A force like the sun attains a pivital role when it becomes a source of truth for other forms of matter. When it becomes this source of truth, other organisms develop so that they can survive in the world that the sun provides for them. In other words, they base their being off the being that the sun provides for them. In other words, they become creatures whose being is dependent on light. You could not even picture their being without light, so their being is dependent on the existesnce that the sun provides for them, or the order that is already set up. In other words, this means that these higher levels of beings, are dependent on a basic order being maintained that allows for their continued existence. A being that has creates truth, by using light, or energy by consuming organic material, is dependent on those things being in existence for the higher level organism to operate.
What happens if this lower level order disspates – for instance the higher level organism cannot consume the organic matter it needs or that a plant gets no access to life? Their whole being becomes invalidated, and they must adapt to whatever is available if they wish to continue living. This is where Anti-Platonism comes in. Plato believes in these eternals which are immutable and unbreakable, for instance, the human being, or the sun. But was he right to say these things are un-breakable? I think not. What really seesms to happen is that basic forms seem to gain some type of power which allows them to stay in existance, and then higher level forms base their existence off of this lower level and a kind of heiarchy is developed. But if something in this power structure changes – the forms must mutate, or adapt.
So, on a different line or reasoning, Plato would see the sun as the ultimate “good” but is it really a good force? I say that becuase once the sun’s “truth” is set in stone, all other beings mold to it; but that static being becomes something matter is tied to, which does not allow for any new/further development. After this I saw that the sun’s status is not permanent, and that Plato was limited in his scope of vision by being unable to see that the sun might not be everlasting, I decided that something was missing from Plato’s analysis. I saw that when organisms utilize this “truth” (the sun’s light), which was once thought to be what “should be and always be”, we can see now that as only temporary, something that can be changed.
So when Plato sees ultimate truth, we can see relatives, temporaries, plastic molds ready to be reshaped, but not universals. If you look through the scope of the will to power – these “ultimates” are only temporary forms, which can be overcome, and should be overcome if new and stronger life is to be created. For instance, if the sun is gone, and some new source of power develops, a whole sleu of new organisms will also develop which might have different capacities once unheard of. In the older time they were tied down by what was already given (the sun’s light), which has now left and something new has arisen which must be adapted to. So to sum that up, the organisms now, under the sun, are part of this temporary heirachy which can be resituated, and affectively should be resituated – since there is no “truth” but only possibility. So when a force like the sun reaches this level, it consequently shapes the movement of all life affected by it, but so will any force that reaches the same place.
It’s like in the Genealogy when Nietzsche talks about Master vs. Slave morality. The sun is like the master creating the good for the lower class. The sun example broadens that ideaolgy into the way other forms of matter work as well. In the case of the sun, I wouldn’t say we were slaves to it, but in a way we are because we are conditioned by what it is giving us. We cannot imagine what it would be like without the sun’s energy. The way our brains use it’s light to make our life what it is makes us slaves to its existance in a way; and it shows how dependent we are on it’s energy. It would be impossible for the same brain to function without the same energy being given off by the sun. And this seems to apply to all life on earth because if the sun was not around, the entire process of organic life would be different – it might not even exist. All the processes that organic life use to survive are based off of that energy coming from the sun, and would not be possible if it were not around, so a plant wouldn’t be able to do photosynthesis or whatever process comes to mind. That kind of brings me a little bit away from the core of the topic, but I hope maybe this clarified the ideas a little more, writing this letter with your comments in mind helped me clarify my direction a little bit, and after writing this, I think I should incorporate the slave/master idea into the paper because it works much more concisely than what I had before
The reason I mention Schopenhauer so much is becuase I belive Nietzsche is in direct opposition to him, and that people can understand Nietzsche better if they see where he grew out of, what he is fighting for, and who he is fighting against – specifically Schopenhauer. His philosophy came at a time when Schopenhauer was preaching this anti-life idealogy becuase of the evil of the will. This force that all life is based upon, and which is responsible for all of the pain in life. But “the will” is the earth – the law of the only known place in the universe that supports life. How can we be negative to that? In all the Nietzsche I’ve read it’s like he’s constantly reminding us of that and trying to refute these other philosophers who deny the earth by re-explaining the earth to people, as a reality, as something with meaning, especially in Zarathustra. Zarathustra is such a pro-life statement in the midst of all the Christian metaphysics, and Schopenhauer’s denial of body, that without showing these opponents, the meaning of Zarathustra is in some sense lost… Nietzsche’s philosophy in those books that I read seems so rooted in battling these others, that I felt I needed to introduce them strongly to show what Nietzsche was up against.
-—---—---—-----
You asked me if truth is not static, what would it mean to prove something was true? I guess the only answer would be that it would mean a better understanding for the individual what the truth heiarchy was that he was living with at the time. But I think a better question would be, “what could be accomplished by proving that truth is not static?” – the answer here would be a better human involvement in the will to power – letting go of the weakness we have that says “do not interfere” with things that seem to be truths so that we can learn to develop, and that movement towards growth is a good thing. In truthlessness, all things can be molded and that allows for endless possibilities. It’s a beautiful thing.
______
Review item
Add to faves
Ratings & Rankings
