Le grand style élargie
February 4th 2007 21:21
Hey,
more on ethics, to develop a little about the central conclusion i have when reading about our western ethics.
The "grand style élargie" (which i prefer not to translate, it would sound awfull...) come from the combination between to ideas: Nietzsche's "grand style", and late 20th century "pensée élargie". I'll present them both, to garentee that you'll understand where i'm heading to.
Nietzsche "grand style" can't be considered acctually an idea on ethics, but it is acctually the way he thinks men should act, and thus we can apply to this domain. As i explained in an older post, Nietzsche considered that men should try as much as possible to avoid his acts in "real" to be "blocked". It means, men should give value and importance to those who can act in a way that all the caotic forces in this world are in his side.
As usual, the best way to describe it is with examples. This time i give the example Nietzsche uses most of the time, which is related to art. Why does him prefer Mozart to Wagner? Why the greek sculptures are for him "better art" than the romantic paintings?
Because these works show men using all the "forces" in "real" in their favour. There is no "suffering" in Mozart's music as we find in Wagner: everything is beauty, melody develops without any big changes, without bizarre harmonies, etc. Wagner, in the other side, explores human suffering in his work, his Tristan and Isolda is almost 6 hours of tragedy and sadness. These are for Nietzsche expressions of man being blocked by "real". This blocking doesn't allow him to develop himself, to "act" perfectly. Instead, in Wagner's art, men suffers, struggles, fight against nature in the worst way possible, and most of the times loosing it in the end.
Thus, "grand style" is the way men should act. Try and put all "real" forces in his favour, avoid suffering, struggle, etc.
The second base idea comes from our last century humanists. The "pensée élargie" is the way they think men can found wisdom without God, be complete in their lives without any religious beliefs.
To explain quikly, "pensée elargie" is a way of thinking where you should, as much as possible, think as you were "outside" yourself. Think not as a person, a unit, but as something bigger, something that takes into account more factors than only yours. To think in a "pensée élargie" way is understanding the world not from your point of view, but from outside. Is to "transcend" yourself to think as something bigger (sometimes they call this transcendance dans l'imanence ).
Thus it means learning all the time, taking not only your way of thinking in account, but getting all ways of thinking and figuring how they interact, where they'll take humanity, etc. This is the way we can "transcend" our limits in our body and person and be more then we are. As some of them like to say, to "transcend in your immanence". These are commom terms for philosophers you can google and find explanations about.
Ok, so here we have "grand style" and "pensée élargie" presented. Please feel free to look for more sources about these ideas. They are not like physics problems, which most of the times seem useless in day-to-day life. Both of them can be helpfull for you to devide how you should live your life....
The "grand style élargie" i want to present is nothing but the combination of these 2 ideas in the simplest way: have "grand style" in your life, but thinking in a "pensée élargie" way.
Why?
My conclusion is that not following Nietzsche's "grand style" is to avoid life. To block your possibilities in "real", creating you problems instead of solutions. You have, as much as possible, to develop your possibilities, to act in "real" in the most "powerfull" way you can.
But remenbering to do this not as an individual, as something more than your simple self. Apply "grand style" not only to yourself, but to humanity, to everything. "Pensée élargie" gives you a way to think and act transcending yourself. So, putting the forces in "real" in your side, not as an individual, but as "being" thinking in a "pensée élargie" way.
You ask so: "Why do i have to have an "'élargie" way of seeing life?". This is simple, and comes from the categorical imperatives that Kant defined: if you have "grand style" just for you, the others might want to have their "grand style" for them either. This can, in plenty of cases, pose problems for both, and thus this is unable to exist in an harmonic way, following the categorical imperatives reasoning.
All this putted under the main value we have to agree: life's value cannot be measured. This respectfull way of seeing life shows human that it is not his ideas that rule "real", insead it's real that controls it's ideas. None of them will be able to be more true than "real" is. So, the best we can do is to "elargir" (enlarge) our way of thinking to get as closer as possible to understand "real", than use all "real" "forces" in our side.
Hehe, big post, time for a break! Cheers. Uula
more on ethics, to develop a little about the central conclusion i have when reading about our western ethics.
The "grand style élargie" (which i prefer not to translate, it would sound awfull...) come from the combination between to ideas: Nietzsche's "grand style", and late 20th century "pensée élargie". I'll present them both, to garentee that you'll understand where i'm heading to.
Nietzsche "grand style" can't be considered acctually an idea on ethics, but it is acctually the way he thinks men should act, and thus we can apply to this domain. As i explained in an older post, Nietzsche considered that men should try as much as possible to avoid his acts in "real" to be "blocked". It means, men should give value and importance to those who can act in a way that all the caotic forces in this world are in his side.
As usual, the best way to describe it is with examples. This time i give the example Nietzsche uses most of the time, which is related to art. Why does him prefer Mozart to Wagner? Why the greek sculptures are for him "better art" than the romantic paintings?
Because these works show men using all the "forces" in "real" in their favour. There is no "suffering" in Mozart's music as we find in Wagner: everything is beauty, melody develops without any big changes, without bizarre harmonies, etc. Wagner, in the other side, explores human suffering in his work, his Tristan and Isolda is almost 6 hours of tragedy and sadness. These are for Nietzsche expressions of man being blocked by "real". This blocking doesn't allow him to develop himself, to "act" perfectly. Instead, in Wagner's art, men suffers, struggles, fight against nature in the worst way possible, and most of the times loosing it in the end.
Thus, "grand style" is the way men should act. Try and put all "real" forces in his favour, avoid suffering, struggle, etc.
The second base idea comes from our last century humanists. The "pensée élargie" is the way they think men can found wisdom without God, be complete in their lives without any religious beliefs.
