[ Post a Response | The Nietzsche Channel Message Board ]
Posted by JAC on 12/31/2007, 9:29 am
68.190.236.X
I just want to give to you a few recent things I have written at a philosophy forum, whilst arguing with some people there, and I'd like it if you could tell me if my interpretation of Nietzsche is WAY off his original intent. Now, whether it is or not, I still think I am on to something, so you can still comment on my writings, regardless of Nietzsche, but I just want to know if what I am writing could be considered Nietzschean, or if there are some things I have misconceived in my personal interpretation of him. Thanks a lot.
Here's this:
"What is there in sadness that we ought to hate? All morality based on abstention is a morality that hates existence. Abstention is self-hatred and the Buddha should know it does nothing to extinguish desire. Freud will tell you that taboos only exist because of a desire for what has been "tabooed." Focus on abstention is the repression of a desire, and this is an admittance that a desire is there. I don't think about "abstaining" from having sex with a donkey because I have no desire to, only people with desires would focus on abstention. So "abstainers" admit their desire just by virtue of their focus on abstention, but then they pretend that no desire is there.
They are hypocrites: claiming to abstain from something they hate when they are but repressing the strong love they truly feel for this thing. This repression of love creates a feeling of hate, and thus abstainers express hate because that is what it is inside them, because they abstain from what they love. This hatred is expressed through a comparison to others who do not abstain from said action. People who abstain ALWAYS think themselves better than others who do not abstain from said action - even if they won't admit this aloud. It is the only way they can delude themselves into believing that their abstention makes them a better person. That their refusal to act, their weakness, makes them strong; and that others are weak for acting. This is a true inversion of noble values, and the Christian religion epitomizes this weak attitude of abstention."
And this (the last paragraph of which is where my current confusion comes from):
"If anything, a study of language will show that meaning is conditional (or relies on one's personal cognitive perspective). That there is nothing in life which has innate meaning, but only our interpretation of life gives life a meaning. What one finds meaningful will be reflected in one's language, and the hierarchy of values that one perceives in life will be revealed by one's language. A study of the language of the nobles shows that they thought themselves good and found meaning first in themselves (see Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals"). Meaning, or value, and morality are closely related, because people think they "ought" to behave in accordance with what they view as meaningful or valuable in life - and language reflects deeply on both. You can know a man's morality by discovering what he finds meaningful in life, and you can find that by studying his language. Since meaning is only revealed through language, and language is itself conditional; meaning is, therefore, also conditional.
"There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena." - Nietzsche
The same can be said of meaning and value. There are no facts of nature (phenomena which are empirically observed) that contain within them any basis for moral judgments or value judgments. Hurricanes are not "right" or "wrong", but they are certainly interpreted to be such. Neither is any other phenomena, even phenomena brought about by a supposed "free will" "right" or "wrong", but people have interpreted such phenomena as such. An interpretation that is nihilistic denies the value it interprets in life (because all interpretations find value in life), sees no purpose (or correct moral path; paths which strive for more valuable destinations) to life; and is thus morally nihilistic as well. The interpretation which finds value in life realizes that the purpose of life is to overcome nihilism (to affirm, rather than deny, the value that one interprets in life). This is the proper moral path because it seeks something more valuable (in this case, something more valuable than the valueless, or nihilism).
As of now the only thing I know is good is the overcoming of nihilism. I find value in the overcoming of nihilism (indeed, there IS value in overcoming nihilism, because nihilism IS the absence of value and overcoming it automatically means discovering value); and much like such a overcoming will create value out of valueless nihilism, so does man create value out of a seemingly valueless life. Of course, let me also say, that life is not really valueless, unless you are a nihilist, because life IS as you interpret it.
There really is no dichotomy between "the-thing-in-itself" and the thing as you interpret it, because even "the-thing-in-itself" is a mere interpretation itself. An interpretation of what? Well, certainly not life, as if life is this thing BEYOND our interpretations. There is nothing beyond our interpretation and so nihilism often thrives in the belief that man is capable of having objective knowledge by escaping his interpretations (this is called transcendentalism). If existence itself is an interpretation, then one must find value in life/existence by finding value in one's interpretation."
Message Thread:
« Back to thread