Does the Schopenhauerian abyss look into you?

[The Heretic]

Hello everyone. Just signed up today and I would like to hear what you have to make of the following.

After i composed a review of the World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer inspired a different view of old Nietzsche.

Every single thought, idea, concept, image, symbol, representation, are fundamentally distractions in themselves that prevent people from looking all the way down the rabbit hole, into the heart of the black hole, the bottomless chasm, the very abyss in itself. Ideas and images constantly flicker to and fro, unceasingly, incessantly, always coming and going, for the consciousness is a vaporous quicksilver that is essentially preoccupied with mental activity, in a permanent state of distraction. Yet, reflection has a strange function that quells this constant activity, and peels the layers away, resulting in the realization of the true essence of reality that is both beyond all temporary illusions and in between all those artifacts of consciousness....

Schopenhauer himself teetered on the brink with his philosophy when he attempted to articulate the unsayable, homogenize the unnamable incarnate and I must say, much better than any other thinker of modernity. Our slavery to our distractions obscure Schopenhauer's insightful revelations, preventing us from ever coming to terms with them.... We are reminded of Nietzsche's chilling reminder: Lest not look into the abyss, cause the abyss peers back...

However, perhaps Nietzsche himself did not look deeply into the abyss long enough because he tiptoed back into the warm crevasses of his own illusory phantasms, the "eternal recurrence," the "will to power," and the "Ubermensch," thereby restricting his understanding of Schopenhauer.....

[Ryan Rudolph]

The Heretic wrote:

We are reminded of Nietzsche's chilling reminder: Lest not look into the abyss, cause the abyss peers back...

What was Nietzsche thinking with this quote anyway? It sounds like something you’d here on a horror film.

First of all, I don’t see an abyss to look into and I don’t see an abyss that pears back, obviously the observer and the abyss are one! Such limited abstractions…

[David Quinn]

If by "abyss" we mean Reality/The Infinite, then I don't think Schopenhauer had any understanding or encounter with it at all. I also don't think Nietzsche's grip on it was all that strong. So from the perspective of wisdom at least, I'm not sure that the question raised in this thread is all that relevant.

Nietzsche's encounter with the Infinite was at its strongest when he wrote Zarathustra and, judging from his subsequent literary output, he backpeddled away from it pretty darn quickly. So yes, in a sense, the abyss did stare back and Nietzsche wasn't up to it.

Schopenhauer's relationship with the Infinite was merely theoretical at best. He gleaned the concept from Hinduism/Buddhism literature and misinterpreted in a manner that best fitted his nihilistic, pessimistic temperament. He had little or no real wisdom.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I believe Nietzsche's abyss had not much to do with the concept of the Infinite. He barely touched Eastern concepts anyway, or not in obvious ways. I think Nietzsche's quote had to do with the connection to our primal nature, the ruthless ancient reptilian part of our brains. That's why it can 'stare' back, not in poetic sense, but in a primitive intelligent sense, a killer's stare. It's at the same time also the source of our suffering and attachments, our inner conflicts since man tends to ignore his own nature.

Some contextual evidence to Nietzsche's use, using my own translation but they don't differ too much with popular ones.

From "Beyond Good and Evil" in the "Apophthegms and Interludes" section 146:

The one who struggles against monstrosities should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also inside you

[Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.]

And from: Also sprach Zarathustra - Part 3 - The Vision and the Enigma - 1

For courage is the best killer: courage kills also the suffering with others. That suffering is the deepest abyss: so deep as a man looks into life, so deep he sees into suffering. Courage, however, is the best killer, courage that assails: it even would kill death itself, for it says: "Was that life? Well! Once more!"

[Muth ist der beste Todtschläger: der Muth schlägt auch das Mitleiden todt. Mitleiden aber ist der tiefste Abgrund: so tief der Mensch in das Leben sieht, so tief sieht er auch in das Leiden.
Muth aber ist der beste Todtschläger, Muth, der angreift: der schlägt noch den Tod todt, denn er spricht: "War das das Leben? Wohlan! Noch Ein Mal!]

[David Quinn]

To put the best possible spin on it, it could be that Nietzsche was indeed talking about the abyss of the Infinite or Truth (this is not just an Eastern concept, Diebert!) and was noting that if you want to form a relationship with Truth and come to know it intimately, then be aware that the Truth may well make strong demands and provide unwelcome insight in return.

The ego approaches Truth with the idea that it will be a paradise for the ego, when the reality is starkly different.

Anyone who has the remotest idea of what it actually is to die to the world
also knows that this does not take place without frightful agonies. No wonder,
then, that he cries out, sometimes also rebels against God, because it seems to
him as if God has deceived him, he who from the beginning became involved
with God on the understanding that God would love him according to man's
idea of love and now sees that it is God who wants to be loved, and according
to God's idea of what love is.

- Kierkegaard


-

[Ankit Gupta]

In my reading of Schopenhauer he says that the fundamental reality behind consciousness is the "will" which is indeed the cause of all conflict. His conception is similar to the eastern version with the difference that he does not talk of the cool impassionate objective "spirit" or "atman" as the fundamental reality. The eastern equivalent of the will would be "ego" or "mind", which is to be subordinated to the spirit to gain freedom. I do not quite understand what he means by the abyss in this text.

[Jamesh]

Nietzsche's encounter with the Infinite was at its strongest when he wrote Zarathustra and, judging from his subsequent literary output, he backpeddled away from it pretty darn quickly. So yes, in a sense, the abyss did stare back and Nietzsche wasn't up to it.

I differ from the others in my opinions on this. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a load of emotional crap - it is all about the ego trip involved in the concept of enlightenment - precisely the emotional attachment Quinn has to enlightenment, and those qualities he has categorised as masculine. Some of his other works are far better.

[David Quinn]

Zarathustra may be saturated with emotion (or passion, as they used to call it), but crap it isn't. It contains some of the loftiest passages ever committed to paper.

His other books are a big step down, although they all contain worthy material.

He once said:

I have always written my works with my whole body: I do not know what purely intellectual problems are.

It makes the most important difference, whether a thinker stands personally by his problems, so that in them he has his fate, his need, and also his best happiness, or whether he is "impersonal": that is, only understanding how to grope for and hold them with the feelers of cold inquisitive thought. In the latter case, nothing will come of it.

It was in Zarathustra that he adhered to this principle the most. His other books were always a little more academic and intellectual in nature; they were always several steps removed from the unbridled celebration of wisdom that Zarathustra is.

In his other books, he always had an eye on how he would appear to other intellectuals and to the world in general. In Zarathusta, he couldn't give a stuff.

When you one day write material as lofty and truthful as Zarathustra, James, I will forgive your emotionalism too.

-

[Jamesh]

David: To put the best possible spin on it, it could be that Nietzsche was indeed talking about the abyss of the Infinite or Truth and was noting that if you want to form a relationship with Truth and come to know it intimately, then be aware that the Truth may well make strong demands and provide unwelcome insight in return.

I agree.

Schopenhauer's relationship with the Infinite was merely theoretical at best. He gleaned the concept from Hinduism/Buddhism literature and misinterpreted in a manner that best fitted his nihilistic, pessimistic temperament. He had little or no real wisdom.

I don’t agree, and my reason is that the void, the abyss, the infinite cannot have any values or purposes attached to it. This is the reason the abyss bites back. While we may be able to gain an understanding of the infinite, in doing so we create a conflict with our humanity, the empty nature of the abyss means our emotions have no purpose, yet to survive we still need these emotions. For those, such as myself, who had previously developed a pessimistic temperament, then shining a light on the emptiness of the infinite will naturally lead to nihilism. The only reason you aren’t nihilistic is that you can somehow ignore in an emotional sense that the emptiness of the abyss also makes truth empty. While it is clearly better to do so, valuing truth gives one a purpose, it does seem like one has purposefully chosen to ignore reality. An example of what I am talking about is the emotional connotations of you using the word “lofty” in your little bit of sarcasm below.

Anyway we’ve been through this issue before.

