Category Archives: Nihilism

Joe Biden built his 2020 presidential campaign around the idea that were in a battle for the soul of America. I thought it was a marvelous slogan because it captured the idea that were in the middle of a moral struggle over who we are as a nation. In the video he released this week launching his reelection bid, he doubled down on that idea: Were still, he said, in a battle for the soul of America.

I want to dwell on the little word soul in that sentence, because I think it illuminates what the 2024 presidential election is all about.

What is a soul? Well, religious people have one answer to that question. But Biden is not using the word in a religious sense, but in a secular one. He is saying that people and nations have a moral essence, a soul.

Whether you believe in God or dont believe in God is not my department. But I do ask you to believe that every person you meet has this moral essence, this quality of soul.

Because humans have souls, each one is of infinite value and dignity. Because humans have souls, each one is equal to all the others. We are not equal in physical strength or IQ or net worth, but we are radically equal at the level of who we essentially are.

The soul is the name we can give to that part of our consciousness where moral life takes place. The soul is the place our moral sentiments flow from, the emotions that make us feel admiration at the sight of generosity and disgust at the sight of cruelty.

It is the place where our moral yearnings come from, too. Most people yearn to lead good lives. When they act with a spirit of cooperation, their souls sing and they are happy. On the other hand, when they feel their lives have no moral purpose, they experience a sickness of the soul a sense of lostness, pain and self-contempt.

Because we have souls, we are morally responsible for what we do. Hawks and cobras are not morally responsible for their actions; but humans, possessors of souls, are caught in a moral drama, either doing good or doing ill.

Political campaigns are not usually contests over the status of the soul. But Donald Trump, and Trumpism generally, is the embodiment of an ethos that covers up the soul. Or to be more precise, each is an ethos that deadens the soul under the reign of the ego.

Trump, and Trumpism generally, represents a kind of nihilism that you might call amoral realism. This ethos is built around the idea that we live in a dog-eat-dog world. The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. Might makes right. Im justified in grabbing all that I can because if I dont, the other guy will. People are selfish; deal with it.

This ethos which is central to not only Trumps approach to life, but also Vladimir Putins and Xi Jinpings gives people a permission slip to be selfish. In an amoral world, cruelty, dishonesty, vainglory and arrogance are valorized as survival skills.

People who live according to the code of amoral realism tear through codes and customs that have built over the centuries to nurture goodness and foster cooperation. Putin is not restrained by notions of human rights. Trump is not restrained by the normal codes of honesty.

In the mind of an amoral realist, life is not a moral drama; its a competition for power and gain, red in tooth and claw. Other people are not possessors of souls, of infinite dignity and worth; they are objects to be utilized.

Biden talks a lot about the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. At its deepest level, that struggle is between systems that put the dignity of individual souls at the center and systems that operate by the logic of dominance and submission.

You may disagree with Biden on many issues. You may think he is too old. But thats not the primary issue in this election. The presidency, as Franklin D. Roosevelt put it, is preeminently a place of moral leadership.

One of the hardest, soul-wearying parts of living through the Trump presidency was that we had to endure a steady downpour of lies, transgressions and demoralizing behavior. We were all corroded by it. That era was a reminder that the soul of a person and the soul of a nation are always in flux, every day moving a bit in the direction of elevation or a bit in the direction of degradation.

A return to that ethos would bring about a social and moral disintegration that is hard to contemplate. Say what you will about Biden, but he has generally put human dignity at the center of his political vision. He treats people with charity and respect.

The contest between Biden and Trumpism is less Democrat versus Republican or liberal versus conservative than it is between an essentially moral vision and an essentially amoral one, a contest between decency and its opposite.

David Brooks (Twitter: @nytdavidbrooks) is a columnist for The New York Times, where this piece originally appeared.

See more here:

David Brooks: Joe Biden and the 'battle for the soul of America' l - Baltimore Sun

The iconic pop punk group reimagines their sound with their eighth studio album So Much (for) Stardust

Genre: Emo/Pop-Punk

On a Playlist With: Death of a Bachelor, Scaled and Icy, Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys

March 24 marked the release of Fall Out Boys (FOB) eighth studio album, So Much (for) Stardust, the first after a five-year hiatus. The band teased new music back in December 2022 with the launch of a website featuring a short clay animation of a Dobermann embarking on a colorful journey with strange creatures.

The band released the song Love From the Other Side along with an accompanying music video on Jan. 18. The song and video were an absolute hit, portraying an old Pete Wentz (bassist/lyricist) telling the story of FOB to his granddaughter. It also included nods to other bands in the pop-punk/emo genre such as Panic! At The Disco, Taking Back Sunday, Good Charlotte, Blink-182, The Plain White Ts, Weezer, My Chemical Romance, and Of Mice & Men.

In the music videos story, the band lives in a small town called Winnetkaland, where they dream of seeing the outside world but are forbidden by the mayor, who hates the bands music. The band escapes to Emo Island, where they are protected by the power of music. The emos of the island gift them a necklace depicting the bands new logo: a black-and-white half-smiling and half-frowning face. The video had a plot reminiscent of FOBs past musical film, The Young Blood Chronicles.

FOB also released the music video for Hold Me Like a Grudge on the same day their eighth studio album debuted. The music video is the third in a trilogy with the preceding music videos being Dance Dance and This Aint a Scene, Its an Arms Race.

FOB then posted the official cover for the new album, portraying an oil painting of a Dobermann opening its mouth to catch bubbles. The Dobermann is surrounded by a black border and stardust particles with the name of the album, So Much (for) Stardust, in bubble writing.

Following the release of the new music video and album announcement, the bands lead guitarist, Joe Trohman, released a statement on FOBs Instagram that he is taking a temporary break for mental health issues. Fans were saddened by his leave but wished him a speedy recovery while expressing their gratitude toward the bands openness regarding mental health.

On Jan. 25, a week after the first release, FOB revealed another song, Heartbreak Feels So Good, accompanied with a music video in which the band pulls a prank with River Cuomo, frontman of Weezer.

Six days later, FOB announced their tour with supporting performances from Bring Me The Horizon, New Found Glory, Four Year Strong, The Academy Is, and Royal & the Serpent.

The Pink Seashell embodies finding meaning in life while Baby Annihilation marks breaking out of nihilism.

FOB also released the music video for Hold Me Like a Grudge on the same day their eighth studio album debuted. The music video is the third in a trilogy with the preceding music videos being Dance Dance and This Aint a Scene, Its an Arms Race. The music video tells the tale of the band getting back together following their split due to an effort to save their music and prevent a space-time continuum. In this world, Wentz moves on to become a Flash-like superhero; Patrick Stump, lead vocalist and guitarist, becomes a buff wrestler; Andy Hurley, lead drummer, becomes a monk; and Trohman becomes a motion caption actor.

The fourth track on the album, Fake Out, takes influence from the punk rock band The Cure and is reminiscent of one of FOBs most-recognized songs, Dance Dance. Hurley revealed that his favorite off the album is track five, Heaven Iowa, because Stump absolutely captivates listeners with his powerful vocals. Track six, So Good Right Now, provides fans with a light melody and bittersweet lyrics, reminding them of FOBs early album Take This to Your Grave.

The one that intrigued me the most following its initial reveal was The Pink Seashell, the seventh track features actor Ethan Hawke reading a monologue his character gave in the movie Reality Bites. This particular monologue stood out to Wentz as it discusses death and the meaning of life. The album follows a similar pattern later with the track Baby Annihilation, originally titled A Little Annihilation, in which Wentz reads lyrics in a poetic tone.

With its authenticity, community and Wentzs genius lyrics, this new FOB era helped remind fans why the band is such a special group and one that many hold dear to their hearts.

FOBs new logo has relations to both tracks, as the halves in the logo are representative of two parts of the record. The Pink Seashell embodies finding meaning in life while Baby Annihilation marks breaking out of nihilism. The pure emotion and poetic thought emanating from these tracks remind me of the beauty of Jim Morrisons An American Prayer.

Personally, the songs I Am My Own Muse and Flu Game have been stuck in my head, with the latter referencing Michael Jordans iconic basketball game in which he played effortlessly while being sick with the flu.

Finally, the titular song So Much (for) Stardust, provided a nice closing to the album, a repitition of lyrics from the first track such as What would you trade the pain for?

Overall, the album was an absolute 10/10, and each song is a must-listen. These anthems are perfect for the upcoming summer. The band incorporated their authentic pop-punk sound from their old albums, contrasting from their last album, Mania, in which they explored a new sound.

With its authenticity, community and Wentzs genius lyrics, this new FOB era helped remind fans why the band is such a special group and one that many hold dear to their hearts.

The Bottom Line: So Much (for) Stardust is perfect for the summer and reminds listeners of the bands timelessness.

The Peaks: Hold Me Like a Grudge, Flu Game and Baby Annihilation

The Valleys: None

The Verdict: 10/10

Read more here:

Ram Jams: Fall Out Boy, New Album and Era - Fordham Observer

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Tucker Carlson is, for now, off the air and lying low. But his rapid slide from would-be journalist to venomous demagogue is the story of a generation of political commentators who found that inducing madness in the American public was better than the drudgery of working a job outside the conservative hothouses.

First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

Pushing the Needle

Tucker Carlson has been fired, and youve probably already read a bushel of stories about his dismissal, his career, and his influence. Today, I want to share with you a more personal reflection. (Full disclosure: Carlson took a bizarre swipe at me toward the end of his time at Fox.) I always thought of Carlson as one of the worst things to happen to millions of Americans, and particularly to the working class. As Margaret Sullivan recently wrote, Despite his smarmy demeanor, and aging prep-school appearance, Carlson became a twisted kind of working-class hero.

Not to me. I grew up working-class, and I admit that I never much cared for Carlson, a son of remarkable privilege and wealth, even before he became this creepy version of himself. I am about a decade older than Carlson, and when he began his career in the 1990s, I was a young academic and a Republican whod worked in a city hall, a state legislature, and the U.S. Senate (as well as a number of other less glamorous jobs). Perhaps I should have liked him more because of his obvious desire to be taken seriously as an intellectual, but maybe that was also the problem: Carlson was too obvious, too effortful. I was already a fan of people such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, and I didnt need a young, bow-tied, lightweight imitator.

But still, I read his writing in conservative magazines, and that of others in his cohort. After all, back in those days, they were my tribe. But the early 90s, I believe, is where things went wrong for this generation of young conservatives. Privileged, highly educated, stung by Bill Clintons winand, soon, boredthey decided that they were all slated for greater things in public life. The dull slog of high-paying professional jobs was not for them, not if it meant living outside the media or political ecosystems of New York and Washington.

A 1995 New York Times Magazine profile of this group, some of them soon to be Carlsons co-workers, was full of red flags, but it was Laura Ingraham, whose show now packages hot bile in dry ice, who presaged what Foxs prime-time lineup would look like. After a late dinner party in Washington, she took the Times writer for a drive:

You think were nuts, dont you? muttered Laura Ingraham, a former clerk for Clarence Thomas and now an attorney at the Washington offices of the power firm of Skadden, Arps. Ingraham, who is also a frequent guest on CNN, had had it with a particularly long-winded argument over some review in The New Republic. It could have been worse. They could have been the dweebs and nerds that liberals imagine young conservatives to be.

Or, more accurately, they could have been the dweebs and nerds they themselves feared they were. And in time, they realized that the way to dump their day jobs for better gigs in radio and television was to become more and more extremeand to sell their act to an audience that was nothing like them or the people at D.C. dinner parties. They would have their due, even if they had to poison the brains of ordinary Americans to get it.

Carlson joined this attention-seeking conservative generation and tried on various personas. At one point, he had a show on MSNBC that was canceled after a year. I never saw it. I do remember Carlson as the co-host of Crossfire; I didnt think he did a very good job representing thoughtful conservatives, and he ended up getting pantsed live on national television by Jon Stewart. He was soon let go from CNN.

When Carlson got his own show on Fox News in 2016, however, I noticed.

This new Tucker Carlson decided to throw off the pretense of intellectualism. (According to The New York Times, he was determined to avoid his fate at CNN and MSNBC.) He understood what Fox viewers wanted, and he took the old Tuckerthe one who claimed to care about truth and journalistic responsibilityand drove him to a farm upstate where he could run free with the other journalists. The guy who returned alone in his car to the studio in Manhattan was a stone-cold, cynical demagogue. By God, no one was going to fire that guy.

What concerned me was not that Carlson was selling political fentanyl; thats Foxs business model. It was that Carlson, unlike many people in his audience, knew better. He jammed the needle right into the arms of the Fox audience, spewing populist nonsense while running away from his own hyper-privileged background. I suppose I found this especially grating because for years Ive lived in Rhode Island, almost within sight of the spires of Carlsons pricey prep school, by the Newport beaches. (This area also produced Michael Flynn and Sean Spicer, but please dont judge usits actually lovely here.)

Every night, Carlson encouraged American citizens to join him in his angry nihilism, telling his fans that America and its institutions were hopelessly corrupt, and that they were essentially living in a failed state. He and his fellow Fox hosts, meanwhile, presented themselves as the guardians of the real America, crowing in ostensible solidarity with an audience that, as we would later learn from the Dominion lawsuit, they regarded with both contempt and fear.

An especially hateful aspect of Carlsons rants is that they often targeted the institutions and normscolleges, the U.S. military, capitalism itselfthat help so many Americans get a chance at a better life. No matter the issue, Carlson was able to find some resentful, angry, us-versus-them angle, tacking effortlessly from sounding like a pompous theocrat one day to a founding member of Code Pink the next. If you were trying to undermine a nation and dissolve its hopes for the future, you could hardly design a better vehicle than Tucker Carlson Tonight.

But give him credit: He was committed to the bit. A man who has never known a day of hard work in his life was soon posing in flannel and work pants in a remarkably pristine workshop, and inviting some of the worst people in American life to come to his redoubt to complain about how much America seems to irrationally hate Vladimir Putin, violent seditionists, and, by extension somehow, poor ordinary Joes such as Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.

Carlson is emblematic of the entire conservative movement now, and especially the media millionaires who serve as its chief propagandists. The conservative world has become a kind of needle skyscraper with a tiny number of wealthy, superbly educated right-wing media and political elites in the penthouses, looking down at an expanse of angry Americans whose rage they themselves helped create. As one Fox staffer said in a text to the former CNN host Brian Stelter shortly after the January 6 insurrection, What have we done?

If only Carlson and others were capable of asking themselves the same question.

Related:

Todays News

Dispatches

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

How I Got Bamboo-zled by Baby Clothes

By Sarah Zhang

To be pregnant for the first time is to be the worlds most anxious, needy, and ignorant consumer all at once. Good luck buying a pile of stuff whose uses are still hypothetical to you! What, for instance, is the best sleep sack? When I was four months pregnant and still barely aware of the existence of sleep sacks, a mom giving recommendations handed me one made of bamboo. Feelsoooo soft, she said. I reached out to caress, and it really was soooo soft. This was my introduction to the cult of bamboo.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Culture Break

Read. The Odyssey of Phillis Wheatley, a new biography of the poet that shows how she used poetry to criticize slavery.

Listen. Harry Belafontes legendary album Calypso. The late artist showed how popular songs could be a tool of the struggle for freedom.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

I am, strangely, revisiting some childhood memories while redecorating my home office. (Ive posted some pictures on Twitter.) For many years, I had something of a standard academics home office: a lot of books and maps, a bit of conference swag here and there. But Ive decided in my dotage to bring in some color from the 1960s, including a framed collection of Batman cards (the kind that came with that dusty-pink stick of gum), a Star Trek wall intercom, and an original poster from the Japanese sci-fi classic Destroy All Monsters, starring Godzilla and a cast of his buddies. While I was hanging the movie poster, I wondered: Why do we love those Godzilla movies? Theyre terrible. Are we just nostalgicas I sometimes amfor the old, velvet-draped movie palaces full of kids? I think its something more.

If youve never seen the original Godzilla, its actually kind of terrifying. Its way too intense for young kids; I cant remember when I first saw it on television, but it scared the pants off me. The stuff that came later, with the cheesy music and the cartoonish overacting by the guys in the rubber kaiju outfits, were versions that kids and adults could watch together. They answered all of your toughest kid questions: What if Godzilla fought aliens? (I am a King Ghidorah fan.) What if Godzilla duked it out with King Kong? (I thought Godzilla was robbed in that one.) I love scary monster movies, but now and then, you want more monsters and fewer scares. Maybe the analogy here is Heath Ledger and Cesar Romero: Both are great Jokers, but sometimes, youd like to enjoy the character with a shade fewer homicides. Being able to enjoy both is, perhaps, one of the subtle rewards of growing up.

Tom

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

Continued here:

Tucker Carlson Is the Emblem of GOP Cynicism - The Atlantic

At the nondescript Admiral bar in Dupont Circle, there was no visible sign of the coming attraction, but maybe that was the point. He was marquee enough on his own, at least for a Wednesday night. A milieu of young conservatives, operatives, and House staffers were assembling to howl in the next-gen model of Donald Trumps societal wrecking ball, and the name on everybodys lips was George Santos.

I was challenged on entry for failing to register as press but quickly spoke with the event manager of the Washington, D.C., Young Republicans, Isaac Smith, who towered over me broad-shouldered and glistening. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, he smirked with William F. Buckley flare.

Smith, an EMT by trade, saw carnage a plenty in his day job, and seemed eager for more as night fell and the hour of Santoss appearance drew near. Following a national political trend, he confirmed, last year he and his cohort had successfully used the bylaws of the Young Republicans to wrest control from the moderate faction which had once governed the youth arm of the party. Their ranks include Florida Rep. Matt Gaetzs communications director, Joel Valdez; Ohio Sen. J.D. Vances legislative correspondent, Brian Oakes; and Colorado Rep. Ken Bucks chief counsel, Isabela Belchior.

Now, they were reveling in the chaotic bounty of their coup over the Paul Ryan faction, as one operative put it to me. For Smith and many of those gathered, Santos was the free-base alternative to the low-dose incumbents in the sundowning stages of their withered political careers. If corruption is the currency of Washington, why not celebrate the precision with which its most extravagant excesses cut through the noise, instead of shoving fingers in ears and turning a blind eye? Why not push the madness to its limits?

The accelerationist explanation was coherent, but there was another reason why Santos, whose list of lies and confabulations is too long to list here, was invited to speak. Among the political orientations of the club members I spoke with, I recorded anarcho-capitalist, feudalist, conservative, paleo-conservative, MAGA, and Nazbol. Staffers for Gaetz mingled among Catholic University students adorned in oversized crucifixes and sallow wool-suited evangelists. The so-called national Bolshevik told me that while he used to work for Dominion Energy, his current passion and career is the preservation of historic buildings. Nothing wrong with buildings, I offered, carefully.

