The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Esoteric Nihilism?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Self-Lightening wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:03 am Asked of Neumann: "Does not your claim that nihilism is true require a non-arbitrary distinction between truth and falsity?'
I don't have the time to go through your post, and I should examine the thread more carefully, but it did occur to me to focus on this one part. Later I should have time.

It seems to me that those who define nihilism surly do so for a host of reasons. Some necessarily (following specific realizations) and some perhaps expedient (reflective more of moods, desires, rebellion, contrariness). I've not looked into the matter of a 'philosophy of nihilism' as an articulated system, but it does seem that once that is done, and because it is declarative, that it at least in some sense undermines the nihilistic concept.

To be a real 'nihilist' is perhaps to remain silent.

So it seems to me that the core assertion is, very simply put, that things (the manifest world) cannot 'mean' anything. Because it simply is and by doing that *is* it is not really doing anything except that, and then the assertion of those who notice that becomes: "We layer so many different things over the (meaningless) world because it is our predilection, and our sport, to do so."

But once declarative sets of ideas are put forth, it is at that point that silence is ruptured and man is at it all over again. Then the dreamer who is himself a dream is back doing what is inevitable: dreaming.
Self-Lightening
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm

Post by Self-Lightening »

What you say is certainly correct, from a non-nihilist point of view. However, the nihilistic lack of distinction between truth and falsity also encompasses that between silence and declaration! Georg Picht (not a Straussian of any kind) even goes two steps beyond what you say about silence:

"Only he who in nihilism annihilates himself is worthy of the honorary title of nihilist. Whoever blithely lives on and claims to be a nihilist, whoever blithely lives on and proclaims 'God is dead', has, solely by the fact that he's still alive, already made it clear that he's incapable of thinking the thoughts that he proclaims." (Picht, Nietzsche, page 274, my translation.)

Yet, as "the other Harry" puts it:

"Let us recall that 'science' means—as Harry Neumann says—that anything can be changed into anything else. But the 'great change' is death itself. If anything can be changed into anything else, then death can be changed into life. This understanding of science is at the heart of the Hobbesian regime. Resurrection—and eternal life—are no longer illusory realities dealt with by faith, but substantial realities dealt with by science. But science—as Neumann also tells us—displaces faith by abolishing the distinction between illusion and reality." (Harry Victor Jaffa, "Neumann or Nihilism"—featured in Neumann's book.)

Or, Neumann himself:

"[Walter Gramatté's etched self-portrait titled The Great Dread, a.k.a. The Great Anxiety] is a confrontation with one's death, one's nothingness, as the only authentic way of life in a nihilist world. It shows death not as something fearful in the future, something to be avoided or postponed by piety or by medical technology, but as life's nihilist essence now and always. […] The memento mori of The Great Dread is not 'Remember that you will die!' but 'Remember that you are dead!' or 'Remember that you are death!'" (Neumann, Liberalism, pp. 133-34.)

https://www.artsy.net/artwork/walter-gr ... at-anxiety
Self-Lightening
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm

Post by Self-Lightening »

Is there then no non-arbitrary distinction between life and death? In fact, there is: the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness.

"The ultimate truth is the flux of things with the contradiction that it contains within itself.¹ Torn into its opposites and formless, this ultimate truth is not world, either. There is only an unreal world; the real is nothing but pure negativity, time, or, as Nietzsche also calls it: suffering. But pure negativity has, by itself and out of itself, no subsistence:² it is only as it produces show³ out of itself, which however, because it stands in opposition to it, is itself not real either but only a show. […W]ithout show, the eternal flux has no subsistence. It must produce show out of itself. Show therefore belongs to its truth. […] 'In order that there could be any degree of consciousness in the world, an unreal world of error had to—emerge.' (V 2, 11 [162]). In Nietzsche as in all philosophy that is to be taken seriously soever, consciousness is not a phenomenon of psychology. Nietzsche rather employs the concept 'consciousness' here as Kant does, who designates as 'consciousness soever' the horizon in which the truth shows up. Nietzsche thus means to say that through the opposition between the flux of time, which in itself cannot be, and the sphere of show, which however is just only show, the horizon is opened up in the first place in which the truth can get to show up, in which consciousness can emerge." (Picht, Nietzsche, pp. 251-53, my translation.)

¹ The contradiction between past and future.
² Bestand.
³ Schein.
Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by Wizard22 »

Nietzsche's Eternal Return is a direct response and hypothetical solution to Kant's Categorical Imperative, where Kant attempted to solve the issue of a Universal-Moral-Good (in order to justify God). Kant hypothesized that in order for something to be Universally-Morally-Good, it must be for all time, all space, and there can be NO exceptions, NO subjective disagreements, and NO doubt as to the magnanimity of its Goodness. Kant did not have a solution or example of such UMG, but issued it as a necessary conclusion to the philosophical moral dilemmas and challenges of his time.

Nietzsche proposed ER, now understood as a type of thought-experiment, as a response to the UMG—that the Categorical Imperative is not necessarily about an 'objective' moral goodness, but rather a subjective experience. It has to be realized as a profound way-of-life or mentality, rationality, outlook about existence. The ER supposes, that if stuck in an infinite time loop, with the ability to carry memories from one iteration to the next, how ought life be lived as such, no matter the good or bad quality of a situation.

Ideally, you don't want to be stuck in an ER-loop with explosive diarrhea for an hour iteration, and no bathroom in sight...

The ER is the first 'Realization' of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It is an attempt to bring a unique, rare "mindset" and perspective to questioning, examining, and realizing any type of Universal-Moral-Goodness. How one Ought to act, within an ER?
Self-Lightening
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by Self-Lightening »

Wizard22 wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 9:09 amwith the ability to carry memories from one iteration to the next,
No, you just made that up.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by promethean75 »

The gentleman is correct, Wizzz. In N's ER one wouldn't 'carry memories' into each life recurrence, but would still have them again becuz one would live the same experiences which would generate the same memories.

Minor technicality. No biggy.

Also comparing N's intent to K's intent with the categorical imperative business isn't accurate. N's only concern is that one must be prepared to live the whole thing over again, so one better be damn sure about what they wanna do now becuz that's gonna be blueprint.
Self-Lightening
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm

Post by Self-Lightening »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 11:41 pm The gentleman is correct, Wizzz. In N's ER one wouldn't 'carry memories' into each life recurrence, but would still have them again becuz one would live the same experiences which would generate the same memories.

Minor technicality. No biggy.

Also comparing N's intent to K's intent with the categorical imperative business isn't accurate. N's only concern is that one must be prepared to live the whole thing over again, so one better be damn sure about what they wanna do now becuz that's gonna be blueprint.
I disagree on its being a minor technicality and no biggy. And what you say after that may in fact invite further misunderstanding.

It's not as if we now have free will to draw the blueprint which we shall have to follow in all future cycles. It's just that our (justified (true)) belief that we'll never have a different life is itself a factor codetermining our unfree will.
Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by Wizard22 »

You're missing the point though. Eternal Recurrence cannot be 'known' or 'experienced' as such, without differentiation and memories. You cannot 'know' that you're repeating the same existence, whether it's morally good or morally evil. You would not be able to account for suffering or happiness, contentedness or not, without a comparison (to what is not repeated). Thus there is a limit to each Iteration of The Same. There is a hypothetical, Objective Standard. Nietzsche took ER directly from Hindu Reincarnation and Karmic moral existence of soul/spirit.

Let's use two popular postmodern examples in media:

12:01 PM (must watch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVooyfaPYD8

And Groundhog's Day...


These are what most Westerners know of Eternal Recurrence, and since these two major contributions, Hollywood created several others like 'Edge of Tomorrow'. (which had no philosophical content or greater meaning)


This thread takes the position of hoping to attain Eternal Recurrence as a moral, spiritual Ideal. But this is from the perspective of the outside-looking-in, rather than the in-looking-outside. So can you imagine being 'stuck' in such a loop? For most, its reality would be horrifying, for the reason I already stated in response.

The greater philosophical point, though, is how these Iterations of The Same either form and coalesce, or are broken apart. Whether you wish to fall into one, or escape from one. In the Hindu perspective, 'Enlightenment' is a matter of transcending these Iterations. Hence, breaking the repetitions. How does this occur? By "Learning". By overcoming the past. By creating something "New". This is no easy task, though. Which is why the OP and the Nietzschean cult struggles onward, without Learning their mistakes.
Self-Lightening
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm

Post by Self-Lightening »

Wizard22 wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:25 amEternal Recurrence cannot be 'known' or 'experienced' as such, without differentiation and memories. You cannot 'know' that you're repeating the same existence,
Well, to know and to experience are two different things. It's why I referred to knowledge as justified true belief. You may believe in eternal recurrence without being justified in your belief, while at the same time it may still be true. So then you do experience it without knowing it. In fact, your experience would be the same if it was not true (and even if it was justified true belief).

" 'Postulation.' The word invokes those most famous postulations of modern philosophy, Kant's moral postulates of God, freedom and immortality, those famous antinomies of nature that somehow, somewhere, inexplicably but necessarily, we hope, transcend nature and guarantee our unnatural morals. The postulation of the complementary man does not differ in being a postulate—'no one knows that,' says Life when Zarathustra whispers in her ear his passionate affirmation of her, the affirmation of eternal return (Z 3 15, 'The Other Dancing Song')." (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 108.)

whether it's morally good or morally evil. You would not be able to account for suffering or happiness, contentedness or not, without a comparison (to what is not repeated). Thus there is a limit to each Iteration of The Same. There is a hypothetical, Objective Standard. Nietzsche took ER directly from Hindu Reincarnation and Karmic moral existence of soul/spirit.

