The Tao Of Nietzsche

[Marblehead]

So anyhow,

 

Fred said, "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

 

And Chuang said, "It is the same with all things. What starts out being sincere usually ends up being deceitful. What was simple in the beginning acquires monstrous proportions in the end."

[zerostao]

[Marblehead]

the self that we are to rely on is in contrast to our original self that we are in the process of creating.

Therein lies the problem. We are already what we are. Any attempt to fit oneself into a mold created by others is a lie. (But we can build on what we already are.)

[3bob]

Hello MH,

 

"And Chuang said, "It is the same with all things. What starts out being sincere usually ends up being deceitful. What was simple in the beginning acquires monstrous proportions in the end.""

 

Unless...? That is a key question if you will.

[JustARandomPanda]

....

[Marblehead]

Hello MH,

 

"And Chuang said, "It is the same with all things. What starts out being sincere usually ends up being deceitful. What was simple in the beginning acquires monstrous proportions in the end.""

 

Unless...? That is a key question if you will.

Excellent point. That quote stood out for me the very first time I read Chuang Tzu and I have held it to my heart. Now, I'm not saying that I haven't over-done things since that time but at least I have been aware of doing it when it has happened.

 

Simplicity. The simple life. Well, sure, I can pretty much live that way because I am retired and I have enough. I have no reason to be other than what I naturally am.

 

So what is to be done by those of us who have not yet attained 'enough' and are able to retire? Personal choices. We all know that I believe in 'free will'. Therefore, we all can be honest (compassionate), humble and frugal if we wish to be so.

 

So yes, unless?

[Marblehead]

Hi Serene,

 

Just letting you know that I read your response to Twinner. I will not respond as it is a discussion between the two of you.

 

However, I will mention that there are a few things you said that I would disagree with.

[Marblehead]

Fred said:

 

The overman ... (is he) who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and becomes creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment.

[Aaron]

Hello Sereneblue,

 

I think you're missing my point, which is that the insanity a man experiences is intrinsically connected to the cultural and societal influences that they live within. It's simply a definition of a state that is in opposition to what is considered the norm. In this sense Nietzsche was right, in that insanity in the individual does not exist, simply because it is the state of that individual and is not in opposition to anything.

 

I would go even further and say that much of the suffering caused by mental disorders is directly related to the social constructs that individual lives within, which is why you find some societies (especially indigineous peoples) have dramatically fewer incidents of mental illness than others.

 

Again Chapter 38 talks about this when it states that the further we go from our original nature, the more likely we are to suffer because of it. I think another thing we like to do is place blame on the individual, assume something is wrong with them, when in fact it's not them per se, but society as a whole that's at fault.

 

 

Thirdly, I have suffered from "insanity". I was diagnosed with clinical depression and dysthymia for nearly fifteen years. I did not break free from depression until I began to sober up in Alcoholics Anonymous. Practicing the Twelve Steps helped me to see how my suffering was directly related to my reaction towards others and that much of my suffering was caused by my own actions. It was in direct opposition to everything I had learned up until then. I'm not saying I haven't been depressed since then, but I do understand the nature of depression and how completely hopeless one can feel in that state. My belief that this is caused by society doesn't change because of this experience, rather it's deepened because of it.

 

I understand you may feel differently, and that's fine, but I still hold to my original explanation of what Nietzsche was alluding to, and even though he may not have been completely on the mark, he has come closer than the majority of philosophers in Western society.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Fred said:

 

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.

[goldisheavy]

Hi All,

 

Considering the amount of attention my mention of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche brought to the forum I thought I would post some Nietzsche quotes and see if they, in any way, relate to Taoist philosophy and if they do, in what way.

 

And so, without further ado, the first quote:

 

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

 

Happy Trails!

 

Good one. I somewhat agree with this sentiment, but one should keep in mind that there is no group without individuals. So if all the individuals are sane, how is it that the group is insane? And again, if only a few individuals are insane, how can the entire group be insane? Why would only a few insane individuals make the bulk of supposedly sane individuals act insane in a group setting?

 

What I would say is this. Groups tend to exacerbate individual insanity. Individuals are indeed insane by and large. But alone, they don't have a way to give their insanity a complex, sophisticated and powerful outlet. In a group setting, a simple bit of insanity that is harmless in an individual can become pervasive, enshrined in bureaucracy, laws and institutions of society, and thus become extremely damaging and hard to avoid.

 

I think Nietzsche was trying to extricate himself from society which he saw as sick. He should have looked in the mirror and accepted responsibility to an extent. Instead he blamed the group and held himself blameless. That's weak sauce.

[goldisheavy]

Fred said:

 

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.

 

True, but I'll never admit that I support something only because people who oppose that something are small-minded idiots. Everyone wants to believe that all the support they get is absolutely genuine. Why shatter that illusion?

[goldisheavy]

....

 

..................

[Marblehead]

I think Nietzsche was trying to extricate himself from society which he saw as sick. He should have looked in the mirror and accepted responsibility to an extent. Instead he blamed the group and held himself blameless. That's weak sauce.

Excellent point and I believe one could adequately support this view using only words from the man himself.

 

But then, he did have a legitimate beef, IMO.

[Marblehead]

True, but I'll never admit that I support something only because people who oppose that something are small-minded idiots. Everyone wants to believe that all the support they get is absolutely genuine. Why shatter that illusion?

Hehehe. Yeah, I suppose most of us need our illusions and delusions.

 

Of course, Chuang Tzu told us to stop our freakin' agruing and seek the True Light.

[Marblehead]

..................

 

Thank you both for those worthy comments.

[zerostao]

"no one can construct for you the bridge upon which precisely you must cross the stream of life, no one but you yourself alone."

 

streaming life live

[Stosh]

If one isnt trying to be too literal its not much of a leap to say that society can be crazier than the individuals in it.

When one averages the number of people in a family it turns out to be a decimal rather than reflect individuals

as whole persons.

 

When societies make decisions, the sum total decision can be to get into trillion dollar debt

athough individuals know that is stupid. The individuals would-could be compensating more responsively to the debt as they went whereas in the case of our national budget everyone expects someone else to pay for it.

 

A restaurant makes a meal or a TV show is produced , the result is intended to suit a broad audience and so the contents end up suiting the lowest common denominator,, hence you get tasteless food and garbage movies because it yeilds a saleable product rather than a really good one.

 

Folks crowded toether in unnatural settings like cities commit far more crimes per capita and stampede over one another at soccer matches ,, these are behaviors truly rare in small communities , they are manifestations of society which has a scale dynamic very unlike individuals dynamic.

 

Counting crazy people to see if the the group dynamic is reasonable and wholesome and sustainable ... is not recognizing that there are different levels on the social stage.

 

Stosh

[Marblehead]

Anyhow, back to where I was with this series:

 

Fred said: At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.

 

And Chuang Tzu replied: "Here is this man who by nature is lacking in virtue. If I let him go on with his unruliness I will endanger the state. If I try to impose some rule on him, I will endanger myself. He knows enough to recognize the faults of others, but he doesn't know his own faults. What can I do with a man like this?"

[Stosh]

Since the task here to compare and contrast,

I believe

and I havent gotten any books on fred yet

I am looking to the face value of the statements as presented

 

Fred is describing human nature , the secret no one wants to admit to all of.

Rebelling at boredom ,or the like, and perhaps with the tendency to push a point,

which doesnt really need to be pushed at all , blaming the other , while actually

bearining the responsibility of the disharmony himself

 

 

Whereas ChT or his fictional representation of himself

is reluctant here to make trouble or allow trouble to happen.

 

He is 'mistakenly' shouldering the endangerment of the state

(properly attributable as the doing of THE MAN)

and acting a bit fearful for himself By avoiding his duty to act

 

so I would see it clear that he could be speaking of himself as well,

taking the part of - a man not recognizing his own faults and endangering

harmonious continuation of the state.

 

So this too would be dancing around the subject of the human condition

blaming another ,while actually bearining the responsibility of disharmony oneself

 

Stosh.

[Marblehead]

Hi Stosh,

 

Exactly. So a question would be, "Do we interfer or do we just let it go?"

 

Some things matter and some things don't. We each have our priorities. I suggest that we will almost always do what is 'our' best interest, or at least what we think is our best interest.

 

But I think we can say that both Fred and Chuang are suggesting that we have the choice to either act or not act.

[GrandmasterP]

Or possibly savour the reflective moment between action and inaction. Nietzsche's 'Will to Effect' [better in German but I'm too lazy to go up and check bookshelves right now] may not necessarily imply an actual 'action to effect'. He is thinking more than he is doing. Reference to follow.

Chang Tzu likewise. If the shoe is comfortable.... Fred is more than comfortable, in his bedroom; with his thoughts. Awaiting his sister's step upon the stair briging more cake and coffee.

Hence there may be a middle path twixt interfering or letting go. A dynamical reflective-inaction which may engender as much, albeit different; change around the issue under consideration. For example meditation with intention for the healing of another who is not physically present.

[Marblehead]

Or possibly savour the reflective moment between action and inaction.

Agree. I think that both Fred and Chuang were thinkers and whenever possible would reflect upon the conditions before making a decision to act or not.

[Stosh]

Well, yes , the situations they are in ,seem to inspire opposition.

 

Fred is saying that its what we and he tends to do.

 

Chuang , seems to know some sort of action is what one would be intending

but is reticent about it. (He still has options , like give the MAN

enough rope for him to hang himself.

But I dont see this as a 'legitimate' question that he is really asking )

 

Freds line is funny and fast in its irony , immediately one can recognize

similar motivations and responses having been ours.

 

Chuangs posit is more rhetorical. Like when my mother said

"what am I going to do with you?" and again its immediately recognizable

as rhetorical.

 

So I can agree the lesson of both is in the self reflection inspired

But I dont see either making any clear stand about

what is proper from their own view.

Simply the musings of a young man fond of fire and

an old man fond of warm socks.

 

 

Stosh

Edited September 20, 2012 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

But I dont see either making any clear stand about

what is proper from their own view.

Stosh

I smiled when I read that. It is true, both these philosophers oftentimes hold back from telling us what we are to do. Perhaps because they want us to make our own decisions, take or not take our own actions, and take full responsibility for all of our own decisions and actions.