File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1998/nietzsche.9802, message 28


Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 11:35:36 -0800
From: "John T. Duryea" <jtduryea-AT-dmv.com>
Subject: Re: Nietzsche contra Spinoza


Kelly Timothy Lynch wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, John T. Duryea wrote:
> 
> > Kelly,
> >
> > Can you support your assertion that Nietzsche implies that
> > Spinoza was on the right track with regards to self-preservation
> > being the cardinal drive in an organic being?
> >
> > Spinoza certainly does not envision a path from self-preservation
> > to will to power himself, nor does Nietzsche see such a path.
> >
> > I see individual self preservation in Spinoza's sense (conatus
> > quo in suo esse persevere conatur, "endeavour to persist in
> > its own being") as a belief system wherein the individual
> > himself is a "base" object which only through the shining
> > into and within it of the divine pneuma becomes good. This
> > is a far cry from Nietzsche's willful predator bent upon
> > power and booty!
> 
> There is a letter Nietzsche wrote to Overbeck with
> some interesting comments bearing on a possible link
> between Spinoza and Nietzsche.  When I wrote my little
> paper, a number of years ago now, I briefly considered
> referring to it, but decided to stick strictly to his
> published books, exclusively in fact, with but one
> small exception, _Beyond_Good_and_Evil_.  For
> now, let me just quote the letter:
> "I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted.  I have a
> precursor, and what a precursor!  ...  Not only is his
> over-all tendency like mine--making knowledge
> the most powerful affect--but in five main points
> of his doctrine I recognize myself; ...  he denies
> the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral
> world order, the unegoistic, and evil.  Even though
> the divergences are admittedly tremendous,
> they are due more to the difference in time,
> culture, and science. ... "
> 
> [Before I go any further, a note:  I presently only
> own copies of Nietzsche's books (all of those
> he published) in German, and work from
> them.  It has been many years since I
> actually looked at a (published) English
> translation.  (I also own a copy of this thing
> called "Will to Power" translated into English
> by Kaufmann & Hollingdale, ed. Kaufmann,
> but don't look at it that much.)]
> 
> When we look at BGE #13, in particular that
> little reference to Spinoza and reflect on it, it
> is, I would contend, hard not to strike out in
> a direction something like that I took in my paper.
> He speaks of Spinoza's "Inkonsequenz", I
> suppose translated as inconsistency.  Given
> the context, against the physiologists'
> 'self-preservation', warning to beware of
> superfluous teleological principles, coupled
> with some knowledge of Spinoza, his very
> clear opposition to teleology, at least a
> superficial acquaintance with his notion
> of 'conatus'--you are pretty well invited
> to investigate along lines like my little
> paper sets out on.
> 
> Nowhere in my paper is there talk of a "path
> from self-preservation to will to power".  

Perhaps I've misinterpreted your phrase "Indeed he seems
to imply that Spinoza may well have been on the right track."
Does this not imply a path?

> From Nietzsche's point of view, self-preservation is
> a frequent consequence of will to power; not
> invariable, even if frequent.  In that sense, if
> there is a "path," it is the other way around.

Nietzsche does not see a path as he makes clear
when he adjures us to "beware superfluous teleological
principles!". Your quote from Nietzsche's letter
where he points to tremendous differences in science
and culture between himself and Spinoza opens the door
a crack and sheds some light.

> From Spinoza's point of view, strictly speaking the
> question does not really arise in this form, as
> I thought I made clear enough.  But as I tried to
> show, putting the question to Spinoza can be
> illuminating, may help you probe a bit deeper into
> some fundamental aspects of Spinoza's thought.
> 
> I'm not sure how to reply to the final paragraph.
> Frankly, my first inclination is to suggest you
> go back and study Spinoza a bit, and, judging
> by the last sentence, even Nietzsche.
> Where you get this notion of the divine
> pneuma shining into things to make them
> good is a mystery to me--certainly not from
> Spinoza.  God for Spinoza is not some kind
> of transcendent being outside of, or perhaps
> above, the universe.

I don't claim to be an expert in understanding the
Magian world feeling by any means. However, Magian
duality does incorporate the notion of divine pneuma
shining into the "base" individual. This symbolism
is carried into their science of Alchemy with the
"Philosopher's Stone" transmuting lead into gold.

> I know you are enamored of the idea of the
> predator, having repeated several times
> your great truths about man being really
> a predator, etc., tied in with your own
> wonderful theory of evolution, and this
> dazzling phrase of yours about seeing
> into the essence of things with the eye
> of the predator.  Perhaps silence would
> be best on my part here.  But I can't
> resist two brief comments.  First, whatever
> you may think, this is not Nietzsche--you
> are reading what you want to read into
> him.  

Please read BGE 197 and posit something I've
written to shed further light on your assertion.
BGE 197 starts as follows:

"One altogether misunderstands the beast of prey and
man of prey (Cesare Borgia for example), one
misunderstands 'nature,' so long as one looks for
something 'sick' at the bottom of these healthiest of
all tropical monsters and growths, or even for an 
inborn 'hell' in them-: as virtually all moralists
have done hitherto."

You might go on to read BGE 198 also, wherein Nietzsche
characterizes Spinoza's "no-more-laughing and
no-more-weeping" as "prudence, prudence, prudence
mingled with stupidity, stupidity, stupidity."


>Secondly, when you use this
> expression about the eye of the predator,
> I suppose you think of, say, the sharp
> eye-sight of an eagle, able to spot its
> prey from immense heights and to then
> swoop down to capture it.  But does
> this have anything to do with seeing
> into the essence of its prey?  Hardly--
> the eagle has no need for such niceties,
> he sees his prey as...DINNER.

I don't think you've done much hunting. Here's
an experiment. Take a good pair of binoculars
(say Zeiss) and go to a public hunting area
where deer are hunted on a regular basis. Now,
staying on the ground, become proficient at
stalking and regularly spotting deer. All hunting
cultures such as the Inuit have a deep reverence
for and inner understanding of the spirit of their
prey. Only we products of the late cultural period,
cut off from nature, view a McDonalds hamburger
as the inner meaning of dinner.

It is an irrefutable fact that humans, products
of the Wurm Glaciation, came into being as
predators. Our forward focused eyes with our
capacity to fix the prey in our mind's eye is
the primary methodology whereby we appertain
the world around us. Thus, reason follows will...

John T. Duryea


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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005