Author: Christiaan van Gaal

Shield

Our mind

Photoshop-7

When I was in my early twenties I thought for a brief moment that I had all the answers in me, like most people do when their young. After living in different parts of the world, and looking around, I realized that the world is more complex, my inexperienced certainty seemed to be baseless. I started asking people about their thoughts on specific subjects, and got different answers or none at all. I realized that people either have an opinion, are clueless or don’t care. The ones with an opinion often use it as a shield to protect themselves in a discussion or when confronted with undermining facts. The problem with a shield is that as long as it works there is no need to change it, as long as you stay around like minded people your fine. And if you’re among strangers you hold it tighter. These people have their opinion and I wondered where they got it from, or if they ever doubted it. How can you not doubt your opinion? If the next 10 people you meet have a different one, you cannot all be right.

If you ask people to lay down their shield, to step back and look where their opinion comes from, they often cannot do that, don’t understand the question, or get angry. It’s hard to recognize that you don’t know, and that you are vulnerable without a shield.

 

8. Pneumatic explanation of nature

Human all too human

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

Synopsis and my take on it:

Pneumatic 1 explanation of nature. “Metaphysics” 2 In this case Nietzsche means, in my opinion, the study of the relation between mind and matter “explains the writing of Nature” (The natural science) Mystically “as the Church and her learned men formerly did with the Bible.” It requires the skill of a philologists 3 to understand the true meaning of a text. But bad interpretation “with regard to books” is not overcome and “one still constantly comes across in developed societies the remains of allegorical 4 and mystic interpretation” And in the study of nature there is even worse interpretation and mystical thinking

In one sentence:

Nature mistakenly seen by former bible scholars

1 Pneumatology is the study of spiritual beings and phenomena, especially the spiritual aspect of human beings and the interactions between humans and God. (Wikipedia)

2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. (Read more)

3 Philology is the study of language in oral and written historical sources; it is a combination of literary criticism, history, and linguistics. It is more commonly defined as the study of literary texts as well as oral and written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning. A person who pursues this kind of study is known as a philologist. (Wikipedia)

4 As a literary device, an allegory is a metaphor whose vehicle may be a character, place or event, representing real-world issues and occurrences. Allegory (in the sense of the practice and use of allegorical devices and works) has occurred widely throughout history in all forms of art, largely because it can readily illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners. (Wikipedia)

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

  1. PNEUMATIC EXPLANATION OF NATURE.—Metaphysics explains the writing of Nature, so to speak, pneumatically, as the Church and her learned men formerly did with the Bible. A great deal of understanding is required to apply to Nature the same method of strict interpretation as the philologists have now established for all books with the intention of clearly understanding what the text means, but not suspecting a double sense or even taking it for granted. Just, however, as with regard to books, the bad art of interpretation is by no means overcome, and in the most cultivated society one still constantly comes across the remains of allegorical and mystic interpretation, so it is also with regard to Nature, indeed it is even much worse.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

  1. Pneumatische Erklärung der Natur. – Die Metaphysik erklärt die Schrift der Natur gleichsam pneumatisch, wie die Kirche und ihre Gelehrten es ehemals mit der Bibel thaten. Es gehört sehr viel Verstand dazu, um auf die Natur die selbe Art der strengeren Erklärungskunst anzuwenden, wie jetzt die -Philologen sie für alle Bücher geschaffen haben: mit der Absicht, schlicht zu verstehen, was die Schrift sagen will, aber nicht einen doppelten Sinn zu wittern, ja vorauszusetzen. Wie aber selbst in Betreff der Bücher die schlechte Erklärungskunst keineswegs völlig überwunden ist und man in der besten gebildeten Gesellschaft noch fortwährend auf Ueberreste allegorischer und mystischer Ausdeutung stösst: so steht es auch in Betreff der Natur – ja noch viel schlimmer

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.

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

 

7. The kill-joy in science

Human all too human

In one sentence:

Socratic search for happiness binds science

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

  1. THE KILL-JOY IN SCIENCE.—Philosophy separated from science when it asked the question, “Which is the knowledge of the world and of life which enables man to live most happily?” This happened in the Socratic schools ; the veins of scientific investigation were bound up by the point of view of happiness,—and are so still.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

  1. Der Störenfried in der Wissenschaft. Die Philosophie schied sich von der Wissenschaft, als sie die Frage stellte: welches ist diejenige Erkenntnis der Welt und des Lebens, bei welcher der Mensch am glücklichsten lebt? Dies geschah in den sokratischen Schulen: durch den Gesichtspunkt des Glücks unterband man die Blutadern der wissenschaftlichen Forschung – und tut es heute noch.

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 that is 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.

  1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
  2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1996
  3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
  4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
  5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
  6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

Behind that paper thin wall

Our mind

 

Day 599-1

I’m rereading the book Human all too Human from Friedrich Nietzsche. I have read the book before, and if I look at it I can clearly see the evidence of that. In this book Nietzsche writes in aphorisms, short pieces that are mostly self-contained, they are not clearly linked together. The advantage of this is that you can read one aphorism and think about it separated from the rest of the book. I have been doing that for the last week, but because I also wanted to write about the aphorisms and tried to analyze them, I used more time than I thought. It made me wonder how much I really understood them when I read them for the first time 15 years ago and read the book in a couple of weeks. Maybe I am so much slower now. Or was I less critical in the past and skipped over the bits that made no sense to me back then?

Continue reading →

6. The scientific spirit partially but not wholly powerful

Human all too human

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

Synopsis and my take on it:

“The smallest subdivisions of science” are treated objectively but science “as a whole” is not.1  Science as an entity is treated more personally, People take questions about science more personal than question about specific aspects of science like the functioning of a telescope, we can find use in that, compared to the conclusion taken from its observations, what can we do with that kind of knowledge?   In philosophy, “as the apex of the entire pyramid of science” there is the involuntarily questioning of the usefulness of knowledge and as an unconscious intention of the philosophy they give it (knowledge) the highest usefulness. Knowledge is questioned because that’s what philosophers do, but to do this they need knowledge. Nietzsche sees this unconscious reaction to give knowledge the highest usefulness as a reason for the dominance of metaphysics (thoughts2) over physics in philosophy. Because the questioning of knowledge is a thought process, philosophers see little value in solving real world problems.   Philosophy “desires, what art does, to give the greatest possible depth and meaning to life” and science seeks knowledge. “So far there has been no philosopher in whose hands philosophy has not grown into an” defense for knowledge. Both science and philosophy value knowledge because logic dictates it. “They are all tyrannized over by logic, and this is optimism—in its essence.” And Nietzsche throws in at the end the concept of logic and optimism that are both hard to place in the rest of this aphorism “and logic is by its nature optimism” (Hollingdale) Maybe it’s logical to search for knowledge and by doing so you assume you find an answer, hence the optimism.

In one sentence:

Philosophers think knowledge, scientist see knowledge.

1The translation by Zimmern translate “…werden rein sachlich behandelt” with “…are dealt with purely in relation to themselves” while the Dutch translation, Hollingdale and I translate it more like “are treated purely objectively”. It might not be of much significance, but it got my attention.

2 …The modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of an observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis. … (Wikipedia)

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

  1. THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT PARTIALLY BUT NOT WHOLLY POWERFUL.—The smallest subdivisions of science taken separately are dealt with purely in relation to themselves,—the general, great sciences, on the contrary, regarded as a whole, call up the question—certainly a very non-objective one—”Wherefore? To what end?” It is this utilitarian consideration which causes them to be dealt with less impersonally when taken as a whole than when considered in their various parts. In philosophy, above all, as the apex of the entire pyramid of science, the question as to the utility of knowledge is involuntarily brought forward, and every philosophy has the unconscious intention of ascribing to it the greatest usefulness. For this reason there is so much high-flying metaphysics in all philosophies and such a shyness of the apparently unimportant solutions of physics ; for the importance of knowledge for life must appear as great as possible. Here is the antagonism between the separate provinces of science and philosophy. The latter desires, what art does, to give the greatest possible depth and meaning to life and actions ; in the former one seeks knowledge and nothing further, whatever may emerge thereby. So far there has been no philosopher in whose hands philosophy has not grown into an apology for knowledge ; on this point, at least, every one is an optimist, that the greatest usefulness must be ascribed to knowledge. They are all tyrannised over by logic, and this is optimism—in its essence.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

  1. Der Geist der Wissenschaft im Theil, nicht im Ganzen mächtig. – Die abgetrennten kleinsten Gebiete der Wissenschaft werden rein sachlich behandelt: die allgemeinen grossen Wissenschaften dagegen legen, als Ganzes betrachtet, die Frage – eine recht unsachliche Frage freilich – auf die Lippen: wozu? zu welchem Nutzen? Wegen dieser Rücksicht auf den Nutzen werden sie, als Ganzes, weniger unpersönlich, als in ihren Theilen behandelt. Bei der Philosophie nun gar, als bei der Spitze der gesammten Wissenspyramide, wird unwillkürlich die Frage nach dem Nutzen der Erkenntniss überhaupt aufgeworfen, und jede Philosophie hat unbewusst die Absicht, ihr den höchsten Nutzen zuzuschreiben. Desshalb giebt es in allen Philosophien so viel hochfliegende Metaphysik und eine solche Scheu vor den unbedeutend erscheinenden Lösungen der Physik; denn die Bedeutsamkeit der Erkenntniss für das Leben soll so gross als möglich erscheinen. Hier ist der Antagonismus zwischen den wissenschaftlichen Einzelgebieten und der Philosophie. Letztere will, was die Kunst will, dem Leben und Handeln möglichste Tiefe und Bedeutung geben; in ersteren sucht man Erkenntniss und Nichts weiter, – was dabei auch herauskomme. Es hat bis jetzt noch keinen Philosophen gegeben, unter dessen Händen die Philosophie nicht zu einer Apologie der Erkenntniss geworden wäre; in diesem Puncte wenigstens ist ein jeder Optimist, dass dieser die höchste Nützlichkeit zugesprochen werden müsse. Sie alle werden von der Logik tyrannisirt: und diese ist ihrem Wesen nach Optimismus.

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.

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

 

5. Misunderstanding of dreams

Human all too human

In one sentence:

Our dreams divided the one inside.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

5. MISUNDERSTANDING OF DREAMS. —In the ages of a rude and primitive civilization man believed that in dreams he became acquainted with a second actual world; herein lies the origin of all metaphysics. Without dreams there could have been found no reason for a division of the world. The distinction, too, between soul and body is connected with the most ancient comprehension of dreams, also the supposition of an imaginary soul-body, therefore the origin of all belief in spirits, and probably also the belief in gods. ” The dead continues to live, for he appears to the living in a dream ” : thus men reasoned of old for thousands and thousands of years.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

5. Missverständniss des Traumes. – Im Traume glaubte der Mensch in den Zeitaltern roher uranfänglicher Cultur eine zweite reale Welt kennen zu lernen; hier ist der Ursprung aller Metaphysik. Ohne den Traum hätte man keinen Anlass zu einer Scheidung der Welt gefunden. Auch die Zerlegung in Seele und Leib hängt mit der ältesten Auffassung des Traumes zusammen, ebenso die Annahme eines Seelenscheinleibes, also die Herkunft alles Geisterglaubens, und wahrscheinlich auch des Götterglaubens. “Der Todte lebt fort; denn er erscheint dem Lebenden im Traume”: so schloss man ehedem, durch viele Jahrtausende hindurch.

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.

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

 

4. Astrology and the like

Human all too human

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

Synopsis and my take on it:

The things people like in religions, morals and aesthetic seem to belong to the surface and not the heart of it.  The people like the idea behind religion, morals and aesthetics, the lofty words, and shiny bits but they don’t want to see the fundament.  But they deceive themselves because they feel moved by it, like the stars do in astrology. The stars seem to point out our future, but they just shine. “the moral man, however, takes it for granted that what he has essentially at heart must also be the essence and heart of things”. The moral man takes what’s fundamental in him and sees that as the essence of the things.

In one sentence:

The ideas shine but the truth lies in the heart.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909

4. ASTROLOGY AND THE LIKE.—It is probable that the objects of religious, moral, æsthetic and logical sentiment likewise belong only to the surface of things, while man willingly believes that here, at least, he has touched the heart of the world ; he deceives himself, because those things enrapture him so profoundly, and make him so profoundly unhappy, and he therefore shows the same pride here as in astrology. For astrology believes that the firmament moves round the destiny of man; the moral man, however, takes it for granted that what he has essentially at heart must also be the essence and heart of things.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

4. Astrologie und Verwandtes. – Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass die Objecte des religiösen, moralischen und ästhetischen Empfindens ebenfalls nur zur Oberfläche der Dinge gehören, während der Mensch gerne glaubt, dass er hier wenigstens an das Herz der Welt rühre; er täuscht sich, weil jene Dinge ihn so tief beseligen und so tief unglücklich machen, und zeigt also hier denselben Stolz wie bei der Astrologie. Denn diese meint, der Sternenhimmel drehte sich um das Loos des Menschen; der moralische Mensch aber setzt voraus, Das, was ihm wesentlich am Herzen liege, müsse auch Wesen und Herz der Dinge sein.

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.

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

3. Appreciation of Simple Truths

Human all too human

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

Synopsis and my take on it:

An advanced civilization appreciates small scientific truth more than the blinding shine coming from metaphysical and artistic forms. The admirers of forms mock the admirers of “unpretentious truths” because the forms are so “beautiful, splendid, enchanting”. But the scientific truth is “hard won” and “manly”. Not only the individual but the whole of mankind “will be elevated to this manliness”. “The admirers of forms” will cling to the old truth after the scientific spirit succeeds, because they can’t or won’t appreciate the simple scientific truths. At the and of this aphorism Nietzsche writes that those worlds views have changed places and “the kingdom of the inward, spiritual beauty constantly grows deeper and wider”

This last quote was from the Helen Zimmern, 1914 translation. Below are the same passages but from different translators.

“because it cannot see that the richness of inner, rational beauty always spreads and deepens” Alexander Harvey, 1908

“spiritual beauty is continually growing deeper and wider” R. J. Hollingdale, 1986

“the realm of inner, spiritual beauty is continually deepening and expanding” Google translator 2017

“das Reich der inneren, geistigen Schönheit sich fortwährend vertieft und erweitert” F.Nietzsche 1878

In one sentence:

The appreciation of scientific beauty is slowly replacing the appreciation for external beauty.

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

3. ESTIMATION OF UNPRETENTIOUS TRUTHS.— It is the mark of a higher culture to value the little unpretentious truths which have been discovered by means of rigorous method more highly than the errors handed down by metaphysical ages and men, which blind us and make us happy. At first, one has scorn on his lips for unpretentious truths, as if they could offer no match for the others: they stand so modest, simple, sober, even apparently discouraging, while the other truths are so beautiful, splendid, enchanting, or even enrapturing. But truths that are hard won, certain, enduring, and therefore still of consequence for all further knowledge are the higher; to keep to them is manly, and shows bravery, simplicity, restraint. Eventually, not only the individual, but all mankind will be elevated to this manliness, when men finally grow accustomed to the greater esteem for durable, lasting knowledge and have lost all belief in inspiration and a seemingly miraculous communication of truths.

The admirers of forms, with their standard of beauty and sublimity, will, to be sure, have good reason to mock at first, when esteem for unpretentious truths and the scientific spirit first comes to rule, but only because either their eye has not yet been opened to the charm of the simplest form, or because men raised in that spirit have not yet been fully and inwardly permeated by it, so that they continue thoughtlessly to imitate old forms (and poorly, too, like someone who no longer really cares about the matter). Previously, the mind was not obliged to think rigorously; its importance lay in spinning out symbols and forms. That has changed ; that earnestness in the symbolical has become the mark of a lower culture. As our arts themselves grow evermore intellectual, our senses more spiritual, and as, for instance, people now judge concerning what sounds well to the senses quite differently from how they did a hundred years ago, so the forms of our life grow ever more spiritual, to the eye of older ages perhaps uglier, but only because it is incapable of perceiving how the kingdom of the inward, spiritual beauty constantly grows deeper and wider, and to what extent the inner intellectual look may be of more importance to us all than the most beautiful bodily frame and the noblest architectural structure

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

3. Schätzung der unscheinbaren Wahrheiten. – Es ist das Merkmal einer höhern Cultur, die kleinen unscheinbaren Wahrheiten, welche mit strenger Methode gefunden wurden, höher zu schätzen, als die beglückenden und blendenden Irrthümer, welche metaphysischen und künstlerischen Zeitaltern und Menschen entstammen. Zunächst hat man gegen erstere den Hohn auf den Lippen, als könne hier gar nichts Gleichberechtigtes gegen einander stehen: so bescheiden, schlicht, nüchtern, ja scheinbar entmuthigend stehen diese, so schön, prunkend, berauschend, ja vielleicht beseligend stehen jene da. Aber das mühsam Errungene, Gewisse, Dauernde und desshalb für jede weitere Erkenntniss noch Folgenreiche ist doch das Höhere, zu ihm sich zu halten ist männlich und zeigt Tapferkeit, Schlichtheit, Enthaltsamkeit an. Allmählich wird nicht nur der Einzelne, sondern die gesammte Menschheit zu dieser Männlichkeit emporgehoben werden, wenn sie sich endlich an die höhere Schätzung der haltbaren, dauerhaften Erkenntnisse gewöhnt und allen Glauben an Inspiration und wundergleiche Mittheilung von Wahrheiten verloren hat. – Die Verehrer der Formen freilich, mit ihrem Maassstabe des Schönen und Erhabenen, werden zunächst gute Gründe zu spotten haben, sobald die Schätzung der unscheinbaren Wahrheiten und der wissenschaftliche Geist anfängt zur Herrschaft zu kommen: aber nur weil entweder ihr Auge sich noch nicht dem Reiz der schlichtesten Form erschlossen hat oder weil die in jenem Geiste erzogenen Menschen noch lange nicht völlig und innerlich von ihm durchdrungen sind, so dass sie immer noch gedankenlos alte Formen nachmachen (und diess schlecht genug, wie es jemand thut, dem nicht mehr viel an einer Sache liegt). Ehemals war der Geist nicht durch strenges Denken in Anspruch genommen, da lag sein Ernst im Ausspinnen von Symbolen und Formen. Das hat sich verändert; jener Ernst des Symbolischen ist zum Kennzeichen der niederen Cultur geworden; wie unsere Künste selber immer intellectualer, unsere Sinne geistiger werden, und wie man zum Beispiel jetzt ganz anders darüber urtheilt, was sinnlich wohltönend ist, als vor hundert Jahren: so werden auch die Formen unseres Lebens immer geistiger, für das Auge älterer Zeiten vielleicht hässlicher, aber nur weil es nicht zu sehen vermag, wie das Reich der inneren, geistigen Schönheit sich fortwährend vertieft und erweitert und in wie fern uns Allen der geistreiche Blick jetzt mehr gelten darf, als der schönste Gliederbau und das erhabenste Bauwerk.

I use a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also read a copyrighted translation by R.J.HolllingdaleI that is much better than the one I can show you here and that is a copyright free. It is a translation from 1914 that you can also read here and here. If you want to read it in German you can do that here, my German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use it as a referee. I did not find a copyright free Dutch edition but you can buy and then download it here if you like it, I will make some pictures of the first aphorism so you can see if you like it.

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 that is 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.

  1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
  2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1996
  3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
  4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
  5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
  6. Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

 

Elvis

History

elvispresley759

I finished a book about Elvis Presley today and that was interesting. I off course new about him. I’ve even been to Graceland, but that’s because our flight got diverted during a storm and we had to spend a day in Memphis. I knew a little bit about him, his singing, acting, singing career, his popularity with the ladies and the pills that killed him at the end.

Continue reading →

Opinion

Quotes

“there are no eternal facts as there are no absolute truths.”

Day 595-1

 

This is a famous quote by Nietzsche and I am tempted to give my opinion about it, but I don’t. The reason I don’t like to that is complicated, but I can give an example that might explain it. If someone ask me what I think of a piece of music from for instance Mozart, I can tell them if I like it or not, but I cannot be critical about the quality of the music because that would mean that I think that I am at the same level as a Mozart. Only if I studied classical music, composition and so on, I can begin to understand Mozart’s quality’s and I can start thinking about giving a critique.

The same goes for a quote from a famous philosopher. I cannot critic it because I don’t know how it is connected with the rest of the philosopher’s work. If I have an opinion about it,  I must be honest and admit that that opinion is based on that of another philosophers work with a similar status than the one that I am commenting on. The same goes for agreeing to, do you really know what you are agreeing with?

An opinion is surrounded by pitfalls, watch your step.

 

 

 

2. Inherited faults of philosophers

Human all too human

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

Synopsis and my take on it:

Nietzsche begins with writing that “all philosophers” look upon man as “aeterna veritas” or eternal truth and unchangeable, but they only use a limited timeframe to define man. Some philosophers define man by recent developments like religion and political events. But man has evolved, including their understanding of things. Philosophers still see the instincts of humans as unalterable facts and key to the understanding of the world, but everything essential in human evolution took place ages ago, before our written history. Think of our “lizard brain” combined with the aphorism 1. Nietzsche goes on by writing that they, the philosophers, speak of man since they started writing as unaltered or “eternal man”. And then follows a famous quote “Yet everything evolved: there are no eternal facts as there are no absolute truths.” In the light of this aphorism it seems to me that he speaks of man not fixt but ever changing despite he also pointed out that “everything essential in the development of mankind took place in primeval times, long before the four thousand years we more or less know about” hinting at a more stable beginning lingering on, in us.

In one sentence:

Man’s being cannot be fixed in time or connected to an event and identified with it.

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

2. INHERITED FAULTS OF PHILOSOPHERS.—All philosophers have the common fault that they start from man in his present state and hope to attain their end by an analysis of him. Unconsciously they look upon ” man ” as an aeterna veritas(eternal truth), as a thing unchangeable in all commotion, as a sure measure of things. Everything the philosopher has declared about man is, however, at bottom no more than a testimony as to the man of a very limited period of time. Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers; many, without being aware of it, even take the most recent manifestation of man, such as has arisen under the impress of certain religions, even certain political events, as the fixed form from which one has to start out. They will not learn that man has become, that the faculty of cognition has become; while some of them would have it that the whole world is spun out of this faculty of cognition. Now, everything essential in the development of mankind took place in primeval times, long before the four thousand years we more or less know about; during these years mankind may well not have altered very much. But the philosopher here sees “instincts” in man as he now is and assumes that these belong to the unalterable facts of mankind and to that extent could provide a key to the understanding of the world in general: the whole of teleology is constructed by speaking of the man of the last four millennia as of an eternal man towards whom all things in the world have had a natural relationship from the time he began. But everything has become: there are no eternal facts, just as there are no absolute truths. Consequently what is needed from now on is historical philosophizing, and with it the virtue of modesty.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

2. Erbfehler der Philosophen. – Alle Philosophen haben den gemeinsamen Fehler an sich, dass sie vom gegenwärtigen Menschen ausgehen und durch eine Analyse desselben an’s Ziel zu kommen meinen. Unwillkürlich schwebt ihnen “der Mensch” als eine aeterna veritas, als ein Gleichbleibendes in allem Strudel, als ein sicheres Maass der Dinge vor. Alles, was der Philosoph über den Menschen aussagt, ist aber im Grunde nicht mehr, als ein Zeugniss über den Menschen eines sehr beschränkten Zeitraumes. Mangel an historischem Sinn ist der Erbfehler aller Philosophen; manche sogar nehmen unversehens die allerjüngste Gestaltung des Menschen, wie eine solche unter dem Eindruck bestimmter Religionen, ja bestimmter politischer Ereignisse entstanden ist, als die feste Form, von der man ausgehen müsse. Sie wollen nicht lernen, dass der Mensch geworden ist, dass auch das Erkenntnissvermögen geworden ist; während Einige von ihnen sogar die ganze Welt aus diesem Erkenntnissvermögen sich herausspinnen lassen. – Nun ist alles Wesentliche der menschlichen Entwickelung in Urzeiten vor sich gegangen, lange vor jenen vier tausend Jahren, die wir ungefähr kennen; in diesen mag sich der Mensch nicht viel mehr verändert haben. Da sieht aber der Philosoph “Instincte” am gegenwärtigen Menschen und nimmt an, dass diese zu den unveränderlichen Thatsachen des Menschen gehören und insofern einen Schüssel zum Verständniss der Welt überhaupt abgeben können; die ganze Teleologie ist darauf gebaut, dass man vom Menschen der letzten vier Jahrtausende als von einem ewigen redet, zu welchem hin alle Dinge in der Welt von ihrem Anbeginne eine natürliche Richtung haben. Alles aber ist geworden; es giebt keine ewigen Thatsachen: sowie es keine absoluten Wahrheiten giebt. – Demnach ist das historische Philosophiren von jetzt ab nöthig und mit ihm die Tugend der Bescheidung.

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.

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

 

 

Tax robbers

Society

Why are rich individuals and large companies trying to evade paying taxes in the country that gave them the stable climate and infrastructure that was necessary to grow their businesses. If they are so smart that they think it’s all because of them that they and their company succeed let them try the same thing in a poor country without a decent infrastructure and a well-educated labor force.

Why are people so upset about paying taxes? Countries that are famous for their high tax rates are also high on the list of happiest countries. Paying taxes makes everybody happier. Countries are also better as a whole when the gap between the higher and lower incomes are small.

I think it’s laziness if people defend rich people and companies with the argument that I often here, companies like Apple and Google/Alphabet need so much money and pay high salaries because of all the things they invent. If I remember correctly, lots of companies like this were founded by people with little money and resources and their first products were more revolutionary than everything they invented after that.  Money was not the only thing that drove these people, they had ideas and vision and worked with that. That spirit disappears often when a company gets big and fat, by than they need all the incentives they can get to move.

Companies can pay more taxes, if they cut wages on the top management, that obviously only works for the money and not because they believe in something or have a vision. High income individuals can also pay more taxes till we spread the wealth we have better. The generations that live now are born in this wealth, we have done nothing for it except maintaining it. This wealth is made the last few hundred years and in big parts by entrepreneurs that bought cheap or stole from peoples that were not ready for this kind of trade and power and could not resist. They got rich exploiting the poor and uneducated.

In many cultures money is still the number one motivator and that’s a shame because if it wasn’t and we would stick our heads together as a world we could solve a lot of problems.

Untitled-1 copy

1. Chemistry of ideas and sensations

Human all too human

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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? –

20171106_173550

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.

  1. Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
  2. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
  3. Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
  4. Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it  here
  5. Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
  6. 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)

Day 273-1Why 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.