Life-Affirming and Life-Denying Philosophy

Are we using thought to seek a false sense of security?

 In my first year of graduate school, a casual conversation with a colleague encouraged me to take a step back from my obsession with finding answers to philosophical questions and reflect on what might be motivating this obsession in the first place. My colleague suggested that for one to become enamored with philosophical questions, one must have the attitude that life is a problem that needs to be solved. Or at the very least feel that something is lacking or incomplete in the way they currently experience and make sense of their lives. Of course, I was acutely aware of this feeling of lack and dissatisfaction, this feeling that something was missing in the way I was engaging with my life. This is what had sent me on my philosophical journey in the first place. However, I had always maintained an air of superiority over those who did not take this leap into the conceptual unknown, assuming that we philosophical types were the courageous ones willing to face the mysteries and uncertainties of existence. I had never considered that this leap into the realm of metaphysical and existential speculation might be a retreat into the safety of the life of the mind. What if the philosophical impulse is not a life-affirming force pushing one deeper into the unknown and uncharted dimensions of life, but rather a movement of withdrawal? What if those who are philosophically inclined feel unable or unwilling to face the unpredictability and dynamic vitality of life as it is and so instead withdraw into the false security of neatly defined concepts?

    I now see that my colleague was voicing critiques that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would have very much sympathized with. While most philosophers and intellectuals judge the validity of a theory based on its logical consistency or on how well it describes the behavior of certain phenomena in the world, Nietzsche provides a standard of judgment of an altogether different kind. He writes in The Gay Science:

“In some, it is their deprivations that philosophize; in others, their riches and strengths. The former need their philosophy, whether it be as a prop, a sedative, medicine, redemption, elevation, or self-alienation… Every metaphysics and physics that knows some finale, some final state of some sort, every predominantly aesthetic or religious craving for some Apart, Beyond, Outside, Above, permits the question of whether it was not the sickness that inspired the philosopher.”

Elaborating on my old colleague’s suspicions, Nietzsche suggests that if one speculates about metaphysics, ethics, meaning, or purpose in order to fill a sense of lack in their current experience of life, then their philosophy is nothing more than a “sedative” or a “medicine” that aspires to pacify their “sickness” or feeling of lack with a shallow sense of certainty. He points out that one sure-shot way we can identify these philosophies that are nothing more than an attempt to pacify a need for security and certainty is when the philosopher posits something “Outside, Beyond, Above, or Apart” from the unpredictable, dynamic flow of life itself as a final goal or resting point. Nietzsche has in mind here both the history of philosophy and the history of religion. He sees both these human enterprises as populated by desperate attempts to find some final resting point in a world that, in truth, has no fixed holds or finalities other than the ones we project onto it. (Whether Nietzsche charitably interprets religion and philosophy is another question, but that is for another post. At the very least, I think it is fair to say that Nietzsche is correct that many people engage with philosophy and religion for this purpose)

Nietzsche is critical of any meaning, purpose, or guidance human beings receive from principles or metaphysical postulates that encourage them to take refuge in something unchanging, something outside of the dynamic flow of life as it is experienced by the entire human body. This is why Nietzsche is so critical of the neat moral principles that populate the history of Western philosophy and the religious promises of a later state of heaven or enlightenment that promise an end to our existential unrest and suffering. For Nietzsche, these illusory promises of a final moral, existential, or spiritual arrival pollute and obscure “the innocence of Becoming,” which is where true joy, vitality, and authenticity can be found. And this brings us to what philosophy should be for Nietzsche. He writes that true philosophy, what he calls a philosophy of health rather than sickness, is “merely a beautiful luxury… the voluptuousness of triumphant gratitude that eventually still has to inscribe itself in cosmic letters on the heaven of concepts.” A philosophy that comes from a state of health and joy is not rooted in an attempt to solve life but rather is the natural outflow of an embodied engagement that loves life for what it is, without trying to freeze it, explain it, or contain it. This philosophy of health does not attempt to describe or capture the meaning of life but instead “restores the innocence of Becoming.” It is the natural expression of the buoyancy and joy of one who rejoices in the face of the unknown and the unknowable. This philosophy would not give us rules to apply to our experience or promise us a future state of eternal peace but provide us with a glimpse of a possibility of being within ourselves that opens joyfully into the unceasing flux of life without relying on any crutch of finality or stability.

From my point of view, Nietzsche’s exhortations do not only apply to people like me who have desperately tried to find some kind of certainty in the realm of abstract philosophical speculation. I am sure we have all had some experience with feeling stuck, paralyzed, or existentially uncertain because we have not been given a rulebook for navigating life. Nietzsche encourages us to consider that maybe the rulebook for life is not a pre-written tome of fixed rules but something we must continually rediscover and re-write for ourselves and our community through embodied engagement with the world. Nietzsche asks us to consider that we might arrive at the rules for action not by thinking but through action itself; by trusting the avenue of action and choice that makes us feel even the slightest bit alive, creative, or vital without worrying about whether it is the “right” direction. In this sense, Nietzsche is asking for a paradigm shift that would not only reorient philosophy but also reorient the pattern of behavior of many in our culture which, at least it seems to me, has encouraged us to be cautious and “figure things out;” making sure we know what is right, moral, or safe before simply taking an unknown leap in a certain direction. Instead, Nietzsche asks us to put action before thought, joy before certainty, and trust before doubt. Nietzsche reminds us that our deepest questions must be answered not only with our minds but with our entire bodies, souls, and moment-to-moment actions; and that if we try to take refuge in the seemingly safe and secure realm of thoughts, certainties, and projected future hopes, we will only be dragging around something that has long ago lost its vitality and its life-force.

If you found this reflection valuable, please consider subscribing. Paid Subscribers have access to all four posts per month, while non-paid subscribers have access to two posts per month.

Please feel free to leave a comment if you have clarification questions, feedback, critiques, or anything to add. Philosophy is all about dialogue! I will do my best to respond to all questions and concerns.