Beyond Good & Evil 4-10

(Originally written July 27, 2007 in Book 16)

Beyond Good & Evil

4.

It is not that the falseness of these judgments constitute an objection to them. Because these judgments, though false, may be necessary to sustaining life as we know it.

"To recognize untruth as a condition of life- that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous way, and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil" (Nietzsche, 202).

5.

What is worst about philosophers is not their childish mistakes, but their lack of honesty in work.

The mystic is much more honest.

6.

The "drive for knowledge" is not the father of philosophy. Some other drive has employed understanding as a means to some end.

The philosopher contains nothing that is impersonal. It is his morality that bears witness to who he is.

7.

Epicurus claimed that all philosophers are actors and skilled of an art he was not for this reason he hated them.

8.

There is a point when every philosopher's conviction comes to the stage.

9.

The pride of philosophers is what leads them to set out rules of nature. They wish to impose their own morality or the world.

Philosophy always creates the world in its own image and cannot do otherwise.

"Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the most spiritual will to power, 'to the creation of the world', to the causa prima" (Nietzsche, 206).

10.

The metaphysician may prefer only a handful of certainty to a whole lot of "beautiful possibilities".

Holding onto a few certainties in lieu of embracing possibilities is nihilism.

A particularly witty aphorism from the 23 year old me.

(Originally written July 26, 2007 in Notebook 18)

Unfinished thoughts

"Unfinished thoughts" as a term is funny to me because is a thought every truly finished? That is to say -

A weak argument for the existence of God

(Originally written July 25, 2007 in Notebook 18)

Diversity

Diversity should be embraced; but, it is not our diversity that defines us as a collective. What is most important in us is our commonality. The very fact that we are so strikingly similar despite our diversity is a testimony to either a supreme mind or an incredibly random experience. One of these absurd, but I'm sure you already know that.

Thoughts on Boredom

(Originally written July 24, 2007 in Notebook 17)

Boredom

Boredom is an enemy we all face. I think that it is our succumbing to boredom to the majority of breakdowns in society. Boredom with a job can cause a man to pity himself and so he sits at home and wastes away physically, mentally and spiritually. Boredom in marriage can lead to affairs. Boredom in life can lead to rash adventurousness that only causes pain. I think boredom could even lead one to suicide. How do we overcome boredom? What can we do?

Well, what is boredom? Is it not simply being unsatisfied with the particular moment we are at? Learning to be satisfied with our situations would lead to less boredom and therefore, less vice. But then again this answer is totally unsatisfactory because it does not provide us with any real proactive resolutions to the problem of boredom.

We honestly must look at every situation we are in as a unique moment in time and an opportunity to do something. That something is our purpose and our meaning which we can only arrive at through prayer and meditation. I truly find that when I am not spending time in prayer or meditation on something, anything, I find myself bored most often.

The problem of boredom is universal in that it can effect any and all. But I believe that the solution is particular and relative to the individual. You must search for yourself to escape boredom.

Allegory of Imago Dei in a fallen world

(Originally written July 24, 2007 in Notebook 17)

When I search the faces of men, women and even children I see two things. IN the honest people I see hatred, selfishness, stupidity, envy and a whole host of vices. In the dishonest folks I see masks that scarcely hide these vices.

Man, above all things, is a selfish brute. All of us are more concerned with ourselves than with anything else. It is written that I should love all men as I love myself, but as I am a man I too share all of these selfish vices. On the one hand I love myself and indulge my selfish wants. On the other I loathe myself for being selfish. Should I love and hate all men as I love and hate myself?

The goodness of man is a myth, a fable, and aspiration that is unachievable by every individual ever born or who will be born. We lie, cheat, kill steal and rape for pleasure. If we do not do these things in act we most assuredly do them in thought.

Our normalcy is cruelty. Our modus operandi is meanness.We are all sharks and dogs. We are even more dangerous when we hunt together. Our selfishness can be combined and we grow in greed exponentially when we are left with no outside intervention. We destroy all that we touch, or we consume it and hoard it to satisfy our insatiable lust.

But is there no good in man? How can we explain altruism at all? If what I wrote was the case then we would never see a single good deed and yet we do see such deeds.

When was the last time you witnessed the goodness of man? Prove me wrong! I beg of you! I want so badly to be wrong, but fear I am correct. When we witness a good deed or the goodness of man we witness no act of man at all. Every act, thought or desire of man is utterly selfish. A good deed is truly selfless. There can be no combination of selfishness and selflessness. There must be one or the other. They cannot coexist.

In times of tragedy such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina we were all witnesses to the goodness of men. We saw at times of great tragedy truly selfless deeds that involved the apex of selflessness: giving one's life for another. There, there is the goodness of man! In times of tragedy a selfless nature can overcome the normal of selfishness.

But how can a truly selfish being forgo all of his instincts. How can he act against his nature? He cannot! It would be like seeing fish flying in the air and birds living in water. It is an impossibility. But nonetheless there are good deeds and goodness.

When a good deed happens, when selflessness overcomes selfishness we are no longer ourselves. It is the very notion of selflessness that allows for good deeds to happen. We lose ourselves, our selfish nature, if only for a moment, and do not ourselves act. Something selfish cannot do something selfless, likewise something selfless cannot do something selfish.

When we become selfless we are not ourselves. We cannot be. Yet we seem to act. We are all fashioned in the image of God. We all have the divine imprint in us somewhere. It is like a beautiful diamond that is recovered from the charred remains of a home.

At one time the home was beautiful and the diamond was placed in the house on display for everyone to see. It shined and reflected light throughout the whole house. But we insulted the builder and keeper of the house, for He is one and the same. The perfect house, the gorgeous furniture, the luxurious landscape, and most precious that diamond he gave us was not enough. We saw it all and were ungrateful. Ingratitude became selfishness and then self-idolatry.

In agner and righteous rage the Builder cursed the house, the landscape and the furniture; but, in mercy he left us our lives and that diamond. The landscape grew wild and overtook the house. Without the keeper we could not maintain the house. Slowly but surely the house turned to ruin, until finally it burned down.

When we scrounged through the rubble frantically searching of our accumulated possessions we happened upon the diamond. Its brilliance remained exactly as it was the day it was given to us. We remembered the Builder, we remember the glory of the House and for that moment we are one with the Builder again. He acts through us for a moment until we return to normalcy.

The image of God in us is untainted. Though our bodies, our minds, and our world has fallen into disrepair the image remains as new as ever. It takes tragedy for us to remember this image, even if it is done so subconsciously. It is out of that image we act in goodness. The image of God overwhelms the corruptness of selfishness and we lose ourselves to God. God's goodness is enacted through men and when we come to our senses we are selfish again.

The goodness of man is a myth. It is another selfish ideal of a selfish creature. Whatever is good must belong to good. Man is most definitely no longer good (though he can be restored! Hallelujah!through an eternal selflessness). When good shines through man it is the goodness of God, not man. So much for the goodness of man.

Organizing my thoughts on Aesthetics

(Originally written July 22, 2007 in Book 25)

Recap of Aesthetic Freestyling & Five Levels of Aesthetic Judgment so far:

I. Beauty

What is Beauty?

- Beauty is the quality of being worthy of aesthetic appreciation
- Ugly is the opposite of beauty; that is, it is the quality of being unworthy of aesthetic appreciation
- Taste is unconcerned with beauty. Taste is the quality of personal preference. Taste and beauty would correlate every time in a purely aesthetic being.
- Beauty is external; it exists in the thing itself. It is objective. Taste is internal; it exists in the viewer of the thing. It is subjective

II. Aesthetic Judgments

- Aesthetic judgments are judgments we make on the basis of whether a thing is beautiful or ugly
- When making aesthetic judgments it is incorrect to incorporate taste into the equation. If we confuse taste and beauty we are left with problematic philosophy
- When making aesthetic judgments we go through a process to make mature aesthetic judgments. There are five stages:
1. Surface judgment: Infancy
2. Sensory judgment: Childhood
3. Historical judgment: Adolescence
4. Introspective Judgment: Adulthood
5. Mystic Artist Judgment: Full Maturity

III. Aesthetic and Non-Aesthetic Objects

An aesthetic object is differentiated from a non-aesthetic object by its primary function

A non-aesthetic object is any object that's primary function that is not the primary function of an aesthetic object

An aesthetic object is an art object

The primary function of an aesthetic object is to communicate something

IV. Art

What is art?

Art is anything that is created to relay a thought, feeling, emotion, story, etc. that does not use ordinary language

Art is itself a universal language.

Perceived problem: what about literature? Literature uses ordinary language, but literature is nonetheless art. Solution: in creating art the author transforms ordinary language into the universal language of art. The question here is how?

V. Is art as a whole good or evil?

Five Levels of Aesthetic Judgments, What is Beauty, What is Art

(Originally written July 21, 2007 in Book 25)

OK, making a mature aesthetic judgment involves a number of steps

(Infancy)

1) Surface judgment: at best a superficial judgment, at worst, not an aesthetic judgment at all. We can all this an aesthetic lust feeling.

(Childhood)

2) Sensory judgment: an aesthetic judgment based on the perceivable qualities of the thing. This judgment takes a look at the thing as a whole and as a composite of parts. It is solely reliant on judging the form of the thing.

(Adolescence)

3) Historical judgment: an aesthetic judgment that reaches beyond aesthetic considerations. It takes into account the background and circumstances of the thing and the creator of the thing.

(Maturity)

4) Introspective judgment: an aesthetic judgment that takes into consideration the effect that the thing has on its viewer(s). What emotions or feelings or memories does the thing arouse?

(Full Maturity)

5) Mystic Artistic Judgment: an aesthetic judgment that involves the union of the thing and the viewer. This is how we get lost in the thing and how we can become one with it. This can happen with movies, music, art, landscape and whatever is beautiful.

Each stage of aesthetic judgment involves a deeper understanding of the beauty of the thing and the nature of beauty itself. When we make a stage three aesthetic judgment we draw on stages one and two. When we make a stage five aesthetic judgment we draw on the other four stages. Sometimes the process of moving from stage one to stage five is a long process; but, at other times it moves quickly and we are unaware of the process at all, i.e. when we are completely overcome in an instance by a sunset.

When making a surface aesthetic judgment (stage 1) there are no degrees of variance. It is a snap judgment involving no further thought. It is simply our first impression. Once we begin to think on it more closely we move into stage 2.

Likewise the Mystic Artist judgment (stage 5) has no degrees. We can either be one with the thing or we can be separate. However there are variances when it comes to the length of the union. Some unions may last a single instance while others may have a long duration.

But the middle stages can vary by degree. We can have varying appreciations of the form of a thing; we can have varying understanding of a thing's history; and, we can pursue introspection at various levels. Thus, there can be varying degrees within the middle three levels of aesthetic judgment.

Now, I believe we have come to a satisfactory conclusion on how one makes aesthetic judgments. All people are capable of doing so because we are inherently aesthetic creatures. Some are more in tune with aesthetic sensibilities than others. Some are so because of a natural aptitude. My brother and D__ are both incredible artists. They have a natural inclination for artistry and artistic appreciation that I do not possess. But, luckily for myself and for others who are not so aesthetically inclined we can pursue this and grow to have an aesthetic outlook on life.

Since we have come to a conclusion on how we make aesthetic judgments, the next question to ask is this: is beauty contains within the thing itself or is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

The fact that some cultures esteem one thing as beautiful and other cultures do not is undeniable. Also, individual persons may find something beautiful that others find ugly. But does this demand that beauty be subjective or that judgments on beauty are purely subjective?

I think we can come to a conclusion on this matter by retiring to the stages of aesthetic judgment. Many people operate aesthetically on the first level, the surface level. They look at a thing and they exclaim, "this is beautiful" and then they walk away. Next they look at a thing and say, "this is ugly" and again walk away. Conversely, another person can glance at these two things and come to the exact opposite conclusion. Rather than conceding to a purely subjective view of beauty based out this account I would venture to suggest that these judgments only prove that people do not take aesthetic considerations seriously enough.

Imagine for a moment if these two people went through the stages of aesthetic judgment and searched for beauty in the surface, the form, the history and introspectively. I truly believe they would come to a common view that this thing is in fact beautiful. But what if they don't?

Can an aesthetic judgment, a mature, well-thought aesthetic judgment be wrong? Think for a moment if a person who pondered on the Mona Lisa and came to the conclusion that this was in fact, ugly. In order to achieve level five of aesthetic judgments, the mystical union between thing and viewer one must appreciate the beauty of thing thing. Obviously this man has not achieved this stage because he has judged it as ugly. But does this mean his judgment is wrong?

On a purely intellectual level I would say that this man is most definitely wrong. The form of the Mona Lisa is enough to show that this thing is a beautiful ting. But, that a thing is beautiful does not necessitate that a person must enjoy it. In fact, if given a chance to choose between the Mona Lisa and the Temptation of St. Anthony to be sitting on my mantle I would choose Dali. Does this mean that I see that the Dali is more beautiful than the DaVinci? No, all it states is that my taste, my preference is more abstract.

The problem of objective beauty comes, not from a philosophy of art situation, but from a confusion of the concepts of taste and beauty.

The concept of beauty is the notion that something is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. if beauty exists than it is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. A thing is said to be beautiful if and only if it is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. The opposite of beauty is ugly. The concept of ugly is the idea that something is unworthy of aesthetic appreciation. In order to be judged aesthetically a thing must be an aesthetic object, which we will come to later.

Now, the concept of taste is the notion of personal preferences. That someone would prefer X to Y is a judgment of taste, not a judgment of beauty. Aesthetic judgments must be judgments of beauty (or ugly) and nothing else. As soon as we introduce personal preference into the equation we muddle and confuse the whole process.

The distinction between taste and beauty is not an arbitrary one. It explains why beautiful things can be disliked. If we were purely aesthetic creatures there would be no distinction. If we were purely aesthetic creatures we would always like that which is beautiful and dislike what is ugly. But as it stands we are composite creatures with aesthetic, moral, intellectual, social and other natures meshed into one. Therefore we do not always like that which is beautiful and dislike that which is ugly and thus, we have the concept of last.

