The Will To Existentialism
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Though Nietzche’s compendium on Nihilism, The Will To Power, was finally compiled in 1906, and Sartré’s landmark Being and Nothingness was published much later––in 1943––, a modern audience will benefit from comparing the two.
Either because our ironic, postmodern decade allows it, or because we’re just slightly less strict, we’ve become excellent comparators: A culture of advancing sequels, series, and processes. It does us some good then––especially with lofty philosophies––, despite critical condemnation, to throw Nietzsche against Sartré.
A linear philosophical, theoretical and artistic progression does emerge, though we prefer to feel as if each of our thoughts pops out of an undisturbed, unreflective minded crevasse. The ocher shores of sleepless ideas.
But no.
We derive, incubate and recode the “beforeness” of our forethinkers. So, Sartré did with Nietzsche: Both propose, in unique fashion, philosophical theories of abandon. Abandon of belief, stricture, rigor, labor. Their separate (but equal?) theories of abandon each submit a subject to abandon for––and not from–-freedom.
The difference, simply stands in their perception of subject, the aperture of their ontological focus: Nietzsche’s Nihilism theorizes the infinite fallacy; Sartré concerns himself with finite man.
In the edition of Will To Power introduced by David Taffel, he notices that, “[Nietzsche] challenges the notion that language actually refers to anything outside of itself and makes a persuasive case for this notion having been one of mankind’s oldest and most uselful, but completely unprovable hypotheses.
“[Nietzsche despises] worshiping an imagined world at the expense of the real one, and promoting blind faith in the literal existence of the metaphyiscal presuppositions of language.”
For Nietzsche, then, nothing––not even an object supported by the confusing, ancient realms of language––can provably exist as an essence of an object. Nothing is demonstrable beyond the subjective, funneled tube of human experience. Nihilism, old hash.
Notice, however, that Sartré’s theory…considered with a soft-focus lens…imitates Nihilism exactly. Only, our boy Sartré’s––which avenues in Paris did he walk?––concerned with humans and not exclusive, lofty ideals and theories.
(As Nietzsche admits, “Concerning great things one should either be silent or one should speak loftily: loftily––that is to say, cynically and innocently.” We can decide quickly together which encampment the Saxon claims.)
In Being and Nothingness…a moment, let me consult my manuscript here…Sartré exclaims: “[Man] is at first nothing. Only afterward will he have made himself something, and he himself will have made what he is.”
Sartré, mugging artfully Nietzsche’s notes, has only focused his forerunner’s lofty theory of abandon. Nietzsche says, first, the universe has not the infinitely purposeful essence to which we ascribe it; furthermore one cannot explain if this apple is red, or even is. Sartré replaces “apple” with “man”.
I’ve got to give the medal, since I’m the one who gives it…hold still, psychopath…to Nietzsche, here. Of course I’ve idiotized Sartre and his art, but I did it for fun and thought so I’m blameless. More importantly, the reader should just mindfully crush them two up into a sort of mash (a mash-in-iteslf) and reflect upon modern philosophy accordingly.
One thing indefatigably leads to another. Even with genius. [I got through without typing "negation"]
Now, the question is established Constable: Why do artists care? Well, two groups. One, being artists I hope want to be intelligent, aware, you know these academe sort thoughts bumbling around the mindscape. Also, you’ve learnt that you might copy anything without derision and receive fame–just only focus differently.
Related posts:
