Posts - Page 7 of 15 - Eternalised

KIERKEGAARD: The Knight of Faith

The knight of faith is one of Kierkegaard’s most important concepts, which he discusses in Fear and Trembling in the “Preamble from the Heart”, written under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio.

There are three spheres of existence in Kierkegaard’s philosophy: the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious. In Fear and Trembling he analyses the contradictions between the ethical and religious spheres of existence. They are spheres of existence because they fill the entirety of your life. While they may overlap, you’ll always be in one of these spheres.

Kierkegaard considered himself religious, but Johannes admits that he lacks faith, for he cannot make the leap.

Johannes recounts the biblical story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. The ethical expression for what Abraham plans to do is that he is willing to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he is willing to sacrifice Isaac, in this contradiction lies the very anxiety and stress that can make one sleepless.

Abraham is not to be understood as someone who could decide not to believe that God existed; his choice concerns rather what one is to hope for or expect given that God does exist, to prove his faith to God, he is after all the “father of faith”.

Abraham is entirely alone and he cannot justify his actions to anyone. He renounces that which he most loves in the world and thus becomes a knight of infinite resignation, the first step one must take to become a knight of faith.

As Abraham is about to sacrifice his son – God sends an angel which points him to a ram that he is to sacrifice in Isaac’s place, and Isaac is ultimately saved. Abraham makes the movement of faith when he regains him once again, he comes back to his original position and receives Isaac more joyfully than the first time. By renouncing everything, he receives everything. Abraham becomes the knight of faith. This is the true hero of Fear and Trembling.

The story of Abraham and Isaac not need to be taken as a literal description of what a person must be prepared to do if he is to be said to have faith. It can be read as an allegory in which Abraham’s actions symbolise some general feature of a religious consciousness.

Johannes contrasts the knight of faith with the tragic hero. He uses a story from Greek Mythology, the sacrifice of Iphigenia, daughter of King Agamemnon. The king accidently kills an animal of the Greek goddess of the hunt and she punishes him by preventing his troops from engaging in the Trojan War unless he sacrifices his daughter. He makes the sacrifice for the good of the state, fulfilling his ethical duty. The society admires his courage. However, the knight of faith cannot communicate his mission, for he is utterly alone.

Abraham is great not because of his willingness to obey God, but rather because of what he suffers in the trial. Furthermore, his suffering and greatness seem to isolate him in a very radical way from society. The book focuses on the nature of the suffering involved in the story.

Johannes uses the story of Abraham to show how monstrous a paradox faith is, a paradox capable of making a murder into a holy act well pleasing to God, a paradox which gives Isaac back to Abraham. He conveys us the hard fact that faith has no place in a system of thought, that:

“Faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off.”

Faith exiles one from the realm of human discourse. If we are to talk of faith at all it is of something we cannot explain in any language that suffices for people to describe and justify their actions and attitudes to one another.

In Kierkegaard’s time, faith was thought to be where one begins in life, not where one aims to end. That faith is the beginning and not the end conveys the general message of the book: that the notion of faith is so far cheapened that what is talked about is not properly called faith at all. Therefore, people mustn’t suppose that faith is something inferior or that it is an easy matter, when in fact it is the greatest and most difficult of all.

Since Isaac is ultimately saved, there must be some higher stage than that of the ethical one – this is the “teleological suspension of the ethical”, the ethical becomes secondary as a whole to some other end or telos, the religious stage.

“Faith is just this paradox, that the single individual as the particular is higher than the universal”

The universal is expressed by the ethical life where the individual’s actions lack a moral aspect unless they are linked to the well-being of society as a whole. If the State requires you to execute your son for whatever reason, you must do it. The religious stage is higher than the ethical because it finds the individual as the particular in an absolute relation to God, expressing individuality and inwardness, which is independent from society and which is at the core of Kierkegaard’s philosophy.

Johannes notes, however, that he has never found any knight of faith, though he would not deny on that ground that they exist. He writes:

“If I knew where such a knight of faith lived I would journey to him on foot… I would not let him slip one instant, but watch every minute how he makes the movements… As I said, I haven’t found such a one; still, I can very well imagine him… The moment I first set eyes on him I thrust him away, jump back, clasp my hands together and say half aloud: ‘Good God! Is this the person, is it really him? He looks just like a tax-collector.’ Yet it is indeed him. I come a little closer, watch the least movement in case some small, incongruous optical telegraphic message from the infinite should appear, a glance, expression, gesture, a sadness, a smile betraying the infinite by its incongruity with the finite…No! he is solid through and through. His stance? Vigorous, it belongs altogether to finitude… One detects nothing of the strangeness and superiority that mark the knight of the infinite.”

This is quite a different knight of faith as that of Abraham. He looks just like any person, he is not any religious priest, monk or ascetic, but rather participates in worldly affairs just like everyone else and yet he has made and is at every moment making the movement of infinity, which cannot be seen. He indulges in finitude which is viewed as important for the trusting character of faith in God, this is, however, not to be confused with the aesthetic way of life, since faith requires resignation.

Johannes understands how one can make the infinite movement of resignation with strength, energy and freedom of spirit – but he cannot understand the movement of faith where one receives everything back in full by virtue of the absurd, where one renounces everything and regains everything.

Johannes can only remain a knight of infinite resignation. He has great trouble hurling himself trustingly in the absurd and calls it an impossible task, a marvel which he can only be amazed by.

“Alas, this movement is one I cannot make! As soon as I want to begin it everything turns around and I flee back to the pain of resignation. I can swim in life, but for this mysterious floating I am too heavy. To exist in such a way that my opposition to existence expresses itself every instant as the most beautiful and safest harmony, that I cannot.”

He compares both knights to a ballet dancer. It is said that the dancer’s hardest task is to leap straight into a definite position without vacillating and standing there in the leap itself.

The knight of infinite resignation is a dancer and he too has elevation. But while he makes the upward movement and lands, he wavers an instant, showing that he is nevertheless a stranger in the world, his leap of faith cannot be grounded in reality, he is lacking the movement of faith.

The knight of faith, however, can make a leap and land on the ground perfectly. And this movement is represented in his every step. He delights in everything finite even while knowing the bliss of infinity. In other words, he moves from finitude to infinity and back again to finitude. His movement of infinity is grounded in reality.

Johannes illustrates these two movements by giving the example of a young man in love with a princess. There may in fact be three movements, one which is not explicitly counted as a separate movement is the concentration of desire on a single finite object, which allows for the movement of infinite resignation.

The knight of infinite resignation has an intensification of desire in which he puts the content of his whole life in this love, and yet the relationship is one that cannot possibly be brought to fruition, be translated from ideality to reality.

While he performs the movement of infinite resignation by renouncing to their love in finitude, which causes him great pain – his love for the princess would take the expression of an eternal love, which would assume a religious character, directing his love at God.

Having acquired an eternal consciousness which no one can take away from him, he obtains peace and rest, allowing the pain caused by his unsatisfied desire to reconcile him spiritually. He no longer needs to know about the finite existence of the princess. He has grasped the deep secret that even in loving another one should be sufficient unto himself.

If one’s interests are numerous and as replaceable as the hydra’s heads, then it seems that in cutting them off one by one by separate acts of resignation, one will never reach a comprehensive or infinite resignation. If religious devotion is to define itself by resignation, the desire for the finite presents itself concentrated in one head that can be severed by a single stroke of resignation, so to speak.

The knight of faith does exactly the same as the other knight, but he makes one more movement, he says:

“I nevertheless believe that I shall get her, namely by virtue of the absurd, on the strength of the fact that for God all things are possible.”

The knight of faith redirects the love to the princess through divine possibility. As such, he is the happiest person, the heir to the finite, while the other knight is a stranger and an outsider.

All of this reflects Kierkegaard’s own personal experience. He fall deeply and passionately in love with Regine Olsen, but ended up breaking off his engagement to her, sacrificing that which he loved with his whole soul.

Kierkegaard rarely entertained the idea that his works would become “classics”. However, concerning Fear and Trembling, he wrote in his journals that he predicted that with its “frightful pathos” it would suffice “to immortalise my name as an author” and “to be translated into other languages.”

“If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?”

KIERKEGAARD: The Knight of Faith

The knight of faith is one of Kierkegaard’s most important concepts, which he discusses in Fear and Trembling under the pseudonym Johannes de silentio. He begins explaining the knight of faith through the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

Hercules and the Lernaean Hydra – Gustave Moreau

The Shadow – Carl Jung’s Warning to The World

“Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it… But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected, and is liable to burst forth suddenly in a moment of unawareness. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.”

Carl Jung, C.W. Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East

Carl Jung talks about two types of shadows: the personal shadow (the unknown dark side of our personality) and the collective shadow (the unknown dark side of society).

Personal Shadow

Starting with the personal shadow, Jung calls it:

“the thing a person has no wish to be.”

Carl Jung, C.W. Vol 16: Practice of Psychotherapy

It represents unknown or little-known attributes and qualities of the ego. It is the sum of all those unpleasant qualities we like to hide from ourselves. The shadow contains inferiorities which everybody has but prefers not to know about, they seem weak, socially unacceptable or even evil. The shadow is most visible when one is in the grip of anxiety or other emotions, under the influence of alcohol, etc., one may suddenly blurt out a hostile remark during a friendly conversation. When we do not want to assimilate what we despise, we project it unto others.

It is possible for one to be acquainted with one’s shadow and be partly conscious of it, that is, under ego control. Many people, however, refuse to recognise their shadow so completely that the ego is not even aware of shadow behaviour and thus has no possibility of commanding it. Under these conditions, the shadow is autonomous and may express itself in inexplicable moods, irritability and cruelty.

Throughout his writing, Jung refers to the importance of developing awareness of the shadow in psychotherapy and its projections in the individual’s life. Although the shadow is usually perceived as negative it can also be positive. In fact, exploring our shadow gives us access to many positive qualities, Jung writes that the shadow:

“displays a number of good qualities, such as normal instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses, etc.”

Carl Jung, C.W. Vol 9 (Part 1): Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

One of Jung’s closest collaborators, Marie-Louise von Franz writes:

“The shadow is not necessarily always an opponent. In fact, he is exactly like any human being with whom one has to get along, sometimes by giving in, sometimes by resisting, sometimes by giving love – whatever the situation requires. The shadow becomes hostile only when he is ignored or misunderstood.”

Man and His Symbols. Part III: The Process of Individuation, “The Realisation of the Shadow” – M.L. von Franz

The shadow contains all sorts of qualities, strengths and potentials, which if remain unexplored, give us a state of impoverishment in our personality, creating unconscious “snags” which inhibit the growth and embodiment of these good qualities that lie dormant in our psyche.

For instance, a person might believe that being assertive is being rude or aggressive, losing the qualities of confidence and the ability to speak up for himself in an honest and respectful way, which in turn may lead to less proactivity, make it more difficult to get a raise or job promotion, struggle with money, and so on.

So, when a person encounters an assertive person deep down he feels resentment and guilt, which makes his shadow blacker and denser. These valuable aspects ought to be assimilated into actual experience and not repressed, it is up to the ego to give up its pride.

We also encounter our shadow in our dreams, as a person of the same sex as the dreamer. It is what seems to be a “criticism” of our character from the unconscious, an inner judge of your own being that reproaches you, and the result is usually embarrassed silence.

We must identify the contents of the shadow and integrate them into our personality. This is the process of “the realisation of the shadow”, also known as shadow work.

Here begins the painfully and lengthy work of self-education, one must enter into long and difficult negotiations with the shadow, a work, we might say, that is the psychological equivalent of the labours of Hercules. Through shadow work, one can observe one’s shadow outwardly by watching one’s emotional reactions and being radically honest about one’s interactions with others, and inwardly by exploring one’s dreams.

This allows one to become enlightened and reduces the shadow’s destructive potential, not so much, as it were, by waging war against the darkness, but by bringing the darkness to the light, the light to the darkness. As Jung writes:

“There is no light without shadow and no psychic wholeness without imperfection.”

Carl Jung, C.W. Vol. 12 “Psychology and Alchemy”

One must not strive for perfection, but rather wholeness of personality. The lifelong process of individuation creates a balance between one’s conscious and unconscious realms, aligning the ego to the self, the totality of one’s personality.

However scary or dark it is to confront our shadow, finding truth brings relief. Discernment of the truth is the process of authenticity; a painstaking excavation into the depths of our being to explore possibilities and limitations, distortions and the buried and often forgotten parts of ourselves and abilities.

Most people, however, are too indolent to think deeply about even those moral aspects of their behaviour of which they are conscious; let alone to consider how the unconscious affects them.

Collective shadow

The shadow can also consist of factors that stem from a source outside the individual’s personal life. Here is when we stumble upon the collective shadow, the dark side or the unknown or little known aspects of a society and culture. It consists of that which opposes our shared and collective values.

The collective shadow refers to a huge, multidimensional, often horrifying, yet elusive aspect of human life, to an immensity of harm inflicted by human beings upon each other and the natural world and to the vast aftereffects of such harm in subsequent generations.

We find the collective shadow in the projection of “darkness” and inferiority, in violence and oppression, in the invisibility of current suffering, in the denial of current responsibility.

While collective shadow material may be acted out brutally in wars, massacres and genocides, it may also hide under the often attractive cloaks of missionary activity, such as mandating the use of particular languages, an Orwellian reality that we are experiencing in the present time.

As is the nature of all shadow material, whether individual or collective, its existence and influence may be pervasive without being obvious.

The collective shadow manifests outwardly in atrocities, persecution, physical suffering, sickness, poverty, malnutrition, alcoholism, crime, the death of cultures and so on. It may also manifest more inwardly, amid the complexities of each individual psyche, as hatred toward oneself, one’s heritage, and one’s culture, depression and feelings of impotence, the desire for revenge (so that others might experience something like one’s own pain), etc.

The collective shadow is what has historically been labelled “evil”. In the Christian tradition it would be the devil, and someone who is possessed by the devil loses his human quality and acquires a demonic nature. Our primary response to evil, for Jung, must be the quest for self-knowledge, for wholeness, which presumes the assimilation of shadow material. The individual:

“must know relentlessly how much good he can do, and what crimes he is capable of”

Carl Jung “Memories, Dreams, Reflections” Chapter XII: Late Thoughts

When there is an issue known in a particular society, it can be called a shadow issue if there is evidence of denial, projection and a lack of taking individual and collective responsibility. Therefore, taking responsibility – morally, politically and spiritually – is particularly crucial. The courage with which we bear our darkness frees others from having to carry it for us.

For instance, to respond to examples of massive historical suffering: wars, genocide, holocausts, pervasive oppression, etc., the effects of which persist. As human beings we have much to learn in that regard. Denial, often connected with a wish to “get on with things” and “put the past behind us”, seems the most common approach and usually the first reaction.

There are and have been many attempts to deal with difficult, painful pasts through public apologies for supporting atrocities, repentance, reparation payments after wars, pilgrimages to places of great suffering, etc. But how do we deal with the past in such a way that the integration of the shadow occurs deeply and broadly within a population, rather than simply at a symbolic level through leaders or policies?

Remembering and speaking what often seems unspeakable is inevitably a painful process for victims and perpetrators, bystanders and witnesses. Any such process can only be regarded as successful or reasonably complete once the pain, outrage, betrayal, suffering, and all the other feelings have been voiced and heard and once responsibility has been taken. Truth-telling is both the most desirable and the most feasible way to grapple with a difficult past.

One example of a terrible mass psychosis represented by the collective shadow is Nazi Germany where people fell into the demonic nature through their personal shadow. They joined the Nazi party and did worse things than they could have ever imagined or would have done under normal social conditions. In this sense, the personal shadow is the bridge to the collective shadow.

Therefore, it is important to solve one’s inner conflicts first (one’s personal shadow), so that one does not fall into the collective shadow unconsciously. One may then later influence other people and society would be better off as a whole.

“If we practice mindfulness, we will know how to look deeply into the nature of war, and, with our insight, wake people up so that together we can avoid repeating the same horrors again and again… The war is in us, but is also in everyone… Everything is ready to explode, and we are all co-responsible.”

Thich Nhat Hanh, Touching Peace: Practicing the Art of Mindful Living

Summary – Facing the Collective Shadow

To summarise, we must first acknowledge our personal shadow and enter into long and difficult negotiations with it (being honest with ourselves and our interactions with others, watching our emotional reactions and exploring our dreams), in order to not become passive victims of our shadow and of our unconscious projections, allowing us to rescue the good qualities that lie dormant within us, which improves our lives and the lives of those around us.

We can then be consciously aware of the collective shadow and not fall prey to it and take responsibility to address the denial of important issues and a lack of individual and collective initiative, the courage of bearing our darkness brings relief to others, as telling the truth is the most desirable way to deal with a difficult past, rather than dismissing the atrocities and having the shadow grow blacker until it can no grow no more, and thus history repeats itself.

Subscribe to receive notifications of the latest posts

Facing the Collective Shadow – Carl Jung’s Warning to the World

Carl Jung warns us against the dangers of the collective shadow (the unknown dark side of society) and urges us to develop our personal shadow (the unknown dark side of our personality) to be consciously aware of the collective shadow and not fall prey to it. We must acknowledge our personal shadow and enter into long and difficult negotiations with it through shadow work.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

Man Cannot Stand a Meaningless Life

“Man cannot stand a meaningless life.”

Carl Jung, BBC “Face To Face” (1959)

The world is a terrifying place and suffering is inevitable. We need a meaning to survive, to live properly – and we are ready to suffer and undergo sacrifice in order to preserve this meaning.

“He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.”

Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Arrows, §12.

Man who has a meaning can overcome and confront life’s troubles, man without a meaning is bound to descend into the void.

Jung, however, believes that we must look in the darkest places, because in the darkest places you can find what shines and if something shines in the darkness, you know it’s a real light. He writes:

“Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic feature of Western theosophy, but not the confrontation with the shadow and the world of darkness. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works 13: Alchemical Studies

In Western theosophy (the way in which the West imitated Eastern traditions), there is too much focus on only seeing figures of light. In order to find meaning in life, Jung tells us to make our darkness conscious, that is the real work of individuation. To integrate our shadow is what gives man wholeness of personality. To achieve a profound meaning in life means that we must go through the dark places and walk to the light at the end.

”No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.”

Carl Jung, Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, Chapter 5

The West and the East have different views on the meaning of life, Jung writes:

“To Western man, the meaninglessness of a merely static universe is unbearable. He must assume that it has meaning. The Oriental does not make this assumption; rather, he himself embodies it. Whereas the Occidental feels the need to complete the meaning of the world, the Oriental strives for the fulfilment of the meaning in man, stripping the world and existence from himself (Buddha). I would say that both are right. Western man seems predominantly extroverted, Eastern man predominantly introverted. The former projects the meaning and considers that it exists in objects; the latter feels the meaning in himself. But the meaning is both within and without.”

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Chapter XI: On Life after Death

What is the Meaning of Life?

So, what is the meaning of life? This question can be quite deceptive. We mustn’t think of it as a static relation to be realised with a simpler answer.

It is hard to think of a single proposition that can make your life meaningful in an instant. One can, however, orient oneself more meaningfully towards one’s goals. To find meaning is a dynamic process that constantly shapes yourself, immerses yourself in reality and has reality immersed in you.

Although the term “meaningful life” is commonly used, it has no clear definition. We can, however, reframe the question as: “what are the conditions under which an individual will experience his life as meaningful?”

When an individual states that he seeks meaning in his life, he is positively committed to some concept of the meaning of life. This concept of the meaning of life provides him with some framework or goal from which to view his life – and he is determined to fulfil this concept of life – this fulfilment is experienced as a feeling of integration, relatedness or significance.

A meaningful life can be defined according to a positive life regard, referring to an individual’s belief that he is fulfilling a life-framework or life-goal that provides him with a highly valued understanding of his life.

We’ll be exploring different approaches to the development of positive life regard.

Development of Positive Life Regard (Meaningful Life)

The first approach is the philosophical model, where positive life regard develops only from the commitment to and fulfilment of the intrinsic meaning of life. This meaning can be derived from God (religious models), from Being (existential models), from man (humanistic models), or from life (self-transcendent models). They all assume that there is only one true meaning of life.

However, it isn’t quite clear that this is true. There can well be several meanings of life, this is the second approach: the relativistic model, which states that commitment to any system of beliefs can serve as a life-framework for the development of positive life regard. Thus, this model shifts emphasis away from the nature of an individual’s belief system and emphasises his commitment to it.

Philosophical models propose that the content of belief is a determinant of positive life regard, while the relativistic model proposes only that the process of believing itself is a determinant of positive life regard. Although most philosophers would probably deny that there is a single meaning of life if confronted, they nevertheless approach the problem of meaning by trying to explicate some single conceptual framework from which to understand the meaning of life.

Therefore, the relativistic perspective has several advantages over the philosophical one. The wide variety of belief systems under which individuals have developed meaning in life (Taoism, Christianity, Existentialism, etc.) do not appear reducible to one fundamental system. It promotes tolerance towards all systems of belief and is thus inclusive of all of the philosophical models, it discourages abstract philosophical discussion over which system of beliefs is “ultimately” better, and emphasises the responsibility of each individual to find his own beliefs.

The third way to develop positive life regard is through the psychological approach. Most contemporary psychological theories explain individual development as a function of the resolution of inherent needs or stages of development through the interaction of the individual with his social environment, such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – in which certain needs must be satisfied before an individual can accept “growth” needs and experience “life validation” and “peak experiences” through the development of “self-actualisation”.

Self-esteem, man’s experience of his self as valuable, is a subjective belief which is necessary for a positive life regard. It is linked to one’s self-image (the way we see ourselves physically, our social roles and personality traits) and seeing oneself progressing towards one’s ideal self. All of this makes up one’s self-concept, the knowledge of who one is.

As infants we are concerned with our self-image (which develops from the relationship with our parents), and as we grow older into adolescence we also start becoming concerned with our self-esteem. Therefore, meaning in life appears to be a later development – caricatured as the perennial concern of college students, emphasised as an important issue of mid and later life.

An individual must successfully resolve the stage concerned with self-concept by developing self-esteem before he can develop positive life regard. Self-esteem is seen as a necessary but an insufficient prerequisite of positive life regard.

Positive life regard, however, does not appear to be socially introjected, but is much more intimately involved with a person’s own idiosyncratic evaluation of his life goals.

Therefore, there is a high correlation between self-esteem and social phenomena (which includes comfort with people, finding a partner, sexual performance, etc.), while positive life regard is highly correlated with life-goal oriented phenomena (satisfaction with career choice, career performance, etc.).

The fourth way to find meaning is the transactional model which sees the individual in terms of a set of needs or goals that he attempts to fulfil through social roles (the patterns of behaviour expected of people who occupy a certain social position).

The development of positive life regard should be related to the fit between the values, goals, needs and roles of the individual and the values, goals, needs and roles of the social structure which he lives in, including subcultures or broader social movements.

The fifth and final way is the phenomenological approach. Phenomenology is the study of the nature and structure of consciousness. While the previous models elucidated the determinants of an individual’s goals and rate of progress toward his goals, the phenomenological model is viewed as a description of the structure by which this rate of progress is evaluated.

A person can compare his current goal position relative to his ultimate life goal and the degree of positive life regard will be experienced as the rate of progress that he’s making and by the comparison of his present goal position with his past goal position.

In this sense, there is no “true” or “ultimate” meaning of life. To have a positive life regard, we have seen that:

The relativistic model emphasises the search for meaning as the individual’s believing rather than the content of his beliefs and allows us to compare several philosophical points of view instead of assuming one true meaning of life. The psychological perspective emphasises self-esteem as a necessary pre-requisite, the transactional model suggests the need for harmony between the individual and society’s values, goals, needs and roles, and the phenomenological approach allows us to describe the structure by which the rate of progress is evaluated towards a meaningful life.

To help navigate and orient yourself towards a more meaningful life, you can rate the following statements taken from the Life Regard Index: from 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest):

Framework Items (Positive)

I have some aims and goals that would personally give me a great deal of satisfaction if I could accomplish them.
I have a philosophy of life that really gives my living significance.

Framework Items (Negative)

I just don’t know what I really want to do with my life.
I really don’t have much of a purpose for living, even for myself.

Fulfilment Items (Positive)

I feel that I am living fully.
I feel that I’m really going to attain what I want in life.

Fulfilment Items (Negative)

I spend most of my time doing things that really aren’t very important to me.
I don’t really value what I’m doing.

Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World

In Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World, Iddo Landau found out that many who didn’t find meaning in their lives were too perfectionist. They take only great people and great achievements as things that make life meaningful.

They look up to people they admire which helps form their ideal self, used to assist the real self in developing its potential. However, many do not believe they have an ideal self or think that they may never achieve it, so their real self turns into a despised self, and one becomes mired in his own negative emotions, one thinks of oneself as a good-for-nothing. This stagnation makes progress towards any goal become an impossible and ludicrous task.

People have too high standards. A writer may think that he is not Shakespeare and so he despairs that his life is meaningless because he cannot achieve those artistic heights. Landau emphasises non-perfectionism.

In order to have a meaningful life, he writes that:

“One must have a sufficient number of aspects of sufficient value.”

Iddo Landau, Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World

The meaning of life is mostly about value. There can, however, also be negative value – such as causing pain to others, breaking the law, being manipulative, etc. While one might find value in this, it does not, however, contribute to a meaningful life, but rather an unmeaningful life.

We can find meaning in countless ways, through seeking pleasure, relationships, work and so on. However, many times there is an incongruence between the things that we like and the things that are meaningful. We might like to party, to play, to become wealthier and so on, and achieve happiness thereby. But as one gets used to this lifestyle, one eventually tires of it and is bored by the repetition. We may like to do many things, but still end up with a feeling of emptiness in our lives.

This is because many of the things that we do and think have meaning do not actually give us value in order to grow but rather short-term ephemeral pleasure.

We see wealthy and famous people commit suicide, even though they have covered their basic needs of monetary value and having social prestige. However, they too have psychological and growth needs, such as love and self-realisation. A lack of these may cause them to feel existential despair, as they are fundamental in order to grow and progress as a human being.

In “A Confession”, Leo Tolstoy wrote about his struggle with a mid-life existential crisis. Tolstoy was one of the most acclaimed writers of his time, but he felt that this wasn’t something that gave him sufficient value, he writes:

“If God does not exist, since death is inevitable, what is the meaning of life?”

Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

To focus on the things that give us meaning and value in life usually challenges our very being, gaining profundity. But this requires sacrifice and is painful.

Nietzsche writes:

“Only great pain is the ultimate liberator of the spirit… I doubt that such pain makes us ‘better’; but I know that it makes us more profound.”

Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Preface, §3

Nietzsche argues that human greatness is what makes our life meaningful, it is more desirable than human happiness. And what makes a man great is the ability to overcome the inherent suffering we experience.

We may find profound meaning from work, creativity, accomplishment, relationships, generosity and so on. The more things we can derive meaning from, the better.

A Meaningless Life: Dangers of Nihilism

If one cannot find a meaning in life, there is a risk of falling into existential nihilism, the belief that everything we do has no value whatsoever, that we are insignificant and unlikely to change in our life, that we have no higher purpose to strive towards. Since one cannot find any meaning, one gives up and calls life meaningless.

But anyone who believes life can be meaningless also assumes the importance of value. Therefore, when people say that “life is meaningless”, they really want to refer to their miserable condition of not having a profound meaning in their lives.

A more appropriate statement would be: “I am struggling to find meaning in my life” or “what was meaningful for me is now meaningless, how can I find a new meaning in my life?”. These are real problems that people deeply struggle with. Many so-called nihilists are really in despair to find a profound meaning in their lives.

Meaninglessness also occurs when we experience an existential crisis. We start to re-examine our life in the context of our death and reflect on the meaning, purpose or value of what we have done so far in our life, and ask ourselves if there’s any point to all of it.

Some even believe that life is meaningless upon reflecting on the cosmos-at-large and seeing the insignificance of humanity and its doings. Things are important to us on the human scale, but we simply don’t matter in the cosmos.

However, expecting to be at the centre of the cosmos is exceedingly unrealistic – it is a human, all-too-human need for anthropocentrism. We can, however, have a relationship with a higher being through self-transcendence, giving us “cosmic significance”.

