Another Nietzsche Quote
If you have hung out with me, you have probably heard one of my nonsensical speeches about the asymmetry of art appreciation and science appreciation. If someone [me] doesn't appreciate mediocrity on the music stage he is "lame" or "being anti-social". If someone does appreciate scientific expertise (or even a functional grasp of scientific principles), he is a nerd, interested in boring trivial things. Think I am being too harsh? Lets put it this way, if someone starts yapping at a party about how cool some show they saw last week was, people get interested and everyone wants to offer an opinion. Now go to a party and yap about how cool the last paper you read about probabilistic reductions was. Compare the response: The music expert is cool. He/she knows more than everyone else about stuff! The science guy is a show off! He just wants to look smart!
It is possible that I am just carrying a grudge left over from high school, and that my fictional tale about the music guy and the science guy is complete bullshit-- I admit I am not objective about this. Still, I must ask, why is it that otherwise well versed fans of books, art, philosophy, culture, etc. feel nothing is amiss in their total ignorance of mathematics or any hard science?
Anyway Nietzsche busts out this related Aphorism:
Our air-- We know very well how science strikes those who merely glance at it in passing, as if they were walking by as women do and unfortunately also many artists: the severity of its service, its inexorability in small as in great matters, and the speed of weighing and judging matters and passing judgment makes them feel dizzy and afraid. Above all they are terrified to see how the most difficult is demanded and the best is done without praise and decorations. Indeed, what one hears is, as among soldier, mostly reproaches and harsh rebukes; for doing things well is considered the rule, and failure is the exception, but the rule always tends to keep quiet. This "severity of science" has the same effect as the forms and good manners of the best society: it is frightening for the uninitiated. But those who are used to it would never wish to live anywhere else than in this bright, transparent, vigorous, electrified air--in this virile air. Anywhere else things are not clean and airy enough for them; they suspect that elsewhere their best efforts would not really profit others nor give real delight to themselves; that among misunderstandings, half of their lives would slip through their finger; that they would be required to exercise a great deal of caution, conceal things, be inhibited--so many ways of losing a lot of strength for no good reason. But in this severe and clear element they have their full strength; here they can fly. Why, then go down into those muddy waters where has to swim and wade and get one's wings dirty?
No it is too hard for us to live there. Is it our fault that we were born for the air, clean air, we rivals of the beams of light, and that we wish we could ride on ethereal dust specks like these beams--not away from the sun but toward the sun!
That however, we cannot do. Let us therefore do what alone we can do: bring light to the earth, be "the light of the earth"? And to that end we have our wings and our speed and severity; for this we are virile and even terrible like fire. Let those be terrified by use who do not know how to gain warmth and light from us!
**************************************************************************
Yeah, its kinda fruity, and a bit sexist. But I like the fact that a poet and writer of his stature (also a musician) recognized that there something great about science, and something cowardly about those who avoid it.
It is possible that I am just carrying a grudge left over from high school, and that my fictional tale about the music guy and the science guy is complete bullshit-- I admit I am not objective about this. Still, I must ask, why is it that otherwise well versed fans of books, art, philosophy, culture, etc. feel nothing is amiss in their total ignorance of mathematics or any hard science?
Anyway Nietzsche busts out this related Aphorism:
Our air-- We know very well how science strikes those who merely glance at it in passing, as if they were walking by as women do and unfortunately also many artists: the severity of its service, its inexorability in small as in great matters, and the speed of weighing and judging matters and passing judgment makes them feel dizzy and afraid. Above all they are terrified to see how the most difficult is demanded and the best is done without praise and decorations. Indeed, what one hears is, as among soldier, mostly reproaches and harsh rebukes; for doing things well is considered the rule, and failure is the exception, but the rule always tends to keep quiet. This "severity of science" has the same effect as the forms and good manners of the best society: it is frightening for the uninitiated. But those who are used to it would never wish to live anywhere else than in this bright, transparent, vigorous, electrified air--in this virile air. Anywhere else things are not clean and airy enough for them; they suspect that elsewhere their best efforts would not really profit others nor give real delight to themselves; that among misunderstandings, half of their lives would slip through their finger; that they would be required to exercise a great deal of caution, conceal things, be inhibited--so many ways of losing a lot of strength for no good reason. But in this severe and clear element they have their full strength; here they can fly. Why, then go down into those muddy waters where has to swim and wade and get one's wings dirty?
No it is too hard for us to live there. Is it our fault that we were born for the air, clean air, we rivals of the beams of light, and that we wish we could ride on ethereal dust specks like these beams--not away from the sun but toward the sun!
That however, we cannot do. Let us therefore do what alone we can do: bring light to the earth, be "the light of the earth"? And to that end we have our wings and our speed and severity; for this we are virile and even terrible like fire. Let those be terrified by use who do not know how to gain warmth and light from us!
**************************************************************************
Yeah, its kinda fruity, and a bit sexist. But I like the fact that a poet and writer of his stature (also a musician) recognized that there something great about science, and something cowardly about those who avoid it.
posted by Old Stallion at 3:32 PM
8 Comments:
Hmm. I don't know that I agree.
1. I think that people like to talk about music and tv at parties because everyone can be right and still have different opinions. You can always fall back on just having different taste. And you don't have to know very much to have an opinion.
2. If someone were to try to get down and dirty about Mozart or Bach and their technical differences or chords or what-have-you, I think people would still respond with "Whatever, nerd."
I think this is true with science too: "Dude, they cloned a sheep! Let's clone my ASS next! Yeah!" will fly, whereas any real technical discussion just don't swill right with the beer.
3. I can see why the supposed* clarity of science is cool. But just the fact that policy and morals and philosophy and art will by nature be murkier because there are differences about first principles doesn't mean that they're inferior or less important. Dude.
* this ignores any policy decisionmaking that scientists have to do. Is it good or bad to know how to clone people? good/bad to have cochlear implants? Good/bad to be able to identify genetic problems in utero?
or make atomic bombs.
Alright, ACMCS.
If point 1. is true than Nietzsche is right that the avoidance of science is cowardly: "Yay, we can all talk and none of us will be wrong...and we don't have to know a damn thing!" That is some murky shit, and why would I want to waste my time with that?
2. Here, you are right. People get offended when a conversation becomes substantial enough that they as passerbys can't contribute with some wit. And yeah I see why at a party that is actually offensive. My point I think remains that the tolerance for obscure conversations involving "hip" referencing (artist, philosophers, musicians) is greater than conversations that require only a basic familiarity with math. I am no mathematician, I can't imagine what those dudes go through trying to explain even in the most general terms what they do.
3. Hey, I don't mean any disrespect to all the murky stuff. I love the arts and the philosophies. Shit. My supposed "expertise" is in the murky stuff. My point, is that this stance of "its all good" isn't really backed up by people. If I said the last fiction book I read was as a sophomore in high school, you may think, "shit, what's wrong with that dude." yet many of my closest friends could say something to that effect about math or science books. All I'm doing is thinking, "What is wrong with these dudes?", "Why, don't they see what I see in math or science?" "Why do they like nearly every other intellectual study except science and math?"
speaking of science, I just dropped some yo. my first principle is never eat five pounds of ham in five days. principle proved.
oh, and the other subject. am i nuts or is the musing over why social activities which have historically only belonged to the leisured classes and exist (when vast numbers beyond close acquaintances are involved) only to participate in the economy of status (the currency of which is taste, which necessarily must be most accessible and deniable to all, and be conqureable and maleable and fluctuate for no good reason)--why this particular venue does not seem to enjoy conversations about string theory? (Though, actually, this is incorrect: both the hipsters in C-bus and certain hulking suburban Navajo both talk about string theory because of its cache as a matter of post-hip 'taste.')
But, in terms of other venues, yes; we modern day faux-pontificatorors are woefully unsubstantiated when it comes to oligies that don't start with psycho, onto, ideo, or boob.
My comment is in post form at moviebot.
1. In regards to acmcs.point.1, I'm not saying that's a good thing, only that it's true. It bores me.
2. And I see your airwolf.point.3. You're right about that. Maybe it's the lack of star quality in math or science. The dusty lab or office setting just isn't crazy enough? Scientists or mathematicians don't have juicy enough divorces and affairs? Maybe it's just harder to make math funny?
For the last three years I've been immersed in the world of mathematics and mathematicians (and the occassional physicist) for my work. When I started, I was a little wary of all the math stuff. I hadn't had any math since pre-cal in high school, and didn't know that much about upper level mathematics or what kinds of things these people are working on.
Now, after three math conference, flipping through countless math journals, and having interesting conversations with leagues of mathematicians, I'm really a lot more into math (and also other science stuff). I'm certainly no expert, but honestly, even mathematicians can't always talk to other mathematicians outside of their specialty about the details of their work. I am interested in the broad strokes, theories, and applications. I even actually go out and purchase "popular science" type books about mathematicians and their theories, and recently subscribed to a science magazine.
And yet, whenever I tell people that I work with math collections, I always feel like I have to get defensive right away or they dismiss it as super boring. Math is cool! I'll be the one shouting it from the rooftops.
Math and science are cool if you're into it. Music is cool if you're into it. Even fashion is cool if you're into it. To avoid the discussion of fashion is no more cowardly than to avoid the discussion of science. If you're not into it, it will give you no satisfaction to to discuss or think about it. People don't evade scientific discussions because it deals in absolutes or is intimidating,they avoid it because its not what they care about. The purpose of one's discussion is what determines whether or not avoiding science in conversation is cowardly. If the purpose of one's discussion is to come a universal absolute truth, then avoiding science is more than cowardly. However, if the purpose of one's discussion is something non-scientific (like dating advice, or companionship) then avoiding science is acceptable. Its only cowardly to avoid science if it can have an effect on the truth of whatever idea someone is discussing. Nietzsche asked, "what is truth?". Interesting question. I disagree with many of Nietzsche's conclusions but he does make good observations.
Post a Comment
<< Home