Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by invert_nexus, Aug 24, 2010.
Define, in your own words, what Nietzsche meant by "Amor Fati."
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
An analysis of unconditional love. In all circumstances.
Let's look at the reactions of two strangers passing in a marketplace:
Person 1: Smiles in passing
Person 2's possible inner reaction:
A.)--"Person 1 is a smiler...a dumb "grinner". I'm in the presence of monkeys" (Reaction: Anger)
B.)--"Person 1 obviously found their first impression of me pleasing. I'm am liked by strangers". (Reaction:Happy)
These reactions are impressions, whether realistic or not, can reverberate through further encounters by Person 2 in the marketplace (say, to a Person 3), regardless of Person 1's initial or intentional reason for smiling.
If Person 2 demands the more Amor Fati B.) response (from themselves), then the likelihood of Person 3 to respond likewise is heightened, even though they are not direct practitioners of the attitude.
The marketplace has the opportunity of "reverberation spread" of happiness. The overall mood of the entire marketplace can hinge on the "muscling" of Person 2's own control of their inner response to even the most fleeting situations.
This is only my own interpretation of the effects and further outcome, and not necessarily Nietzsche's intended perspective, as your question related only to my own personal definition only. I added the example, only to give dimension to one of it's possible positive uses.
I'll stick to as literal an interpretation, given the context from Ecce Homo:
The delusion of destiny.
It's a way to nullify that twisting sensation in your gut when shit happens. A perversion of essential Stoicism.
This is what you've been up to, you little Svengali.
Consider this post a placeholder for the Gendankens.
No, that's "Metamucil"
"Amor Fati" is not just some bastard scholasticism for a laxative.
Um. Shit. I think I forgot to take mine!
Bullshit. It's a hippy's coffin-dodge. It was supposed to happen is fine for would-be prophets and lunatics. "That didn't hurt! I liked it!" It's thorazine for masochists.
Disappointed so far.
Instead of literal, how about actual? I'd be surprised if you, of all people, didn't know what Nietzsche was saying.
Let's hope they don't ban you in the meantime.
It means "Why does it happen, because it happens, roll the bones".
It would be nice to live that way, I doubt anyone can though.
One extreme example might be, as you are getting eaten by wolfs you might think to yourself "At least my death is a good meal".
Also, while that's happening to want your whole life to repeat just the exact same way when "the hourglass of existence" is turned over again. No regret, no remose, the earth blows up tomorrow and you embrace it.
You could hardly be anything other than exuberant, if you're an adherent yourself.
The same puffed up nonsense that some New Ager tries to convey with "Just be".
I think he’s saying that we all fight for the same thing and we want more than we can have. Desire itself is insatiable. He feels that we need to be satisfied and content. To love fully what we have, conquer desire, and accept our fate, but I disagree. Nobody likes an Immanuel Kant robot. You only live once. A number of things are predetermined, in which you have no control, but there’s plenty of areas that we can change. We should do our best to make decisions that eliminate suffering, and our dreams, and desire enable us to do this. Out of desire springs love...or just sex.
But Love, empathy, oh ya!...and SEX... are pertinent to survival. :tempted:
Personally, I always wonder what I would regret more, having done something, or not having done something. We love what is valuable to us, but do we love because we value it, or do we value it because we love it? Beats me…I think I’ll stick with Keith’s “strangers passing in a marketplace” …Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Surprise of surpises.
Illiterato himself has given us the best one thus far:
Nexus, of course, does not agree with this. He read Dune and Frank Herbert's corruption of what the philospher originally meant when he coined 'amor fati'.
Herbert bastardized 'amor fati' to mean you'd fight that wolf tooth and claw
as an expression of 'self examination'.
That "New Age" organized a following under the rubric "New Age" is a disqualification from exacting "amor fati".
Your contempt, therefore, is misplaced.
A so called "masochist" would welcome the pain as easily as he would salute its departure.
In other words, your 'masochist' example would evaluate the absence or presence of pain the same way, given the practice of 'amor fati'.
Therefore, popping a thorazine is not it.
DEFINE AMOR FATI, assmops.
Bullshit. As I've told you time and time again though you refuse to listen, I never even caught the amor fsti reference in Dune. My understanding of what it means is derived solely from my reading of Nietzsche and has only been validated from lectures and readings on the interpretation of Nietsche.
I'll post tomorroww what he really means. Hopefully somebody will have posted correctly in the interim.
As to Dune, Herbert doesn't even define amor fati, merely uses it as is.
Both instances of the use of it-- the first uttered by Leto speaking with Gurney Halleck and the second by the Lady Jessica to Farad'n-- was a prelude to defining what Herbert means through his characters.
"I ally myself with Namri against my father," Leto said. "And my father within allies himself with us against what was made of him."
"Why?" Halleck demanded.
"Because it's the amor fati which I bring to humankind, the act of ultimate self-examination. In this universe, I choose to ally myself against any force which brings humiliation upon humankind."-- Children of Dune
This is, to the last syllable, the complete opposite of what the term means.
You can blab on the subjective "meaning" of love but you cannot interpret for yourself what a predefined term is saying anymore than you can bastardize algebra to fit some emotional need.
"Amor Fati" is a well defined term and should be used the way it was defined.
But you understood the gist of what the characters were communicating, then went on to parallel Herbert's interpretation with Nietzsche's.
When both are completely opposite of each other.
Now get off your phone and stop sounding like the Marquis scribbling his name in a urinal.
GASP, I totally said the Marquis' name.
And, once again, no this humble thread will not subordinate its awesomeness to some other tripe called "Unity".
I leave you with the following lexicon:
Nietzsche: the sharp sound of snot being sneezed on a page of Beyond Good and Evil.
It's in the nature of "amor fati" that it cannot be explained by another person, because "amor fati" is a concept whose nature is self-referential.
Other people cannot talk about your "amor fati", so the OP is an oxymoron.
This is what Nietzsche and New Age have in common: they exclude the Other. In effect, they are both examples of solipsism.
Say anything to a New Ager, and he will find in his system a premise with which to invalidate you, what you said and the fact that you said it.
Same with Nietzsche(ans).
After a while, despite all the fascination this may elicit, it does get rather boring.
But it has been defined.
As easily as I can define "Boogassholelipop" as the state of negating high fructose corn syrup.
"Amor Fati", defined by Nietzsche in the Gay Science and in reaction to the ennui and stupidity of existence, wrote:
Anyone who will therefore use a term defined as A is therefore beholden to use that term as A.
I therefore do not agree that other people cannot speak of one's decision to embrace fate or the manifestations of doing so with another person.
Solipsisms detract precious little from a defined term.
Isaac Newton created calculus in the silent chaos of his own mind--does this preclude anyone from understanding or using its axioms?
And when I read this, in my mind, it's just another form of that characteristic New Age saying "Just be!"
Sure. Unless the term itself is self-referential.
Let's try it then: I'll talk about your decision to embrace fate - and you will hit me back saying I am wrong.
"You are wrong to embrace fate, because thereby you attempt to forfeit your free will, and thereby you merely stifle yourself."
Calculus bears precious little effect on who and what one thinks one is or what makes or breaks one's life.
The Sun, the Moon and the stars do what they do whether we calculate their paths or not. But what we do depends on who we think we are.
Separate names with a comma.