Rudiger Safransky, Nietzsche

I’d like to establish that I have a hard time fully understanding philosophical literature written by European men who lived decades before because they are so above and beyond my scope of comprehension. The vocabulary and style of prose they use tend to be so decoratively intricate that they tend to drive me in circles, but if I tried to simplify what Safransky and Nietzche are trying to say I think I would summarize it with the idea that humans need an abstract concept to assure them of their place in life and existence.  

I agree with the notion that humans are kind of spineless when it comes to creating their own purpose and bounds for life; it is overwhelming to think that nothing is assured and there is no tangible ground to lay on. From my observations what splits all these philosophers into different strands of belief is how they argue humans should go about coping with this lack of foundation. Nietzche was a fan of using mythology to compress the human experience as a model for the clueless herd while Wagner wanted to replace religion/belief with art within society. Either is a fine idea, either can be used to help people believe their life may mean something. And it really is up to the individual. 

I agree with Nietzsche that viewing art as a religion is too pious, too obligatory, too restrictive (this may be because I am not a religious person myself due to these same reasons and may be showing some bias). But I also think that the concept of making art out of one’s life seems too abstract to be applied to every human being under the veil of the human experience. For one there is no real definition of art anyway, and if there were to be one, it would have something to do with expressing the human experience in one way or another. Which is something people do unconsciously anyway, regardless of whether they want to or not. Because we are human, we ought to act human and express human actions. It is simply what we are meant to do. It is not an action that needs to be distinguished from anything else, like the idea of making art out of one’s life.

I don’t know if the passage is doing Nietzche’s philosophy justice because still, I cannot fully understand it, but Safransky states “for Nietzsche, myth was an aesthetic game to foster the art of living”. I found this statement interesting because it is so foreign to me that some people like to see their life as a game. There is a character this statement resonates with in the book ‘Norwegian Wood’ by Haruki Murakami named Nagasawa. Nagasawa is a “privileged” smart man who has had the best cards dealt to him his whole life. He is rich, charismatic, brave, and most importantly, fundamentally lives for the sake of winning a game (his life and career). Reading that book and now seeing that Nietzche apparently viewed mythology as a way to play the game of life makes me want to believe that maybe we need to convince ourselves of things to live a happy life. If we assign an objective, a reason to play, a reason to win, then maybe life would hold more meaning. Nagasawa was content with his desire to become the best. And in some ways, he was.

This whole passage kind of reminds me of Plato and Socrates and how they felt they had an obligation to enlighten the slumbering toads to show everyone what they are missing out on. I think the beauty of life and freedom is to make people figure it out on their own, and if they never do, then so be it. I argue that many people would be perfectly content staying in the cave with their idea of life being shadows even if it means they are missing out on what more ‘life has to offer’. Because with the blessing of knowledge comes the burden of truth and I don’t think a lot of people care to handle such a thing. Nietzche himself went mad, I think, and a lot of other philosophers were miserable and suicidal in addition. It really depends on what you prioritize, and people are fine with still believing in aspects of religion that were proven false by science. We want to believe, so we adapt.