For the crowd of assembled outcasts, Santos with his fabricated background and the bizarre videos shot from inside his Hill office embodied their own tormented psyches: noncommittal; confusing; sardonic; cut adrift from the guiding charter of a coherent national party and its grounding in historic continuity. They shifted now among various extreme ideologies, chasing the rush that Trumps authoritarian nihilism had first unleashed.

What united Gaetz who had attended a similar gathering just weeks before and Santos was not a shared extremist political position, but an extremist prioritization of spectacle over all else, cutting straight to the bone of our entertainment-addled polis.

People are concerned about him. They dont think hes a very good guy. There are calls for him to resign, Smith says, from a small raised stair. Well, without getting into the details of it, experience has taught me one thing, and that is anytime there is somebody in Washington that receives bipartisan condemnation, [theyre] at least worth meeting. And at least worth hearing from. And so, it is my honor and my pleasure to introduce to you the queen of New York City, congressman George Santos.

The crowd goes wild, and then hes there, microphone in hand, pink tie exploding. George Santos has entered the building.

Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., speaks at the Admiral bar in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of Washington, D.C., on April 26, 2023.

Photo: Daniel Boguslaw

Hi everybody. Uh, I guess, yeah, bipartisan condemnation. Wow, thats strong words, Santos began. Thank you for inviting me to speak tonight. I thinkRep. Gaetz previously stated that he brought in the Florida weather, well, I brought New York weather, so no humidity tonight. Much nicer, better for your skin, better for your hair. Ladies, do we agree? Look, this is my first appearance speaking in Washington. God, I hate the swamp, but thanks all of you for coming out.

Santos is now in his element. He is shouting down Bryan Metzger, a Business Insider reporter hovering in the back aisles, for negative coverageMetzger put out days earlier. He is telling us to keep fighting for what you think is best and what you believe in. He tells us he is going off script. He is now offering advice like, When they tell you to go be a dog catcher be more the moment you hit 25, get moving. He is telling those in the peanut gallery, Im not going anywhere. Theyll have to drag my cold dead body out of this institution.

Most importantly, he is telling us the truth will set you free. Then, as soon as hes in, Santos is out. And thats the show. Applause erupts.

As the crowd reassumed its mingling, many of the attendees looked like they crawled from the wreckage of a Nixon campaign bus driven straight through a Crisco factory. At a wobbly beer-strewn table, a cyber contractor for one of the big four drawled on about his real estate holdings, making sure to note that trailer park denizens should be the easiest class to exploit. I listened to the challenges of rent-seeking for 20 minutes before peeling off to interrogate a cluster of Georgetown students whose high hopes for a competitive GOP primary seem as far-flung as the idea that they could meet girls at this event.

In the corner, a periwinkle-suited man with red hair peered aimlessly out at the crowd. He looked out of place. But he was, I learned, in the exact right place, at the exact right time. A former lobbyist for Qatar, he had left K Street to pursue a career in musical theater, and was drawn to Santos like an artist to a muse. He proceeded to play a track off his phone when I agreed to listen to a number from the upcoming show he was now working on full time.

The plot followed a young woman from the heartland who travels to Washington to lobby the government and change the world, only to become gravely disenchanted watching politicians failure to pass legislation. From memory, he recited lyrics about the depressing aura of the Longworth cafeteria, the lack of libidinal energy on the Hill, and general reflections on how miserable life is as a lobbyist. His love for musical theater, which he shared with Santos, was at least part of the reason he was here. Beside me, a young Republican made pseudo-famous by Trump retweeting his account of antifa kicking the shit out him explained to Smith the details of the groups Kentucky Derby party, where DJ MAGA Mikewould be performing. Ive had enough and made to leave.

On the way out, The truth will set you free kept bouncing around in my head. I had a sinking feeling that Id seen this show before. The inventions, the hilarity, (alleged) crime, and depravity of Santos is something that not only captures the attention of the mottled rejects and freaks who have gathered to see him speak, but also you, the girl reading this, and me the writer writing this. The queen of New York is an evolution of the irresistible pageant of Trump, which liberals and conservatives cannot and will not look away from, no matter how hard they try.

I feel like I just watched the second act of some national tragicomedy, where nobody can escape white-knuckling their playbill as the band goes down with the ship. The dumbing down of the country reflects itself on Broadway, Stephen Sondheim once said. The shows get dumber, and the public gets used to them.

Originally posted here:

One Night in Washington, D.C., With George Santos - The Intercept

Don't look now, but a recent study claims that Blue Jays fans are among the worst-spelling MLB fans. Well, on Reddit, anyway. The study, which "analyzed thousands of comments and posts across 30 subreddits dedicated to the 30 MLB teams," was done by Matt Zajechowski of Preply.com.

Blue Jays fans are a passionate bunch, and the fervor with which they share their thoughts and opinions about their favorite team may lead to poorly spelled comments ending up in cyberspace.

Or, perhaps growing up, Blue Jays fans spent more time on the ball diamond than cracking open the books in English class.

Whatever the reason, Zajechowski lists Blue Jays fans as the second-worst spellers in the MLB, right behind Dodgers fans, for frequently misspelling words such as "their," "because," "reliever," "awkward" and "interest."

There is a silver lining, however.

Despite frequently misspelling everyday words, Blue Jays fans don't have trouble correctly spelling baseball terms. They know that "home run" is two words, not one, unlike Phillies fans. They also know that "fan base" is two separate words, which apparently the fan base out in Seattle does not.

Some of the other baseball terms that Blue Jays fans spell correctly more often than fans of the Guardians, Athletics and Red Sox include "walk-off," "game day" and "hot dog" (likely thanks to Loonie Dog nights and the over 444,000 hot dogs consumed last season).

According to the research, Blue Jays fans are among the most old-school, who use "terms and phrases that were common 20 years ago but may mean nothing to the sport's newest fans." Given such a vague description, how exactly these old-school words are classified is questionable. Still, Jays fans rank third in this category, behind the Rockies and Guardians, for frequently using words like "dingers" and "jabronis."

Jabronis? Really? That must be Cleveland.

While it's debatable how often Jays fans actually utter the word "jabroni," they can be forgiven for using the word "dinger" more than any other fan base. With leadoff man George Springer now up to 50 "Springer Dingers" as a Blue Jay, it's part of the official and required discourse for Jays fans.

Luckily, Blue Jays fans aren't on the leaderboard of fan bases that misspell "smarty pants" words, such as "bona fide" and "more so," to try and make themselves sound more intelligent. That honor falls to Orioles, Rangers and Padres fans. (Not sure what's going on in Texas, but that fan base frequently misspells "Nihilism." Someone should check in with our friends in the Lone Star state.)

While Blue Jays fans may bristle at being ranked as some of the worst spellers in the majors, it's not anything serious to be concerned about (unless you're an English teacher) and shouldn't stop them from continuing to be one of the more vocal and visible fan bases across the league.

More:

Reddit study finds interesting facts about typical Blue Jays fans - Jays Journal

Dr. Marci Shores speech, The War in Ukraine and the Problem of Evil, was the last installment of this years Bunting Peace and Justice Speaker Series at Loyola. Shore, a published author and associate professor of intellectual history at Yale University, covered the current war between Russia and Ukraine along with the long history that precedes it. The Yale professor spent several years living and studying in Eastern Europe, allowing her to weave her own personal perspective into the speech.

Shore shared her initial reaction to the news of Russias invasion of Ukraine.

It was one of three moments in my life where I was completely paralyzed with horror and terror. Something was happening on a world historic scale that I was unable to take in in real-time, Shore said. Shores shock at the invasion was shared by people all over the world, but the speaker mentioned that shock like this dissolves over time.

There are many moments in history where something seems absolutely impossible until it happens and then retrospectively seems inevitable, Shore said.

Russias invasion of Ukraine came on Feb. 24, 2022, and was a major escalation in the military conflict that began in 2014. Shore describes Russias actions and role in the war as systemic nihilism, as their violence towards Ukraine has shown little regard for the innocent lives of Ukrainian civilians.

The war has been so grotesquely brutal. From the very beginning they have been bombing residential buildings, maternity hospitals, kindergartens from the very beginning it has been a situation of moral blackmail, Shore said.

A lot of the speech detailed the violence and aggression of Russia towards Ukraine including torture methods used by Russian forces. Shore ends her speech with a quote from Stanislav Aseyev, a Ukrainian journalist who spent a little over two years in a Russian prison where he was subjected to numerous forms of psychological and physical abuse. In Aseyevs book, The Torture Camp on Paradise Street, Aseyev points out how the people responsible for such evil actions were, and are, seemingly normal people.

Were talking about people who we share the same streets with people today who still walk the same streets without their balaclavas on, giving no indication that they tortured someone the day before. Are these people human? Without a doubt. The obviousness of this answer is terrifying, Aseyev wrote.

Events part of the Bunting Peace and Justice Speaker Series are meant to inform and raise awareness of current justice issues. Organized by Loyolas Office of Peace and Justice, speakers such as Shore are invited throughout the year to cover a variety of relevant topics. The President of the Office of Peace and Justice, Dr. Heidi Shaker, shared what their goal is.

Our goal is to explore the causes and consequences of violent conflict, as well as the conditions that promote conflict resolution, peace, and justice, Shaker said.

Throughout the year the office aims to promote awareness of a variety of issues by hosting events led by experts on the respective topics. The office has a steering committee that brainstorms potential speeches by analyzing timely events and discussing with professors at Loyola who teach peace and justice courses.

All four of our talks were very different this year. The hope is that we start to think about complex problems and understanding the context and nuances, and for students to start to be able to analyze and form an educated opinion of where they stand, Shaker said.

While topics such as the war between Russia and Ukraine are heavily covered by the media today, Shaker feels its important to hear from experts such as Shore who have studied the conflict for years.

I think its different to hear it from someone who studied it for years and years and can unpack things for us versus just reading the media and arriving to conclusions. Because this was such a timely topic, we wanted to hear from Dr. Shore and what she thought, Shaker said.

The Bunting speeches are an easy and accessible way for students at Loyola to educate themselves on modern topics of peace and justice from experts. Aiden Berkenkemper 26 has always taken advantage of such an opportunity as he attended his first speech back in middle school.

I love these speeches; I think this is the third one Ive been to. My mom used to work here so I would come when she was an employee, Berkenkemper said. I came and saw Arun Gandhi who is Gandhis grandson back in middle school and it still resonates in my head to this day.

Continued here:

Yale Professor Breaks Down Years of Violent Conflict Between ... - The Greyhound

Nietzsche was a German philosopher, essayist, and cultural critic. His writings on truth, morality, language, aesthetics, cultural theory, history, nihilism, power, consciousness, and the meaning of existence have exerted an enormous influence on Western philosophy and intellectual history.

Nietzsche spoke of the death of God, and foresaw the dissolution of traditional religion and metaphysics. Some interpreters of Nietzsche believe he embraced nihilism, rejected philosophical reasoning, and promoted a literary exploration of the human condition, while not being concerned with gaining truth and knowledge in the traditional sense of those terms. However, other interpreters of Nietzsche say that in attempting to counteract the predicted rise of nihilism, he was engaged in a positive program to reaffirm life, and so he called for a radical, naturalistic rethinking of the nature of human existence, knowledge, and morality. On either interpretation, it is agreed that he suggested a plan for becoming what one is through the cultivation of instincts and various cognitive faculties, a plan that requires constant struggle with ones psychological and intellectual inheritances.

Nietzsche claimed the exemplary human being must craft his/her own identity through self-realization and do so without relying on anything transcending that lifesuch as God or a soul. This way of living should be affirmed even were one to adopt, most problematically, a radical vision of eternity, one suggesting the eternal recurrence of all events. According to some commentators, Nietzsche advanced a cosmological theory of will to power. But others interpret him as not being overly concerned with working out a general cosmology. Questions regarding the coherence of Nietzsches viewsquestions such as whether these views could all be taken together without contradiction, whether readers should discredit any particular view if proven incoherent or incompatible with others, and the likecontinue to draw the attention of contemporary intellectual historians and philosophers.

Because much of Nietzsches philosophical work has to do with the creation of selfor to put it in Nietzschean terms, becoming what one is some scholars exhibit uncommon interest in the biographical anecdotes of Nietzsches life. Taking this approach, however, risks confusing aspects of the Nietzsche legend with what is important in his philosophical work, and many commentators are rightly skeptical of readings derived primarily from biographical anecdotes.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born October 15, 1844, the son of Karl Ludwig and Franziska Nietzsche. Karl Ludwig Nietzsche was a Lutheran Minister in the small Prussian town of Rcken, near Leipzig. When young Friedrich was not quite five, his father died of a brain hemorrhage, leaving Franziska, Friedrich, a three-year old daughter, Elisabeth, and an infant son. Friedrichs brother died unexpectedly shortly thereafter (reportedly, the legend says, fulfilling Friedrichs dream foretelling of the tragedy). These events left young Friedrich the only male in a household that included his mother, sister, paternal grandmother and an aunt, although Friedrich drew upon the paternal guidance of Franziskas father. Young Friedrich also enjoyed the camaraderie of a few male playmates.

Upon the loss of Karl Ludwig, the family took up residence in the relatively urban setting of Naumburg, Saxony. Friedrich gained admittance to the prestigious Schulpforta, where he received Prussias finest preparatory education in the Humanities, Theology, and Classical Languages. Outside school, Nietzsche founded a literary and creative society with classmates including Paul Deussen (who was later to become a prominent scholar of Sanskrit and Indic Studies). In addition, Nietzsche played piano, composed music, and read the works of Emerson and the poet Friedrich Hlderlin, who was relatively unknown at the time.

In 1864 Nietzsche entered the University of Bonn, spending the better part of that first year unproductively, joining a fraternity and socializing with old and new acquaintances, most of whom would fall out of his life once he regained his intellectual focus. By this time he had also given up Theology, dashing his mothers hopes of a career in the ministry for him. Instead, he choose the more humanistic study of classical languages and a career in Philology. In 1865 he followed his major professor, Friedrich Ritschl, from Bonn to the University of Leipzig and dedicated himself to the studious life, establishing an extracurricular society there devoted to the study of ancient texts. Nietzsches first contribution to this group was an essay on the Greek poet, Theognis, and it drew the attention of Professor Ritschl, who was so impressed that he published the essay in his academic journal, Rheinisches Museum. Other published writings by Nietzsche soon followed, and by 1868 (after a year of obligatory service in the Prussian military), young Friedrich was being promoted as something of a phenomenon in classical scholarship by Ritschl, whose esteem and praise landed Nietzsche a position as Professor of Greek Language and Literature at the University of Basel in Switzerland, even though the candidate had not yet begun writing his doctoral dissertation. The year was 1869 and Friedrich Nietzsche was 24 years old.

At this point in his life, however, Nietzsche was a far cry from the original thinker he would later become, since neither he nor his work had matured. Swayed by public opinion and youthful exuberance, he briefly interrupted teaching in 1870 to join the Prussian military, serving as a medical orderly at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. His service was cut short, however, by severe bouts of dysentery and diphtheria. Back in Basel, his teaching responsibilities at the University and a nearby Gymnasium consumed much of his intellectual and physical energy. He became acquainted with the prominent cultural historian, Jacob Burkhardt, a well-established member of the university faculty. But, the person exerting the most influence on Nietzsche at this point was the artist, Richard Wagner, whom Nietzsche had met while studying in Leipzig. During the first half of the decade, Wagner and his companion, Cosima von Blow, frequently entertained Nietzsche at Triebschen, their residence near Lake Lucerne, and then later at Bayreuth.

It is commonplace to say that at one time Nietzsche looked to Wagner with the admiration of a dutiful son. This interpretation of their relationship is supported by the fact that Wagner would have been the same age as Karl Ludwig, had the elder Nietzsche been alive. It is also commonplace to note that Nietzsche was in awe of the artists excessive displays of a fiery temperament, bravado, ambition, egoism, and loftiness typical qualities demonstrating genius in the nineteenth century. In short, Nietzsche was overwhelmed by Wagners personality. A more mature Nietzsche would later look back on this relationship with some regret, although he never denied the significance of Wagners influence on his emotional and intellectual path, Nietzsches estimation of Wagners work would alter considerably over the course of his life. Nonetheless, in light of this relationship, one can easily detect Wagners presence in much of Nietzsches early writings, particularly in the latter chapters of The Birth of Tragedy and in the first and fourth essays of 1874s Untimely Meditations. Also, Wagners supervision exerted considerable editorial control over Nietzsches intellectual projects, leading him to abandon, for example, 1873s Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, which Wagner scorned because of its apparent irrelevance to his own work. Such pressures continued to bridle Nietzsche throughout the so-called early period. He broke free of Wagners dominance once and for all in 1877, after a series of emotionally charged episodes. Nietzsches fallout with Wagner, who had moved to Bayreuth by this time, led to the publication of 1878s Human, All-Too Human, one of Nietzsches most pragmatic and un-romantic textsthe original title page included a dedication to Voltaire and a quote from Descartes. If Nietzsche intended to use this text as a way of alienating himself from the Wagnerian circle, he surely succeeded. Upon its arrival in Bayreuth, the text ended this personal relationship with Wagner.

It would be an exaggeration to say that Nietzsche was not developing intellectually during the period, prior to 1877. In fact, figures other than Wagner drew Nietzsches interest and admiration. In addition to attending Burkhardts lectures at Basel, Nietzsche studied Greek thought from the Pre-Socratics to Plato, and he learned much about the history of philosophy from Friedrich Albert Langes massive History of Materialism, which Nietzsche once called a treasure trove of historical and philosophical names, dates, and currents of thought. In addition, Nietzsche was taken by the persona of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, which Nietzsche claimed to have culled from close readings of the two-volume magnum opus, The World as Will and Representation.

Nietzsche discovered Schopenhauer while studying in Leipzig. Because his training at Schulpforta had elevated him far above most of his classmates, he frequently skipped lectures at Leipzig in order to devote time to [CE1] Schopenhauers philosophy. For Nietzsche, the most important aspect of this philosophy was the figure from which it emanated, representing for him the heroic ideal of a man in the life of thought: a near-contemporary thinker participating in that great and noble republic of genius, spanning the centuries of free thinking sages and creative personalities. That Nietzsche could not countenance Schopenhauers ethical pessimism and its negation of the will was recognized by the young man quite early during this encounter. Yet, even in Nietzsches attempts to construct a counter-posed pessimism of strength affirming the will, much of Schopenhauers thought remained embedded in Nietzsches philosophy, particularly during the early period. Nietzsches philosophical reliance on genius, his cultural-political visions of rank and order through merit, and his self-described (and later self-rebuked) metaphysics of art all had Schopenhauerian underpinnings. Also, Birth of Tragedys well-known dualism between the cosmological/aesthetic principles of Dionysus and Apollo, contesting and complimenting each other in the tragic play of chaos and order, confusion and individuation, strikes a familiar chord to readers acquainted with Schopenhauers description of the world as will and representation.