The Passion of Christ or Schindler's List are aesthetically beautiful movies. The imagery in both is quite extraordinary. Some people may dislike the gruesomeness of the Passion (and others may not agree with its historicity, morals, etc). Schindler's List is also a hauntingly beautiful movie and though some may dislike the idea of making movies about the holocaust it does not detract from its aesthetic quality. Personally, I recognize the beauty of these films but am not in any rush to add them to my DVD collection. I have an appreciation for them aesthetically, but my personal preference is not to watch them again. Search within yourself and I'm sure you will find a situation that highlights a  tension between the sense of beauty and your own personal preferences.

Beauty is entailed in the thing itself. When a thing is truly beautiful then one can go through the stages of aesthetic judgment and become one with the thing. Beauty as such is objective and untainted by subjectivity.

Taste on the other hand is wholly and utterly subjective. It is individual, though it may arise out of socio-political traditions. Whether one likes a thing or dislikes a thing has no bearing on the beauty of a thing. I dislike the beach, but my dislike of it cannot detract from its beauty whatsoever.

When we confuse judgments of beauty and judgments of taste we introduce a problem that need not exist: that of the objectivity of beauty. This problem arises out of the fact that our own tastes can stand as a barrier to appreciating what is beautiful. Our own personal preferences and prejudices may hinder us from actually making any type of aesthetic judgment.

Now I feel confident in stating that we have come to a satisfactory conclusion on how one judges beauty and whether beauty is subjective or objective. What next? Where do we head from here? Next we will consider what is an aesthetic object?

An aesthetic object is one that we can pass an aesthetic judgment on. We are, among other things, aesthetic creatures. As such, our aesthetic natures can lead us to judge everything aesthetically.

Aesthetic judgments take time and effort. Making an aesthetic judgment about something specifically created as a piece of art takes less effort to begin the process of making an aesthetic judgment, though it takes more to complete it. The pen I am writing with however was created to be a pen. If I were to take on the task of judging it aesthetically it would take a lot of straining to start the process though I would finish rather quickly after starting.

If the pen are lying on the table and I saw it I would make my surface judgment. It is plain, neither ugly nor beautiful. it is somewhere intermediate. Moving past the surface level I can admire the complex combination of its straightness and roundness. The pen is very bright white and has black ends. The color combination is very good, simple and sleek. With effort and work I have begun to make an a second level aesthetic judgment.

Now if I were so inclined I could continue up the stages until I could possibly even reach the mystical artistic union and become one with the pen. However, to spare you from reading that and from me wasting time on it, let it suffice that things that are not intentional aesthetic objects can be made so by aesthetic beings. This process may be difficult, tiresome and maybe even (as is the case here) pointless. But there are cases when a thing is intended to be a non-aesthetic object with aesthetic qualities.

We could stick with the pen analogy here as well. For instance, rather than using a Bic round stic I could be writing with a 14K gold pen or some other ornate writing utensil. In this case the thing would be a functional, non-aesthetic object that incorporates aesthetic qualities and thus, the aesthetic judgment process would not be so futile on a non-aesthetic object. Luxury cars, fine china, silverware and especially architecture first this category well.

Thus, we have a range of things to be judged aesthetically. At the lowest level we have non-aesthetic objects, which we must strain ourselves to judge aesthetically. Higher than this we have non-aesthetic objects with aesthetic qualities. These things have primary purposes and functions that are outside the realm of art but are nonetheless artistic. These objects prove easier to judge aesthetically and allow for truly mature aesthetic judgments. At the highest level we have aesthetic objects, or otherwise, art.

At this point we must ask ourselves a fundamental question of aesthetics: what is art? In some cases it is obvious that a thing is an art object, i.e. the Mona Lisa. In other cases it is obvious that a thing is not an art object, i.e. my Bic pen. Unfortunately, the answer to this question does not always involve clear cut cases of art and non-art.

What differentiates non-aesthetic objects from aesthetic objects? That is, what differentiates art from non-art? First and foremost I believe that it is purpose and meaning that distinguishes art from non-art. It is true that we can make aesthetic judgments about non-aesthetic objects, especially those who possess some aesthetic qualities. But why should we limit art by purpose? What keeps us from stating that a Rolls Royce is an art object?

A Rolls Royce is undeniably a gorgeous automobile. It is fashionable, stylish, crafted with perfection, but it is most importantly and most primarily, an automobile. The purpose of an automobile is to be driven. What its aesthetic features are like are secondary. A Rolls Royce is driven in a similar fashion to a Ford Escort. While these two automobiles differ tremendously in appearance and vehicular performance they share their primary function: to be driven.

What though of museums and collectors which house luxury cars like Rolls Royces an display them as art? How a thing is used does not change its primary function. If I were so inclined or ignorant to the primary function of a fork I could use it to comb my hair. But my choice to comb my hair with a fork does not change that fork's primary function as an eating utensil.

Art is distinguished from all other things by its primary function. Other things can be used as art objects but they are nonetheless non-aesthetic objects. How we choose to use a thing does not change that thing's primary function or purpose.

So, the next question would be what is the primary purpose or function of art? Because art is so diverse and widespread to include literature to cinema to painting to sculpture to music defining a primary function of art as a whole is difficult. In order to define art we must find its primary purpose. In order to be general enough to incorporate all genres of art we cannot focus on how art is perceived or created. The definition of art can only be ascertained by discerning its primary function.

Art, first and foremost, is a way of saying something. It si tool of relating some intended message. As such, art is a language. The primary purpose of art is that it is a way for the artist to communicate something that is inside of himself to an audience. This audience can be as massive as the entire world or as small as only the artist himself. Who the audience is not essential. What matters is is that the artist has sought to communicate something and rather than using ordinary language he has chosen to use a universal language: art.

Aesthetic Free-styling

(Originally written July 25, 2007 in Book 25)

There is not enough space to fit notes on Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil here and I find myself without another notebook on my person! So, I'm just going to freestyle philosophize and write what comes to mind.

Book idea: Searching for a Christian Aesthetic Theory

How does a Christian view beauty? What things are beautiful? Must a thing be morally good to be beautiful? Can a thing be morally corrupt and still be beautiful? What is art? What is intrinsically Christian art? Is there a difference between explicit and implicit Christian art?

How to tackle this problem:

Define art or beauty first?
Can beauty contain moral ugliness?

Defining an aesthetic theory is difficult. In fact, formulating any theory is painstaking and a hard task. This task is made even more complex when one must consider a higher power in addition. It is hubris to believe that any single man can penetrate into the very depths of God and extract the perfect and complete view of the Almighty.

Any aesthetic theory is just that, a theory. Theories are interpretations of facts and truths and maxims. The soundness of a theory rests on its internal balance and coherence and its derivation from verifiable facts and truths. A theory that is internally tight and irrefutable based on existence of polk-a-dotted elephants is not sound, but neither is an internally suspect theory based on an undeniable fact of existence. Any good theory must be internally consistent and externally justifiable. This proves to be a daunting task.

In discussing an aesthetic theory I believe that one must begin with the concept of beauty. Is beauty a relative term or does it have an objective root? At first glance one can easily maintain that beauty is relative to the culture if not to the individual. But does this mean that the concept of beauty is subjective?

Personally, I feel that since nearly every culture has some concept of beauty and ugly that the concept is a universal one. If it was not a universal concept then we could not even make the conjecture that beauty is culturally relative because as soon as we assert this we demand that each culture has a concept of beauty. The assertion that beauty is a relative concept linked to cultures or individuals is a self-defeating assertion. But given that beauty is a universal concept why do individuals and cultures differ on what is a beautiful thing?

Beauty in an abstract way is the idea that something is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. Ugliness in an abstract understanding is that the idea that something is worthy of aesthetic denigration. How things are judge to be beautiful or ugly takes place on a number of levels.

The surface love and first glance of beauty is a superficial judgment. In looking at any thing we make a judgment on whether it is beautiful, ugly or somewhere in between. A person, an art object, a landscape or whatever can be looked at as beautiful or ugly. But this superficial judgment is at worst, not an aesthetic judgment at all, or at best, an immature aesthetic judgment. True, profound aesthetic judgments take time because they demand examination of the thing (extrospection) and examination of the self (introspection) and examination of the two together.

In thinking this I do not wish to expound some intellectual elitism. I am not saying that one must be a scholar to make aesthetic judgments. This is not the case at all. I am only stating that one must thoroughly examine the thing, one's self and the effect of that thing on one's self to make a mature aesthetic judgment.

While this surface level judgment is wholly inadequate, it is a necessary first step. If we never experience the thing initially we cannot think on it. The superficial judgment is superficial only if one stops there. If one continues on it is merely the first step in making a mature aesthetic judgment.

After stepping into the process of making an aesthetic judgment one must thoroughly examine the thing to be judged. The beauty of a thing is to be judged on its aesthetic qualities: clarity, complexity, color, form, texture, sound, sight, taste and basically every feature one can perceive with one's senses.

These aesthetic qualities, that is those qualities that can be perceived through the senses, form an impression on us. That is to say, the object effects us. The more we observe the object the more it can effect us. At first glance a painting can look like a single entity. Then as we look closer we can see shadows that we were not overtly conscience of at first. Then we may notice the crispness of the lines, the blending of the colors, the delicacy of the brush stroke, etc., etc. After observing these we can make a better aesthetic judgment than before.

Our first impressions of a thing that cause the superficial aesthetic judgment are like judgments made by infants or toddlers. For them there is no need to penetrate deeper. But for those who seek the beauty of a thing they must penetrate deeper. The second level is the aesthetic qualities of sensibility. This judgment is like a child's judgment. We can say a thing is beautiful because we like the way it was made and because it looks 'pretty'.

But, to make a mature aesthetic judgment we must go further. Here we step out of the aesthetic qualities into the historicity of the thing. If it is an art object we can study the process and history of the object and its creator to understand the beauty of a thing deeper. Take for instance one of Beethoven's later symphonies.

A first impression of one of them may strike awe in us and we can say, "that is very pretty". Then we can hear it again and understand how melody, harmony, counter melody, dissonance and resolution work together to form the "prettiness" of the symphony. But our understanding of its beauty is heightened when we learn of the backstory of the symphony, what it was written for and what it is about. Our sense of its beauty is heightened even further when we realize Beethoven's own story and how he wrote it when he was nearly deaf. Once understanding these things we can make a more acute aesthetic judgment by using non-aesthetic knowledge.

If the superficial judgment is like an infantile judgment and the judgment based on sense is a childlike judgment, then this judgment is like that of a young adult. As people mature their level of understanding deepens and so it is with aesthetic judgments. As we mature in our knowledge of a thing we can make a more mature aesthetic judgment on a thing.

The next step does not directly involve the thing itself. It is a step from extrospection to introspection. How does the thing effect us? We think introspectively (or at least one capable of doing so) at each level. But here we do so purposefully. Shakespeare's sonnet has touched my very soul. The Dali painting made me think about how I see the world, etc., etc. This level is higher than viewing the thing itself because it takes deeper levels of maturity to really look inside one's self. The level of maturity and determination of truly examining one's self will determine the maturity of the aesthetic judgment at this juncture.

After this stage (which we shall call the adulthood of aesthetic judgment) there is the union of object and self. This is a mystical union of world and I. It is an achieving of oneness that makes both art and artist great. If one cannot achieve this level than maybe the art object is not as aesthetically beautiful as we suppose or the viewer is not as aesthetically in tune as he/she ought to be. In the late 90's teenage girls achieved this oneness with pop music sensations like Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears. The fact that this was achieved  makes them aesthetically noteworthy, but only if we could all exist as young, teen females.

Outta Time...

The Gay Science (C)

(Originally written July 20, 2007 in Book 25)

The Gay Science (continued)

381: On the question of being understandable

Some authors wish to be understood; others do not. The nobler author selects his audience and writes so his choice can understand and others cannot.

Nietzsche claims that he tackles deep problems like taking a cold bath: quickly in and quickly out. Those who say that one does not get deep enough that way are superstitious and speak without experience.

It is scary to learn we know too little but this is better than knowing too much.

The Gay Science (B)

(Originally written July 17, 2007 in Book 25)

The Gay Science (continued)

292: To the preachers of morals

Moral preachers are inverse alchemists. They turn gold into lead. Morality preachers devalue what is valuable and praise what is not praiseworthy.

312: My Dog

Nietzsche named his pain, "dog". It is faithful, obtrusive and shameless like all dogs and he scolds it like others do with dogs, servants and wives.

316: Prophetic man

Prophetic men suffer a great deal and no one realizes it. It is the pain that makes them prophetic.

322: Parable

The most profound thinkers do not think cyclicly. They are lead into the chaos and labyrinth of existence.

325: What belongs to greatness

No one will attain anything great without possessing the strength and will to inflict great suffering. The ability to suffer is not greatness.

327: Taking seriously

The majority of people have difficulty in starting their intellect. The beast "man" loses his charm when he thinks well: he takes it seriously. But it is only prejudice that leads men to believe that science cannot come out of gait and laughter.

332: The bad hour

Every philosopher has had a bad hour of thought when he asks himself: What do you matter?

Mixed Opinions and Maxims B

(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)

Mixed Opinions and Maxims (continued)

157: Sharpest Criticism

We criticize those who picture our ideal the sharpest

168: Praise of Aphorisms

Aphorisms never lose their savor and are unaffected by time

200: Original

Truly original minds do not see things that are new, but see what is old as new. Those who see the new first normally do so by accident

201 Philosopher's Error

The philosopher believes the value of his work lies in the whole structure, but in reality it is valuable because it can be torn down and rebuilt better. A philosophy is most valuable as building material.

206: Why scholars are nobler than artists

Science requires a sobriety and a simplicity that poetry does not. The scholar must willingly submit to a loss of posthumous fame and therefore is nobler than a poet.

251: In parting

How a soul moves away from another, not how two come together, show how much they belong together.

298: Virtue has not been invented by the Germans

The nobility and lack of envy of Goethe, the noble hermit resignation of Beethoven, the charm and grace of Mozart's heart, the manliness of Handel, and confidence and transfigurement of inner life of Bach do not find it necessary to renounce splendor and success. If these are not German qualities, "it at least shows for what Germans should strive and what they can attain" (157).

