~jacks/kings-essays

abac60a8e66ba472a02735bfc64862e84dda5fce — jacksarick 2 months ago dec0303 master
submitted my last paper :(
A Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/Deleuze, Gilles - Nietzsche and Philosophy-Columbia University Press (1983).pdf => Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/Deleuze, Gilles - Nietzsche and Philosophy-Columbia University Press (1983).pdf +0 -0

A Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/deleuze.pdf => Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/deleuze.pdf +0 -0

A Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/deleuze.tex => Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/deleuze.tex +106 -0
@@ 0,0 1,106 @@
\documentclass[12pt]{article}

%
%Margin - 1 inch on all sides
%
\usepackage[letterpaper]{geometry}
\usepackage{times}
\geometry{top=1.0in, bottom=1.0in, left=1.0in, right=1.0in}

%
%Doublespacing
%
\usepackage{setspace}
\setstretch{2.25}

%
%Sensible quotation marks
%
\usepackage [english]{babel}
\usepackage [autostyle, english = american]{csquotes}
\MakeOuterQuote{"}

%
%Rotating tables (e.g. sideways when too long)
%
\usepackage{rotating}

%Hypertext
\usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false]{hyperref}


%
%Fancy-header package to modify header/page numbering (insert last name)
%
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\lhead{} 
\chead{} 
\rhead{Sarick \thepage} 
\lfoot{} 
\cfoot{} 
\rfoot{} 
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt} 
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt} 
%To make sure we actually have header 0.5in away from top edge
%12pt is one-sixth of an inch. Subtract this from 0.5in to get headsep value
\setlength\headsep{0.333in}

%
%Works cited environment
%(to start, use \begin{workscited...}, each entry preceded by \bibent)
% - from Ryan Alcock's MLA style file
%
\newcommand{\bibent}{\noindent \hangindent 40pt}
\newenvironment{workscited}{\newpage \begin{center} Works Cited \end{center}}{\newpage }


%
%Begin document
%
\begin{document}
\begin{flushleft}

%%%%First page name, class, etc
Jack Sarick\\
3105 Nietzsche \\
April 2020\\
Dr. Kierans\\


%%%%Title
\begin{center}
7.  Gilles Deleuze writes, "The dicethrow is nothing if chance and necessity are \textit{opposed} in it" (Deleuze, \textit{Nietzsche and Philosophy,} p. 34). In what way is this a criticism of Stéphane Mallarmé’s poem? What would Mallarmé say in response?
\end{center}


%%%%Changes paragraph indentation to 0.5in
\setlength{\parindent}{0.5in}
%%%%Begin body of paper here

INTRO:
According to Deleuze, Mallarme sees "chance like existence which must be denied, [and] necessity like the character of the pure idea or the eternal essence" but for Nietzsche "these two aspects are inseparable and constitute 'nihilism' itself, that is to say, the way in which life is accused, judged and condemned" (Deleuze, pg. 33). This game of chance and necessity is characterized by the thinkers in a dice throw. It is a simple enough model that leads to an incredible amount of discussion. Deleuze thinks that Mallarmé's interpretation is flawed, going against Nietzsche's, but in dissecting it helps show how his theory works.

Mallarmé's poem is divided into four main sections by the eponymous line "A THROW OF THE DICE NEVER WILL ABOLISH CHANCE,"\footnote{I am using \href{http://jimhanson.org/documents/Athrowofthedicetypographicallycorrect02-18-09.pdf}{this} translation for its faithful reproduction of the original typography and layout. Since the poem is such a visual phenomenon, quoting it in an essay format presented a challenge. As such, I have decided to forgo all attempts to preserve form in an effort to emphasize content. When quoting the text, I acknowledge that it is not meant to be read strictly left to right and often group words based solely on how I am subjectively reading it. The capitalization and text are direct copies, though I have added punctuation to match my interpretation, occasionally stitching together visually discontiguous lines to make complete sentences. I also have no idea how to properly cite page/line numbers, so forgo } with no text on the page(s) preceding the "title" of each section. While the poem can be read as a continuous piece, breaking into chunks provides a framework for interpreting an otherwise disorganized piece of work. The four sections can be read as the four stages of throwing a dice. A THROW OF THE DICE is an empty section, a monad, containing nothing but itself. This can be scene as the thought, the instant at which it is decided that the dice are to be thrown. It is a momentary state of being, a beginning that is over as soon as it starts, leading directly into NEVER. This section is analogous to Nietzsche's "sky" where the dice take flight. Mallarmé says of the tossed dice that "EVEN IF THROWN IN ETERNAL, the unique number that can not be another," which seems to indicate a kind of predetermination that fits with Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. From there, they crash to the ground, in WILL ABOLISH, where the dice collapse into a single number. Everything that can happen already has or, as Mallarmé says, "THE NUMBER: IT EXISTED. IT BEGAN AND IT CEASED. IT ADDED UP. IT ILLUMINATES," relating the pips on the die to the illuminating constellations that are a secondary theme throughout the poem, a fixed point in the sky that is not temporally bound like the dice throw. For Nietzsche, the path of the dice ends there, the collision determining their state. Mallarmé sees an additional step, in CHANCE, of checking the result. Continuing astral allegory, Mallarmé writes "NOTHING WILL HAVE TAKEN PLACE, THAT THE PLACE, EXCEPTING, PERHAPS, A CONSTELLATION, before it stops itself in some last point which consecrates it." Akin to opening one's hand after catching a coin toss, the number has already been picked, but it does not yet exist until is has been seen. Mallarmé sees the dice throw at pitting chance and necessity each other because only one can exist at a time. There are distinct moments of non-existence and existence, predestination revealed in an instant, like the sky fading to expose the constellations that were shining beneath it the whole time. Either the dice necessarily show the same predetermined number or 

Before Deleuze can critique Mallarmé's reading of Nietzsche, he must first outline the similarities between the two. He notes four comparisons between Mallarmé and Nietzsche's model of the dice throw: 
\begin{quote}
1) To think is to send out a dice throw \\
2) Man does not know how to play. \\
3) Not only is the throwing of the dice an unreasonable and irrational, absurd and superhuman act, but it constitutes the tragic attempt and the tragic thought \textit{par excellence} \\
4) The number-constellation is, or could be, the book, the work of art as outcome and justification of the world\\
(Deleuze, 1.14 pg. 32)
\end{quote}
Both thinkers see thinking as an event that triggers a cascade of unpredictable events. Like casting a stone into a calm pond. The first few ripples are concentric but once they ricochet of the walls the pattern becomes random. Throwing the dice, for Mallarmé, is akin to invoking a deity who cannot be comprehended and the consequences only guessed at, like a bee stinging a man on the forehead. Throwing the dice is a superhuman act that reaches beyond normal boundaries of cause-and-effect, culminating in art of thrown by the right hands. These similarities are merely superficial, according to Deleuze, because "Mallarmé always understood necessity as the abolition of chance" (1.14 pg. 33). If necessity and chance are mutually exclusive modes, then the oppositional tension and harmony between them Nietzsche sets as a requirement for art becomes impossible. 

Nietzsche does not think that the outcome of chance is predetermined. Or, more accurately, he does not think that the outcome can be determined. Where Mallarmé sees divinity as the force behind chance that consecrates it as necessity, Nietzsche does not believe that chance in any way has purpose. While a cosmic perspective might allow prediction in Nietzsche philosophy, it has no effect. He sees "Ressentiment in the repetition of throws, bad conscience in the belief in a purpose [when] all that will ever be obtained are more or less probable relative numbers," (1.11, pg. 27) and it is exactly this certainty in the uncertain, confidence in the lack of reason, that is the tension between necessity and chance. Deleuze takes this one step further by declaring that this is not a psychological determination, not an perspective of the world but an underlying condition of it. Relating back to the will to power, it is an absolutely relative concept as no one perspective can be any better or worse at diving the purpose or result of chance. Accepting one's own absolute lack of skill at throwing dice is the only skill that can make one better at, since it is the only honest option, and even that has no effect other than for further questioning. Art as the physiological, not psychological, response to the stress of being caught between infinite chance and finite necessity allows for a degree autonomy that permits creativity and art without violating causality, and that is something Deleuze does not think Mallarmé understands.

\textit{Ressentiment}, for Deleuze, is the same futile desire that drives Nietzsche's priest class to gain a semblance of power. Where the priestly \textit{ressentiment} stems from attempts to subjugate the strong by inverting the power dynamic, easing the suffering of the morally depraved by sanctifying mundane labour, Deleuze see at is a basic condition of existence. \textit{Ressentiment} is no longer tied to slave morality, or alternatively turning all humans into slaves to existences. It becomes, for Deleuze, the struggle of rational thought against an irrational world, the fallacy of seeing patterns in chaos. This struggle, this \textit{ressentiment} felt against existence instead of the strong, Deleuze argues, "is not part of psychology, but the whole of our psychology, without knowing it, is a part of ressentiment" (1.15, pg. 34). Not merely a secondary frustration of the human condition, it is the human condition in its entirety. By being foundational to thought, baking revenge into its genealogy, \textit{ressentiment} becomes a transcendental  principle for Deleuze (1.15, pg. 35). It is an inescapable condition that can only be quashed by an immediate and permanent cessation of thought or, in a word, dying. This may seem to be depressing idea, since the fact that Nietzsche's ubermensch is free of \textit{ressentiment} would seem to exclude any thinking person from becoming one, though this is where the power of affirmation comes into play. Deleuze agrees that the ubermensch is at odds with this metaphysical \textit{ressentiment} since "there is no metaphysics which does not judge and depreciate life in the name of a supra-sensible world" (1.15, pg. 34). To overcome it is not to overthink it, but to embrace and affirm it. This is what Deleuze means when he sets Nietzsche's in opposition to Pascal's wager. 

Pascal reasoned that humans can't know for certain if there is a god, so it is better to hedge your bets and believe in god just in case rather than disbelieve and find out you were wrong. Nietzsche, beginning at the same premise of uncertainty, rejects the false dichotomy of belief and instead chooses affirmation. By accepting that it is an unknowable variable, he recognizes the choice as an impossible one. Much like flipping a coin and trying to deicide which side will land face up and denying the chaos that indisputably exists, Nietzsche turns it into an object of affirmation, proof that the chaos of the world is real. To try to rationalize the chaos of existence is absurd. Chance is an incomprehensible existence which much be rejected so that existence can remain intelligible, making necessity is a constructed set axioms derived from nothing more than thought. Deleuze see this as a freeing notion, the ability to truthfully speak of the world that is, not the one that is perceived. By affirming the nonsense he is immersed in, he affirms his own life. In saying that "Nietzsche presents the aim of his philosophy as the freeing of thought from nihilism and its various forms" (1.15, pg. 35), Deleuze does wish to snub nihilism as gatekeeper or warden, he stages nihilism as a revelatory force. By freeing thought, and therefore chance, from the absolute relativity of nihilism, Deleuze shows that casting the dice of thought is a meaningful action. Unpredictable, but still meaningful, not an abolishment of necessity but an affirmation of it.

Mallarmé wrote "A THROW OF THE DICE NEVER" for a population not yet ready to come to terms with nihilism. Stripping away all logic to show the harshly chaotic nature of the universe is not an easy notion to swallow. Mallarmé cannot reconcile the illogic he sees and the logic he wishes to see, and his poetry reflects that. Though he is able to relate the two, his conclusion is wrong simply because he himself does not want to admit that his premise is correct. Nonetheless, he provides a context by which to conceptualize Nietzsche's ideas. Nietzsche shows us that we live an absurd world full of chance and necessity. Where Mallarmé sees chance and necessity being at odds with one another, Deleuze sees them as two sides of the same coin.

\end{flushleft}
\end{document}
\}
\ No newline at end of file

M Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/draft.md => Winter 2020/Nietzche/Final/draft.md +60 -2
@@ 1,4 1,62 @@
5. Gilles Deleuze tries to explain what the completion of nihilism means to Nietzsche. He writes, "Negation sacrifices all reactive forces... passing into the service of an excess of life" (Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, p. 175). Explain why, for Deleuze, this sacrifice leads to an affirmation of life? Do Deleuze and Nehamas differ with regard to nihilism and Nietzsche’s vision of how it will be overcome?

7.  Gilles Deleuze writes, "The dicethrow is nothing if chance and necessity are *opposed* in it" (Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, p. 34). In what way is this a criticism of Stephane Mallarmé’s poem? What would Mallarmé say in response?

##1.11
The dice which are thrown once are the affirmation of chance, the combination which they form on falling is the affirma­tion of necessity. Necessity is affirmed of chance in exactly the sense that being is affirmed of becoming and unity is affirmed of multip­licity. 27

xxx "The game has two moments which are those of a dicethrow - the dice that is thrown and the dice that falls back." (1.11, pg 25) 

xxx "Ressentiment in the repetition of throws, bad conscience in the belief in a purpose. But, in this way, all that will ever be obtained are more or less probable relative numbers. That the universe has no purpose, that it has no end to hope for any more than it has causes to be known - this is the certainty necessary to play well (VP III 465)" (1.11, 27) This is not a psychological determination, says Deleuze

#1.14
xxxSimilarities:
>1) To think is to send out a dicethrow
>2) Man does not know how to play. 
>3) Not only is the throwing of the dice an unreasonable and irrational, absurd and superhuman act, but it constitutes the tragic attempt and the tragic thoughtparexcellence
>4) The number-constellation is, or could be, the book, the work of art as outcome and justification of the world

1 & 2: thinking is a blind action, like casting a stone into a calm pond. We can predict the first few ripples, but once they ricochet of the walls, the pattern becomes random. Thowing the dice, for Mallarme is akin to invoking a diety who cannot be comprehended, like poking a slumbering beast where the only known variable is that waking it will trigger an uncontrollable cascade of events.

3: for both mallarme and ntz, the dramatic hero is necessarily mysterious for they have taken the superhuman step of casting the dice and letting them fall

4: The artist as the over-human who does not simply cast the dice but how, in the artist, "necessity and random play, oppositional tension and harmony, must pair to create a work of art" (PTG, 32)

xx Difference between them: "Close as they are , these resemblances remain superficial . For Mal­larme always understood necessity as the abolition ofchance." 33

xx ccording to Deleuze, Mallarme sees "chance like existence which must be denied, [and] necessity like the character of the pure idea or the eternal essence" but for Nietzsche "these two aspects are inseparable and constitute 'nihilism' itself, that is to say, the way in which life is accused, judged and condemned." 

The dicethrow is nothing when detached from innocence and the affirmation ofc hance. The dicethrow is nothing if chance and necessity are opposed in it. 34


##1.15
xxx"Ressentiment is not part of psychology, but the whole of our psychol­ogy, without knowing it, is a part of ressentiment"   34

xxx"there is no metaphysics which does not judge and depreciate life in the name of a supra-sensible world" 34


xxxThe spirit of revenge is the genealogical element of our thought, the transcendental principle of our way of thinking. 35

Nietzsche presents the aim of his philosophy as the freeing of thought from nihilism and its various forms. 35

it has never been understood that the tragic = the joyful. This is another way of putting the great equation: to will = to create. 36

xxx Nietzsche is right to oppose his own game to Pascal's wager 37

xxx Nietzsche means that we have managed to discover another game, another way of playing: we have discovered the Overman beyond two human-all-too-human ways of existing; we have managed to make chaos an object of affirma­tion instead of positing it as something to be denied 37

xxx Pascal assumed there were only two modes of existence, a binary choice between divinity and mortality, winning or losing. Nietzche doesn't reinvent the game, he shows that the human-all-too-human dichotomy is a false one that can be shirked if chaos is affirmed for what is 

##[A throw of the dice](http://jimhanson.org/documents/Athrowofthedicetypographicallycorrect02-18-09.pdf)

Mlm's poem is divided into four main sections by the eponymous line "A THROW OF THE DICE // NEVER // WILL ABOLISH // CHANCE," with no text on the page(s) preceding the "title" of each section. While the poem can be read as a continous piece, breaking into chunks provides a framework for interpreting an otherwise disorganized piece of work. The four sections can be read as the four stages of throwing a dice. A THROW OF THE DICE is an empty section, a monad, containing nothing but itself. This can be scene as the thought, the instant at which it is decided that the dice are to be thrown. It is a momentary state of being, a beginning that is over as soon as it starts, leading directly into NEVER. This section is analagous to Nietzche's "sky" where the dice taake flight. From there, they crash to the ground, WILL ABOLISH. For Nietzche, the path of the dice ends there, the collision determining their state. Mlm sees an additional step, in CHANCE, of checking the result. Akin to opening one's hand after catching a coin toss, the number has already been picked, but it does not yet exist until is has been seen. This structure, on its own, sets up chance an independent variable

NEVER: 
- EVEN IF THROWN IN ETERNAL, the unique number that can not be another 

WILL ABOLISH:
- AS IF; IF IT WAS THE NUMBER, stemming from stellar, IT WOULD BE the worst
- THE NUMBER: IT EXISTED. IT BEGAN AND IT CEASED. IT ADDED UP. IT ILLUMINATES

CHANCE:
- NOTHING WILL HAVE TAKEN PLACE, THAT THE PLACE, EXCEPTING, PERHAPS, A CONSTELLATION
- before it stops itself in some last point which consecrates it
- Every Thought emits a Roll of the Dice
\ No newline at end of file