Despite these similarities, Nietzsches philosophical break with Schopenhauerian pessimism was as real as his break with Wagners domineering presence was painful. Ultimately, however, such triumphs were necessary to the development and liberation of Nietzsche as thinker, and they proved to be instructive as Nietzsche later thematized the importance of self-overcoming for the project of cultivating a free spirit.

The middle and latter part of the 1870s was a time of great upheaval in Nietzsches personal life. In addition to the turmoil with Wagner and related troubles with friends in the artists circle of admirers, Nietzsche suffered digestive problems, declining eyesight, migraines, and a variety of physical aliments, rendering him unable to fulfill responsibilities at Basel for months at a time. After publication of Birth of Tragedy, and despite its perceived success in Wagnerian circles for trumpeting the masters vision for Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft (The Art Work of the Future) Nietzsches academic reputation as a philologist was effectively destroyed due in large part to the works apparent disregard for scholarly expectations characteristic of nineteenth-century philology. Birth of Tragedy was mocked as Zukunfts-Philologie (Future Philology) by Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, an up-and-coming peer destined for an illustrious career in Classicism, and even Ritschl characterized it as a work of megalomania. For these reasons, Nietzsche had difficulty attracting students. Even before the publication of Birth of Tragedy, he had attempted to re-position himself at Basel in the department of philosophy, but the University apparently never took such an endeavor seriously. By 1878, his circumstances at Basel deteriorated to the point that neither the University nor Nietzsche was very much interested in seeing him continue as a professor there, so both agreed that he should retire with a modest pension [CE2] . He was 34 years old and now apparently liberated, not only from his teaching duties and the professional discipline he grew to despise, but also from the emotional and intellectual ties that dominated him during his youth. His physical woes, however, would continue to plague him for the remainder of his life.

After leaving Basel, Nietzsche enjoyed a period of great productivity. And, during this time, he was never to stay in one place for long, moving with the seasons, in search of relief for his ailments, solitude for his work, and reasonable living conditions, given his very modest budget. He often spent summers in the Swiss Alps in Sils Maria, near St. Moritz, and winters in Genoa, Nice, or Rappollo on the Mediterranean coast. Occasionally, he would visit family and friends in Naumburg or Basel, and he spent a great deal of time in social discourse, exchanging letters with friends and associates.

In the latter part of the 1880s, Nietzsches health worsened, and in the midst of an amazing flourish of intellectual activity which produced On the Genealogy of Morality, Twilight of the Idols, The Anti-Christ, and several other works (including preparation for what was intended to be his magnum opus, a work that editors later titled Will to Power) Nietzsche suffered a complete mental and physical breakdown. The famed moment at which Nietzsche is said to have succumbed irrevocably to his ailments occurred January 3, 1889 in Turin (Torino) Italy, reportedly outside Nietzsches apartment in the Piazza Carlos Alberto while embracing a horse being flogged by its owner.

After spending time in psychiatric clinics in Basel and Jena, Nietzsche was first placed in the care of his mother, and then later his sister (who had spent the latter half of the 1880s attempting to establish a racially pure German colony in Paraguay with her husband, the anti-Semitic political opportunist Bernhard Foerster). By the early 1890s, Elisabeth had seized control of Nietzsches literary remains, which included a vast amount of unpublished writings. She quickly began shaping his image and the reception of his work, which by this time had already gained momentum among academics such as Georg Brandes. Soon the Nietzsche legend would grow in spectacular fashion among popular readers. From Villa Silberblick, the Nietzsche home in Weimar, Elisabeth and her associates managed Friedrichs estate, editing his works in accordance with her taste for a populist decorum and occasionally with an ominous political intent that (later researchers agree) corrupted the original thought[CE3] . Unfortunately, Friedrich experienced little of his fame, having never recovered from the breakdown of late 1888 and early 1889. His final years were spent at Villa Silberblick in grim mental and physical deterioration, ending mercifully August 25, 1900. He was buried in Rcken, near Leipzig. Elisabeth spent one last year in Paraguay in 1892-93 before returning to Germany, where she continued to exert influence over the perception of Nietzsches work and reputation, particularly among general readers, until her death in 1935. Villa Silberblick stands today as a monument, of sorts, to Friedrich and Elisabeth, while the bulk of Nietzsches literary remains is held in the Goethe-Schiller Archiv, also in Weimar.

Nietzsche scholars commonly divide his work into periods, usually with the implication that discernable shifts in Nietzsches circumstances and intellectual development justify some form of periodization in the corpus. The following division is typical:

(i.) before 1869the juvenilia

Cautious Nietzsche biographers work to separate the facts of Nietzsches life from myth, and while a major part of the Nietzsche legend holds that Friedrich was a precocious child, writings from his youth bear witness to that part of the story. During this time Nietzsche was admitted into the prestigious Gymnasium Schulpforta; he composed music, wrote poetry and plays, and in 1863 produced an autobiography (at the age of 19). He also produced more serious and accomplished works on themes related to philology, literature, and philosophy. By 1866 he had begun contributing articles to a major philological journal, Rheinisches Museum, edited by Nietzsches esteemed professor at Bonn and Leipzig, Friedrich Ritschl. With Ritschls recommendation, Nietzsche was appointed professor of Greek Language and Literature at the University of Basel in January 1869.

(ii.) 1869-1876the early period

Nietzsches writings during this time reflect interests in philology, cultural criticism, and aesthetics. His inaugural public lecture at Basel in May 1869, Homer and Classical Philology brought out aesthetic and scientific aspects of his discipline, portending Nietzsches attitudes towards science, art, philology and philosophy. He was influenced intellectually by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and emotionally by the artist Richard Wagner. Nietzsches first published book, The Birth of Tragedy, appropriated Schopenhaurian categories of individuation and chaos in an elucidation of primordial aesthetic drives represented by the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus. This text also included a Wagnerian precept for cultural flourishing: society must cultivate and promote its most elevated and creative typesthe artistic genius. In the Preface to a later edition of this work, Nietzsche expresses regret for having attempted to elaborate a metaphysics of art. In addition to these themes, Nietzsches interest during this period extended to Greek philosophy, intellectual history, and the natural sciences, all of which were significant to the development of his mature thought. Nietzsches second book-length project, The Untimely Meditations, contains four essays written from 1873-1876. It is a work of acerbic cultural criticism, encomia to Schopenhauer and Wagner, and an unexpectedly idiosyncratic analysis of the newly developing historical consciousness. A fifth meditation on the discipline of philology is prepared but left unpublished. Plagued by poor health, Nietzsche is released from teaching duties in February 1876 (his affiliation with the university officially ends in 1878 and he is granted a small pension).

(iii.) 1877-1882the middle period

During this time Nietzsche liberated himself from the emotional grip of Wagner and the artists circle of admirers, as well as from those ideas which (as he claims in Ecce Homo) did not belong to him in his nature (Human All Too Human: With Two Supplements 1). Reworking earlier themes such as tragedy in philosophy, art and truth, and the human exemplar, Nietzsches thinking now comes into sharper focus, and he sets out on a philosophical path to be followed the remainder of his productive life. In this periods three published works Human, All-Too Human (1878-79), Dawn (1881), and The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche takes up writing in an aphoristic style, which permits exploration of a variety of themes. Most importantly, Nietzsche lays out a plan for becoming what one is through the cultivation of instincts and various cognitive faculties, a plan that requires constant struggle with ones psychological and intellectual inheritances. Nietzsche discovers that one thing is needful for the exemplary human being: to craft an identity from otherwise dissociated events bringing forth the horizons of ones existence. Self-realization, as it is conceived in these texts, demands the radicalization of critical inquiry with a historical consciousness and then a retrograde step back (Human aphorism 20) from what is revealed in such examinations, insofar as these revelations threaten to dissolve all metaphysical realities and leave nothing but the abysmal comedy of existence. A peculiar kind of meaningfulness is thus gained by the retrograde step: it yields a purpose for existence, but in an ironic form, perhaps esoterically and without ground; it is transparently nihilistic to the man with insight, but suitable for most; susceptible to all sorts of suspicion, it is nonetheless necessary and for that reason enforced by institutional powers. Nietzsche calls the one who teaches the purpose of existence a tragic hero (GS 1), and the one who understands the logic of the retrograde step a free spirit. Nietzsches account of this struggle for self-realization and meaning leads him to consider problems related to metaphysics, religion, knowledge, aesthetics, and morality.

(iv.) Post-1882the later period

Nietzsche transitions into a new period with the conclusion of The Gay Science (Book IV) and his next published work, the novel Thus Spoke Zarathustra, produced in four parts between 1883 and 1885. Also in 1885 he returns to philosophical writing with Beyond Good and Evil. In 1886 he attempts to consolidate his inquiries through self-criticism in Prefaces written for the earlier published works, and he writes a fifth book for The Gay Science. In 1887 he writes On the Genealogy of Morality. In 1888, with failing health, he produces several texts, including The Twilight of the Idols, The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, and two works concerning his prior relationship with Wagner. During this period, as with the earlier ones, Nietzsche produces an abundance of materials not published during his lifetime. These works constitute what is referred to as Nietzsches Nachlass. (For years this material has been published piecemeal in Germany and translated to English in various collections.) Philosophically, during this period, Nietzsche continues his explorations on morality, truth, aesthetics, history, power, language and identity. For some readers, he appears to be broadening the scope of his ideas to work out a cosmology involving the all encompassing will to power and the curiously related and enigmatic eternal recurrence of the same. Prior claims regarding the retrograde step are re-thought, apparently in favor of seeking some sort of breakthrough into the abyss of light (Zarathustras Before Sunrise) or in an encounter with decadence (Expeditions of a Untimely Man 43, in Twilight of the Idols). The intent here seems to be an overcoming or dissolution of metaphysics. These developments are matters of contention, however, as some commentators maintain that statements regarding Nietzsches cosmological vision are exaggerated. And, some will even deny that he achieves (nor even attempts) the overcoming described above. Despite such complaints, interpreters of Nietzsche continue to reference these ineffable concepts.

Nietzsches work in the beginning was heavily influenced, either positively or negatively, by the events of his young life. His early and on-going interest in the Greeks, for example, can be attributed in part to his Classical education at Schulpforta, for which he was well-prepared as a result of his familys attempts to steer him into the ministry. Nietzsches intense association with Wagner no doubt enhanced his orientation towards the philosophy of Schopenhauer, and it probably promoted his work in aesthetics and cultural criticism. These biographical elements came to bear on Nietzsches first major works, while the middle period amounts to a confrontation with many of these influences. In Nietzsches later writings we find the development of concepts that seem less tangibly related to the biographical events of his life.

Lets outline four of these concepts, but not before adding a word of caution regarding how this outline should be received. Nietzsche asserts in the opening section of Twilight of the Idols that he mistrusts systematizers (Maxims and Arrows 26), which is taken by some readers to be a declaration of his fundamental stance towards philosophical systems, with the additional inference that nothing resembling such a system must be permitted to stand in interpretations of his thought. Although it would not be illogical to say that Nietzsche mistrusted philosophical systems, while nevertheless building one of his own, some commentators point out two important qualifications. First, the meaning of Nietzsches stated mistrust in this brief aphorism can and should be treated with caution. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche claims that philosophers today, after millennia of dogmatizing about absolutes, now have a duty to mistrust philosophys dogmatizing tendencies (BGE 34). Yet, earlier in that same text, Nietzsche claimed that all philosophical interpretations of nature are acts of will power (BGE 9) and that his interpretations are subject to the same critique (BGE 22). In Thus Spoke Zarathustras Of Involuntary Bliss we find Zarathustra speaking of his own mistrust, when he describes the happiness that has come to him in the blissful hour of the third part of that book. Zarathustra attempts to chase away this bliss while waiting for the arrival of his unhappiness, but his happiness draws nearer and nearer to him, because he does not chase after it. In the next scene we find Zarathustra dwelling in the light abyss of the pure open sky, before sunrise. What then is the meaning of this mistrust? At the very least, we can say that Nietzsche does not intend it to establish a strong and unmovable absolute, a negative-system, from which dogma may be drawn. Nor, possibly, is Nietzsches mistrust of systematizers absolutely clear. Perhaps it is a discredit to Nietzsche as a philosopher that he did not elaborate his position more carefully within this tension; or, perhaps such uncertainty has its own ground. Commentators such as Mueller-Lauter have noticed ambivalence in Nietzsches work on this very issue, and it seems plausible that Nietzsche mistrusted systems while nevertheless constructing something like a system countenancing this mistrust. He says something akin to this, after all, in Beyond Good and Evil, where it is claimed that even sciences truths are matters of interpretation, while admitting that this bold claim is also an interpretation and so much the better (aphorism 22). For a second cautionary note, many commentators will argue along with Richard Schacht that, instead of building a system, Nietzsche is concerned only with the exploration of problems, and that his kind of philosophy is limited to the interpretation and evaluation of cultural inheritances (1995). Other commentators will attempt to complement this sort of interpretation and, like Lwith, presume that the ground for Nietzsches explorations may also be examined. Lwith and others argue that this ground concerns Nietzsches encounter with historical nihilism. The following outline should be received, then, with the understanding that Nietzsches own iconoclastic nature, his perspectivism, and his life-long projects of genealogical critique and the revaluation of values, lend credence to those anti-foundational readings which seek to emphasize only those exploratory aspects of Nietzsches work while refuting even implicit submissions to an orthodox interpretation of the one Nietzsche and his one system of thought. With this caution, the following outline is offered as one way of grounding Nietzsches various explorations.

The four major concepts presented in this outline are:

Although Michael Gillespie makes a strong case that Nietzsche misunderstood nihilism, and in any event Nietzsches Dionysianism would be a better place to look for an anti-metaphysical breakthrough in Nietzsches corpus (1995, 178), commentators as varied in philosophical orientation as Heidegger and Danto have argued that nihilism is a central theme in Nietzsches philosophy. Why is this so? The constellation of Nietzsches fundamental concepts moves within his general understanding of modernitys historical situation in the late nineteenth century. In this respect, Nietzsches thought carries out the Kantian project of critique by applying the nineteenth centurys developing historical awareness to problems concerning the possibilities of knowledge, truth, and human consciousness. Unlike Kants critiques, Nietzsches examinations find no transcendental ego, given that even the categories of experience are historically situated and likewise determined. Unlike Hegels notion of historical consciousness, however, history for Nietzsche has no inherent teleology. All beginnings and ends, for Nietzsche, are thus lost in a flood of indeterminacy. As early as 1873, Nietzsche was arguing that human reason is only one of many peculiar developments in the ebb and flow of time, and when there are no more rational animals nothing of absolute value will have transpired (On truth and lies in a non-moral sense). Some commentators would prefer to consider these sorts of remarks as belonging to Nietzsches juvenilia. Nevertheless, as late as 1888s Reason in Philosophy from Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche derides philosophers who would make a fetish out of reason and retreat into the illusion of a de-historicized world. Such a philosopher is decadent, symptomatic of a declining life. Opposed to this type, Nietzsche valorizes the Dionysian artist whose sense of history affirms all that is questionable and terrible in existence.

Nietzsches philosophy contemplates the meaning of values and their significance to human existence. Given that no absolute values exist, in Nietzsches worldview, the evolution of values on earth must be measured by some other means. How then shall they be understood? The existence of a value presupposes a value-positing perspective, and values are created by human beings (and perhaps other value-positing agents) as aids for survival and growth. Because values are important for the well being of the human animal, because belief in them is essential to our existence, we oftentimes prefer to forget that values are our own creations and to live through them as if they were absolute. For these reasons, social institutions enforcing adherence to inherited values are permitted to create self-serving economies of power, so long as individuals living through them are thereby made more secure and their possibilities for life enhanced. Nevertheless, from time to time the values we inherit are deemed no longer suitable and the continued enforcement of them no longer stands in the service of life. To maintain allegiance to such values, even when they no longer seem practicable, turns what once served the advantage to individuals to a disadvantage, and what was once the prudent deployment of values into a life denying abuse of power. When this happens the human being must reactivate its creative, value-positing capacities and construct new values.

Commentators will differ on the question of whether nihilism for Nietzsche refers specifically to a state of affairs characterizing specific historical moments, in which inherited values have been exposed as superstition and have thus become outdated, or whether Nietzsche means something more than this. It is, at the very least, accurate to say that for Nietzsche nihilism has become a problem by the nineteenth century. The scientific, technological, and political revolutions of the previous two hundred years put an enormous amount of pressure on the old world order. In this environment, old value systems were being dismantled under the weight of newly discovered grounds for doubt. The possibility arises, then, that nihilism for Nietzsche is merely a temporary stage in the refinement of true belief. This view has the advantage of making Nietzsches remarks on truth and morality seem coherent from a pragmatic standpoint, in that with this view the problem of nihilism is met when false beliefs have been identified and corrected. Reason is not a value, in this reading, but rather the means by which human beings examine their metaphysical presuppositions and explore new avenues to truth.

Yet, another view will have it that by nihilism Nietzsche is pointing out something even more unruly at work, systemically, in the Western worlds axiomatic orientation. Heidegger, for example, claims that with the problem of nihilism Nietzsche is showing us the essence of Western metaphysics and its system of values (The Word of Nietzsche: God is dead). According to this view, Nietzsches philosophy of value, with its emphasis on the value-positing gesture, implies that even the concept of truth in the Western worldview leads to arbitrary determinations of value and political order and that this worldview is disintegrating under the weight of its own internal logic (or perhaps illogic). In this reading, the history of truth in the occidental world is the history of an error (Twilight of the Idols), harboring profoundly disruptive antinomies which lead, ultimately, to the undoing of the Western philosophical framework. This kind of systemic flaw is exposed by the historical consciousness of the nineteenth century, which makes the problem of nihilism seem all the more acutely related to Nietzsches historical situation. But to relegate nihilism to that situation, according to Heidegger, leaves our thinking of it incomplete.

Heidegger makes this stronger claim with the aid of Nietzsches Nachlass. Near the beginning of the aphorisms collected under the title, Will To Power (aphorism 2), we find this note from 1887: What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devalue themselves.The aim is lacking; Why? finds no answer. Here, Nietzsches answer regarding the meaning of nihilism has three parts.

(i) The first part makes a claim about the logic of values: ultimately, given the immense breadth of time, even the highest values devalue themselves. What does this mean? According to Nietzsche, the conceptual framework known as Western metaphysics was first articulated by Plato, who had pieced together remnants of a declining worldview, borrowing elements from predecessors such as Anaximander, Parmenides, and especially Socrates, in order to overturn a cosmology that had been in play from the days of Homer and which found its fullest and last expression in the thought of Heraclitus. Platos framework was popularized by Christianity, which added egalitarian elements along with the virtue of pity. The maturation of Western metaphysics occurs during modernitys scientific and political revolutions, wherein the effects of its inconsistencies, malfunctions, and mal-development become acute. At this point, according to Nietzsche, the highest values devalue themselves, as modernitys striving for honesty, probity, and courage in the search for truth, those all-important virtues inhabiting the core of scientific progress, strike a fatal blow against the foundational idea of absolutes. Values most responsible for the scientific revolution, however, are also crucial to the metaphysical system that modern science is destroying. Such values are threatening, then, to bring about the destruction of their own foundations. Thus, the highest values are devaluing themselves at the core. Most importantly, the values of honesty, probity, and courage in the search for truth no longer seem compatible with the guarantee, the bestowal, and the bestowing agent of an absolute value. Even the truth of truth now falls prey to the workings of nihilism, given that Western metaphysics now appears groundless in this logic.

