6 ms·

You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundle

by osti 10y ago

You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature? . . . But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima. -Nietzsche

Baeocystin 10y ago
I admire many aspects of the stoic outlook, but Nietzsche's criticism is delightfully needle-sharp.
- FabHK 10y ago
  I don't interpret Stoicism as succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy though (as in, what happens naturally is good, "is=ought"), but rather see it as an epistemological injunction, that is: you have to see things in the eyes and try hard to see and understand the world as it is.
  - Baeocystin 10y ago
    A fair counterargument, and I would agree with you in an overall sense. That being said, it is pretty clear from reading that a significant portion of the stoics did fall for that particular fallacy to one degree or another.
1_player 10y ago
Thanks for this, osti. As a stoicism fanboy I partly agree, and if it wasn't pouring outside I'd run to my local bookshop to get something from this Nietzsche fella. Any suggestion?
- simonsarris 10y ago
  Not osti, but studied phil. On the Genealogy of Morality is a decent read, I can't think of anything better for a first Nietzsche read. If you've ever heard "slave morality", its from here.
- osti 10y ago
  To be honest I haven't read too many of his books yet, I do plan to take a university course on him this fall though. This passage just resonated with me too much that I have to post it anytime a discussion about Stoicism comes up. There are many Nietzsche classics that you could read, for example I own this copy myself which contains several of his books. https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0679783393/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1488033612&sr=8-2&keywords=nietzsche https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Cla...
- FabHK 10y ago
  I'd think the Stoics make for a much more edifying read than Nietzsche, though :-)
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Beyond Good and Evil is probably his most important work, but Thus Spoke Zarathustra is more readable.
  - wry_discontent 10y ago
    Don't start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It's all parables told in an old testament style that's hard to comprehend without already knowing what Nietzsche is about. I read The Gay Science first, and I thought it was a good starting point. It covers his big ideas and has the famous "God is dead" aphorism in it.
lioeters 10y ago
That quote was a delightful and relevant response, which even extended the criticism to all philosophy.
kerkeslager 10y ago
Nietzche fails to provide any insight here for two reasons: 1. It's tempting to read this as Nietzche disproving the naturalist fallacy, but if you read this carefully, that's not what Nietzche says. On the contrary, Nietzche is using the naturalist fallacy to claim stoics are wrong because stoicism isn't natural. This completely misses the fact that "natural" does not imply "right" and "unnatural" does not imply "wrong". 2. Early stoics did use the naturalist fallacy to justify their positions, but I haven't come across this frequently when reading modern writers. Indeed the article you are responding to did not make this argument. As such, posting this here is basically a straw man argument: the passage you're quoting attacks a statement that was never stated. This passage was fallacious when it was written, and it's irrelevant to the contemporary conversation on stoicism.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >1. It's tempting to read this as Nietzche disproving the naturalist fallacy, but if you read this carefully, that's not what Nietzche says. On the contrary, Nietzche is using the naturalist fallacy to claim stoics are wrong because stoicism isn't natural. This completely misses the fact that "natural" does not imply "right" and "unnatural" does not imply "wrong". For Nietzche it does. And one could argue (well Nietzche sure did, elsewhere) that it's also universally true. Besides even without that, his showing that what's natural could be seen in another different way is enough to deprive the stoics of their claim to naturalness. It is not naturalness the preach, he points, it's "how nature should be according to stoics". But the even more important insight is this: "And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?"
  - Retric 10y ago
    Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world. While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing. Thus when people talk about natural as good they are simply they are using it as a fallacy to support their argument not some guiding life principle. Also, saying everything must live according to nature is a tautology that disproves nothing.
kelvin0 10y ago
Pardon the dullness of my mind, but I have quite a bit of difficulty 'getting the point' that Nietzche is making (against?) Stoics. Could someone explain it in simple terms? I always read such texts with a lot attention and am often not able to make perfect sense of it. Pardon my asking.
- sampl 10y ago
  Here's my take, for what it's worth. From the article: > The sense of doom and delight that is programmed into the human body? It can be overridden by the mind. The eternal war between subconscious desires and the demands of civilization? It can be won. Nietzsche is saying this is ridiculous because those things are natural, and we are part of nature. > [You] imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain... Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited? to be different?
- wry_discontent 10y ago
  He is saying that "living in accordance with nature" is a nonsense concept. Nature is boundless indifference and by your very existence, by your very desires, you are not and can not live in accordance with it. And beyond that, the Stoics are taking their view of the world and are projecting it onto Nature. One of the things Nietzsche hated most were life denying philosophies. If your philosophy of life made you weaker, then it was evil. He considered Stoicism a philosophy that made you weaker by accepting what was. For example: From the article: “Starting with things of little value—a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine—repeat to yourself: ‘For such a small price, I buy tranquillity.’ ” Nietzsche would ask if you are buying yourself tranquility because you want to? Or because you are too cowardly to say something? Based on how I read the article, the latter is almost definitely true.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    > One of the things Nietzsche hated most were life denying philosophies. If your philosophy of life made you weaker, then it was evil. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. I think that Nietzsche observed philosophies and decided some that thought they were life affirming were life denying, but I don't necessarily think built into that is hatred. Indeed, I think you can take out of Genealogy that he rather admired the slaves. Their life denying philosophy served their ends, after all. I actually think Nietzsche probably has more in common with the Stoics than not. They both seek to overcome a world that might deny them. One through acceptance, one through self-overcoming.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
In my opinion this criticism is a bit of a straw man, but in fairness to Nietzsche, it is not a result of his misinterpretation but rather poor communication on the part of the stoics. The state of mind that the stoics advocate is one of acceptance and non-attachment to outcomes. Stoicism and Buddhism are really quite similar in this regard. This pattern repeats itself endlessly in philosophy. In fact, I would argue that variations in the definition of "is" are responsible for more philosophical writing than the actual questions posed.