309: Siding against oneself

Siding against oneself is unforgivable by our adherents because it is rejection of their love.

325: Opinions

People are nothing without general convictions and public opinions. But the exceptional person rises above this and opinions cease to become public.

341: Loving the monster

Monsters love monsters as apprentices cannot

346: Being Misunderstood

When one is misunderstood completely he must realize it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. If he does not realize this he will waste all of his energy on defending himself.

404: How duty acquires splendor

"The means for changing your iron duty to gold in everyone's eyes is this: always keep a little more than you promise" (158).

405: Prayer to man

Forgive us our virtues, thus one should pray to man.

408: The journey to Hades

I have spoken to the dead. 8 Men do I always keep my eyes upon: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. These men, though dead appear to me lusting for life. Eternal aliveness is what counts.

The Gay Science (A)

(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)

The Gay Science (1882)

51: Sense of truth

Skepticism in which one can reply, 'let's try it' is good; but, questions that do not permit experiments stretch beyond the sense of truth and are therefore, forfeit.

108: New Struggles

God is dead, but there may be caves in which his shadow will be shown for thousands of years. We must vanquish his shadow as well.

121: Life no argument

We exist in a world we have fixed up to exist in: a world of bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content. But these are all assumptions, articles of faith which we could not endure without. But these assumptions are unproved. "Life is no argument, the conditions of life could include error"(171).

129: The conditions of God

Luther said, "God cannot exist without a wise man" and was right. But God can exist even less without unwise men; that Luther did not say.

130: A dangerous resolve

"The Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad" (172).

142: Incense

Buddha said not to flatter your benefactor. If this were said in Church it would clear the air of anything Christian.

163: After a great victory

The best part of victory is that it rids the victor of the fear of defeat.

173: Being deep and appearing deep

Those who are deep strive for clarity; those who wish to appear deep strive for obscurity

200: Laughter

Laughter means: being schadenfreude (a mischievous delight in the discomfort of another) but with a good conscience.

205: Need

"A need is considered the cause of the origin: in truth, it is often merely an effect of what did originate" (172).

228: Against Mediators

Mediators between two resolute thinkers are mediocre. They see things as similar because of weak eyes.

231: Thorough

"Those slow in knowledge suppose that slowness belongs to knowledge" (173).

232: Dreams

Dreams are either interesting or nonexistent. We should be awake the same way: interesting or not at all.

258: Those who deny chance

No victor believes in chance

273: Whom do you call bad?

Those who always want to put to shame.

274: What do you consider most humane?

To spare someone shame

275: What is the seal of attained freedom?

No longer being ashamed in front of oneself.

The Dawn

(Originally written July 17, 2006 in Book 25)

The Dawn (1881)

1. Rationality ex post facto

Whatever lives long is gradually saturated with reason that its irrational origins become improbable. Nearly every accurate history of some thing's origin is paradoxical.

18: The morality of voluntary suffering

The enjoyment of cruelty is the supreme enjoyment for men that live in societies with the strictest morals.

Voluntary suffering has crept into society as an idea that has value and makes sense.

These ideas have led to the mistrust of happiness and well-being.

The concept of the "most moral man" contains the virtue of frequent suffering, deprivation, a hard way of life and cruel self-mortification.

Men who seek to stir up the morals in men must possess madness and voluntary torture to engender faith.

Do not let us think that this idea has ceased in our own times. The very path to free thinking is paved with martyrs who chose to sacrifice themselves for their own god: intellectual freedom.

112: On the natural history of duty and right

"Our duties are the rights others have against us" (168).

We do our duty by justifying the idea of our power on the basis of which we have been treated: we give back in the same measure that has been given to us.

Pride demands us to do our duty, we regain personal sovereignty through completion of duty.

My rights are the power which others have conceded to me.

They concede rights to me out of prudence and fear and caution.

Rights originate as recognized and guaranteed degrees of power. When degrees of power shift, rights die and new ones are born.

"The right of others is the concession of our feeling of power to the feeling of power among these others" (169-70)

231: Of German Virtue

Pomp and splendor led people to evaluate the simple as the bad and the simple man as the bad man. This is moral arrogance.

232: From a disputation

"A: My friend you have talked yourself horse.
B: Then I stand refuted. Let us not discuss the matter any further" (170).

236: Punishment

Punishment, when it neither cleanses nor atones the criminal, pollutes worse than crime.

The Wanderer and His Shadow

(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)

The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880)

33: Elements of revenge

The word revenge is said too quickly. Men search for a single root and meaning to the word. But words are pockets into which many things have been put. Thus revenge is something very composite.

Revenge (in some cases) is merely an act of self preservation. When a thing harms us we must harm it back. We act without any wish to do harm but only to get away.

A second type of revenge involves time. We think no longer on ourselves but focus on our enemy. In this type of revenge further harm to us is forgotten to the point we almost always harm ourselves more in the act of revenge. This type of revenge is restoration. But in reality only one loss, the loss of honor can actually be restored.

Fear brings about self-preservation revenge. A lack of fear brings about restoration revenge.

One cannot take revenge against those he despises because if one he despises injures him he cannot have his honor injured by him. Those with honor are not concerned with those they see as unhonorably. Those he despises can neither accord him honor nor take it away.

"Everyone will revenge himself unless he is without honor or full of contempt or full of love for the person who has harmed and insulted him" (Nietzsche, 162).

Judicial punishment restores both private honor and the honor of society; thus, punishment is revenge.

Punishment despises to prevent further damage and to deter.

194: Dreams

On rare occasions where dreams achieve perfection they become symbolic chains of imagery in narrative poetic language. "We use up too much artistry in our dreams - and therefore often are impoverished during the day" (Nietzsche, 163).

202: Tourists

Tourists are stupid; they climb mountains like animals because one has forgotten to tell them that there are beautiful views on the way to the top.

203: Too much and too little

"All men now live through too much and think through too little" (Nietzsche, 163).

204: End and goal

Not every end is the goal.

208: How to have all men against you

"If anyone dared to say now, 'whoever is not for me, is against me', he would immediately have all men against him'. This does our time honor." (163). --> Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Bush policy on terror.

249: Positive and Negative

"This thinker needs nobody to refute him: for that he suffices himself" (163)

Arrogant twit!

263: Way to equality

Exhaustion is the shortest way to equality and fraternity. Liberty is added eventually by sleep.

297: Not to wish to see too soon

One must surrender to the experience in order to acquire wisdom.

298: From the practice of wise men

To become wise one must wish to have certain experiences and run into the gaping jaws of them. Many wise men have been swallowed.

301: A testimony of love

To love someone is not to reflect on them too thoroughly

302: How one tries to improve bad arguments

Many men try to put personality into bad arguments to straighten them out like a man who throws a bowling ball and then makes gestures to straighten it.

That is funny, this is one of my favorites.

307: When taking leave is needed

You must take time away from what you would know, only after leaving can you truly know it.

317: Opinions and Fish

Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, if one has their own fish pond. One must go fishing and have some luck. Others are satisfied with fossils and have convictions in their heads.

322: Death

Death could make life sweet with levity. But apothecary souls have made it poison that makes all of life repulsive.

323: Remorse

Never give way to remorse; giving way to remorse adds a second stupidity to a first. "If you have done harm, see how you can do a good. If you are punished... bear the punishment with the feeling you are doing good - by deterring others from falling prey to the same folly. Every evildoer who is punished may feel that he is a benefactor of humanity" (165).

326: Don't touch!

Some people confuse problems worse with their meddling. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should not hit it at all.

333: Dying for the "truth"

We should not be burnt for our opinions because we are unsure of them. We should change our opinions.

Mixed Opinions and Maxims A

(Originally written July 6, 2007 in Book 25)

Mixed Opinions and Maxims (1879)
- Nietzsche

89: Mores and their victim

Mores come from 2 places
1) The notion that society is more valuable than the individual
2) Enduring advantage is preferable to ephemeral advantage

The betterment of society long-term is more important than any individual's betterment. This maxim holds true even to the sacrifice of an individual's life.

This attitude only arises in those persons who are not victims of the mores.

Morality: "The feeling for the whole quintessence of mores under which one lives and has been brought up - brought up not as an individual but as a member of a whole, as a digit of a majority" (155).

130: Reader's bad manners

Comment: [Type it into the computer]
A bitter pill to swallow, eh Nietzsche?

137: The worst readers

Those who plunder the book to use a few things, confuse the rest and "blaspheme the whole"

145: Value of honest books

"Honest books make the reader honest" (155).

Notes on Human, all too human

(Originally written July 6, 2007 in Book 25)

Basic Writings of Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
translated: Walter Kaufmann
The Modern Library Classics, New York, 2000

Seventy-Five Aphorisms
From Five Volumes

Human, All too Human (1878)

45.

The concept of good and evil as a dual prehistory
1. In the soul of ruling tribes and castes
2. In the soul of the oppressed, the powerless

Those who are powerful enough to repay good for good and evil for evil are good. The weak are bad.

The enemy is not evil because he can repay good for good or evil for evil.

"Trojan and Greek are both good in Homer. Not he that does us harm but he that is contemptible is considered bad" (147).

Goodness is inherited; a bad man cannot grow out of good soil.

Those who are powerless are bad and all the seemingly "good" things they do are refined malice.

"Our current morality has grown on the soil of the ruling tribes and castes" (148).

92.

Origin of justice

Justice originates among those who are approximately equal in power.

The foundational character of justice is trade.

Revenge and gratitude also grow out of the foundation of trade.

Justice derives from concerns of self-persecution, from egoism.

Justice is so esteemed because it has been forgotten that its roots are egoistic. "A poet might say that God made forgetfulness the guard he placed at the threshold of human dignity" (149).

96.

Mores and Moral

"Being moral or ethical means obeying ancient established law or custom. Whether one submits to it with difficulty or gladly, that is immaterial, it is enough that one does it" (149).

Evil is immoral. To be evil is to be immoral. Being evil is resisting tradition, no matter how reasonable or stupid that tradition is.

This tradition however arose with no regard to good and evil.

Tradition arose to preserve a community, a people. "Every superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident involves a tradition that it is moral to follow; for detaching oneself from it is dangerous, even more dangerous for the community than for the individual (because the deity punishes the community - and the individual only indirectly - for the sacrilege and the violation of divine privileges)" (150).

All traditions become more venerable the more time has passed.

136

On Christian Asceticism and Holiness

The nature of asceticism and holiness is complicated.

The marvelors of ascetics and holy men do not wish for science to attempt to explain this phenomena. Much to their fancy when science has attempted it has failed. They revel in the maxim "the unexplained should by all means be unexplainable" (150).

137

Asceticism arises out of man's lust to rule. When they cannot rule others they oppress their own nature, becoming ascetic.

Asceticism is actually a high degree of vanity. For the ascetic is proud of being scorned.

"In every ascetic morality man adores part of Himself as God and to that and needs to diabolicize the rest" (152).

142

Asceticism is merely the religious form that certain "bad" characteristics of man manifests itself.

143

The holy man is what he makes himself appear to be to unholy men. It is this false distinction that leads normal men to view the holy men as superhuman.

"He was not an especially good person, even less an especially wise person; but, he signified something that exceeded all human measure of goodness and wisdom" (153).

The signification of symbol that the holy man has come to represent has become so powerful that even in the age where no one believes in God anymore some (i.e. Schopenhauer) still believe in the Holy man.

144

Jesus Christ, the father of Christianity felt himself the inborn son of God and thus felt himself without sin. This illusion should not be judged too harshly because the complete freedom from sin is a virtuous goal which "is now available to everybody by means of science!" (154).

The Birth of Tragedy Section 20-25

(Originally written July 5, 2007 in Book 15)

The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche

Section 20

The Journalist has replaced the professor in matters of culture.

The culture fears art because it is in a feeble state because it has realized its limitations and true art could fully destroy the Socratic-Alexandrian culture in its weakened state.

Schopenhauer was a man without hope but he nonetheless desired truth.

Dare to be tragic. Dare to be Dionysian for the age of the Socratic man is ending. "Prepare yourselves for hard strife, but believe in the miracles of your god" (Nietzsche, 124).

Section 21

We cannot learn from the Greeks without a rebirth of tragedy.

Tragedy is the stitching that held together the paradoxical nature of the Greeks. They were passionate individuals (Apollo) and yet whole-heartedly patriotic (Dionysian). They were their own men and one with the State. Tragedy served to keep these tendencies from tearing each other apart and leaving the Grecian ripped to pieces.

The tragedy produces the giant Dionysian weight of burden but in the same instance lifts it off our shoulders to that of the hero's.

The music creates the myth and yet shields us from its terrible power. The tragedy leads us to the comforting metaphysical illusion and brings about the "highest pleasure" through destruction and negation of the individual. We rejoice in the destruction, not the triumph of the hero and we are then at one, the Dionysian mystical oneness.

Only through music can we comprehend the most universal facts. Through music we hear the world will longing for existence and destruction.

Just as we have been completely destroyed of individuality by the Dionysian we are redeemed by the Apollonian in tragedy.

"The Apollonian tears us out of the Dionysian universality and lets us find delight in individuals" (Nietzsche, 128).

Music compels us to see most profoundly than ever before.

It is the Apollonian illusion that the Dionysian music serves the Apollonian concepts that saves us, but in reality, music is the real idea of the world and drama in the mere reflection of it.

In the total effect of tragedy is predominated by the Dionysians no matter how powerful the Apollonian image and illusion.

Section 22

The apex and climax of the Apollonian art is the justification of the individual through contemplation.

"The tragic myth is to be understood only as a symbolization of Dionysian wisdom through Apollonian artifices" (Nietzsche, 131).

Those who view tragedy as strictly a morality issue have had no experience of tragedy as the supreme art and thus they are not all together aesthetically sensitive.

The deepest pathos can be merely an aesthetic play.

The aesthetic listener is reborn anew with the rebirth of tragedy.

Art, when used as a moral-religious tool of propaganda or as a socio-political tool dupes the audience and fosters emotions that only occur naturally outside of aesthetic scenarios. But, as with all artificial arts there is a rapid degeneration.

The theater is not a place for the moral education of the public.

Section 23

Without myth, "every culture loses the healthy natural power of its creativity" (Nietzsche, 135). Myth unifies culture.