For some commentators, this line of interpretation leaves Nietzsches revaluation of values lost in contradiction. What philosophical ground, after all, could support revaluation if this interpretation were accurate? For this reason, readers such as Clark work to establish a coherent theory of truth in Nietzsches philosophy, which can apparently be done by emphasizing various parts of the corpus to the exclusion of others. If, indeed, a workable epistemology may be derived from reading specific passages, and good reasons can be given for prioritizing those passages, then consistent grounds may exist for Nietzsche having leveled a critique of morality. Such readings, however, seem incompatible with Nietzsches encounter with historical nihilism, unless nihilism is taken to represent merely a temporary stage in the refinement of Western humanitys acquisition of knowledge.

With the stronger claim, however, Nietzsches critique of the modern situation implies that the highest values [necessarily] devalue themselves. Western metaphysics brings about its own disintegration, in working out the implications of its inner logic. Nietzsches name for this great and terrible event, capturing popular imagination with horror and disgust, is the death of God. Nietzsche acknowledges that a widespread understanding of this event, the great noon at which all shadows of God will be washed out, is still to come. In Nietzsches day, the God of the old metaphysics is still worshiped, of course, and would be worshiped, he predicted, for years to come. But, Nietzsche insisted, in an intellectual climate that demands honesty in the search for truth and proof as a condition for belief, the absence of foundations has already been laid bare. The dawn of a new day had broken, and shadows now cast, though long, were receding by the minute.

(ii) The second part of the answer to the question concerning nihilism states that the aim is lacking. What does this mean? In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche claims that the logic of an existence lacking inherent meaning demands, from an organizational standpoint, a value-creating response, however weak this response might initially be in comparison to how its values are then taken when enforced by social institutions (aphorisms 20-23). Surveys of various cultures show that humanitys most indispensable creation, the affirmation of meaning and purpose, lies at the heart of all fundamental values. Nihilism stands not only for that apparently inevitable process by which the highest values devalue themselves. It also stands for that moment of recognition in which human existence appears, ultimately, to be in vain. Nietzsches surveys of cultures and their values, his cultural anthropologies, are typically reductive in the extreme, attempting to reach the most important sociopolitical questions as neatly and quickly as possible. Thus, when examining so-called Jewish, Oriental, Roman, or Medieval European cultures Nietzsche asks, how was meaning and purpose proffered and secured here? How, and for how long, did the values here serve the living? What form of redemption was sought here, and was this form indicative of a healthy life? What may one learn about the creation of values by surveying such cultures? This version of nihilism then means that absolute aims are lacking and that cultures naturally attempt to compensate for this absence with the creation of goals.

(iii) The third part of the answer to the question concerning nihilism states that why? finds no answer. Who is posing the question here? Emphasis is laid on the one who faces the problem of nihilism. The problem of value-positing concerns the one who posits values, and this one must be examined, along with a corresponding evaluation of relative strengths and weaknesses. When, indeed, why? finds no answer, nihilism is complete. The danger here is that the value-positing agent might become paralyzed, leaving the call of lifes most dreadful question unanswered. In regards to this danger, Nietzsches most important cultural anthropologies examined the Greeks from Homer to the age of tragedy and the pre-Platonic philosophers. Here was evidence, Nietzsche believed, that humanity could face the dreadful truth of existence without becoming paralyzed. At every turn, the moment in which the Greek worlds highest values devalued themselves, when an absolute aim was shown to be lacking, the question why? nevertheless called forth an answer. The strength of Greek culture is evident in the gods, the tragic art, and the philosophical concepts and personalities created by the Greeks themselves. Comparing the creativity of the Greeks to the intellectual work of modernity, the tragic, affirmative thought of Heraclitus to the pessimism of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche highlights a number of qualitative differences. Both types are marked by the appearance of nihilism, having been drawn into the inevitable logic of value-positing and what it would seem to indicate. The Greek type nevertheless demonstrates the characteristics of strength by activating and re-intensifying the capacity to create, by overcoming paralysis, by willing a new truth, and by affirming the will. The other type displays a pessimism of weakness, passivity, and wearinesstraits typified by Schopenhauers life-denying ethics of the will turning against itself. In Nietzsches 1888 retrospection on the Birth of Tragedy in Ecce Homo, we read that Hellenism and Pessimism would have made a more precise title for the first work, because Nietzsche claims to have attempted to demonstrate how

the Greeks got rid of pessimismwith what they overcame it.Precisely tragedy is the proof that the Greeks were no pessimists: Schopenhauer blundered in this as he blundered in everything (The Birth of Tragedy in Ecce Homo section 1).

From Twilight of the Idols, also penned during that sublime year of 1888, Nietzsche writes that tragedy has to be considered the decisive repudiation of pessimism as Schopenhauer understood it:

affirmation of life, even in its strangest and sternest problems, the will to life rejoicing in its own inexhaustibility through the sacrifice of its highest typesthat is what I called Dionysian.beyond [Aristotelian] pity and terror, to realize in oneself the eternal joy of becomingthat joy which also encompasses joy in destruction (What I Owe the Ancients 5).

Nietzsche concludes the above passage by claiming to be the last disciple of the philosopher Dionysus (which by this time in Nietzsches thought came to encompass the whole of that movement which formerly distinguished between Apollo and Dionysus). Simultaneously, Nietzsche declares himself, with great emphasis, to be the teacher of the eternal recurrence.

The work to overcome pessimism is tragic in a two-fold sense: it maintains a feeling for the absence of ground, while responding to this absence with the creation of something meaningful. This work is also unmodern, according to Nietzsche, since modernity either has yet to ask the question why?, in any profound sense or, in those cases where the question has been posed, it has yet to come up with a response. Hence, a pessimism of weakness and an incomplete form of nihilism prevail in the modern epoch. Redemption in this life is denied, while an uncompleted form of nihilism remains the fundamental condition of humanity. Although the logic of nihilism seems inevitable, given the absence of absolute purpose and meaning, actively confronting nihilism and completing our historical encounter with it will be a sign of good health and the increased power of the spirit (Will to Power aphorism 22). Thus far, however, modernitys attempts to escape nihilism (in turning away) have only served to make the problem more acute (aphorism 28). Why, then, this failure? What does modernity lack?

How and why do nihilism and the pessimism of weakness prevail in modernity? Again, from the notebook of 1887 (Will to Power, aphorism 27), we find two conditions for this situation:

1. the higher species is lacking, i.e., those whose inexhaustible fertility and power keep up the faith in man.[and] 2. the lower species (herd, mass, society,) unlearns modesty and blows up its needs into cosmic and metaphysical values. In this way the whole of existence is vulgarized: insofar as the mass is dominant it bullies the exceptions, so they lose their faith in themselves and become nihilists.

With the fulfillment of European nihilism (which is no doubt, for Nietzsche, endemic throughout the Western world and anyplace touched by modernity), and the death of otherworldly hopes for redemption, Nietzsche imagines two possible responses: the easy response, the way of the herd and the last man, or the difficult response, the way of the exception, and the bermensch.

Ancillary to any discussion of the exception, per se, the compatibility of the bermensch concept with other movements in Nietzsches thought, and even the significance that Nietzsche himself placed upon it, has been the subject of intense debate among Nietzsche scholars. The terms appearance in Nietzsches corpus is limited primarily to Thus Spoke Zarathustra and works directly related to this text. Even here, moreover, the bermensch is only briefly and very early announced in the narrative, albeit with a tremendous amount of fanfare, before fading from explicit consideration. In addition to these problems, there are debates concerning the basic nature of the bermensch itself, whether ber- refers to a transitional movement or a transmogrified state of being, and whether Nietzsche envisioned the possibility of a community of bermenschen, as opposed to a solitary figure among lesser types. So, what should be made of Nietzsches so-called overman (or even superman) called upon to arrive after the death of God?

Whatever else may be said about the bermensch, Nietzsche clearly had in mind an exemplary figure and an exception among humans, one whose inexhaustible fertility and power keep up the faith in man. For some commentators, Nietzsches distinction between overman and the last man has political ramifications. The hope for an overman figure to appear would seem to be permissible for one individual, many, or even a social ideal, depending on the culture within which it appears. Modernity, in Nietzsches view, is in such a state of decadence that it would be fortunate, indeed, to see the emergence of even one such type, given that modern sociopolitical arrangements are more conducive to creating the egalitarian last man who blinks at expectations for rank, self-overcoming, and striving for greatness. The last men are the most harmful to the species because they preserve their existence as much at the expense of the truth as at the expense of the future (Why I am a Destiny in Ecce Homo 1). Although Nietzsche never lays out a precise political program from these ideas, it is at least clear that theoretical justifications for complacency or passivity are antithetical to his philosophy. What, then, may be said about Nietzsche as political thinker? Nietzsches political sympathies are definitely not democratic in any ordinary way of thinking about that sort of arrangement. Nor are they socialist or Marxist.

Nietzsches political sympathies have been called aristocratic, which is accurate enough only if one does not confuse the term with European royalty, landed gentry, old money or the like and if one keeps in mind the original Greek meaning of the term, aristos, which meant the good man, the man with power. A certain ambiguity exists, for Nietzsche, in the term good man. On the one hand, the modern, egalitarian good man, the last man, expresses hostility for those types willing to impose measures of rank and who would dare to want greatness and to strive for it. Such hostilities are born out of ressentiment and inherited from Judeo-Christian moral value systems. (Beyond Good and Evil 257-260 and On the Genealogy of Morals essay 1). Good in this sense is opposed to evil, and the good man is the one whose values support the herd and whose condemnations are directed at those whose thoughts and actions might disrupt the complacent normalcy of modern life. On the other hand, the kind of good man who might overcome the weak pessimism of herd morality, the man of strength, a man to confront nihilism, and thus a true benefactor to humanity, would be decidedly unmodern and out of season. Only such a figure would keep up the faith in man. For these reasons, some commentators have found in Nietzsche an existentialist program for the heroic individual dissociated in varying degrees from political considerations. Such readings however ignore or discount Nietzsches interest in historical processes and the unavoidable inference that although Nietzsches anti-egalitarianism might lead to questionably unmodern political conclusions, hierarchy nevertheless implies association.

The distinction between the good man of active power and the other type also points to ambiguity in the concept of freedom. For the hopeless, human freedom is conceived negatively in the freedom from restraints, from higher expectations, measures of rank, and the striving for greatness. While the higher type, on the other hand, understands freedom positively in the freedom for achievement, for revaluations of values, overcoming nihilism, and self-mastery.

Nietzsche frequently points to such exceptions as they have appeared throughout historyNapoleon is one of his favorite examples. In modernity, the emergence of such figures seems possible only as an isolated event, as a flash of lightening from the dark cloud of humanity. Was there ever a culture, in contrast to modernity, which saw these sorts of higher types emerge in congress as a matter of expectation and design? Nietzsches early philological studies on the Greeks, such as Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, The Pre-Platonic Philosophers, Homer on Competition, and The Greek State, concur that, indeed, the ancient world before Plato produced many exemplary human beings, coming forth independently of each other but hewn from the same stone, made possible by the fertile cultural milieu, the social expectation of greatness, and opportunities to prove individual merit in various competitive arenas. Indeed, Greek athletic contests, festivals of music and tragedy, and political life reflected, in Nietzsches view, a general appreciation for competition, rank, ingenuity, and the dynamic variation of formal structures of all sorts. Such institutions thereby promoted the elevation of human exemplars. Again, the point must be stressed here that the historical accuracy of Nietzsches interpretation of the Greeks is no more relevant to his philosophical schemata than, for example, the actual signing of a material document is to a contractarian political theory. What is important for Nietzsche, throughout his career, is the quick evaluation of social order and heirarchies, made possible for the first time in the nineteenth century by the newly developed historical sense (BGE 224) through which Nietzsche draws sweeping conclusions regarding, for example, the characteristics of various moral and religious epochs (BGE 32 and 55), which are themselves pre-conditioned by the material origins of consciousness, from which a pre-human animal acquires the capacity (even the right) to make promises and develops into the sovereign individual who then bears responsibility for his or her actions and thoughts (GM II.2).

Like these rather ambitious conclusions, Nietzsches valorization of the Greeks is partly derived from empirical evidence and partly confected in myth, a methodological concoction that Nietzsche draws from his philological training. If the Greeks, as a different interpretation would have them, bear little resemblance to Nietzsches reading, such a difference would have little relevance to Nietzsches fundamental thoughts. Later Nietzsche is also clear that his descriptions of the Greeks should not be taken programmatically as a political vision for the future (see for example GS 340).

The Greeks are one of Nietzsches best exemplars of hope against a meaningless existence, hence his emphasis on the Greek worlds response to the wisdom of Silenus in Birth of Tragedy. (ch. 5). If the sovereign individual represents historys ripest fruit, the most recent millennia have created, through rituals of revenge and punishment, a bad conscience. The human animal thereby internalizes material forces into feelings of guilt and duty, while externalizing a spirit thus created with hostility towards existence itself (GM II.21). Compared to this typically Christian manner of forming human experiences, the Greeks deified the animal in man and thereby kept bad conscience at bay (GM II.23).

In addition to exemplifying the Greeks in the early works, Nietzsche lionizes the artist-genius and the sage; during the middle period he writes confidently, at first, and then longingly about the scientist, the philosopher of the future, and the free spirit; Zarathustras decidedly sententious oratory heralds the coming of the bermensch; the periods in which revaluation comes to the fore finds value in the destructive influences of the madman, the immoralist, the buffoon, and even the criminal. Finally, Nietzsches last works reflect upon his own image, as the breaker of human history into two, upon Mr. Nietzsche, the anti-Christian, the self-anointed clever writer of great books, the creator of Zarathustra, the embodiment of human destiny and humanitys greatest benefactor: only after me, Nietzsche claims in Ecce Homo, is it possible to hope again (Why I am a Destiny 1). It should be cautioned that important differences exist in the way Nietzsche conceives of each of these various figures, differences that reflect the development of Nietzsches philosophical work throughout the periods of his life. For this reason, none of these exemplars should be confused for the others. The bombastic Mr. Nietzsche of Ecce Homo is no more the bermensch of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, for example, than the Zarathustra character is a pre-Platonic philosopher or the alienated, cool, sober, and contemptuous scientist is a tragic artist, although these figures will frequently share characteristics. Yet, a survey of these exceptions shows that Nietzsches philosophy, in his own estimation, needs the apotheosis of a human exemplar, perhaps to keep the search for meaning and redemption from abdicating the earth in metaphysical retreat, perhaps to avert the exhaustion of human creativity, to reawaken the instincts, to inspire the striving for greatness, to remind us that this has happened once and is therefore a possibility, or perhaps simply to bestow the honey offering of a very useful piece of folly. This need explains the meaning of the parodic fourth book of Zarathustra, which opens with the title character reflecting on the whole of his teachings: I am hewho once bade himself, and not in vain: Become what you are! The subtitle of Nietzsches autobiographical Ecce Homo, How One Becomes What One Is, strikes a similar chord.

The exemplar expresses hope not granted from metaphysical illusions. After sharpening the critique of art and genius during the positivistic period, Nietzsche seems more cautious about heaping praise upon specific historical figures and types, but even when he could no longer find an ideal exception, he nevertheless deemed it requisite to fabricate one in myth. Whereas exceptional humans of the past belong to an exalted republic of genius, those of the future, those belonging to human destiny, embody humanitys highest hopes. As a result of this development, some commentators will emphasize the philosophy of the future as one of Nietzsches most important ideas. Work pursued in service of the future constitutes for Nietzsche an earthly form of redemption. Yet, exemplars of type, whether in the form of isolated individuals like Napoleon, or of whole cultures like the Greeks, are not caught up in petty historical politics or similar mundane endeavors. According to Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols, their regenerative powers are necessary for the work of interpreting the meaning and sequence of historical facts.

My Conception of the geniusGreat men, like great epochs, are explosive material in whom tremendous energy has been accumulated; their prerequisite has always been, historically and psychologically, that a protracted assembling, accumulating, economizing and preserving has preceded themthat there has been no explosion for a long time. If the tension in the mass has grown too great the merest accidental stimulus suffices to call the genius, the deed, the great destiny, into the world. Of what account then are circumstances, the epoch, the Zeitgeist, public opinion!Great human beings are necessary, the epoch in which they appear is accidental (Expeditions of an Untimely Man, 44).

It is with this understanding of the great man that Nietzsche, in Ecce Homo, proclaims even himself a great man, dynamite,breaking the history of humanity in two (Why I am a Destiny 1 and 8). A human exemplar, interpreted affirmatively in service of a hopeful future, is a great event denoting qualitative differences amidst the play of historical determinations. Thus, it belongs, in this reading, to Nietzsches cosmological vision of an indifferent nature marked occasionally by the boundary-stones of noble and sometimes violent uprisings.

To what extent is Nietzsche entitled to such a vision? Unlike nihilism, pessimism, and the death of God, which are historically, scientifically, and sometimes logically derived, Nietzsches yes-saying concepts seem to be derived from intuition, although Nietzsche will frequently support even these great hopes with bits of inductive reasoning. Nietzsche attempts to describe the logical structure of great events, as if a critical understanding of them pertains to their recurrence in modernity: great men have a historical and psychological prerequisite. Historically, there must be a time of waiting and gathering energy, as we find, for example, in the opening scene of Zarathustra. The great man and the great deed belong to a human destiny, one that emerges in situations of crisis and severe want. Psychologically, they are the effects of human energy stored and kept dormant for long periods of time in dark clouds of indifference. Primal energy gathers to a point before a cataclysmic event, like a chemical reaction with an electrical charge, unleashes some decisive, episodic force on all humanity. From here, the logic unfolds categorically: all great events, having occurred, are possibilities. All possibilities become necessities, given an infinite amount of time. Perhaps understanding this logic marks a qualitative difference in the way existence is understood. Perhaps this qualitative difference will spark the revaluation of values. When a momentous event takes place, the exception bolts from the cloud of normalcy as a point of extreme difference. In such ways, using this difference as a reference, as a boundary-stone on the river of eternal becoming, the meaning of the past is once again determined and the course of the future is set for a while, at least until a coming epoch unleashes the next great transvaluative event. Conditions for the occurrence of such events, and for the event of grasping this logic itself, are conceptualized, cosmologically in this reading, under the appellation will to power.