Others believe that life is meaningless because we are in constant threat from random celestial events which can result in mass extinction, that the earth will eventually be engulfed by the Sun, that the current use of technology or the effects of climate change pose a big threat to our extinction, and that everything that was ever created by humanity would come to an end: history, religion, philosophy, language – it would disappear into the void, assuming that mankind hadn’t developed a multiplanetary species by that time.

While these may be facts or possibilities, if one considered all the worst case scenarios one would go mad – as they are endless. They do not contribute to our well-being either, but rather give us a gloomy view of existence.

Life-affirmation & Meaning as Embedded in Life

The Stoics would give us the following advice: stop for a moment and focus on what you can control and not on what you can’t control. If things are outside of our control, we shouldn’t beat our heads against the wall. Instead of seeking everything to happen as you wish it would, you should wish that everything happens as it actually will – then your life will flow well. This is amor fati, to love one’s fate.

Nietzsche shares the same idea:

“I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: someday I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.”

Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §276

We should then not speculate of what is unforeseeable and beyond our control, but rather focus on how to make our lives as meaningful as possible.

Martin Heidegger takes a different view on the meaning of life. He tells us that beings are only intelligible as meaningful, where meaning is spawned according to our average everyday existence. We are thrown into the world at a given time period, culture, family, and we comport ourselves as being-in-the-world. We are always initially engaged with the world.

Meaning is not an add-on to existence, we are embedded in meaning, and there is no exit from having a life populated by meaningful beings. We are always pointing towards some being and constantly engaged in doing tasks which we care about, the essence of the being of humans, or what he calls Dasein (“being-there”) is its existence. We are initially and for the most part turned into the structures of average everydayness which defines our background meaning and intelligibility.

Viktor Frankl: Will to Meaning

Viktor Frankl wrote Man’s Search for Meaning in 1946 after being released from the concentration camps in which he spent three years. The success and attention of his book symbolised the “mass neurosis of modern times”. He called it the “unheard cry for meaning”.

The prisoners who were oriented towards a meaning in life were more likely to live – they were oriented towards the future, waiting to see their families or help other prisoners live. Even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical distress, many preserved a vestige of spiritual freedom.

He writes:

“The meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day, and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment. To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion: Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?”

Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Frankl founded the school of logotherapy, in which a search for meaning in life is the most fundamental and basic concern for man.

An example that explains the basic tenets of logotherapy is Frankl meeting with an elderly general practitioner who was struggling to overcome severe depression after the loss of his wife. Frankl helped the elderly man to see that his purpose had been to spare his wife the pain of losing him first.

“In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.”

Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

To be mentally sound, man must constantly be struggling and striving for a worthwhile goal. People who have a feeling of meaninglessness exist in what he calls an “existential vacuum.”

Frankl names three experiences which often lead to an existential crisis, known as the tragic triad: guilt, suffering or death. He believes that all human beings at one point in their lives with encounter the tragic triad.

In his time, however, many thought that this was a mental disease and the doctors buried their patients’ existential despair under a heap of tranquilising drugs. Frankl emphasised, however, that a man’s concern over the worthwhileness of life is an existential distress, which differs from mental illness.

A person who has a terrible and meaningless life is unlikely to improve with medication, on the other hand, a person with a seemingly good life who is miserable, might benefit from medication.

Contrary to animals, man does not just follow his instincts – he can sacrifice hunger for other purposes such as social reform. In contrast to man in former times, today he is not told by traditions and universal values what he should do. The result is that many people do not know what to do with their lives, so they fall into conformism (doing what others do) or totalitarianism (doing what others tell them to do).

Frankl gives us three ways to find meaning in life: by creating a work or doing a deed (which gives us a sense of achievement), by experiencing something (such as art, music or culture) and encountering someone (mainly through love, which not only includes sex but also experiencing someone in his very uniqueness) and by the attitude that we take toward unavoidable suffering.

Man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognise that it is he who is asked. Responsibility is the very essence of human existence:

“Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now!”

Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

The Meaning of Life – Philosophy & Psychology

Man cannot stand a meaningless life. What is the meaning of life? It is hard to think of a single proposition that can make your life meaningful in an instant. One can, however, orient oneself more meaningfully towards one’s goals. To find meaning is a dynamic process that constantly shapes yourself, immerses yourself in reality and has reality immersed in you.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

Death Smiles at Us All: All We Can Do Is Smile Back

Death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence. Most people unconsciously repress the idea of their death, as it is too horrifying a notion to think about.

Some are perhaps not so horrified of the idea of death, but rather the pain associated before one’s death, or the death of loved ones. We live entirely unique lives with complete different experiences, but we all share one common fate: Death. This is what links all of us together. Death smiles at us all and all we can do is smile back.

Is Death Undesirable?

We might think that death is undesirable since it deprives us of life. If by death we mean permanent death without any form of conscious survival, this question should be of interest even to those who believe that there is an afterlife, for one’s attitude towards immortality must depend in part on one’s attitude towards death.

If death is undesirable at all, it must be because it brings to an end all the good that life contains. In this view, life is worth living despite the existence of suffering. The more one lives the better. What makes life worth living includes everything that we find desirable.

The value of life does not attach to mere organic survival: almost everyone would agree that immediate death and immediate comma followed by death without reawakening would be the same outcome. Therefore, we can say that more life is good insofar as one is conscious and one is able to have good experiences.

If we were to consider death undesirable, it is because of the loss of life, rather than the actual state of being dead or non-existent. Death is bad because of the desirability of what it removes.

But this raises the question: what if we were to live indefinitely? If we had virtually endless days ahead of us, wouldn’t that generate widespread laziness? We would have all the time in the world, there would be no urgency to achieve great goals and there would be less incentive to make every day count, and as a result, we might end up as a bunch of unhappy people.

Death might well be what makes life valuable.

Should We Fear Death?

So, should we fear death? American philosopher Thomas Nagel identifies two common mistakes on the notion of death.

The first mistake is the asymmetry between our attitudes to posthumous and prenatal nonexistence. None of us existed before we were born (or conceived), but few regard that as a misfortune. How can posthumous death be considered bad and not prenatal nonexistence?

Some may say that no one finds it disturbing to contemplate the eternity preceding his own birth, and so it must be irrational to fear death, since death is simply the mirror image of the prior abyss.

However, this does not make much sense. While it is true that both the time before a man’s birth and the time after his death are times when he does not exist, the time after his death is time of which his death deprives him. It is time in which, had he not died, then he would be alive.

On the other hand, his birth, when it occurs, does not entail the loss to him of any life. The time prior to his birth is not time in which his subsequent birth prevents him from living. Thus, one’s prenatal nonexistence cannot be attributed to one’s posthumous nonexistence.

The second mistake is about the origin of the fear of death. It is often said that those who object to death have made the mistake of trying to imagine what it is like to be dead, leading to the conviction that death is a mysterious and terrifying future state.

This is logically impossible as there is nothing to imagine when one’s mental faculties have been shut down. People who are afraid of death in this sense mistake being dead as a conscious state, for it is easy to imagine oneself, from the outside, in that condition – but one can never experience it.

There is a difficulty, in the case of death, about how the supposed misfortune is to be assigned to a subject at all. There is doubt as to who its subject is, and as to when he undergoes it.

Epicurus writes:

“Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.”

Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

So long as a person exists, he has not yet died and once he has died, he no longer exists; so there seems to be no time when death can be ascribed to its unfortunate subject.

Therefore, the more reasonable fear people have is the pain that one experiences before one’s death. Thus one should not fear one’s death, but rather the possible ways of dying.

Ernest Becker: The Denial of Death

Ernest Becker, the author of The Denial of Death, was diagnosed with colon cancer and died two years later at the age of 49. He was posthumously awarded the Pulitzer Prize for this literary work, gaining him wider recognition.

Becker tells us that we are born in a world that is terrifying and our basic motivation is our biological need to control our basic anxiety, to deny the terror of death. He writes:

“This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expression – and with all this yet to die.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, Chapter 5: “The Psychoanalyst Kierkegaard”

Since the terror of death is so overwhelming we conspire to keep it unconscious. The first line of defence that protects us from the painful awareness of our helplessness is “the vital lie of character”. Every child borrows power from adults and creates a personality by introjecting the qualities of the godlike being: “if I am like my all-powerful father I will not die” – the child seeks self-extension or what Becker calls “cosmic significance”.

This expresses man’s tragic destiny:

“He must desperately justify himself as an object of primary value in the universe; he must stand out, be a hero, make the biggest possible contribution to world life, show that he counts more than anything or anyone else.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, Chapter 1: “Introduction: Human Nature and the Heroic”

The problem of heroics is the central one of human life. It is the combination of organismic narcissism and the basic need for self-esteem that creates a creature who has to feel himself an object of primary value, as the condition of his life.

We build “character armour” which makes us feel safe and are able to pretend that the world is manageable. But the price we pay is high, life escapes us while we huddle within the defended fortress of character.

“The irony of man’s condition is that the deepest need is to be free from the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, Chapter 4: “Human Character as a Vital Lie”

Society provides the second line of defence against our natural impotence by creating a hero system that allows us to believe that we transcend death by participating in something of lasting worth. We achieve ersatz immortality by sacrificing ourselves to establish a family, to accumulate fortune, to write a book and so on.

Since the main task of human life is to become heroic and transcend death, every culture must provide its members with an intricate symbolic system that is covertly religious. Our heroic projects are “my gods against your gods, my immortality project against your immortality project”.

Man’s basic narcissism is what keeps men marching into point-blank fire in wars: at heart one doesn’t feel that he will die, he only feels sorry for the man next to him.

Becker advises us to contemplate death. Cultivating awareness of our death leads to disillusionment, loss of character armour, and a conscious choice to abide in the face of terror. This is the existential hero’s way, which differs from the average person. Instead of hiding within the illusions, he sees his impotence and vulnerability. Living with the voluntary consciousness of death, the heroic individual can choose to despair or to make a leap of faith.

“Man cannot endure his own littleness unless he can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level.”

Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, Chapter 9: “The Present Outcome of Psychoanalysis”

Becker indicates, however, that the truth about the need for heroism is not easy for anyone to admit, and so we disguise our struggle by piling up figures in a bank book to reflect privately our sense of heroic worth.

To become conscious of what one is doing to earn his feeling of heroism is the main self-analytic problem of life.

Stoicism: Memento Mori

The Stoics, on the other hand, do not believe in the terror of death. It is a natural process and should not be feared. They practiced memento mori (meditating on your mortality), to remember that we all have to die.

Marcus Aurelius writes:

“Think of yourself as dead. You have lived your life. Now take what’s left and live it properly.”

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.56

Death allows one to fully live one’s life. For it is not death a man should fear but rather never beginning to live. For the Stoics, death is not anxiety-inducing or grippling, it is part of nature.

Epictetus writes:

“I have to die. If it is now, well then I die now; if later, then now I will take my lunch, since the hour for lunch has arrived – and dying I will tend to later.”

Epictetus, Discourses of Epictetus 1.1

If every second counts as dying, this allows one not to take anything for granted in this life and to fully immerse oneself, being aware that life is temporal. This also allows us to focus on the things that really matter:

“Constantly run down the list of those who felt intense anger at something: the most famous, the most unfortunate, the most hated, the most whatever. And ask: Where is all that now? Smoke, dust, legend… or not even a legend… And how trivial the things we want so passionately are.”

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 12.27

Nietzsche: The Free Death

Nietzsche also embraces and celebrates death and talks about the “free death”. He writes:

“Many die too late, and some die too early. The doctrine still sounds strange: “Die at the right time!”… To be sure, how could the person who never lives at the right time ever die at the right time? Would that he were never born! – Thus I advise the superfluous… Everyone regards dying as important; but death is not yet a festival. As of yet people have not learned how to consecrate the most beautiful festivals. I show you the consummating death that becomes a goad and a promise to the living. The consummated one dies his death, victorious, surrounded by those who hope and promise. Thus one should learn to die; and there should be no festival where such a dying person does not swear oaths to the living!”

Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I, “On Free Death”

Nietzsche establishes a view of the correct death which one chooses freely and which occurs at the right time. Death should be a consummation to life, dignified by a meaning and purpose emanating from the life that is ending.

In contrast he writes about the “preachers of death”:

“There are preachers of death, and the earth is full of those to whom one must preach renunciation of life… There are those with consumption of the soul: hardly are they born when they begin to die and too long for doctrines of weariness and renunciation. They would like to be dead, and we should welcome their wish. Let us beware of waking the dead and disturbing these living coffins! They encounter a sick or a very old person or a corpse, and right away they say: life is refuted!”

Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I, “On Preachers of Death”

Nietzsche rejects the melancholy of encountering a sick or a very old person or a corpse, as a repudiation of life. He illustrates the manner in which living men can be “effectively” dead. There are forms of death other than ceasing to be physically alive. There are the “living dead,” those who avoid the demands of existence through escape into work and through renunciation of life.

The Death of Socrates

Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy – may well be one who practised “dying at the right time”. At the age of 70, he was sentenced to death.

The Oracle of Delphi, which found the sum of human wisdom in the expression “know thyself”, had declared that there is no one wiser than Socrates. Thus he began his mission to educate people, with his famous irony: “I know that I know nothing”.

He was known as the gadfly of Athens, asking question after question in order to expose the contradictions in the thoughts and ideas of people. It was an attempt made to use critical reflection to call into question traditional beliefs and ways of thinking. This is known as the Socratic method.

As is described in Plato’s Apology, Socrates was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock for impiety against the pantheon of Athens and for corrupting the youth. In the trial, he stated his famous dictum: “The unexamined life is not worth living”.

He was given the chance to live in exile, but refused. He spent his last day in prison with his friends visiting him and offering him an opportunity to escape, which he declined.

His enigmatic final words were: “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Pay it and do not neglect it.”

Socrates is thanking the god Asclepius for healing him of the sickness of life by the cure of death.

The cock, which gives hopeful proclamation of the coming new day, symbolised rebirth and afterlife for ancient Greeks and was the offering to the healing god Asclepius. Socrates is simply offering thanks and pointing to the afterlife. He invokes the only god known to revive the dead, who Socrates suggests with his last words has already helped heal both Socrates himself and his followers from the fever of earthly life. He tells his friends to work to purify their souls, to serve others with compassion and to dedicate their lives to the community’s health.

