I read your essay and felt mildly persuaded but less so upon reading it a second time.
You seem to suggest that the human condition, in its finitude, is a poor imitation of the more ethereal, eternal forces belonging to the gods. Whilst I see a reflection of the Tao Te Chinq in what you are saying, I feel you tread on a cliff edge which the monotheists fall over. That is, this life is an ersatz version of what is reality. Maybe that is part of Nietzsche's reasoning underpinning his doctrine of the eternal recurrence. We are not finite but infinite.
I see your point there, but my understanding is that we are eternally finite; we recur, but do so as finite beings, while the way of being for the gods is to remain as they are without recurring. The gods would be like the paradigm which is eternally constant while we are eternally inconstant. Of course, at a deeper level, we share the same foundation as the gods (as these gods are the inherent forces or forms of the cosmos we perceive and which shape us too), but as far as the differentiation goes, that is, insofar as we are mortals, we are eternally finite and recurring in finite form which is the living and dying that does not preserve. Our bodies fall apart, but for instance, that which we call gravity will always be as it is, or the condition of sentience will always be as it is. I do think that the world of phenomena is an eratz version of reality insofar as it is phenomenal and determined by perception which depends upon finite beings. But that phenomenality and finitude itself is an aspect of reality, and the one proper to mortal human life. Proper to it, but not exhaustively so.
I cannot but disagree. I don’t see perception as a distorting lens or mirror. I was once enamoured of Plato and his cave and theory of forms. But no longer.
For reasons I cannot explain as I read your response the novel The Tree of Man by Patrick White came flooding back into my mind from half a century ago. Now when I think about it, the book had a profound impact on me. The reason should, perhaps, remain a sordid secret. At the end of the book there is a description of a person looking out across the Australian landscape and all its aura is centred upon the observer. It is a kind of intense solipsism, a sin of which I am much given to.
I believe Nietzsche’s theory of eternal recurrence, and his admiration for Spinoza, is to recreate god in our own mind’s eye. I believe he does this because he realises that the antidote to nihilism is a deity of some kind. That deity, as judge, can sit inside each of us giving us, amongst other things, a moral compass.
I am perhaps more at home with ethics than I am with metaphysics and my attempt at a cosmology is probably muddled in consequence. Nonetheless it suffices.
If you have never read The Tree of Man you might do so. I think you will like it. Incidentally, it was published in 1955 which is the year of my birth.
I read your essay and felt mildly persuaded but less so upon reading it a second time.
You seem to suggest that the human condition, in its finitude, is a poor imitation of the more ethereal, eternal forces belonging to the gods. Whilst I see a reflection of the Tao Te Chinq in what you are saying, I feel you tread on a cliff edge which the monotheists fall over. That is, this life is an ersatz version of what is reality. Maybe that is part of Nietzsche's reasoning underpinning his doctrine of the eternal recurrence. We are not finite but infinite.
I see your point there, but my understanding is that we are eternally finite; we recur, but do so as finite beings, while the way of being for the gods is to remain as they are without recurring. The gods would be like the paradigm which is eternally constant while we are eternally inconstant. Of course, at a deeper level, we share the same foundation as the gods (as these gods are the inherent forces or forms of the cosmos we perceive and which shape us too), but as far as the differentiation goes, that is, insofar as we are mortals, we are eternally finite and recurring in finite form which is the living and dying that does not preserve. Our bodies fall apart, but for instance, that which we call gravity will always be as it is, or the condition of sentience will always be as it is. I do think that the world of phenomena is an eratz version of reality insofar as it is phenomenal and determined by perception which depends upon finite beings. But that phenomenality and finitude itself is an aspect of reality, and the one proper to mortal human life. Proper to it, but not exhaustively so.
I cannot but disagree. I don’t see perception as a distorting lens or mirror. I was once enamoured of Plato and his cave and theory of forms. But no longer.
For reasons I cannot explain as I read your response the novel The Tree of Man by Patrick White came flooding back into my mind from half a century ago. Now when I think about it, the book had a profound impact on me. The reason should, perhaps, remain a sordid secret. At the end of the book there is a description of a person looking out across the Australian landscape and all its aura is centred upon the observer. It is a kind of intense solipsism, a sin of which I am much given to.
I believe Nietzsche’s theory of eternal recurrence, and his admiration for Spinoza, is to recreate god in our own mind’s eye. I believe he does this because he realises that the antidote to nihilism is a deity of some kind. That deity, as judge, can sit inside each of us giving us, amongst other things, a moral compass.
I am perhaps more at home with ethics than I am with metaphysics and my attempt at a cosmology is probably muddled in consequence. Nonetheless it suffices.
If you have never read The Tree of Man you might do so. I think you will like it. Incidentally, it was published in 1955 which is the year of my birth.
I will definitely look up that book