Before developing this reading further, it should be noted some commentators argue that the cosmological interpretation of will to power makes too strong a claim and that the extent of will to powers domain ought to be limited to what the idea might explain as a theory of moral psychology, as the principle of an anthropology regarding the natural history of morals, or as a response to evolutionary theories placed in the service of utility. Such commentators will maintain that Nietzsche either in no way intends to construct a new meta-theory, or if he does then such intentions are mistaken and in conflict with his more prescient insights. Indeed, much evidence exists to support each of these positions. As an enthusiastic reader of the French Moralists of the eighteenth century, Nietzsche held the view that all human actions are motivated by the desire to increase the feeling of power (GS 13). This view seems to make Nietzsches insights regarding moral psychology akin to psychological egoism and would thus make doubtful the popular notion that Nietzsche advocated something like an egoistic ethic. Nevertheless, with this bit of moral psychology, a debate exists among commentators concerning whether Nietzsche intends to make dubious morality per se or whether he merely endeavors to expose those life-denying ways of moralizing inherited from the beginning of Western thought. Nietzsche, at the very least, is not concerned with divining origins. He is interested, rather, in measuring the value of what is taken as true, if such a thing can be measured. For Nietzsche, a long, murky, and thereby misunderstood history has conditioned the human animal in response to physical, psychological, and social necessities (GM II) and in ways that have created additional needs, including primarily the need to believe in a purpose for its very existence (GS 1). This ultimate need may be uncritically engaged, as happens with the incomplete nihilism of those who wish to remain in the shadow of metaphysics and with the laisser aller of the last man who overcomes dogmatism by making humanity impotent (BGE 188). On the other hand, a critical engagement with history is attempted in Nietzsches genealogies, which may enlighten the historical consciousness with a sort of transparency regarding the drive for truth and its consequences for determining the human condition. In the more critical engagement, Nietzsche attempts to transform the need for truth and reconstitute the truth drive in ways that are already incredulous towards the dogmatizing tendency of philosophy and thus able to withstand the new suspicions (BGE 22 and 34). Thus, the philosophical exemplar of the future stands in contrast, once again, to the uncritical man of the nineteenth century whose hidden metaphysical principles of utility and comfort fail to complete the overcoming of nihilism (Ecce Homo, Why I am a Destiny 4). The question of whether Nietzsches transformation of physical and psychological need with a doctrine of the will to power, in making an affirmative principle out of one that has dissolved the highest principles hitherto, simply replaces one metaphysical doctrine with another, or even expresses completely all that has been implicit in metaphysics per se since its inception continues to draw the interest of Nietzsche commentators today. Perhaps the radicalization of will to power in this way amounts to no more than an account of this world to the exclusion of any other. At any rate, the exemplary type, the philosophy of the future, and will to power comprise aspects of Nietzsches affirmative thinking. When the egoists I will becomes transparent to itself a new beginning is thereby made possible. Nietzsche thus attempts to bring forward precisely that kind of affirmation which exists in and through its own essence, insofar as will to power as a principle of affirmation is made possible by its own destructive modalities which pulls back the curtain on metaphysical illusions and dogma founded on them.

The historical situation that conditions Nietzsches will to power involves not only the death of God and the reappearance of pessimism, but also the nineteenth centurys increased historical awareness, and with it the return of the ancient philosophical problem of emergence. How does the exceptional, for example, begin to take shape in the ordinary, or truth in untruth, reason in un-reason, social order and law in violence, a being in becoming? The variation and formal emergence of each of these states must, according to Nietzsche, be understood as a possibility only within a presumed sphere of associated events. One could thus also speak of the emergence, as part of this sphere, of a given forms disintegration. Indeed, the new cosmology must account for such a fate. Most importantly, the new cosmology must grant meaning to this eternal recurrence of emergence and disintegration without, however, taking vengeance upon it. This is to say that in the teaching of such a worldview, the innocence of becoming must be restored. The problem of emergence attracted Nietzsches interest in the earliest writings, but he apparently began to conceptualize it in published texts during the middle period, when his work freed itself from the early periods metaphysics of aesthetics. The opening passage from 1878s Human, All Too Human gives some indication of how Nietzsches thinking on this ancient problem begins to take shape:

Chemistry of concepts and feelings. In almost all respects, philosophical problems today are again formulated as they were two thousand years ago: how can something arise from its opposite.? Until now, metaphysical philosophy has overcome this difficulty by denying the origin of the one from the other, and by assuming for the more highly valued things some miraculous origin. Historical philosophy, on the other hand, the very youngest of all philosophical methods, which can no longer be even conceived of as separate from the natural sciences, has determined in isolated cases (and will probably conclude in all of them) that they are not opposites, only exaggerated to be so by the metaphysical view.As historical philosophy explains it, there exists, strictly considered, neither a selfless act nor a completely disinterested observation: both are merely sublimations. In them the basic element appears to be virtually dispersed and proves to be present only to the most careful observer. (Human, All Too Human, 1)

It is telling that Human begins by alluding to the problem of emergence as it is brought to light again by the historical philosophical method. A decidedly un-scientific metaphysical view, by comparison, looks rather for miraculous origins in support of the highest values. Next, in an unexpected move, Nietzsche relates the general problem of emergence to two specific issues, one concerning morals (selfless acts) and the other, knowledgewhich is taken to include judgment (disinterested observations): in them the basic element appears to be virtually dispersed and discernable only to the most careful observer.

The logical structure of emergence, here, appears to have been borrowed from Hegel and, to be sure, one could point to many Hegelian traces in Nietzsches thought. But previously in 1874s On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, from Untimely Meditations, Nietzsche had steadfastly refuted the dialectical logic of a world historical process, the Absolute Idea, and cunning reason. What, then, is the basic element, dispersed in morals and knowledge? How is it dispersed so that only the careful observer can detect it? The most decisive moment in Nietzsches development of a cosmology seems to have occurred when Nietzsche plumbed the surface of his early studies on the pathos and social construction of truth to discover a more prevalent feeling, one animating all socially relevant acts. In Book One of the The Gay Science (certainly one of the greatest works in whole corpus) Nietzsche, in the role of careful observer, identifies, with a bit of moral psychology, the one motive spurring all such acts:

On the doctrine of the feeling of power. Benefiting and hurting others are ways of exercising ones power upon others: that is all one desires in such cases. Whether benefiting or hurting others involves sacrifices for us does not affect the ultimate value of our actions. Even if we offer our lives, as martyrs do for their church, this is a sacrifice that is offered for our desire for power or for the purpose of preserving our feeling of power. Those who feel I possess Truthhow many possessions would they not abandon in order to save this feeling!Certainly the state in which we hurt others is rarely as agreeable, in an unadulterated way, as that in which we benefit others; it is a sign that we are still lacking power, or it shows a sense of frustration in the face of this poverty.(aphorism 13).

The ultimate value of our actions, even concerning those intended to pursue or preserve truth, are not measured by the goodness we bring others, notwithstanding the fact that intentionally harmful acts will be indicative of a desperate want of power. Nietzsche, here, asserts the significance of enhancing the feeling of power, and with this aphorism from 1882 we are on the way to seeing how the feeling of power will replace, for Nietzsche, otherworldly measures of value, as we read in finalized form in the second aphorism of 1888s The Anti-Christ:

What is good?All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad?All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness?The feeling that power increasesthat a resistance is overcome.

No otherworldly measures exist, for Nietzsche. Yet, one should not conclude from this absence of a transcendental measure that all expressions of power are qualitatively the same. Certainly, the possession of a Machiavellian virt will find many natural advantages in this world, but Nietzsche locates the most important aspect of overcoming resistance in self-mastery and self-commanding. In Zarathustras chapter, Of Self-Overcoming, all living creatures are said to be obeying something, while he who cannot obey himself will be commanded. That is the nature of living creatures. It is important to note the disjunction: one may obey oneself or one may not. Either way, one will be commanded, but the difference is qualitative. Moreover, commanding is more difficult than obeying (BGE 188 repeats this theme). Hence, one will take the easier path, if unable to command, choosing instead to obey the directions of another. The exception, however, will command and obey the healthy and self-mastering demands of a willing self. But why, we might ask, are all living things beholden to such commanding and obeying? Where is the proof of necessity here? Zarathustra answers:

Listen to my teaching, you wisest men! Test in earnest whether I have crept into the heart of life itself and down to the roots of its heart! Where I found a living creature, there I found will to power; and even in the will of the servant, I found the will to be master (Z Of the Self-Overcoming).

Here, apparently, Nietzsches doctrine of the feeling of power has become more than an observation on the natural history and psychology of morals. The teaching reaches into the heart of life, and it says something absolute about obeying and commanding. But what is being obeyed, on the cosmological level, and what is being commanded? At this point, Zarathustra passes on a secret told to him by life itself: behold [life says], I am that which must overcome itself again and againAnd you too, enlightened man, are only a path and a footstep of my will: truly, my will to power walks with the feet of your will to truth. We see here that a principle, will to power, is embodied by the human beings will to truth, and we may imagine it taking other forms as well. Reflecting on this insight, for example, Zarathustra claims to have solved the riddle of the hearts of the creator of values: you exert power with your values and doctrines of good and evil, you assessors of values.but a mightier power and a new overcoming grow from out of your values That mightier power growing in and through the embodiment and expression of human values is will to power.

It is important not to disassociate will to power, as a cosmology, from the human beings drive to create values. To be sure, Nietzsche is still saying that the creation of values expresses a desire for power, and the first essay of 1887s On the Genealogy of Morality returns to this simple formula. Here, Nietzsche appropriates a well-known element of Hegels Phenomenology, the structural movement of thought between basic types called masters and slaves. This appropriation has the affect of emphasizing the difference between Nietzsches own historical genealogies and that of Hegels dialectic (as is worked out in Deleuzes study of Nietzsche). Master and slave moralities, the truths of which are confirmed independently by feelings that power has been increased, are expressions of the human beings will to power in qualitatively different states of health. The former is a consequence of strength, cheerful optimism and naivet, while the latter stems from impotency, pessimism, cunning and, most famously, ressentiment, the creative reaction of a bad conscience coming to form as it turns against itself in hatred. The venom of slave morality is thus directed outwardly in ressentiment and inwardly in bad conscience. Differing concepts of good, moreover, belong to master and slave value systems. Master morality complements its good with the designation, bad, understood to be associated with the one who is inferior, weak, and cowardly. For slave morality, on the other hand, the designation, good is itself the complement of evil, the primary understanding of value in this scheme, associated with the one possessing superior strength. Thus, the good man in the unalloyed form of master morality will be the evil man, the man against whom ressentiment is directed, in the purest form of slave morality. Nietzsche is careful to add, at least in Beyond Good and Evil, that all modern value systems are constituted by compounding, in varying degrees, these two basic elements. Only a genealogical study of how these modern systems came to form will uncover the qualitative strengths and weaknesses of any normative judgment.

The language and method of The Genealogy hearken back to The Gay Sciences doctrine of the feeling of power. But, as we have seen, in the period between 1882 and 1887, and from out of the psychological-historical description of morality, truth, and the feeling of power, Nietzsche has given agency to the willing as such that lives in and through the embrace of power, and he generalizes the willing agent in order to include life and the world and the principle therein by which entities emerge embodied. The ancient philosophical problem of emergence is resolved, in part, with the cosmology of a creative, self-grounding, self-generating, sustaining and enhancing will to power. Such willing, most importantly, commands, which at the same time is an obeying: difference emerges from out of indifference and overcomes it, at least for a while. Life, in this view, is essentially self-overcoming, a self-empowering power accomplishing more power to no other end. In a notebook entry from 1885, Will to Powers aphorism 1067, Nietzsches cosmological intuitions take flight:

And do you know what the world is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without endas force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forcesa sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing and eternally flooding back with tremendous years of recurrenceout of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness; this my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the two-fold voluptuous delight, my beyond good and evil, without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal.This world is the will to powerand nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to powerand nothing besides!

Nietzsche discovers, here, the words to articulate one of his most ambitious concepts. The will to power is now described in terms of eternal and world-encompassing creativity and destructiveness, thought over the expanse of tremendous years and in terms of recurrence, what Foucault has described as the play of domination (1971). In some respects Nietzsche has indeed rediscovered the temporal structure of Heraclitus child at play, arranging toys in fanciful constructions of what merely seems like everything great and noble, before tearing down this structure and building again on the precipice of a new mishap. To live in this manner, according to Nietzsche in The Gay Science, to affirm this kind of cosmology and its form of eternity, is to live dangerously and to love fate (amor fati).

In spite of the positivistic methodology of The Genealogy, beneath the surface of this natural history of morals, will to power pumps life into the heart of both master and slave conceptual frameworks. Moreover, will to power stands as a necessary condition for all value judgments. How, one might ask, are these cosmological intuitions derived? How is knowledge of both will to power and its eternally recurring play of creation and destruction grounded? If they are to be understood poetically, then the question why?is misplaced (Zarathustra, Of Poets). Logically, with respect to knowledge, Nietzsche insists that principles of perception and judgment evolve co-dependently with consciousness, in response to physical necessities. The self is organized and brought to stand within the body and by the stimuli received there. This means that all principles are transformations of stimuli and interpretations thereupon: truth is a mobile army of metaphors which the body forms before the mind begins to grasp. Let us beware, Nietzsche cautions, of saying that the world possesses any sort of order or coherence without these interpretations (GS 109), even to the extent that Nietzsche himself conceives will to power as the way of all things. If all principles are interpretive gestures, by the logic of Nietzsches new cosmology, the will to power must also be interpretive (BGE 22). One aspect of the absence of absolute order is that interpretive gestures are necessarily called-forth for the establishment of meaning. A critical requirement of this interpretive gesture becoming transparent is that the new interpretation must knowingly affirm that all principles are grounded in interpretation. According to Nietzsche, such reflexivity does not discredit his cosmology: so much the better, since will to power, through Nietzsches articulation, emerges as the thought that now dances playfully and lingers for a while in the midst of what Vattimo might call a weakened (and weakening) ontology of indifference. The human being is thereby an experimental animal (GM II). Its truths have the seductive power of the feminine (BGE 1); while Nietzsches grandest visions are oriented by the experimental or tempter god, the one later Nietzsche comes to identify with the name Dionysus (BGE 295).

The philosopher of the future will posses a level of critical awareness hitherto unimagined, given that his interpretive gestures will be recognized as such. Yet, a flourishing life will still demand, one might imagine, being able to suspend, hide, or forgetat the right momentsthe creation of values, especially the highest values. Perhaps the cartoonish, bombastic language of The Genealogys master and slave morality, to point to an example, which was much more soberly discussed in the previous years Beyond Good and Evil, is employed esoterically by Nietzsche for the rhetorical effect of producing a grand and spectacular diversion, hiding the all-important creative gesture that brought forth the new cosmology as a supreme value: This world is the will to power and nothing besides!And you yourselves are also this will to powerand nothing besides! With this teaching, Nietzsche leaves underdeveloped many obvious themes, such as how the worlds non-animate matter may (or may not) be involved with will to power or whether non-human life-forms take part fully and equally in the worlds movement of forces. To have a perspective, for Nietzsche, seems sufficient for participating in will to power, but does this mean that non-human animals, which certainly seem to have perspectives, and without question participate in the living of life, have the human beings capacity (or any capacity for that matter) to command themselves? Or, do trees and other forms of vegetation? Apparently, they do not. Such problems involve, again, the question of freedom, which interests Nietzsche primarily in the positive form. Of more importance to Nietzsche is that which pertains solely to the human beings marshalling of forces but, even here (or perhaps especially here), a hierarchy of differences may be discerned. Some human forms of participation in will to power are noble, others ignoble. But, concerning these sorts of activities, Nietzsche stresses in Beyond Good and Evil (aphorism 9) the difference between his own cosmology, which at times seems to re-establish the place of nobility in nature, and the stoic view, which asserts the oneness of humanity with divine nature:

According to nature you want to live? Oh you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a powerhow could you live according to this indifference? Livingis that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is not livingestimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? .But this is an ancient, eternal story: what formerly happened with the Stoics still happens today, too, as soon as any philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise. Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself; the most spiritual will to power, to the creation of the world, to the causa prima.

Strauss claims that here Nietzsche is replacing divine nature and its egalitarian coherence with noble nature and its expression of hierarchies, the condition for which is difference, per se, emerging in nature from indifference (1983). Other commentators have suggested that Nietzsche, here, betrays all of philosophy, lacking any sense of decency with this daring exposethat what is left after the expression of such a forbidden truth is no recourse to meaning.

The most generalized form of the philosophical problem of emergence and disintegration, of the living, valuing, wanting to be different, willing power, is described here in terms of the difference-creating gesture embodied by the human beings essential work, its creation of the world and first causes. Within nature, one might say, energy disperses and accumulates in various force-points: natures power to create these force-points is radically indifferent, and this indifference towards what has been created also characterizes its power. Periodically, something exceptional is thrust out from its opposite, given that radical indifference is indifferent even towards itself (if one could speak of ontological conditions in such a representative tone, which Nietzsche certainly does from time to time). Nature is disturbed, and the human being, having thus become aware of its own identity and of others, works towards preserving itself by tying things down with definitions; enhancing itself, occasionally, by loosening the fetters of old, worn-out forms; creating and destroying in such patterns, so as to make humanity and even nature appear to conform to some bit of tyranny. From within the logic of will to power, narrowly construed, human meaning is thus affirmed. But to what end? one might ask. To no end, Nietzsche would answer. Here, the more circumspect view could be taken, as is found in Twilight of the Idols The Four Great Errors: One is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole, there exist nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole.But nothing exists apart from the whole! Nietzsche conceptualizes human fate, then, in his most extreme vision of will to power, as being fitted to a whole, the world, which is itself nothing besides a monster of energy, without beginning, without endeternally changing and eternally flooding back with tremendous years of recurrence. In such manner, will to power expresses itself not only through the embodiment of humanity, its exemplars, and the constant revaluation of values, but also in time. Dasein, for Nietzsche, is suspended on the cross between these ontological movementsbetween an in/different playing of destruction/creationand time. But, what temporal model yields the possibility for these expressions? How does Nietzsches experimental philosophy conceptualize time?

The worlds eternally self-creating, self-destroying play is conditioned by time. Yet, Nietzsches skepticism concerning what can be known of telos, indeed his refutation of an absolute telos independent of human fabrication, demands a view of time that differs from those that place willing, purposiveness, and efficient causes in the service of goals, sufficient reason, and causa prima. Another formulation of this problem might ask, what is the history of willing, if not the demonstration of progress and/or decay?