Carl Jung: Life and Death

Carl Jung believes that one must be as ready to live as to die. He writes:

“Death is psychologically as important as birth, and like it, is an integral part of life… As a doctor, I make every effort to strengthen the belief in immortality, especially with older patients when such questions come threateningly close. For, seen in correct psychological perspective, death is not an end but a goal, and life’s inclination towards death begins as soon as the meridian is passed.”

Carl Jung, Collected Works 13: Alchemical Studies

Jung’s entire psychology is predicated on the existence of psychic oppositions in the human psyche. He stressed the need to hold the tension of opposites. Death is inevitable and to think otherwise is to live in denial and to live against one’s instincts.

Jung criticises contemporary culture in its one-sidedness about this pair of opposites, with our almost complete focus on life, and denial of death. He tells us to prepare ourselves for the second half of our life. But how should we face death when we grow older? He writes:

“Death is an important interest, especially to an aging person. A categorical question is being put to him, and he is under an obligation to answer it. To this end he ought to have a myth about death, for reason shows him nothing but the dark pit into which he is descending. Myth, however, can conjure up other images for him, helpful and enriching pictures of life in the land of the dead. If he believes in them, or greets them with some measure of credence, he is being just as right or just as wrong as someone who does not believe in them. But while the man who despairs marches toward nothingness, the one who has placed his faith in the archetype follows the tracks of life and lives right into his death. Both, to be sure, remain in uncertainty, but the one lives against his instincts, the other with them.”

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Chapter XI “On Life after Death”

A myth is not something that we create rationally, but rather through observing our psychic life, through active imagination, dreams, intuitions and synchronicities or meaningful coincidences. The lifelong process of individuation brings one’s unconscious contents into consciousness, shifting the focus of the ego with the self.

Jung recounts his visions that followed his near death experience. As he hung on the edge of death, he saw himself high up in space and noticed a large granite block floating in space, which had a temple. As Jung approached the steps leading into the temple, he experienced “a strange thing”:

“I consisted of my own history, and I felt with great certainty: this is what I am… This experience gave me a feeling of extreme poverty, but at the same time of great fullness. There was no longer anything I wanted or desired. I existed in an objective form; I was what I had been and lived… At first the sense of annihilation predominated, or having been stripped or pillaged; but suddenly that became of no consequence. Everything seemed to be past… There was no longer any regret that something had dropped away or been taken away. On the contrary: I had everything that I was, and that was everything… as I approached the temple I had the certainty that I was about to enter an illuminated room and would meet there all those people to whom I belong in reality. There I would at last understand… what historical nexus I or my life fitted into. I would know… why I had come into being, and where my life was flowing…”

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Chapter X: Visions

Jung then saw an image of his doctor telling him that he must return to earth, and his visions ceased. Compared to the freedom he felt in his vision, living felt like a prison, back to the “box system”. By day Jung was depressed, however, by night he was swept up in ecstasy, within visions that gave him the experience of:

“the odour of sanctity… a pneuma of inexpressible sanctity in the room, whose manifestation was the mysterium coniunctionis.”

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Chapter X: Visions

Jung’s last major work was in fact called Mysterium Coniunctionis, completed in his 81st year, on the synthesis of the opposites in alchemy and psychology. He wrote:

“Only with Mysterium Coniunctionis was my psychology definitely situated in reality and was historically cemented as a whole. With this my task was finished, my work done and accomplished. The moment I achieved my goal, I accessed the most extreme limits of what was scientifically conceived for me, the transcendent, the essence of the archetype itself, beyond which it is no longer possible to express anything else in the scientific aspect.”

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Chapter VII: The Work

Years later Jung could look back on his visions and say:

“It is impossible to convey the beauty and intensity of emotion during those visions. They were the most tremendous things I have ever experienced… not a product of imagination. The visions and experiences were utterly real; there was nothing subjective about them; they all had a quality of absolute objectivity.”

Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Chapter X: Visions

The Meaning of Death – Philosophy & Psychology

What is the meaning of Death? It is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence. Most people unconsciously repress the idea of their death, as it is too horrifying a notion to think about.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

The Death of Socrates – Jacques-Louis David

Becoming Who You Truly Are (Self-Realisation)

Life is a journey of self-realisation, of understanding and discovering who we truly are, and of maximising our potential. While this might be a life long journey, one can be closer or further from one’s true self.

Søren Kierkegaard: The Self

Søren Kierkegaard was a theologian and a philosopher, considered to be the father of existentialism. He also gave us one of the most profound analyses of the human condition, anticipating some of the fundamentals of psychoanalytic theory and pushed beyond that theory to the problem of faith and so to the deepest understanding of man.

He writes the following of the self:

“The human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates to itself…”

Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death

Kierkegaard believes that the self must have a relation with the eternal aspect which in turn relates to us, allowing us to achieve “true selfhood”.

Søren Kierkegaard: Despair

The cause of despair is the inability of a person to become a self, as a person lacks something “eternally firm”.

Kierkegaard’s notion of trying to define a self is one of his many ironies, likely intended to produce despair in one who believes he can figure out his self alone. He talks about two types of despair: infinitude’s despair and finitude’s despair.

The infinitude’s despair is the split of self and body, a split in which the self is unanchored, not bound enough to everyday things – the entire person is pulled off balance. Today we call this schizophrenic psychosis. However, he gives a second and more common type of despair:

“But while one sort of despair plunges wildly into the infinite and loses itself, a second sort permits itself as it were to be defrauded by “the others”. By seeing the multitude of men about it, by getting engaged in all sorts of worldly affairs, by becoming wise about how things go in this world, such a man forgets himself… does not dare to believe in himself, finds it too venturesome a thing to be himself, far easier and safer to be like the others, to become an imitation, a number, a cipher in the crowd.”

Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death

This is a great characterisation of the herd mentality, those who do not dare stand up for their own meaning because it is too burdensome and dangerous. Better not to be oneself, better to live tucked into others, embedded in a safe framework of social and cultural obligations and duties.

When one has too much finitude, one is built into his world too overwhelmingly. There is not enough freedom for the inner self. This he calls “finitude’s despair”, or what we would call depressive psychosis. The individual cannot imagine any alternate ways of life and cannot release himself from the trivial obligations that give him no value. By surrendering to others and holding on to the people who have enslaved him in a network of crushing obligations, he accuses himself – he chooses slavery because it is safe and meaningful, but soon too this loses meaning.

One has then literally died to life but must remain physically in this world, thus the torture of depressive psychosis: to remain steeped in one’s failure and yet to justify it, to continue to draw a sense of worthwhileness out of it.

He writes:

“The biggest danger, that of losing oneself, can pass off in the world as quietly as if it were nothing: every other loss, an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc. is bound to be noticed.”

Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death

In the midst of an existential crisis, Kierkegaard wrote the following in his journals:

“What I really want is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.”

Søren Kierkegaard, Papers and Journals

Søren Kierkegaard: Leap of Faith

Kierkegaard’s truth which he lived and died for was to take a leap of faith. It is not about becoming our self, but rather to stand before God transparently, whose higher self is the only one that can overwhelm our self. The self must be destroyed in order to become a self, it is a question of death and rebirth.

The individual is thus saved from this madness, by his subjective inwardness being related to God, achieving self-transcendence. However, even a religious person is not entirely free from despair, as a true believer must have his faith constantly challenged.

Sigmund Freud: Psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud contributed immensely to the notion of self-understanding, he pushed psychoanalytic theory to its limits but didn’t not come out at faith, he emphasised the creatureliness as the lasting insight on human character, mainly through an emphasis on libido (the pleasure principle).

Freud founded psychoanalysis after discovering that many of his patient’s symptoms were the result of unconscious repressions that had to be made conscious in order to cure them. He focused on psychopathology and what goes wrong with people. Many of his followers developed their own ideas, notably Carl Jung’s individuation, which we’ll talk about later on.

Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are two psychologists who focused, not on psychopathology, but rather on the growth potential of individuals, which also greatly contributed to our understanding of the self.

Carl Rogers: Self-Concept

Carl Rogers talks about the “self-concept”, which we develop from childhood and continues to form and change over time as we learn about ourselves. It is the knowledge of who one is. A positive self-concept makes one feel good about who they are. The self-concept is divided into self-image, self-esteem and ideal self.

The self-image is the way we see ourselves physically, our social roles and our personality traits. However, the self-image doesn’t always match reality, one may have a more negative view about oneself and others. This ties in with self-esteem, the value we place upon ourselves, which depends on our comparisons to others as well as others’ responses to us. Low self-esteem occurs when we compare ourselves to others and find out that we are not nearly as successful as they are or when people respond negatively to what we do.

Then we have the ideal self, the person you strive to be, while the real self is the person you are. The ideal self is used as a model to assist the real self in developing its potential. However when there is an incongruence, we become neurotic and are unable to develop a more satisfying personality. We may believe that we do not have an ideal self and our real self turns into a despised self.

The self-concept is dependent on the social situations in which we find ourselves, so we must be aware that it might be manipulated according to the feedback we receive from the environment.

Abraham Maslow: Self-Actualisation

Abraham Maslow gave us an important framework to achieving what he calls “self-actualisation”, the realisation of one’s full potential. He writes:

“What a man can be, he must be.”

Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality

Self-actualisation is the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be, and this depends on the individual. It is the pinnacle of the hierarchy of needs, which symbolises the human potential and the need for fulfilment.

Before self-actualisation, one must first meet one’s basic needs. Maslow’s motivational theory is best represented by a pyramid, with the more basic needs at the bottom and culminating in self-actualisation.

We start from the basic physiological needs of food, water, warmth, sex and rest – to the safety needs of security, employment, resources, health and property. These two are important to the survival of the individual, to cover one’s basic nutrition, shelter and safety.

Then we have our psychological needs: belongingness and love (which include our intimate relationship and friends) and the esteem needs (prestige, feeling of accomplishment and recognition). These four levels make up our deficiency needs.

Maslow described human needs as being relatively fluid – with many needs being present in a person simultaneously, rather than being a fixed and rigid sequence of progression. Nevertheless, human needs can only be fulfilled one level at a time.

In his later years, he explored a further dimension of growth needs, while criticising his own vision on self-actualisation. He added the cognitive level (the need for intellectual stimulation), the aesthetic level (the need for harmony, order and beauty) and on top of self-actualisation, he put self-transcendence. This is quite an interesting add-on, which goes back to Kierkegaard’s idea – the spiritual needs that transcend beyond the personal self. He writes:

“Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos”

Abraham Maslow, Farther Reaches of Human Nature

It is the idea of giving oneself to something beyond oneself, this can include mystical experiences, religious faith, altruism, and so on.

We can link the idea of transcendence with Eastern philosophy. Self-realisation has different meanings in western and eastern cultures. With a few exceptions, the West generally has a multitude of definitions of what the “self” is, whereas the predominant view in the East is that the self is an illusory fiction and does not exist in reality.

Eastern philosophy: Buddhism

Buddhism denies the existence of a self, and believes that it represents a series of transient psychological states. Therefore self-realisation is a contradiction in terms.

For Buddhists life is suffering, that is the first noble truth. But this suffering comes from craving, desire and attachment. One must let go of the craving by practising ascetism, in order to liberate oneself from samsara, the endless cycle of rebirth – where one is reborn depending on their karma – it is an aimless drifting in mundane existence.

To liberate oneself, one must engage in a lifelong practise of what is known as the Noble Eightfold path, which includes the activities that allows one to achieve nirvana, the freedom from suffering and rebirth, salvation is the realisation of the “non-self”.

Eastern philosophy: Taoism

Taoism accentuates the falsehood of language. The so-called “Tao”, the essence of life and the universe, or the Way, cannot be described by human language. According to the doctrine of Taoism: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” Taoism describes the self in the following way:

“The perfect man has no self; the spiritual man has no achievement; the true sage has no name.”

Zhuangzi

The ideal of Taoism, therefore, is the achievement of a lack of self.

Eastern philosophy: Advaita Vedanta

In Advaita Vedanta, literally “non-duality”, a school of Hindu philosophy and spiritual experience, the goal is to gain self-knowledge, and in contrast to Buddhism and Taoism, seeks a complete understanding of one’s true self or “Atman”, which transcends our physical bodies.

One can do so by understanding the ultimate reality of existence or “Brahman”, understanding that this world is temporal and is entangled in the web of “Maya”, which is the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that this world is real – things that appear present are a result of an illusion of appearance, this includes our ego, the hallmark of self-ignorance.

Carl Jung: The Self

Carl Jung, the founder of analytical psychology, describes the self as the totality of one’s personality, composed of our consciousness and the unconscious. The self is superior to the ego since the latter only amounts to the conscious personality. It is important to recognise that the ego is not the centre of our personality.

Jung writes:

“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the self… This insight gave me stability, and gradually my inner peace returned. I knew that in finding the mandala as an expression of the self I had achieved what was for me the ultimate. Perhaps someone else knows more, but not I.”

Carl Jung “Memories, Dreams, Reflections”, VI. Confrontation with the Unconscious

Jung tells us that our psyche can be split into three different realms: consciousness “the field of awareness” where our ego resides, the personal unconscious “that which is unique to each individual but has been forgotten or repressed” and the collective unconscious, which is the deepest part of our unconscious – the inherited and shared psychic material across all humans, it represents universal patterns of emotional and mental behaviour or “archetypes”.

Only being aware of our conscious personality amounts to self-ignorance and illusion of the reality of the self. True self-knowledge comes upon investigating one’s inner world, the unconscious realm. And for Jung, this is the true journey of life.

Carl Jung: Individuation

His central concept of self-realisation revolves around “individuation”. While it occurs naturally as we grow older, this is a mere passive form and we are not conscious of the process.

Jung proposes becoming consciously aware of individuation, through a lifelong process in which the centre of psychological life shifts from the ego to the self, bringing one’s unconscious contents into consciousness. These unconscious contents include the symbolic manifestations of the archetypes. Thus, one gains the knowledge of the timeless patterns of human life.

Jung’s goal is not to strive for perfection, but rather achieve wholeness of personality. Man becomes whole, integrated, calm, fertile, and happy when (and only when) the process of individuation is complete, when the conscious and the unconscious have learned to live at peace and to complement one another.

The most common way to interact with the unconscious is through dreams. Using the symbolic images of dreams, Jung found that the unconscious was conveying crucial information to help the entire psyche reach a balance which the conscious attitude has repressed, in order to reach a psychic equilibrium. This is known as the compensatory role of dreams. It is on such evidence that psychologists assume the existence of an unconscious psyche.

Throughout his life, Jung interpreted around 80.000 dreams and he discovered that they follow a pattern. If one pays attention to one’s dreams over a long period of time, one will see that certain contents emerge, disappear, and then turn up again. This slow process of psychic growth is the process of individuation.

Some of the common archetypes include: the trickster, the hero, the wise old man, and the great mother – these are not only present in dreams, but are represented throughout human history and mythology.

Modern man believes that he can control himself, but self-control is a rare virtue. Jung writes:

“The one thing we refuse to admit is that we are dependent upon “powers” that are beyond our control.”

Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols, Part I “Approaching the Unconscious”

Carl Jung: Shadow & Persona

An important archetype is the shadow, which Jung calls the “unknown dark side of the personality”, it is that which contains the hidden, repressed and unfavourable aspect of one’s personality. We deny the existence of all the things we despise in ourselves, while attributing them to others.

However, it is not only our negative aspects which we repress, but also our positive aspects, such as honesty, creativity and competitiveness, which must be rescued from within our shadow.

“Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is”

Carl Jung, Psychology and Religion: West and East

Moreover, one cannot individuate as long as one is playing a role to oneself. The persona is the mask which conceals one’s true self, presenting oneself as different to who one really is. This makes it particularly difficult to interact with the unconscious. We may perhaps become likeable to others, but it is at the cost of our own mental stability.

This is all the more dangerous when one is not aware of this social mask and confuses it with one’s true self. As we please others with our false self, it leaves negative traits that contradict our real self, making us a passive victim of our shadow.

It must be us who integrates our shadow, and not the other way around. This can be done through shadow-work, the practise which includes self-awareness, watching one’s emotional reactions, being radically honest and investigating one’s dreams.

“There is no light without shadow and no psychic wholeness without imperfection. To round itself out, life calls not for perfection but for completeness; and for this the “thorn in the flesh” is needed, the suffering of defects without which there is no progress and no ascent.”

Carl Jung, C.W. Vol. 12 “Psychology and Alchemy”

Journey to Self Realisation – Psychology & Philosophy

Life is a journey of self-realisation, of understanding and discovering who we truly are, and of maximising our potential. While this might be a life long journey, one can be closer or further from one’s true self.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

Not Suffering, But Meaningless Suffering Is the Curse

“The fact that there was no answer to the question he screamed, “Why do I suffer?” Man, the bravest animal and most prone to suffer, does not deny suffering as such: he wills it, he even seeks it out, provided he is shown a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. The meaninglessness of suffering, not the suffering, was the curse that lay over mankind so far.”

Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, III, §28

Nietzsche points out that the problem of suffering is its meaninglessness, rather than suffering itself.

It is hard to deny that to live is to suffer, as long as we do not mean that to live is only to suffer. For many, it is far easier to suffer than to find joy, peace, or happiness.

However, what is meant by suffering? Suffering can be psychological or physical. Under mental suffering we find depression, anxiety, fear, loneliness, grief, stress, boredom, failure, existential malaise and more. While these admit to degrees, one could argue that any degree of any of them constitutes suffering.

Pain is the paradigm of physical suffering – one can be stabbed or have a small cut, be hungry which can range from mild discomfort to actual pain, be too hot or too cold, and so on. One becomes acquainted with more kinds of suffering the longer one lives.

Dostoevsky observes the value of suffering in a society that is desperately trying to abolish it and replace it with everlasting happiness – only to sink further into pain and suffering. Suffering is part of the human condition, and we would be much happier accepting it as it is.

He warns us against those who want to eliminate suffering:

“Shower upon man every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface, give him economic prosperity such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick.”

Dostoevsky, Notes from the Underground

Everything that Dostoevsky had warned against had become a reality in Russia, the utopia of communism and the increasingly nihilistic and godless society ended up causing millions upon millions of deaths.

For Carl Jung, the communist world has one big myth. It expresses the archetypal dream of a Golden Age (or Paradise), where everything is provided in abundance for everyone. Every society has its idea of the archetypal paradise or golden age that, it is believed, once existed, and will exist again. He writes:

“Unconsciously then, we too believe in the welfare state, in universal peace, in the equality of man, in his eternal human rights, in justice, truth, and in the Kingdom of God on Earth. The sad truth is that man’s real life consists of a complex of inexorable opposites – day and night, birth and death, happiness and misery, good and evil. We are not even sure that one will prevail against the other, that good will overcome evil, or joy defeat pain. Life is a battle ground. It always has been, and always will be; and if it were not so, existence would come to an end.”

Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols, Part I “Approaching the Unconscious”, The Soul of Man

As Jung points out, one cannot have happiness without misery. Nietzsche goes even further:

“But what if pleasure and pain should be so closely connected that he who wants the greatest possible amount of the one must also have the greatest possible amount of the other, that he who wants to experience the ‘heavenly high jubilation’ must also be ready to be ‘sorrowful’ unto death?”

Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §12

Suffering and joy are inseparable and to enjoy great joy requires submitting oneself to the possibility of great suffering. Nietzsche disparages the preference for comfortableness over pain: those who “worship” comfort know little of happiness, since happiness and unhappiness are twins, they either grow up together, or remain small together.

However, this does not mean that happiness is a justification for our suffering. Nietzsche writes:

“The more volcanic the earth, the greater the happiness will be – but it would be ludicrous to say that this happiness justified suffering per se.”

Human, All Too Human, §591

For Nietzsche, human greatness is a goal, but human happiness is not. It is suffering, not happiness, that makes great. Since happiness is not to be desired over suffering to begin with, any happiness that results from “volcanic earth” is not going to justify our suffering. But the life-enhancing aspects of suffering do give suffering meaning because human greatness is more desirable than human happiness.

He writes:

“You want, if possible—and there is no more insane “if possible”—to abolish suffering; and we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever! Well-being as you understand it—that is no goal, that seems to us an end! A state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible—that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering—do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?”

Beyond Good and Evil, §225

For Nietzsche, one has to embrace suffering instead of trying to avoid it, as it is the cause of human greatness. There will always be rocks in the road ahead of us, they can be stumbling blocks or stepping stones. Suffering pervades life, however, not all of our day-to-day suffering brings in the question of meaning. One may be extremely hungry before dinner, but such “suffering” does not cry out for meaning. It is the more profound suffering – the loss of a parent, existential malaise, depression, etc. – that makes us ask, “Why do I suffer like this? What is this for?”

The goal is to find a meaning to suffering. Viktor Frankl writes:

“In some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice… That is why man is even ready to suffer, on the condition, to be sure, that his suffering has a meaning.”

Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Frankl founded the school of logotherapy, after being released from the concentration camps in Germany. He believes that the primary motivational force in man is the “will to meaning”. He saw the success of his book “Man’s Search for Meaning” as a symptom of the “mass neurosis of modern times” since the title promised to deal with the question of life’s meaningfulness.

For Frankl, one of three ways to find meaning in life is by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering, the other two are: by working or doing a deed and by love.

One who cannot bear suffering and tries to avoid the unavoidable is bound to end up in existential despair and nihilism, death is just as welcome as there’s no purpose for living.

As Dostoevsky points out: “There is only one thing that I dread: not to be worthy of my sufferings.”

We also find meaning through achievement or accomplishment in our work, and finally by loving another human being, the only way to grasp the innermost core of another person’s personality.

Nietzsche states:

“He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.”

Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Arrows, §12.

This lack of a “why to live for” can lead to suicide. Camus writes:

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”

Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus

Camus believes that one answer to the absurdity of life is suicide. Killing oneself is a confession that life is too much, that it is incomprehensible, or that it is not worth the trouble. The act of suicide is linked to the idea that life is not worth living since it is meaningless, this implies the absence of any profound reason for living and the uselessness of suffering.

However, our natural reaction is to shy away from discomfort and pain. So, should we seek to abolish suffering as far as we can by removing its cause, or should we attempt to change our attitude toward suffering such that it is no longer seen as (always) undesirable?

The answers to these questions need not be mutually exclusive: it is quite possible that we might seek to avoid suffering as much as possible, but given that we will inevitably still suffer, we will not necessarily see that suffering as entirely undesirable.

However, for Nietzsche – this is not really an option. One can view suffering as undesirable which (as we’ll see) ultimately uses harmful means to provide meaning for human suffering, or one can affirm all aspects of life as a sheer act of will and give meaning to suffering through acknowledging its necessary role in human growth, flourishing and greatness.

Thus, it is our attitude toward suffering that needs to be modified. We should modify it so that we no longer see suffering as something to be avoided.

Nietzsche believes that humanity’s first attempt at solving the meaninglessness of suffering was through the ascetic ideal, the renunciation of earthly pleasures in favour of a simple, self-denying and abstinent life. It was a means for the void that encircled man, the meaninglessness of suffering, it gave him a meaning – and any meaning is better than no meaning.

For Nietzsche, it brought a more venomous suffering into life, as it is a will opposed to life. A central characteristic of the ascetic ideal is its negative valuation of life: this life and this world are to be transcended—used merely as a “bridge” to another existence.

The ascetic ideal succeeded because it had been the only ideal so far, because it had no rival. However, humans are creatures of desire whose instincts go against the ascetic ideal. Seeing this, the ascetic priest states that suffering is punishment for going against the ascetic ideal, you’re full of sin according to the Christian; you’re full of ignorance and craving according to the Buddhist. Man is made to feel guilty, man as sinner deserves to suffer. With this, not only does suffering acquire meaning, one actually welcomes more suffering. Through the sorcery of the ascetic priest:

“one no longer protested against pain, one thirsted for pain; ‘more pain! more pain!’ the desire of his disciples and initiates has cried for centuries.”

Genealogy of Morals, III, §20

The ascetic ideal is a means for dealing with exhaustion and disgust with life. It brings about a kind of hypnotisation, something similar to the hibernation of animals. One removes oneself as far possible from the traffic of life with all of its inevitable painful accidents, by trying to enter into this kind of “deep sleep” and achieve freedom from suffering, but at the cost of effectively removing oneself from this world.

Nietzsche argues that the ascetic does not cure his meaninglessness, he merely diverts it with deadening drugs and hypnotism, causing ressentiment, the inferiority complex which gives way to revenge, and which is found in all those who are unhappy and sick, where it is directed against the happy and healthy. It is an imaginary revenge.

The ascetic priest sees ressentiment as dangerous if left to accumulate, as the sufferer naturally seeks a guilty party to blame for their suffering. To avoid this, the ascetic priest redirects ressentiment by means of a lie, instead of saying that the healthy are the cause of their suffering, they inform the wretched, the sick that they themselves are the cause of their suffering:

“I suffer: it must be somebody’s fault – so thinks every sick sheep. But his herdsman, the ascetic priest, says to him, “Quite so, my sheep, it must be the fault of someone; but thou thyself art that same one.”

Genealogy of Morals, III, §15

It is here that the ascetic priest provides the sufferer with not only a means for deadening the pain but also a meaning for his suffering, the answer to “why do I suffer?”

At first the guilt acts as a narcotic for their suffering, but it ultimately turns out to actually increase suffering through the intense feeling of guilt.

The ascetic priest gets the sufferer to discharge his emotions against himself.

“All the sick and sickly instinctively strive after a herd organisation as a means of shaking off their dull displeasure and feeling of weakness.”

Genealogy of Morals, III, §18

The individual is distracted from his own concerns by focusing on the needs and wellbeing of the community. All of this is encouraged by the ascetic priest. The three slogans of the ascetic ideal are:

“poverty, humility, chastity.”

Genealogy of Morals, III, §8

So, what does Nietzsche propose as an alternative ideal to give meaning to suffering? He states that a counterideal was lacking until Zarathustra:

“The fundamental conception of [Thus Spoke Zarathustra is] the idea of the eternal recurrence, this highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable.”

Ecce Homo: On The Genealogy of Morals

The eternal recurrence supposes that one would want to repeat life eternally, one accepts every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh and everything unutterably small or great in one’s life.

This is the alternative ideal for whom pain is not considered an objection to life and something to be avoided. However, Nietzsche believes that this task is only a possibility for the highest life affirmers who have embraced suffering.

Thus, there are two possibilities for the alternative ideal: to accept suffering as a means for human greatness – and only one who has done so, could ever accept the second possibility, to accept the eternal recurrence.

We can now answer the question “Why do I suffer?” with, “I suffer, not as a punishment, but in order to become better and stronger”.

Suffering and harsh conditions are required to make an individual great and fruitful. The overcoming of painful situations can be physical, psychological, or both – and one often gains a mental strength, a strength of will.

Concerning profound suffering, Nietzsche writes that:

“It almost determines the order of rank how profoundly human beings can suffer… Profound suffering makes noble; it separates.”

Beyond Good and Evil, §270

The order of rank supposes that humans are fundamentally unequal in their capabilities because of their physiological make-up, which affects both their physical and mental capacities. This inequality plays itself out so that there are higher types and lower types.

Those who are predetermined to be strong enough to suffer well are separated out from the lower types insofar as the latter do not suffer well. A part of suffering well is that one is made noble by it. Having suffered profoundly, the sufferer acquires a knowledge of terrible places that he alone knows about; he is prideful of his knowledge. He needs not to be pitied.

This nobility is present in those who suffer well, by those who are higher in the order of rank. The lower types, too, have gained knowledge of terrible places, but instead of feeling pride, they feel afraid – they crave the pity and safety of others.

One with a noble soul has reverence for himself. This faith in oneself is juxtaposed to that of religious faith. The higher type has a faith in himself and his capabilities; he does not need help from others to bear his suffering, nor does he need their pity. Insofar as one has this faith in oneself, one is distinguished from those of a lower rank.

In addition to suffering and having faith in oneself, the higher type willingly suffers as much responsibility as possible, while the lower type would rather take on as little responsibility as possible, for it is uncomfortable at best.

However, if some individuals are predisposed to suffer well and others poorly, and if suffering can be meaningful for its life enhancing qualities, and those who suffer poorly cannot find opportunities for enhancement in suffering, then the alternative ideal of suffering is not going to be equally available to all.

