Nietzsche On Consciousness

[Pythagorean]

An excerpt from, Friedrich Nietzsche "The Joyful Wisdom" ( Die Fröliche Wissenchafte ) published in 1882.

The "Genius of the Species."- The problem of consciousness (or more correctly: of becoming conscious of oneself) meets us only when we begin to perceive in what measure we could dispense with it: and it is at the beginning of this perception that we are now placed by physiology and zoology (which have thus required two centuries to overtake the hint thrown out in advance by Leibnitz). For we could in fact think, feel, will and recollect, we could likewise "act" in every sense of the term, and nevertheless nothing of it all need necessarily "come into consciousness" (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible without its seeing itself as it were in a mirror: as in fact even at present the far greater part of our life still goes on without this mirroring,-- and even our thinking, feeling, volitional life as well, however painful this statement may sound to an older philosopher. What then is the purpose of consciousness generally, when it is in the main superfluous?-- Now it seems to me, if you will hear my answer and its perhaps extravagant supposition, that the subtlety and strength of consciousness are always in proportion to the capacity for communication of a man (or an animal), the capacity for communication in its turn being in proportion to the necessity for communication: the latter not to be understood as if precisely the individual himself who is master in the art of communicating and making known his necessities would at the same time have to be most dependent upon others for his necessities. It seems to me, however, to be so in relation to whole races and successions of generations: where necessitiy and need have long compelled men to communicate with their fellows and understand one another rapidly and subtly, a surplus of the power and art of communication is at last acquired, as if it were a fortune which had gradually accumulated, and now waited for an heir to squander it prodigally (the so-called artists are these heirs, in like manner the orators, preachers, and authors: all of them men who come at the end of a long succession, "late-born" always, in the best sense of the word, and as has been said, squanderers by their very nature). Granted that this observation is correct, I may proceed further to the conjecture that consciousness generally has only been developed under the pressure of the necessity for communication,-- that from the first it has been necessary and useful only between man and man (especially between those commanding and those obeying), and has only developed in proportion to its utility. Consciousness is properly only a connecting network between man and man, --it is only as such that it has had to develop; the recluse and wild-beast species of men would not have needed it. The very fact that our actions, thoughts, feelings and motions come within the range of our consciousness--at least a part of them-- is the result of a terrible, prolonged "must" ruling man's destiny: as the most endangered animal he needed help and protection; he needed his fellows, he was obliged to express his distress, he had to know how to make himself understood--and for all this he needed "consciousness" first of all: he had to "know" himself what he lacked, to "know" how he felt, and to "know" what he thought. For, to repeat it once more, man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it; the thinking which is becoming conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof, we may say, the most superficial part, the worst part:--for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed. In short, the development of speech and the development of consciousness (not of reason, but of reason becoming self-conscious) go hand in hand. Let it be further accepted that it is not only speech that serves as a bridge between man and man, but also the looks, the pressure and the gestures; our becoming conscious of our sense impressions, our power of being able to fix them, and as it were to locate them outside of ourselves, has increased in proportion as the necessity has increased for communicating them to others by means of signs. The sign-inventing man is at the same time the man who is always more acutely self-conscious; it is only as a social animal that man has learned to become conscious of himself, --he is doing so still, and doing so more and more.-- As is obvious my idea is that consciousness does not properly belong to the individual existence of man, but rather to the social and gregarious nature in him; that, as follows there-from, it is only in relation to the communal and gregarious utlity that it is finely developed; and that consequently each of us, in spite of the best intention of understanding himself as individually as possible, and of "knowing himself," will always just call into consciousness the the non-individual in him, namely, his "averageness";--that our thought itself is continually as it were outvoted by the character of consciousness--by the imperious "genius of the species" therein--and is translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally our actions are in an incomparable manner altogether personal, unique, and absolutely individual--there is no doubt about it; but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they do not appear so any longer.... This is the proper phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand it: the nature of animal consciousness involves the notion that the world of which we can become conscious is only a superficial and symbolic world, a generalized and vulgarised world;--that everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid,--a generalization, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd; that with the evolving of consciousness there is always combined a great, radical perversion, falsification, , superficialization and generalization. Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease. As may be conjectured, it is not the antithesis of subject and object with which I am here concerned: I leave that distinctionn to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the toils of grammer (popular metaphysics) . It is still less the antithesis of "thing in itself" and phenomenon for we do not "know" enough to be entitled even to make such a distinction. Indeed we have not any organ at all for knowing, or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or fancy) just as much as may be of use in the interest of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "usefulness" is ultimately only a belief, a fancy, and perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruined.

---------------------------------------

I wonder if anyone agreess with Nietzsche that consciousness belongs only to "the herd" and that originally, as individuals, we do not need it? I think that it's an interesting and provocative question. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thank you
-Pyth

[boagie]

Hi Pythagorean!!,

A delightful topic Pythagorean. I think what Nietzsche fails to remark on is that the existence of consciousness at verious levels, indicates there is a governing principle, finding expression in degrees of consciousness across the board. That principle is the property of the inanimate as well as the animate world, and underlies the nature of reality. The nature of reality is that it is relational, through relations there is reaction/effect/response/consciousness, any instance of relational reaction is the birth consciousness. I think he is right about civilization, society or the herd being responsible for bringing this consciousness/reaction to a head in the mind of man, society, community created a far greater complexity in which to react, and so our biology as subject has responded to it's object, and in correlation they have both respond to one another.

"Wonder if anyone agreess with Nietzsche that consciousness belongs only to "the herd" and that originally, as individuals, we do not need it? I think that it's an interesting and provocative question. Any comments would be appreciated." Pythagorean

Pythagorean-- This in a sense is frivolus distinction. I think what he is trying to infer is that the individual would be healther guided by his instincts alone. As human biology indicates however the individual carries the species, if there was not consciousness in the individual there could not be consciousness in the herd. Another point, there is no such thing as human action, there is but re-action, take relation and reaction away, and reality comes tumbling down. There is to with this principle, the unavoidable growing complexity, so you see, consciousness just had to be.

[Doobah47]

As is obvious my idea is that consciousness does not properly belong to the individual existence of man, but rather to the social and gregarious nature in him; that, as follows there-from, it is only in relation to the communal and gregarious utlity that it is finely developed; and that consequently each of us, in spite of the best intention of understanding himself as individually as possible, and of "knowing himself," will always just call into consciousness the the non-individual in him, namely, his "averageness";--that our thought itself is continually as it were outvoted by the character of consciousness--by the imperious "genius of the species" therein--and is translated back into the perspective of the herd.

I would concur, were it not for the fact that in owning an opinion one knows oneself; although one could say that the formation of opinion relies heavily on communal factors (language, subject, common process), and that our own input is influenced by experience, I would say that the functions of the subconscious tend to determine what it is that we consciously "think", thus it is subconscious forces upon the conscious that form what we know - so in knowing oneself, one calls into action the very self that one could never consciously know.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I would concur, were it not for the fact that in owning an opinion one knows oneself; although one could say that the formation of opinion relies heavily on communal factors (language, subject, common process), and that our own input is influenced by experience, I would say that the functions of the subconscious tend to determine what it is that we consciously "think", thus it is subconscious forces upon the conscious that form what we know - so in knowing oneself, one calls into action the very self that one could never consciously know.

Doobah,

I believe personal identity is defined by that which it determines is other. I think it good to remember, with expierence comes modivation, and as a modivated man moves, he does not move into action, but into reaction. The more complex the environment/society/community the more complex becomes a mans reactions, thus the more complex his brain and in turn, his society grows more complex. This it would appear is cyclical. Species is however carried by the individual, but as long as this development is cyclical in nature, development is a two way street, the individual to its environment, the environment to the individual. So, we all concur, but perhaps come to it by somewhat different means.

What is the Darwinian statement, "Nature cares not for the individual but only for species."

[Doobah47]

The main idea I'm trying to convey is that a majority of our conscious activity is forced by our subconscious, and that essentially the subconscious is thus our core 'personality'; so in consciously 'knowing' ourselves we must take the inspiration and coercion caused by our subconscious, which is essentially the individual, and not (perhaps) relevant to any communal influence.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

The main idea I'm trying to convey is that a majority of our conscious activity is forced by our subconscious, and that essentially the subconscious is thus our core 'personality'; so in consciously 'knowing' ourselves we must take the inspiration and coercion caused by our subconscious, which is essentially the individual, and not (perhaps) relevant to any communal influence.

Doobah,

Yes, I believe your right, the subconscious is the well from which we draw sustenance, as dark and mysterious as that may be. We have not really been off topic though, for the subconscious understanding must be of necessity, the subconscious understanding of a social creature. There is also as an element of the pyche what they call the collective subconscious. This is felt to be the inheritable experience of our species, which manifest as informing mental images, mostly in our dream life, or they bubble up into consciousness causeing much in the way of distrubance on an individual level.