The Facts of Life:
Life is ‘isness’. It is being (Ontos, Sein).
It is the amalgamation of all things that are both insofar as they are and how they are, it is, furthermore, it is the precondition and for, and, actuality of both.
Aristotle (Metaphysics Bk XII) describes Ontos as the most general category, that which can be applied to all things and, as such, qualitatively an empty category.
This view of life as ‘undescribable’ is shared by Hegel and Wittgenstein.
But, all three authors seem to remind us, life is, simultaneously, its own experiencing.
As experience is qualitative, and its precondition, life lends itself to qualification
This qualification is the recognition of the quality of difference, conflict, birth and death. In short, the quality of form.
Primary questions: What is our gateway into discussing life discursively? What should we aim to do with life? Describe it? Explain it? Love it? Affirm it?
It is the amalgamation of all things that are both insofar as they are and how they are, it is, furthermore, it is the precondition and for, and, actuality of both.
Aristotle (Metaphysics Bk XII) describes Ontos as the most general category, that which can be applied to all things and, as such, qualitatively an empty category.
This view of life as ‘undescribable’ is shared by Hegel and Wittgenstein.
But, all three authors seem to remind us, life is, simultaneously, its own experiencing.
As experience is qualitative, and its precondition, life lends itself to qualification
This qualification is the recognition of the quality of difference, conflict, birth and death. In short, the quality of form.
Primary questions: What is our gateway into discussing life discursively? What should we aim to do with life? Describe it? Explain it? Love it? Affirm it?
Eros and Erosophy:
The problem of life is identical to the problem of the erotic. The erotic is, discursively, the annihilation of ontological difference in the realisation of concrete difference.
Likewise, the erotic formally eludes classification. To do so is to alienate from what it actually is (Petya’s concrete desire for Joanna) and turns it into a category which is universally applicable.
In talking about this, the erotic becomes a category only communicated ecstatically
In Plato’s tradition (See Symposium but also Democritus, Parmenides and Hesiod’s Theognia) Eros was the god or principle responsible for life being as it was, it was the cosmological transcendental synthesis
Nietzsche’s training in philology made him aware of this, his understanding of physiology also made him acutely aware of the effects of erotic desires and practices on the individual embodied human being. The physiological effects are the preconditions of thought, of discourse in general.
Woolf was the first translator of Freud into English and, despite her difficult relation with the texts, was aware of the principle that all consciousness was governed by erotic desire.
Likewise, the erotic formally eludes classification. To do so is to alienate from what it actually is (Petya’s concrete desire for Joanna) and turns it into a category which is universally applicable.
In talking about this, the erotic becomes a category only communicated ecstatically
In Plato’s tradition (See Symposium but also Democritus, Parmenides and Hesiod’s Theognia) Eros was the god or principle responsible for life being as it was, it was the cosmological transcendental synthesis
Nietzsche’s training in philology made him aware of this, his understanding of physiology also made him acutely aware of the effects of erotic desires and practices on the individual embodied human being. The physiological effects are the preconditions of thought, of discourse in general.
Woolf was the first translator of Freud into English and, despite her difficult relation with the texts, was aware of the principle that all consciousness was governed by erotic desire.
Plato and the dialectics of divinity and the fear of force
The first formal thing we notice is that dialectic is used initially only to facilitate the speech, then to criticise it
In the speech we are presented with the individual interpretation of phenomena. This interpretation is mediated not only by intentionality but by bare intentions. The intention not only dictates the speech but subverts the truth:
In the speech we are presented with the individual interpretation of phenomena. This interpretation is mediated not only by intentionality but by bare intentions. The intention not only dictates the speech but subverts the truth:
Lysias’ speech – Lysias has no argument, he has a series of skewed examples which seem to indicate that one should only sleep with a man not in love with you. There is no formal coherence (count the times he uses a conjunction, seriously, its fucked up). This expresses the sophist’s life (remember, disorganised speech is the product of the disorganised soul, a disorganised soul is the product of no self discipline in the world of activity). Lysias is, in Platonic terms, degenerate. As a democrat he appeals to the lowest common denominator, that is, grubby self interest. As this prerogative is dictated by an inability to think of one’s self interest as related to any form of universality, it cannot be expressed as logical necessity. To express it thus would make it hold for everyone, not just as erotic theory, but, as a ‘moral dictate’ based around a collective self interest. This possibility is negated by the ouroboros of Athenian democracy. (Bronze)
In the following interlude, the dialectic merely proves that a further speech is necessary. In short, it indicates that there is an imminent gap between what Lysias thinks he is doing (science) and what he actually gives us (deceit). The dialectic is still subsumed, we are still trying to find ‘the right one’.
Socrates alone: The discursive practice dictating the dialogue insists that we keep the presupposition. The presupposition is a reduction to personal interest, hence, Socrates can only assume the role of the rhetorical craftsman. He takes the raw materials of a Lysias and turns them into something coherent. His labour, though, is not called into being by the necessity or utility of the end product, but simply by the being of the raw materials and Phaedrus’ ignorance of basic rationality. Hence, life is alienated in its expression. Socrates excludes, he dis-unifies. This is acknowledged at the beginning of the speech and in the fact that Socrates covers his head with his cloak, making himself voluntarily blind. Remember that in the Republic sight is explicitly analogous to knowledge and morality. Phaedrus has forced him
Socrates and the Muses/Arguments:
Palinodes are caused by force, but what force? The fear of retribution from the gods (See Steisichoras in Greek Lyric Poetry OUP 1983). The Socratic Oedipus has seen not ‘too much’ but not enough, to see is to speak and act in line with what one sees (the Good is self motivating). To do otherwise is impiety. The Socratic realisation of this comes from the daimon which only tells Socrates his faults. Immediately, the third speech is facilitated by the introduction of a further subject. This impersonal subject pulls the rug of ‘I, Socrates’ from under the logos.
What replaces this spectre of the’ I’ is the inspiration of the Muses. Here, the dialectic becomes complete, we have the unification of two entities in pursuit of the truth. This unity is the unity of the temporal, physical Socrates with the ‘divine muses’. The divine is the precondition of the world, to know the divine is know the world better than the world knows itself. ‘Life’ becomes comprehensible only in its ecstatic grasping outside of itself. Formally, we have moved from rhetoric into dialectic with the very essence of life itself (see the prayer at the end of the text). We notice, in the post speech dialogue, that the divine is also the rational. The gods and the Arguments, then, are unified. Not only this, but, our path to understanding ‘life’ is in a rationality that superceedes the actuality of any individual instantiation of it. Formally, we must negate the ‘I’ in multiplicity and reduce all phenomena to their rational constituents. (For Plato’s self criticism see the opening of the Statesman.
What replaces this spectre of the’ I’ is the inspiration of the Muses. Here, the dialectic becomes complete, we have the unification of two entities in pursuit of the truth. This unity is the unity of the temporal, physical Socrates with the ‘divine muses’. The divine is the precondition of the world, to know the divine is know the world better than the world knows itself. ‘Life’ becomes comprehensible only in its ecstatic grasping outside of itself. Formally, we have moved from rhetoric into dialectic with the very essence of life itself (see the prayer at the end of the text). We notice, in the post speech dialogue, that the divine is also the rational. The gods and the Arguments, then, are unified. Not only this, but, our path to understanding ‘life’ is in a rationality that superceedes the actuality of any individual instantiation of it. Formally, we must negate the ‘I’ in multiplicity and reduce all phenomena to their rational constituents. (For Plato’s self criticism see the opening of the Statesman.
Nietzsche and the affirmative aphorism:
Quotes to remember from elsewhere:
‘Presupposing Truth is a woman, what then? Have not all philosophers, insofar as they have been dogmatists been incapable of wooing a wench?’ Beyond Good and Evil ‘Introduction’
‘I admire only those that write in blood and aphorisms. They want not to be read but to be learned by heart’ Thus Spake Zarathustra ‘Of Reading and Reading’
‘Presupposing Truth is a woman, what then? Have not all philosophers, insofar as they have been dogmatists been incapable of wooing a wench?’ Beyond Good and Evil ‘Introduction’
‘I admire only those that write in blood and aphorisms. They want not to be read but to be learned by heart’ Thus Spake Zarathustra ‘Of Reading and Reading’
Aphorism = ‘Definition horizon’ literally translated. Marsden describes it as ‘a skin which grows around a meaning, containing it while letting it grow’ (‘The Art of the Aphorism’ in A Companion to Nietzsche ed. Ansell-Pearson)
The aphorism is the form of the Hippocratic writings. It is the medium of symptomatology. One reads it and then tests its applicability in the world around one. Its meaning necessarily fluctuates through its application, as Hippocrates has been superseded by modern medicine.
In Human, All Too Human Nietzsche speculates that the aphorism is the mode of disseminating information which is most apt for us as physiological and psychological beings. This is how I interpret the ’blood’ in the Z quote.
The aphorism is carried by us almost involuntarily, like an old saying. But, Nietzsche subverts the nature of old sayings by expressing in the aphorism a set of paradoxes whose conclusion can be ‘said in ten sentences’ but not ‘by everyone else in a whole book’.
The aphorism rhythmically subverts are traditional modes of interpretation. It’s model of application comes so easily to us, but, what the aphorism communicates is the denial of this very form of interpretation. It makes us look at the world differently.
As such, our attitude to life becomes one which is not reductive. We do not seek the known in the unknown but vice versa.
The aphorism is the form of the Hippocratic writings. It is the medium of symptomatology. One reads it and then tests its applicability in the world around one. Its meaning necessarily fluctuates through its application, as Hippocrates has been superseded by modern medicine.
In Human, All Too Human Nietzsche speculates that the aphorism is the mode of disseminating information which is most apt for us as physiological and psychological beings. This is how I interpret the ’blood’ in the Z quote.
The aphorism is carried by us almost involuntarily, like an old saying. But, Nietzsche subverts the nature of old sayings by expressing in the aphorism a set of paradoxes whose conclusion can be ‘said in ten sentences’ but not ‘by everyone else in a whole book’.
The aphorism rhythmically subverts are traditional modes of interpretation. It’s model of application comes so easily to us, but, what the aphorism communicates is the denial of this very form of interpretation. It makes us look at the world differently.
As such, our attitude to life becomes one which is not reductive. We do not seek the known in the unknown but vice versa.
Decadents can’t dance:
Decadent values are self contained insofar as they allow no questioning. When descending life asserts itself as a ‘civilised state’ (like Bismarck’s Germany’) then any opposition to it is seen as barbaric. It homogenises from its own standpoint.
It is, for this very reason, evangelical. Not only does it insist that all phenomena conform to it but all peoples likewise.
In this homogenisation of life, life itself is denied in its multiplicity. The affirmation is impossible in that it is always a deduction, I affirm only what suits me.
The aphorism invites us to move from standpoint to standpoint, it creates a new conversation of standpoints which transcends the initial physiological imperatives. It invites us dance. We move back to erosophy insofar as we are trying to reach out for truth without a fixed plan or methodology. It is the spontaneous longing of the lover set to music (the initial expression of der Ur-Eine and the oldest method of courtship).
It is, for this very reason, evangelical. Not only does it insist that all phenomena conform to it but all peoples likewise.
In this homogenisation of life, life itself is denied in its multiplicity. The affirmation is impossible in that it is always a deduction, I affirm only what suits me.
The aphorism invites us to move from standpoint to standpoint, it creates a new conversation of standpoints which transcends the initial physiological imperatives. It invites us dance. We move back to erosophy insofar as we are trying to reach out for truth without a fixed plan or methodology. It is the spontaneous longing of the lover set to music (the initial expression of der Ur-Eine and the oldest method of courtship).