When you one day write material as lofty and truthful as Zarathustra, James, I will forgive your emotionalism too.

What, you must believe also in miracles then !

I value having some emotions in myself because it provides feeling and feeling is being alive. I just wish I wasn’t so blooming erratic and bitchy, as this causes me anxiety.

[sue hindmarsh]

Jamesh wrote:

my reason is that the void, the abyss, the infinite cannot have any values or purposes attached to it. This is the reason the abyss bites back. While we may be able to gain an understanding of the infinite, in doing so we create a conflict with our humanity, the empty nature of the abyss means our emotions have no purpose, yet to survive we still need these emotions.

The “conflict” you describe, is only created when your understanding of Truth is corrupted by hanging onto illusions. Such as your illusion that, “to survive we still need emotions”. Living directly in Reality, without the distortions caused by the emotions is a real possibility. It is also the reason one becomes involved in philosophy.

For those, such as myself, who had previously developed a pessimistic temperament, then shining a light on the emptiness of the infinite will naturally lead to nihilism. The only reason you aren’t nihilistic is that you can somehow ignore in an emotional sense that the emptiness of the abyss also makes truth empty. While it is clearly better to do so, valuing truth gives one a purpose, it does seem like one has purposefully chosen to ignore reality.

You’re definition of “emptiness” as something hollow, and desolate, comes from your need to distance yourself from ever taking any steps toward understanding Reality. Like most people, you just want to protect your attachments, not caring one way or another that they are all filthy lies.

I value having some emotions in myself because it provides feeling and feeling is being alive. I just wish I wasn’t so blooming erratic and bitchy, as this causes me anxiety

As you obviously haven’t made an effort to understand anything about life, I’d say the emotions are all you value.

-
Sue

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To put the best possible spin on it, it could be that Nietzsche was indeed talking about the abyss of the Infinite or Truth (this is not just an Eastern concept, Diebert!) and was noting that if you want to form a relationship with Truth and come to know it intimately, then be aware that the Truth may well make strong demands and provide unwelcome insight in return.

You're right that the Infinite shouldn't be called an 'Eastern concept' but my larger point was the humanist and existentialist orientation of Nietzsche. That was his orientation of all this writing and appears to differ significantly from what is left of the teachings of Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, and so on.

That said, I differ with your idea that Nietzsche lacked proper understanding of what you called 'Reality/The Infinite'. It would mean wisdom could sprout in such intensity and clarity while the thinker still would be seriously deluded about reality and himself at the same time. That seems hard to believe. Instead it seems more reasonable to believe Nietzsche on purpose turned to psychological analysis and existential philosophizing, realizing that he was in the position he could stimulate so many minds in the coming age, preparing them for 'bigger things'. In the eyes of someone who could see the forces of nihilism coming, it might have seen as the only reasonable option.

[sue hindmarsh]

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

That said, I differ with your idea that Nietzsche lacked proper understanding of what you called 'Reality/The Infinite'. It would mean wisdom could sprout in such intensity and clarity while the thinker still would be seriously deluded about reality and himself at the same time.

I’d say that it is more the case that Nietzsche’s work, “Thus Spake Zarathustra” attests to his close relationship with his understanding of the Infinite, and that his other works attests to how difficult he found maintaining that ‘closeness’.

That seems hard to believe. Instead it seems more reasonable to believe Nietzsche on purpose turned to psychological analysis and existential philosophizing, realizing that he was in the position he could stimulate so many minds in the coming age, preparing them for 'bigger things'. In the eyes of someone who could see the forces of nihilism coming, it might have seen as the only reasonable option.

As I said above, his inability to maintain a close relationship with what he knew of the Infinite prevented him from developing further. He had to fall back into philosophizing about things on a much lower level. Though some of his other philosophy is useful and very interesting, none of it compares to the deep and intense spirituality expressed in Zarathustra.

-

The situation Nietzsche found himself in is what every lover of Truth confronts as he develops. Each step on the way has its own difficulties, which the philosopher has to find the heart and stomach to overcome. Some, like Nietzsche, consider themselves not up to the challenge and fall back. Others continue onwards; evidence of their pure and strong hearts.
-
Sue

[David Quinn]

The way that Nietzsche focused on bizarre, science-fiction-like concepts, such as eternal recurrence, is an indication of how much he wanted to back-peddle into trivia and fantasy after writing Zarathustra.

It is as though he used the writing of Zarathustra as a means to dive violently into the Infinite, but then, when he found it far too chilly for his tastes, he quickly wanted to hop out as soon as possible.

This is probably why his books after Zarathustra always seemed rather degenerate and deathly in their tone.

-

[Jamesh]

Sue wrote

The “conflict” you describe, is only created when your understanding of Truth is corrupted by hanging onto illusions. Such as your illusion that, “to survive we still need emotions”. Living directly in Reality, without the distortions caused by the emotions is a real possibility. It is also the reason one becomes involved in philosophy.

You’re definition of “emptiness” as something hollow, and desolate, comes from your need to distance yourself from ever taking any steps toward understanding Reality. Like most people, you just want to protect your attachments, not caring one way or another that they are all filthy lies.

As you obviously haven’t made an effort to understand anything about life, I’d say the emotions are all you value.

I think that people who believe such things are mildly irrational, a bit psychotic. Psychotic because a proper understanding of the truth concepts that you, or the QRS, know should make what I say pretty obvious. I find your attachment to truth kind of like a survival mechanism - it is akin to believing in some sort of magical spiritual objective reality, just like everyone else. You value it because you desire and need it, and you need it purely because that is all you have been caused to desire.

Nonetheless, such mild psychosis is far better than nihilism. Nor are you wrong in what you say, what you say only becomes wrong due to its one-sided nature. Valuing truth is an obviously key aspect of evolving above the animal level, but you are wrong to the extent that you totally emotionally devalue other human emotional experiences. It is this devaluing that will not allow you to see the truth in what I am saying in this post.

On the other hand what you say may be "right" for yourself, apart from the fact you had a stream of experiences that have caused you to value truth, your physical brain structure may have some form of autism variant that causes it to have and value a total focus on truth.

It is clear to me that

a) all concepts of things have added value attachments, even if that value attachment is the value of indifference or neutrality.*

b) any concept with a value attachment is at heart an emotional attachment. Some form of sensation arises from experiencing the concept, due to its added value attachment.

c) truth and reality mean nothing without the addition of value.

d) truth and concepts or experiences of reality are desired because of their usefulness, their value.

e) the more you devalue other emotions such as love hate etc, the stronger your valuing and thus attachment to truth will become. The strength of attachement to truth occurs because it fills the vacuum left by the abandonment of postive values on other natural human emotions.

* if you disagree with this then you are not thinking sufficiently dualistically. In this case the duality is the dualistic relationship between mental experiences and physical body experiences.

You are making emotions into a separate category to other feelings and sensations, whereas they are merely a type of sensation that is particularly strong. Emotions are categorised as mental experiences, as sensations initiated by the brain (of course this is somewhat delusionary, as it implies separation between mind and matter, which science has shown is clearly not the case). The broader term "feelings", while it includes emotions, is often more about the category of sensations that have a direct association with some bodily function (such as sexual sensations for instance). Both emotions and sensations would fit into the category of sensations. We also have sensations like intuition or gut feelings, which is kind of a mix of emotions, feeling and data processing. Sensations fit into the category of experiences, they together with non emotional data processing are consciousness. Sensations are the awareness side of consciousness's prime duality. Non-emotional data processing is the processing of the underlying experience data in the brains computer hardware - this is only where your absolute truths really exist, except that absolute truth is impossible because emotional keys are ALWAYS added to the incoming data as a result of chemical coding systems that the senses generate, until every conscious experience has been categorised with a "value" switch, even where that value is "neutral" (which incidently would make enlightenment "the ability to value everything neutrally"). The brain itself is a sense organ, it senses changes in internal chemical levels. Senses like smell, touch etc are not the only senses, they are just the ones that interface with the external world.

Anyway the point of the above paragraph is to show that emotions are just a part of the awareness spectrum. Intrinsically they are the same as any other bodily sensation, which includes the sensation that causes us to value truth and concepts of ultimate reality, the sensation of understanding, of systemising, of learning, of feeling wise, of feeling truthful. As truth and reality is essentially a mental experience, then I categorise the valuing of truth as an emotion.

[Ryan Rudolph]

David Quinn wrote:

The way that Nietzsche focused on bizarre, science-fiction-like concepts, such as eternal recurrence, is an indication of how much he wanted to back-peddle into trivia and fantasy after writing Zarathustra.

Yes and I find it interesting that his “eternal recurrence” theory strongly resembles the Buddhist idea of “reincarnation.” – quite similar, but both are odd.

Perhaps these two theories are the result the same phenomenon: Namely a frightened ego that had dissented far down into the abyss, but upon feeling the cold climbed out desperately and constructed some twisted theories to ensure the survival/immortality of the self.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cosmic wrote:

Yes and I find it interesting that his “eternal recurrence” theory strongly resembles the Buddhist idea of “reincarnation.” – quite similar, but both are odd.

Perhaps these two theories are the result the same phenomenon: Namely a frightened ego that had dissented far down into the abyss, but upon feeling the cold climbed out desperately and constructed some twisted theories to ensure the survival/immortality of the self.

Well, there is something inspiring about the buddhist idea of reincarnation because you proggress to higher qualities of life. It is especially inspiring when you add in the element of having your soul liberated into nirvana.

As for Nietzches eternal recurrence. When I first heard the idea, I thought it sounded terribly bleak, and...well, just plain gratuitous. I don't think there could be a better word for it than gratuitous.

Yes, I'm thinking nietzche was preoccupied with the eternal reccurence because he somehow found a comfort in it..

Is it true that Nietzche once said something along the lines of: since you are fated to live over and over the same life, you should make the best of your life?

Is it just me or is this highly, highly foolish?

How would it make a difference to my other lives if I suffered badly in this one?

Nietzche makes it sound like it would make some sort of difference. He makes it sound like, by improving the quality of one life, you improve the quality of the others.

I dont get it.

Wouldnt it be more effective to say: you only live once, therefore make the most of it?

I would think that believing that you only live once would be a much greater incentive to do good.

Yet, if my soul proggreses via reincarnation, or if there is an afterlife that is good if I am good, than I would think that that would be even better incentive.

But eternal recurrence?

Maybe Neitzche was dwelling on the eternal reccurence in order to justify his desire to succomb to what he knew was infferior behavior?

Since I live endlessly, its ok for me to cop out on this one.

There's always my next life!

Eternal reccurence is one of the most pointless ideas i've ever come across.

Its astounding that a thinker of Nietzches caliber valued it.

I always thought the parralel universe theory was much more interesting (even though it is also useless) and to me it actually performs the same function as the eternal recurrence idea.

They are really the same idea, just one is more sophisticated.

Eternal reccurence maintains this linear, time based proggression, allowing for infinite Nietzches, with infinite variations.

A spectrum from the most inferior Fred, to the most superior fred.

Likewise, parralel universe theory offers the same luxuries, except there is only all of your lives happening now.

John Frusciante (a border line idiot savant), guitarist for the red hot chili peppers, once said that what inspired him to be great was his belief in infinite parralel universes, and that he would imagine competing against himself.

I'm think his fancied belief also gave him an excuse to become a heroin addict who lost all his teeth.

[The Heretic]

Good replies.

In the context of culture, Schopenhauer's philosophy does express the inner condition of man, and far better than many others. The higher cultures are themselves structured in a way where the more they evolve, the greater and longer the difficult the path becomes. In older cultures they had far simpler means and ways of harvesting and gathering food. Those good old days. Modern culture employs complex and long chains of actions. The longer they become the more difficult it gets to keep track of everything, and the smaller the task becomes. Modern man occupies his time with the means themselves, while the ultimate goals become distant until it is beyond the horizon. Modern culture functions with institutions and enterprises, too busy to notice the disappearance of the ultimate goal and the meaning of life. Once the modern man realizes the immediate means are themselves transparent, he starts questioning the ultimate goal and the meaning of the whole.

