact us into roles as "only predator" and "only prey" because that is so commonly not the case. The lamb has no choice in how to live, no choice in how to do much; the hawk has no choice in the same sense. But people? I mean, yeah, there's a caste system, but that doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose other things!
It's just really shaky grounds to me. I feel like this was something that Nietzsche was very strongly opinionated about, and I just can't see them as mutually exclusive ideas. I can't see it as "you're either the hawk OR the lamb" when our ability to choose necessitates that we can be either/or. I mean, I can accept it in Nietzsche's terms, through the lens of his definitions, but translating it to my beliefs, or seeing through my personal lens, it just seems so asinine and petty- and inaccurate. Which is funny, to me, because I tend to use petty differences as ground for philosophy; I love a good semantic argument.
I am seriously frustrated by this.
Even the analogy that Nietzsche is using, I feel, does not really fit the observations, in my opinion. People are so much more complicated than sheep and hawks, and I feel that it does society, and ethics, a disservice to try to so neatly compact us into roles as "only predator" and "only prey" because that is so commonly not the case. The lamb has no choice in how to live, no choice in how to do much; the hawk has no choice in the same sense. But people? I mean, yeah, there's a caste system, but that doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to choose other things!
It's just really shaky grounds to me. I feel like this was something that Nietzsche was very strongly opinionated about, and I just can't see them as mutually exclusive ideas. I can't see it as "you're either the hawk OR the lamb" when our ability to choose necessitates that we can be either/or. I mean, I can accept it in Nietzsche's terms, through the lens of his definitions, but translating it to my beliefs, or seeing through my personal lens, it just seems so asinine and petty- and inaccurate. Which is funny, to me, because I tend to use petty differences as ground for philosophy; I love a good semantic argument.
I am seriously frustrated by this.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Ninth proof of my existence: On Nietzsche, Truth, and the Übermensch
As I understand Nietzsche, truth is inherently untrue in so far as there is no possible realm with which we can view it objectively. That is to say, we are inherently forced into viewing things subjectively, in our personal perspective, and thusly cannot prove them without a shadow of a doubt.
I used an example in class, of having two separate spheres of thought- like a Venn diagram - containing on one side all true ideas, theories, beings, all facts; and the other containing all falsities. Now, the individual contemplating it would be outside of both, neither true nor false, and as such, could not deduce whether or not either one of them would be "objective", because the individual would only have his or her perspective on the matter. I couldn't think of any proper defenses to this in the class, so I'll posit one now- how would that individual determine which one is necessarily true or false, when it could be either or? I posit that he could not, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am of it. I still find it to be an interesting quandary, however.
Moving on to another example I made in class on the nature of truth, I was asked how to prove, given lack of objective truth, that 1 + 1 could equal something other than 2. This, I feel, I am more capable of answering.
Take for example, the mathematical fact that the repeating decimal, .99999999999... etc is equal to 1. So, as a society, we agree on this as a mathematical fact; there seems to be a certain truth about it and to it. But let's say that "1" is a pie, and we took away .0000000000000000...1 percent of it away, the tiniest possible crumb that could still be considered part of the pie. Now, I would argue that subjectively, the pie is no longer entirely whole, as we've taken the tiniest crumb away from that pie. Follow?
Now let's say we did that with 2 pies, two separate pies. So we've got .9999999999999 of one pie and .99999999999999 of the other pie; for all intents, when we look at them, we see two pies. But when we consider the tiniest little piece that we've taken away, is it not the case that they are in fact now incomplete, adding to 1.9999999999999..8 pies, in essence?
I guess my argument is that while there appears to be an objective reality, I do not believe that we can escape the subjective nature of our perspective. I also believe that Nietzsche would agree with me entirely, in so far as truth, like the pie example, will always have a limit, some perspective which calls into the argument a case in which "truth" is an accepted, inarguable paradox. And with that in mind, I do not believe that objective truth will or can ever be the case, personally.
With that in mind, I believe that Nietzsche's Übermensch, or Overman, is doing their most conscious choice to reach the limits of our knowledge, of our consciousness, of our very existence. I believe that since Nietzsche is arguing against the possibility of objective reality, it's our responsibility as thinking members of the herd to our absolute best to strive towards the limits of capability. I believe that Nietzsche wants humanity to evolve.
At the very least, my personal perspective has led me to that conclusion, and Nietzsche puts it into terms that I understand and agree with.
I used an example in class, of having two separate spheres of thought- like a Venn diagram - containing on one side all true ideas, theories, beings, all facts; and the other containing all falsities. Now, the individual contemplating it would be outside of both, neither true nor false, and as such, could not deduce whether or not either one of them would be "objective", because the individual would only have his or her perspective on the matter. I couldn't think of any proper defenses to this in the class, so I'll posit one now- how would that individual determine which one is necessarily true or false, when it could be either or? I posit that he could not, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am of it. I still find it to be an interesting quandary, however.
Moving on to another example I made in class on the nature of truth, I was asked how to prove, given lack of objective truth, that 1 + 1 could equal something other than 2. This, I feel, I am more capable of answering.
Take for example, the mathematical fact that the repeating decimal, .99999999999... etc is equal to 1. So, as a society, we agree on this as a mathematical fact; there seems to be a certain truth about it and to it. But let's say that "1" is a pie, and we took away .0000000000000000...1 percent of it away, the tiniest possible crumb that could still be considered part of the pie. Now, I would argue that subjectively, the pie is no longer entirely whole, as we've taken the tiniest crumb away from that pie. Follow?
Now let's say we did that with 2 pies, two separate pies. So we've got .9999999999999 of one pie and .99999999999999 of the other pie; for all intents, when we look at them, we see two pies. But when we consider the tiniest little piece that we've taken away, is it not the case that they are in fact now incomplete, adding to 1.9999999999999..8 pies, in essence?
I guess my argument is that while there appears to be an objective reality, I do not believe that we can escape the subjective nature of our perspective. I also believe that Nietzsche would agree with me entirely, in so far as truth, like the pie example, will always have a limit, some perspective which calls into the argument a case in which "truth" is an accepted, inarguable paradox. And with that in mind, I do not believe that objective truth will or can ever be the case, personally.
With that in mind, I believe that Nietzsche's Übermensch, or Overman, is doing their most conscious choice to reach the limits of our knowledge, of our consciousness, of our very existence. I believe that since Nietzsche is arguing against the possibility of objective reality, it's our responsibility as thinking members of the herd to our absolute best to strive towards the limits of capability. I believe that Nietzsche wants humanity to evolve.
At the very least, my personal perspective has led me to that conclusion, and Nietzsche puts it into terms that I understand and agree with.
Eighth proof of my existence: On Nietzsche, epistemological nihilism, and the Übermensch
Yesterday, I did my absolute best to take another step on the rope held between beast and übermensch. I descended upon the unwary prey, my interviewer, and let loose a torrential outpouring of understanding and desire for a job with Zia Records. I grasped at his need of musical depth, we spoke of many topics ranging from banjos to the UPT style of Borders pre-close. I aspired to inspire my inquisitor, to bring him to a final realization that I, in fact, was the best employee he would ever encounter. Unfortunately, there's a second mandatory interview, and I'm left to wonder whether or not I got that, if at all.
In my mind, the Übermensch, or Overman as we've talked about in class, is in essence an analogue to the Christian God. That is, he's a source of ideas and morals and goals, of games and rituals, he is that which humanity strives to become; however, unlike God, he's just another one of us. He's a man, or woman, that has fully understood their life, and through their enthusiasm for living, defined life by their terms. This is diametrically opposed to the more base life of the beast, a life of living moment to moment, defined by the herd instinct of the many, choosing to follow what the others say simply because it's the "right" (in the sense that he goes on to explain in "Between Good and Evil", which we'll get to in my next two posts) thing to do. The beast has no lucidity to them, they define consciousness as being aware of how to live, rather than WHY to live, and the Übermensch, well, the Übermensch decides WHY to live. This lucidity, this grasp of the game of life and the nature of consciousness as a herd mentality just clicks with me- to transcend into the Übermensch is to act less as the Shepard (which the Christian God would be considered), as it is to act as the explorer, so that other inquisitive and wondering minds can follow in their own time. The Übermensch is the one that takes classic morality, strips it of the fluff that Christianity imbues it with, and makes it essentially their own- all with the instructions laid for the following people simply through the lens of the life of Übermensch (to me, I think of my many heroes to be goals. Jimmy Page, Joni Mitchell, Benjamin Franklin, Henry David Thoreau, etc...), and I think that Nietzsche might agree with me that there's no way of knowing if it will be one person.
This leads me to epistemological nihilism- the argument that we cannot know anything for certain, as we are incapable of truly verifying the information we receive. As I follow it, I can understand the delineation of objective truth and subjective truth to be the presence of absolutes- this post, for example, is absolutely online. You're not holding it as a paper, say, and any other person can follow your steps to read it; subjectively, you may have enjoyed it, but they may not have. Follow?
To me, epistemological nihilism is the rejection of objective truth. It's the assumption that while we may see "something", and others may agree with us that "something" is there, we can never be absolutely certain. This gets into a lot of really dense ideas about what IS truth, and what can be assumed real and how can we possibly continue learning if we never really know, etc... but I think that I can glean an idea from it that falls in parallel without be as nihilistic and depressed; I think that there's an analogue between considering epistemological nihilism as possible and setting the Übermensch as a goal. For, if knowledge is impossible to truly grasp, but one does not give up in search of knowledge, then isn't one trying to find the limits of knowledge? Is not the individual aiming to become, in essence, the Übermensch? I believe this is the case. I believe that the Übermensch, in realization that God is dead, decides unequivocally to continue living, to continue growing, and to never give up in that growth.
So when the Madman tells the crowd of atheists that God is dead, I believe he is inciting them to grow in spite of this fact. He is telling them that there is no definition beyond our own personal lens with which we see the world, because WE as unique individuals, define our own lives. Is that really so mad?
I've always heard that Nietzsche read as depressed and despondent, finding no love of life and giving up. However, having read more of him now at this stage in my life, I think I must disagree. I think Nietzsche is arguing that anything is possible, since nothing is known, and we should all aim to become this Overman, this Übermensch, simply because we CAN. There's no definition of life, and there's no reason to define life, so why not do it anyways?
In my mind, the Übermensch, or Overman as we've talked about in class, is in essence an analogue to the Christian God. That is, he's a source of ideas and morals and goals, of games and rituals, he is that which humanity strives to become; however, unlike God, he's just another one of us. He's a man, or woman, that has fully understood their life, and through their enthusiasm for living, defined life by their terms. This is diametrically opposed to the more base life of the beast, a life of living moment to moment, defined by the herd instinct of the many, choosing to follow what the others say simply because it's the "right" (in the sense that he goes on to explain in "Between Good and Evil", which we'll get to in my next two posts) thing to do. The beast has no lucidity to them, they define consciousness as being aware of how to live, rather than WHY to live, and the Übermensch, well, the Übermensch decides WHY to live. This lucidity, this grasp of the game of life and the nature of consciousness as a herd mentality just clicks with me- to transcend into the Übermensch is to act less as the Shepard (which the Christian God would be considered), as it is to act as the explorer, so that other inquisitive and wondering minds can follow in their own time. The Übermensch is the one that takes classic morality, strips it of the fluff that Christianity imbues it with, and makes it essentially their own- all with the instructions laid for the following people simply through the lens of the life of Übermensch (to me, I think of my many heroes to be goals. Jimmy Page, Joni Mitchell, Benjamin Franklin, Henry David Thoreau, etc...), and I think that Nietzsche might agree with me that there's no way of knowing if it will be one person.
This leads me to epistemological nihilism- the argument that we cannot know anything for certain, as we are incapable of truly verifying the information we receive. As I follow it, I can understand the delineation of objective truth and subjective truth to be the presence of absolutes- this post, for example, is absolutely online. You're not holding it as a paper, say, and any other person can follow your steps to read it; subjectively, you may have enjoyed it, but they may not have. Follow?
To me, epistemological nihilism is the rejection of objective truth. It's the assumption that while we may see "something", and others may agree with us that "something" is there, we can never be absolutely certain. This gets into a lot of really dense ideas about what IS truth, and what can be assumed real and how can we possibly continue learning if we never really know, etc... but I think that I can glean an idea from it that falls in parallel without be as nihilistic and depressed; I think that there's an analogue between considering epistemological nihilism as possible and setting the Übermensch as a goal. For, if knowledge is impossible to truly grasp, but one does not give up in search of knowledge, then isn't one trying to find the limits of knowledge? Is not the individual aiming to become, in essence, the Übermensch? I believe this is the case. I believe that the Übermensch, in realization that God is dead, decides unequivocally to continue living, to continue growing, and to never give up in that growth.
So when the Madman tells the crowd of atheists that God is dead, I believe he is inciting them to grow in spite of this fact. He is telling them that there is no definition beyond our own personal lens with which we see the world, because WE as unique individuals, define our own lives. Is that really so mad?
