Nietzsche: Value, Deception, Perspective
Aphorisms from Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil #2
I would like to continue commenting on aphorisms from Beyond Good and Evil (1886). We are at the beginning of the first chapter of his book: “Prejudices of Philosophers.”
As a reminder, you can find the previous post here:
“HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own — in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the ‘Thing-in-itself’ — THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!” — This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this “belief” of theirs, they exert themselves for their “knowledge,” for something that is in the end solemnly christened “the Truth.” The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, “DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM.” For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below — “frog perspectives,” as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things — perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps! But who wishes to concern himself with such dangerous “Perhapses”! For that investigation one must await the advent of a new order of philosophers, such as will have other tastes and inclinations, the reverse of those hitherto prevalent — philosophers of the dangerous “Perhaps” in every sense of the term. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers beginning to appear. (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Helen Zimmern, The Project Gutenberg, 2003)
Throughout human history, many concepts have been posited and defined in terms of their opposites: truth/false, good/evil, and so on.
It was certainly a very convenient way of understanding concepts, but is it really possible to understand what truth is by contrasting it with falsehood? With such an argument, Nietzsche introduces a doubt into what has been a philosopher’s tendency. He thinks that things “of the highest value” — not just any things, but those that are metaphysical values — should have a more fundamental ground.
Borrowing a Kantian concept, the idea of the ‘Thing-in-itself’ (Ding an sich), Nietzsche thinks that this is where the ground for the highest value should be sought. In other words, the highest values should be understood on their true ground: their true being.
Of course, there is a critic of oppositional views when he denounces the “belief in antitheses of values” (der Glaube an die Gegensätze der Werthe). Are there oppositions, or are these oppositions only a superficial grasp of these objects of knowledge (i.e. something one tries to understand)?
With a touch of sarcasm, Nietzsche reproaches metaphysicians, even those who have raised doubt as a fundamental philosophical attitude, such as Descartes for not seeing that there is something that can be misleading in grasping an object, the good, for example, by contrasting it with what is not good, the evil. Such a way of grasping is seen by Nietzsche as a gaze at an object of knowledge and as incapable of leading to a true understanding of that very object.
He introduces a new doubt here. If we have to look at the highest values (such as truth, truthfulness, and selflessness), it may be — ‘perhaps’ (vielleicht) — possible that the things that we usually oppose to them are more fundamental in human life.
Nietzsche, of course, understands that there is something dangerous here, and he thinks that a new kind of philosopher, “philosophers of the dangerous” (Philosophen des gefährlichen), is needed to explore such a question and such a possibility, going in the opposite direction from most metaphysicians.
He adds: “I see such new philosophers beginning to appear.”
Are you one of these new philosophers? Am I?
To be continued…
Your sponsorship means everything. Consider becoming a paid subscriber to help me keep writing. You will get access to all my paywall articles.
the chief problem with this effort is the effort in it -- the subtext read between every line being that the speaker is aiming for the very goodness of truth that he is undermining in the very undermining of it, and the philosophers who will succeed in undermining it will achieve and verify it -- as they already have -- they are the poets and artists, and Nietzsche should just eat his heart out that he couldn't quite make it there. Or give himself credit for laying down philosophy at this low plateau as the artists and poets climb high above that blowhard Zarathustra. This critique is in no way tongue in cheek it is as violent a protest against the reams of bullshit and physical violence and false aggrandizement and deception that is impossible to redeem by any paradox and simply reflects expresses and furthers cynical contempt of the human mind and creation itself, which Nietzsche opposed however deceptively or not. what are you doing with your life? why are you here? if to provoke comments like this good, just as Nietzsche is good for getting us to where we know better why to hate him than before he existed. everything is good when kissed to let it fly and bad when grasped to cash in on and there is such good and bad but there are no literal criteria in art. there are many trojan horses and spies so well camouflaged even the elect would be fooled if that were possible. only when the eye is clear is the body full of light, and vice versa. the apparent worst and most obvious, as Nietzsche says, could be the best and subtlest, but there is a difference however minimal between the two. there is shared knowledge in time and trust. there is redemption however only glimpsed once for a split second in a lifetime. there is everything that ever was in laughing self-reflection. the killing of the word only provokes the vampire to more blood sucking. just teach it to say over and over I am not a vampire and language will fake it til it makes it or just keep faking it better and better and maybe that's even better. Far from an approver of masks, nietzsche is like a chimp you raise lovingly and one day he sees a crack in your mask and tears your face off. in crude American baseball, you bat the ball out of the ballpark, but in delicate soccer and basketball (the crude American is also most delicate of all) you only have your own body, and if you come up against a boundary you must stop on a dime. That's the game Nietzsche. You're on the wrong field.
The Truth, and honesty, ah, a difficult couple, at best. As a friend of mine used to say: “Honesty is the best policy, but most people don’t like to pay the premiums.”. There is something really dangerous in an honest man, you can’t cheat him! He will not be seeking more and more material things which will stay here, when he dies, but rather more and more of the Truth of “That, That Is, Is.”. What can one do with someone who doesn’t need more? They are not only thinking outside the box, they have probably thrown away the box in order to get a better view.