Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers to read--not because he is consistent and thoroughly rational, but because he fluctuates between brilliance and stupidity, quite regularly, in his book Beyond Good and Evil. He is entertaining to me because of his tendency to deny what cannot be false or illusory and refute himself in the process. But I would be wrong to say that he never defends truths, even unpopular ones.
For instance, he refutes the form of idealism which holds that the senses create the external world, rather than merely perceive external stimuli [1]. This is an example of a legitimate truth that Nietzsche points out. But then, in the same book, he claims that no one can know if he (or she, although in his irrational sexism Nietzsche would likely not clarify this) is thinking. Let's inspect what Nietzsche says:
"There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are 'immediate certainties'; for example, 'I think,' so as the superstition of Schopenhauer put it, 'I will'; as though knowledge got hold of its object purely and nakedly as 'the thing in itself,' without any falsification on the part of either the subject or the object." (23)
The "thing in itself" refers to concepts or objects as they actually are, not just as they are perceived to be. This distinction was emphasized by Immanuel Kant with his concepts of noumena and phenomena, with noumena being things as they are independent of observation, and phenomena being things as they are perceived by human observers. But even making this distinction means that perceptions exist, and that means a perceiver exists, and that necessitates that the perceiver at least knows the perceptions in themselves. It is impossible for me to perceive anything at all without having objective clarity that I am indeed perceiving. Of course all knowledge involves a subject that perceives; it is impossible to know anything at all without being conscious and thus having a subjective experience. But that does not make reality or logic subjective! It is impossible for truth to be anything but purely, inescapably objective. Even if truth and logic were subjective, it would be objectively true that they are subjective, and thus they would still be objective.
Anywhere that there is a distinction between perception and reality, the distinction can only exist if the perception falls short of capturing the essence of actual reality. Illusion and false perceptions can only exist if they deviate from reality in some way--otherwise they themselves would be reality! It is also true that any illusion or faulty perception still exists. Illusions and faulty perceptions are indeed real, but they in some way distort of fall short of expressing the reality beyond them. The entire distinction between illusion and reality doesn't change objective reality or signify the nonexistence of objective knowledge in any way. Such a thing is impossible!
Continuing his fallacies, Nietzsche literally argues that people must use their minds (which would involve thoughts) to realize that they cannot know that there are conscious minds that are thinking. When he refutes himself, he does so very overtly:
". . . the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I know what thinking is." (23)
Consciousness cannot be an illusion [2]. To perceive the illusion, a person would have to be conscious, and any perception at all necessitates that there is a conscious subject that is perceiving. Thoughts are individual ideas that occur within a conscious mind, and, like the experience of consciousness, the existence of thoughts cannot be illusory. Thought cannot be doubted or denied apart from using and relying on thoughts in order to do so. Nietzsche doesn't acknowledge here that human words are mere constructs to convey concepts, and that logic and experience, not language, initially supply us with the concepts. The idea that thinking itself is unknown is self-defeating and denies what cannot be an illusion: consciousness and the experiences contained within it. To analyze a sentence, as Nietzsche claims "the philosopher" must do, involves thought, and Nietzsche is using thoughts to argue against knowledge of thoughts.
Even if some other being were implanting thoughts into my mind, I would still be experiencing them and, therefore, would still be thinking. Nietzsche descended into utter stupidity here--when dives into sheer asinine nonsense, he does not hold back! Thinking, like consciousness, cannot be illusory. Now, at this point the issue of free will comes up. For if my thoughts are controlled by something other than my self (which is my consciousness), then my beliefs are dictated by an outside source, and I can never actually know anything since my conclusions are controlled not by my own rational mind but by other forces.
 |
| Thinking, like consciousness, cannot be an illusion. |
I have some knowledge, and I couldn't have any knowledge at all unless I have free will. As I've covered before, without free will a person could never be certain of anything, since his or her thoughts and conclusions would be guided by some other force or forces. But I do know some things; I know some things with absolute certainty, things that cannot be false--that logic exists, that I exist, and so on. Therefore it follows that I do indeed have free will. I still can summon, dwell on, dispel, and remember some thoughts at will. So even if an external mind, be it that of God or Descartes' demon or some other conscious entity, randomly inserted thoughts into my own mind, I still have at least some control over whether or not I believe, dismiss, or act upon those thoughts.
Of course someone can doubt these truths about consciousness, thought, objectivity, and reason. That doesn't erode the truth of them in any way; it cannot. Doubting some things only infallibly affirms them (that truth exists, that consciousness cannot be illusory, etc), and no refusal to admit the veracity of what cannot be false will ever affect the reality of those things. Nietzsche shows what irrationalities someone can stoop to when he or she denies things that cannot be false! But, importantly, he also exemplifies the wasted potential that fallen humans can neglect when they flee from God. He could have been so much more! For all his stupidity, as I said, he did indeed have moments of rational clarity and brilliance. When one turns away from reason and from God (the two are not the same), absurdities and contradictions will result.
Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Trans. Kaufmann, Walter. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/nietzsche-on-external-world.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html
No comments:
Post a Comment