Letting go of the Absolute

[average]

Why are Nietzsche and Nagarjuna held as paragons of wisdom here when they both argue against the existence of objective Truth?

Nagarjuna negates the separate existence of Truth. He shows that concepts such as causality, time, dharma, and substance are inconsistent and contradictory when subjected to thorough philosophical scrutiny. He argues that 'truths' like emptiness are also empty, that it is essenceless, and exist only conventionally as well. Conventional truth to him is no less real than the absolute, the absolute no more real than the conventional.

Nietzsches' radical perspectivism is a reaction against the very search for an absolute, objective truth. This is the basis of his revaluation of Western values. His philosophy at heart is not about acquiring some metaphysical truth about how objective reality actually is, it's about liberating the individual in some pragmatic way, this is true for Nagarjuna as well.

The "wise" master is not someone who has discovered truth (not even the truth of emptiness) but who is able to embody truth in his actions. This capacity is a sort of situational virtuosity: not a particular state of consciousness, but the capacity for liberated action.

The embodiment of truth or emptiness is not merely coming to an understanding of those concepts but means to fundamentally change one's very perspective toward reality. This also involves liberating oneself from redemptive teleological notions such as "enlightenment" and "absolute Truth". Enlightenment is not an object or a state that can be reached...it refers to a process of attunement to life, of improvisational virtuosity, of a liberating intimacy with all things. If all things are interdependent and empty there is no ultimate warrant for talking about "your enlightenment" or "your wisdom"

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Why are Nietzsche and Nagarjuna held as paragons of wisdom here when they both argue against the existence of objective Truth?

Because they both argue for being wise about it?

Nietzsche does not address any absolute, objective truths anywhere. He's raving actually against objective inherent existence, morality, atoms, "things", gods and ego. Now it's true that Nietzsche didn't want to introduce any absolute back into his language by declaring some universal given. And considering his "crusade" against objective value, things, gods and morals, this should be understandable. However he wasn't living yet in a sea of nihilism where people confuse existence with feeling.

the capacity for liberated action

Actions have just as little meaning as the words announcing them. I wouldn't judge anyone on them.

[average]

Why are Nietzsche and Nagarjuna held as paragons of wisdom here when they both argue against the existence of objective Truth?

Because they both argue for being wise about it?

Nietzsche does not address any absolute, objective truths anywhere.

'On Truth and Lies in an Extramoral Sense' Nietzsche suggests that although a true world might exist, we are not able to know it. And in his later work he also argues that we can never know whether a reality outside language exists, some kind of being to which our ideas ultimately correspond.


For instance, he says: " moreover, what about these conventions of language? Are they really the products of knowledge, of the sense of truth? Do the designations and the things coincide? Is language the adequate expression of all realities? Only through forgetfulness can man ever achieve the illusion of possessing a "truth" in the sense just designated. If he does not wish to be satisfied with truth in the form of a tautology—that is, with empty shells—then he will forever buy illusions for truths."...and so on, and so on.

He's raving actually against objective inherent existence, morality, atoms, "things", gods and ego. Now it's true that Nietzsche didn't want to introduce any absolute back into his language by declaring some universal given. And considering his "crusade" against objective value, things, gods and morals, this should be understandable. However he wasn't living yet in a sea of nihilism where people confuse existence with feeling.

objective truth is among the things he doubted and questioned why it should be valued in itself; he argued on several occasions that a 'will to untruth' can be more useful than the 'will to truth'--the point being utility, not the acquisition of truth for truth's sake. The will to truth cannot be justified on pragmatic grounds according to him, it is based on a moral ground like the moral prescription not to deceive, not even oneself "Thou shalt not lie"

Actions have just as little meaning as the words announcing them. I wouldn't judge anyone on them.

The Truth-seeking paradigm is a value that Nietzsche rejects and tries to undo by means of his revaluation of all values. Nietzsches' philosophy is not propositional in the sense of aiming at discovering true concepts that correspond to how reality actually is. He's in opposition with the modern Western conception of what it means to practice philosophy; Nietzsche tried to revive the Greek way of philosophizing as practiced way of life, or spiritual way of life, not a means to "know the Truth"
Nagarjuna is even more emphatic on this point.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

'On Truth and Lies in an Extramoral Sense' Nietzsche suggests that although a true world might exist, we are not able to know it. And in his later work he also argues that we can never know whether a reality outside language exists, some kind of being to which our ideas ultimately correspond.

Yes, "subjectivity is truth", wrote Kierkegaard already. It seems you are interpreting Nietzsche in his materialist context, his focus on physiology (the truth of the body and its instincts) and psychology (the deceptions involving these instincts). It's clear he thought that ultimately deeper understandings about life were to be found intuitively and existentially. This is completely in line with whatever I've understood at this forum and the work of its founders as well as a lot of Eastern and Western spirituality actually. But with every approach a danger exists. Like with "intuitions" a whole herd of people dives of the cliff of feeling ones way to oblivion or by rejecting external reality creating twisted nihilist pet theories as they fall.

objective truth is among the things he doubted and questioned why it should be valued in itself; he argued on several occasions that a 'will to untruth' can be more useful than the 'will to truth'--the point being utility, not the acquisition of truth for truth's sake. The will to truth cannot be justified on pragmatic grounds according to him, it is based on a moral ground like the moral prescription not to deceive, not even oneself "Thou shalt not lie"

Yeah, this involves the more central will to power and its inverse: the will to nothingness. Truth as utility or embellishment is of course still an expression of that power. But why do you think it would mean "letting go" of the mind (as I don't know what you think "Absolute" means, possibly an abstract formula).

Nietzsche tried to revive the Greek way of philosophizing as practiced way of life, or spiritual way of life, not a means to "know the Truth". Nagarjuna is even more emphatic on this point.

Sure. Although not some "Greek" way, some schools perhaps, some individuals but mostly in the earliest times. Know thyself, which is the spiritual version of "truth" but has a strong component of reason flowing out of that. This is apparent all over Nietzsche's work, a great reliance on scientific thought as base principle which had to incorporate all other elements of life over time. A "life science" so to speak but not like any science we have now. Not so much unlike it either.

[average]

It's clear he thought that ultimately deeper understandings about life were to be found intuitively and existentially. This is completely in line with whatever I've understood at this forum and the work of its founders

Except when Nietzsche got to that point he would revaluate the position, and have to 'overcome' it again.

The founders of this forum claim the acquisition of absolute truth, Nietzsche & Nagarjuna's philosophy undermine this possibility.

For example David Quinn, in an old debate said "[truth] matters to anyone who values the absolute certainty of ultimate knowledge."
And that he has acquired, "Knowledge that cannot be overturned in any way, either by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, and is therefore true in all possible worlds. "

A philosophy that searches and thinks it has acquired Absolute Truth is the antithesis of everything Nietzsche was about.
It also contradicts Nagarjuna's philosophy which saw no real distinction between absolute truth and the conventional truth.


Nietzsche's philosophy runs against the teleological ideal of realizing some absolute Truth. The search itself is dubious and futile. Nietzsche said, "if he does not wish to be satisfied with truth in the form of a tautology—that is, with empty shells—then he will forever buy illusions for truths".

And also says, "The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for."
The fact that he is championed on this forum is strange.

[Dennis Mahar]

Nagarjuna refutes the materialist point of view amongst others.

a thing is deemed to exist if it conforms to a logically coherent structure.

in that act the entity is somehow 'out there', existing from its own side, immutable and permanent, independent of consciousness.


what is misrecognised is that which is a possibility for 'logically coherent structure',
that which is primordial to 'logically coherent structure'
that which sets up 'logically coherent structure' as a viewpoint.

consciousness chooses reality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Except when Nietzsche got to that point he would revaluate the position, and have to 'overcome' it again.

That sounds more like simply the dialectical method. Point is that Nietzsche never addresses absolute truths in the spiritual sense. Or when he does, he points out that as "fact" they are not truthfully absolute and as such being a lie put in place for convenience.

The founders of this forum claim the acquisition of absolute truth, Nietzsche & Nagarjuna's philosophy undermine this possibility.

Aren't you confusing truth with fact? Spiritual teachings address unchanging truths about the factual but are quite aware that these things never turn into facts themselves. The fact that a lof of religious teaching or philosophies have been trying to distill facts out of truths and a lot of teachers and writers have been attacking that, and rightly so, doesn't change a thing!

And also says, "The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for."
The fact that he is championed on this forum is strange.

Or what is less strange is the possibility your reading of Nietzsche is not thorough, your understanding of the term "absolute truth" is rather misguided and your view on the forum's "championing" is bordering on lunacy.

[Dan Rowden]

Why are Nietzsche and Nagarjuna held as paragons of wisdom here when they both argue against the existence of objective Truth?

Because there's no such thing as "objective" truth and no-one here advocates such a thing as any kind of ultimate reality.

As for Nietzsche, meta-logic, dude, meta-logic. You cannot assert a lack of an ultimate reality without contradicting yourself. Neither of those men did so.

[average]

there's no such thing as "objective" truth and no-one here advocates such a thing as any kind of ultimate reality.As for Nietzsche, meta-logic, dude, meta-logic. You cannot assert a lack of an ultimate reality without contradicting yourself. Neither of those men did so.

For example David Quinn has said:
"[truth] matters to anyone who values the absolute certainty of ultimate knowledge."
And that he has acquired, "Knowledge that cannot be overturned in any way, either by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, and is therefore true in all possible worlds. "


Nietzsche says: "I shall reiterate a hundred times that immediate certainty, like absolute knowledge and thing-in-itself, contains a contradictio in adjecto: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!”

Of course he wrote essays on the topic and a snippet quote won't do him justice. But if you read his works and unpack his ideas in their proper context you'll see he rejects any sort of "absolute certain ultimate knowledge" metaphysics that David and much of this forum subscribe to. He also questions the whole "search for Truth" quest, and finds it to be a dubious symptom of the old ascetic ideal.

[Tenver-]

Don't know what Nietzsche has said or not, but on reality vs. no reality:

There can only be order in the world if there is a reality. If there is no reality, there is only chaos and nothing exists but only true chaos. If there are rules and existences in the world which submit to those rules, then there is reality. The rules are only layered inferences. If there is no existence and no reality, of which there can only be one because nothing can be two things at the same time at its core, then there is only pure chaos. Therefore, the possibilities from my viewpoint are either a reality or no reality and the world is very organized which points towards a reality which comes with order vs. a truly chaotic frame of reference. Water will boil at (about, due to perceptive and uncontrollable limitations) the same temperature every time in the same conditions and fire will warm the water up every time. This points towards order which there can only be in a reality and not in non-existence and in a reality, one thing can only be that thing otherwise it would not exist. Therefore, this leads me to conclude that there is a reality. One which you can call the absolute (or really, the only) truth.

[average]

Don't know what Nietzsche has said or not, but on reality vs. no reality:

There can only be order in the world if there is a reality.... Therefore, this leads me to conclude that there is a reality. One which you can call the absolute (or really, the only) truth.

Nietzsche wanted to go beyond this sort of thinking. He writes in "How the True World became a Fable (The History of an Error)" that with each stage of truth-seeking the idea of a "real world" becomes more of a fairy tale until eventually we overcome it.

Stage 1: The wise and pious man dwells in the real world, which he attains through his wisdom (skills in perception warrant a more accurate view of the real world).
Stage 2: The wise and pious man doesn't dwell in the real world, but rather it is promised to him, a goal to live for. (ex: to the sinner who repents, nirvana for the sage)
Stage 3: The real world is unattainable and cannot be promised, yet remains a consolation when confronted with the perceived injustices of the apparent world.
Stage 4: If the real world is not attained, then it is unknown. Therefore, there is no duty to the real world, and no consolation derived from it.
Stage 5: The idea of a real world has become useless- it provides no consolation or motive. It is therefore cast aside as a useless abstraction.
Stage 6: What world is left? The concept of the real world has been abolished, and with it, the idea of an apparent world follows.

Stage 6 is where Nietzsche argues we give up the error of a "real world"
6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.
(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)

But that's just another common description of enlightenment. It's a riddle why you think this has any conflict with Quinn et al. No absolute facts and worlds. Yes, join the forum!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Nietzsche says: "I shall reiterate a hundred times that immediate certainty, like absolute knowledge and thing-in-itself, contains a contradictio in adjecto: we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!”

Of course he wrote essays on the topic and a snippet quote won't do him justice. But if you read his works and unpack his ideas in their proper context you'll see he rejects any sort of "absolute certain ultimate knowledge" metaphysics that David and much of this forum subscribe to. He also questions the whole "search for Truth" quest, and finds it to be a dubious symptom of the old ascetic ideal.

Which is that "metaphysics" of the forum? It's some kind of mysticism perhaps. Lot of that in Nietzsche as well if you'd unpack it a bit more seriously. Or is it poetry? The search for truth can be questioned but that doesn't mean it doesn't bring people where they are.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Some other points. To understand Nietzsche's work nearly all study guides will warn you that there's not one Nietzsche to be found. He's playing with various ideas and approaches, sometimes even contradicting. His work does not know much unity in that sense. If you start the reading with that in mind, it's easy to see how difficult it is to extract some "core idea" to use for or against anything at all.

