(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.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
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...
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 (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.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
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?
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?
Monday, July 16, 2007
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.
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 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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)