Beyond Good And Evil?

Who? I guess I could look him up....

 

should rather than could

 

says who?

 

Maybe. The dominance of mind in him could have also been a factor in his breakdown. Chronic thinking is a factor in insanity, and Nietzche drove himself to great lengths to 'think' out the truth, not knowing that the truth is not an idea or a conception which can be comprehended by the finite mind.

Franklin Albert Jones , the American enlightened master and philosopher was not the meditative type in the beginning, as he studied philosophy earnestly as a youth in his quest for truth for many years. It was eventually meditation that brought him in touch with the truth , in his own words.

Rajas is equivalent to an energetic disposition. And Patanjali had stated in the Yoga sutras, "Success is speedy for the extremely energetic. "


Nietzche was really ripe for Buddhahood, imho , and he had the honesty, character and nervous energy or prana to go the distance.


As I stated earlier, he erroneously sought truth in the world of thoughts, ideas and concepts and finding it all to be relative, and ephemeral, found solace in nihilism, believing that truth through its permanent nature will be left intact when all that is relative is destroyed.

This saying of his exemplifies his thought process...


“Nihilism is…not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one shoulder to the plough; one destroys.”

 

And so was Herman Hesse, especially in Siddhartha.

 

I find that notion not at useful, and really a bit like a disenchanted teenager. As I said in an earlier post, Nietzsche seems to me like a person who had suffered deep trauma, probably during his childhood. That kind of thinking reflects that. Rather than using our energy to help a desperate and lost world, let's just destroy it. Wouldn't be quite so bad if he had some idea of an alternative to the culture he hated so much and wanted to destroy, but he really doesn't. The dominance of the 'superman' isn't something I'd really want to have to live through.

 

I don't agree with his philosophy, but I think Nietzsche's reputation as a nihilist might be unwarranted. He thought that allowing free rein to creative genius would achieve good results. If you want real nihilism, check out Max Stirner, who is similar enough to Nietzsche for Eduard von Hartmann to accuse Nietzsche of plagiarism. But Nietzsche valued "order of rank" and the desirability of free spirited philosopher-supermen to serve as "commanders and lawgivers". Stirner would have none of that.

 

What Nietzche stated was the logical conclusion of his intellectual search for truth. He found that all values were relative and hence false. Through destruction of the old order or framework of values, that which is of a permanent nature will prevail due to its intrinsic strength, as per his reasoning. His thinking doesn't seem to be influenced by emotivity of any sort ,imo, though he might be accused of a lack of deep feeling which has an intuitive quality of its own.

He was passionate in his quest for truth, and when he felt stifled in this regard , he felt that the destruction of all that which is relative and false would unveil the truth eventually. This is sound thinking.

His error lied in thinking that the finite mind is capable of comprehending the Infinite. He had no understanding of meditation or Awareness, which is ironically his own true nature, which could have enabled him to realise that which is of a permanent nature.

This ignorance or lack of self-knowledge forced him to pursue a destructive course in his pursuit of the truth.

As the enlightened master Eckhart Tolle stated, "Thought alone, when it is no longer connected with the much vaster realm of consciousness, quickly becomes barren, insane, destructive.”

 

A strange thing - when I did a google search for Stirner to remind myself what his line was, a photo of Rudolph Steiner came up. Probably confusion over spelling. Whatever one's opinion of Steiner, he was definitely on very different page than either Stirner or Nietzsche. And personally, I find his work far more amenable, if a little bit 'occultist'.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=stirner&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

There have been many philosophers throughout western history. Philosophy is by definition a systematic rational inquiry into truth. So your criticism of Nietzsche's lack of self knowledge or connection to a greater whole could be applied to the vast majority of philosophy, not only to Nietzsche.
Not all of them came up with stuff as controversial or to my mind as imbalanced as Nietzsche. He seems to be a philosopher who one either likes or deplores, with not much middle ground. I've already given my own opinion.

 

Philosophy can understand truth in its relative aspects , but not the absolute, because of the limitations of the instrument it uses, the finite intellect and thought.
A finite instrument cannot comprehend the absolute or the infinite. It can only comprehend the finite. Hence the reason why philosophy comes across a roadblock in this regard.

Recognising this fact, eastern philosophy emphasized transcending the limited and finite intellect in order to grasp the Absolute, through consciousness purified of its psychological content through meditation. This purified consciousness becomes a fit instrument to comprehend the absolute.

The ancient sages attained enlightenment or perception of the Absolute in this manner, and also stated that they found the whole of existence to be nothing but pure consciousness in its basic or fundamental state, from the vantage point of enlightenment.

The above statement has also been validated by modern enlightened masters like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Annamalai Swami, Jaggi Vasudev, Dada Gavand, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Bernadette Roberts, Barry Long, Eckhart Tolle, Jean Klein, Francis Lucille, Rupert Spira, Mooji, Madhukar, Dave Oshana, Metta Zetty, Jeff Foster, Byron Katie, Robert Adams, Adyashanti, Jed Mckenna, Pamela Wilson, Jac o Keeffe, Burt Harding , Greg Goode.

 

an imperfect logic is all that any of us has. all that all of us together have, and possibly even all that anything, even the god-like and non-physical has.

beyond ourselves, individually AND collectively, there is a universe, that grated, we can only see through our own eyes,
but one that in not way depends upon our doing so.

that real universe, or simply reality, has no such 'law of balance'.

what it has instead, is sufficient diversity, a diversity so great, that its limits if it has any, are undetectable,
the result of which being, a very near approximation to such things as balance and impartiality.

as individuals, we have a self interest in the kind of existence we experience.
much of that experience results from the culture that surrounds us.

that culture is the statistical sum of how all of us, together, each individually act.
we can't expect to live in a world that doesn't bite us on the ass,
if we're too busy hating or wanting or whatever excuse we come up with, to care what effect we each ourselves have on it.

that's the only real morality, and that is where it comes from.

gods, if they choose to exist, that's fine, and if they don't, well that's up to them and not us.
at any rate, to me at least, it isn't what we believe that has that much to do with.
only in so far as to how it affects how we act, is it pertinent to the question.

i feel that non-physical things exist, and have no particular hostility to our own existence.
but objectively, there is no argument in support of their having to.

i think this is the point, if not netschie's or others, mine at least,
that all these ideas of taboos that come from beliefs,
these are a separate thing, from the natural good and harm,
and why the effect we have, has reason to concern us.

 

Lolz. Posted in wrong thread. Never done that b4 and didn't believe anyone who's ever posted this reply.

 

I disagree entirely. I have never read another 'philosopher' who wanted to laugh as much as Nietzsche.

Yes (yawns) I agree there is something of the Nietzschean in contemporary (cough) life. None of which is Nietzsches fault. LOL

 

Yes I've made friend with Nietzsche now. I still don't agree with everything he had to say, but have come to realize he was a great writer and original thinker. Quite mad of course. Little known in his lifetime and a somewhat tortured soul. Poor Nietzsche.

 

The fuck?! LOLLL

 

Nietzsche was aware of Buddhism and had good things to say about it.

 

Of course?

 

Are you a word nitpicker?

 

Only when it comes to meaning.