And elegantly written it is too, dear Dino!
The point is that you either take the argument that all valuations are subjective (or rather intersubjective) and never objective seriously, or you don't. And if you do take it seriously, you're left to think in terms of processes where CREATION OF MEANING becomes everything since absolutely nothing is given.
And the canvas on which you then PAINT YOUR WORLD is indeed The Wall of Contingency.
I'm writing this sitting on the side of the volcano of Santorini in Greece. The volcano could literally explode any second. Sitting here reminds me of how utterly contingent life is.
2011/10/15 Special Kain
I agree. Spinoza's mistake was to promote "logical necessarism".
I see Zarathushtra as an existentialist thinker precisely because he addressed the issue of inescapable and random suffering in the same way as did Nietzsche.
It is the task of religion, political ideology and, more recently, self-help culture to explain random suffering - making it seem less random - and therefore "ease the pain": suffering as a necessary learning experience during one's journey towards self-actualization, one's sacrifice for a better future.
Existentialist thinkers like Zarathushtra, Epictetus and Nietzsche were a lot smarter than this. They believed in CONTINGENCY and therefore took random suffering for what it is. They didn't take it as theologically or psychologically necessary, but put their focus on one's ATTITUDE towards inescapable suffering and how we choose to REACT: what we choose to think, speak and act, and how our ATTITUDE eventually affects this issue. They put their focus on the FUTURE rather than the past, because we become the choices we make within a given environment. For Epictetus there was nothing good or bad about suffering: it was merely "preferred" or "dispreffered". But it is us who CREATE VALUES and therefore differentiate between good and bad as a medical rather than moralistic choice. That's why Nietzsche defined ethics in terms of physiology, dietary needs, climate and one's constitution.
Von: Alexander Bard
Gesendet: 18:18 Freitag, 14.Oktober 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Spinoza - Kant - Hegel - Nietzsche - Zarathushtra
Yes, Hegel mistake was to be a determinist. What Nietzsche did was to take the Hegelian concept of "the mind observing the mind as pure mind" into the physical realm and turning it existentialist. And it is not so much idealism which is opposed to materialism as it is a matter of existentialism as opposed to determinism. What Hegel lacks is the concept "contingency", he is not a pragmatist.
2011/10/14 Special Kain
It is true that Nietzsche rarely mentioned Hegel. But Hegel's idealism is strictly teleological and dialectical, and Nietzsche was strongly opposed to teleology and dialectics. Hegel was the first to push Kant aside and discover a new path, but it was Nietzsche who took the first steps.