Jeremiah Luna wrote:
> Hey this a good topic endeed David Macy book talks a littel about how
> Foucault and Delueze read the Gay Science in phase he was writing the gay
> science. "aesthetic self-recreation" does not ring a bell, I mean The Gay
> Science is an attack on "science" Nietzsche in a typical Nihilist fashion
> states:
Since there is no separation between value and truth, science itself is to determine
which values are more life promoting, etc. In the beginning of BGE, N begins an attack
against truth in terms of Philosophers, i.e. scientists, thinking themselves to be above
or free from the realm of mere opinion, i.e. appearance. N argues throughout both BGE
and GS that the desire for the "real world" is closely linked to "Good and Evil," and,
in fact, the very faith in this latter opposition is what gives the distinction between
the "Real world" and the "world of mere appearances" its own foundation.
One must also keep in mind that Science is determined to be the latest stage of the
-the- ascetic ideal, i.e. Christianity, the trick that saved the will from complete
annihilation.
In terms of "gay science," it is a method, a way of being in the world, an aesthetic.
And, to paraphrase Camus, "to think is first of all to create a world."
>
> Origin of knowledge (169)
>
<snip>
> Okay so there you have it. but what Foucalt does with this approach is
> quit amazing in a number of ways. Foucault says that Nihilism is not
> really what most of us experience at a day to day level, knowledge power
> relations force us to think positively, in the illusion so to say of
> reality.
> We are trapped and invested with positive knowledge or as Neitzsche would
> say "good knowledge".
I am not familiar with the phrase "good knowledge." Would you please explain and give
me a reference?
Further, the G.S is not epistemology or philosophy of language. It is a method, a way of
being in the world, an aesthetic.
> But at the level of "history" knowledge falls once
> again into nihilism because it knowledge itself is not consistent or
> progressive but rather characterized by breaks cutoff which are not
> reconcilable, logical or understandable.
Or, as i would prefer to say, History falls into nihilism because of the pragmatic
nature of representation and presentation. However, it only falls into nihilism if we
fall to recognize the 'pragmatic' nature of Truth.
>
> but I am sorry you wanted to talk about "aesthetic self-recreation" not
> nihilism in the sciences, but they might have a connection somehow. In
> that for Neitsche the superman or god killer become god must "recreate"
> himself as god given the "fragility of being" which have come to
> a "happening" in the act of error as error- Nihilism the death of god.
The superman is not a god killer. He didn't kill god. God was already dead. He is to
redeem man from God's death, creating a bridge between man being a man-animal and an
over-human. He is a nay-sayer and a yes-sayer, a being capable of evaluating and
affirming values for himself. He longer acts from a lack (which is reactionary) but from
overabundance, from a love of life that leads to creation. He creates his own values,
and science is to help in evaluating what is more life-promoting, etc. In other words,
the superman is to help us overcome -the- death of god.
i am not sure what you are talking about in terms of "a 'happening' in the act of error
as error."
> but
> what is aesthetic about this I don't know.
Life itself becomes a work of art. Or to put this in a very common way, " how are we
to judge one life as better than another if we are beyond good and evil?" If everything
is relative? If there are no absolute 'truths' or a 'bird's eye view' from which to
judge?
Many attempt to solve nihilism by taking what is commonly called this "aesthetic turn".
Nehemas is most famous for this, though i wouldn't recommend him as a good secondary
reference to either F or N. In fact, i would only recommend him as an example of
Nihilism itself.
Also of grave import here is N's notion of 'giving a style' to oneself.
Matisse