0

I am reading beyond good and evil and Nietzsche critics the core of Stoic philosophy. That "we must live according to nature". He then proceeds to doubt the idea that nature is wise, fair and so on.

My question is, why does he think that nature is "boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice"?

As a mathematician, the stoic approach stills makes more sense to me. Nature exists according to some rules e.g causality, the principle of conservation of energy etc.

I cannot see any "extravagance" in those.

Furthermore, I also feel he is lost on his words. He talks about nature as if it is a human. How can nature have or not have a "purpose" and "pity"?

How is Nietzsche defending his own thesis. Has he also fallen a victim of the philosophical dogmatism he is attempting to fight?

Here is the full paragraph:

You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?...

1
  • 2
    Consider a jungle: a teeming, chaotic, hostile environment — the site of overwhelming murder and fornication. Or consider the cosmos: bleak emptiness and monstrous energy, utterly indifferent to life... – Joseph Weissman Dec 27 '20 at 16:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.