by osti 10y ago

Baeocystin 10y ago

I admire many aspects of the stoic outlook, but Nietzsche's criticism is delightfully needle-sharp.

FabHK 10y ago
I don't interpret Stoicism as succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy though (as in, what happens naturally is good, "is=ought"), but rather see it as an epistemological injunction, that is: you have to see things in the eyes and try hard to see and understand the world as it is.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  A fair counterargument, and I would agree with you in an overall sense. That being said, it is pretty clear from reading that a significant portion of the stoics did fall for that particular fallacy to one degree or another.

1_player 10y ago

Thanks for this, osti. As a stoicism fanboy I partly agree, and if it wasn't pouring outside I'd run to my local bookshop to get something from this Nietzsche fella. Any suggestion?

simonsarris 10y ago
Not osti, but studied phil. On the Genealogy of Morality is a decent read, I can't think of anything better for a first Nietzsche read. If you've ever heard "slave morality", its from here.
osti 10y ago
To be honest I haven't read too many of his books yet, I do plan to take a university course on him this fall though. This passage just resonated with me too much that I have to post it anytime a discussion about Stoicism comes up. There are many Nietzsche classics that you could read, for example I own this copy myself which contains several of his books. https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0679783393/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1488033612&sr=8-2&keywords=nietzsche https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Cla...
FabHK 10y ago
I'd think the Stoics make for a much more edifying read than Nietzsche, though :-)
CuriouslyC 10y ago
Beyond Good and Evil is probably his most important work, but Thus Spoke Zarathustra is more readable.
- wry_discontent 10y ago
  Don't start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It's all parables told in an old testament style that's hard to comprehend without already knowing what Nietzsche is about. I read The Gay Science first, and I thought it was a good starting point. It covers his big ideas and has the famous "God is dead" aphorism in it.

lioeters 10y ago

That quote was a delightful and relevant response, which even extended the criticism to all philosophy.

kerkeslager 10y ago

Nietzche fails to provide any insight here for two reasons: 1. It's tempting to read this as Nietzche disproving the naturalist fallacy, but if you read this carefully, that's not what Nietzche says. On the contrary, Nietzche is using the naturalist fallacy to claim stoics are wrong because stoicism isn't natural. This completely misses the fact that "natural" does not imply "right" and "unnatural" does not imply "wrong". 2. Early stoics did use the naturalist fallacy to justify their positions, but I haven't come across this frequently when reading modern writers. Indeed the article you are responding to did not make this argument. As such, posting this here is basically a straw man argument: the passage you're quoting attacks a statement that was never stated. This passage was fallacious when it was written, and it's irrelevant to the contemporary conversation on stoicism.

coldtea 10y ago
>1. It's tempting to read this as Nietzche disproving the naturalist fallacy, but if you read this carefully, that's not what Nietzche says. On the contrary, Nietzche is using the naturalist fallacy to claim stoics are wrong because stoicism isn't natural. This completely misses the fact that "natural" does not imply "right" and "unnatural" does not imply "wrong". For Nietzche it does. And one could argue (well Nietzche sure did, elsewhere) that it's also universally true. Besides even without that, his showing that what's natural could be seen in another different way is enough to deprive the stoics of their claim to naturalness. It is not naturalness the preach, he points, it's "how nature should be according to stoics". But the even more important insight is this: "And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be?"
- Retric 10y ago
  Death is absolutely the most natural thing in the world. While it's viewed positively in some situations no culture views it as a universally good thing. Thus when people talk about natural as good they are simply they are using it as a fallacy to support their argument not some guiding life principle. Also, saying everything must live according to nature is a tautology that disproves nothing.

kelvin0 10y ago

Pardon the dullness of my mind, but I have quite a bit of difficulty 'getting the point' that Nietzche is making (against?) Stoics. Could someone explain it in simple terms? I always read such texts with a lot attention and am often not able to make perfect sense of it. Pardon my asking.

sampl 10y ago
Here's my take, for what it's worth. From the article: > The sense of doom and delight that is programmed into the human body? It can be overridden by the mind. The eternal war between subconscious desires and the demands of civilization? It can be won. Nietzsche is saying this is ridiculous because those things are natural, and we are part of nature. > [You] imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain... Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited? to be different?
wry_discontent 10y ago
He is saying that "living in accordance with nature" is a nonsense concept. Nature is boundless indifference and by your very existence, by your very desires, you are not and can not live in accordance with it. And beyond that, the Stoics are taking their view of the world and are projecting it onto Nature. One of the things Nietzsche hated most were life denying philosophies. If your philosophy of life made you weaker, then it was evil. He considered Stoicism a philosophy that made you weaker by accepting what was. For example: From the article: “Starting with things of little value—a bit of spilled oil, a little stolen wine—repeat to yourself: ‘For such a small price, I buy tranquillity.’ ” Nietzsche would ask if you are buying yourself tranquility because you want to? Or because you are too cowardly to say something? Based on how I read the article, the latter is almost definitely true.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  > One of the things Nietzsche hated most were life denying philosophies. If your philosophy of life made you weaker, then it was evil. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. I think that Nietzsche observed philosophies and decided some that thought they were life affirming were life denying, but I don't necessarily think built into that is hatred. Indeed, I think you can take out of Genealogy that he rather admired the slaves. Their life denying philosophy served their ends, after all. I actually think Nietzsche probably has more in common with the Stoics than not. They both seek to overcome a world that might deny them. One through acceptance, one through self-overcoming.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

In my opinion this criticism is a bit of a straw man, but in fairness to Nietzsche, it is not a result of his misinterpretation but rather poor communication on the part of the stoics. The state of mind that the stoics advocate is one of acceptance and non-attachment to outcomes. Stoicism and Buddhism are really quite similar in this regard. This pattern repeats itself endlessly in philosophy. In fact, I would argue that variations in the definition of "is" are responsible for more philosophical writing than the actual questions posed.