Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 12:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Barnaby Gibson <dbg4284-AT-is2.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: e. r. (once more)


On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Dr. David Jacobs wrote:

> I think Al makes a good case for E.R., but we have to challenge this 
> conception because it turns Nietzsche's concepts into a kind of 
> psychological therapy.  

Precisely.  Nietzsche's concepts are frequently psychological theraphy.  
He is quite explicit about his psychological emphasis.


> [N. sometimes is trying to accomplish psychological goals, but . . .]
> primarily I think the conceptions are performing 
> conceptual warfare on our traditional ideas of the eternal self, eternal 
> truth, etc.  He uses his "ideas" and "concepts" as weapons to fight 
> against the metaphysical framework that determines most of our thinking 
> (and living).  His concepts inject multiplicity, heterogeneity, etc. in 
> our ideas that attempt to depict eternal truth, and by this he attempts 
> to implode those ideas.  [ . . . ]  the gift of another way of 
> thinking.

It seems as if the E.R. is not so much a part of his attack on 
traditional ideas ("God") as it is a necessary remedy after that attack 
on traditional ideas has become complete.  I tend to think N. sees the 
death of God as necessary given positivism (although reasonable minds could 
certainly differ on that claim) and sees his own role as preparing people 
psychologically to face the new reality.

Jim Elson pointed out the "staggering intensity" with which N. describes 
the experience of the Eternal Return, and I think its a good thing to 
notice - E.R. is a statement about endurance, about wanting to endure 
without God.  So the death of God is not just a "gift", but a burden.
(I don't just mean grim endurance either - N. clearly thought humor was a key 
component of such endurance - i.e., learning to see the burden as a 
gift, to laugh about it).  

As for the limited amount that N. says about the E.R., it does come across 
as a sort of aphorism doesn't it?  I don't agree with the position that 
says all of N.'s philosophy is aphoristic, but I think E.R. is usefully 
seen that way.  The brevity of description also strikes me as more 
evidence that it wasn't 'description' but normative exhortation that 
Nietzsche was after.  Detail helps the scientist, but does little for the 
myth creator (sp?).

Ah well.  Back to law school boredom for me.

Dan. 


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------