Comments on: Nietzsche and Longfellow

By: Jim F

Jim F — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:50:40 +0000

And, once more, an “amen” to Ben.

By: Ben Huff

Ben Huff — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:21:01 +0000

Jim is right to be cautious about referring to these as stages (hence my scare quotes: “stages”). These five are different moralities, corresponding with different kinds of society, but their connection with the factual history is loose. Nietzsche is more interested to think through a variety of moralities, in light of which to more richly reflect on the morality or moralities of his contemporaries, than he is to get the particulars of history right. His genealogy of morality is fanciful if one reads it straightforwardly as history. Still, I think it shows real insight into the sorts of purposes which moralities can serve, for different sorts of people and different sorts of peoples, and into the psychology of certain salient forms of religious life.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:01:20 +0000

I like Ben’s other post on Nietzsche. I’m less comfortable with this one. I don’t think Nietsche really believes in these stages as historical facts (thouh early in career he may have). They are something like allegories rather than description of historical institutions.

By: Ben Huff

Ben Huff — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:07:08 +0000

john fowles, I would identify five “stages” in your sense.
(1) The “Greek” warrior/aristocrat morality (parallel moralities show up among Arabs, Japanese, Celts, Goths, many warrior peoples).
(2) The morality of a state ruled by priests, as ancient Israel was, but believing in a living God who fights their battles, whom they thank for their secure enjoyment of a land flowing in milk and honey (not necessarily after being ruled by warriors, but a somewhat different morality for a different society). This is still a very pro-life morality, akin to (1).
(3) The resentment of a nation in captivity (Jews in Babylon, under Romans), which is concentrated and moralized in the priest/leaders.
(4) The Christian revolution in morals.
(5) The post-Christian, ascetic religion of Truth.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:46:25 +0000

I found the quote I was looking for. It is sermon 54 where Ekhart says, “I pray God to rid me of god.” The basic notion is the same found in many mystic or quasi-mystic systems. For instance the Tao Te Ching says, “the way that can be spoken of is not the true way…” Same idea. I suppose one could read Nietzsche in those terms. However if we do, I think we’re left with a “God” more akin to Heidegger or Derrida where they are ever announced and never appearing.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:55:47 +0000

Amen to Ben’s fuller reading and explanation of Nietzsche.

By: john fowles

john fowles — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:50:42 +0000

S. Taysom--sorry, not that John Fowles. Believe it or not, John Fowles (not that John Fowles either!) is a much more common name than you might expect. Google it and you will get 58,000 hits at least. Thus, I sink into anonimity.

By: Ethesis (Stephen M)

Ethesis (Stephen M) — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:25:59 +0000

http://www.crescatsententia.org/archives/week_2003_11_16.html#002498

By: Jordan Fowles

Jordan Fowles — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:21:45 +0000

There’s a John Fowles in Logan?!? Who knew, John?

By: S. Taysom

S. Taysom — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:06:56 +0000

John Fowles–The same John Fowles from Logan?