This passage floored me today...
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.
----------------------------------
Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask onselef: "What morality to they (or he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge: is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge) as an instrument. But whatever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as inspiring genii (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practised philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate lord over all the other impulses.
For every impulse is imperious, and as such, attempts to philosophize. To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be otherwise -- "better," if you will; there may really be such a thing as an "impulse to knowledge," some kind of small, independent clock-work, which when well sound up, works away industriously to that end, without the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part wherein. The actual "interests" of the scholar, therefore, are generally in quite another direction -- in teh family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; her is not characterized by becoming this or that. In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS, -- that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other.
----------------
floored me:
1. Impulses acting as genii and demons.
2. The clockwork of the impulse to knowledge, set in motion - by what? Not specific - but the result is still a search for knowledge.
3. In What ORDER the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other. Such that his morality defines who he is by the order of the deepest impulses (deciding which are acceptable and which are to what ends.)
----------------------------------
Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask onselef: "What morality to they (or he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge: is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge) as an instrument. But whatever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as inspiring genii (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practised philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate lord over all the other impulses.
For every impulse is imperious, and as such, attempts to philosophize. To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be otherwise -- "better," if you will; there may really be such a thing as an "impulse to knowledge," some kind of small, independent clock-work, which when well sound up, works away industriously to that end, without the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part wherein. The actual "interests" of the scholar, therefore, are generally in quite another direction -- in teh family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; her is not characterized by becoming this or that. In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS, -- that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other.
----------------
floored me:
1. Impulses acting as genii and demons.
2. The clockwork of the impulse to knowledge, set in motion - by what? Not specific - but the result is still a search for knowledge.
3. In What ORDER the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other. Such that his morality defines who he is by the order of the deepest impulses (deciding which are acceptable and which are to what ends.)
posted by RheLynn at 3:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home