3 ms·
Thanks for the recommendation! What genuinely surprised me was that the stoic perspective to trust your own self felt incredibly relatable to me. That and the v
by xaleb 4y ago
Thanks for the recommendation! What genuinely surprised me was that the stoic perspective to trust your own self felt incredibly relatable to me. That and the various opinions on Roman society expressed by both Seneca and Aurelius.
I definitely want to read Nietzsche. I'm currently trying to get a broader perspective, and it seems that Nietzsche should be next in line.
Would you care to outline what exactly was Nietzsche's criticism?
- kentrado 4y agoI was thinking about your comment today. The fact that you found Absurdism depressing is actually the most common response which is addressed in the essay. Albert Camus goes through the reasons why life being absurd does not predicate a depressing conclusion. At the end, he wanted to remind himself and the world of the reasons why life is worth living. As for Nietzsche, I can't outline what he said. Any summary would be a disservice. In order to comprehend his ideas, he must be studied seriously. Otherwise, you might get the impression that he is a madman rambling. I only will paste the following excerpt to give you enough curiosity for further reading: “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 endeavouring 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.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil