Submitted by thelivingphilosophy t3_109zihx in philosophy
Nietzsche focuses more on the collective than the individual soul though; he was a fusion of identities and disciplines: philosopher, poet, psychologist, historian, sociologist, theologian...
Also, this is beautiful <3
"the synthesis of the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Not the overgrown reason or oppressive morality of the excessive Apollonian. And not "that horrible mixture of sensuality and cruelty" that characterised much of the Dionysian festivals of the ancient world. Nietzsche's ideal is the fusion of these two forces. The Apollonian as the contained — as the sails; the Dionysian as the great dynamic natural force infusing this container and filling these sails. The goal is a fusion of the conscious and unconscious that leaves us with a deep love of life in all its suffering and its joys."
I like that, it is ironic he spent an inordinate amount of time alone away from the collective in his life. His personal struggle seemed to be reconciling the collective and the individual I never thought of him as focused particularly on either, it’s a good perspective to consider.
thank you :)
"To annihilate or not to annihilate... that seems to be the question." To quote Hamletish.
Arguably, psychoanalysis does better with sociology than individual psychology.
I feel that way from reading Freud (and reading about Jung) - he describes patterns derived by observing his patients/friends/Greek myths (e.g. Achilles-Agamemnon dynamic in the Iliad is a great example of the OC dynamic) as universals, but in light of evidence that hunter-gatherers may not possess OC (or at least that they certainly appear to carry far less familial resentment), we should really consider that OC is a cultural phenomenon that catalyzed the development of civilization (less fucking the mother part, more killing the father / internalizing his tyranny / competition / forceful patriarchy) and NOT a biological absolute.
He makes a very strong case as to how an individual’s mental illnesses and neuroses are indeed largely a function of social factors.
Also, I’ve only read assorted Nietzsche (like 600 pages or so), I think he certainly thinks of himself as an individualist - the cure to the Death of God and the key to being an Übermensch being a willingness to create one’s own code of ethics and conduct, free of a need to be controlled by a powerful, universalizing source of ethics external to one’s self.
This is also why Adorno & Horkheimer call him an Enlightenment extremist in Dialectic of Enlightenment.
Whose psychoanalysis? It is a broad field with only a common theme of the unconscious. Jung was largely sociological and would admit so. His main theory was of the "collective unconscious" and its archetypes which he took from cultural anthropology. Freud was as well in his drawing on Greek myths and pholsophers like nietzche. But ultimately most of what Freud (and probably jung) taught (including OC) was complete bullshit. We still credit Freud as the father of psychology because he introduced the concepts of the unconscious, internal conflicts, defense mechanisms and talk therapy. That's about it.
And most of what nietzche said was bullshit too and internally inconsistent. He contradicts himself and rambles to no end. If he seems to give competing views it's because his views are indeed at odds with one another.
Yes, basically he wants human embrace their nature and have their own atonement
I feel this is often overlooked in discussing Nietzsche. Creating one's own ethics doesn't happen in a vacuum. It involves separating from a previous set of values, and that has to be dealt with and can be hard. our own salvation is important too. Not just adopting new paradigms.
Why do you say Nietzsche focuses more on the collective than the individual?
I wish this was more widely understood...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments