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?
I can see that when a person is numb, he/she will not suffer from pain or will have feeling. But in my own definition of being numb is that a person will feel the pain or have feeling in their inner self. They are just concealing what is being painful in themselves and not showing them externally. In human nature, people always try to avoid from pain or suffer; They use Narcotic Drugs to avoid the pain, which put them in a situation where there's no pain externally, but in their inner self, they still know that the pain is still there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question Linna, if priests advised to abstain from salvation then there would be no faith, no religion. The purpose of religion is having an eternal gratitude toward God for saving us from our sins. As mentioned in class, our gratitude is based off of God sacrificing his son and in doing so giving his followers salvation from their “terrible” selves and acts of sin. Basically the fact that God did this act of ‘salvation’ for those who believe in him, we now have the responsibility and duty to eternally “thank” God for ‘saving us’. Without the salvation part of the story, we would have nothing to ‘owe’ God, therefore you can imagine the end result being lack of active participation in religious practice.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading Nietzsche for a literary theory class, he talked at length about the “man of intuition” as opposed to the “man of science”. The “man of intuition” is basically what you describe as “[living] life with passion allowing feelings to guide us,” and Nietzsche seems to be in strong support of his lifestyle. My only problem is that it seems too similar to the “noble morality” which we discussed earlier. Nietzsche dismisses the noble morality as being uninteresting and shallow. Why is the man of intuition any different? I know the man of intuition is akin to an artist, but I guess I can't see a clear enough distinction between him and the noble.
ReplyDeleteThe comments Nietzche has on religion are very interesting and such a revolutionary view seem to be out of the ordinary for our culture. The strange thing that I don't understand is how his view on the anesthetizing effects of religion compared to the slave morality of religion. I would assume that in order for there to be ressentiment there needs to be a desire for revenge. If desires are numbed, then how can the slave morality exist if there is no desire for ressentiment? I would assume that suffering would be the chief motive for spiting another.
ReplyDeleteAs an answer to Linna's question, perhaps the trademark slave morality would be less calculated and more like the noble morality that is more impulsive.
I feel that if we were told by the priests to not abstain for salvation and just live to fulfill our hearts desire then maybe religion will turn out better. I think people need to live there life's to there hearts content and actually feel the outside world in order to reach salvation. Obviously they need to do things morally but living in a way that you are numb won't let you have the feeling of having true faith and happiness that people feel through there faith or just happiness in general. I think our feelings need to guide us to some extent but also our minds in order to live a good life that we can be proud of have lived also morally. With our feelings just guiding us we can end up doing stupid things.
ReplyDeleteI see how feelings have to come up, we are human after all and part of what makes us human and very complicated is our feeling brain. Animals inherently avoid pain and seek out pleasure. Humans are the same but we have to account for the actions that bring about pain and pleasure. We also feel alienated from something no one can put there finger on. Religion is one way to fill that hole and achieve salvation, nirvana, eternal piece etc... Through suffering they believe it will bring them closer to God. Now if you look at it this way a man is void and without feeling aside from his instincts before he or she seeks to fill in that gap. This being the case they are incomplete and can only be whole through whatever toil or form of servitude they out themselves through. If you buy into original sin, a man is born in debt that must be repaid. If a priest or anyone in this case were not to accept his or feeling he would go through life rudderless and always pleasure seeking.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jon’s comment, perhaps the man of intuition differs from the noble in precisely the fact that he has experienced civilization. Years of conditioning have made it a regular occurrence for individuals to direct their will to power to more socially acceptable means. It is true that like the noble, who is shallow, the man of intuition would live his life fully as he pleased. The difference that Nietzsche suggests is perhaps that the artist would direct his will to power to expression thru aesthetics rather than physical domination. Where the noble externalizes their will to power physically, the artist would do so aesthetically. The danger of debase physical domination would not be an issue. In response to the question at the end of the blog-post, perhaps such a Priest wouldn’t be so bad after all. Could we still call this individual a Priest in Nietzschean terminology though? Or is he something else?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of sin and guilt being the causes of pain may pertain to Christianity but not quite to Buddhism. In fact, Buddhism argues for the notion of desire being the root of all pain. In that sense, Nietzsche does not have a clear understanding to the teachings of Buddhism. For Buddhists, the severing from all desiring is what leads to Nirvana or “salvation”, in Nietzsche terms. At this point, Nietzsche may still have problems with Buddhism given the fact that he thinks lowly of not feeling one’s own emotions and Buddhism strives to achieve just that. For Nietzsche, the good life is to constantly being thrown into the material world in which suffering is abundant. It is the struggle and overcoming hurdles that gives men the greatest euphoric high. In that sense, salvation is something one can achieve alone rather than depending on the words of a priestly class. Whereas Buddhism seems to lead one to a life of indifference for most things, Nietzsche seems to be striving for a way in which one can feel and enjoy all the emotions life has to offer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the priests were to guide us away from abstinence and towards following our instincts, than ascetic ideals would be lost. The purpose of the ideas is so we have a will and we follow through with that will. If we follow through with our instincts, it is not will that we follow it is our innate behavior. We lack free will when we follow innate behavior; however, if we abstain willingly, then that is our will: to abstain for salvation. We have will power and we follow through with it: that is the ascetic ideal. Do I agree with this? Of course not. Nietzsche is right when he says we must feel all emotions and follow them, but that is not something that would be considered an ideal.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Tom's comment, which we discussed at length in class about how as humans we are subject to the same desires as animals to seek pleasure and not pain. If the priests were not there to guide us to "our heart's desire" as Linna asks, then I feel like we would be at a lost. The priest is the go between person between the believer and God, he carries our God's word/ message. The assumption is that God has a bigger plan or will for us and if the priest is not there to guide towards this higher purpose and instead to seek pleasure then how would we ensure that we would follow through on that will. The priest's role of guiding us is essential because as human's we have free will and if history is any indication, we tend to ignore our duties for our pleasures.
ReplyDeleteComment to what we discussed in class, both humans and animals are living things who can suffer from pain or seek for pleasure. They cannot be denied or concealed because their inner self will always be known. Also when we mentioned about life against life, i think its about human life against nature, which connects to what it means by ascetic ideals. Priest was an example of ascetic ideals, who practices self denial. I know in China, there is ascetic monk who sits under the sun by not drinking or eating for a long time to practice to go against their life,god, or nature. Is this what it means life against life?
ReplyDeleteIf the priests would advise us to “feed our heart’s desires” as Linna says, and focus solely on this and not an abstention for salvation, some might argue that we would revert to a system of morality much like the prehistoric noble morality of Nietzsche, where everyone acts only according to their own desires. From our perspective, we can see how this would invite a system of chaos versus order, and most of us would abhor such a dramatic change thanks to the history of our particular moral system. Still, I think there is a happy medium whereby priests can preach moderation over abstention, feeling over narcotization, as a way of smoothing out the roughness of an otherwise order free society. Would this place a limit on one’s noble morality? Yes. Are these limits necessary? I think our moral history has shown us that they are.
ReplyDeleteEthan's comment highlights the importance of having a grounding for the value of truth. It is surprising to think that until Nietzche, the value of truth is not grounded or questioned. Ethan's comment clearly describes the necessity of an absolute value on truth in order to continue our ways of thinking. Although I have no more information than you posted, Ethan, about Nietzche and his confusing claims about values on truth, I think he wants us to slowly come to the realization that there is no absolute value to truth. That's nothing more than what you said and I don't understand how he goes anywhere from there with no subsequent assurance of purpose. It's a dark place, but he doesn't deny that, either.
ReplyDelete