The other thing is the idea that for example David Quinn would hold Nietzsche as some "paragon" of wisdom. Perhaps I do that at times but certainly not David or Kevin. That would be a very selective reading and cherry picking. Like here a random quote from David: "I also don't think Nietzsche's grip on [Reality/The Infinite] was all that strong ... Nietzsche wasn't up to it". Also he mentions only to see Zarathustra as clear expressions and "his other books are a big step down, although they all contain worthy material". Now again, where is the paragon of wisdom? The whole thread premise falls now down as some high school level straw-man argument.

To understand how Nietzsche interprets truth as principle for establishing facts see: "There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths." Even mainstream Eastern guru like Osho explains in Beyond Psychology about this very issue: "Objective truths are all relative, and subjective truth is always ultimate. Just not to get it mixed up, the mystics have been calling it the ultimate truth". This is completely in line with for example Kierkegaard's "subjectivity is truth" but also Nietzsche as his insistence on reality itself is presented as absolute! He doesn't say: well "maybe" there is some absolute truth somewhere to discover at some point. He is certain about how completely unattainable that idea is.

The last example is Nietzsche's attempt to address the infinite with his "eternal recurrence". It's a very material and conceptual notion of eternity, thinking about time as circular and total, with "the law of conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence". But this is just a tentative idea he proposes here. In Also Sprach Zarathustra III chapter 2 it's about an eternity in the past, an eternity in the future and the gateway of the Moment. Or man as a rope, a bridge between two eternities. Nature (or animal) and God (ideal and Overman). Here you see Nietzsche's struggle with absolute concepts in relative language. He hesitates though. He writes quickly that he becomes afraid of his own thoughts and the thoughts behind those.

It's rather clear even in the books so central to Nietzsche: he reports his own unwillingness to approach absolutes as such unspeakables would likely not survive language and a man might himself not survive even if he would end up facing the abyss. It's easy to see how unlikely it will be for anyone to ever prove him wrong on this.

[Bobo]

"What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses."

"In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego."

""Reason" in language — oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."

According to above, the ego comes from a distrust of the senses, a faith in language. "A=A", "Ultimate Reality", comes from and are sustained by the ego, even when they are concepts that deny the ego.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses."

"In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego."

""Reason" in language — oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."

According to above, the ego comes from a distrust of the senses, a faith in language. "A=A", "Ultimate Reality", comes from and are sustained by the ego, even when they are concepts that deny the ego.

Small correction: belief in the ego. But this is about the linguistic self with language as attribute or even main body of consciousness. A self is modeled and constructed together with world or anything else positioned including any philosophical phrase. And it didn't keep any noteworthy sage or philosopher in history from talking his ass off. Therefore it's a bit difficult to understand here which point exactly is being made, if any at all. Whatever is called illusion, world or ego, it doesn't result in denial of whatever might appear through word or action. Such denial would be another delusion.

[Bobo]

That's an important correction. I could have said "A=A, Ultimate Reality, Ego, are projected by the belief in the ego".

I guess it is not about truth or delusion, but rather strength and weakness. And the belief in truth/delusion would be weakness.

"The falseness of a judgment is for us not necessarily an objection to a judgment; in this respect our new language may sound strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-promoting, life serving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-cultivating. And we are fundamentally inclined to claim that the falsest judgments (which include the synthetic judgments a priori) are the most indispensable for us; that without accepting the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world by means of numbers, man could not live - that renouncing false judgments would mean renouncing life and a denial of life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life - that certainly means resisting accustomed value feelings in a dangerous, way; and a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil."

" Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, l beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and so put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect" as the natural scientists do (and whoever, like them, now "naturalizes" in his thinking), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication - not for explanation. In the "in itself" there is nothing of "causal connections," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." It is we alone who have devised cause, sequence, for-each-other, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we project and mix this symbol world into things as if it existed "in itself," we act once more as we have always acted - mythologically. The "unfree will" is mythology; in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills."

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Actions have just as little meaning as the words announcing them. I wouldn't judge anyone on them.

Although this is out of place coming from you based on the past, I won't hold that in mind as your point negates such a judgement. Especially because dependent origination clearly shows your point as true.

Would this then mean that we are incorrect to judge anyone or anything? How then do we determine what is correct or true, or who is speaking truth, if our actions and words hold such little meaning?

It seems to me we don't choose what we perceive as true as our view is also dependent.