Subject: Re: Nietzsche and Rationalism
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:10:50 -0600



-----Original Message-----
From: R.H. Albright <albright-AT-world.std.com>
To: nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
<nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Monday, January 12, 1998 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Nietzsche and Rationalism


Greetings Randall:

>Hi, John again:
>
>>The philosophical outlook of the coming Caesars will be that of
>>the physiognomic sceptic along the lines of BGE 209, would you
>>not agree?
>
>I don't know _Beyond Good and Evil_ very well, but I'll say this.
>Regardless of "perspectivism", MY view of the Nietzschean SuperPerson is
>one who rises only to then GIVE to others, as Emerson also recommends. So
>both Emerson and Nietzsche would not be for tyranny, although one dilemma
>about the Roman Empire as well as the free trade routes of capitalism is
>that by having a lingua franca, etc., there is a fair amount that is going
>to go to greedy SuperJerks. But that can't be avoided. If people want to be
>selfish Ayn Rand types, fine.


Certainly the Caesars will infuse their personalities into the
becoming Imperium, and the first to do so will have the greatest
opportunity. Is this what you mean by giving? Define tyranny.

>>I agree with Nietzsche. Twilight of the Idols. Based on the history
>>of the last two hundred years, it is impossible not to have fundamental
>>doubt as to the meaning and value of theoretical reflection and to its
>>ability to arrive at conclusions by critical and abstract methods or
>>to achieve anything by practical ones. Rationalism and its various
>>forms of Social Darwinism has no place within the becoming Imperium.
>
>As he said in "The Birth of Tragedy", we have to distinguish WISDOM from
>mere KNOWLEDGE.

And what greater wisdom is there than historical wisdom?
Do not all of man's creations have a history?

>
>>As to other cultures aping Western Rationalism, only havoc has
>>resulted. Certainly Western technology can be put to good use
>>by them, however.
>
>Yes...
>
>>Everything of real value got lost.
>
>That's romantic, but not true. We wouldn't be caring about what's "lost" if
>it were truly lost, would we?


I'm speaking of Rationalism losing everything
of real value along the lines of Goethe's _Faust_ and his criticism
of the logical dissection of the living whole yielding nothing
but a lifeless husk.

>
>>BGE 192 has a good take on "science". I do not consider Social
>>Darwinism true science.
>
>Neither did James, who had serious disputes with Herbert Spencer in his
>day. However, both Nietzsche and James were correct that, as the Kabbalah
>teaches, we are in a constant state of BECOMING. We can't go BACK, but we
>can look forward, see what's been suppressed (or "lost"), and try to
>resuscitate it... in balance, and with compassion. John Stuart Mill is a
>powerful thinker on this, too: his defense of eccentricity, for example,
>against Carlyle's hero-worship/authoritarianism.

Does not becoming connote creativity and do we not at some
point exhaust the necessary creative inner chaos?

>
>>Nietzsche is sceptical of the formula reason=virtue=happiness.
>>So am I.
>
>And me, too. It's too simplistic. In a "dialectic" world, it's half a coin.
>And there's much more than mere WORDS could put into a tick-tock sort of
>play, anyway.
>
>I'm not familiar with this term:
>
>>physiognomic sceptic...


At a glance, the predator sees the inner secret of its prey and then
fixes the prey in its minds eye. Modern human language, with
its words, came in the second stage of human development.
We were fully human before we created modern language. As such,
a physignomic sceptic places primary emphasis on the most
real form of human thought. BGE 209.

>
>And I'd like this put in layman's English:
>
>>with a morphological insight
>>into the phenomenon of the cultural lifecycle, as well as human ethology,
>>leading one to perceive the three stages of human development?


Which word don't you understand?

>
>before I comment further. I don't know what you're using Nietzsche for.
>Aesthetics? An advocate against totalitarianism? Or... all of the above?


The final struggle for the soul of the state has already begun.

>
>Nietzsche provides no stable ground, which is similar to Keats' "negative
>capability", in my view. If there IS no stable ground, however... one must
>have ideals, such as Siddhartha and Jesus had, don't you think?
>
>        ---Randall Albright
>
For the physiognomic sceptic, Nietzsche, with some judicious weeding
out here and there, provides a superlative foundation. As for Jesus, he
was quite clear:

1. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
2. My kingdom is not of this world.

        ----John T. Duryea
r



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