Truth as a Woman: Love and the proper pursuit of wisdom

In his preface to Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche compares truth to a woman and the attempts of dogmatic philosophy as forced and awkward attempts to impose itself on truth. In this post I will briefly examine his remarks and then provide some examples of awkward attempts by (would be) philosophers to woo truth. What follows is the opening paragraph to Nietzsche’s preface:

Supposing truth is a woman—what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman’s heart? What is certain is that she has not allowed herself to be won—and today every kind of dogmatism is left standing dispirited and discouraged. If it is left standing at all! For there are scoffers who claim that it has fallen, that all dogmatism lies on the ground—even more, that all dogmatism is dying.

First, what does it mean to be a dogmatic philosopher? It appears that dogmatic philosophers are those who assert their belief and argue that the nature of all things is reflected in their philosophy. Their particular flavor of philosophy perfectly expounds the depths and fundamental mysteries of God, the world, human nature—whatever suits one’s fancy. The truth is out there, and the dogmatic philosopher can explain to those willing the nature of this truth.

For Nietzsche, it seems that the majority of philosophy, insofar as it dogmatically lays claim to expound the nature of truth, insofar as it proudly professes to possess the mutual and reciprocal love between itself and truth, is entirely off track. Rather than expound the qualities and beauties of truth, these philosophers are but expounding the qualities and perceived beauties of their own systematic philosophical systems. They do not sing sonnets to truth; they sing sonnets to themselves in order to justify their own actions. Such philosophy does not woo and pursue truth but forces itself on her.

However, this dogmatic philosophy extends beyond the fanatic, the zealot and the fundamentalist—it also pertains to any sense or notion of metaphysical understanding. For Nietzsche metaphysics is man’s desire to impose law, order and systematizing onto nature—something that does not necessarily obey the insights and perceptions of humanity. Therefore, Platonism and by extension Christianity (which he calls Platonism for the people) also comprises a form of dogmatic philosophy which he labels deadly and dangerous if we are truly set on wooing truth:

Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be conceded that the worst, most durable, and most dangerous of all errors so far was a dogmatist’s error—namely, Plato’s invention of the pure spirit and the good as such.

“The pure spirit and the good as such” distracts the man from seeing what is truly there because it imposes on nature and truth a system that for Nietzsche is non-existent. Platonism does not court truth but dogmatically asserts the existence of some immaterial and otherworldly realm of incorporeal Good. Equipped with this dogmatic understanding, Platonism skews truth.

Interestingly, similar dogmatism or awkward approaches to wooing truth can be found in many platonic dialogues.

For example, n the Protagoras both the friend at the dialogue’s beginning and Hippocrates demonstrate a sort of hasty, quick and dirty approach to achieving truth. When we first encounter the friend, he is primarily concerned with Socrates’ alleged interest with Alcibiades. He prods and engages Socrates in trivial dialogue until he learns that the renowned sophist Protagoras is in town. He immediately begins to question Socrates on what transpires. He is not in the know philosophically but seems more concerned with erotic affairs than the pursuit of truth.

Similarly, Hippocrates charges into Socrates’ bedroom, urging him to awaken and accompany him to see Protagoras. He accuses the sophist of withholding wisdom and that, for the appropriate fee, will be able to become wise. He sees truth as something that can be bought and immediately attained. For a fee the ecstasy of wisdom is immediately attainable. Protagoras himself boasts the same sentiment, proudly proclaiming to Socrates that even after the first lesson the interlocutor becomes a better man:

“Young man, if you associate with me, on the very first day you will return home a better man than you came, and better on the second day than on the first, and better every day than you were on the day before”

By following Protagoras’s instruction, you too can (instantly) become nobler, wiser and better than you were before. Whereas Hippocrates hopes to buy off truth, Protagoras pretends t o sell truth. Both individuals devalue and diminish truth to a simple prostitute.

While Nietzsche critiques the Platonic metaphysical understanding of the nature of things, he prefaces this critique by stating that we should not be ungrateful to it. While he argues that it stands truth on her head, truth can still be found to the searching eye. In contrast to the friend, Hippocrates or Protagoras, Socrates is seen as a better lover of truth than anyone else. Nietzsche would not discount Socrates’ love for truth. While true, its imposed metaphysical understanding is ultimately misguided and in the end falls short at properly wooing and courting truth.

Measures have been and must continue to be taken in order to gain a proper understanding of truth. We must not impose ourselves on truth, but let it impress us. We must develop our finesse in pursuing truth, laying down our own systematized and purely intellectual cognitions of truth in order to actually experience truth. Finally, we must approach truth in We may love truth, but in order to have any chance at encountering it, truth must in turn love us.

WP3

~ by phylakas on March 20, 2010.