Christianity did supply redemption and fulfillment for modern culture (with Salvation of the Soul and the Kingdom of God) during the decadence of Roman Empire. Christianity presented an “absolute meaning of life” which gave absolute values for the masses and an absolute goal beyond the all-too-brief life of the individual, a very satisfying palliative for modern culture. However, this antidote lost its effectiveness, its appeal and power over the masses, but the longing for a final goal remains. This longing became a yawning hole in search of a “definitivum” of life. And that indicated Schopenhauer's essential metaphysical essence of all things. What Schopenhauer calls wille, a visceral articulation of that subterranean energy, a demonic ur-force, I call the abyss, a bottomless gulf, completely vacant of meaning, the unfathomable void. If the abyss is unknowable in any direct way, then we experience it only indirectly, through representations, concepts. In the medieval age, the abyss was chaos - that which lies beyond the edge of the world, beyond creation. Here, there be monsters!

For Nietzsche, the abyss is nihilism - the awesome consequences when foundations of civilization collapse and the bottom of culture falls out from under it. With the existentialist's mask Nietzsche accepts the all-too-early message that God is dead and peers into the abyss of nothingness, only to find meaninglessness and valuelessness. The hope of redemption, afterworld, salvation are empty concepts or fictions that conceal the ugly realization that existence is pointless. All our greatest values – truth, enlightenment, wisdom, knowledge, progress – lose their moorings, as hollow as the hollowest idols. We end up walking up and down the cliffs aimlessly, without direction, in the grips of uncertainty.

Zarathustra is the tightrope walker who was ideally the courageous hero, for he not only look deep into the abyss, but even cross it... Yet... alas, Nietzsche always slips and falls headlong into the void. The yawning black hole of nihilism is infinite... He falls for an eternity, for time always recurs eternally. However....... beyond the death of God... possibly lies redemption...

Several minor points:

1. The notion that eastern thought influenced Schopenhauer is a myth, because he did not discover Eastern thought through an acquaintance until after 1813, when his dissertation had already been published, and his system had already been established. In other words, Schopenhauer, within the tradition of western philosophy, along Kantian lines, he had arrived at positions that were later found to share a lot in common with some of the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism. There is a difference between "convergence" and "influence."

2. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is recognized as a great work of literature not because of its philosophical content, but because of its excessive context, metaphorical prophecies and pseudo-biblical allegories that were borderline blasphemous. Poetry, as the writing of the edge of the impossible, is fluent silence where the sacred is the unknown, because it speaks from the charred ruin of the lip of abyss.

3. That Nietzsche did undergo a moment of clarity – an epiphany – before he first mentioned it as the “heaviest burden” in the end of the fourth book of the Gay Science, and considered this as the fundamental insight of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, should shed light on the purpose of the Eternal Return. It may be the apprehension of the ultimate form of affirmation of life and at the same time, the most “extreme form of nihilism” but the careful reader would ignore my first post, secure in the knowledge that this Eternal Return is intended as a mythical illusion.

4. If you look into the abyss, the abyss will look into you. What does that mean? In the third section, on the Vision and the Riddle, a dwarf, who is named "spirit of gravity", accompanies Zarathustra. The dwarf tempts Zarathustra as a metaphor. While Zarathustra is climbing the mountain, (another metaphor for self-overcoming) the dwarf offers a strange temptation- as one ascends towards the peak, the drop below deepens. The higher Zarathustra rises, the more he is surrounded by nothing. The dwarf is the temptation that makes you feel you might be inclined to leap into the infinite, empty space. The dwarf is a spirit of vertigo- not merely ordinary gravity. With the mountain-climber's presence every abyss beckons- why not fall into this gulf and let go at last? The dwarf distorts perception and makes the climber see the spaces of his freedom as a call to his death. In opposition to the dwarf, Zarathustra calls on 'courage', which he says is the refusal to feel vertigo. "Courage slayeth even giddiness on the edge of the abyss… is not sight itself the sight of abysses?" There is more to go on, but I think I've said enough.