[…]

The greater philosophical point, though, is how these Iterations of The Same either form and coalesce, or are broken apart. Whether you wish to fall into one, or escape from one. In the Hindu perspective, 'Enlightenment' is a matter of transcending these Iterations. Hence, breaking the repetitions. How does this occur? By "Learning". By overcoming the past. By creating something "New". This is no easy task, though. Which is why the OP and the Nietzschean cult struggles onward, without Learning their mistakes.
Nietzsche did not take ER from Hinduism. Hinduism has no true eternal recurrence, only historical recurrence. In the Nietzschean ER, it's not possible to break the repetitions. In Hinduism, it's possible precisely because they aren't really repetitions, but "rhymings", to use a distinction usually attributed to Mark Twain.

"While Nietzsche's turn from the autonomous herd to the new philosophers is in perfect agreement with his doctrine of the will to power, it seems to be irreconcilable with his doctrine of eternal return: how indeed can the demand for something absolutely new, this intransigent farewell to the whole past, to all 'history' be reconciled with the unbounded Yes to everything that was and is? […] Hitherto suffering and inequality have been taken for granted, as 'given,' as imposed on man. Henceforth, they must be willed." (Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.)

What distinguishes the new philosophers is that they don't take suffering and inequality as "given", but will their recurrence.

This thread takes the position of hoping to attain Eternal Recurrence as a moral, spiritual Ideal. But this is from the perspective of the outside-looking-in, rather than the in-looking-outside. So can you imagine being 'stuck' in such a loop? For most, its reality would be horrifying, for the reason I already stated in response.
Are you sure you've understood my OP? It makes no difference whether one is stuck in a loop or in a universe whose beginning is a Big Bang and whose ending is a Big Chill (the beginning that never began and the ending that never ends, as I've called them). And yes, I "know" what that's like...

The ER is simply, as George A. Morgan quotes him, Nietzsche's "completion of fatalism":

"[F]ate is not something external that compels us against our wills; it partly acts through our willing, and therefore gives no reason for resignation or passivity. What we do is part of the process". (Morgan, What Nietzsche Means, page 305.)

Your soul/spirit will be gone forever with your physical death, before the end of this century surely. And until then, this will be your lot:

" 'Are not all "values" lures that draw out the comedy without bringing it closer to a solution?' Duration 'in vain,' without end or aim, is the most paralyzing idea, particularly when one understands that one is being fooled and yet lacks the power not to be fooled." (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 55.)

All your "values", all that you desire and all that makes you angry, is just fool's gold and fool's lead!
Last edited by Self-Lightening on Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by promethean75 »

"It's not as if we now have free will to draw the blueprint which we shall have to follow in all future cycles."

Of course not. Our experience is more like a paradox here; we know, philosophically, that we have no freewill, and yet cannot not feel like we do. So, one only hopes they will be determined to make the choices that draw a decent blueprint for them. Call it an optimistic fatalism of sorts. In the end everything here amounts to 'i hope i am determined to do things that i will not regret'.

"It's just that our (justified (true)) belief that we'll never have a different life is itself a factor codetermining our unfree will."

'Codetermining'? Hmm. If one happens to believe they may have a different life, would they then have an unfree will? I don't think belief (in either case) qualifies the fact that we have no freewill. That's to say belief (or not) can't be a 'factor' in any of this.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by promethean75 »

"So can you imagine being 'stuck' in such a loop? For most, its reality would be horrifying, for the reason I already stated in response."

It actually wouldn't be. Read my seventh post in this thread.

Repetition can't be horrifying becuz each repetition is experienced as if it weren't a repetition, as if it were the first and only life (we are going to live). So it's precisely by virtue of the fact that there aren't memories 'carried over' that we find each life bearable rather than terrifying.

The best thing going for the ER is the mind-wipe that occurs at the end of each life.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by promethean75 »

In other words, if in life x u find yourself being thrown into a concentration camp, this sucks only becuz it sucks right now, not becuz you've done this a million times already.

See wuddum sayin?
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by promethean75 »

"Hitherto suffering and equality have been taken for granted, as 'given,' as imposed on man. Henceforth, they must be willed."

Then i believe the matter is settled, gentlemen.

We must become more evil.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: The Ideal of the One Who Paves the Way. A second amendment to Laurence Lampert's Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.

Post by promethean75 »

Wait! That says 'equality'. I thought it said 'inequality'. I read it too fast.

So we have to become more good instead or more evil, then?

goddammit
Self-Lightening
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:21 pm

Post by Self-Lightening »

promethean75 wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 3:00 pm Wait! That says 'equality'. I thought it said 'inequality'. I read it too fast.

So we have to become more good instead or more evil, then?

goddammit
Sorry, that was a typo on my part. I corrected it the second time, but hadn't spotted this one. I'll correct it now.
Post Reply