I've considered the ideas of the following:
The Myth of Sisyphus is good too: it tells of two other ways to find meaning: by accepting your conditions fully and embracing what you are forced to do, and resentment - obviously the former is better, however we must recognise that for many people, resentment is a big part of their lives. Just see how they blame everyone else for their problems on social media.
The Fall and The Plague are not so relevant. Camus' anti-Christian strain is juvenile, resentful and ignorant, although his criticism of the notion of afterlife and hypocritical self-righteousness is valid. Don't let tired moralising and his anti-Christian militancy prevent you from extracting his gems.
He is not without his flaws though, particularly his inability to live up to his favoured master morality. His passion is sometimes unconvincing and affected, compensation for his rather pathetic personal life. He also doesn't recognise the value of community though his writings are a desperate attempt to be recognised by others.
His contribution to understanding of morality is his most important contribution. However, that contribution was only toward its negative aspects of slave morality: hypocrisy, grandstanding, dishonesty, resentment, power-seeking, etc. He wrote little of why morality generally was necessary and useful. He had no family and was anti-nationalist and a virtue-signaller through his criticism. He was privileged enough to live well without interacting with others. It is little wonder why we overlooks the positive side of community and morality.
Nietzsche on the Stoics
Nietzsche didn't say much about the Stoics, but he did take a negative view of them, implying that they discarded emotions ignobly and withdrew from Life. That was a strawman though. Nietzsche often straw-manned, over-simplified or simply misinterpreted notions he opposed when promoting his own views. Had Nietzsche paid attention to the Stoic he would have found practical techniques that could actually help people to say 'Yes!' to life despite its struggles and tribulations. Seneca's/Marcus' attitude to fate is similar to Nietzsche's. The Stoics are very complementary to Nietzche and vice-versa, so the following outburst is just disappointing.
In Beyond Good and Evil he said:
Stoics also didn't believe that humans and their societies were indifferent like the natural world, and Stoics should therefore respond with indifference to them. That's a silly strawman. The things Nietzsche mentioned, "valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring" all take place within a society, not the physical world. The Stoics certainly did not say not to value or prefer things - to imply that is ludicrous. Nietzsche did not respect the Stoics because he was too busy pushing his affected unrelenting enthusiasm, which he achieved unconvincingly in his writings, and not at all in his life.
Even Nietzsche believed that the emotion of resentment should be discarded, but he didn't go into detail as to how. The Stoics had a philosophy for doing just this. The Stoics insisted being passionate about what was in your control and discarding negative emotions about what was not in your control.
Nietzsche might say that instead of discarding negative emotions (except resentment) you might turn them into something artistic/aesthetic/agonistic, like a Greek tragedy. That would be nice, I guess, but that requires a lot of reflection and perhaps some or a lot of intellectual work. It could also be self-indulgent and unproductive. A much more practical approach to negative emotions in our society is just to 'let things go' through a simple reminder of what is in your control and what isn't. The Stoic view can be quite beautiful when you reflect on it, something Nietzsche didn't do. The Stoics embraced 'life itself' and saw negative emotions as a divergence from this. They didn't pretend that people could be continually enthusiastic about life like Nietzsche did. Nietzsche is genuinely overwhelmingly passionate in his writing, but like everyone else, his day-to-day interactions were not. He would have used some techniques advocated by the Stoics even if he didn't recognise it.
Interestingly, Sartre thinks emotions - perhaps not all, but many emotions - are actually escapist in nature. (Note: Sartre doesn't necessarily see this as bad, as escapist emotions can be beneficial too). This would certainly explain Nietzsche's exaggerated enthusiasm: it was his means of escaping from a pathetic life.
- Too much focus on consciousness. One could also say this their strength. They don't seem to make the point (or much of it) that if consciousness is X or Y, then so what? They do make good points on reflection and over-thinking versus less reflective experience. A good question to consider: are we really in control of what we do, or do we only reflect on what we do? That question has implications for free will and the extent to which we are influenced and determined by others versus what we rationally 'choose'. Nietzsche parts from the Existentialists with his determinant view of nature.
- Criticism of collective morality based on ignorance. Some of the existentialists are very critical of Christendom in particular, but they fail to analyse the useful function and necessity of collective morality. They rightly point out the hypocrisy of such moralities, which is somewhat useful, yet propose no feasible alternative. Nietzsche's did advocate noble morality, but never lived it. Their criticism does amount to virtue-signalling at times.
*I am not a Christian. I am also not a Socialist. However, that does not mean I cannot cherry-pick some of their ideas.
- Camus
- Sartre - the most pretentious, but there are a few concepts he nails: facticity and transcendence and the tension between them
- Kierkegaard - breathtaking in his integrity. A true Christian and a man after Abraham if there ever was one. You don't have to be a Christian to find value and amazement in Kierkegaard .