To explain quikly, "pensée elargie" is a way of thinking where you should, as much as possible, think as you were "outside" yourself. Think not as a person, a unit, but as something bigger, something that takes into account more factors than only yours. To think in a "pensée élargie" way is understanding the world not from your point of view, but from outside. Is to "transcend" yourself to think as something bigger (sometimes they call this transcendance dans l'imanence ).
Thus it means learning all the time, taking not only your way of thinking in account, but getting all ways of thinking and figuring how they interact, where they'll take humanity, etc. This is the way we can "transcend" our limits in our body and person and be more then we are. As some of them like to say, to "transcend in your immanence". These are commom terms for philosophers you can google and find explanations about.
Ok, so here we have "grand style" and "pensée élargie" presented. Please feel free to look for more sources about these ideas. They are not like physics problems, which most of the times seem useless in day-to-day life. Both of them can be helpfull for you to devide how you should live your life....
The "grand style élargie" i want to present is nothing but the combination of these 2 ideas in the simplest way: have "grand style" in your life, but thinking in a "pensée élargie" way.
Why?
My conclusion is that not following Nietzsche's "grand style" is to avoid life. To block your possibilities in "real", creating you problems instead of solutions. You have, as much as possible, to develop your possibilities, to act in "real" in the most "powerfull" way you can.
But remenbering to do this not as an individual, as something more than your simple self. Apply "grand style" not only to yourself, but to humanity, to everything. "Pensée élargie" gives you a way to think and act transcending yourself. So, putting the forces in "real" in your side, not as an individual, but as "being" thinking in a "pensée élargie" way.
You ask so: "Why do i have to have an "'élargie" way of seeing life?". This is simple, and comes from the categorical imperatives that Kant defined: if you have "grand style" just for you, the others might want to have their "grand style" for them either. This can, in plenty of cases, pose problems for both, and thus this is unable to exist in an harmonic way, following the categorical imperatives reasoning.
All this putted under the main value we have to agree: life's value cannot be measured. This respectfull way of seeing life shows human that it is not his ideas that rule "real", insead it's real that controls it's ideas. None of them will be able to be more true than "real" is. So, the best we can do is to "elargir" (enlarge) our way of thinking to get as closer as possible to understand "real", than use all "real" "forces" in our side.
Hehe, big post, time for a break! Cheers. Uula
| 65 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Now, I have to admit that I find your arguments difficult to understand. But it seems to me that two of your arguments as to why we have no or limited obligations to other people are:
(1) that it's not human nature. In your first post, you write:
(2) that it doesn't necessarily aid "universality". In your second post, you write:
Some thoughts on this:
(1) Regarding the first argument, I take it you're claiming that we're limited by human nature, that we can't perform these amazing acts of self-sacrifice, etc. But how do you know this is true? How do you know that it's only the rare individual that can do these things, and not people in general?
(2) Regarding the second argument, couldn't it be true that sometimes, by self-sacrifice, we DO help the whole? For instance, the kamikaze pilot who kills himself in order to blow up an enemy ship.
And why should the significant unit of moral concern be the individual, and not the community?
(3) Also, about Kant's categorical imperative... Couldn't acts of extreme self-sacrifice be consistent with the categorical imperative? I mean, I don't have any trouble believing in a world where everyone goes out of their way to give long car rides to strangers. That is, I think such a world is possible.
(4) And, if such a world is also desirable, the most efficient way to get there is by setting a good precedent now. Ie, give the guy a lift!
Comment by Anonymous
Concerning 1, i'm not saying we can't do these amazing things like going to Africa to save child, etc. But it is not "human", i mean, for me it's something like "saint"... Men have their own lives too, and if they're doing no harm to others, i don't think we should sell people this idea that the good is to give your life to help others. If you just don't "unhelp" others to help you, for me it's good.
Concerning 2, when you help one to "unhelp" another, you're not helping the universality. To sacrifice something of your life to help plenty of people is already something better, your applying more "grand style élargie" to "real", even though if you take only you into account you're not having "grand style" at all...i mean, when i added the "élargie" to "grand style", i'm saying that you should take universallity into account. But still, you have to take you into account too..
You say: "And why should the significant unit of moral concern be the individual,and not the community?" I think because the community is made of individuals. Thus, if all individuals are happy, the community is happy.
Concerning 3, i agree with you. Any self-sacrifice is consistent as a categorical imperative. But if you place yourself exact in the middle, not helping nor "unhelping" others is also consistent, don't you think?
Concerning 4, i think there's a problem when you say such a thing is desirable, because people will tend to think that they should help people in spite of themselves. I think what we should say is: mate, help people in a way that doesn't "unhelp" you a lot (even because he will be wasting his life for this, and "life's value cannot be measured"), but don't "unhelp" people either, even if it helps you (for the simple reason that it would be inconsistent as a categorical imperative)
Big comment, have to get back to work...cheers.
Big PS: A thing that i remarked in these "humanitarian" acts is that they have, plenty of times, no big results in the end if we don't make people be able to help themselves, instead of just helping them. The thing would be like this: you can try to help a child to learn how to walk, but in the he will have to do this by himself. And if you keep trying to help them all the time, they'll never be able to do this by themselves.
When Europeans go to poor countries to help these people (i can tell you that i've seen plenty of youngsters down here that have really good intentions, and really go to countries in Africa and South East Asia to help in "humanitarian" projects), they are helping them in the short term, but on the other side there is another european selling them guns. In the end, i think the best solution to these places would be to leave them by themselves (taking their guns before...). In this way they'll learn how to live and in the long term will be able to structure their societies.
Comment by Uula Limanski
Thinking The World