Therefore, it is only the higher type who can avoid both nihilism and asceticism. The ascetic ideal still has a role to play as the primary means for the majority of people to stave off nihilism.

To live is to suffer; to be able to embrace one’s life means being able to embrace one’s fate as a creature who is born to suffer. Seeing our suffering as meaningful for its necessary and life enhancing aspects should mean a rejection of nihilism. Further, if we couple this alternative ideal with the eternal recurrence, we affirm life at its highest:

“My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity.”

Nietzsche, Ecce Homo: On the Genealogy of Morals

The Problem of Suffering – Existentialism & Psychology

The problem of suffering is its meaninglessness, rather than suffering itself. It is hard to deny that to live is to suffer, as long as we do not mean that to live is only to suffer.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

KIERKEGAARD: How To Avoid Boredom and Maximise Happiness

Most of us strive for happiness in life, whether it be by seeking it directly through pleasures or by seeking it indirectly doing one’s duty, or a combination of both.

In the first part of Either/Or, containing the papers of an anonymous aesthete, Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard dedicates a chapter on the problem of boredom and the difficulty of maintaining happiness, and proposes his solution for it.

Kierkegaard was famous for writing under pseudonyms and exploring different spheres of existence, namely, the ethical, the aesthetic and the religious. This makes it all the more difficult to figure out his personal opinion on the matters discussed, it is thus up to the reader to make his own conclusions.

Boredom

The aesthete begins stating that:

“People of experience maintain that it is very sensible to start from a principle. I grant them that and start with the principle that all men are boring. Or will someone be boring enough to contradict me in this? … Were one to demand divorce on the grounds that one’s wife was boring, or a king’s abdication because he was boring to look at, or a priest thrown out of the land because he was boring to listen to, or a cabinet minister dismissed, or a life-sentence for a journalist, because they were dreadfully boring, it would be impossible to get one’s way. What wonder, then, that the world is regressing, that evil is gaining ground more and more, since boredom is on the increase and boredom is a root of all evil.”

The aesthete traces the origin of boredom from the very beginning of the world.

“The gods were bored so they created man. Adam was bored because he was alone, so Eve was created. From that time boredom entered the world and grew in exact proportion to the growth of population. Adam was bored alone, then Adam and Eve were bored in union, then Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were bored as a family, then the population increased and the people were bored all together. To divert themselves they conceived the idea of building a tower so high it reached the sky. The very idea is as boring as the tower was high…”

He explains that people do not think of ways of diverting themselves, but accelerate the ruin. He suggests that the state of Denmark should take out a loan of fifteen millions to use it not to pay their debts but for public pleasure. Everything would be free for a while, and people would not even need to spend money to amuse themselves, this would lead everything great to pour into Copenhagen, the greatest artists, actors and dancers. Copenhagen would become another Athens.

This is, however, merely a thought of his. He continues to think that all people are boring. However, one can bore oneself or bore other people. He explains that those who bore others are the plebians, the mass, the endless train of humanity in general. Those who bore themselves are the elect, the nobility. Strangely, those who don’t bore themselves usually bore others, while those who do bore themselves amuse others.

“Those who do not bore themselves are generally those who are busy in the world in one way or another, but that is just why they are the most boring, the most insufferable, of all.”

The other class of men, the select, bore themselves. The more profoundly they bore themselves, the more powerful a means of diversion they offer others, when boredom reaches its zenith, one either dies of boredom (the passive form) or shoots oneself out of curiosity (the active form).

Idleness, it is usually said, is a root of all evil. To prevent this evil one recommends work. However, the aesthete indicates that it is by no means a root of evil: quite the contrary, it is a truly divine way of life as long as one is not bored. The Olympian gods were not bored, they prospered in happy idleness.

The aesthete talks about the “apostles of empty enthusiasm”, those whose admiration and indifference have become indistinguishable.

“People who are always making a profession of enthusiasm, everywhere making their presence felt, and whether something significant or insignificant is taking place, cry ‘Ah!’ or ‘Oh!’, because for them the difference between significant and insignificant has become undone in enthusiasm’s blind and blaring emptiness. The acquired form of boredom is usually a product of a mistaken attempt at diversion.”

The aesthete now delves into how to tackle the problem of boredom.

“Seeing that boredom is a root of all evil… what is more natural than to try to overcome it? But here, as everywhere, cool deliberation is clearly called for lest in one’s demonic obsession with boredom, in trying to avoid it one only works oneself further into it. ‘Change’ is what all who are bored cry out for. With this I am entirely in agreement, only it is important to act from principle… My own departure from the general view is adequately expressed in the phrase crop rotation.”

Crop Rotation: Extensive Cultivation

The whole chapter, in fact, is called Crop Rotation: An Attempt at a Theory of Social Prudence. It is a sort of science of seeking pleasures characteristic of the reflective aesthete, and not mindlessly doing it as an unreflective aesthete, such as the legend of Don Juan.

To explain how one avoids boredom, the aesthete’s worst enemy, he uses the agricultural notion of crop rotation. It can be done in two ways. The first is the extensive cultivation, growing the same crop in the same land area for many years and gradually depleting the soil of certain nutrients and making it less resilient to pests and weeds. This makes the land lose its fertility and one has to constantly find new land. He writes:

“One is tired of living in the country, one moves to the city; one is tired of one’s native land, one moves abroad… One is tired of dining off porcelain, one dines off silver; one tires of that, one dines off gold; one burns half of Rome to get an idea of the conflagration at Troy. This method defeats itself, it is the bad infinite.”

The “bad infinite” is an expression of Hegel’s which connotes an infinite perpetuation, as against the notion of an infinite that somehow contains all that is finite. In a perpetual need of avoiding boredom, one eventually reaches a dead end.

Crop Rotation: Intensive Cultivation

The second is way is the intensive cultivation: focusing on changing the method of cultivation and type of grain. This is the one the aesthete proposes, the more you limit yourself the more resourceful you become.

The experienced farmer now and then lets his land lie fallow, uncultivated, so as to restore its fertility. The theory of social prudence recommends the same. He writes:

“One thinks of one’s schooldays. When one is at the age when no aesthetic considerations are taken in the choice of one’s teachers and the latter are for that very reason often very boring, how inventive one is! How amusing to catch a fly and keep it imprisoned under a nut shell and watch how it rushes about with the shell! … How entertaining it can be to hear the monotonous drip from the roof! How thorough of an observer one becomes, the slightest noise or movement does not escape one! Here we have the extreme of the principle that seeks relief, not extensively, but intensively.”

Remembering and Forgetting

The more inventive one can be in changing the mode of cultivation, the better; but every particular change comes under the general rule of the relation between remembering and forgetting. The whole of life moves in these two currents, so it is essential to have control over them.

When we come across something unpleasant we say “If only I could forget”, but forgetting is an art that must be practised beforehand. Being able to forget depends on how one remembers, and how one remembers depends on how one experiences reality.

The age that remembers best, but is also the most forgetful, is childhood. The aesthete tells us that we should have the spirit of the child but also be careful of how we enjoy:

“If one enjoys without reservation to the last, if one always takes with one the most that pleasure can offer, one will be unable either to remember or to forget… For then one has nothing else to remember than a surfeit one wants to forget, but which now plagues you with an involuntary remembrance. So when you begin to notice that you are being carried away by enjoyment or a life-situation too strongly, stop for a moment and remember. No other expedient gives a better distaste for going on too long. One must keep the reins on the enjoyment from the beginning, not set all sail for everything you decide on… Having perfected the art of forgetting and the art of remembering, one is then in a position to play battledore and shuttlecock with the whole of existence.”

The aesthete seeks to create a well-organised arrangement in a reasonable mind. Forgetting is not a passive act but rather an active one in which one puts away what one cannot use – it is identical to memory. When we forget, the thoughts are consigned into oblivion and it is simultaneously forgotten yet preserved.

One might think here of the unconscious and the conscious life of an individual. One’s unconscious contents can affect an individual without him being aware of it.

The aesthete indicates that it is an art that can be developed and ought to be exercised as much in relation to what is pleasant as to what is unpleasant. If someone pushes the unpleasant side altogether, as many of those who dabble in the art of forgetting do, one soon sees what good that does. In an unguarded moment, it often takes one by surprise with all the force of the world.

This is again analogous to letting your unconscious direct your life. One must necessarily have control of moods – controlling them in the sense of being able to produce them at will is impossible, but prudence teaches how to make use of the moment.

“As an experienced sailor always looks out searchingly over the water and sees a squall far ahead, so should one always see the mood a little in advance. One must know how the mood affects oneself, and in all probability others, before putting it on.”

Arbitrariness

For this, he recommends that one must never stick fast, and for that one must have one’s forgetting up one’s sleeve.

“One never accepts any vocational responsibility. If one does so, one simply becomes Mr. Anybody, a tiny little pivot in the machinery of the corporate state; you cease to direct your own affairs, and then theories can be of little help.”

Though one abstains from vocational responsibility, one should not be inactive but stress all occupation that is identical with idleness. One should develop oneself not so much extensively as intensively and prove the truth of the old proverb that it takes little to please a child.

“The whole secret lies in arbitrariness. People think it requires no skill to be arbitrary, yet it requires deep study to succeed in being arbitrary without losing oneself in it, to derive satisfaction from it oneself. One’s enjoyment is not immediate but is something quite different which one arbitrarily injects. You see the middle of a play, read the third part of a book. In this way one derives a quite different enjoyment from the one the author has been so good as to intend for you. One enjoys something entirely accidental, one regards the whole existence from this standpoint, lets its reality run aground on it.”

He gives an example:

“There was someone whose chatter certain circumstances made it necessary for me to listen to. He was ready at every opportunity with a little philosophical lecture which was utterly boring. Driven almost to despair, I discovered suddenly that he perspired unusually profusely when he spoke. I saw how the pearls of sweat gathered on his brow, then joined in a stream, slid down on his nose, and ended hanging in a drop at the extreme tip of it. From that moment everything was changed; I could even take pleasure in inciting him to begin his philosophical instruction, just to observe the sweat on his brow and on his nose.”

Apart from this arbitrariness within oneself there is also the accidental outside one. He indicates that one should always keep an eye open for the accidental, always be ready to march if anything should offer. The social pleasures which are planned have no great interest. Through accident, on the other hand, even the least significant thing can become a rich source of amusement.

Conclusion

The next section “The Seducer’s Diary” is the aesthete’s position taken to an extreme. A man who documents his journey of seducing women for the aesthetic fun of abandoning them later. The aesthete himself cannot help but feel anxious upon reading about it. Kierkegaard may have written it as a warning to the aesthetic sphere of life.

Part II of Either/Or contains the response to this aesthetic way of living by the ethicist. He tries to convince the aesthete to the ethical sphere of life. The ethicist who focuses on duty believes that he ends up being more happy than the aesthete who is too fixated on finding happiness.

“Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue.” – Viktor Frankl

It is ultimately up to the reader to make his own conclusion.

KIERKEGAARD: How To Avoid Boredom and Maximise Happiness

In Either/Or, Kierkegaard dedicates a chapter on the problem of boredom and the difficulty of maintaining happiness, and proposes his solution for it through the aesthetic sphere of existence.

Support Eternalised

Patreon

Buy Official Merch

Spring

Artwork used in the video

XIR160592 The Card Players, 1893-96 (oil on canvas) by Cezanne, Paul (1839-1906); 47×56 cm; Musee d\’Orsay, Paris, France; French, out of copyright.

NIETZSCHE: Living in Solitude and Dealing with Society

“Choose the good solitude, the free, high-spirited, light-hearted solitude that, in some sense, gives you the right to stay good yourself!”

Beyond Good and Evil, §25

Nietzsche’s life was one of solitude, his later period in life was spent almost in complete isolation.

At the age of 24, he was offered to become a professor of classical philology before completing his doctorate or receiving a teaching certificate. He remains to this day among the youngest of the tenured Classics professors on record.

He taught at the University of Basel from 1869 to 1878. Nietzsche’s poor health worsened and he was forced to leave his professorship. He had also felt that academic life was a hindrance to his creative thinking.

He retired with a modest pension of 3000 Swiss francs which represented two-thirds of his annual salary. The pension, though awarded for only six years, was actually paid in full until 1889, the year of his mental breakdown. This money was Nietzsche’s main source of income for the remaining years of his productive life, spanning from 1879 to 1888.

In his period as an independent philosopher he plunged into his creative work while plagued with continued ill health.

Nietzsche’s personal attitude involved a hidden and solitary aspect of his outward persona. Carl Jung writes:

“I was held back by a secret fear that I might perhaps be like him [Nietzsche], at least in regard to the “secret” which had isolated him from his environment. Perhaps, who knows? he had had inner experiences, insights which he had unfortunately talked about, and had found out that no one understood him.”

Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, III

Sigmund Freud, in rare praise, noted that:

“Nietzsche had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived or was ever likely to live.”

Nietzsche travelled frequently to find climates more beneficial to his health and lived in different cities as an independent author. He spent his summers in the coolness of Sils Maria, Switzerland and his winters in the warmness of the Italian cities of Genoa, Rapallo and Turin, and the French city of Nice. He also wrote many letters to his colleagues.

However, for the most part he was alone. Apart from writing, he used to take long walks that could last several hours. Nietzsche considered himself as the solitary wanderer and hermit, the “free spirit” that had experienced a great liberation from the traditions that had kept him chained. Solitude became the origin of a new category of thinker, a “philosopher of the future”, a “free spirit”.

“… we are the born, sworn, jealous friends of solitude, of our profoundest midnight and midday solitude – such kind of men are we, we free spirits! and perhaps you are something of this yourselves, you who are approaching? you new philosophers?”

Beyond Good and Evil, §44

He further elaborates that one must:

“… remain master of one’s four virtues: courage, insight, sympathy, solitude. Because solitude is a virtue for us, since it is a sublime inclination and impulse to cleanliness which shows that contact between people (“society”) inevitably makes things unclean. Somewhere, sometime, every community makes people – base.”

