Post #3: Is Pessimism a Problem? –

In our reading of Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche explains that pessimism towards life among the wise men has led them to seek the “permanent… daylight of reason” (43) for consolation, which ironically led to the “immortal unreason” (59) that perpetuates false causality. In this reading, Nietzsche touches on the issues of pessimism and skepticism, morality and nature, as wells as cause and consequence. Nietzsche critiques the Christian Church since he believes that it seeks to condemn natural life, in addition to Socrates (as a wise man) and Kant (as a moralist). However, while Nietzsche’s critique is harsh, especially against religious judgment and reason, his deconstruction leaves us with a ‘real world’ full of ‘free spirits’ following instinct. Can Nietzsche’s critique abolish the pessimism against the world, and can there ever be a world where every spirit is free from condemnation? First, I will explain the problem according to Nietzsche, and then I will explain his answer. I think that Nietzsche’s answer is lofty, but also worth giving a try.

Nietzsche believes that wise men, like Socrates, have seen the world as pessimistic. In Nietzsche’s view, the dialectic of wise men has always been that life has no meaning or value (a highly nihilistic claim). Nietzsche claims that they console themselves with unwavering rationality, even though life has shown them otherwise (that life is not entirely rational) in the apparent world. As a result, wise men have abstracted the real world by viewing the apparent world with skepticism. The Christian Church, hostile to natural life in Nietzsche’s opinion, claims that humanity’s passions are to be castrated (not moderated). The Church imposes morality that condemns the passions of life, which according to Nietzsche, condemns life itself. One of the other issues that relates to this problem (of corruptive thinking) is that of causality. Nietzsche claims that religion and morality posits consequences as causes. Consequences (like virtue) are considered to be causes (like for happiness), when really it could be that happiness (doing what one likes to do) can be the cause of virtue (living prosperously). Nietzsche implies that causes are arbitrary and are ideas developed for consolation for a pessimistic view of the ‘real world’.

But Nietzsche posits the opposite of this. He declares a future where the ‘real world’ is no longer a necessary concept (even though it also abolishes the idea of the apparent world). He claims that real morality as something instinctive and natural. Passions are not to be castrated, but moderated by a strong will. He belongs to the immoralists, who seek to affirm the world, not deny or judge it. Every particular belongs to the whole, and each should not be held accountable for existing. Nietzsche believes that by abolishing the Great Condemner, God, humanity is liberated from its guilt and is allowed to exist.

This idea is quite lofty because it implies that we can survive without authority. However, he is right that if the authority is faulty, why bother following it? Why listen to those who hate life?