I've always heard that Nietzsche read as depressed and despondent, finding no love of life and giving up. However, having read more of him now at this stage in my life, I think I must disagree. I think Nietzsche is arguing that anything is possible, since nothing is known, and we should all aim to become this Overman, this Übermensch, simply because we CAN. There's no definition of life, and there's no reason to define life, so why not do it anyways?
Monday, July 22, 2013
Seventh proof of my existence: On Kierkegaard and Clemence
We talked about Kierkegaard and Clemence, today. More accurately, we held a discussion between the two of them; as how they would hold the other in terms of Kierkegaard's three modes of living- the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious.
Avoiding just summing things up, I'd have to say that I'm still entirely unsure about all of the details for the discussion. For a while, I figured that Clemence would be an aesthetic, and that he was entirely selfish with no thoughts as to his community. But it was brought up that he is living a principled life, and while he is arrogant and selfish, he's still doing some things to help improve the community, even if it's by judging himself publicly. And then, I began to wonder- what if Clemence was actually in the religious sphere? I mean, he is proselytizing self judgement, and was declared the pope- but then in class the delineation between sin vs guilt was made, and while I don't entirely agree, I'm inclined to follow the logic that it is actually a relevant difference; especially when considering that for Kierkegaard, God isn't an amorphous being, it's particularly the Christian Yahweh. So my theory of an entirely hedonistic, self reverent Clemence doesn't seem to work in that scenario.
I honestly am completely lost on this subject. I feel like I'm going around in mental circles, and I can't figure out a place to set my roots, so to say.
Totally different topic, I figure since this is my blog, I may as well share. After class, on a whim from a short momentary memory, I recalled that Zia's was hiring. So I went in there and applied, and they called me back a little while after I got home with a time for an interview. So... I'm pretty stoked, 'cause my existential pain has been increasingly about fiscal responsibilities, and a job at a record store would be a dream come true. So I guess, in essence, I've followed my passion and found myself in a much better and happier position. It's crazy to me to think that something as benign as a random decision to wander off just a little bit more north of my usual haunts led to something as awesome as an interview at Zia's, but I'll take what I get. Happily.
I've also been reading the Nietzsche, and a lot of it is resonating with me quite strongly; particularly the idea that consciousness is inherently the herd instinct, and that self reflection is an essentially useless struggle against something entirely absurd. I've never thought about it that way, I guess, but it really strikes me as a possible truth. Also, I'm rather fond of whoever translated this, because it's very fluid to read his writings, so far. I'm enjoying it quite a bit more than I thought I would.
Avoiding just summing things up, I'd have to say that I'm still entirely unsure about all of the details for the discussion. For a while, I figured that Clemence would be an aesthetic, and that he was entirely selfish with no thoughts as to his community. But it was brought up that he is living a principled life, and while he is arrogant and selfish, he's still doing some things to help improve the community, even if it's by judging himself publicly. And then, I began to wonder- what if Clemence was actually in the religious sphere? I mean, he is proselytizing self judgement, and was declared the pope- but then in class the delineation between sin vs guilt was made, and while I don't entirely agree, I'm inclined to follow the logic that it is actually a relevant difference; especially when considering that for Kierkegaard, God isn't an amorphous being, it's particularly the Christian Yahweh. So my theory of an entirely hedonistic, self reverent Clemence doesn't seem to work in that scenario.
I honestly am completely lost on this subject. I feel like I'm going around in mental circles, and I can't figure out a place to set my roots, so to say.
Totally different topic, I figure since this is my blog, I may as well share. After class, on a whim from a short momentary memory, I recalled that Zia's was hiring. So I went in there and applied, and they called me back a little while after I got home with a time for an interview. So... I'm pretty stoked, 'cause my existential pain has been increasingly about fiscal responsibilities, and a job at a record store would be a dream come true. So I guess, in essence, I've followed my passion and found myself in a much better and happier position. It's crazy to me to think that something as benign as a random decision to wander off just a little bit more north of my usual haunts led to something as awesome as an interview at Zia's, but I'll take what I get. Happily.
I've also been reading the Nietzsche, and a lot of it is resonating with me quite strongly; particularly the idea that consciousness is inherently the herd instinct, and that self reflection is an essentially useless struggle against something entirely absurd. I've never thought about it that way, I guess, but it really strikes me as a possible truth. Also, I'm rather fond of whoever translated this, because it's very fluid to read his writings, so far. I'm enjoying it quite a bit more than I thought I would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)