Beyond Good and Evil, §284

Solitude is best expressed in the figure of Zarathustra, the solitary wanderer:

“When Zarathustra was thirty years old he left his home and the lake of his home and went into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his spirit and his solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last a change came over his heart, and one morning he rose with the dawn, stepped before the sun, and spoke to it thus: “You great star, what would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine. For ten years you have climbed to my cave: you would have tired of your light and of the journey had it not been for me and my eagle and my serpent.” But we waited for you every morning, took your overflow from you, and blessed you for it. “Behold, I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to receive it.” I would give away and distribute, until the wise among men find joy once again in their folly, and the poor in their riches. “For that I must descend to the depths, as you do in the evening when you go behind the sea and still bring light to the underworld, you overrich star.” Like you, I must go under—go down, as is said by man, to whom I want to descend. “So bless me then” you quiet eye that can look even upon all-too-great happiness without envy! “Bless the cup that wants to overflow, that the water may flow from it golden and carry everywhere the reflection of your delight. “Behold, this cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants to become man again.” Thus began Zarathustra’s down-going.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

Zarathustra’s solitude was very fruitful, but there comes a moment when he grows weary of his wisdom. Solitude seems, therefore, to be a temporary matter. He wishes to share his teachings and thus he begins his descent into mankind.

However, he fails to teach the people no matter how hard he tries. In fact, he feels more isolated with the people than being alone with himself, like a black sheep. Despite the appearances, the mediocre man is actually isolated from himself and progressively absorbed in a faceless collectivity, that ends up suffocating his individuality.

Nietzsche himself was acutely aware of his psychological isolation, and joked to one of his correspondents that he was the “hermit of Sils-Maria”. On one of his drafts in his last work Ecce Homo, he writes: “I am solitude become man”

He considered his contemporaries as parroting culture and society in their ideas, writings and daily life because they lack the will to delve into their own being and derive meaning and ideas from a thorough-going examination of oneself, which can only be achieved by cultivating solitude. He writes:

“When I am among the many I live as the many do, and I do not think as I really think; after a time it always seems as though they want to banish me from myself and rob me of my soul and I grow angry with everybody and fear everybody. I then require the desert, so as to grow good again.”

Daybreak, §491

And:

“I need solitude – that is to say, recovery, return to myself, the breathing of free, crisp, bracing air… The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude.”

Ecce Homo, 1, 8.

Zarathustra eventually ends up going back into solitude, but this time – he focuses on a small minority of “higher men”, who unlike the crowd, possess virtues of introspection, discipline, self-overcoming and other aspects constitutive of the love of life. An individual who isolates himself without ever valuing external opinions will only have his conscience with himself and nobody to ever confront or challenge his views. This is why Zarathustra must find “higher men” for his mental elevation. He suggests that our “enemies” are actually adversaries whose ideas have the potential of improving our own. He writes:

“My brothers in war! I love you deeply, because I am and have been your equal. And I am also your best enemy… You should be the kind of men whose eyes always seek an enemy – your enemy… You should seek your enemy, wage your war and for your thoughts! And when your thought is defeated, then your honesty should cry out in triumph even for that.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Of War and Warriors

Solitude is thus not just a result of the contempt of the masses, but allows to forge a more profound longing for a community that allows one to explore the best version of oneself. Company is important, and if chosen well – can be mutually beneficial.

In this sense, introspective solitude is compatible with life in community, but it is also necessary to retreat into complete solitude once in a while, in order to receive its fruits.

“Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you. Indeed, with different eyes, my brothers, will I then seek my lost ones; with a different love will I love you then.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Of the Bestowing Virtue

A temporary retreat into solitude helps to dissolve one’s entrapment in being a mere member of a crowd, where society is thought of as higher than its members. Anyone who questions and goes against society is ridiculed and ostracised, so too the solitary wanderer.

The solitary is he who challenges society’s desire to turn the human being into an absolutely gregarious animal. There is great risk in wanting to live and think like a solitary, for he is expected to conform to culture and popular opinion. Yet it is the solitary who is free, while the masses have renounced to their will and have become conformists.

However, in solitude, everything that one carries with him grows, including one’s inner beast.

“Today you suffer still from the many, you lonely one: for today you still have your courage and your hopes intact. But one day solitude will make you weary, one day your pride will cringe and your courage will gnash its teeth. One day you will cry “I am alone!” One day you will no longer see your high, and your low will appear too near; your sublimity itself will frighten you like a ghost. One day you will cry: “Everything is false!” There are feelings that want to kill the lonely one; if they do not succeed, well, then they must die themselves! But are you capable of being a murderer?”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Of the Way of the Creator

Nietzsche indicates that only a few people can bear solitude, but these will be able to harvest its fruits. Solitude has an aspect of a sense of belonging that is not present in the crowd.

Being physically isolated, however, does not imply automatically and instantaneously getting rid of the social imprint, because society not only makes an appearance outside of oneself, but also within oneself, through a common conscience. It is an inner voice that contains the norms and habits that prevail at the civic level and, to a greater or lesser extent, condition our way of speaking, interpreting, reflecting, acting, and, in short, living.

That is why Nietzsche urges us to reflect upon this inner voice that conditions our life, and that is only possible in solitude.

“Flee, my friend, into your solitude! I see you dazed by the noise of the great men and stung by the stings of the little. Forest and rock know well how to be silent with you. Be once more like the tree that you love, the broad-branching one: silent and listening it hangs over the sea. Where solitude ends, there begins the marketplace; and where the marketplace begins, there begins too the noise of the great actors and the buzzing of poisonous flies… You have lived too long near the small and the pitiable man. Flee their invisible revenge! Against you they are nothing but revenge.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part I “On the Flies of the Marketplace”

Being in solitude allows to see one’s constant anxious consideration of the opinions that others hold of you and one’s captivity in the quick pace of modern life that pressures everyone to become workaholics, the result is alienation and fragmentation of the self.

Solitude makes again possible the practices of contemplation, which puts oneself in touch with one’s deep sources of wellness.

“On this perfect day, when everything is ripening, and not only the grapes are getting brown, a ray of sunshine has fallen on my life: I looked behind me, I looked before me, and never have I seen so many good things all at once… How could I help being thankful to the whole of my life?”

Ecce Homo, Preface

Living in Solitude and Dealing with Society | Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche recommends to spend some of our time in complete solitude. To reflect upon the inner voice that conditions our life which is the product of the common conscience of society.

Support Eternalised

Ko-fi

Patreon

YouTube

Follow Eternalised on social media!

Artwork used in the video

FWWP01 Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette, Bal du moulin de la Galette, by Pierre Auguste Renoir, 1876, Musee D’Orsay Paris France Europe

NIETZSCHE: The Übermensch (Overman)

In Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, there are three major teachings that the sage Zarathustra has to offer: the will to power, the eternal recurrence and the übermensch.

We have explored the ideas of the will to power and the eternal recurrence in-depth in previous posts. Now we will be doing the same here with the übermensch.

Translation and Origins of “Übermensch”

Let’s first start with the word itself, “ubermensch”. The first English translation rendered it as “Beyond-Man”, and later it was named “Superman”, however this promoted its misidentification with the comic-book character Superman. It has also been called the “Super-human” and “Über-man”.

Walter Kaufmann, one of the most important Nietzschean scholars, explains that the closest to the German translation is “overman”. We will be using this term, although it can also be used in its original German form as well.

Nietzsche was a profound admirer of Emerson. He wrote in his notes:

“Emerson. – Never have I felt so much at home in a book and in my home, as – I may not praise it, it is too close to me”

– Volume XI Musarion edition.

Emerson had coined the term “The Over-soul” (the title of one of his essays), which may have influenced Nietzsche’s choice of the term übermensch, making the translation “overman” doubly appropriate. Nietzsche had translated the original English word of “over-soul” as “the higher soul”, which also may have influenced his phrase, “the higher man.”

The Overman and The Free Spirit

Nietzsche had not come up with the concept of the overman until his later period in life. However, he had spoken of “free spirits”, which is to evolve in his later works into the sage Zarathustra, who paves the way for the overman.

In one of his early books, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Nietzsche dedicates it to the “free spirits” who did not exist yet, but he saw them coming slowly. He spent time with these imagined “free spirits” to be of good cheer in the midst of illness, isolation and inactivity, to chat and laugh with. The free spirit challenges the conventional ways of living and promotes the growth of society.

The Overman and The Final Metamorphosis

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the overman is linked with the final metamorphosis of the child. Nietzsche tells us that there are three metamorphoses for self-overcoming: the camel, the lion and the child.

Not everyone, however, can become a camel. One must first become a free spirit and be willing to step outside of one’s comfort zone to carry heavy weights and sacrifice oneself. To debase oneself in order to injure one’s pride, to let one’s folly shine out in order to mock one’s wisdom. In other words, Nietzsche suggests that when we feel proud of ourselves, we are to take on even more weight to show that we are not that great after all, we need to humble ourselves.

The lion is the next transformation, he is one who wants to take on freedom and must utter the “sacred No” to all tradition and rules that previously kept it “fettered”. The final transformation, characterised by play and creativity, is the child. Having uttered the “Sacred No” to reject everything that came before, the child shouts the “sacred Yes” that affirms life. It is a new beginning, without any burdens or “spirit of heaviness”.

After achieving the final metamorphosis, one can become “who one is”. The mind of the child is one who is immersed in the moment and filled with wonder and playfulness, giving way to pure creativity, one can create one’s own values and one’s own reality, one can now become an overman.

What is the Overman?

The overman is the ultimate form of man, it is one who overcomes nihilism by creating his own values and focusing on this life, not the afterlife. He puts all his faith in himself as an autonomous creator and relies on nothing else. He is the pinnacle of self-overcoming, to rise above the human norm and above all difficulties, embracing whatever life throws at you. He is one who overcomes mediocrity and is not afraid to live dangerously. “The overman shall be the meaning of the earth”.

To be master of oneself is the hardest of all tasks and requires the greatest increase in power over oneself, not over others. This is tied with his concept of the will to power, symbolising self-overcoming. Happiness is the feeling that power increases, that a resistance is overcome. The overman will thus be the happiest man and, as such, the meaning and justification of existence.

First Appearance of The Overman

The first appearance of the “overman” does not first occur in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, as many believe. Nietzsche, in fact, mentions it once in an aphorism of The Gay Science:

“The invention of gods, heroes, and overmen of all kinds, as well as near-men and undermen, dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons and devils was the inestimable preliminary exercise for the justification of the egoism and sovereignty of the individual: the freedom that one conceded to a god in his relation to other gods – one eventually also granted oneself in relation to laws, customs, and neighbours.”

The Gay Science, §143

The overmen of this aphorism seem to be the gods, the demigods, and heroes of the ancient Greeks. To Nietzsche these overmen appear as symbols of the repudiation of any conformity to a single norm: antitheses to mediocrity and stagnation.

To realise one’s true self means not to envisage the self which lies deeply concealed within you, but rather the self that is immeasurably high over you. This aphorism is significant because it contains one of the few references to the overman before Thus Spoke Zarathustra and was written just before that work.

The Overman and Thus Spoke Zarathustra

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the overman makes his most important public appearance – together with the eternal recurrence and the will to power, which had not been fully developed either before Zarathustra expounded them. After Zarathustra’s descent from the mountains he arrives at a town, where he found a crowd assembled in the market square, for it had been announced that a tightrope walker would be appearing. And Zarathustra spoke thus to the people:

“I teach you the overman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of this great tide, and return to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape. Behold, I teach you the overman. The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The overman shall be the meaning of the earth! … Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the madness, with which you should be cleansed? Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this lightning, he is this madness!”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

The people, however, fail to understand him and burst out in laughter. They incorrectly assume that he is the tightrope walker that they have all gathered around to see and tell him that he should get to work. But the tightrope walker, who thought that the words applied to him, set to work.

Zarathustra looked at the people and marvelled. Then he spoke thus:

“Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman – a rope over an abyss. A dangerous going-across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and staying-still. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

The original text in German of Thus Spoke Zarathustra contains a great deal of wordplay which is lost in translation. Zarathustra’s descent from the mountains as the solitary wanderer symbolises his “down-going” or “untergang”, as he wishes to share his wisdom with humanity after remaining in solitude for 10 years. However, this descent is also contrasted with his over-going “übergang”, and overcoming “überwindung”, both of which evoke the overman “übermensch”

In other words, one’s self-overcoming (selbstüberwindung) necessarily involves a going under. The overman cannot be dissociated from the conception of overcoming. It is repeated again and again throughout the book that “man is something that should be overcome” – and the man who has overcome himself has become the overman.

The Overman and The Last Man

The crowd still do not understand him, they just laugh at him. They symbolise the opposite of the overman – the “Last Man”. Those who strive for conformity, those who are all alike and enjoy mediocrity, afraid of doing anything too dangerous. They are perfectly happy to be virtually the same as everyone else. They think they have discovered happiness and blink.

Zarathustra starts to speak about this “Last Man” and when he finishes they shout:

“Give us this Last Man, O Zarathustra” – so they cried – make us into this Last Man! You can have the Overman! And all the people laughed and shouted. But Zarathustra grew sad and said to his heart: “They do not understand me: I am not the mouth for these ears.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

The Tightrope Walker

In the meantime, the crowd is fixated on the tightrope walker who has just reached the middle of the course of his dangerous crossing, symbolising mankind’s progress between beast and overman.

Suddenly, a jester comes out behind him and teases him, he eventually emits a cry like a devil and springs over the tightrope walker standing in his path. The latter who saw his rival thus triumph, lost his footing and he threw away his pole and fell.

Zarathustra rushes to the badly injured but not yet dead man:

“I’ve known for a long time that the Devil would trip me up. Now he’s dragging me to Hell: are you trying to prevent him? – ‘On my honour, friend’, answered Zarathustra, ‘all you have spoken of does not exist: there is no Devil and no Hell. Your soul will be dead even before your body: therefore fear nothing anymore!’ The man looked up mistrustfully. ‘If you are speaking the truth’, he said then, ‘I leave nothing when I leave life. I am not much more than an animal…’ ‘Not so’, said Zarathustra. ‘You have made danger your calling, there is nothing in that to despise. Now you perish through your calling: so I will bury you with my own hands.’ When Zarathustra had said this the dying man replied no more; but he motioned with his hand, as if he sought Zarathustra’s hand to thank him.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

Nietzsche indicates that the tightrope walker who risked his life, contrary to the mediocrity of the last man, had lived an admirable life. In fact, one of the characteristics of the overman is the ability to confront danger.

