"What was especially badass about that line was that it was true. If reading him doesn’t make you feel stupid, you’re not understanding what he’s saying. And mostly, I didn’t." It makes me feel so incredibly stupid, and I take notes. But... every so often a nugget sinks in and it makes the rest of the "not understanding" worth it.
I'm reading Plato right now and it's so much more readable, so I've come to the conclusion that I'm not (necessarily) stupid, it's Nietzsche's writing that's messed up!
Lol honestly, not a bad conclusion. But Nietzsche knew things that only a genius could possibly know at that time IMO so that's why he remains interesting to me.
Haha I love the flattering guess. I was being a bit tongue in cheek.... but seriously that guy seemed to be one in a billion, which would put him (these numbers really mean very little) at 190.
It's an interesting question--he clearly had a big brain--and he clearly broke it. Long before he saw the cart horse being whipped in Turin, in the footnotes to The Gay Science his incipient insanity is detectable (long before it's conventionally ascribed). He was a genius, of course, but he also fiddled his sources, for example his lectures on the Pre-socratics are intellectually dishonest, in my view. He knew better. His speculations in The Birth of Tragedy are impossible to refute because they are so ungrounded in any discernible facts, which is why the book destroyed his academic reputation. Isaac Newton, James Clark Maxwell, Shakespeare, Tolstoy they were his superiors (admittedly a high bar). I see Fritz as more a Hölderlin type, or a Charles Bukowski. He forces us to enter his world and when we accept his rules as the price of entry we unconsciously give him more credit than he deserves. Even some of his most famous aphorisms are generally misunderstood (although I'm sure you know this): that which is Jenseits von Gut und Böse, beyond good and evil--is love. Very off brand. But true!
This is such a deep take on him, I love it. Much here I don't know (and just wish I knew more, gah).
Yes, there is just gravitas to him, like it or not. Ultimately I think he was a prime midwit, self-obsessed, and unable to truly feel, it's still cool to see how far a man can go into the madness.
Heidegger would call his condition "anxiety" which is a poor translation of what he meant, because he felt that almost everyone was submerged in "the they" (das Man) and only a tiny fraction of people were truly in "anxiety" which is to deny all the trappings of Das Man.
The third route, "authenticity" is the way of truth and love (Sorge, as he called it "Concern"), and I think it's also expressed on the far end of the bell-curve meme.
Your bringing up Heidegger prompted another thought: Heidegger's reputation and his ability to attract such superb students was based on his very original and inspiring readings of the Greek philosophical texts. Students described it as an enthralling experience to listen to Heidegger's engagement with Greek philosophers. In my own most recent Substack post I've posited influence on Classical Greece from both India and China, and your comment reminds me of this essential book proving that Heidegger was deeply influenced by Zen Buddhism, especially in relation to some of the concepts that were considered most ground-breaking such as Being. Actually, he was essentially plagiarizing East Asian thought. But, in a deeper sense, if it's true that Greek philosophy was influenced by Indian and Chinese thought, Heidegger's sensitivity to both Greek philosophy and Zen Buddhism makes perfect sense, and to some extent demonstrates their common origin: https://www.amazon.com/Heideggers-Hidden-Sources-East-Asian-Influences/dp/0415140374/
So thank you for prompting that connection, it's a really important one and I really appreciate it!
Nov 2, 2023·edited Nov 2, 2023Liked by James Taylor Foreman
Loved this piece @Taylor! Your call to let intuition guide us is needed now more than ever.
Chris, your mention of East Asian philosophy here hooked me in. Zen Buddhism itself is rooted in Advaita vedanta and a reaction to the ossification of rituals that took the living philosophy from a vibrant guide into a set of rigid tenets used for control. The philosophical differences between them boil down, in my view, to what exists beyond all veils - the shunya (Nothingness) vs atman (Pure Consciousness). That's my understanding.
There's parallels between Nietzche's approach and the Charvaka school of thought in that both were aimed at rejecting the prevailing 'big truths' of their times and encouraging an untethered individual approach. Though the Charvaka school leans to hedonism, the focus was more on dismantling prevailing popular arguments than on setting up a coherent one.
Re-reading a lot of modern Western philosophers now, I can so clearly see the influences of millennia-old Eastern Asian philosophical traditions - back then, those texts were not as accessible so interpretive works did offer the service of bringing those ideas to a wider audience. The classical colonial mindset of appropriation though is evident in the complete lack of source citing - recasting it in today's light, those works do not stand as original thought so much as derivative and interpretive recasts of original deep thought, 'pop phil' if you will. For anyone wanting to know more on Indian philosophy, I'd recommend works of Swami Vivekananda, the Vendanta Treatise or J. Krishnamurti as good places to start.
Hi Abhilasha, thank you for your fascinating response. I have books by Vivekananda and Krishnamurti but I've never made much progress with them. Would you be able to suggest any books that provide an introduction to their thought? I have had the feeling that it may be most accessible through yoga and meditative practices then necessarily through reading texts.
I took a whole course in Nietzsche in college... because I wanted the professor who taught it. But it wasn’t what I expected .. the prof said Nietzsche was full of contradictions.. which seemed true but yeah I felt dumb lol. Anyway I was never very religious but since my son died any belief in a Christian “god” died.. but spiritualism grew. Thanks for giving us something to think about!
"What was especially badass about that line was that it was true. If reading him doesn’t make you feel stupid, you’re not understanding what he’s saying. And mostly, I didn’t." It makes me feel so incredibly stupid, and I take notes. But... every so often a nugget sinks in and it makes the rest of the "not understanding" worth it.
