Make Sense of Feelings

On the Third essay, section 17, to On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche proposes to live life by feeling all of the emotions which is contrary to religion.

According to the great religions, such as Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism the ultimate goal to strive for in life is ‘salvation.’ Salvation from whom and from what?  Nietzsche writes, “we want to pay due respect to ‘salvation.’ ” (p. 101) Salvation is possible when one reaches “absence of suffering.” Therefore, one becomes saved, with the help of the ascetic priests, by becoming numb to all feelings including those that cause pain. The cause of the pain and suffering is sin and guilt.  The ascetic priests provide the antidote by way of “total hypnosis and silence” until there is complete nothingness. They numb or narcotize the feelings to remove anything “that arouses the emotions and heighten the ‘blood.’ ” (p. 97)

The ascetic priests pose as doctors. They claim to be ‘saviors.’ In their struggle to alleviate the discomfort of suffering they do not attack the cause from its root. They treat it only from the surface by numbing the feelings. Nietzsche writes, “these people so weary of life that they are too weary even to dream,” (p. 101) they are sleepy and drowsy themselves. The priests have also been anesthetized to having any feelings including those that cause pain. Even the priest fear life so much that they do not dream of the possibility that they can be saved and attain “entry to Brahma, as a union mystical with God achieved,” (p. 101) so they go through life as zombies in deep sleep.   

Suffering is caused by being aware of life’s pleasures and desires. Nietzsche states, “it is a little difficult for us to remain serious, in view of the value placed on deep sleep.” How can we take the priest serious when they preach severe abstinence from feeling all of our emotions; when they themselves are numb to feeling anything, especially pain. They place a high value on hypnosis and for us to become their puppet. They preach that we should go through life without having our own thoughts and feelings.  It is hard to listen to them when they themselves are numb and narcotized to a pain they do not know how to cure. In that way they reduce their feelings and awareness of life. It is as if they are walking zombies, a living death, that is they are numb to all feelings and desires that give life. To be saved is to go without, to lose self and in that way become blessed in Nietzsche’s word to reach a level of ‘sanctification’. To be sanctified for religion is to be pure of any and all thoughts and feelings. 

  Nietzsche sees religion as a way of numbing and blocking all feelings of life; rather than to be active and exist in the world by enjoying its pleasures. What the priests do is to ‘narcotize’ to sooth the consciousness from any awareness of itself. This Nietzsche calls a “physiological feeling of obstruction.”  (p. 96) They numb the feelings and bury them deeper into the self instead of allowing them to surface into awareness. What happens after being numb is the ‘loss of self’ what he calls “religion” by “hypnotization.”  (p. 96) Nietzsche suggests going deep into consciousness where the “treasure trove” will be found. Deep underneath the pain will be the value of self.

According to Nietzsche ‘salvation’ is not reached by way of narcotizing feelings of pain. He suggests we feel all the feelings including pain to become painfully aware of them and of ourselves in an attempt to make sense and find our own meanings.

What would happen if priests would advise, not to abstain for salvation; but, to feed our heart’s desires and live life with passion allowing feelings to guide us?

Priests and life

“So what do ascetic ideals mean?” With this question Nietzsche begins to develop his third essay, and, through this question, he begins to delineate and build up to what ascetic ideals mean in reference to philosophers and ascetic priests.
To begin with, Nietzsche contrasts, with complete thoroughness, how philosophers and ascetic priests hold opposing views to the valuation of life. In the beginning of section 9 Nietzsche says that “a hard and hearty renunciation with a good will, belongs among the most favourable conditions for the highest spirituality…” (81). This, apparently, is referring to the philosophers who go about into the “desert.” This positive renunciation is healthy in Nietzsche’s account because these strong individuals are built for the affirmation of existence in all its forms. In a very simplified way, Nietzsche holds the philosophers to this highest spirituality because they “are thinking of themselves…” (77). This, perhaps, is in relation to what he states in the preface: that “we are unknown to ourselves…” (3);
As for the ascetic priests, in Nietzsche’s view, they hold the ideals of the weaker part of humanity—and for several reasons; the main one being their rejection of this world and of themselves (85). In articulating their apparent negation of life, Nietzsche also says that within this notion of the ascetic priest lies an inherent contradiction. This contradiction is that, in negating the life of this world—because of their inborn weakness?—they are affirming life, they are giving a “yes” to life (88).
But the question comes back to itself, “what do ascetic ideals mean?” Nietzsche states it very clearly on page 88 that the ascetic ideal is used as a form of comfort in regards to the problem of existence. The ascetic priests, because they belong to the weaker part of humanity, and also because of the deprived situation that they are born into—their weak nature—give yes to life through their negation of life; in other words, it is a way of coming to terms with their weak natures.
All in all, all this talk of ascetic ideals ties into his talk of noble and slave morality. There is a change in interpretation of what ascetic ideals mean when viewed through the scope of the strong and spirited natures and what they mean for those of the weaker nature. Ascetic ideals, for the strong and spirited natures, is a way of coming to know themselves, whereas for the weaker ones it is used as a cover because they harbor a “deep disgust for themselves…” (85).

Overcomming Forgetting

In the second essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, one of Nietzsche's problems is with promises and the issue of forgetting. There is no doubt that forgetfulness or claiming to have forgotten something is a big issue amongst everyone in society. Every day, someone makes a promise or a commitment: I will get my homework done for tomorrow's class; I will pay my cell phone bill by the 30th of the month. And the next day in class or on the 30th of the month our excuse for not having it done is always "I forgot." Nietzsche addresses this by setting up two requirements for making a promise: we must have memory--or the ability to keep ourselves from forgetting a particular event--and the ability to keep that promise in the future. But to have the ability to remember, we must overcome our instincts in forgetting, so how do we get over this problem? The answer is simply through punishment.

The case Nietzsche uses as an example is the creditor/debtor relationship. The creditor gives the debtor money after receiving a promise that the money will be paid back in x amount of time. When that promise is not kept, the creditor is able to punish the debtor in anyway. According to Nietzsche this is done so the debtor does not forget to fulfill his promise of repayment. But does this make sense? Would punishment inspire remembering in the one being punished? In this instance it seems it can work in that way. To get a better picture, lets use the government/citizen relationship. The government creates a set of laws that must be followed to live in a peaceful society. The citizen must make a promise to follow these laws in order to be protected by them. If a citizen were to break the law, it would not be a case of forgetting the law or forgetting the promise made, it would just be a case of taking a bad action and they would be punished and it would be a public event. The rest of the citizens seeing this punishment, will remember to make sure they follow each law given. The public display of punishment is just an informal way of saying “this could be you.” When the viewing citizens remember this punishment, they will remember not to take the same action. Forgetfulness, in a sense, has been overcome.

When thinking about it in a more modern sense, it works. Professors, bosses, and even parents all have their way of getting over the “I forgot” excuse. When you forget to turn the lights out before going to bed, your parents may punish you by forcing you to chip in every month. After that first payment, you remember to turn off the light. When you show up to class ten minutes late, your professor calls you out. You remember to be on time. When you forget to tuck your shirt in before starting your shift, your boss will write you up. The next day you remember to be properly dressed for work.

But I still can’t help but feel there is more to overcoming forgetting than simply punishment. Isn’t the creditor just as much capable of making a mistake as is the debtor? How do they overcome that? In the case where a debtor was wrongly punished because the creditor forgot about a deadline extension previously discussed? How would this forgetfulness be addressed?