Nietzsche, Socrates and the art of self delusion

[randall patrick]

From Mark T Conard's, "Thus Spake Bart", in the anthology The Simpsons and Philosophy

"The world as we know it, the everyday world, the world as representation, is a mere illusion, the 'truly nonexistent'. And at its heart, reality is so awful---a ceseless, blind, driving, ultimately aimless and therefore unsatisfied and suffering will----that to see into this heart, to understand the true nature of existence, is debilitating. What's more the curse of human beings is to be [able to be] aware of their situation, to realize the nature of the world and to want to put it right. But of course that's impossible. Nietzsche said: 'Conscious of the truth he has once seen, man now sees everywhere only the horror or the absurdity of existence.'

"According to Nietzsche, art and only art, is our saving grace:

'Here, when the danger to his will is greatest, art approaches as the saving sorceress, expert at healing. She alone knows how to turn these nauseous thoughts about the horror or absurdity of existence into notions which one can live...'"

And:

"The Birth of Tragedy concerns the way the ancient Greeks dealth with the horror and the absurdity of existence: through art....they were able to overcome the horrible truth, they were able to find redemption. According to Nietzsche, this is the healthy, honest way to face chaotic, meaningless existence. But there are unhealthy and dishonest ways as well. These consist mainly in denying the meaninglessness, the absurdity, the chaos, the horror, turning away from it, lying to oneself and others about the nature of reality. In Ancient Greece, this unhealthiness and dishonesty is embodied, according to Nietzsche, in the person of Socrates. He says:

'....there is, to be sure, a profound illusion that first saw the light of the world in the person of Socrates: the unshakable faith that thought, using the thread of causality, can penetrate the deepest abysses of being, and that thought is capable not only of knowing being but of correcting it.'

"Instead of acknowledging the true character of the world and learning to deal with the chaos, Socrates believed that thought was capable not only of grasping and understanding the world, but also of fixing it. Nietzsche goes on to say:

'Socrates is the prototype of the theroretical optimist who, with his faith that the nature of things can be fathomed, ascribes to knowledge and insight the power of panacea, while understanding error as the evil par excellence.

"We all know Socrates to be the supremely rational person. Reason is not only our guide to understanding the world he tells us, but it is the key to living well, and evil is only ignorance. For Nietzsche....this is a grand mistake, a symptom of degeneration and weakness; it is the lie we tell ourselves because we are too weak to face reality."



So: is this a lie or not?

Most folks, of course, will respond to these words at the intersection of theory and practice. If their day to day life is bursting at the seams with generally good things the words may well "make sense philosophically" but they are too busy living their life to allow them to really sink in. Or if their life is a malestrom of misery that is another set of distractions.....preoccupations that will deflect them from introspecting on the relationship between Nietzsche and Socrates and art.

After all, who gives a damn about that when life itself---the good, the bad, and the ugly---make conjectures like this seem unimaginably remote.

And it is not like we can demonstrate one way or the other [even as philosophers] whether this is a more or less rational description of the human condition. Mostly we react to "the point" intuitively, viscerally, subjectively....existentially.

At the same time it is possible to sink so far down into a circumstantial calamity that, when coupled with a point of view like this, even art becomes fatuous, feckless and futile flim-flam.

Some, however, try to make art out of philosophy and imagine that Socrates was on to something. We can "think" our way out of these problematic phenomenal provocations and instead deduce a noumenal [or rational or logical] reality that renders all this [at times] horrific day to day "stuff" a part of some teleological whole we are not privy to or [even more improbably] are privy to.

In the end though I think reactions will well up from out of something "inside" that is largely inexpressible. You will respond to these words as though they encompassed the proverbial "ring of truth" or they will seem unimaginably alien to life as you understand it.

In that sense Nietzsche's point is beyond philosophy. And certainly beyond Socrates's point about philosophy. It is either something you just "know" is true or you don't.


RP

[jeffl]

Quote by: randall patrick In that sense Nietzsche's point is beyond philosophy. And certainly beyond Socrates's point about philosophy. It is either something you just "know" is true or you don't. RP

Nietzsche's point CAN'T be beyond philosophy! Either he's dead, or he's dead; get it? If Nietzsche's point is beyond philosophy, then Socrate's is right and Uberman is wrong.

[Dadoo]

Jeffl-

If N.'s point is "beyond philosophy", which I vaguely grasp and possibly agree with, then it may not have anything to do with the 'philosophies " of S. and U.
The comparison is [debatably] incongruent.
In deference and with reverance to yourself and the great minds we are discussing, I may offer an insight. Nietzche may have a more real, raw or clarified perception of man's supposed abilities and potentials than many other thinkers. He has successfully illumined the paradigm of "human" as if he were a detached observer. He did not seek the approval of peers and students. In this, he remained true to his core values, elevating his philosophy into an art.
It is nye impossible to write fluently and clearly about the superlatives that Nietzche can fathom in store for the few, the brave. Those who achieve the loftiest, most fragile states in this life are for the most part invisible to the rest of 'us'.
It seems the finest art is overlooked. It is flush, unseen and does not raise attention; so perfect it is. The artist does not seek the fame and notoreity, lest he be base, common, pedestrian. Neitzche is not vying philosophies with U. or S. In this case he has captured them both, in the palm of a hand, observed, pondered and told the "truth", not you and not I.
The effort to make a field to capture various philosophies under a single umbrella is one of the most noble, when done equanimanously and with intelligence.
randall, when there is no question, one knows. Until then we call the knowledge we seek "truth".
they are the same thing. In realizing this, they both disappear, hopefully forever. This is
the realm of art. The land of "No Question". Neitzche is a trip and fabulously edgy.


Dadoof

[jeffl]

Quote by: Dadoo Nietzche may have a more real, raw or clarified perception of man's supposed abilities and potentials than many other thinkers.

Maybe.

He has successfully illumined the paradigm of "human" as if he were a detached observer. He did not seek the approval of peers and students. In this, he remained true to his core values, elevating his philosophy into an art.

Ofcourse, this is exactly the point i disagree with; maybe he illuminated the paridigm of 'human out of context.' When i look at what of his is posted here, where i should see the truth that would make it art, all that i see is the abyss; and then he says art defines truth? He doesn't see meaning or truth, it appears to me; so he blows it apart, but he doesn't get past the explosion.

The artist does not seek the fame and notoreity, lest he be base, common, pedestrian.

Lest he be insincere, false; base is good, honest.

they are the same thing. In realizing this, they both disappear, hopefully forever.

They are the same thing if you are being honest with yourself; and they disappear if what you are doing is coherent, for as long as it's coherent.