God, isn't that the truth. What a force of nature that guy was.
I'm reading Plato right now and it's so much more readable, so I've come to the conclusion that I'm not (necessarily) stupid, it's Nietzsche's writing that's messed up!
Lol honestly, not a bad conclusion. But Nietzsche knew things that only a genius could possibly know at that time IMO so that's why he remains interesting to me.
It's true! But my brain only understands 30% of what he says. Like Heidegger, I think he made up words to force confusion and critique.
I don't see how it's possible that Nietzsche's IQ is double yours . . . 270--or whatever?
Haha I love the flattering guess. I was being a bit tongue in cheek.... but seriously that guy seemed to be one in a billion, which would put him (these numbers really mean very little) at 190.
(After a quick Google)
It's an interesting question--he clearly had a big brain--and he clearly broke it. Long before he saw the cart horse being whipped in Turin, in the footnotes to The Gay Science his incipient insanity is detectable (long before it's conventionally ascribed). He was a genius, of course, but he also fiddled his sources, for example his lectures on the Pre-socratics are intellectually dishonest, in my view. He knew better. His speculations in The Birth of Tragedy are impossible to refute because they are so ungrounded in any discernible facts, which is why the book destroyed his academic reputation. Isaac Newton, James Clark Maxwell, Shakespeare, Tolstoy they were his superiors (admittedly a high bar). I see Fritz as more a Hölderlin type, or a Charles Bukowski. He forces us to enter his world and when we accept his rules as the price of entry we unconsciously give him more credit than he deserves. Even some of his most famous aphorisms are generally misunderstood (although I'm sure you know this): that which is Jenseits von Gut und Böse, beyond good and evil--is love. Very off brand. But true!
This is such a deep take on him, I love it. Much here I don't know (and just wish I knew more, gah).
Yes, there is just gravitas to him, like it or not. Ultimately I think he was a prime midwit, self-obsessed, and unable to truly feel, it's still cool to see how far a man can go into the madness.
Heidegger would call his condition "anxiety" which is a poor translation of what he meant, because he felt that almost everyone was submerged in "the they" (das Man) and only a tiny fraction of people were truly in "anxiety" which is to deny all the trappings of Das Man.
The third route, "authenticity" is the way of truth and love (Sorge, as he called it "Concern"), and I think it's also expressed on the far end of the bell-curve meme.
Your bringing up Heidegger prompted another thought: Heidegger's reputation and his ability to attract such superb students was based on his very original and inspiring readings of the Greek philosophical texts. Students described it as an enthralling experience to listen to Heidegger's engagement with Greek philosophers. In my own most recent Substack post I've posited influence on Classical Greece from both India and China, and your comment reminds me of this essential book proving that Heidegger was deeply influenced by Zen Buddhism, especially in relation to some of the concepts that were considered most ground-breaking such as Being. Actually, he was essentially plagiarizing East Asian thought. But, in a deeper sense, if it's true that Greek philosophy was influenced by Indian and Chinese thought, Heidegger's sensitivity to both Greek philosophy and Zen Buddhism makes perfect sense, and to some extent demonstrates their common origin: https://www.amazon.com/Heideggers-Hidden-Sources-East-Asian-Influences/dp/0415140374/
So thank you for prompting that connection, it's a really important one and I really appreciate it!
Loved this piece @Taylor! Your call to let intuition guide us is needed now more than ever.
Chris, your mention of East Asian philosophy here hooked me in. Zen Buddhism itself is rooted in Advaita vedanta and a reaction to the ossification of rituals that took the living philosophy from a vibrant guide into a set of rigid tenets used for control. The philosophical differences between them boil down, in my view, to what exists beyond all veils - the shunya (Nothingness) vs atman (Pure Consciousness). That's my understanding.
There's parallels between Nietzche's approach and the Charvaka school of thought in that both were aimed at rejecting the prevailing 'big truths' of their times and encouraging an untethered individual approach. Though the Charvaka school leans to hedonism, the focus was more on dismantling prevailing popular arguments than on setting up a coherent one.
Re-reading a lot of modern Western philosophers now, I can so clearly see the influences of millennia-old Eastern Asian philosophical traditions - back then, those texts were not as accessible so interpretive works did offer the service of bringing those ideas to a wider audience. The classical colonial mindset of appropriation though is evident in the complete lack of source citing - recasting it in today's light, those works do not stand as original thought so much as derivative and interpretive recasts of original deep thought, 'pop phil' if you will. For anyone wanting to know more on Indian philosophy, I'd recommend works of Swami Vivekananda, the Vendanta Treatise or J. Krishnamurti as good places to start.
Hi Abhilasha, thank you for your fascinating response. I have books by Vivekananda and Krishnamurti but I've never made much progress with them. Would you be able to suggest any books that provide an introduction to their thought? I have had the feeling that it may be most accessible through yoga and meditative practices then necessarily through reading texts.
You're a midwit. Show me the evidence for all your claims
We’re all midwits on this day.
Awesome piece, Taylor. Awesome. Thank you.
Thanks for reading, Silvio.
I think this may be what Karl Rener was getting at when he said the Christian of the future will be a mystic or will not exist at all.
Knocked this one out of the park man. Well done.
I like this idea at lot... got me thinking about a future piece.
I took a whole course in Nietzsche in college... because I wanted the professor who taught it. But it wasn’t what I expected .. the prof said Nietzsche was full of contradictions.. which seemed true but yeah I felt dumb lol. Anyway I was never very religious but since my son died any belief in a Christian “god” died.. but spiritualism grew. Thanks for giving us something to think about!