The Nietzschean Odyssey: The Gay Science
Trying to figure out how to condense the thoughts in this book into some sort of "reviewable" form is no small task, mostly because it goes all over the place. Such is a large possibility in aphoristic works, and when you combine that with Nietzsche (who is all over the place to begin with), you get an entire system broken up into pieces and thrown into a book. That isn't to say Nietzsche doesn't have a message, as he most certainly does. It just takes a broad view of Nietzsche, a wide reading of his work, to start bringing it together. Fortunately, I've read enough where I should be able to do this.
And so I'll start by asking: What is "gay science" (gaya scienza)? On a superficial reading, Nietzsche seems to have contradicting views of science, at times condemning it and praising it. But because it's Nietzsche, you can chalk this up partly to unedited equivocation and partly to intentional wordplay, both of which Nietzsche does in spades (although he might be more amused than anything when it comes to any unintentional obscurity created by his writing style). Keeping this in mind, when I ask "What is gay science?" I am asking first what Nietzsche considers "science."
Nietzsche, following the dichotomy of condemnation and praise above, has two different types of "science" in mind. One is an ideal of the critical man. Proper science is a rigorous search for what is true (NOT "truth," mind you, which I will explain later). It is burning all your bridges, since they only point in false directions. That is, science is a thoroughgoing skepticism regarding anything value-based, a willingness to challenge all claims and all views in search for what is really important.
We'll get to what that important thing is later; first we must distinguish the other version of science. Yet before that we must also note another point, perhaps Nietzsche's greatest:
Yes, God is dead. And interestingly enough, the blood is on our hands. What does this mean? God, for Nietzsche, is not a bearded man in the clouds. He is not a "first mover." In fact, there was never a real God to begin with. Instead, there was the God that man created. The God that gave man meaning, that justified all the misery in existence, that made life livable. And yet, we have destroyed him. "How were we able to drink up the sea?" the Madman asks. It is through science. Through our unending search for "truth," which is in this second case a search for ultimate, final, real meaning in existence. Boiling down life, the universe, and everything down to its basest parts and then proclaiming that we know all. For Nietzsche the answer to such a search is as ridiculous as it was to Douglas Adams: "The answer is 42." But what's the question? That (the question) is the problem. Science tries to create an objective universe where everything is boiled down to one form, one meaning, when reality itself is inseparable from our views of it. There is no "objective" reality. We shape meaning with our language, assign value arbitrarily by what helps us and what harms us, and we assume that everything was presented on a golden platter for humankind.
This is the science that Nietzsche hates. It is, in a way, the new God. But it is an empty, valueless God. Real worth is gone, as it means nothing to humanity. Human purpose has been replaced by cause and effect, not only an empty principle but one that does not stand up to scrutiny at that!
Before I continue, I feel I should clarify what exactly is represented by God in Nietzsche's philosophy. As I have already said, God is not referring to a specific God. Instead, it is referring to a concept, and the most abstract of concepts at that. It is, as said, a source of meaning. God can be a god, many gods, worship of a leader or the state, a philosophy that places one group, race, or species above others, or any other non-specific system that tell humanity that they are important, that there is a reason for it all. In reality we can't make this claim (early in his writings Nietzsche says flat out that there is no meaning, but this claim is equally indefensible from a skeptical standpoint), but we do it because the people who have meaning in their lives have a reason to go on. It's arbitrary, very likely wrong, and completely necessary for 99% of humanity. But what if that were taken away? What if God were killed?
What, in other words, if it were all for naught? What if life were meaningless? What if God were dead and you knew it? This is the question asked by the eternal recurrence. Could mankind survive? Or...
In other words, could you look at the futility of life and say yes, simply for life's sake? Perhaps if one had a "gay science," a lighthearted science, one that could dance. One could look at life as perfect freedom, freedom from the arbitrary social mores of society, the rules of the mob, the little tasks and goals that push us through seventy years for nothing. Instead one could find reason for joy in what would be for most the darkest of hours. And that is Nietzsche's science. A science of life, one that takes humanity to task for its impudence but still proffers a hand to those who are willing to stand on their own.
