1. Chemistry of ideas and sensations

You can read the aphorism I discuss here below the main article.

Synopsis and my take on it:

Nietzsche is predicting here the existence of what we now call neurotransmitters in a study field (neurochemistry) that was not yet invented. First he pointed out that in metaphysical philosophy and in popular languages there is the assumption of “a miraculous origin for more highly valued things”. Things like making music that originates from “divine inspiration” instead of a cold hard chemistry process in the brain. Nietzsche talks about “chemistry of the moral, religious, esthetic ideas and sentiments” and about emotions we feel. And then, as Nietzsche often does in his work, he ends with a question that puts a thought in your mind that makes you feel challenged: “Humanity likes to put all questions as to origin and beginning out of its mind; must one not be almost dehumanized to feel a contrary tendency in one’s self?”

In one sentence:

Chemistry takes over

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1914

First and last things

CHEMISTRY OF IDEAS AND SENSATIONS. —Philosophical problems adopt in almost all matters the same form of question as they did two thousand years ago ; how can anything spring from its opposite ? for instance, reason out of unreason, the sentient out of the dead, logic out of unlogic, disinterested contemplation out of covetous willing, life for others out of egoism, truth out of error ? Metaphysical philosophy has helped itself over those difficulties hitherto by denying the origin of one thing in another, and assuming a miraculous origin for more highly valued things, immediately out of the kernel and essence of the ” thing in itself.” Historical philosophy, on the contrary, which is no longer to be thought of as separate from physical science, the youngest of all philosophical methods, has ascertained in single cases (and presumably this will happen in everything) that there are no opposites except in the usual exaggeration of the popular or metaphysical point of view, and that an error of reason lies at the bottom of the opposition : according to this explanation, strictly understood, there is neither an unegoistical action nor an entirely disinterested point of view, they are both only sublimations in which the fundamental element appears almost evaporated, and is only to be discovered by the closest observation. All that we require, and which can only be given us by the present advance of the single sciences, is a chemistry of the moral, religious, esthetic ideas and sentiments, as also of those emotions which we experience in ourselves both in the great and in the small phases of social and intellectual intercourse, and even in solitude; but what if this chemistry should result in the fact that also in this case the most beautiful colors have been obtained from base, even despised materials ? Would many be inclined to pursue such examinations? Humanity likes to put all questions as to origin and beginning out of its mind; must one not be almost dehumanised to feel a contrary tendency in one’s self?

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

Von den ersten und letzten Dingen.

Chemie der Begriffe und Empfindungen. – Die Philosophischen Probleme nehmen jetzt wieder fast in allen Stücken dieselbe Form der Frage an, wie vor zweitausend Jahren.- wie kann Etwas aus seinem Gegensatz entstehen, zum Beispiel Vernünftiges aus Vernunftlosem, Empfindendes aus Todtem, Logik aus Unlogik, interesseloses Anschauen aus begehrlichem Wollen, Leben für Andere aus Egoismus, Wahrheit aus Irrthümern? Die metaphysische Philosophie half sich bisher über diese Schwierigkeit hinweg, insofern sie die Entstehung des Einen aus dem Andern leugnete und für die höher gewertheten Dinge einen Wunder-Ursprung annahm, unmittelbar aus dem Kern und Wesen des “Dinges an sich” heraus. Die historische Philosophie dagegen, welche gar nicht mehr getrennt von der Naturwissenschaft zu denken ist, die allerjüngste aller philosophischen Methoden, ermittelte in einzelnen Fällen (und vermuthlich wird diess in allen ihr Ergebniss sein), dass es keine Gegensätze sind, ausser in der gewohnten Uebertreibung der populären oder metaphysischen Auffassung und dass ein Irrthum der Vernunft dieser Gegenüberstellung zu Grunde liegt: nach ihrer Erklärung giebt es, streng gefasst, weder ein unegoistisches Handeln, noch ein völlig interesseloses Anschauen, es sind beides nur Sublimirungen, bei denen das Grundelement fast verflüchtigt erscheint und nur noch für die feinste Beobachtung sich als vorhanden erweist. – Alles, was wir brauchen und was erst bei der gegenwärtigen Höhe der einzelnen Wissenschaften uns gegeben werden kann, ist eine Chemie der moralischen, religiösen, ästhetischen Vorstellungen und Empfindungen, ebenso aller jener Regungen, welche wir im Gross- und Kleinverkehr der Cultur und Gesellschaft, ja in der Einsamkeit an uns erleben: wie, wenn diese Chemie mit dem Ergebniss abschlösse, dass auch auf diesem Gebiete die herrlichsten Farben aus niedrigen, ja verachteten Stoffen gewonnen sind? Werden Viele Lust haben, solchen Untersuchungen zu folgen? Die Menschheit liebt es, die Fragen über Herkunft und Anfänge sich aus dem Sinn zu schlagen: muss man nicht fast entmenscht sein, um den entgegengesetzten Hang in sich zu spüren? –

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

Before and after Newton

Religion

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”. (Genesis 11:1)

“So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous”. (Exodus 9:24)

“Allah hath turned some to apes and swine,”. (5:60)

Why is religion still around? Most people in the world will drive a car, make a phone call or watch tv. All these activities are made possible because of science, the same science that can disprove most of the claims from the different religions. Religious people don’t except the scientific method if it disproves their beliefs but except it the moment they get in a car, made possible by science.

Everyone that bases their actions on, tradition, hearsay, voices, or old books should by now know that the “they stand on thin ice”.

You can see a clear evolution in religious traditions like the concept of an “eye for an eye “to a justice system or the role of the woman in the household. The strict “god given” rules are more flexible as time goes by taking away strength from their claim of divine inspiration. Claiming that something is tradition and therefore true is in this light difficult. If you claim the newest tradition/laws as true then that contradicts often the original traditions or law books.
Many stories and rules in the different books and religious laws are themselves based on an oral tradition wherein stories go from one to another. Our modern historians or the police use hearsay but never as the only source, and these stories are often debated as to filter out the truth. In some religions there is also a tradition to debate the origins and validity of their thousands year old books and laws, but as everybody knows that has studied ancient history the evidence for these theories are thin and surely not enough to base a whole religion on let alone prosecute people and fight wars.
In most religious traditions hearing voices is a big part of their (written)belief. Throughout the ages and in many cultures, people that heard voices had often a special place even if they made no sense. This changed slowly and nowadays we have a whole industry to calm these people down. But if you genuinely heard voices or not, it’s not hard to imagine that a charismatic person can pretend to hear voices and give his wishes more convincing power. There are many reason why people (claim to) hear voices but like with hearsay it should not be a basis for a religion that can be so destructive.
The old books are al based on the first three points and can be dismissed.

Imagine you want to put together an IKEA shelf and the book with instruction was based on tradition, hearsay, and people with voices in their head. You might think that any way with IKEA manuals, but I guaranty you that there is a lot of science involved in making these manuals and furniture.

Even the most religious person in the world has probably some modern equipment that was made with science that contradicts his belief. And if people say that they “just know that God exist” you just ask them if they would fly in a modern airplane where the engineer that designs the wing just “knows the right shape”. As modern people we should know that saying that it feels right doesn’t make it right. That’s a sentiment from a time when people believed in witches, talking snakes and a flat earth.

Science can also be used for evil like a weapon. But a weapon itself is not dangerous, it becomes dangerous if it gets used in the name of some beliefs.

I know that there are a lot of peaceful religious people that use their personal god as a guide and strength in their life but there are better ways to find a guide in this life. One is to just look around and get amazed by nature and how lucky we are to be part of it, science is the tool to see and understand even more of it.

Fill your mind with science because an empty mind can be filled with nonsense.

Democracy and the naked leader

Quotes

“Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.” Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

I have not done the research on how often politicians break their promises after elections, but it’s looks like it is part of the trade. Promises are often not lined up with reality out of fear that the truth will not be believed, wanted, or wished. These same politicians are in the spirit of the quote from Spinoza, the “interpreters of nature and the gods” and looked upon by the “mob”. All these lofty promises are thus dressed up in certainties, and proclaimed to be rules of nature or the will of god. The product they sell is not that what’s thought to be true but what ought to be true. Because of the nature of their promises it must be sold with deception and trickery.

If a candidate can win with a strong mandate, the people that voted for this person will forgive, if reality shows its face and leaves all the promises forgotten in the corner. If the candidate wins narrowly or must work with others, reality will be blamed on the other or the chest get pumped up one more time to make sure the “wonderment would” not “be taken away” and there will be a stalemate between this “wonderment” and reality.

This is one way you can interpret part of this quote but there is even a more sinister interpretation in it. In today’s (2017) politics we see a tendency to ridicule the opponent and deny excepted science. This practice is off coarse as old as that there are governments formed, but in a modern democracy it is normally done with a bit more class.

Times change, but we don’t, as individuals we can be great but as a group we’re still dumb as hell.

USA vs EU

Society

Today I wanted to watch a video on You Tube from someone I follow. Normally he talks about his tools and projects but this time he wanted to rant about gun rights, he is off course an American. For me it’s almost unbelievable that two so similar cultures can be so far apart on this issue. I don’t want to go too much into details but if there were hardly any gun related homicide in America we wouldn’t have this discussion.

I am from the Netherlands and having a gun in your house to protect yourself was unheard of. You can join a club and get a license but that was for the sport. I can’t remember it ever being something we talked about, even in politics there was, to my best recollection, never a discussion over gun control. There are around 170 murders in the Nederland’s each year and in 40% of the cases there was a firearm used. That’s around 70 or less than 0.5 per 100.000. In American this number is around 3.5 per 100.000 See here for an overview. If you look at this list then there are countries like France, Sweden and Norway where almost 30% of the people have guns in the house but with similar homicide numbers as in the Netherlands. Having guns is not the biggest issue, I live now in Norway and in the beginning, I found it strange that you could buy hunting rifles in the local outdoor store but it’s a big thing here and where I live there are in general almost no crimes and murders are rare to, despite the many hunting rifles that are circulating here.

There is no discussion that there are more guns and murders in America than in Europe, that’s just counting and numbers. There is a lot discussion going on about the reason, and what to do about it.

I know that there are a lot of Americans that want gun laws just as they are in Europe. If I may generalize I will say that these people are also more tolerant to minorities, less religious and more left leaning. Among a larger group there is a strong animosity towards big government, health care, identity cards or socialism.

Americans talk a lot about their freedom and opportunities, but again, the numbers don’t lie. In most countries in Europe you have a better chance to climb the social ladder than in America. Freedom in America has more meaning if you have money, in Europe your own qualities have more to say in your success. If you are poor, have the wrong color and been born in the wrong neighborhood you can be proud if you climb out of it in America, but how many talented boys and girls that started way behind the rest haven’t made it, and how many mediocre boys and girls took their place. In America there is still more of a class system like it was in England or India where class and blood divides you in have and have-nots. Where and how you are born play a big part in your life, a lot of your freedom is immediately curtailed or multiplied at your birth. America is the land of the privileged.

Maybe this lack of talented and educated people play part in what is happening in America. I pointed out the love for more guns, so you can protect yourself against all those other guns, the denial of climate change, there addiction to gas guzzling v8s, their ridiculous religions, war on drugs, addiction to prescription pills and finally their latest choice for leader, and I had so much hope after the last one. If I take the Netherlands as an example than you can say that our rightwing is more like leftwing in America if it’s about freedom, abortion, drugs, healthcare, unemployment. And the large rightwing/republican group with their anti-abortion, anti-science and religious fervor are represented in the Netherlands but it’s a tiny minority. There are large groups in America that live in a mono culture where everything fits their beliefs. This kind of brainwashing is harder to do in a more tolerant and open society with more equality. Better, more diverse end accessible education is probably the solution but it is engrained in the American soul, so it might take a while.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Philosopher king

Society

“There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers” Plato

This is a quote from the Republic, a famous book/dialog between Plato and Socrates. I let this quote speak for itself and don’t go into the details.

What is a modern definition of a philosopher: “a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.” Or “a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, especially under trying circumstances.” According to dictionary.com I like this one from the Urban dictionary: “The kind of person that looks at the world in a way that very few people can. This person looks at all the angles of any given situation and judges dispassionately. This person is never understood, mainly because they think about things that could potentially break the spirit of those around them. Many people do not like the philosopher.” Read more

Philosophers like to think about problems that most people don’t want to think about or just don’t have the time or ability for. The world that Plato lived in was different. In his time the supposed king ruled over relative view people, if you look at the communication lines between the ruler, the people and adversaries, it could take days for the news to reach you and days to respond. There was probably more time to contemplate and les to manage on an hourly basis.

A philosopher could probably be a king or leader of some sort in the modern world, but there would be no time to contemplate, study, read 6 books, discuss and theorize over every decision that must be made. A ruler can be a philosophers but he cannot rule as a philosopher.

Luckily, we have now (2017) someone as president of the USA who says about himself the following: “I don’t even consider myself ambitious.” — “60 Minutes”, 1985 and “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault” — Twitter and this one “I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there — it’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.” — on sleeping with women who could have STDs, “The Howard Stern Show”

Obviously, he comes close to a philosopher king, he doesn’t do it because he’s ambitious, he is really smart and brave. Let’s see how some of his idea’s stack up to his fellow philosophers from the past.

Trump about making money, “I made a lot of money and I made it too easily, to the point of boredom.” — Vanity Fair, 1990 It’s not much of a philosophy but he might say that the capitalistic system is easily misused, like other philosophers also did.

Other philosophers: “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”. Bertrand Russell

“The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all … The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands – the ownership and control of their livelihoods – are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.” Helen Keller,

“There is often talk of human rights, but it is also necessary to talk of the rights of humanity. Why should some people walk barefoot, so that others can travel in luxurious cars? Why should some live for thirty-five years, so that others can live for seventy years? Why should some be miserably poor, so that others can be hugely rich? I speak on behalf of the children in the world who do not have a piece of bread. I speak on the behalf of the sick who have no medicine, of those whose rights to life and human dignity have been denied.” Fidel Castro

“The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn’t deliver the goods.” John Maynard Keynes

In this next quote Trump obviously points out that a lack of education is bad for democracy. “We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.” –Donald Trump on his performance with poorly educated voters who helped him win the Nevada Caucus, Feb. 23, 2016

Franklin D. Roosevelt is so honored with his new colleague that he turned around in his grave, to have a better look, or something. He also had something to say about education, something a lot of poor people have problems getting enough off. “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education”.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Nelson Mandela

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education”. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest”. Benjamin Franklin

The stereotypical philosopher would probably be a bad “King” but some critical thinking would not be bad. Sadly we live in a world where everybody is telling the emperor that he has no cloth on and it doesn’t matter.

The unexamined life is not worth living

Quotes

“The unexamined life is not worth living” Words supposedly spoken by Socrates at his trial, where he chose death over exile. For Socrates philosophy was very important, he is famous for his questioning of people’s beliefs, where he tries to guide a participant on to a path of doubt in his own reasoning and assumptions. There is a lot more to it but for now I want to focus on the “unexamined life”. I think that everybody “examines” their life, more or less. Of course, I cannot speak for everybody but it’s hard to imagine a person that has not once in their life looked in the mirror and thought…?

But Socrates is off course not thinking of the general questioning and doubt we all have as proof that we “examine our lives”. Most people answer their questions in the most economical way, by using the answers that are easily accessible to them. There are your parents, family, teachers, villagers, society, culture, church and more. All these entities have readymade answers, your parents don’t see it like that, but they give you what they got from their parents and the same goes for the teachers you have or the church you go to. Most of the time it is all in good faith, but if you look to a society controlled by a dictatorship for instance, you can find literal guidelines in how to behave and what to teach your children, something that is not so easy to find in a Democracy where there are other, harder to unravel, forces to control society.

Our brain is evolved in such a way that it doesn’t like to doubt. Our brain protects our consciousness from the conflicting information it receives by giving our consciousness the idea that all its ideas and world views are coherent. That makes sense when for instance you’re an ape, jumping from branch to branch unable to inspect every leaf that moves and every sound there is. The ape brain had to filter the information that was important and discard the rest. We humans do that still on a lower level with the input from our senses. This is called selective attention. But it also happens with more evolved brain processes like our capability to reason. A well know example of that is cognitive dissonance wherein conflicting ideas get resolved by suppression and avoidance.

As human being it’s difficult to be sure what is right and wrong within your own mind. In the world of inventions and speculations about the universe they came up with the scientific method. In this method the scientist not only have to prove their theory, they also must try to disapprove it, and let others try to replicate the theory and method of testing. It’s a little bit more complicated but the more refined this system became over the years the more fantastical wonderers the scientist came up with. In other words: the more they tried to circumvent their own bias mind, the better the result.

But for the silent chaos in our head the scientific method doesn’t work, we cannot be judge, jury and prosecutor at the same time in our own head. But we can start with something. What I just wrote about is not unique, it’s not common knowledge but with a little effort you might except that the things you know have a reason that you know them. That doesn’t say much about the validity of those ideas, but the fact is that you have those ideas and they could have been different. And that is a good starting point in the world of philosophy. You don’t have to kick out all your values, but start wondering why you have them and the way they are.

Philosophy is not an easy path if you want peace of mind. There are many ways you can dull the senses enough to go on living in reasonable happiness, most people do, the numbers don’t lie. But progress has brought us a lot and it’s in a great part because of some remarkable individuals that started “thinking outside the box”. If you want to make the world a better place for all of us, then a good start would be to start questioning yourself. Imagine if everybody did exactly that.

“He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.” Friedrich Nietzsche