“I love those who do not know how to live except their lives be a down-going, for they are those who are over-going”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

This danger is the bridge to the overman. In one of Nietzsche’s most popular phrases, he says:

“For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously!”

The Gay Science, §283

Nietzsche evokes the figure of man as that of a tightrope walker. In man there is both creator and creature, the human and the all-too-human, but also the “human, superhuman”, this is, of course, a variation of the earlier “human, all-too-human” which Nietzsche had intended to brand our animal nature. The “human, superhuman” then refers to our true self and the “overman” is the one who has acquired self-mastery.

The Overman: “The Meaning of The Earth”

When Nietzsche says that “The overman is the meaning of the earth. The overman shall be the meaning of the earth”. He tries to bring the focus on this life, instead of devaluing it in favour of an afterlife.

“I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go. Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful thing, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

Nietzsche believes that focusing on an afterlife is a symptom of dissatisfaction with life that causes the suffering to imagine another world which will fulfil his revenge. This required an invention of an immortal soul separate from the earthly body, leading to the abnegation of the body or asceticism. For Nietzsche, the soul and body cannot be separated.

The Overman and The Death of God

Nietzsche saw the decline of Christianity in society as devastatingly dangerous as it would give way to nihilism. He speaks of the “parable of the madman” who proclaims the death of God. His proclamation has tragic overtones.

Christianity had focused primarily on the afterlife, devaluing this life – as well as an over-appreciation of truth and the impossibility of criticising it. Nietzsche considered that Christianity developed a self-destructive tool which ended up destroying itself, he calls it a “will to nothingness”, a will opposed to life, but it is and remains a will. In other words, man will wish nothingness rather than not wish at all, it brought, however, a new and more venomous poison into life that devalues this life. The death of God symbolises the opening of the gap of nihilism.

He saw humanity as facing an unprecedented crisis which would require a transformation or evolution of humankind. The evolution Nietzsche has in mind is philosophical rather than physical. It will require a questioning of the entire Western philosophical tradition and a completely different attitude toward life. The source of the crisis for Nietzsche lies in the longing for the afterworld, the desire which has shaped the Western tradition since Socrates to be liberated from the prison of the body and of earthly existence. In contrast to this longing, Zarathustra emphasises that one should “remain faithful to the earth.” The further evolution of humankind thus requires overcoming the mind/body, spirit/nature dualism that has shaped much of Western thought.

Nietzsche intended the monumental task of a “Revaluation of All Values”, through the overman, the eternal recurrence and the will to power. He seeks to offer an alternative to traditional values in the absence of a divine order so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and bring the attention to this world.

The overman is meant to be the solution to nihilism, by conquering it, he is the meaning we should give to our lives. The overman overflows with strength and well-being, so much so that he has to bestow gifts onto others.

Nietzsche not only refers to the death of Christianity but states at the end of Zarathustra’s prologue that:

“Dead are all gods, now we want the overman to live – let this be our last will one day at the great noontide!”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue

The Overman and The Higher Man

Nietzsche also talks about “the higher men”, great human beings who serve as examples of people who would follow his philosophical ideas. Those who use their own legs to rise high up and not let themselves be carried up. For man must grow to the height where the lightning can strike and shatter him: high enough for the lightning.

Nietzsche also calls them “free spirits”, “philosophers of the future” and “creative geniuses”, those with both an intellectual conscience and with a feeling for art. Nietzsche recommends the artistic style of life that he considers his own life to be an example of. As well as a philosopher, he counts himself among the poets and artists.

In Part IV of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the sage Zarathustra contemplates the folly of hermits he made when he went to men for the first time: he had gone to the marketplace. And when he spoke to everyone, he spoke to no one.

Nietzsche does not write for everyone. In fact, the subtitle for Thus Spoke Zarathustra is A Book for All and None. He writes for that small percentage of people who are willing to take risks in order to get true fulfilment and happiness out of life.

“You Higher Men, learn this from me: in the marketplace no one believes in Higher Men… the mob blink and say…there are no Higher Men, we are all equal, man is but man, before God – we are all equal! Before God! But now this God has died.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part IV “Of the Higher Man”

However, the higher men are not overmen – as a consequence of Zarathustra’s instruction, they become conscious of their inadequacy. Zarathustra says:

“You may all be Higher Men… but for me – you are not high and strong enough.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part IV “Of the Higher Man”

Zarathustra declared earlier that:

“Never yet has there been an overman. Naked saw I both the greatest and the smallest man. They are still all-too-similar to each other. Verily even the greatest I found all-too-human.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part II “Of The Priests”.

The question is merely whether a higher man became truly perfect, or whether even he was, in some respects, “all-too-human”. This consideration, however, does not affect the interpretation of the overman as the man who has to overcome himself.

The Overman, The Eternal Recurrence, The Will to Power

The overman is closely tied to his notion of eternal recurrence and the will to power.

The eternal recurrence supposes that you’d have to experience the same life, with every struggle and every victory, every event and every experience, repeated for eternity.

The eternal recurrence was to Nietzsche less an idea than an experience – the supreme experience of a life unusually rich in suffering, pain and agony.

In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche proclaims that he is the last disciple of the philosopher Dionysus and the teacher of the eternal recurrence.

“You higher men, do learn this, joy wants eternity. Joy wants eternity of all things, wants deep, wants deep eternity!”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part IV, The Intoxicated Song

The weak, who are able to stand life only by hoping for kingdom, power, and glory in another life, would be crushed by this terrifying doctrine of the eternal recurrence, which he considered as “the heaviest weight”, while the strong would find in it the last incentive to achieve perfection.

The eternal recurrence is the ultimate affirmation of life, an eternal repetition of what constitutes existence in the present world. Nietzsche says that one would require the most impassioned love of life:

“… to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal.”

– The Gay Science, §341

Self-overcoming is expressed in terms of a will to power. That is, power over oneself, becoming who one is, it manifests itself in the encounter with obstacles. Both pain and pleasure are inextricably connected together, with intense pain comes a feeling of joy worthy of gods. This constitutes the progress towards the overman, who will ultimately accept the eternal recurrence with great joy, as he is the highest life-affirmer.

“My formula for the greatness of a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different – not forward, not backward, not in all eternity.”

Ecce Homo, II, 10

One’s character is in constant becoming, as one tries the seemingly impossible task of reaching the stars, one aspires to the highest possible goal. This self-overcoming is the concept that ties together the will to power, the overman and the eternal recurrence. It is indeed one of the most important aspects of Nietzsche’s whole philosophy.

NIETZSCHE: The Übermensch (Overman)

Nietzsche’s Übermensch (Overman) is among the most important of his teachings, along with the eternal recurrence and the will to power.

Support Eternalised

Ko-fi

Patreon

YouTube

Buy Official Merch

Redbubble

Spring

“A room without books is like a body without a soul.” — Cicero

Great Books List

Discord Community

Join Discord

Artwork used in the video

Book Review: The Present Age – Søren Kierkegaard

“There is no more action or decision in our day than there is perilous delight in swimming in shallow waters.”

In “The Present Age”, Søren Kierkegaard discusses the philosophical implications of a society dominated by mass media, foreseeing the rise of twenty-four hour news and social media, it examines the philosophical implications of a culture of endless, inconsequential commentary and debate – a society eerily similar to our own.

The Age of Revolution together with The Present Age, make up his book Two Ages: A Literary Review, which he published in 1846.

For Kierkegaard, the present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion. He contrasts this with the “revolutionary age”:

“A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity. Nothing ever happens but there is immediate publicity everywhere.”

And:

“Our age is essentially one of understanding and reflection, without passion, momentarily bursting into enthusiasm, and shrewdly relapsing into repose”

The work was published shortly after “The Corsair Affair” in which the satirical magazine made Kierkegaard the target of public ridicule, forcing him into deeper isolation – which only increased his determination to strike back.

He attacks the conformity and assimilation of individuals who become immersed in an indifferent and abstract public. They are incapable of anything but “crowd actions” which are not true actions at all.

Kierkegaard says that we can only become individuals by action, he was concerned with inwardness, the quality of our individuality. He feared that in modern consumer society the individual was being absorbed into the crowd and the spiritual life of the individual was being stifled by it.

The individual loses himself in the finite, he mindlessly follows others and goes around the demands of culture and social expectations. He loses his individuality, becoming an imitation, a number, a cipher in the crowd.

The age of great and good actions is past, the present age is the age of anticipation when even recognition is received in advance.

Ice Skater Analogy

Kierkegaard gives a splendid comparison of the two ages through the ice skater analogy.

If a jewel which everyone desired to possess lay far out on a frozen lake where the ice was very thin, watched over by the danger of death, while closer in, the ice was perfectly safe, then in a passionate age the crowds would applaud the courage of the man who ventured out, they would tremble for him and with him in the danger of his decisive action, they would grieve over him if he drowned, they would make a god of him if he secured the prize.

But in an age, without passion, in a reflective age, it would be otherwise. People would think each other clever in agreeing that it was unreasonable and not even worthwhile to venture so far out. And in this way they would transform daring and enthusiasm into a feat of skill. The crowds would go out to watch from a safe place, as the accomplished skater moves almost to the very edge, and then swiftly turns back. Intelligence, prudence and skill transforms the real task into an unreal trick and reality into a play.

“A passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down; but a revolutionary age, that is at the same time reflective and passionless, transforms that expression of strength into a feat of dialectics.”

Reflective tension

The present age is characterised by idle-chatter and gossip. People have plenty to talk about, but on trivial matters which amount to nothing. They are afraid of the silence which reveals the emptiness of talkativeness.

It is an age of ambiguity. The whole age becomes a sort of committee, observing and deliberately working out problems.

For example, a father no longer curses his son in anger, using all his parental authority, nor does a son defy his father, a conflict which might end in forgiveness. It has become a problem in which the two partners observe each other as in a game, instead of having any relation to each other, and they note down each other’s remarks instead of showing a firm devotion.

This is known as reflective tension, while in a passionate age the unifying principle was enthusiasm – the present age is characterised by envy, preventing the individual to make a decision passionately.

In the present age, an individual has to break loose from the bonds of his own reflection, but even then he is not free. Instead he finds himself in the vast prison formed by the reflection of those around him.

People do not realise that they are imprisoned as the imprisonment is not external, but rather internal. Therefore, reflection adds to our affliction.

Ressentiment

Just as the air in a sealed room becomes unbearable, so does the imprisonment of reflection which gives way to envy, which in turn takes the form of ressentiment, if it is not ventilated by action of any kind.

Ressentiment is also a term used by Nietzsche, notably in his Genealogy of Morals, although they differ in meaning. For Kierkegaard, it means that one blames one’s own failures to another person. Individuals who do not conform to the masses are made scapegoats and objects of ridicule by the masses, in order to maintain the status quo and to instil into the masses their own sense of superiority.

Throughout history, man has always liked to joke enviously about his superiors. That is fine so long as after having laughed at the great they can once more look upon them with admiration.

In Greece, for example, the form ressentiment took was ostracism. The outstanding individual was exiled in order for the masses to preserve their social position, it was thus considered a mark of distinction. The man who votes for the exile of the outstanding individual does not deny his eminence but rather admits something about himself.

On the other side, the more reflection gets the upper hand and thus makes people indolent, the more dangerous ressentiment becomes. It now wants to drag down the individual so that he ceases to be distinguished.

Levelling

This takes the form of what Kierkegaard calls levelling. While a passionate age storms ahead setting up new things and tearing down old, a reflective and passionless age hinders and stifles all action; it levels.

Antiquity tended towards leadership represented by the great individual, the present age, however, tends towards equality. In other words, it tries to put everything at the same level.

Levelling is an anonymous social process without leaders in which the uniqueness of the individual becomes non-existent by assigning equal values to all aspects of human endeavours, thus missing all the subtle complexities of human identity.

It is the victory of abstraction over the individual, one essentially embodies the crowd. It is the destruction of the individual.

The Public

Levelling is supported by “the public”, which Kierkegaard calls a “monstrous nothing”. It consists of unreal individuals who are never united in an actual situation and yet are held together as a whole, there is no personal contact.

“In order that everything should be reduced to the same level, it is first of all necessary to procure a phantom, its spirit, a monstrous abstraction, an all-embracing something which is nothing, a mirage – and that phantom is the public. It is only in an age which is without passion, yet reflective, that such a phantom can develop itself with the help of the Press which itself becomes an abstraction.”

The Press satisfies the desire of seeking trivial diversion, without making one responsible for anything.

Kierkegaard also comments on the future of education:

“There are handbooks for everything, and very soon education, all the world over, will consist in learning a greater or lesser number of comments by heart, and people will excel according to their capacity for singling out the various factors like a printer singling out the letters, but completely ignorant of the meaning of anything.”

The Leap

Reflection, however, is not evil – since it leads one to the only way out – man’s salvation lies in the reality of religion of each individual. One has to work through it and emerge from it, in order that one’s actions should be more intensive.

Kierkegaard believes that God is a personal matter, he wanted to become “a Christian in Christendom”, a true Christian in a society full of falsely religious people.

A person who is religious would not be able to guide another as that would not only make him unfaithful to God in trying to use authority, but most importantly because he did not obey God and teach men to love one another and help them to make the leap themselves, for God’s love is not a second-hand gift. This is akin to the knight of faith, which Kierkegaard talks about in Fear and Trembling.

Religion is to follow oneself and be content with oneself – by leaping into the depths, one learns to help oneself and to love others as much as oneself, becoming an individual. Reflection is concerned with temporal matters, it does not have a place in the eternal view of life. As Kierkegaard says:

“Faith is immediacy after reflection”

The goal of life is not to understand the highest, but to act on it, commitment brings you back into the forward movement of life.

Sign up and don’t miss out on the latest posts!

The Present Age | Søren Kierkegaard

The Present Age was published in 1846 by Søren Kierkegaard. He discusses the philosophical implications of a society dominated by mass media, foreseeing the rise of twenty-four hour news and social media, it examines the philosophical implications of a culture of endless, inconsequential commentary and debate – a society eerily similar to our own.

Support Eternalised

Ko-fi

Patreon

YouTube

Buy Official Merch

Redbubble

Spring

“A room without books is like a body without a soul.” — Cicero

Great Books List

Discord Community

Join Discord