On Nietzsche Bergson and Wittgenstein

If you've ever been at some sort of gathering and had to take the usual 'smile and nod' approach when the conversation moved to philosophy, then this is exactly the essay for you! It simplifies three major philosophies to give you some sort of idea of what its all about. This way you'll be able to surprise your friends about your take on the eternal return, on the limitations of language or beaty of clock-time vs. duration.


I strongly suggest you read my other essay on philosophy before this. Not that it's a must, since I've tried to simplify everything to its basics, but at least a basic knowledge of Kant will give this a lot more meaning.

Have fun!! :)




Nietzsche

The main aspect of the Nietzschean philosophy is the idea of the ‘eternal return’. Nietzsche believed that everything in life has happened already in the past and will happen again in the future over and over since time is infinite, while all the possibilities of matter and its manipulation aren’t. From this he spawned the idea (under great physical strain during the later stages of his life) that one should try to search for the event or action that brings him the greatest satisfaction and elation and then do it. Whatever this may be, it should be something the person experiencing it would want happening over and over eternally, hence: the eternal return. (i.e. Chose whatever gives you the highest tonality of soul and then do it.) Nietzsche didn’t expect that everyone would find what they ‘willed eternally’, but it was the thought that everybody would determine and execute their wishes and values that I think was key to Nietzschean thought. This was exactly the opposite of what one of his predecessors, Kant, believed. While Kant thought each individual should try to come up with universal maxims that would benefit everyone and therefore even the person creating them (i.e. what benefits the whole benefits the individual), Nietzsche thought everyone should will their own eternal return. (i.e. what benefits each individual will in turn benefit the whole as well)

It seems that Nietzsche, intentionally or not, turned Kant’s philosophy upside down. Nietzsche urged people through his thought to do whatever they wanted (whatever they willed eternally) and not think universally. That if everybody took care of himself and focused on making himself ‘happy’, the whole society would be better off. The main problem with this philosophy was the simple fact that society doesn’t allow people to do whatever they want; since somebody’s eternal return may be for example the joy of murder. While Nietzsche acknowledged this, he still believed that people should have as much autonomy as possible. Some later thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze believed that Nietzsche underestimated the danger of straying out of society and that too much autonomy can actually destroy the society as a whole, but it is apparent that Nietzsche’s vision for the ‘eternal return’ was changing from a slightly naïve idea at first to a complex philosophy and it was probably only the fact that he died that stopped him from elaborating on it even more.

During his life, Nietzsche was a fierce critic of the decadence of European society. Decadence is best described as a decline of a society as it deteriorates due to lack of creativity and innovation. No new ideas are created, only rehashes of old ones. In a broader context, decadence can be described as an era within a nation where the leaders have backward ideas and pass these down onto not only the citizens but also the creative minds of their time in a helpless effort to cling on to the past glory that is no more. Nietzsche was especially critical of the rise of Nazi beliefs and the leech-like manner in which the Austro-Hungarian Empire held onto power. In his own words, Nietzsche believed that decadence was the ‘fragmentary’, the breakdown into fragments and loss of the meaning of the ‘whole’. This was the main reason why Nietzsche broke with his friend Wagner.

Even though Nietzsche admired Wagner’s music and was overwhelmed by his early works, he soon came to see its decadent tendencies. Even tough still undoubtedly great musical masterpieces, Nietzsche thought Wagner’s later operas such as ‘The Ring Cycle’, ‘Tristan and Isolde’ and finally ‘Pasifal’ were deceptive and manipulative. He didn’t like the fact that they were tales of false ethics and that they tried to put forward a very narrow point of view.

While Nietzsche hated decadence, many poets and artists in the late nineteenth century embraced it in a positive manner. Two of these, Charles Baudelaire and Edouard Manet were able to take those aspects of society that Nietzsche despised and turn them into great works. Charles Baudelaire, a poet and critical essayist, welcomed the idea that he could basically write about whatever he wanted and embraced decadence because it allowed him to put forward his very dark and seemingly evil beliefs. He wrote about death and decay and was convinced that vice was normal while virtue is artificial since people have to restrain their natural impulses in order to be good. Very similarly to Baudelarie, Manet was in firm opposition to realism. His painting, even though still clearly based on real objects and people, was starting to move from imitation to the ‘meaning’ behind the painting. He flattened his paintings so that there was very little depth awareness, which was probably the first step in art towards fields such as abstraction and impressionism. With (and maybe because of) the competition from photography, his had stopped being an imitation of reality and more so a second order observation of him looking at an object.





Bergson

Bergson’s philosophy is centred upon his ideas of time, duration and free will. Bergson’s main argument about free will was concerning the three ‘states’ of time we commonly use, that is: the past, present and future. While we all seem to think that the past ‘was’, the present ‘is’ and the future ‘will be’, Bergson saw things differently. He believed that all of the events of the past are apparent and continue to exist in the present (since everything transpiring now is a result of the past) therefore the past ‘is’. This simple fact is very important to understanding Bergson’s philosophy. While we see the things in the past as over and done with and think that the present is completely open for free action, Bergson claims that the vast majority of actions we perform aren’t free at all. That is, they are results of whatever decisions and experiences we have and make in the past. He thought that true ‘free action’ can only be spawned from the ‘fundamental self’ and compares it to a ripe fruit falling to the ground. By this he means that a free act can only take place if the person is prepared for it and with all the preparation, he still has an outburst of action that is completely unplanned. This goes completely against common understanding of the free will, where we think every action we make is free, on the other hand, today this theory is widely accepted.