How, then, do we live a life of gay science? Nietzsche has gone on and on about the problem, but does he have a solution? Why yes, he does. His solution is Zarathustra. And so next I will be writing on one of my favorite books in Western literature: Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
And so I'll start by asking: What is "gay science" (gaya scienza)? On a superficial reading, Nietzsche seems to have contradicting views of science, at times condemning it and praising it. But because it's Nietzsche, you can chalk this up partly to unedited equivocation and partly to intentional wordplay, both of which Nietzsche does in spades (although he might be more amused than anything when it comes to any unintentional obscurity created by his writing style). Keeping this in mind, when I ask "What is gay science?" I am asking first what Nietzsche considers "science."
Nietzsche, following the dichotomy of condemnation and praise above, has two different types of "science" in mind. One is an ideal of the critical man. Proper science is a rigorous search for what is true (NOT "truth," mind you, which I will explain later). It is burning all your bridges, since they only point in false directions. That is, science is a thoroughgoing skepticism regarding anything value-based, a willingness to challenge all claims and all views in search for what is really important.
We'll get to what that important thing is later; first we must distinguish the other version of science. Yet before that we must also note another point, perhaps Nietzsche's greatest:
God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? (Aphorism 125)
Yes, God is dead. And interestingly enough, the blood is on our hands. What does this mean? God, for Nietzsche, is not a bearded man in the clouds. He is not a "first mover." In fact, there was never a real God to begin with. Instead, there was the God that man created. The God that gave man meaning, that justified all the misery in existence, that made life livable. And yet, we have destroyed him. "How were we able to drink up the sea?" the Madman asks. It is through science. Through our unending search for "truth," which is in this second case a search for ultimate, final, real meaning in existence. Boiling down life, the universe, and everything down to its basest parts and then proclaiming that we know all. For Nietzsche the answer to such a search is as ridiculous as it was to Douglas Adams: "The answer is 42." But what's the question? That (the question) is the problem. Science tries to create an objective universe where everything is boiled down to one form, one meaning, when reality itself is inseparable from our views of it. There is no "objective" reality. We shape meaning with our language, assign value arbitrarily by what helps us and what harms us, and we assume that everything was presented on a golden platter for humankind.
This is the science that Nietzsche hates. It is, in a way, the new God. But it is an empty, valueless God. Real worth is gone, as it means nothing to humanity. Human purpose has been replaced by cause and effect, not only an empty principle but one that does not stand up to scrutiny at that!
Before I continue, I feel I should clarify what exactly is represented by God in Nietzsche's philosophy. As I have already said, God is not referring to a specific God. Instead, it is referring to a concept, and the most abstract of concepts at that. It is, as said, a source of meaning. God can be a god, many gods, worship of a leader or the state, a philosophy that places one group, race, or species above others, or any other non-specific system that tell humanity that they are important, that there is a reason for it all. In reality we can't make this claim (early in his writings Nietzsche says flat out that there is no meaning, but this claim is equally indefensible from a skeptical standpoint), but we do it because the people who have meaning in their lives have a reason to go on. It's arbitrary, very likely wrong, and completely necessary for 99% of humanity. But what if that were taken away? What if God were killed?
What if some day or night a demon were to steal into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it you will have to live once again and innumerable times again; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small or great in your life must return to you, all in the same succession and sequence...would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? (Aphorism 341)
What, in other words, if it were all for naught? What if life were meaningless? What if God were dead and you knew it? This is the question asked by the eternal recurrence. Could mankind survive? Or...
...have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine.' (Aphorism 341)
In other words, could you look at the futility of life and say yes, simply for life's sake? Perhaps if one had a "gay science," a lighthearted science, one that could dance. One could look at life as perfect freedom, freedom from the arbitrary social mores of society, the rules of the mob, the little tasks and goals that push us through seventy years for nothing. Instead one could find reason for joy in what would be for most the darkest of hours. And that is Nietzsche's science. A science of life, one that takes humanity to task for its impudence but still proffers a hand to those who are willing to stand on their own.
How, then, do we live a life of gay science? Nietzsche has gone on and on about the problem, but does he have a solution? Why yes, he does. His solution is Zarathustra. And so next I will be writing on one of my favorite books in Western literature: Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
posted by Derek at 2:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home