About ascetic ideals

"Unconcerned, ironic, violent

like that wisdom want us: is a woman,

always loves only a warrior ... "

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

 

"Man prefers to want the nothing instead of don't want"

Genealogy of Morals.

Introduction

This essay is about the third treatise of the Genealogy of Morals by Frederick Nietzsche, what ascetic ideals mean? There will be a big effort of interpretation and evaluation of the treaty (two concepts that cross the Nietzschean philosophy) taking into account two aphorisms that Nietzsche used for this treaty (the same as those at the beginning of this text). The first is taken from Zarathustra and is set as initial section of the treaty, the second is "the preferred human to want to not want anything" statement starts and closes the third treatise. The questions try to answer are: what is the split between the philosopher and the priest in relation to the ascetic ideal? What is the "will to nothingness"? and finally, how you miss the vitality of nihilism? These are big questions, and therefore, we quote the definitions of entry-not-giving explanations of the meaning of Nietzsche's ascetic ideals in general in an aphorism of the treaty. Let us begin from the beginning.

I

"What do ascetic ideals? - Among artists, nothing or too many different things, between philosophers and learned men, something like a nose and an instinct to perceive the most favorable conditions of high spirituality, among women, at best, a kindness more than seduction morbidezza some meat on a beautiful, beautiful animal blessedness a thick, between disabled people and altered physiologically (most deadly), an attempt to be "too good" for this world, a holy form of debauchery , its main resource in the fight against pain and slow against boredom, among priests, the genuine priestly faith, their best instrument of power, and also the "supreme" authority for the same, finally, between saints, a pretext for winter dormancy, its Novissima gloriae cupid, rest in nothingness ("God"), its peculiar form of madness. However, in the fact that the ascetic ideal has meant so much to the man expresses the fundamental reality of the human will, its horror vacui: this will need a goal - and prefers to want the nothing instead of don't want" (Nietzsche. First paragraph of the third part of Genealogy of moral) 

II

What is the split of the philosopher and the priest in relation to the ascetic ideal? A short answer might be this: the philosopher pays homage to the ascetic ideal because "he wants to escape to torture" (Nietzsche 2006, 137) while the priest is not interested in escape such torture seems rather that it is justified . But let us examine this issue carefully.

Philosopher Nietzsche places the ascetic ideal as the latter is the budget for the first, ie, the philosopher must represent an asceticism to be possible. But why should it? According to the German philosopher, for lack of strength given its predisposition to contemplation. Consequently, the philosopher is a contemplative man, but why deny the world?, Why deny the senses? What is the love of the wilderness, solitude, contempt ...? It seems as if the will to power was the product of those souls who, initially, doubted themselves and assert themselves in the world, to affirm its existence and self-confidence had withdrawn to a "desert either" very motivated by a "said" in life. Indeed, the ascetic ideal was initially the same for philosophers and priests, because for them it meant "something", unlike artists, namely: a love-master.

Nietzsche argues that both the philosopher and the priest, ("contemplative man") was scorned for not being afraid, and consequently had to instill fear in others and in himself to be fear and gain their "right to life" . A deconstructionist process, according to FN was used to overthrow belief in himself and inspire fear in others. Thus, removal of loneliness, withdrawal into the wilderness any FN defined as the search for optimum conditions to assert its existence. But why? The philosopher, being contemplative, must retire into the wilderness to do what others can not do, namely the scope of a higher spirituality, understanding this, the expression of strength, the will to power. Now, that does not sound like a philosopher but a priest, self flagellates also face their audience. However, the philosopher was and has been so applauded when he hears stories ascetic as stated in the text. Where were separated philosopher and priest?

The answer is found when Nietzsche says "a strong and well built man digests his experiences (including actions, misdeeds) just as he digests his meals, even if it bites hard to swallow" (Nietzsche 2006, 167). The philosopher retires to the desert to prove to himself that he is able to control his instincts, to control yourself, just as the priest. The difference lies in the impulse that motivates one to the other. Both do so thirsty for power, after all, is the will that is operating. But there's another thing: Nietzsche claims because it shifts the focus of the philosopher and the ascetic ideal is, apart from wanting to dominate, a drive for truth, or if you have very sensitive ears, a drive for nothing. It is true that claims there is "truth" as such but simply interpretations of facts is based on different interpretations of the same thing (of life) that you can have more perspectives on the same and, consequently, the philosopher seeks objectivity, their truth.

Here comes the split with the priest who certainly lacks that also drive for nothing, because motivation is the formation of the priest of his flock, his role as a nurse. Here, the priest applies the whip himself with an admirable desire, it is in front of your audience to show their strength and end up dominating the "flock". On this, Nietzsche argues that the creation of herds can only come from the "common miseries." To that extent, the progress of the community will forget the misery particular.

So, the split of the philosopher and the priest is the distance and attitude toward the ascetic ideal, as the philosopher's apparent denial that involves the ideal is transformed and becomes a yes to life, while the priest is a negation and expression of force ... but to affirm life with the conditions optimum is saying yes to life, something the priest does not make it to being sick, feeling sick, to understand the sick, change the direction of resentment of these ... and tortured, and poisoned wounds healing slowly.

III

What is the will to nothingness? Nihilism. But what will that mean anything? Can you understand how a non-want-master (you)? Nietzsche holds a claim that sounds bad for sensitive ears, namely: "What is there to fear, causing fatal effects than any other fate would not be the great fear but the great nausea compared with men, and also the large compassion for man. Assuming that one day both get marriage each other, immediately enter the world of node inevitable, something quite sinister, the "last will" of man, his will to nothingness, nihilism. And indeed, there is much more prepared for this. " (Nietzsche 2006, 158)

Fact-and a time getting out of the theory, the world has changed since World War II. The fact that men have produced an Auschwitz, a Hiroshima, meant the fall of the "rationality" and the advent of nihilism that Nietzsche announced, because life has lost all its value in these places and hence. The fatalism of culture expressed the same disappointment (disappointment can be traced to the absence of God and ultimate foundations.) Examples: Beyond guilt and atonement of Jean Amery and the play Waiting for Godot Samuel Beckett, which smacks of disappointment, to despair, to distress. But perhaps he gives greater account of this is Albert Camus in the century of fear, I quote verbatim a paragraph from that essay, which states:

"By the way, is not the first time that men are faced with a future materially closed. But out later, usually by word and cry. Resorted to other values ??on which their hopes. Today nobody talks and (except recurring) because the world seems driven by forces blind and deaf can not hear the voices of warning, advice and prayers. Something in us was destroyed by the spectacle of the years we have just experienced. And that something is that eternal confidence man who has always led to believe that another man could be obtained from human reactions speaking the language of mankind. We saw lie, degrade, kill, deport, torture, and each time this happened was impossible to persuade those who did not to, because they were sure of themselves and because they are persuaded to an abstraction, ie the representative of an ideology ".

In the words smell fatalism, the fatalism of an intellectual who warned what might happen, was able to see yet happened. Hence Nietzsche's complaint against the culture sites. The ascetic ideal philosophers and learned men means the most optimal conditions for the development of a higher spirituality, but at the time that the optimum disappears, is the void, nothingness, and therefore there is something to love. The all equal is precisely what Camus called with the following words: "The world seems driven by forces blind and deaf can not hear the voices of warning." Is there no longer want anything to ...?

IV

With this, nihilism is expressed in more general terms. Anyone hear the warnings, what Professor Carlos Fajardo Fajardo in his text Faces of totalitarianism says repeatedly: the artist does not have to talk to. Nihilism that culture is a not-will, a not-want-to. However, Nietzsche wants to get to nihilism, cries out for him in the last aphorism of the treaty when he claims to desire the human prefers to not wanting anything. In that sentence, the non-willing is vitalism, while wanting nothing, nothing is embracing nihilism reagent. What does this mean?

Indeed, the German philosopher proposed as every philosopher task of determining the hierarchy of values, reappraise. Nietzsche is not proposing to embrace anything because that is a fatalism that becomes tired, he was just representing Auschwitz. No longer trusted the man and his rationality ... but what does not-want nothing? In fact, wanting something but not wanting it, but something else. A different motivation ... Could be the drive for beauty?

Among the various philosophical, Nietzsche can be located in vitalism, as this current denies the principles and foundations first and last, is a friend of becoming and, briefly told, is proposed for doing something with life as he has. Nihilism is a liability, while vitalism is an asset. Nihilism and vitalism have lack of fundamentals, but by the same, vitalism is to want-to. It skips the love-master of the priest and want to escape torture-philosopher.

However, the question why man? is that perhaps resonates more Eco-precisely because of the emptiness that surrounds the man. In the end Nietzsche says, "that hatred against humanity, nay, against the animal, indeed, against the material, that repugnance to the senses, to reason itself, the fear of happiness and beauty, this longing to depart from all appearance, change, becoming, death, desire, longing itself - all this means, dare we understand it, a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a rejection of the most fundamental assumptions of life, but it is, and it remains a will! "(Nietzsche: 2006, 205)

Psychologically speaking, will eliminate a task is laughable. The motivation is always existing, and the ascetic ideal expresses the strength of will with the utmost rigor. I do not think Nietzsche seeks to eliminate the will, but rather the ideal condition of the will. "Where are all perfect, I only see the human, too human."

V

So far we have tried to put the text under discussion with the three initial questions. Now let the issue. Nihilism or vitalism ¿? Beauty will save the world, said Dostoevsky. Stendhal understood the beauty and promise of happiness, and on that basis can discuss the issue. Since Nietzsche says you can not see the art work selflessly. Even Schopenhauer does, but proposes the opposite. "The soul that has been created with a predisposition to love, is thrown everything nice, as soon as is prompted by the pleasure to take action," says Dante's Divine Comedy. That "take action" is the crux of the matter. The unquestionable fact that we have no means wanting in any way, we do what we want. At first it did not matter what they wanted, says Nietzsche, but now it does matter, now we are going through life unconcerned with intent to do, to throw to the beautiful, we need action. Fresh air!, Healthy air, vitalism. Desire. The want-to.

"The ascetic ideal has a goal - and that is universal enough so that, compared with her, all other interests of human existence seem petty and narrow" (Nietzsche, 2006: 189). Thus, the clamor for vitalism, by the manifestation of life must be the question of what and why of life. How do you jump from nihilism to vitalism? It is certainly not a leap virtue of the absurd (Kierkegaard), but rather move to deny the world to say. If the ascetic ideal is a unique way of interpreting life, considering the momentum of that performance should lead to that there are other ways of interpretation and affirmation of life. No fight with asceticism, in fact admiring. At issue is how life is affirmed. For that reason is that vitalism is the force that provides the conditions for new interpretations and goals of life is the new optimum of the philosopher, his work, his drive for truth and beauty:

"Do not worry, the beauty will rejoice with his grace." Hafiz, Persian poet.