Skip to main content
Category

Nietzsche

Independent Philosophy

By Nietzsche, Pythagoras, Zarathushtra, Zoroastrianism

Persepolis

I am sometimes known as an independent philosopher, meaning one outside the academic sector. My citizen curriculum has permitted me a degree of freedom in study pursuits and writings.

My early studies included Zoroastrianism, an ancient Iranian religion frequently debated by specialist scholars. I have recently updated one of my manuscript articles as the first item on a new website. See Zarathushtra and Zoroastrianism (2009).

The legendary ancient prophet Zarathushtra was known to the Greeks as Zoroastres, a name later becoming Zoroaster in more familiar European parlance. There are two basic versions of Zarathushtra: the conventional Zoroastrian portrayal, and the Greek extensions and fantasies facilitated by the Macedonian conquest. Scholars generally favour the former, the latter being considered unreliable.

Classical writers of the Greek and Roman worlds confused Zarathushtra with astrology and magic. These very misleading preoccupations accompanied Greek enthusiasms about the still basically obscure magi of the Zoroastrian priesthood. However, the ancient prophet of Iran was also tagged by Greek sources as the “first philosopher.” The accuracy of this theme is open to question; the proposal is difficult to decisively negate in view of a lack of historical detail. “Classicists have tended to treat the philosophical attribution flippantly” (Shepherd, Minds and Sociocultures Vol. One, Cambridge 1995, p. 234).

The history of philosophy conventionally begins with the era of Thales and Pythagoras. The Iranian prophet may have substantially antedated such figures, and likewise Persepolis, a ceremonial centre of the Achaemenian era, located in the Fars province of West Iran.

Pythagoras also became legendary, at what appears to have been an early stage in the Pythagorean cycle of reference. Philosophy in those times was nothing like the contemporary format now visible. Empedocles has been described in terms of combining “the temperament of a prophet” with a scientific disposition (F. M. Cornford, From Religion to Philosophy, London 1912, repr. Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 150).

Different modern reconstructions of Zarathushtra are available. A closely related subject is the Gathas, verse compositions in ancient Avestan. These display an intricacy evoking arguments as to meaning and context. There is also an elaborate legend in the Zoroastrian sources; this too has received differing assessments.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Such reconstructions are quite different to the idiosyncratic presentation of Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1844-1900) in his Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Being familiar with philology, Nietzsche correctly employed the antique Iranian name in preference to the far more widely used designation of Zoroaster. However, his “prophet” projection amounted to a philosophical novel about supposed self-mastery relating to his disputed concept of “superman.”

Nietzsche was antagonistic to the Judaeo-Christian worldview, a preoccupation which strongly coloured his writings. Nietzsche declared the death of God, making clear that he was concerned to negate the moralism of the archaic Zarathushtra, who was to him a mouthpiece for atheistic philosophy. Another contradiction is that Nietzsche was not a superman, but instead suffered insanity in his final years.

Also Sprach Zarathustra (1883-85) appeared during the decade when Nietzsche was an independent philosopher after the termination of his academic career. Independence can result in very different orientations and forms of expression.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd
February 1st 2010

ENTRY no. 11

Copyright © 2010 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

By J. P. Stern, Nietzsche, Tractatus, Vienna Circle, Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein

One of the most celebrated modern philosophers is Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). He early wrote the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), believing that he had solved all the outstanding problems of philosophy in this compact work. The Tractatus was much favoured by the Vienna Circle, a group of scientists and philosophers who pioneered logical positivism, and who interpreted Wittgenstein in that light. The Vienna Circle emphasised language, in terms of a presiding insistence that the only meaningful statements are those which are empirically verifiable. In other words, what you cannot prove, never state, because such a statement is worthless. Metaphysics, for instance, is out of bounds.

The Vienna Circle survived their diaspora in the face of the Nazi regime. Logical positivism lived on in America and Britain, later  becoming influential. This contingent made a relevant critique of Fascist propaganda; that form of political rhetoric saturated Germany and other countries in the 1930s and early 1940s.

Wittgenstein was born in Austria, coming from a wealthy industrialist family. However, he became a British citizen,  one strongly linked to Cambridge University. When I was a young man (and a resident of Cambridge), the dons would discuss “what Wittgenstein really meant.” There were permutations of this during my temporary employment under Professor J. P. Stern, who enthused about Kant, Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche in our conversations. These talks occurred in his book-lined study overlooking a panoramic garden in a select area of Cambridge.

Professor Stern (who taught German at London University) was an expert on Nietzsche. I found great difficulty in conceding the importance of Nietzsche. I also found the Tractatus a rather disconcerting work, though in a different way to Thus Spake Zarathustra. Professor Stern pressed upon me the Tractatus when he grasped that I had an interest in philosophy. He expected me to enthuse over the treatise, like many undergraduates at that time. I was an exception to the fashion. This was in 1973. I never did find the Tractatus inspiring, only interesting; it is generally considered significant in the history of philosophy.

[Wittgenstein had early read Schopenhauer, and believed that the latter was basically correct in his worldview. Wittgenstein persisted in the attitude that ultimate reality was beyond conceptual grasp, and therefore a factor of which nothing can be said. Only the phenomenal world could be described. Various objections have been lodged against this rather inflexible view. However, in the 1970s, the exegesis of Wittgenstein was still in the ascendant at places like Cambridge].

Wittgenstein himself demonstrated a dissatisfaction with the Tractatus at a later phase of his career. By then he knew that he had not solved all the problems of philosophy. The Tractatus had been influenced by theories of the mathematician Gottlob Frege and the author’s own tutor Bertrand Russell. Critics say that the Tractatus is ambiguous and contradictory; they even urge that Wittgenstein’s version of logic made nonsense of his own propositions. He maintained that philosophical problems arose from a failure to understand the logic of language.

Amongst the academic philosophers, Wittgenstein is the one who came closest to being a citizen philosopher. In 1912 he became an undergraduate at Cambridge, but reacted to the example of his tutor Bertrand Russell, who at this time authored The Problems of Philosophy (1912).

“ ‘How few there are who do not lose their own soul,’ remarked Wittgenstein one day. Russell felt obliged to tell Wittgenstein that he would not get his degree unless he learnt to write ‘imperfect things,’ a constraint which incurred the junior’s displeasure.” (Shepherd, Meaning in Anthropos, Cambridge 1991, p. 149)

Neglecting the degree, Wittgenstein moved back to the Continent. At this time he became a rich man, gaining the fortune of his deceased father, an industrialist tycoon. Yet he retired to Norway, building himself an isolated hut near Skjolden, his intention being to live in complete seclusion. The First World War changed his plans; he then volunteered to join the Austrian army. After the war, he became a schoolmaster, teaching in various remote villages in Austria. He subsequently became a gardener and an architect.

Two of his friends criticised the emerging Tractatus. Wittgenstein is said to have abandoned his earlier views. In 1929 he returned to Cambridge, quickly acquiring a Ph.D. (on the basis of the Tractatus) after his lengthy absence of sixteen years in obscurity. He thereafter did much writing, but without publishing the result, apparently because he did not wish to be misunderstood. Dr. Wittgenstein was noted for giving unconventional lectures in a mood of deep concentration.

The advantages of his transition to academic status are not totally convincing. He remained a virtual alien within academic life; his aversion to appearing in the college dining room is a well known detail. He regarded all the talking as superficial. He frequently visited the local cinema in an effort to suspend his prolonged concentration on philosophy; he could appear quite desperate not to be distracted while watching the film. During the 1930s he escaped for nearly a year to his distant hut in Norway. In 1947 he ceased to lecture at Cambridge, instead moving to Ireland, where for a time he lived alone in a hut beside the sea in Galway (for a partisan account, see Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir, Oxford University Press, 1958).

Some critics have said that Wittgenstein was idiosyncratic, suicidal, and homosexual. He certainly possessed a strong personality; he was apparently an exacting schoolteacher in the 1920s. “His sexuality was ambiguous but he was probably gay; how actively so is still a matter of controversy.” See D. J. Richter, “Ludwig Wittgenstein,” Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

After his death, many of his writings surfaced in print. The most famous of these later works became his Philosophical Investigations (1953). Wittgenstein was here committed to what is known as linguistic philosophy. He emphasised language as a tool, and introduced the concept of “language game.” A number of differing interpretations of his ambiguous output have emerged. Critics say that his treatment of philosophy as language can be considered more of a philosophical problem than a solution.

The meaning of life remains a mystery to much contemporary philosophical language. Wittgenstein failed to describe his own notable striving for experiential equipoise. The new language philosophy did not describe, for instance, the hut in Norway or his recurring thought of entering a monastery. His frustration with artificial surface discourse is evident. He is unusual in this respect.

The intrinsic struggle to penetrate “philosophical problems” is a feature of mind rather than language. This appears to be confirmed by what Rudolf Carnap described as “an act of inspiration,” referring to the manner in which Wittgenstein communicated:

When he started to formulate his view on some specific problem, we often felt the internal struggle that occurred in him at that very moment, a struggle by which he tried to penetrate from darkness to light under an intensive and powerful strain, which was even visible on his most expressive face. (Carnaps Meets Wittgenstein)

Kevin R. D. Shepherd
November 17th 2009  (modified 2020)

ENTRY no. 2

Copyright © 2020 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.