Bergson not only dismissed our ideas of free action, but also that of time. Most people think of time ‘only’ as a succession of events, but he made a distinction between two ‘types’ of time: ‘clock-time’ and ‘duration’. In order to discuss Bergson’s ideas on time I must first explain his views on memory. He made a clear distinction between habit formed memory and recollection, the first being stored in our brain while the second in our consciousness and according to this he classified his ‘times’. Clock-time is best described as a series of events one after another and can be explained rationally and measured (the scientific/brain approach to memory), while duration is the perceived ‘flow’ of time and can only be guessed by instinct and intuition. (the consciousness approach to memory) This means that time isn’t only the order in which things happen, but also the way they do. While clock-time can be measured by mathematical means such as seconds and minutes, duration cannot since it is an individual interpretation. Another aspect of time Bergson was concerned with was the idea of eternity. Since Bergson believed that the past ‘is’, any moment in the past can be ‘eternalized’, that is: returned to on will.

Bergson wasn’t the only person concerned with the many aspects of time in the late nineteenth century, Claude Monet, one of the most famous impressionists, seemed to be as immersed in the idea of time as Bergson. He was intrigued by the effects of time on the world and it is maybe because of this that he often repainted exactly the same scenario over and over. His famous haystack paintings are perfect example of these effects, since no painting is like the other. They capture a particular moment of time that represented the mood of the artist, very much like Bergson’s idea of eternalizing a moment. Another example of Monet’s interest in time are his paintings that circle entire rooms as a representation of the circle of life and eternity. Finally, even his framing was evident of the way the idea of time influenced him. (People cut off mid-way, main things not being in the center) His paintings, even though impressionistic carried features of photography. (i.e. as if he didn’t chose what to capture in his paintings, merely pointed a camera in a not too particular direction) This can be seen as the aspect of photography that best shows features of time, it is a moment captured in space.




Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein’s philosophy is based upon the limits of language. Even though Wittgenstein spent most of his philosophical career in Cambridge, he was misunderstood by the philosophers there (especially his colleague Russel) since they thought he was just rehashing previous ideas. Even though Wittgenstein’s ideas were similar to Kant’s they follow a distinct trail of thought regarding language. Like Kant, Wittgenstein believed in the transcendental threshold between Phenomena and Noumena, though his theory stated that we lack the lingual capacity to discuss the Noumenal side of the threshold (i.e. values) and therefore shouldn’t do so at all. This is where his philosophy was usually misunderstood. His fellow philosophers had completely dismissed the Noumenal and thought that was exactly what Wittgenstein was doing, but that wasn’t true. Wittgenstein believed that the Noumenal existed, but just couldn’t be explained by words. This shows that while both Kant and Wittgenstein both believed there was a limit due to which we couldn’t talk about Noumena, they each had different reasons. (Kant’s cognitive limit vs. Wittgenstein’s language limit)

He felt that philosophy should only concern Phenomena, since only those could be explained and confirmed. This is where he broke with his peers, since se strongly felt that they can talk all they want about the supernatural or feelings and that sort, but that they shouldn’t claim to know the truth, that the moment they begin talking about Noumena they are already not only being limited by language, but are making a category mistake. He thought things such as ethics and religion should be discussed, but in his own words: ‘Passed over in silence’.

The reason why Wittgenstein though language limited thought was the fact that, as opposed to speculation and beliefs at that time, we have no interior language of our own, we merely work within an external system that is language. We take whatever we want from it and possibly contribute in a very small way to bringing it a step higher. The particular language we use, but also languages in themselves, shape our thinking and even though different languages allow for different (more complex) thought, they can never be enough to explain the Noumenal. We can use them to describe the existence of the universe, but never ‘why’ it exists.

Wittgenstein believed that the only way to convey certain truths was to ‘show’ them, that is: by art or poetry. Two figures that did this through their use of abstraction, fragmentation and relativity are Pablo Picasso and Paul Klee. Both of these accomplished artists were allowed to ‘show’ these truths due to the major change in art during their time. The change of art as a form of universal statement that stands by itself to something that is open to individual interpretation. Art had stopped being an interpretation of reality that conveyed a particular message to being whatever the audience imagined under it. Rather than a photograph, it became a second order observation by the artist (and audience) of the effect of actually watching a painting on him. This major change allowed Picasso to convey a message, or in Wittgenstein’s terms: ‘show’ certain things, which words never could. It was the effect of certain colours in certain combinations on the human mind that became important, not the realism or individual meaning of the content of the painting itself. The reason why Picasso’s paintings became so world-renown wasn’t him finding new painting techniques or such, but the fact that he was able to ‘touch’ so many people with what he painted. Again this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he said his famous ‘pass over in silence’ and ‘show’ quotes. The main thing I think Picasso was trying to convey with his paintings was the difference between cultural beliefs of self. To ‘show’ how values differ, and how two people looking at the same thing don’t have to see the same thing.

Paul Klee was very similar to Picasso in the sense that he was able to show certain truths by his painting, which spoke volumes even without words. His particularity was his love for children’s paintings. He valued children’s painting for their simplicity, innocence, but also directness. His paintings were able to exploit this simplicity to bring out the core values inside people. The greatest aspect of these types of paintings was the fact that even though they were so simple, they could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. In his life, he searched endlessly for symbols and metaphors that would evoke emotions with no words needed. Again, this is perfectly in tune with Wittgenstein’s philosophy.


Hope it wasn't entirely boring ;)