- Nietzsche
- Heideigger
Camus
The most accessible of the Existentialists. The Stranger's message of the value of 'life itself' is immensely powerful, and could actually be the most important message of all (I mean that quite literally).The Myth of Sisyphus is good too: it tells of two other ways to find meaning: by accepting your conditions fully and embracing what you are forced to do, and resentment - obviously the former is better, however we must recognise that for many people, resentment is a big part of their lives. Just see how they blame everyone else for their problems on social media.
The Fall and The Plague are not so relevant. Camus' anti-Christian strain is juvenile, resentful and ignorant, although his criticism of the notion of afterlife and hypocritical self-righteousness is valid. Don't let tired moralising and his anti-Christian militancy prevent you from extracting his gems.
Nietzsche
He is one of the best philosophers ever, certainly top 10. Of the modern philosophers, he is perhaps the best.He is not without his flaws though, particularly his inability to live up to his favoured master morality. His passion is sometimes unconvincing and affected, compensation for his rather pathetic personal life. He also doesn't recognise the value of community though his writings are a desperate attempt to be recognised by others.
His contribution to understanding of morality is his most important contribution. However, that contribution was only toward its negative aspects of slave morality: hypocrisy, grandstanding, dishonesty, resentment, power-seeking, etc. He wrote little of why morality generally was necessary and useful. He had no family and was anti-nationalist and a virtue-signaller through his criticism. He was privileged enough to live well without interacting with others. It is little wonder why we overlooks the positive side of community and morality.
Nietzsche on the Stoics
Nietzsche didn't say much about the Stoics, but he did take a negative view of them, implying that they discarded emotions ignobly and withdrew from Life. That was a strawman though. Nietzsche often straw-manned, over-simplified or simply misinterpreted notions he opposed when promoting his own views. Had Nietzsche paid attention to the Stoic he would have found practical techniques that could actually help people to say 'Yes!' to life despite its struggles and tribulations. Seneca's/Marcus' attitude to fate is similar to Nietzsche's. The Stoics are very complementary to Nietzche and vice-versa, so the following outburst is just disappointing.
In Beyond Good and Evil he said:
You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.For the Stoics, living according to nature includes recognising the indifference of the natural world and responding accordingly, not responding with indifference. Huge difference!
Stoics also didn't believe that humans and their societies were indifferent like the natural world, and Stoics should therefore respond with indifference to them. That's a silly strawman. The things Nietzsche mentioned, "valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring" all take place within a society, not the physical world. The Stoics certainly did not say not to value or prefer things - to imply that is ludicrous. Nietzsche did not respect the Stoics because he was too busy pushing his affected unrelenting enthusiasm, which he achieved unconvincingly in his writings, and not at all in his life.
Even Nietzsche believed that the emotion of resentment should be discarded, but he didn't go into detail as to how. The Stoics had a philosophy for doing just this. The Stoics insisted being passionate about what was in your control and discarding negative emotions about what was not in your control.
Nietzsche might say that instead of discarding negative emotions (except resentment) you might turn them into something artistic/aesthetic/agonistic, like a Greek tragedy. That would be nice, I guess, but that requires a lot of reflection and perhaps some or a lot of intellectual work. It could also be self-indulgent and unproductive. A much more practical approach to negative emotions in our society is just to 'let things go' through a simple reminder of what is in your control and what isn't. The Stoic view can be quite beautiful when you reflect on it, something Nietzsche didn't do. The Stoics embraced 'life itself' and saw negative emotions as a divergence from this. They didn't pretend that people could be continually enthusiastic about life like Nietzsche did. Nietzsche is genuinely overwhelmingly passionate in his writing, but like everyone else, his day-to-day interactions were not. He would have used some techniques advocated by the Stoics even if he didn't recognise it.
Interestingly, Sartre thinks emotions - perhaps not all, but many emotions - are actually escapist in nature. (Note: Sartre doesn't necessarily see this as bad, as escapist emotions can be beneficial too). This would certainly explain Nietzsche's exaggerated enthusiasm: it was his means of escaping from a pathetic life.
Weakness of the existentialists
- The 'absurd' meme. This is actually a good thing for the novice thinking about life and existence in their early days, particular for a person who despairs at the thought of death and no afterlife. However, it is later seen as a trite meme among European, mostly French, philosophers who are affecting their writing with melodrama.- Too much focus on consciousness. One could also say this their strength. They don't seem to make the point (or much of it) that if consciousness is X or Y, then so what? They do make good points on reflection and over-thinking versus less reflective experience. A good question to consider: are we really in control of what we do, or do we only reflect on what we do? That question has implications for free will and the extent to which we are influenced and determined by others versus what we rationally 'choose'. Nietzsche parts from the Existentialists with his determinant view of nature.
- Criticism of collective morality based on ignorance. Some of the existentialists are very critical of Christendom in particular, but they fail to analyse the useful function and necessity of collective morality. They rightly point out the hypocrisy of such moralities, which is somewhat useful, yet propose no feasible alternative. Nietzsche's did advocate noble morality, but never lived it. Their criticism does amount to virtue-signalling at times.
*I am not a Christian. I am also not a Socialist. However, that does not mean I cannot cherry-pick some of their ideas.
Comments
Post a Comment