Nietzsches solution to the riddle of time, nevertheless, radicalizes the Christian concept of eternity, combining a bit of simple observation and sure reasoning with an intuition that produces curious, but innovative results. The solution takes shape as Nietzsche fills the temporal horizons of past and future with events whose denotations have no permanent tether. Will to power, the Heraclitean cosmic-child, plays-on without preference to outcomes. Within the two-fold limit of this horizon, disturbances emerge from their opposites, but one cannot evaluate them, absolutely, because judgment implicates participation in will to power, in the ebb and flow of events constituting time. The objective perspective is not possible, since the whole consumes all possibilities, giving form to and destroying all that has come to fulfillment. Whatever stands in this flux, does so in the midst of the whole, but only for a while. It disturbs the whole, but does so as part of the whole. As such, whatever stands is measured, on the one hand, by the context its emergence creates. On the other hand, whatever stands is immeasurable, by virtue of the whole, the logic of which would determine this moment to have occurred in the never-ending flux of creation and destruction. Even to say that particular events seem better or worse suited to the functionality of the whole, or to its stability, or its health, or that an event may be measured absolutely by its fitted-ness in some other way, presupposes a standpoint that Nietzsches cosmology will not allow. One is left only to describe material occurrences and to intuit the passing of time.

The second part of Nietzsches solution to the riddle of time reasons that the mere observation of an occurrence, whether thought to be a simple thing or a more complex event, is enough to demonstrate the occurrences possibility. If something has happened, then its happening, naturally, must have been possible. Each simple thing or complex event is linked, inextricably, to a near infinite number of others, also demonstrating the possibilities of their happenings. If all of these possibilities could be presented in such a way as to account for their relationships and probabilities, as for example on a marvelously complex set of dice, then it could be shown that each of these possibilities will necessarily occur, and re-occur, given that the game of dice continues a sufficient length of time.

Next, Nietzsche considers the nature of temporal limits and duration. He proposes that no beginning or end of time can be determined, absolutely, in thought. No matter what sort of temporal limits are set by the imagination, questions concerning what lies beyond these limits never demonstrably cease. The question, what precedes or follows the imagined limits of past and future? never contradicts our understanding of time, which is thus shown to be more culturally and historically determined than otherwise admitted.

Finally, rather than to imagine a past and future extended infinitely on a plane of sequential moments, or to imagine a time in which nothing happens or will happen, Nietzsche envisions connecting what lies beyond the imaginations two temporal horizons, so that time is represented in the image of a circle, through which a colossal, but definitive number of possibilities are expressed. Time is infinite with this model, but filled by a finite number of material possibilities, recurring eternally in the never-ending play of the great cosmic game of chance.

What intuition led Nietzsche to interpret the cosmos as having no inherent meaning, as if it were playing itself out and repeating itself in eternally recurring cycles, in the endless creation and destruction of force-points without purpose? How does this curious temporal model relate to the living of life? In his philosophical autobiography, Ecce Homo, Nietzsche grounds eternal recurrence in his own experiences by relating an anecdote regarding, supposedly, its first appearance to him in thought. One day, Nietzsche writes, while hiking around Lake Silvaplana near Sils Maria, he came upon a giant boulder, took out a piece of paper and scribbled, 6000 Fuss jenseits von Mensch und Zeit. From here, Nietzsche goes on to articulate the eternal recurrence of the same, which he then characterizes as a doctrine or a teaching of the highest form of affirmation that can possibly be attained.

It is important to note that at the time of this discovery, Nietzsche was bringing his work on The Gay Science to a close and beginning to sketch out a plan for Zarathustra. The conceptualization of eternal recurrence emerges at the threshold of Nietzsches most acute positivistic inquiry and his most poetic creation. The transition between the two texts is made explicit when Nietzsche repeats the final aphorism of The Gay Sciences Book IV in the opening scene of Zarathustras prelude. The repetition of this scene will prove to be no coincidence, given the importance Nietzsche places upon the theme of recurrence in Zarathustras climactic chapters. Moreover, in the penultimate aphorism of The Gay Science, as a sort of introduction to that texts Zarathustra scene (which itself would seem quite odd apart from the later work), Nietzsche first lays out Zarathustras central teaching, the idea of eternal recurrence.

The greatest weight.What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequenceeven this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust! (GS 341).

What if, wonders Nietzsche, the thought took hold of us? Here, the conceptualization of eternal recurrence, thus, coincides with questions regarding its impact: how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

How would the logic of this new temporal model alter our experiences of factual life? Would such a thought diminish the willfulness of those who grasp it? Would it diminish our willingness to make normative decisions? Would willing cease under the pessimistic suspicion that the course for everything has already been determined, that all intentions are in vain? What would we lose by accepting the doctrine of this teaching? What would we gain? It seems strange that Nietzsche would place so much dramatic emphasis on this temporal form of determinism. If all of our worldly strivings and cravings were revealed, in the logic of eternal recurrence, to be no more than illusions, if every contingent fact of creation and destruction were understood to have merely repeated itself without end, if everything that happens, as it happens, both re-inscribes and anticipates its own eternal recurrence, what would be the affect on our dispositions, on our capacities to strive and create? Would we be crushed by this eternal comedy? Or, could we somehow find it liberating?

Even though Nietzsche has envisioned a temporal model of existence seemingly depriving us of the freedom to act in unique ways, we should not fail to catch sight of the qualitative differences the doctrine nevertheless leaves open for the living. The logic of eternity determines every contingent fact in each cycle of recurrence. That is, each recurrence is quantitatively the same. The quality of that recurrence, however, seems to remain an open question. What if the thought took hold of us? If we indeed understood ourselves to be bound by fate and thus having no freedom from the eternal logic of things, could we yet summon love for that fate, to embrace a kind of freedom for becoming that person we are? This is the strange confluence of possibility and necessity that Nietzsche announces in the beginning of Gay Sciences Book IV, with the concept of Amor fati: I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth!

Responses to this doctrine have been varied. Even some of the most enthusiastic Nietzsche commentators have, like Kaufmann, deemed it unworthy of serious reflection. Nietzsche, however, appears to stress its significance in Twilight of the Idols and Ecce Homo by emphasizing Zarathustras importance in the history of humanity and by dramatically staging in Thus Spoke Zarathustra the idea of eternal recurrence as the fundamental teaching of the main character. The presentation of this idea, however, leaves room for much doubt concerning the literal meaning of these claims, as does the paucity of direct references to the doctrine in other works intended for publication. In Nietzsches Nachlass, we discover attempts to work out rational proofs supporting the theory, but they seem to present no serious challenge to a linear conception of time. Among commentators taking the doctrine seriously, Lwith takes it as a supplement to Nietzsches historical nihilism, as a way of placing emphasis on the problem of meaning in history after the shadows of God have been dissolved. For Lwiths Nietzsche, nihilism is more than an historical moment giving rise to a crisis of confidence or faith. Rather, nihilism is the essence of Nietzsches thought, and it poses the sorts of problems that lead Nietzsche into formulating eternal return as a way of restoring meaning in history. For Lwith, then, eternal return is inextricably linked to historical nihilism and offers both cosmological and anthropological grounds for accepting imperatives of self-overcoming. Yet, this grand attempt fails to restore meaning after the death of God, according to Lwith, because of eternal returns logical contradictions.

The reception of Nietzsches work, on all levels of engagement, has been complicated by historical contingencies that are related only by accident to the thought itself. The first of these complications pertains to the editorial control gained by Elizabeth in the aftermath of her brothers mental and physical collapse. Elisabeths overall impact on her brothers reputation is generally thought to be very problematic. Her husband, Bernhard Frster, whom Friedrich detested, was a leader of the late nineteenth-century German anti-Semitic political movement, which Friedrich often ridiculed and unambiguously condemned, both in his published works and in private correspondences. On this issue, Yovel demonstrates persuasively, with a contextual analysis of letters, materials from the Nachlass, and published works, that Nietzsche developed an attitude of anti-anti-Semitism after overcoming the culture of prejudice that formed him in his youth (Yovel, 1998). In the mid-1880s, Frster and wife led a small group of colonists to Paraguay in hopes of establishing an idyllic, racially pure, German settlement. The colony foundered, Bernhard committed suicide, and Elisabeth returned home, just in time to find her brothers health failing and his literary career ready to soar.

Upon her return, Elisabeth devised a way to keep alive the memory of both husband and brother, legally changing her last name to Frster-Nietzsche, a gesture indicative of designs to associate the philosopher with a political ideology he loathed. The stain of Elisabeths editorial imprint can be seen on the many ill-informed and haphazard interpretations of Nietzsche produced in the early part of the twentieth century, the unfortunate traces of which remain in some readings today. During the 1930s, in the midst of intense activity by National Socialist academic propagandists such as Alfred Bumler, even typically insightful thinkers such as Emmanuel Levinas confused the public image of Nietzsche for the philosophers stated beliefs. Counter-efforts in the 1930s to refute such propaganda, and the popular misconceptions it was fomenting at the time, can be found both inside and outside Germany, in seminars, for example, led by Karl Jaspers and Karl Lwith, and in Georges Batailles essay Nietzsche and the Fascists. Of course, the ad hominem argument that Nietzsche must be a Fascist philosopher because the Fascists venerated him as one of their own, may be ignored. (No one should find Kants moral philosophy reprehensible, by comparison, simply on the grounds that Eichmann attempted to exploit it in a Jerusalem court). Apart from the fallacy, here, even the premise itself regarding Nietzsche and the Fascists is not entirely above reproach, since some Fascists were skeptical of the commensurability of Nietzsches thought with their political aims. The stronger claim that Nietzsches thought leads to National Socialism is even more problematic. Nevertheless, intellectual histories pursuing the question of how Nietzsche has been placed into the service of all sorts of political interests are an important part of Nietzsche scholarship.

Since the middle part of the last century, Nietzsche scholars have come to grips with the role played by Elisabeth and her associates in obscuring Nietzsches anti-Nationalistic, anti-Socialist, anti-German views, his pan-European advocacy of race mixing, as well as his hatred for anti-Semitism and its place in the late-nineteenth-century politics of exploitation. The work Elisabeth performed as her brothers publicist, however, undoubtedly fulfilled all of her own fantasies: in the early 1930s, decades after Friedrichs death, the Nietzsche-Archiv was visited, ceremoniously, by Adolf Hitler, who was greeted and entertained by Elisabeth (in perhaps the most symbolic gesture of her association with the Nietzsche image) with a public reading of the work of her late husband, Bernhard, the anti-Semite. Hitler later attended Elisabeths funeral as Chancellor of Germany.

In a matter related to Elizabeths impact on the reception of her brothers thought, the relevance of Nietzsches biography to his philosophical work has long been a point of contention among Nietzsche commentators. While an exhaustive survey of the way this key issue has been addressed in the scholarship would be difficult in this context, a few influential readings may be briefly mentioned. Among notable German readers, Heidegger and Fink dismiss the idea that Nietzsches thought can be elucidated with the details of his life, while Jaspers affirms the exceptional nature of Nietzsches life and identifies the exception as a key aspect of his philosophy. French readers such as Bataille, Deleuze, Klossowski, Foucault, and Derrida assert the relevance of various biographical details to specific movements within Nietzsches writings. In the United States, the influential reading of Walter Kaufman follows Heidegger, for the most part, in denying relevance, while his student, Alexander Nehamas, tends the other way, linking Nietzsches various literary styles to his perspectivism and ultimately to living, per se, as an self-interpretive gesture. However difficult it might be to see the philosophical relevance of various biographical curiosities, such as Nietzsches psychological development as a child without a living father, his fascination and then fallout with Wagner, his professional ostracism, his thwarted love life, the excruciating physical ailments that tormented him, and so on, it would also seem capricious and otherwise inconsistent with Nietzsches work to radically severe his thought from these and other biographical details, and persuasive interpretations have argued that such experiences, and Nietzsches well-considered views of them, are inseparable from the multiple trajectories of his intellectual work.

Attempts to isolate Nietzsches philosophy from the twists and turns of a frequently problematic life may be explained, in part, as a reaction to several early, and rather detrimental, popular-psychological studies attempting to explain the work in a reductive and decidedly un-philosophical manner. Such was the reading proffered, for example, by Lou Salom, a woman with whom Nietzsche briefly had an unconventional and famously complex romantic relationship, and who later befriended Sigmund Freud among other leaders of European culture at the fin-de-sicle. Saloms Friedrich Nietzsche in His Works (1894) helped cast the image of Nietzsche as a lonely, miserable, self-immolating, recluse whose external intellectual workand inner life coalesce completely. In some commentaries, this image prevails yet today, but its accuracy is also a matter of debate. Nietzsche had many casual associates and a few close friends while in school and as a professor in Basel. Even during the period of his most intense intellectual activity, after withdrawing from the professional world of the academy and, like Marx and others before him in the nineteenth century, taking up the wandering life of a good European, the many written correspondences between Nietzsche and life-long friends, along with what is known about the minor details of his daily habits, his days spent in the company of fellow lodgers and travelers, taking meals regularly (in spite of a very closely regulated diet), and similar anecdotes, all put forward a different image. No doubt the affair with Salom and their mutual friend, the philosopher Paul Re, left Nietzsche embittered towards the two of them, and it seems likely that this bitterness clouded Saloms interpretation of Nietzsche and his works. Elisabeth, who had always loathed Salom for her immoderation and perceived influence over Friedrich, attempted to correct her rivals account by writing her own biography of Friedrich, which was effusive in its praise but did little to advance the understanding of Nietzsches thought. Perhaps these kinds of problems, then, provide the best argument for resisting the lure to reduce interpretations of Nietzsches thought to gossipy biographical anecdotes and clumsy, amateurish speculation, even if the other extreme has also been excessive at times.

Another key issue in the reception of Nietzsches work involves determining its relationship to the thoughts of other philosophers and, indeed, to the philosophical tradition itself. On both levels of this complex issue, the work of Martin Heidegger looms paramount. Heidegger began working closely with Nietzsches thought in the 1930s, a time rife with political opportunism in Germany, even among scholars and intellectuals. In the midst of a struggle over the official Nazi interpretation of Nietzsche, Heideggers views began to coalesce, and after a series of lectures on Nietzsches thought in the late 1930s and 1940, Heidegger produces in 1943 the seminal essay, Nietzsches Word: God is Dead. Nietzsche, for Heidegger, brought the consummation of metaphysics in the age of subject-centered reasoning, industrialization, technological power, and the enframing (Ge-stell) of humans and all other beings as a standing reserve. Combining Nietzsches self-described inversion of Platonism with the emphasis Nietzsche had undoubtedly placed upon the value-positing act and its relatedness to subjective or inter-subjective human perspectives, Heidegger dubbed Nietzsche the last metaphysician and tied him to the logic of a historical narrative highlighted by the appearances of Plato, Aristotle, Roman Antiquity, Christendom, Luther, Descartes, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, and others. The one thought common to each of these movements and thinkers, according to Heidegger, and the path Nietzsche thus thinks through to its consummation, is the metaphysical determination of being (Sein) as no more than something static and constantly present. Although Nietzsche appears to reject the concept of being as an empty fiction (claiming, in Twilight of the Idols, to concur with Heraclitus in this regard), Heidegger nevertheless reads in Nietzsches Platonic inversion the most insidious form of the metaphysics of presence, in which the destruction and re-establishment of value is taken to be the only possible occasion for philosophical labor whereby the very question of being is completely obliterated. Within this diminution of thought, the Nietzschean Superman emerges supremely powerful and triumphant, taking dominion over the earth and all of its beings, measured only by the mundane search for advantages in the ubiquitous struggle for preservation and enhancement.

As is typically the case with Heideggers interpretations of the history of philosophy, many aspects of this reading are truly remarkableHeideggers scholarship, for example, his feel for what is important to Nietzsche, and his elaboration of Nietzsches work in a way that seems compatible with a narrative of the concealing and revealing destiny of being. However, the plausibility of this reading has come into question almost from the moment the full extent of it was made known in the 1950s and 60s. In Germany, for example, Eugen Fink concludes his 1960 study of Nietzsche by casting doubt upon Heideggers claim that Nietzsches thought can be reduced to a metaphysics:

Heideggers Nietzsche interpretation is essentially based upon Heideggers summary and insight into the history of being and in particular on his interpretation of the metaphysics of modernity. Nevertheless, the question remains open whether Nietzsche does not already leave the metaphysical dimensions of any problems essentially and intentionally behind in his conception of the cosmos. There is a non-metaphysical originality in his cosmological philosophy of play. Even the early writings indicate the mysterious dimension of play.

Finks reluctance to take a stronger position against the reading of his renowned teacher seems rather coy, given that Finks study, throughout, has stressed the meaning and importance of cosmological play in Nietzsches work. Other commentators have much more explicitly challenged Heideggers grand narrative and specifically its place for Nietzsche in the Western tradition, concurring with Fink that Nietzsches conceptualization of play frees his thought from the tradition of metaphysics, or that Nietzsche, purposively or not, offered conflicting views of himself, eluding the kind of summary treatment presented by Heidegger and much less-gifted readers (who consider Nietzsche to be no more than a late-Romantic, a social-Darwinist, or the like). In this sort of commentary, Nietzsches work itself is at play in deconstructing the all-too-rigid kinds of explanations.

Continued here:

Nietzsche, Friedrich | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

By Maeve Maddox

When I was growing up in small town America, stories about religion were generally confined to the Saturday church pages in the local newspaper. Catholics and Jews were the most exotic religious practitioners in town, and atheist was a strong term of disapprobation.

These days religion is front page news. People are killed or driven into hiding because someone somewhere has labeled their work blasphemy. School children with attitude get away with refusing to do their homework because they know that school officials are easily spooked by anything relating to religion.

Journalists and school officials shouldnt have to tiptoe around religious topics. The topic of religion, like that of ecology, is one that concerns all human beings. Although the three Abrahamic religions get most of the news copy, the number of religions that matter to people number in the double digits. Whether we care about it or not, we ought to be able to read and write about religion with some understanding of the terminology.

NOTE: The definitions given here are not intended to be exhaustive. For one thing, some of the terms are defined differently by different religious groups. For permutations of meaning, see the OED or some other authoritative dictionary.

Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three faiths trace their origins to the patriarch Abraham who rejected the polytheism of ancient Sumer to embrace a belief in one, invisible, deity. Sometimes referred to as the desert religions.

agnosticism: the philosophical position that the existence or non-existence of God or a First Cause is unknowable.

Anglican: relating to the Church of England. An ancient name for the English people was Angles. The Church of England traces its beginning to 597, the year in which Pope Gregory I sent St. Augustine to Canterbury. The Church of England remained under papal authority until 1534 when Henry VIII declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church because of conflicts with Pope Clement VII.

animism: the belief that every material form of reality (plants, animals, stones, thunderstorms, earthquakes) have an indwelling spirit; often includes belief in the continued existence of individual disembodied human spirits capable of helping or harming the living.

asceticism: a mode of life that excludes physical pleasures and self-indulgence. Many religions regard asceticism (fasting, abstaining from sexual activity, wearing inadequate clothing) as a means of reaching a higher spiritual state.

atheism: disbelief in any deity or supernatural power.

blasphemy: indignity offered to God, from Greek blasphemia, a speaking ill, impious speech, slander. Religions define blasphemy in terms of their own beliefs, often designating prophets and holy objects along with God as subjects not to be profaned. Many countries have anti-blasphemy laws.

Buddhism: the teaching that suffering is inherent to life and that the way to escape suffering and repeated existence is to limit ones desires and expectations. There are various sects with varying beliefs.

Confucianism: a system of teachings characterized by central emphasis on the practice and cultivation of the cardinal virtues of filial piety, kindness, righteousness, propriety, intelligence, and faithfulness.

ecclesiastic: relating to a church. Greek ekklesiastikos referred to the ancient Athenian political assembly. First century Christians writers adopted the word to mean assembly of believers, or church.

episcopal: having to do with a bishop. Like ecclesiastic, the English word bishop derives from a Greek word, episkopos, watcher, overseer. The Greeks used their word to refer to government officials. First century Christian writers used bishop or episkopos to refer to church elders. In time bishop came to mean the chief administrator of a diocese (administrative district governed by a bishop) with the power to ordain. Episcopal is the adjective for bishop.

evangelical: having to do with the Christian gospel/New Testament writings. The word is also used to describe a type of Christian belief that emphasizes the inerrancy of scripture and salvation through personal conversion.

Eucharist: the sacrament of the Lords Supper, a rite in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed in symbolic union with Christ. The word comes from a Greek word meaning grateful.

ecumenical: worldwide. As applied to religion, the words current use to mean cooperation among religious groups began with a 20th century movement promoting the idea of an inter-confessional Christian unity. Now an ecumenical group cooperating on some matter of general social benefit might include representatives from non-Christian religions.

eschatology: the study of matters relating to the ultimate destiny of mankind and the world.

Gnosticism: the belief that salvation is to be obtained by means of secret knowledge and that the material world is evil. Gnostic mystery religions abounded in the Roman Empire. The early Christian church was fragmented into various sects, many of which taught a Gnostic version of the new religion.

gospel: the story of Christs life and teachings as told in the first four books of the Christian New Testament. The literal meaning of the word is good news.

heresy: a religious opinion, or adherence to such an opinion, that is contrary to an established religious teaching. The word comes from Greek hairesis, action of taking, choice, sect. Originally a heresy was simply a difference of opinion. It became a religious crime, often punished by death.

Hinduism: a body of social, cultural, and religious beliefs and practices found chiefly in India. It includes a belief in reincarnation and transmigration of souls.

indulgence: in Roman Catholicism, a remission of punishment, especially punishment in Purgatory (in Catholic belief, Purgatory is an intermediate place of purification for souls that departed stained with minor sins not deserving of eternal punishment in Hell).

Immaculate Conception: the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin (the sin of Adam and Eve conveyed to all human beings). This is not the same thing as the Virgin Birth, the belief that Jesus was divinely begotten and miraculously born of a virgin mother.

jihad: a holy war on behalf of Islam. The Christian equivalent word is crusade, a campaign or war sanctioned by the Church against unbelievers or heretics. Literal crusades were common in the Middle Ages and were directed against Christian heretics as well as non-Christians. Now the term is used figuratively to mean any remedial activity pursued with zeal and enthusiasm. The same meaning is becoming attached to jihad.

lay: not in holy orders. In a monastery there are monks who pray and do intellectual work, and those who do manual work and attend to secular affairs. The latter are called lay brothers. The term has spread to non-religious professions. Someone who lacks professional knowledge of a particular profession is called a layman. In a church setting one may speak of the clergy and the laity (non-clerical members of the church).

monotheism: the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

nihilism: the viewpoint that all traditional beliefs are unfounded and that human life has no meaning.

orthodox: in agreement with the official doctrine of a given religion. The word is from Greek orthodoxein, to have the right opinion. The noun is orthodoxy. Departure from orthodoxy is called heterodoxy.

pagan This is a term difficult to define in even such a superficial treatment as this. For the early Christians, a pagan was a believer in polytheistic religion. The word originally meant country dweller. The rural population was slower to adopt Christianity than the city dwellers, probably because their religion was closely bound to agricultural cycles. Nowadays there are religious groups that identify themselves as Pagans. Modern paganism is earth-centered and can include polytheistic beliefs. The word heathen is used pejoratively to mean a person without religion. Like pagan, heathen also points to the fact that non-city dwellers tended to reject religious change. Heath comes from a word meaning field. Heathen was originally an adjective meaning of the heath.

polytheism: belief in more than one god.

profane: not holy. Anything not related to religion and spirituality is profane. The word can also be used as a verb meaning to treat something sacred with irreverence.

secular: worldly, not sacred. Similar to profane, secular refers to anything that is not specifically religious.

Visit link:

30 Religious Terms You Should Know - Daily Writing Tips

Three different ways of approaching the lack of intrinsic meaning.

Created/Updated: November 17, 2020

For centuries there have been people who believe there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe. Here Ill summarize the three major branches of this belief, and how each proposes we deal with the situation.

How Absurdism Applies in Everyday Life

Intrinsic as opposed to created.

For those who come to accept that life is without intrinsic meaning, there are three main ways to react.

I view Camus Absurdism as the most satisfactory response, as it takes the third option of acceptance and works from there.

Free Wills Absurdist Paradox

Adopting a religion or some sort of nebulous spiritualityas someone who has accepted the truth of intrinsic meaninglessnessamounts to either intellectual laziness, emotional weakness, or some combination thereof. It is to say that the truth is too difficult to consume and accept, and that youve chosen to believe something untrue because it is easier.

To commit suicide is to turn ones back on the beauty that life has to offer, which I feel should only be explored in extreme cases.

Resigning to truly believe something you know isnt true is a weak position, but it often looks identical to Absurdism, which is not.

The Difference Between Nihilism, Pessimism, and Skepticism

Camus Absurdism is about working within our human limitations, but without abandoning our respect for ourselves or the truth. Absurdists often either adopt or construct a belief structure that provides a day-to-day reprieve from the crushing impossibility of true meaning. Such constructs allow us to trick our evolution-soaked brains into extracting meaning from the universe, while never forgetting that the system itself is a trick.

The UL Newsletter: Finding the Patterns in the Noise

Get a weekly analysis of what's happening in security and techand why it matters.

Perhaps the Hipster drive to obsess over minutia is a form of Absurdism.

This awareness is the difference between rebellion and surrender.

A construct could be existing or new, and either structured or amorphous.

A person who has surrendered will say that they believe in their construct completely, and that it provides true meaning in the universe, while someone who has not surrendered may say theyve adopted a scaffolding for practical reasons, but they know its artificial.

The barrier is delicate between embracing a belief structure because not doing so is too empty or painful, and only doing so for practical purposes while still knowing its false. Many start as one or the other and then migrate, or exist day to day as one and become the other when pressed.

In my opinion, the defining characteristic of Absurdism/Rebellion is the maintaining of extreme clarity between seeking the benefits of belief in intrinsic meaning all the while knowing its impossible. Such a person can go to church with the family and mentally pray in some sort of secular but semi-spiritual way, while simultaneously knowing (but not actively thinking about) the fact that nobody is listening.

As humans, its virtually impossible to exist in both modes simultaneously. We either have faith in a system, a structure, or a person, or we deconstruct that thing into its parts and see its flaws, limitations, andperhapsthat its false. Transparency removes magic. And unfortunately, our brains are most happy when the magic is intact.

Knowing where one stands amongor perhaps outsidethese options is a crucial part of self-understanding.

Here is the original post:

The Difference Between Existentialism, Nihilism, and Absurdism

Philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge or certainty

Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.[1][2] It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3] This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. In the latter sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace. Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, to knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world. Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life.

Philosophical skepticism is a doubtful attitude toward commonly accepted knowledge claims. It is an important form of skepticism. Skepticism in general is a questioning attitude toward all kinds of knowledge claims. In this wide sense, it is quite common in everyday life: many people are ordinary skeptics about parapsychology or about astrology because they doubt the claims made by proponents of these fields.[4] But the same people are not skeptical about other knowledge claims like the ones found in regular school books. Philosophical skepticism differs from ordinary skepticism in that it even rejects knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense and seem to be very certain.[4] For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as radical doubt.[5] In some cases, it is even proclaimed that one does not know that "I have two hands" or that "the sun will come out tomorrow".[6][7] In this regard, philosophical skepticism is not a position commonly adopted by regular people in everyday life.[8][9] This denial of knowledge is usually associated with the demand that one should suspend one's beliefs about the doubted proposition. This means that one should neither believe nor disbelieve it but keep an open mind without committing oneself one way or the other.[10] Philosophical skepticism is often based on the idea that no matter how certain one is about a given belief, one could still be wrong about it.[11][7] From this observation, it is argued that the belief does not amount to knowledge. Philosophical skepticism follows from the consideration that this might be the case for most or all beliefs.[12] Because of its wide-ranging consequences, it is of central interest to theories of knowledge since it questions their very foundations.[10]

According to some definitions, philosophical skepticism is not just the rejection of some forms of commonly accepted knowledge but the rejection of all forms of knowledge.[4][10][13] In this regard, we may have relatively secure beliefs in some cases but these beliefs never amount to knowledge. Weaker forms of philosophical skepticism restrict this rejection to specific fields, like the external world or moral doctrines. In some cases, knowledge per se is not rejected but it is still denied that one can ever be absolutely certain.[9][14]

There are only few defenders of philosophical skepticism in the strong sense.[4] In this regard, it is much more commonly used as a theoretical tool to test theories.[5][4][12][15] On this view, it is a philosophical methodology that can be utilized to probe a theory to find its weak points, either to expose it or to modify it in order to arrive at a better version of it.[5] However, some theorists distinguish philosophical skepticism from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.[citation needed] Similarly, scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism in that scientific skepticism is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be pseudoscience, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists.[16]

In ancient philosophy, skepticism was seen not just as a theory about the existence of knowledge but as a way of life. This outlook is motivated by the idea that suspending one's judgment on all kinds of issues brings with it inner peace and thereby contributes to the skeptic's happiness.[14][17][18]

Skepticism can be classified according to its scope. Local skepticism involves being skeptical about particular areas of knowledge (e.g. moral skepticism, skepticism about the external world, or skepticism about other minds), whereas radical skepticism claims that one cannot know anythingincluding that one cannot know about knowing anything.

Skepticism can also be classified according to its method. Western philosophy has two basic approaches to skepticism.[19] Cartesian skepticismnamed somewhat misleadingly after Ren Descartes, who was not a skeptic but used some traditional skeptical arguments in his Meditations to help establish his rationalist approach to knowledgeattempts to show that any proposed knowledge claim can be doubted. Agrippan skepticism focuses on justification rather than the possibility of doubt. According to this view, none of the ways in which one might attempt to justify a claim are adequate. One can justify a claim based on other claims, but this leads to an infinite regress of justifications. One can use a dogmatic assertion, but this is not a justification. One can use circular reasoning, but this fails to justify the conclusion.

A skeptical scenario is a hypothetical situation which can be used in an argument for skepticism about a particular claim or class of claims. Usually the scenario posits the existence of a deceptive power that deceives our senses and undermines the justification of knowledge otherwise accepted as justified, and is proposed in order to call into question our ordinary claims to knowledge on the grounds that we cannot exclude the possibility of skeptical scenarios being true. Skeptical scenarios have received a great deal of attention in modern Western philosophy.

The first major skeptical scenario in modern Western philosophy appears in Ren Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. At the end of the first Meditation Descartes writes: "I will suppose... that some evil demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies to deceive me."

Skepticism, as an epistemological view, calls into question whether knowledge is possible at all. This is distinct from other known skeptical practices, including Cartesian skepticism, as it targets knowledge in general instead of individual types of knowledge.

Skeptics argue that belief in something does not justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this, skeptics oppose foundationalism, which states that there are basic positions that are self-justified or beyond justification, without reference to others. (One example of such foundationalism may be found in Spinoza's Ethics.) The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that "basic positions" must exist amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope.[citation needed]

Among other arguments, skeptics use the Mnchhausen trilemma and the problem of the criterion to claim that no certain belief can be achieved. This position is known as "global skepticism" or "radical skepticism." Foundationalists have used the same trilemma as a justification for demanding the validity of basic beliefs.[citation needed] Epistemological nihilism rejects the possibility of human knowledge, but not necessarily knowledge in general.

There are two different categories of epistemological skepticism, which can be referred to as mitigated and unmitigated skepticism. The two forms are contrasting but are still true forms of skepticism. Mitigated skepticism does not accept "strong" or "strict" knowledge claims but does, however, approve specific weaker ones. These weaker claims can be assigned the title of "virtual knowledge", but must be to justified belief. Some mitigated skeptics are also fallibilists, arguing that knowledge does not require certainty. Mitigated skeptics hold that knowledge does not require certainty and that many beliefs are, in practice, certain to the point that they can be safely acted upon in order to live significant and meaningful lives. Unmitigated skepticism rejects both claims of virtual knowledge and strong knowledge.[20] Characterising knowledge as strong, weak, virtual or genuine can be determined differently depending on a person's viewpoint as well as their characterisation of knowledge. Unmitigated skeptics believe that objective truths are unknowable and that man should live in an isolated environment in order to win mental peace. This is because everything, according to them, is changing and relative. The refusal to make judgments is of uttermost importance since there is no knowledge; only probable opinions.[20]

Philosophical skepticism has been criticized in various ways. Some criticisms see it as a self-refuting idea while others point out that it is implausible, psychologically impossible, or a pointless intellectual game. One of the strongest criticisms claims that philosophical skepticism is contradictory or self-refuting. This position is based on the idea that it not only rejects the existence of knowledge but seems to make knowledge claims itself at the same time.[9][21][22] For example, to claim that there is no knowledge seems to be itself a knowledge claim. This problem is particularly relevant for versions of philosophical skepticism that deny any form of knowledge. So the global skeptic denies that any claim is rationally justified but then goes on to provide arguments in an attempt to rationally justify their denial.[21] Some philosophical skeptics have responded to this objection by restricting the denial of knowledge to certain fields without denying the existence of knowledge in general. Another defense consists in understanding philosophical skepticism not as a theory but as a tool or a methodology. In this case, it may be used fruitfully to reject and improve philosophical systems despite its shortcomings as a theory.[9][15]

Another criticism holds that philosophical skepticism is highly counterintuitive by pointing out how far removed it is from regular life.[8][9] For example, it seems very impractical, if not psychologically impossible, to suspend all beliefs at the same time. And even if it was possible, it would not be advisable since "the complete skeptic would wind up starving to death or walking into walls or out of windows".[9] This criticism can allow that there are some arguments that support philosophical skepticism. However, it has been claimed that they are not nearly strong enough to support such a radical conclusion.[8] Common-sense philosophers follow this line of thought by arguing that regular common-sense beliefs are much more reliable than the skeptics' intricate arguments.[8] George Edward Moore, for example, tried to refute skepticism about the existence of the external world, not by engaging with its complex arguments, but by using a simple observation: that he has two hands. For Moore, this observation is a reliable source of knowledge incompatible with external world skepticism since it entails that at least two physical objects exist.[23][8]

A closely related objection sees philosophical skepticism as an "idle academic exercise" or a "waste of time".[10] This is often based on the idea that, because of its initial implausibility and distance from everyday life, it has little or no practical value.[9][15] In this regard, Arthur Schopenhauer compares the position of radical skepticism to a border fortress that is best ignored: it is impregnable but its garrison does not pose any threat since it never sets foot outside the fortress.[24] One defense of philosophical skepticism is that it has had important impacts on the history of philosophy at large and not just among skeptical philosophers. This is due to its critical attitude, which remains a constant challenge to the epistemic foundations of various philosophical theories. It has often provoked creative responses from other philosophers when trying to modify the affected theory to avoid the problem of skepticism.[9][14]

According to Pierre Le Morvan, there are two very common negative responses to philosophical skepticism. The first understands it as a threat to all kinds of philosophical theories and strives to disprove it. According to the second, philosophical skepticism is a useless distraction and should better be avoided altogether. Le Morvan himself proposes a positive third alternative: to use it as a philosophical tool in a few selected cases to overcome prejudices and foster practical wisdom.[15]

Ancient Greek skeptics were not "skeptics" in the contemporary sense of selective, localized doubt. Their concerns were epistemological, noting that truth claims could not be adequately supported, and psychotherapeutic, noting that beliefs caused mental perturbation.

The Western tradition of systematic skepticism goes back at least as far as Pyrrho of Elis (b. c.360 BCE) and arguably to Xenophanes (b. c.570 BCE). Parts of skepticism also appear among the "5th century sophists [who] develop forms of debate which are ancestors of skeptical argumentation. They take pride in arguing in a persuasive fashion for both sides of an issue."[25]

In Hellenistic philosophy, Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism were the two schools of skeptical philosophy. Subsequently, the words Academic and Pyrrhonist were often be used to mean skeptic.

Like other Hellenistic philosophies, the goal of Pyrrhonism was eudaimonia, which the Pyrrhonists sought through achieving ataraxia (an untroubled state of mind), which they found could be induced by producing a state of epoch (suspension of judgment) regarding non-evident matters. Epoch could be produced by pitting one dogma against another to undermine belief, and by questioning whether a belief could be justified. In support of this questioning Pyrrhonists developed the skeptical arguments cited above (the Ten Modes of Aenesidemus and the Five Modes of Agrippa)[26] demonstrating that beliefs cannot be justified:[27]

According to an account of Pyrrho's life by his student Timon of Phlius, Pyrrho extolled a way to become happy and tranquil:

"Whoever wants to live well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastous (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantous (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.[28]

Pyrrhonism faded as a movement following the death of Pyrrho's student Timon.[29] The Academy became slowly more dogmatic[30] such that in the first century BCE Aenesidemus denounced the Academics as "Stoics fighting against Stoics," breaking with the Academy to revive Pyrrhonism.[30] Aenesidemus's best known contribution to skepticism was his now-lost book, Pyrrhonian Discourses, which is only known to us through Photius, Sextus Empiricus, and to a lesser extent Diogenes Lartius. The skeptical arguments most closely associated with Aenesidemus are the ten modes described above designed to induce epoche. [26]

The works of Sextus Empiricus (c. 200 CE) are the main surviving account of ancient Pyrrhonism. Long before Sextus' time, the Academy had abandoned skepticism and had been destroyed as a formal institution.[30][31][32] Sextus compiled and further developed the Pyrrhonists' skeptical arguments, most of which were directed against the Stoics but included arguments against all of the schools of Hellenistic philosophy, including the Academic skeptics.

Sextus, as the most systematic author of the works by Hellenistic skeptics which have survived, noted that there are at least ten modes of skepticism. These modes may be broken down into three categories: one may be skeptical of the subjective perceiver, of the objective world, and the relation between perceiver and the world.[33] His arguments are as follows.

Subjectively, both the powers of the senses and of reasoning may vary among different people. And since knowledge is a product of one or the other, and since neither are reliable, knowledge would seem to be in trouble. For instance, a color-blind person sees the world quite differently from everyone else. Moreover, one cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal, since the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which suggests the ability to "know" about some aspects of the environment.

Secondly, the personality of the individual might also influence what they observe, since (it is argued) preferences are based on sense-impressions, differences in preferences can be attributed to differences in the way that people are affected by the object. (Empiricus:56)

Third, the perceptions of each individual sense seemingly have nothing in common with the other senses: i.e., the color "red" has little to do with the feeling of touching a red object. This is manifest when our senses "disagree" with each other: for example, a mirage presents certain visible features, but is not responsive to any other kind of sense. In that case, our other senses defeat the impressions of sight. But one may also be lacking enough powers of sense to understand the world in its entirety: if one had an extra sense, then one might know of things in a way that the present five senses are unable to advise us of. Given that our senses can be shown to be unreliable by appealing to other senses, and so our senses may be incomplete (relative to some more perfect sense that one lacks), then it follows that all of our senses may be unreliable. (Empiricus:58)

Fourth, our circumstances when one perceives anything may be either natural or unnatural, i.e., one may be either in a state of wakefulness or sleep. But it is entirely possible that things in the world really are exactly as they appear to be to those in unnatural states (i.e., if everything were an elaborate dream). (Empiricus:59)

One can have reasons for doubt that are based on the relationship between objective "facts" and subjective experience. The positions, distances, and places of objects would seem to affect how they are perceived by the person: for instance, the portico may appear tapered when viewed from one end, but symmetrical when viewed at the other; and these features are different. Because they are different features, to believe the object has both properties at the same time is to believe it has two contradictory properties. Since this is absurd, one must suspend judgment about what properties it possesses due to the contradictory experiences. (Empiricus:63)

One may also observe that the things one perceives are, in a sense, polluted by experience. Any given perceptionsay, of a chairwill always be perceived within some context or other (i.e., next to a table, on a mat, etc.) Since this is the case, one often only speaks of ideas as they occur in the context of the other things that are paired with it, and therefore, one can never know of the true nature of the thing, but only how it appears to us in context. (Empiricus: 64)

Along the same lines, the skeptic may insist that all things are relative, by arguing that:

Finally, one has reason to disbelieve that one knows anything by looking at problems in understanding objects by themselves. Things, when taken individually, may appear to be very different from when they are in mass quantities: for instance, the shavings of a goat's horn are white when taken alone, yet the horn intact is black.[citation needed]

The ancient Greek Pyrrhonists developed sets of arguments to demonstrate that claims about reality cannot be adequately justified. Two sets of these arguments are well known. The oldest set is known as the ten tropes of Aenesidemusalthough whether he invented the tropes or just systematized them from prior Pyrrhonist works is unknown. The tropes represent reasons for epoch (suspension of judgment). These are as follows:

Another set are known as the five tropes of Agrippa:

According to Victor Brochard "the five tropes can be regarded as the most radical and most precise formulation of philosophical skepticism that has ever been given. In a sense, they are still irresistible today."[34]

Pyrrho's thinking subsequently influenced the Platonic Academy, arising first in the Academic skepticism of the Middle Academy under Arcesilaus (c. 315 241 BCE) and then the New Academy under Carneades (c. 213129 BCE). Clitomachus, a student of Carneades, interpreted his teacher's philosophy as suggesting an account of knowledge based on truth-likeness. The Roman politician and philosopher, Cicero, was also an adherent of the skepticism of the New Academy, even though a return to a more dogmatic orientation of the school was already beginning to take place.

In 386 CE, Augustine published Contra Academicos (Against the Academic Skeptics), which argued against claims made by the Academic Skeptics (26690 BCE) on the following grounds:

Francisco Sanches's That Nothing is Known (published in 1581 as Quod nihil scitur) is one of the crucial texts of Renaissance skepticism.[37]

The most notable figure of the Skepticism revival in the 1500s, Michel de Montaigne wrote about his studies of Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonism through his Essais.

His most notable writings on skepticism occurred in an essay written mostly in 15751576, "Apologie de Raimond Sebond," when he was reading Sextus Empiricus and trying to translate Raimond Sebond's writing, including his proof of Christianity's natural existence. The reception to Montaigne's translations included some criticisms of Sebond's proof. Montaigne responded to some of them in Apologie, including a defense for Sebond's logic that is skeptical in nature and similar to Pyrrhonism.[38][39] His refutation is as follows:

Marin Mersenne was an author, mathematician, scientist, and philosopher. He wrote in defense of science and Christianity against atheists and Pyrrhonists before retiring to encourage development of science and the "new philosophy," which includes philosophers like Gassendi, Descartes, Galileo, and Hobbes. A major work of his in relation to Skepticism is La Verit des Sciences, in which he argues that although we may not be able to know the true nature of things, we can still formulate certain laws and rules for sense-perceptions through science.[3][39][40]

Additionally, he points out that we do not doubt everything because:

A Pyrrhonist might refute these points by saying that senses deceive, and thus knowledge turns into infinite regress or circular logic. Thus Mersenne argues that this cannot be the case, since commonly agreed upon rules of thumb can be hypothesized and tested over time to ensure that they continue to hold.[41]

Furthermore, if everything can be doubted, the doubt can also be doubted, so on and so forth. Thus, according to Mersenne, something has to be true. Finally, Mersenne writes about all the mathematical, physical, and other scientific knowledge that is true by repeated testing, and has practical use value. Notably, Mersenne was one of the few philosophers who accepted Hobbes' radical ideologyhe saw it as a new science of man.[3]

During his long stay in Paris, Thomas Hobbes was actively involved in the circle of major skeptics like Gassendi and Mersenne who focus on the study of skepticism and epistemology. Unlike his fellow skeptic friends, Hobbes never treated skepticism as a main topic for discussion in his works. Nonetheless, Hobbes was still labeled as a religious skeptic by his contemporaries for raising doubts about Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and his political and psychological explanation of the religions. Although Hobbes himself did not go further to challenge other religious principles, his suspicion for the Mosaic authorship did significant damage to the religious traditions and paved the way for later religious skeptics like Spinoza and Isaac La Peyrre to further question some of the fundamental beliefs of the Judeo-Christian religious system. Hobbes' answer to skepticism and epistemology was innovatively political: he believed that moral knowledge and religious knowledge were in their nature relative, and there was no absolute standard of truth governing them. As a result, it was out of political reasons that certain truth standards about religions and ethics were devised and established in order to form a functioning government and stable society.[3][42][43][44]

Baruch Spinoza was among the first European philosophers who were religious skeptics. He was quite familiar with the philosophy of Descartes and unprecedentedly extended the application of the Cartesian method to the religious context by analyzing religious texts with it. Spinoza sought to dispute the knowledge-claims of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious system by examining its two foundations: the Scripture and the Miracles. He claimed that all Cartesian knowledge, or the rational knowledge should be accessible to the entire population. Therefore, the Scriptures, aside from those by Jesus, should not be considered the secret knowledge attained from God but just the imagination of the prophets. The Scriptures, as a result of this claim, could not serve as a base for knowledge and were reduced to simple ancient historical texts. Moreover, Spinoza also rejected the possibility for the Miracles by simply asserting that people only considered them miraculous due to their lack of understanding of the nature. By rejecting the validity of the Scriptures and the Miracles, Spinoza demolished the foundation for religious knowledge-claim and established his understanding of the Cartesian knowledge as the sole authority of knowledge-claims. Despite being deeply skeptical of the religions, Spinoza was in fact exceedingly anti-skeptical towards reason and rationality. He steadfastly confirmed the legitimacy of reason by associating it with the acknowledgement of God, and thereby skepticism with the rational approach to knowledge was not due to problems with the rational knowledge but from the fundamental lack of understanding of God. Spinoza's religious skepticism and anti-skepticism with reason thus helped him transform epistemology by separating the theological knowledge-claims and the rational knowledge-claims.[3][45]

Pierre Bayle was a French philosopher in the late 17th century that was described by Richard Popkin to be a "supersceptic" who carried out the sceptic tradition to the extreme. Bayle was born in a Calvinist family in Carla-Bayle, and during the early stage of his life, he converted into Catholicism before returning to Calvinism. This conversion between religions caused him to leave France for the more religiously tolerant Holland where he stayed and worked for the rest of his life.[3]

Bayle believed that truth cannot be obtained through reason and that all human endeavor to acquire absolute knowledge would inevitably lead to failure. Bayle's main approach was highly skeptical and destructive: he sought to examine and analyze all existing theories in all fields of human knowledge in order to show the faults in their reasoning and thus the absurdity of the theories themselves. In his magnum opus, Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (Historical and Critical Dictionary), Bayle painstakingly identified the logical flaws in several works throughout the history in order to emphasize the absolute futility of rationality. Bayle's complete nullification of reason led him to conclude that faith is the final and only way to truth.[3][46][47]

Bayle's real intention behind his extremely destructive works remained controversial. Some described him to be a Fideist, while others speculated him to be a secret Atheist. However, no matter what his original intention was, Bayle did cast significant influence on the upcoming Age of Enlightenment with his destruction of some of the most essential theological ideas and his justification of religious tolerance Atheism in his works.[3][46][47]

David Hume was among the most influential proponents of philosophical skepticism during the Age of Enlightenment and one of the most notable voices of the Scottish Enlightenment and British Empiricism.[48][49] He especially espoused skepticism regarding inductive reasoning, and questioned what the foundation of morality was, creating the isought problem. His approach to skepticism is considered even more radical than that of Descartes.[according to whom?]

Hume argued that any coherent idea must be either a mental copy of an impression (a direct sensory perception) or copies of multiple impressions innovatively combined. Since certain human activities like religion, superstition, and metaphysics are not premised on any actual sense-impressions, their claims to knowledge are logically unjustified. Furthermore, Hume even demonstrates that science is merely a psychological phenomenon based on the association of ideas: often, specifically, an assumption of cause-and-effect relationships that is itself not grounded in any sense-impressions. Thus, even scientific knowledge is logically unjustified, being not actually objective or provable but, rather, mere conjecture flimsily based on our minds perceiving regular correlations between distinct events. Hume thus falls into extreme skepticism regarding the possibility of any certain knowledge. Ultimately, he offers that, at best, a science of human nature is the "only solid foundation for the other sciences".[50]

Immanuel Kant (17241804) tried to provide a ground for empirical science against David Hume's skeptical treatment of the notion of cause and effect. Hume (17111776) argued that for the notion of cause and effect no analysis is possible which is also acceptable to the empiricist program primarily outlined by John Locke (16321704).[51] But, Kant's attempt to give a ground to knowledge in the empirical sciences at the same time cut off the possibility of knowledge of any other knowledge, especially what Kant called "metaphysical knowledge". So, for Kant, empirical science was legitimate, but metaphysics and philosophy was mostly illegitimate. The most important exception to this demarcation of the legitimate from the illegitimate was ethics, the principles of which Kant argued can be known by pure reason without appeal to the principles required for empirical knowledge. Thus, with respect to metaphysics and philosophy in general (ethics being the exception), Kant was a skeptic. This skepticism as well as the explicit skepticism of G. E. Schulze[52] gave rise to a robust discussion of skepticism in German idealistic philosophy, especially by Hegel.[53] Kant's idea was that the real world (the noumenon or thing-in-itself) was inaccessible to human reason (though the empirical world of nature can be known to human understanding) and therefore we can never know anything about the ultimate reality of the world. Hegel argued against Kant that although Kant was right that using what Hegel called "finite" concepts of "the understanding" precluded knowledge of reality, we were not constrained to use only "finite" concepts and could actually acquire knowledge of reality using "infinite concepts" that arise from self-consciousness.[54]

G. E. Moore famously presented the "Here is one hand" argument against skepticism in his 1925 paper, "A Defence of Common Sense".[1] Moore claimed that he could prove that the external world exists by simply presenting the following argument while holding up his hands: "Here is one hand; here is another hand; therefore, there are at least two objects; therefore, external-world skepticism fails". His argument was developed for the purpose of vindicating common sense and refuting skepticism.[1] Ludwig Wittgenstein later argued in his On Certainty (posthumously published in 1969) that Moore's argument rested on the way that ordinary language is used, rather than on anything about knowledge.[55]

In contemporary philosophy, Richard Popkin was a particularly influential scholar on the topic of skepticism. His account of the history of skepticism given in The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle (first edition published as The History of Scepticism From Erasmus to Descartes) was accepted as the standard for contemporary scholarship in the area for decades after its release in 1960.[56] Barry Stroud also published a number of works on philosophical skepticism, most notably his 1984 monograph, The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism.[57] From the mid-1990s, Stroud, alongside Richard Fumerton, put forward influential anti-externalist arguments in favour of a position called "metaepistemological scepticism".[58] Other contemporary philosophers known for their work on skepticism include James Pryor, Keith DeRose, and Peter Klein.[1]

Ajana (literally 'non-knowledge') were the skeptical school of ancient Indian philosophy. It was a ramaa movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. They have been recorded in Buddhist and Jain texts. They held that it was impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical nature or ascertain the truth value of philosophical propositions; and even if knowledge was possible, it was useless and disadvantageous for final salvation.

The historical Buddha asserted certain doctrines as true, such as the possibility of nirvana; however, he also upheld a form of skepticism with regards to certain questions which he left "un-expounded" (avykata) and some he saw as "incomprehensible" (acinteyya). Because the Buddha saw these questions (which tend to be of metaphysical topics) as unhelpful on the path and merely leading to confusion and "a thicket of views", he promoted suspension of judgment towards them. This allowed him to carve out an epistemic middle way between what he saw as the extremes of claiming absolute objectivity (associated with the claims to omniscience of the Jain Mahavira) and extreme skepticism (associated with the Ajana thinker Sanjaya Belatthiputta).[59]

Later Buddhist philosophy remained highly skeptical of Indian metaphysical arguments. The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna in particular has been seen as the founder of the Madhyamaka school, which has been in turn compared with Greek Skepticism. Nagarjuna's statement that he has "no thesis" (pratija) has parallels in the statements of Sextus Empiricus of having "no position".[60] Nagarjuna famously opens his magnum opus, the Mulamadhyamakakarika, with the statement that the Buddha claimed that true happiness was found through dispelling 'vain thinking' (prapaca, also "conceptual proliferation").[61]

According to Richard P. Hayes, the Buddhist philosopher Dignaga is also a kind of skeptic, which is in line with most early Buddhist philosophy. Hayes writes:

...in both early Buddhism and in the Skeptics one can find the view put forward that man's pursuit of happiness, the highest good, is obstructed by his tenacity in holding ungrounded and unnecessary opinions about all manner of things. Much of Buddhist philosophy, I shall argue, can be seen as an attempt to break this habit of holding on to opinions.[62]

Scholars like Adrian Kuzminski have argued that Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365270) might have been influenced by Indian Buddhists during his journey with Alexander the Great.[63]

The Crvka (Sanskrit: ) school of materialism, also known as Lokyata, is a distinct branch of Indian philosophy. The school is named after Crvka, author of the Brhaspatya-stras and was founded in approximately 500 BCE. Crvka is classified as a "heterodox" (nstika) system, characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. This school was also known for being strongly skeptical of the claims of Indian religions, such as reincarnation and karma.

While Jain philosophy claims that is it possible to achieve omniscience, absolute knowledge (Kevala Jnana), at the moment of enlightenment, their theory of anekntavda or 'many sided-ness', also known as the principle of relative pluralism, allows for a practical form of skeptical thought regarding philosophical and religious doctrines (for un-enlightened beings, not all-knowing arihants).

According to this theory, the truth or the reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth.[64][65] Jain doctrine states that, an object has infinite modes of existence and qualities and, as such, they cannot be completely perceived in all its aspects and manifestations, due to inherent limitations of the humans. Anekntavda is literally the doctrine of non-onesidedness or manifoldness; it is often translated as "non-absolutism". Sydvda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to aneknta by recommending that epithet Syd be attached to every expression.[66] Sydvda is not only an extension of Aneknta ontology, but a separate system of logic capable of standing on its own force. As reality is complex, no single proposition can express the nature of reality fully. Thus the term syt should be prefixed before each proposition giving it a conditional point of view and thus removing any dogmatism in the statement.[65] For Jains, fully enlightened beings are able to see reality from all sides and thus have ultimate knowledge of all things. This idea of omniscience was criticized by Buddhists such as Dharmakirti.

Zhuang Zhou ("Master Zhuang") was a famous ancient Chinese Taoism philosopher during the Hundred Schools of Thought period. Zhuang Zhou demonstrated his skeptical thinking through several anecdotes in the preeminent work Zhuangzi attributed to him:

Through these anecdotes in Zhuangzi, Zhuang Zhou indicated his belief in the limitation of language and human communication and the inaccessibility of universal truth. This establishes him as a skeptic. But he was by no means a radical skeptic: he only applied skeptical methods partially, in arguments demonstrating his Taoist beliefs. He held the Taoist beliefs themselves dogmatically.[68]

Wang Chong () was the leading figure of the skeptic branch of the Confucianism school in China during the first century CE. He introduced a method of rational critique and applied it to the widespread dogmatism thinking of his age like phenomenology (the main contemporary Confucianism ideology that linked all natural phenomena with human ethics), state-led cults, and popular superstition. His own philosophy incorporated both Taoism and Confucianism thinkings, and it was based on a secular, rational practice of developing hypotheses based on natural events to explain the universe which exemplified a form of naturalism that resembled the philosophical idea of Epicureans like Lucretius.[69][70]

The Incoherence of the Philosophers, written by the scholar Al-Ghazali (10581111), marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. His encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God.[citation needed]

In the autobiography Ghazali wrote towards the end of his life, The Deliverance From Error (Al-munqidh min al-all [71]), Ghazali recounts how, once a crisis of epistemological skepticism was resolved by "a light which God Most High cast into my breast...the key to most knowledge,"[72] he studied and mastered the arguments of Kalam, Islamic philosophy, and Ismailism. Though appreciating what was valid in the first two of these, at least, he determined that all three approaches were inadequate and found ultimate value only in the mystical experience and spiritual insight he attained as a result of following Sufi practices. William James, in Varieties of Religious Experience, considered the autobiography an important document for "the purely literary student who would like to become acquainted with the inwardness of religions other than the Christian", comparing it to recorded personal religious confessions and autobiographical literature in the Christian tradition.[73]

Recordings of Aztec philosophy suggest that the elite classes believed in an essentially panentheistic worldview, in which teotl represents a unified, underlying universal force. Human beings cannot truly perceive teotl due to its chaotic, constantly changing nature, just the "masks"/facets it is manifested as.[74][75]

See the rest here:

Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia