On Nihilism

"Behold, you are the teacher of the eternal return, - that is now your destiny. ... Behold, we know what you teach: that all things eternally return and we ourselves with them, and that we have already existed an infinite number of times, and all things with us." - Nietzsche

Everything has been done before. My life has no inherent meaning; what I do has always been done before, even if not in my unique order and combination. What is my purpose then, my reason for being? I suppose this is nihilism. He doesn't write very positively about it either. Sartre's existentialism also teaches the lack of a priori meaning to life, but he then develops an argument for developing our own complete set of values by which to define ourselves. Nietzsche doesn't look as constructively to the problem - instead, it is a depressing resignation that we have been preceded and will be succeeded, at least in a general sense.

My confusion with him is this. It would seem that he looks upon humanity as a means to achieving the Ubermensch. If i read it correctly, the beginning of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche wants the common man to break his back in order to develop humanity further. Contentment with the absence of pain is a poison which makes us complacent, and unwilling to continue our labors. Well, with this viewpoint, it seems to me every man does have a unique, significant meaning in achieving the Ubermensch. Even if it is true that what I do has been done before, and will be done afterwards, I can still be comforted by the fact that I played a non-trivial part in inching the progress bar towards completion, towards the Ubermensch.

But then, what happens when the higher man arrives? Does our work then stop? Does the meaning of my life hinge retroactively on the achievement of the Ubermensch? These are big questions that I feel Nietzsche does not adequately address. Granted, I have read only a small minority of his works, but I expected a more coherent version of nihilism. 

Look to the Future

"O my brothers, your nobility shall not gaze backward, but outward! You shall be exiles from all father- and forefather-lands! You shall love your children's land: let this love be your new nobility, - the undiscovered country in the remotest seas! For it I bid your sails and search!"


What should be our balance between past and future? Today's SMBC comic joked that we study history to avoid repeating our mistakes - but if we avoid our mistakes, is not the study of history then pointless in retrospect? Nietzsche now makes a related accusation, that our past is meaningless and in fact it is only our future that we should matter. After the passage above, he goes so far as to quip that we should apologize to our children for being our fathers' children. Perhaps a bit dramatic, but is there something to this?

Seems to me that Nietzsche was an existentialist. Far from being a nihilist, he certainly had values, and his Ubermensch is a lofty goal. Although he does not have a defining, a priori set of values for us, it seems clear that Nietzsche does believe in a purpose, in a unifying effort to improve our lot. How can this be nihilism then? Sartre would be proud.

And so, what is the value of our past? I agree somewhat, that the past is of little consequence, and may be a hindrance. The fact that we respect tradition and history often make a response to changing times slow. The 'old guard' isn't always right, and perhaps we should apologize for being our fathers' children. And embracing the land of our children, our future-land, would alleviate much of the overt nationalism and xenophobia that influence Nietzsche in his day. However, I would not go so far as to forget history altogether. We cannot always be in a state of flux, of changing loyalties and values. I unfortunately have nothing else definitive to say on this matter.

Existentialism?

Been a while since I posted, I guess. Reading Essays on Existentialism now, by Jean-Paul Sartre. Just as depressing as Nietzsche, but a little more useful. The central tenet so far is that life is what we make it. Existence precedes essence. Man lives his life without anything being decided a priori, so we are free to do whatever we like. In doing things, we implicitly value them, and not only for ourselves but for all of humanity. This is the cause of anguish and despair. That's the real short summary of existentialism.

I think this is a more optimistic and useful philosophy than that of Nietzsche's. True, there are no rigid a priori rules or values. I don't agree with this, and despite Sartre's claim that existentialism can be fully reconciled with religion, I don't see how. There are not even any existentialist reasonings that attempt to persuade man to be kind  to others. It's a useful personal philosophy, in that man is defined by what he does and not what he is merely capable of, but further than that it's downright dangerous. But the insistence on personal responsibility is certainly positive.

Apart from philosophy, I'm now 95 episodes or so into the History of Rome podcast. With each of the 170 or so podcasts being 20-25 minutes long, I figure the whole series is roughly equivalent to a 3 or 4 credit hour class in college. Pretty interesting, though. I'm up through the 12th emperor, Antoninus. Might re-listen after I finish, or perhaps find a different historical podcast. It fits in well with my commute.