Here is another variation on the "Importance of Being Random." I have similar observations all throughout the relevant sections of this book, and for a good reason, as intellectual spontaneity is an incomparable philosophical asset. I would not go to the extreme of altogether banning consistency from the philosopher’s hereditary kingdom, but there is nothing like a forceful overkill in bringing a controversial point home.
This is a general comment on philosophy, which starts with Nietzsche. I have already noted his tendency to be random, self-contradictory, upholding opposite positions, cheerfully ready to pour ridicule on a view, and call its proponents all sorts of bad names, even though he had just recently expressed this view as his own. Yes, Nietzsche is, in many ways, like the Bible: you can find all sorts of opposites here, but do not be too hasty to criticize such randomness. Our views are too often so closely attached to their contexts that if you only try to take them out and place them side-by-side, there goes a walking and talking contradiction, right away!
This point is easy to illustrate by a reference to proverbs. These have always, and deservedly, been seen as priceless gems of popular wisdom. Yet they are all so utterly mutually contradictory, that should we single out any of them at random, we will find its advice countered by opposite advice in another familiar adage. Silence is golden, but even this wisdom could not possibly be imparted in silence. Patience is a virtue, but inaction, passing itself off as patience, is a vice. Sleep on it, but never put off till tomorrow, what you can do today.
The main reason why proverbs are always getting away with this consistent inconsistency is that each one of them is routinely taken in isolation from the rest, as it suits the particular occasion, on account of which it has been recalled. Ironically, such consistent inconsistency could rather be ascribed to the circumstances than to the realm of the proverb, which is deemed sacrosanct.
In other words, human life itself is consistently inconsistent, and its course can be accurately characterized as unpredictable, which is but another word for random. The whole point of predetermination is that it is not for us to figure it out. Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. What is predictable and consistent to our Creator, is unpredictable and seemingly inconsistent to us.
But never mind the inconsistency of human life. It makes life interesting. I see inconsistency as preferable to consistency most of the time. It is splendidly intuitive, and often stumbles onto the right path, and then becomes synonymous with flexibility. Consistency, on the other hand, usually boils down to persistence in error. It is boring, and a sign of the average mind. Brilliance is always inconsistent and… random!
Thus, Nietzsche’s randomness, like all inspired randomness, is a philosophical blessing. Its great value to me, as it should be to anybody who has the audacity to call himself a philosopher, is that it so often elicits that magic click in us, which I have already talked about in several other places, the stimulator of thought, the esoteric secret of perfect conversation!
This is a general comment on philosophy, which starts with Nietzsche. I have already noted his tendency to be random, self-contradictory, upholding opposite positions, cheerfully ready to pour ridicule on a view, and call its proponents all sorts of bad names, even though he had just recently expressed this view as his own. Yes, Nietzsche is, in many ways, like the Bible: you can find all sorts of opposites here, but do not be too hasty to criticize such randomness. Our views are too often so closely attached to their contexts that if you only try to take them out and place them side-by-side, there goes a walking and talking contradiction, right away!
This point is easy to illustrate by a reference to proverbs. These have always, and deservedly, been seen as priceless gems of popular wisdom. Yet they are all so utterly mutually contradictory, that should we single out any of them at random, we will find its advice countered by opposite advice in another familiar adage. Silence is golden, but even this wisdom could not possibly be imparted in silence. Patience is a virtue, but inaction, passing itself off as patience, is a vice. Sleep on it, but never put off till tomorrow, what you can do today.
The main reason why proverbs are always getting away with this consistent inconsistency is that each one of them is routinely taken in isolation from the rest, as it suits the particular occasion, on account of which it has been recalled. Ironically, such consistent inconsistency could rather be ascribed to the circumstances than to the realm of the proverb, which is deemed sacrosanct.
In other words, human life itself is consistently inconsistent, and its course can be accurately characterized as unpredictable, which is but another word for random. The whole point of predetermination is that it is not for us to figure it out. Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. What is predictable and consistent to our Creator, is unpredictable and seemingly inconsistent to us.
But never mind the inconsistency of human life. It makes life interesting. I see inconsistency as preferable to consistency most of the time. It is splendidly intuitive, and often stumbles onto the right path, and then becomes synonymous with flexibility. Consistency, on the other hand, usually boils down to persistence in error. It is boring, and a sign of the average mind. Brilliance is always inconsistent and… random!
Thus, Nietzsche’s randomness, like all inspired randomness, is a philosophical blessing. Its great value to me, as it should be to anybody who has the audacity to call himself a philosopher, is that it so often elicits that magic click in us, which I have already talked about in several other places, the stimulator of thought, the esoteric secret of perfect conversation!
No comments:
Post a Comment