Myth hayers man to interpret his life and struggles.

The Socratic seeks to destroy myth, but the myth less man stands, "eternally hungry" (Nietzsche, 136).

We must be aware of the necessary connotations of art and man, myth and customs, and tragedy and the state. The demise of one is the demise of all.

Section 24

The aesthetic spectator experiences seeing the myth and transcending all seeing at the same time. The coexistence of these two things is one of the most remarkable effects of tragedy.

Art is not so much an imitation of nature as a "metaphysical supplement of the reality of nature, placed beside it for its overcoming" (Nietzsche, 140).

To define tragedy (and all art) one must primarily seek its pleasure in the purely aesthetic sphere. Whatever further qualities it may have (i.e. moral qualities) are merely secondary.

Existence and the world are justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon.

The rebirth of tragedy will come from music and the German spirit will be born anew and no longer will the German genius live in prolonged degradation, in servitude to 'vicious dwarfs' (Christian Priests).

Section 25

Music and tragic myth are Dionysian and beyond the Apollonian.

The Dionysian and Apollonian must unfold their powers proportionately according to the law of eternal justice.

Fin

The Birth of Tragedy Section 13-19

(Originally written July 4, 2007 in Book 15)

The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche

Section 13

Through Socrates and Euripides the Greek culture placed greater emphasis on enlightenment and knowledge.

Socrates found that the 'wisest' of all Greeks really know nothing and only operated by instinct.

Socrates is the anti-mystic. Rather than relying on instinctive wisdom as the mystic does he uses consciousness to develop a hyper logical system.

The dying Socrates replaced all the old hero of Greece and became the image to which every young Grecian strived for.

Section 14

Socrates and his followers despised tragedy, but found solace and joy in the fables of Aesop.

"Poems are useful: they can tell the truth by means of parable to those who are not very bright" (Nietzsche, 90).

Socrates saw that tragedy did not tell the truth and that it was aimed at those who were not very bright. For these reasons it is doubly contemptible.

Plato also held tragedy in contempt, but his own artistic impulses necessitated him to create an art that was borne of the old ones.

Plato saw art as an imitation of a shadow and thus lower than even the contemptible empirical world.

Plato's dialogues blended narrative, lyric, drama, prose and poetry. He broke the strict law of uniformity of linguistics and created a whole new genre of art.

Plato's dialogues served as the savior of old poetry and the template for the novel.

The Apollonian tendency withdrew to logical schematism and the Dionysian transformed into Naturalism.

The optimistic maxims of
1) Virtue is knowledge
2) Man sins only from ignorance
3) The virtuous man is happy man served to fully kill tragedy.

Optimism destroys the essence of tragedy.

Though harsh against art in life at death Socrates obeyed the divine call to music asking, "Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative of, and supplement for science" (Nietzsche, 93).

Section 15

The Socratic way of life which exists today prompts a constant regeneration of art. The infinite of Socrates guarantees the infinity of art.

Socrates, to be recognized as truthful, must be viewed as the "theoretical man whose significance and aim it is our task to try and understand" (Nietzsche, 94).

The artist clings to the mystery while the theoretical man clings to what was once mystery and is non-known.

Lessing [who is Lessing?] is the most honest theoretical man because he announced that he cared more for the search for truth then for truth itself.

With Socrates, a profound illusion was born. This illusion holds that through unshakeable through using causality one can penetrate the deepest abyss of being and can furthermore correct the errors in being.

This metaphysical illusion accompanies science as an instinct and leads science time and time again to its limits where it must transform into art.

Socrates was the first man to live and die by the instinct of science. The dying Socrates is admired because he has absolved all fear of death through knowledge and reason.

Socrates stands as the turning point of history.

Pessimism in a practical sense will take over wherever art does not appear, especially as religion or science.

Socrates is the anti-pessimist. His optimistic faith that nature is intelligible and that sin is error, which is correctible denies pessimism a foothold.

Science needs art to protect it from its own boundaries. At the boundaries of science man becomes pessimistic if not reminded by art.

Section 16

There is a dichotomy between an insatiable lust for optimistic knowledge and the tragic need for art.

Apollo is the genius of the principium individuationis in which redemption through illusion is truly obtained. Dionysus is the mystical union in which the Apollonian principle is broken. It is from these two sources in which all art is born.

We may regard nature and music as two different expressions of the same thing.

Music is a universal language. It resembles geometrical figures and numbers as a definitive universalism. Music as a universal language is experienced a priori.

Music is not a copy of the physical world, but a copy of the will itself. As such, it stands in relation to the world as the will stands in relation to the world.

The world is embodied music as the world is embodied will.

Music, according to Schopenhauer, is the immediate language of the will.

Image and concept attain a higher significance under the influence of a truly corresponding music.

Music incites to the symbolic intuition of Dionysian Universality and music allows the symbolic image to emerge in its highest significance.

Music gives birth to the myth, most importantly the tragic myth: "the myth which expresses Dionysian knowledge in symbols" (Nietzsche, 103).

It is only through music that individuals can understand the joy of the annihilation of the individual.

Apollonian art triumphs the joys of this life by overshadowing suffering with beauty. Dionysian art overcomes the suffering of this life through the belief in the eternal life of the unified will.

Section 17

Dionysian art seeks to convince of us of the eternal joy of existence. But as Apollonian art does this through phenomena, Dionysian art seeks this from behind phenomena.

Myth was annihilated by the faith in science. Music is the way for myth to be reborn.

Aristophanes saw Socrates, Euripides and the music of the New Dithyrambic poets which mirrored phenomena, not the will itself, as enemies and destroyers of art.

By setting music to be descriptive of phenomena, music has been robbed of its power to create myth.

Music which merely represents phenomena is wretchedly poorer than the phenomena itself.

In Euripides, we see the triumph of scientific knowledge and the demise of artistic reflection. The phenomenal particulars win out over the universals.

Tragedy revealed a metaphysical comfort through music. But with music stripped of its myth-bearing power there is no metaphysical comfort and knowledge leaves us rawer than before we knew. There is no solace in science apart from art.

The new spirit of Greek art, deprived of myth, was to seek comfort in an earthly, phenomenal dissolution of tragedy. The hated deus ex machina replaced the metaphysical comfort.

The Dionysian spirit having been banished from the stage fled into the degenerate form of cult.

With the deus ex machina the Dionysian spirit was driven underground and individualism heralded the deus ex machina as the true comfort.

Metaphysical, universal comfort was lost and replaced by momentary particular comforts.

Section 18

There are three cultures:
1. Socratic (Alexandrian)
2. Hellenic (Artistic)
3. Tragic (Buddhistic)

The Alexandrian culture idolizes the theoretical man, reason, knowledge and science above all else.

The Socratic culture is delusional optimistic in believing that it possesses limitless power.

Myth is the necessary prerequisite of religion.

The tragic (Buddhistic) culture replaces science with wisdom at its highest end.

The Socratic culture will tremble with fear once its optimism has been shattered by learning of its power limitations.

Section 19

The Socratic culture is the culture of the opera.

The Socratic culture endures the music of opera to hear the words. All the while he trembles at the thought of giving the music too much appreciation and undoing the base of his culture.

The art of the opera responds to a powerful need, but it is a non-aesthetic need. It responds to the need for faith in the existence of the artistic and good man.

The origin of opera is the fulfillment of a non-aesthetic need: the glorification of man. It stands contra to the dogma of the inherently corrupt and lost man.

Opera is a birthing of the theoretical man, not the artist. The non-musical heroes of Opera demand t hat words are nobler than the tones as the soul is nobler than the body.

The opera is a crude unmusical combination of image, music and words.

"The premise of the opera is a false belief concerning the artistic process: the idyllic belief that every sentient man is an artist" (Nietzsche, 117).

The cultured Renaissance man let himself be led back to the primitive artistic man by imitation of Greek tragedy.

The opera does not touch sorrow as art ought to, but rather emphasizes the cheery optimism of eternal rediscovery.

Those who seek to destroy the unmusical opera would have to destroy the whole of the Socratic culture.

Art in the Socratic culture is empty because it is void of its true purpose: "to save the eye from gazing into the horrors of night and to deliver the subject by the healing balm of illusion from the spasms of the agitation of the will" (Nietzsche, 118).

Music is powerless when it is alienated from its true dignity as the Dionysian mirror of the world and as an expression of the will itself.

Music cannot be a slave to the phenomena or be a mere imitation of the formal characteristics of phenomena.

The Socratic culture cannot explain nor tolerate the reemergence of the Dionysian spirit which has taken place in music from Bach to Beethoven to Wagner.

The Dionysian spirit of this German music is the sole purifying fire in the Alexandrian culture of knowledge lust.

"All that we now call culture, education, civilization must some day appear before the unerring judge, Dionysus" (Nietzsche, 120).

Kant and Schopenhauer made it possible for the spirit of German philosophy to destroy Socratic scientific optimism.

The oneness of German music and philosophy points to the emergence of a Hellenic society. The Alexandrian age seems to be receding backwards to the Dawn of a new tragic age.

Some weird thoughts on the number 7 & a recliner I once owned

(Originally written July 2, 2007 in the Red Notebook)

Notes for Epistemological Tautology

7. What is the definition of 7?
a) 1+6 (6+1)
b) 2+5 (5+2)
c) 3+4 (4+3)
d) 8-1
e) 9-2
f) 10-3
g) 7x1
h) 49/7
i) 42/6
j) 35/5
k) 28/4
l) 21/3
m) 14/2
etc, etc, ad infinitum

The definition of 7 is any combination of mathematical equations equal to seven. The complete definition of 7 is the totality of such equations. When we know that 3+4=7 the we know a partial definition of 7. Simply because we do not know that 21,812/3,116=7 does not mean that we do not know the definition of 7, only that we do not know the whole definition of 7.

Every equation that equals 7, is a tautology. That is, 14/2=7 or 21,812/3,116=7 is simply another way of stating that 7=7. All knowledge of numbers is tautological. That is to say that arithmetic is a gigantic conglomerate of tautologies.

Now, we shall apply this methodology to people, places or things that you know (any noun) or any thing that exists. Think on a thing, like a chair. Now isolate in your mind a particular chair, not the universal concept of chair. I have a recliner that is brown leather and beaten up. I purchased it at a yard sale. It is my favorite spot to sit in the whole house.

What is the definition of the recliner I am talking about?
a) brown chair
b) leather chair
c)brown leather chair with holes in it
d) the brown leather chair with holes in it I purchased at a yard sale

Now we can take definitions A, B, C, or D and set them equal to one another and to the name 'Chris' recliner' and we have a tautology. The knowledge we have of my recliner is tautological because "the brown leather chair with holes in it purchased at a yard sale on such-and-such a date" tells us nothing new about Chris' recliner. Wait a second! How could you have known that about my recliner before I told you? You didn't know this information before I told you and thus, it couldn't be tautological.

Remember I purchased this chair at a yard sale. I do not know the entire history of the chair. I cannot tell you its origin or its whereabouts at all times before I purchased it. Does my lack of knowledge make the chair's history any less a part of it? Of course not! But, can you plausibly deny that I do not know the definition of my own recliner? Prior to this silly little experiment did you know that 21,812/3,116=7? No? But you know the definition of 7 surely? All you learned by this is another way of expressing 7, because 7 entails the prior equation, just like Chris' recliner entails "the brown leather chair with holes in it purchased at a yard sale on such-and-such a date"+ some lost history. Thus, once you became aware of the existence of Chris' recliner all other knowledge about the recliner was merely tautological and you learn only ways of expressing the notion of Chris' recliner.

An unfinished, unpolished essay on free will & bumper cars

(Originally Written July 1, 2007 in the Red Notebook)

Essay: Determinism, Free Will & Bumper Cars

Are we who we are because of our selves or because of something beyond our control? Are we free or are we determined creatures? This question seems to have plagued us since we have become cognizant of God, which means that we have been plagued by it forever.

It is my opinion that we are in some sense free creatures who are subject to a number of determinations. If we were purely free creatures we would be free to will our own existence. But, since none of us chose to be born we all must be determined in some way.

Our birth is akin to being placed in an amusement park. There are many rides for us to choose to ride or choose not to ride. Sometimes, other factors in the park force us to make decisions, but these decisions are wholly ours. Once we make any decision there are limitations to the outcome of those decisions.

Say for instance, we choose to ride the bumper cars. While we had no choice of entering the amusement park (birth), we did choose to ride the bumper cars over not riding the bumper cars. Once we have made this decision, possible outcomes have been determined and others have been eliminated. We cannot, while we ride the bumper cars, ride the Ferris wheel (though we may choose to do so later). But as it stands we have chosen to ride the bumper cars out of our free will.

The bumper cars simply represent any situation we choose to place ourselves into. So, now that we have chosen to ride the bumper cars we must enter the car. Once we enter the car we face things that are out of our control. We face determining factors.

The pole must touch the ceiling in order for our car to have power. Without contact our car cannot move an inch, no matter how much we will it to do so. The pole and ceiling connection is like the natural world. Without the laws of nature and simple natural phenomena we cannot function regardless of our strength of will.

Secondly, even if the connection of the pole and ceiling is correct, we cannot will our car to move if the ride operator has not engaged the electricity. In order for us to achieve our willed end of riding the bumper cars we must rely on the determining factor that the operator will engage the electricity. The operator in this scenario is an aspect of God, the sustaining power of God.

Once the operator has turned on the ride and we begin to move we have full control of our cars in the space allotted to the ride. This space is predetermined by the builder. The builder here is the creating power of God.

As we move the car we notice that there are many other cars. We only have control over our own car though. We can choose to impact or not to impact other cars, but we cannot choose to have others not impact us except by maneuvering away from them. That is, we have no control over the will of others. Other cars in this scenario are the other creatures. Their wills and thus, there actions, can impact our actions, but not our wills. Likewise, our wills and actions may impact their actions, but not there wills, except in an indirect way.

Sometimes in life and in bumper cars, we get stuck. Sometimes it is in a corner. Other times it is behind lifeless cars. Sometimes we drive ourselves into these situations. Other times we are bumped into them. No matter the power of our will or action we can't get ourselves unstuck. We must rely on the operator (God) to remove us from the situation.