The great hunt

Philosophy, politics, art

Ultimately, the political game is about seeing what the problem is, being able to call it for what it is, and to establish once and for all what is truly of interest. More than proposed solutions, this distinguishes political parties. For some, ‘x’ is the greatest problem afflicting society, and for others, it is something else. Still, most generally agree on some universal problems that everyone is supposed to understand the importance of, and so any debate is limited to differences in how we are going to fight climate change, how we are going to increase diversity, how we are going to get more people vaccinated, and so on. But that climate change or diversity is even a problem, that these things are even worth thinking about, this is unimaginable to the initiated. And so our freedom is limited to the ability to come up with an original solution to given problems. But to decide what is actually of importance, to actually set new problems, this can not be allowed. If you want a seat at the table, agree or pretend to agree on the masses’ common problems. Nothing ever happens.

This is what separates the figure of the great politician from all the rest; the ability to break through the idle chatter about insignificant problems, daring to say what is truly of importance. In this way, this man lives in a different world. It is commonly said that we only find truth as a function of the questions we ask, as a direct result of the problems we set for ourselves. It is true, and not to agree with the problems set for us is to live in a different world. “Post-truth”, in that one is truly outside of even the pre-conditions for what they hold as truth. Outside their way of thinking, a different way of life. In a “democratic” world in which we are all free to think as we wish, so long as we accept the importance of certain problems set for us, this man says no; diversity is not important, even climate change is not important, “the Jewish question” is not important, all these issues pale in comparison to the simple fact that we are turning into a third world shithole. What can we do? It is a practical mind, able to step outside of the clouds of opinion making action impossible, stepping outside and seeing the problems not allowed to be seen. Yet it shows a type of creativity too; it shows that man’s creativity and freedom go much deeper than being an original contributor. It shows a type of creativity not unfamiliar to all great philosophers, whose contribution always consists in a sort of “displacement” of the problems set by prior thinkers, a critique of the ends that have up to now been set by thought, and a positing of new ends, new ideals, new horizons, new possibilities for research, new problems to solve. The thinker is a lawgiver, and any good lawgiver is a thinker.

In the most basic sense, we are determined by the problems we choose to struggle with on a daily basis, and it is precisely the democratic pretense that we are all equal in this regard, all faced with the same ‘societal problems’ and all in principle capable of contributing a valuable opinion. But it is not a given at all that one can see what is actually problematic, that this is somehow given to us. It requires a degree of development, maybe of common sense, to even see what is going on. It is said philosophy starts in wonder, which is what distinguishes this higher type of thought from the common man’s. For the latter, nothing is of interest; he does not have the requisite receptivity for anything to even appear as problematic and question-worthy. Today, this man only blinks. And so he accepts the course of things. The philosopher, the great statesman, the artist, the scientist even, all are merely determined by their unusual capacity for being interested, a desire that leads one to set ends beyond those already set before us. Against the present, against opinion, so that new goals may be set and a new future can be written. A task of vision, that is nonetheless nourished by ideals long forgotten. Ultimately, what one chooses to set against one’s own time is irrelevant, it is the mere fact that one does so, that one is capable of doing so, that speaks of what is truly of worth. This ability some have to refuse the influence of their immediate environment, to put aeons between themselves and the present, to establish distance, and from it, set a new course for man. It is the essence of individuality, what speaks of the heights man might achieve, and in a world that no longer believes in great ideals, it can itself function as the Ideal; the higher type of man that can break through the stifling energies of his time and bring forth new possibilities for life. That is; set new ideals and new problems that justify the birth of generations of life to complete them. Many tiring words have been said about this ‘end of great narratives,’ like so many masks that fall off one by one. But what cannot possibly fall is this very ability to unmask, and this ability to create new masks. Only this shows us an Ideal that can survive whatever deconstruction one may throw at it, this ideal of that power hidden in man to always go beyond the limits set before him. From this a type can rise that has no need of the belief in any one narrative, that does not need his ideals to be given to him, but takes his joy in the very fight against all that is given. He does not lament the unmasking of what he held dear, but sees it only as evidence of his own power of critique, evidence that there is something even more fundamental to be found. He does not lament that the narratives he was given to live through are false. If they were only creations of great men, then he too can become someone capable of such creation, and why not create something even more powerful?

What only remains is the question of how this power of man, over any opinion, over anything that appears as nature even, how this power can be cultivated and sustained. How a man capable of veritable creation can be cultivated, this is the only political question worth asking. Be he a philosopher, an artist, a scientist, or a politician, this man will appear tyrannical, taking delight in destruction and an enlargement of his own powers. But he is not a denier. He does not deny beauty, but is so called by it that he cannot stand what only pretends to be beautiful. He does not deny human nature, but is not satisfied until he has seen what it is capable of. He is conservative in that he would like to conserve what is truly eternal in man, this drive to always go beyond, more ancient than any tradition could ever be. Likewise he is a progressive, but only in so far it is a progression of man to ever greater heights. All progression away from man’s power, he denies. He believes in nature, as this infinite drive to surpass its own limits and a necessary ally for his own self-overcoming.

To God he says yes, but not the God of belief that asks only for one to accept the world as it is given. “The kingdom of God is attained through force.” That is, as the natural result of man’s capacities developed to their fullness. As what is left when everything that can be critiqued is critiqued, who is left when all the masks have fallen off, that fire that feeds on itself even as there is nothing left to burn. But then also this critique and this mask.

He is a materialist, in so far as he sees that matter must be manipulated to satisfy his growth. And he is an idealist, as he knows his power is prior to anything and not limited by any matter. “He has to be like a child begging for “both,” and say that that which is—everything—is both the unchanging and that which changes.” (Plato, Sophist 249d)

A type of dualist and perspectivist, as he can not deny life, and life has given him two perspectives. He does not yearn to leave this world and return to God, as he knows that God is this outpouring too, this emanation, and that this gift is at once a return. If the One is perfect in and of itself, lacking of nothing, then why does it depart from itself? Why is there any creation, any emanation? It is not some evil fall, as the Gnostic would have it. This would contradict the One’s fullness. And it is not even just a great and harsh learning ground where, by experiencing the opposite of the Good, the soul is invited to return, as contrary is known by contrary. So, why? ‘Tólma’, says Plotinus. That is, a type of audacity, a type of daring that made the One step out of itself. Why? Well, why not? It is similar to the child that disregards the dangers spoken of by its parents and goes away from home to play in the forest, to see what there is to see. Why? Because its nature is to experience, to go beyond, to see. It is like the first climbers of Everest who, when asked why they would attempt such a feat, simply replied, “Because it is there.” To experience what is out there, to ever greater degrees. This outpouring, this going beyond, this is “the One.” Only in a full acceptance of this outpouring does one accept life fully. And only in this acceptance does one show true religiosity. Is then everything equal, beyond good and evil? There are still degrees of expression. Beyond good and evil is not the same as beyond good and bad.

Nietzsche speaks of a “great hunt,” the infinite unfolding of experience, its frontiers, its possibilities. A creation and subsequent throwing off of an infinite series of masks. And, — making allusion to Plato’s comparison of philosophy with the activity of hunting—, the philosopher as the one so full of life that he never grows tired of this unfolding, of new problems that life throws at him, of new inner experiences to be had, of new thoughts to be born, of new Ideals to create and chase after. To pull together all that is in one thought, and to see where it goes upon release. The same goes for all who have this natural interest, be it an explorer, scientist, artist, politician, or anyone else. We, sitting at the edge of time with the weight of history on our shoulders, can grow weary and dream of ceasing the hunt. What for? To what end? We would like something of the calm of the mass man who only blinks, perhaps we can find it in some return to a time when we could still believe, a time when we didn’t have to set ends for ourselves but could rest in what was given to us. We are too tired to create. “Finally it dawns on philosophers: they must no longer let concepts merely be given to them, nor merely refine and clarify them, but must first make, create, characterize and argue for them.” (Nietzsche, WTP, §409) And maybe then we can get a taste of what was truly great in the past. We can hunger after belief and idleness, after something to be given to us, or we can choose the joy of the artist, creating and giving something to believe.

The Indians say God shows himself in three ways; as the creator abiding in his own perfection and thereby pouring outward, as the sustaining energy of nature that rushes through the series of emanations and sustains life, and as the destroyer that rids himself of what impedes the flow of energy. So too, the soul of man has three activities; to create out of the depths of himself, to sustain and ensure the possibility for any creation whatsoever to take place, and the violent critique needed to fight against everything that gets in the way of life. For this, many different types of men are needed. Provided they are driven by this questioning; what is man, and what is he capable of? What is life, and what is it capable of? It all rests on the intensity with which the question is asked. But what mask do we need to create to be able to question in earnest? In the end one encounters only oneself.