Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#1  Postby PublicCola6 » August 30th, 2017, 12:12 pm

Nietzsche is considered by some to be the father of post-modernism. It is important to actually know his ideas. So the question is: what is Nietzsche's philosophy of truth and can anyone see any viable escape from his challenging, disturbing arguments?


In Nietzsche there is an equivalence between the existentially existing self - the self just expressing its self ("the fatal disorganization of the self") - on the one hand and what can be described as a metaphysical form of flux on the other hand.

If there is no case where the actual or possible human experience can exist without change or motion of some kind and if the universe is ultimately a changeless, eternal, universal realm of reason, then mankind as mankind could not be able to exist within it.

Truth and error are thus held to be interdependent within our only knowable reality, the psyche of man.

Nietzsche uses the word 'error' to describe the independent motions of the human subject as it interacts with the natural world.Man's drive for survival, his drive for food, shelter, sex, success and life, necessarily involve forms of natural error. They are dependent upon flux.

The activity of understanding is a 'dark' activity because it necessitates a closing off, a form of particularity, hence "knowledge is suffering". So we require error to live our lives. Man requires illusion, he himself, as a person, is a form of irreducible natural error -a piece of 'fatum' in the universe.

Nietzsche interprets our human drives as being primary or what can be described as metaphysical. The Will To Power has no competition from God or moral principles, it is the primal contradiction without the primal one.

Here is an illustrative quote:

"The universe must be splintered apart; respect for the universe unlearned; what we have given the unknown and the whole must be taken back and given to the closest, what's ours. Kant said: "Two things remain forever worthy of admiration and awe" [the starry heavens above and the moral law within] -- today we would rather say: 'Digestion is more venerable'. The universe would always bring with it the old problems, "How is evil possible?", etc. Thus: there is no universe. -Nietzsche (1886-87)

I guess you could call it the metaphysics of human digestion. :)
User avatar
PublicCola6
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 6 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#2  Postby Fooloso4 » August 31st, 2017, 3:46 pm

I think that Nietzsche is “postmodern” in that he attempts to overcome modern philosophy, but I see him as firmly within the tradition of Socratic skepticism. I think it also essential to aware of his retrieval of esoteric writing. By this I do not mean the occult or hermeticism, but rather what is hid from the idle reader.

The following statement ties the two together:

I am complete skeptic when it comes to Plato (Twilight of the Idols, "What I Owe to the Ancients")


He is a complete skeptic when it comes to Plato because they are both skeptics and only a skeptic knows how to read and understand a skeptic.

He says:

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit. It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers. He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink. (Thus Spake Zarathustra, Chapter 7, “Reading and Writing”)


Nietzsche reads Plato the way we are to read Nietzsche (and Plato). Although it may appear to the idle reader that Nietzsche was in direct opposition to Plato a careful reading discloses that they are kindred spirits who share the same problem but arrived at different solutions. Nietzsche the skeptic teaches us to read skeptically, to read between the lines, to make connections, and not take things at face value.

The problem is that skepticism can lead to nihilism. Plato’s solution was his exoteric salutary teaching of Forms which hid from all but the most discerning readers the fundamental aporia that is encountered in all the dialogues. To the idle reader Nietzsche appears himself to be a nihilist, he is not. His solution is the same as Plato’s, the invention of new truths and values. Truths and values are to be determined by what is most beneficial to those who hold them. But what is most beneficial to some may not be beneficial to others, and so, like the saint at the beginning of Zarathustra who is elevated rather than burdened by the god who is his god, he is left to rejoice.

Some will read that God is dead and dismiss Nietzsche. He would have it no other way. It is for those who, in the words of Zarathustra, have already uttered a “sacred no” that he addresses a new “sacred yes”.

There are, however, those who cannot make the transition. Those who have nothing positive to replace their rejection with. I will leave open the question of how much Nietzsche offers them. They are not the philosophers of the future. It is the task of the uberman to do what Plato did and create a new religion that will guide those who must follow.

Despite what Nietzsche says about the impossibility of creating something new, he says that Zarathustra creates something new, creators, that is, individuals.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2668 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#3  Postby PublicCola6 » September 2nd, 2017, 10:02 am

Fooloso4 wrote: I think that Nietzsche is “postmodern” in that he attempts to overcome modern philosophy, but I see him as firmly within the tradition of Socratic skepticism. I think it also essential to aware of his retrieval of esoteric writing. By this I do not mean the occult or hermeticism, but rather what is hid from the idle reader.


We need to set the history of philosophy in order here. For example, we should not state that Nietzsche was attempting to overcome the philosophy of language or analytical philosophy (even though we are aware of Nietzsche's expertise and focus (at times) upon the way that the use of language leads to wrong-headed conclusions.) Of course we know that these late modern movements (i.e. Analytic philosophy) came after Nietzsche's time.

The "modern philosophy" that Nietzsche attempts to overcome is Platonic; or at least it is (it seems to me) the Platonic elements within modern philosophy that is his stated goal to fight against, as he lays it out (for example) in the preface to Beyond Good and Evil.

What I mean by all of this is that it is a mistake to cover up what in Nietzsche that is so obvious and important under the guise of "esoteric" philosophy. Nietzsche was an artist (he was other things as well, of course). He was not writing for the academy. He was the cryptic outsider; no box can contain or tame him.

In attacking reason, which he generally held to be empty outside of the human world, he was attacking not only what was dearly held by Plato, but Hegel also. And this is, must be, more than idle speculation.

Fooloso4 wrote:The problem is that skepticism can lead to nihilism.


But skepticism can lead to the realization that , for example, "I" am singular, etc. The lack of skepticism leads to nihilism. The "last man" blinks at the world; he hasn't the sufficient amount of skepticism.

Fooloso4 wrote:Some will read that God is dead and dismiss Nietzsche. He would have it no other way. It is for those who, in the words of Zarathustra, have already uttered a “sacred no” that he addresses a new “sacred yes”.

[...]

Despite what Nietzsche says about the impossibility of creating something new, he says that Zarathustra creates something new, creators, that is, individuals.


I am reminded here how important and profound Nietzsche's ideas...


-
User avatar
PublicCola6
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 6 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#4  Postby Fooloso4 » September 2nd, 2017, 1:59 pm

PublicCola6:

The "modern philosophy" that Nietzsche attempts to overcome is Platonic …


The modern philosophy he attempts to overcome is what is generally referred to as modern philosophy: Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. He is in this sense post-modern. Whether he fits any of the various other senses of post-modern I will leave aside.

I agree though that he also attempted to overcome Platonism, but I do not see why you would call ancient philosophy modern philosophy.

What I mean by all of this is that it is a mistake to cover up what in Nietzsche that is so obvious and important under the guise of "esoteric" philosophy.


It is not about esoteric philosophy, it is about esoteric writing. I don’t understand why you would think this is an attempt to cover anything up. It is not to deny the obvious but rather to say that there is more to it than the obvious. Hence, what he says he requires of his readers.

And this is, must be, more than idle speculation.


I have not said anything about idle speculation. I quoted Nietzsche on the problem of idle readers. If you took that to be directed at you, that was not my intent. It was a general comment on an open forum with many readers, some who are curious about Nietzsche but puzzled or put off by some of the things he has said. How one is to interpret Nietzsche is an obvious problem.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2668 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#5  Postby -1- » September 2nd, 2017, 5:26 pm

I won't ask why Nietzsche wrote in a puzzling style. It was perhaps a game for him, to present to eternity his ideas that can only be understood if the puzzle gets solved. Sort of an intellectual treasure-hunt for adult Boy Scouts.

There is nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing wrong with saying "to the heck with that" and abandoning or misinterpreting the wisdom (alleged) in his writings.

He knew the risks. He took them. If he gets misinterpreted or misrepresented, the fault in that does not lie with his reader.

AT the same time, those who crack the code, so to speak, rejoice in the weight of his words.

The third possibility is that there is no code, and those who break it, are brilliant poets with analytical reading skills.

Question: have there ever been at lest two independent critics of Nietzsche, who came up with an identical interpretation of his works? If yes, there have been, then the code is deemed to have validity -- the code existed, and it has been broken or deciphered.

If no, there have not been two critics who agree on every aspect discussed about Nietzsche, then chances are he is speaking gibberish, all that happens is more and more learned and intelligent researches put meaning to his speech, but since they create order (interpretation) out of chaos (Nietzsche's mind and writings), the interpretations can't produce identical results.

-- Updated 2017 September 2nd, 5:46 pm to add the following --

nobody or somebody wrote:Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche


If truth can be disclosed as a species of error in Nietzsche's writings, then it is safe to say that Nietzsche had some wrongdoing against some wrongdoing, and two wrongs (or more; indeed, an entire species of wrongs) do make right.

This can only be the result of extremely foresighted and precise arrangeing of wrongs to have the right outcome if the truth is complex.

If the truth is complex, then the species of errors may produce irrelevant results, in which case the coincidence of truth to the outcome of the species of errors in purely coincidental (zero correlation).

If the truth is simple, then both are equally feasible, and show a brilliant balancing act on the part of Nietzsche. Balancing the quizzical and puzzled writing of wrongs to coincide with the truth at the end. If the truth is complex, then I don't think any mortal is capable of knowing the truth, the entire truth, and nothing but the truth.

Now, consider that nobody actually knows what the true truth is. So calling a series of wrongs producing a true is wrong. There is no test sample, there is no benchmark of truth extant to mankind. So measuring Nietzsche's writings with the stick of how close to the truth the final conclusion of its species of errors falls, is akin to comparing apples to nothing.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#6  Postby Fooloso4 » September 2nd, 2017, 8:03 pm

-1-:

I won't ask why Nietzsche wrote in a puzzling style. It was perhaps a game for him, to present to eternity his ideas that can only be understood if the puzzle gets solved. Sort of an intellectual treasure-hunt for adult Boy Scouts.


He says:

The worst readers.— The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole. (Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Mixed Opinions and Maxims - §137)


-1-:

He knew the risks. He took them. If he gets misinterpreted or misrepresented, the fault in that does not lie with his reader.
Being misinterpreted and misrepresented is an occupational hazard for philosophers.

Question: have there ever been at lest two independent critics of Nietzsche, who came up with an identical interpretation of his works? If yes, there have been, then the code is deemed to have validity -- the code existed, and it has been broken or deciphered.


I think the same question could be asked of Plato, Spinoza, Kant, and many others. There is, for example, a continuous stream of books and papers on Plato being published today.

Textbooks and histories of philosophy tend to obscure the interpretive differences but sites such as SEP and IEP dare more representative, especially when you search for more specific issues within a philosopher’s work.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2668 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#7  Postby -1- » September 3rd, 2017, 12:21 am

Color code of added text to my original question-post in this thread:
Black on white, original text of my original quesion-post
RED, reddish colours, by Fooloso4.
Blue, teal colours by -1-.

Fooloso4 wrote:
[quote-"1"]I won't ask why Nietzsche wrote in a puzzling style. It was perhaps a game for him, to present to eternity his ideas that can only be understood if the puzzle gets solved. Sort of an intellectual treasure-hunt for adult Boy Scouts.


Nietzsche wrote:The worst readers.— The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole. (Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Mixed Opinions and Maxims - §137)


Touche, fooloso4.

-1- wrote:He knew the risks. He took them. If he gets misinterpreted or misrepresented, the fault in that does not lie with his reader.

Fooloso4: Being misinterpreted and misrepresented is an occupational hazard for philosophers.

-1-: Yes, but the rest of the philosophers hadn't even made it into a game, or an alleged game. They spake as straightforwardly as they possibly could, which is not to say much. But there is a difference, in the fact that Nietzsche hid his meaning in purpose, and maybe he did that to camouflage that he had not much to say. I admit this is complete conjuring (I can't remember the right word I should have used instead of "conjuring" ... it means something like conclusion based on not enough evidence) on my part. I never read Nietzsche, so I am feeling my way in the dark here. Whatever I wrote are possibilities, not opinions or arguments.

Originally by -1-: (from previous post) Question: have there ever been at lest two independent critics of Nietzsche, who came up with an identical interpretation of his works? If yes, there have been, then the code is deemed to have validity -- the code existed, and it has been broken or deciphered.

Fooloso4: I think the same question could be asked of Plato, Spinoza, Kant, and many others. There is, for example, a continuous stream of books and papers on Plato being published today.

Textbooks and histories of philosophy tend to obscure the interpretive differences but sites such as SEP and IEP dare more representative, especially when you search for more specific issues within a philosopher’s work.


So what I am saying is that the code by other philosophers and what the posterity says about them are different, at least in form, and also in meaning, proved by the diversity of interpretation, because these original thinkers had ideas that were esoteric, without preceding extant paradigms in the culture that would fit them, so it was hard for them to write about something that hadn't had a language developed around it. Nietzsche, on the other hand, had this difficulty, but to make it even more difficult, he put his otherwise already hard-to-get concepts into a puzzle.

Was this fair of him? Is a stupid question, he did what he wanted to, nobody can fault him for that. It was his prerogative as a writer and individual. But did he do justice to his own ideas?

Let me ask this in a different way, Fooloso4. Do you, personally, feel that you have cracked the code in Nietzsche's writing, so to speak? You care about him, you admire him, you would really like to get inside his skull, so to speak. And I know you find satisfaction in trying to decipher the code. In fact, you revel in the fact that there is a coded information, in the first place, and you enjoy trying to decipher the code. Do you feel, (this is the important question,) that you have deciphered him, or that you will have done so many years after today, in your life?

Is it even important for you to decipher Nietzsche's meaning, or is it enough enjoyment to do the "hunt"?

I tell you what I will retort with after your answer.

1. You have deciphered the code. At least in parts. In that case my answer will be a question, what is it in real, literal human language, that Nietzsche is saying, that hadn't been said before him (by, for instance, Plato). Said to us on the intellectual and learned level of a gifted kid in grade 12. Also gesprochen von Fooloso4.

2. You have not deciphered the code. In this case I will claim that you have been sent on a wild goose chase, and you don't even know it, OR ELSE there is still work to do, and we can agree that we don't know what Nietzsche actually wanted to say.


(It should be obvious by now, that I'm a goal-oriented, convergent-thought-preferring thinker, in fact, I am an INTJ by Myers-Briggs. May I be so bold as to ask for your M-B code, or simply, whether you are also convergent-thought preferring thinker, or the opposite, divergent-thought preferring thinker? Thanks.)
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#8  Postby Greta » September 3rd, 2017, 12:45 am

PublicCola6 wrote:Truth and error are thus held to be interdependent within our only knowable reality, the psyche of man.

Would it be an error for Nietzsche to declare this to be the truth?
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5238 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#9  Postby -1- » September 3rd, 2017, 2:12 am

Greta wrote:
PublicCola6 wrote:Truth and error are thus held to be interdependent within our only knowable reality, the psyche of man.

Would it be an error for Nietzsche to declare this to be the truth?


Right. If you can make a picture dependent (hanging off) of a wall, then you can't at the same time make the wall hang off of the picture.

Interdependence is either alternating dependency, or else non-existent. Continuous and/or simultaneous interdependence in the same aspect is an impossibility.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#10  Postby Fooloso4 » September 3rd, 2017, 10:52 am

-1-:

But there is a difference, in the fact that Nietzsche hid his meaning in purpose …


But Nietzsche is not different. See, for example, the seminal work "Persecution and the Art of Writing", by Leo Strauss and more recently "Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing", by Arthur Melzer. From the publisher’s blurb:

Philosophical esotericism—the practice of communicating one’s unorthodox thoughts “between the lines”—was a common practice until the end of the eighteenth century. The famous Encyclopédie of Diderot, for instance, not only discusses this practice in over twenty different articles, but admits to employing it itself. The history of Western thought contains hundreds of such statements by major philosophers testifying to the use of esoteric writing in their own work or others’. Despite this long and well-documented history, however, esotericism is often dismissed today as a rare occurrence. But by ignoring esotericism, we risk cutting ourselves off from a full understanding of Western philosophical thought.


-1-:

Do you, personally, feel that you have cracked the code in Nietzsche's writing, so to speak?


No. I don’t think there is a final definitive or correct interpretation of any complex and difficult text. Between working through the texts on my own and reading commentaries (I like Laurence Lampert), I think I have a better understanding of him then when I first read him.

And I know you find satisfaction in trying to decipher the code.


That’s true. The activity itself has engendered its own interpretation, what is known as the hermeneutic circle, how the reader stands in relation to the text and the history of reading that text.

Is it even important for you to decipher Nietzsche's meaning, or is it enough enjoyment to do the "hunt"?


I enjoy the activity but do not see it as a hunt. I think the encounter with the text is important, that, on the one hand, he has something of value to say, and, on the other trying to figure that out is itself a way of thinking.

You have deciphered the code. At least in parts. In that case my answer will be a question, what is it in real, literal human language, that Nietzsche is saying, that hadn't been said before him (by, for instance, Plato).


Perspectivism, moral genealogy, revaluation of values, first and second natures, to name a few, although I do not know whether any of this is entirely new. One thing he does, and this is something that all important philosophers have done, is to disrupt and redirect the way people think. It is Nietzsche who brought our attention back to the Greeks. Also gesprochen von Fooloso4.

You have not deciphered the code. In this case I will claim that you have been sent on a wild goose chase, and you don't even know it, OR ELSE there is still work to do, and we can agree that we don't know what Nietzsche actually wanted to say.


Well, I don’t think of it in terms of a code. I think there is value in trying to understand what the philosophers are saying, and what they are saying is something that has to be struggled with and worked out, but the results are always more or less tentative and never provide the whole of what is to be found and cannot follow every path that opens up. This is where the hermeneutic circle comes in. It becomes a question of not only of knowing what he or Plato or others actually wanted to say, but of what we hear them saying, which becomes part of the ongoing history of philosophy. History in this sense is not about the past, not about what has been thought, but how this shapes what is being thought.

May I be so bold as to ask for your M-B code, or simply, whether you are also convergent-thought preferring thinker, or the opposite, divergent-thought preferring thinker?


I don’t know. I would like to think I use both convergent and divergent thinking but I haven't used any kind of measure to determine which I might prefer. I would think that is context contingent (is that divergent thinking?)
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2668 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#11  Postby PublicCola6 » September 3rd, 2017, 11:54 am

Greta wrote:
PublicCola6 wrote:Truth and error are thus held to be interdependent within our only knowable reality, the psyche of man.

Would it be an error for Nietzsche to declare this to be the truth?


The question is what is truth? This is a philosophical question and in his writings Nietzsche discusses it again and again. I think we tend to misunderstand Nietzsche because he was a philosopher who wrote like an artist (as, of course, did Plato).

According to Nietzsche the meaning of truth for us is grounded in our culture and within our historical civilization. Truth for us, he says, has not been the result of an objective philosophical critique. He calls our inner conception of truth a moral prejudice, a "value".

According to Nietzsche there is no such thing as a "thing in itself"; he borrows from the examples of the hard sciences saying that human 'values' do not reside in the nature of things but are imputed (invented) by humans. For Nietzsche 'truth' does not exist as a pure element in the cosmos, it is always tainted by human interpretation or perspective; and there can be no perspective which does not place artificial limits on what is perceived, because it is necessarily specific as opposed to being universal. There is thus no final interpretation. And he calls this new outlook a renovation in western conceptions of truth (a revaluation of values).

Here is a good quote:

"Only by adaptation to living error can the truth, always dead at first, be brought to life."


This is the 'biology of living error'; the movements which insure human survival are partial, shaded, and "natural" as opposed to exemplifying "truth:" especially truth as western civilization understands it. Truth and error are thus united within psyche. To say that something is true is to make a mere assertion. To survive in the world is to be a part of nature - this process of human survival is called error because God is always unproven, the 'thing in itself' is always unknown etc. (The Western world is 'lost' in the cosmos, in nature, because we don't value life itself properly.)

He crosses truth with error and man's need for illusion; they are never to be found apart. He's a pagan in that there are no straight lines between any two things for him.

//

What I tried to say before is that in Nietzsche the personal replaces the metaphysical as we ordinarily understand it. Life is higher than the worship of Gods; what is personal is highest absolute..

The problem with Nietzsche is his consistency. Every bit of Nietzsche seems mixed with every other bit and I can't talk without...

-
-
User avatar
PublicCola6
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 6 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#12  Postby -1- » September 4th, 2017, 1:10 am

Thanks, Fooloso4, for your candid reply.

Thanks, PublicCola6, for disseminating Nietzsche's thinking.

The problem -- not a problem, but the issue I have with Nietzsche personally -- is that his thoughts have permeated the communist-materialist philosophies I have been exposed to in my formative years, and the philosophies I have developed by myself, independently but very likely identically to Nietzsche's thoughts. This I don't claim to be a unique happening at all.

Therefore the issue I am talking about is that I seem to have seamlessly internalized most of what Nietzsche discovered and published; to him and his world (contemporaries) it must have been new, exciting and revolutionary, to me, it's the air that I breathe, inasmuch as there is no doubt in my mind that he is right, furthermore, I don't attach his ideas to him personally, but to some sort of an "ether of truth", that should and ought to be obvious to anyone who thinks.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#13  Postby Burning ghost » September 4th, 2017, 7:54 am

For what its worth I've found, up 'til now in my brief reading of Nietzsche, that he was pointing out a change in the times. By this the main thematic phrase would be "God is dead." I think this is a reflection of the industrial revolution, mechanization of humans and the general supplanting of religion, also in part, "philosophy" (in a limited sense of its general definition), by science.

What we are left with is a certain sense of "spiritual" limbo. The rise of nihilism seems to have expressed the human longing for a greater understanding pulled from under its feet by the "mechanistic" industry of social, scientific and political advancement.

In regards to the OP I really think it is more than man being an error. I understand the idea of this, but the depth of the statement is one we're hard pressed to uncover given its volatile nature (staring into the abyss and all that.)

I imagine we'll see psychoanalysis and philosophy become more and more entwine into a particular body of thought over the coming years.

I read 39. Poets in "thus spake ..." just two days ago. This passage touches on this whole theme of "truth" in the OP:

"Believest thou that he there spake the truth? Why dost thou believe it?

The disciple answered: I believe in Zarathustra. But Zarathustra shook his head and smiled.

Belief doth not sanctify me, said he, least of all the belief in myself.

But granted that someone did say in all seriousness that the poets lie too much: he was right - we do lie too much.

We also know too little, and are bad learners; so obliged to lie.

And which of us poets hath not adulterated his wine? Many a poisonous hotchpotch hath evolved in our cellars; many an indescribable thing hath there been done.

And because we know little, therefore are we pleased from the heart with the poor in spirit, ..."

- Thus Spake Zarathustra, F. Nietzsche, (39 Poets)
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1388 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Truth As A Species Of Error In Nietzsche

Post Number:#14  Postby Fooloso4 » September 4th, 2017, 8:11 am

A few more thoughts on esoteric writing. Nietzsche faces the same problem Plato did: the old gods are dead. Most people need something to believe, something to follow that gives them meaning and direction. Plato developed the myth of an otherworldly realm of eternal Forms, suitable to what he calls “philosophical dogs”, that is, those who are obedient and loyal. This was his public salutary teaching. He kept hidden is atheism and skepticism. This was extremely effective but eventually outlived its usefulness and became harmful and had to be replaced with new gods and new myths. It is often thought that Nietzsche was anti-religious. He was not. He was anti-Christian, anti-otherworldly religion. His god Dionysus, a god of the earth and earthly pleasures and rewards, he called a god who philosophizes. He is not omniscient, he is not the source of absolute, eternal truths. He is a god who desires wisdom, he does not possess it, he pursues it. Nietzsche stresses the importance of a new salutary public teaching. It is no longer necessary to hide one’s atheism, but most people cannot find their own way, and so, what is it that Nietzsche hides? The deadly truth that truth is deadly.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2668 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm


Return to General Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST