Philosophers
By demonstrating how the lover fails to parallel the scholar, I hope I have also alluded to how he greatly aligns with Nietzsche’s conception of the philosopher. I will now briefly compare the lover to the philosopher and demonstrate how both types undergo similar experiences and possess similar characteristics in their quests for beauty and authenticity.
First both warn against placing faith in opposites. Conventional perspectives of the world view good and evil, up and down, etc as equally and oppositely opposed—a wide gulf separates the two. However upon further inspection Nietzsche argues that there is more going on beneath the surface—that up and down, left and right are simply matters of perspective while atrocities can be committed in the name of good and “evil” acts are simply good things in disguise. At bottom seeming opposites are actually intricately interwoven.
This sentiment is echoed in the Symposium. At the beginning of Diotima’s conversation with Socrates, the priestess tells Socrates that Love is neither good nor beautiful. A bewildered Socrates wonders whether or not Love is therefore bad and ugly. Diotima immediately dismisses Socrates’ wonderings and begins to instruct him in the intricacies of love. In similar fashion, the philosopher is aware of the interplay between entities that appear prima facia polar opposites.
Second both the lover and the philosopher perceive education as a sort of liberation. Through education the lover can be led up towards the heights of Beauty and become transformed, giving birth to truly beautiful ideas and basking in its presence. Diotima educates Socrates in the arts of love and Socrates in turn educates the members of the party the steps required in order to encounter the Beautiful. Likewise, the philosopher is a sort of liberation of the self; it is the task of the educator to reveal to their students the student’s original, authentic essence: “Education is rather liberation, the clearing away of all weeds, rubble and vermin that might harm the delicate shoots” (SE 166). Education helps reveal to the student his authentic self and spurs him to further cultivate it.
The necessity of the type of individual also plays an integral role in their education. Nietzsche warns that apart from education, those who descend within themselves in search of their authentic identity risk doing more harm than good: “a man may easily do himself such damage that no doctor can cure him” (SE 166). Likewise, Plato implies that knowing one’s goal does not inherently entail that one pursue that goal. Rather, it depends on the character of the individual and whether or not he is committed enough (Nietzsche would say bold enough and not lazy) towards achieving one’s goal. This is most evident at the Symposium’s end where Alcibiades, a former student of Socrates, drunkenly disrupts the party begins to mock Socrates while lamenting his own failure at seducing his teacher. While educators can reveal to their students the shoots of their authentic self, it is up to the individual to cultivate this authentic self within them.
Another important similarity between the lover and the philosopher is the notion of ascent. The whole of the lover’s journey is an ascent towards the Beautiful. Likewise, Nietzsche remarks that the individual’s true authentic self lies not within himself but above; it is a higher type of being: “for your true nature does not lie hidden deep inside you but immeasurably high above you.” (SE 166). Both the lover and the philosopher must embark on an ascent in order to achieve their goals.
However, along with this ascent must come a strong sense of dedication and also a readiness to struggle. Nietzsche remarks that the philosopher must be prepared to forget himself and embrace the suffering inherent in the ascent towards authenticity. In order to break through the vicious flux of Becoming and the temporal, the philosopher must go against society and even go against himself in order to truly reach the realm of authentic Being. Similarly the lover must utterly dedicate himself to his task of encountering Being if he is to have any hope of success. He too must forget himself and love others and then all sorts of knowledge before reaching the pinnacle of his ascent.
Such dedication and suffering readily answers the question of the rarity of both the lover and the philosopher. Nietzsche observes that the rarity of the philosopher (and the artist and saint for that matter) are largely in part due to people’s laziness; they are caught up in too many activities of this current age to cultivate their unique identity. In short, they are too distracted and too lazy to achieve something higher than what they already do. Society and the state further hamper self cultivation as they both seek to maintain order and control over its people to insure that those in power remain in power and the state remains secure. They perpetuate and encourage individuals to remain distracted and oppose those dedicated enough to seek their authentic identity apart from the masses.
This dedication also commits both the philosopher and the lover to solitude. The lover begins by devoting himself to first bodies then souls, but ultimately moves on to acquiring all sorts of knowledge in his pursuit of the Beautiful. He must devote a significant amount of time studying , living and doing in order to achieve his goal. Such activities require an ample amount of focus and creativity in order successfully ascend. Likewise, in opposing culture, the state and society in general, the philosopher operates outside the demands of the state. He does not live life to make money or keep busy but rather seeks leisure so that he can devote his time towards achieving his authentic self.
However, this dedication and solitude achieve noble states for both the lover and the philosopher. The lover encounters the Beautiful itself, the noblest of all and the source of all beauty. Likewise the philosopher achieves and cultivates a higher type. He is strong, self-sufficient and lives actively. He does not passively lie down and enslave himself to the fickle whims of society and the state. He stands over and above the baser moralities and the baser types of beings.
Inherent in this nobility is the ability for both the lover and the philosopher to create. As previously mentioned, throughout the lover’s journey he continually gives birth to beautiful ideas. In similar fashion, the philosopher creates his own morality and virtue independent of society or convention. From the depths of his authentic, strong and self-sufficiency the philosopher forges a new trail independent of the stirrings of those weaker, lower types who passively and unknowingly subjugate themselves to the will of the state. His is inherently and ruggedly virile in his creation.
Along with this creative aspect within both the lover and the philosopher is the call to cultivate within others an ability to pursue their goals. Just as the lover encounters the Beautiful and is now capable of begetting virtue itself, so the philosopher achieves his authentic identity and powerfully creates his morality. Both now are capable of leading and helping others cultivate their own selves and achieve their own goals as best they know how. Such is Socrates’ mission as he strives to teach others to honour the rites of love in order to encounter the Beautiful. Similarly, Nietzsche perceives the ideal culture as one whose sole purpose is the production of the higher types. The philosopher moves beyond encountering nature like the lover and transforms it. He transfigures nature and helps produce the higher types which nature unsuccessfully strives to produce.
Perhaps the greatest difference between Nietzsche’s philosopher and the lover is the lover’s “invention of the pure spirit and the good as such” (BGE preface). The lover’s fixation on the transcendent raises a problem that he is so otherworldly that he neglects authentic living by dogmatically pursuing some strange “reality.” Another problem facing the lover is his dogmatic pursuit in the first place. The lover prejudices the existence of the Beautiful and that perhaps he could have an encounter with it. This conviction of a transcendent realm apart from reality possibly skews the lover’s perception of Truth, standing her on top of her head while simultaneously becoming so ingrained within the lover’s psyche that he is unable to rectify or even question the foundations of these convictions. Rather, he takes them for granted and pursues Beauty.
WP3
Aegis 