How to Win Any Debate: Reflections on “Twilight of the Idols” by F.W. Nietzsche

Nietzsche (Rasmusaagaard)In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche boasts of his philosophizing with a hammer, purportedly demolishing the philosophical notions that came prior to him and proclaiming a new philosophy. Whereas the old philosophers were concerned with such non-entities as Truth and Virtue and the Good and, gasp!, God, Nietzsche was unconcerned with any of these things. Why? Because these things were, in his opinion, fabrications, falsehoods rooted in the minds of men who were ill-suited for life. Their philosophical notions arose from a physiological sickness that caused them to detest the real world and seek for the unchanging realm of Plato’s Ideas, where they would no longer have to deal with the unrelenting energetic force of life, the unstoppable production of new and different forms and appearances. Life, in other words, was too much for them to handle – so they identified it as deceptive, bad, etc. The following quotes make this quite clear:

You ask me which of the philosophers’ traits are most characteristic? For example, their lack of historical sense, their hatred of the very idea of becoming, their Egypticism. They think that they show their respect for a subject when they dehistoricize it sub specie aeternitas — when they turn it into a mummy. Everything that philosophers handled over the past thousands of years turned into concept mummies; nothing real escaped their grasp alive. Whenever these venerable concept idolators revere something, they kill it and stuff it; they suck the life out of everything they worship. Death, change,old age, as well as procreation and growth, are to their minds objections — even refutations. Whatever has being does not become; whatever becomes does not have being. Now they all believe, desperately even, in what has being. But since they never grasp it, they seek for reasons why it is kept from them. “There must be mere appearance, there must be some deception which prevents us from perceiving that which has being: where is the deceiver?”

“We have found him,” they cry jubilantly; “it is the senses! These senses, so immoral in other ways too, deceive us concerning the true world. Moral: let us free ourselves from the deception of the senses, from becoming, from history, from lies; history is nothing but faith in the senses, faith in lies. Moral: let us say No to all who have faith in the senses, to all the rest of mankind; they are all ‘mob.’ Let us be philosophers! Let us be mummies! Let us represent monotono-theism by adopting the manner of a gravedigger! And above all, away with the body, this wretched idée fixe of the senses, disfigured by all the fallacies of logic, refuted, even impossible, although it is impudent enough to behave as if it were real!”1

Nietzsche’s thoughts concerning Socrates are much along the same lines: Socrates was powerless against the powerful, he was ugly, he was jealous, and he was, consequently, ruthlessly logical, revenging himself against his superiors by means of his use of dialectical argumentation. Nietzsche:

Socrates’ decadence is suggested…by the overdevelopment of his logical ability and his characteristic thwarted sarcasm.

[…]

One chooses logical argument only when one has no other means. One knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is easier to nullify than a logical argument: the tedium of long speeches proves this. It is a kind of self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. Unless one has to insist on what is already one’s right, there is no use for it.2

Hence, the use of reason, of logic, of giving an apologetic for one’s position is only a symptom of a deeper lying physiological illness, in Nietzsche’s opinion. And thus, in one fell swoop Nietzsche effectively places himself out of the reach of his critics. You see, if you disagree with Nietzsche and you set out to write about it, you are openly displaying the symptoms of a weak and dying mind. If you set out to refute Nietzsche logically, then you are merely a plebian who can only revolt against his superior by means of logical argumentation.

Do you doubt that Nietzsche’s materialism is true?

Then you are sick in the head.

Do you think that Nietzsche should be rejected because his philosophy is irrational?

Then you are dying and a waste of life.

Do you want to refute Nietzsche?

Then you are ugly and powerless.

Pretty effective, if you ask me. In essence, Nietzsche was leveling a circumstantial ad hominem against all philosophers and Christians who sought to utilize logic in a precise manner, and who sought to establish a clear distinction between truth and error.

Nietzsche’s appeal to today’s academics is not surprising, therefore, when we consider the fact that all men know the God of Scripture has created them, given them the task of bearing His holy and perfect and image, that He holds them accountable for their success or failure in this task, and that they are complete failures. Like Nietzsche, they know that they will stand before Christ and be cast into hell – so they froth and foam at the mouth cursing Logic, Truth, Good, and God Himself. They innately know that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom, but God has blinded them, darkened their understanding, and has given them over to a delusion so that they may not believe the truth and be saved.

By claiming that all counterarguments to his theories were merely resentful and impotent attacks on him by the weak, symptoms of lesser minds that were decaying and useless, Nietzsche taught his followers how to win every argument: By not arguing at all.

http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect3

http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect2

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “How to Win Any Debate: Reflections on “Twilight of the Idols” by F.W. Nietzsche

  1. glossolilacs says:

    This is an incredibly narrow reading that doesn’t address any of his arguments, mainly because you fail to understand or faithfully reproduce them.
    His idea that opposing him entailed a physiological sickness is not a truth claim but the idea that all ideas of truth privilege a certain preconceived notion of what truth is. In this sense, he says, all truth resides the person of the person who asserts it. Your refutation is absurd, because you do not even begin to suggest a theory of subjectivity that can account of an Aristotelian totality: each “truth” implicates a world which is unique to it, consequently you and Nietzsche are worlding truths that do not talk to each other. In fact, he has been kind enough to efface himself to address you, but you personally are in the way of his hammer since your truth consists in you.

    Contrarily I would argue, that Nietzsche is the only legitimate Christian saint: he really wrangled with the idea of God and found his idea lacking. He effaced himself since he could not understand God. All the canonical saints in contrast must really be insane: their belief in their logic was the logic of their belief: tautologies of their own body, not the body of Christ.

    Like

  2. hiram says:

    Cain,

    1. “His idea that opposing him entailed a physiological sickness is not a truth claim but the idea that all ideas of truth privilege a certain preconceived notion of what truth is. In this sense, he says, all truth resides the person of the person who asserts it.”

    From the quotations that I have given, that is not what Nietzsche was teaching. Nietzsche was a Romanticist and Pantheist. He derided logic, rationality, truth. Whatever (post)modern conceptions of him may be, I think his writing speaks for itself.

    2. “Your refutation is absurd, because you do not even begin to suggest a theory of subjectivity that can account of an Aristotelian totality”

    This doesn’t entail absurdity. I am not under obligation to suggest a theory of subjectivity. I’m a Christian and I am under obligation to speak the Truth (i.e. the propositions of Scripture). I’m not an Aristotelian, and I am, to be honest with you, kind of getting annoyed with this characterization of me as an Aristotelian. I’m following the Word of God. If Aristotle happened to accurately explicate the eternal laws of Logic, then so be it.

    3. “…each “truth” implicates a world which is unique to it, consequently you and Nietzsche are worlding truths that do not talk to each other. In fact, he has been kind enough to efface himself to address you, but you personally are in the way of his hammer since your truth consists in you.”

    Honestly, this is gobbledygook. No offense.

    Nietzsche could not care less about doing anything but rambling. He was an insane fool. I think your interpretation of his writing is common, but not accurate.

    4. “Contrarily I would argue, that Nietzsche is the only legitimate Christian saint: he really wrangled with the idea of God and found his idea lacking.”

    The Bible says that all who trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins are Christian saints. Nietzsche did not trust in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins; ergo, he was not a Christian saint

    5.”He effaced himself since he could not understand God. All the canonical saints in contrast must really be insane: their belief in their logic was the logic of their belief: tautologies of their own body, not the body of Christ.”

    This Altizerian silliness. Nietzsche was not effacing himself because he could not understand God; he was suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

    Now I would be the first to admit that Nietzsche’s writing exhibit a profound ignorance of biblical Christianity. And so his critiques are really nothing more strawman burning. But insofar as he thought he was challenging the Christian faith, I respond to his insane blathering.

    Like

involve yourself

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s