The Systems (of Thought) as Ergon (or, the systematic philosophies or wisdoms of Friedrich Nietzsche and of Leo Strauss)  

Q: What is Reason?, we continue in the path of our leading question, its subject matter is our “authority”

 

“Ideas are stronger than all empercial forces.” Husserl

Nihilism! Nihilism! Nothing else but its springing forth in a weak light of a dying star is of

moment. The dying of the star would mean utter captivation and loss of human sight.

Perhaps, however, some say, the loss of human sight is the most gravid kairotic moment. In

this atmosphere: namely, of teche as what invigilates upon the sea lanes, the reaching of

money-making into every region of the system, the erasure of all particularity, of the

commercial-finance complex thats needs are seen to by the race of universal ontological

cybernetic supremacy in its contest of escalating innovations, the echo of reason, that we

might still ask, as we are, What is reason?, is still present in the third cave.

Systematic under the general claim that Nietzsche is not systematic, following his 
own comment, is said at times to mean “aphoristic” (or even "aesopic"), but many thinkers have made 
aphorisms without failing to be systematic. Nietzsche, it seems, meant that unlike the 
scholastics, who were compelled to comment on each of the cardinal subject matter in 
their candidate master’s master work, were then meant to speak on subject matter they 
had no adequate relationship with, e.g., the unmusical must speak of music, and thus 
emphasizing his systematic teaching that one must belong to the gods, as in 
the Euthyphro, as Euthyphro himself did, in the historical development, and not 
to “God”, for “god is dead”. The “Vornehmheit” or heights of grandeur, what Wagner, 
in his noise, fails to grasp, for he is all-too-conscious with his Gesamtkunstwerk, with 
the sociability of the conscience in the failure to heighten being, in the bustle that 
is “boring” (as Hegel calls it, that is, not in the Heideggerian sense: but, rather, for it 
is in the dimension of a “science” of diversity all of a stamp), the look of what springs 
out for Rausch is beyond any schema of mere actuality (as pure act). Heidegger 
too grasps this when he says: the kalon is what is “unconstrained favouring”. 
However, the break is in this: Kant, the “beautiful and the sublime”, Nietzsche, 
“the noble and the drunken”.   

Living in a poorly lit blotch of intelligibility the first cave, that of the intelligibility gripping to

sight in unscrutinized (without, only in the “without”, is there Socratic scrutiny) opinion as

the first cave. Which falls further into the historical accrual of opinions about opinion in the

life of Western (now planetary) blocs of being, once European as what was mediterranean,

as the peoples about the “anno domini” of a centre of time as where one is. 

The system of the “gods” and “prejudice” (that is, “the noble” or “grandeaur” as drunken

passion and the geistishist moment of the will as “philosophy") thought by Nietzsche is not

polemically thought. It is not reached conceptually as with Schmitt, e.g., as “society” is set

against “state” as polemical in its origin and than, in our own time, ceases to make sense

as the “government [state] is a necessary evil” (with the Americans and their contemporary

misunderstanding of their own system = of nihilism as Capitalism). Prejudice is not a

polemical concept as is his “anti-slave” “anti-christianity”. Neither does Nietzsche think as

with Hegel, in absolute geist as an undergoing that is already woven in as presupposition of

the thinking and which can not be set aside. This is an ergon, for it is lived in the thinking

and livable by others. Ergo, the title, Nietzsche, of the system, is of the ergon of “prejudice”

as the take over of man’s essence. 

The work of Strauss is to draw all thought to the level of Plato, both Jerusalem and Athens

 are forms of the rational; “different kinds of rationality” (but, not as with Nietzsche, waring

 with History to establish a record that plays forever and then ‘from the beginning’.)

 Whoever thinks through the whole of Strauss thinks being between two geniuses, namely

 Plato and Strauss. Strauss “historian of philosophy” is overcome in the ergon Strauss =

 thus the rescuing of Strauss from the abyss of the history of being!

The contemporaneous is the point of the greatest illumination of the beings blindness in the sense of

 “captivation” (Heidegger). Captivation is a way of speaking of “the animal” in a vague aisthesis,

 sense life, plus the possibility of bare recollection of a distant place and setting the will on it, going to

 the former place “animus revertendi” belongs to the soul of the beast according to the Roman law

 and to truth, as it were (it is observed in all times and places). The crow can solve simple problems, 

and birds can make nests. Such is captivation and its leaking out of its own shallow basin into the

 gleam of being.

The European science, now we continue to, for all along we have thought of what reason is, or was
 meant to be in the caves, this third cave of reason, as: what is reason (asked out of the history of
 being, out of the each is being and the emphases on the beings in their being as which is more and
 less being takes on a tone wholly unknown to the advance of experience to reflection in Aristotle; the
 “more being” is but the existential emphasis)? The number “mysticism” (pseudo-mysticism as
 looking on in the region of the psuke or “imagining” as what today is called “abstraction”) worked out
 between the Egyptian priests and the Pythagoreans (“Thus the mathematical sciences originated in
 the neighborhood of Egypt, because there the priestly class was allowed leisure.” Aristotle, “Plato is a
 Pythagorean”, Aristotle) comes down through the Catholics, through, for instance the obsession of
 (simply to be understood as one of the larger links amidst the plenum of the pseudo-mystical thinking)
  Kepler with the Platonic forms, Leibnitz at the end of the thinking with the monads, this mysticism, as
 what is said in connection to scholasticism (i.e., conscious “rational Christianity" as the origin of 
secularism = "sceince" as rationality , as pseudo "utopia" and tacit progress thrown into the 
"fox" and "wolf" = American left and right, of the universal "state" = commercial system of 
a "selfish" "president" of the "Americans", e.g. as a part of the planetary commercial activity that requires, 
as Adam Smith already observed, no country but wherever money can be made/or, better: spent) into the “contemporaneity”; 
planetary rule of the universal commercial-financial bloc, presents itself as 
“evil”: “materialism” as the elusiveness of total acquisitiveness of the “individual” (a 
common mistake: in the past there were duty-bound individuals, with the social contract, right-bearing 
individuals: the emphasis on the “individual” in current debates is a misleading aberration). This is an
 impediment to genuine reason, the idea of combat as it still stands in Dugin, for example. It lacks what
 Heidegger, the ergon, teaches. The freedom of thinking being is aimed at in the struggling thought: as
 “letting be”.  Struggling is not seeking the “sieg” or the cheep “un-heil” of secularist worn down, ergo
 almost wholly captivated, utopia. 

Questions V

What is the End of Philosophy?

Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik, is the systematic work that attempts to make tragedy 
eternal. The most fundamental tragedy is the Apollonian and Dionysian. However, let us think this 
historically. The historical is a philisophic conception, thus, under Nietzsche's tag, “Dionysian - Apollonian”
, it is Apollonian, thus it discriminates and separates. History names experience. Seen from Socrates, 
in the Platonic cannon, the “erotic” is the ultimate principle of the Apollonian order: it expresses wisdom 
or sophos as a discriminatory knowing. For each situation, the wise know what is the right action. How to 
be. Wisdom is “the many”. Rationality is the science of the many as the principle. 

Historically: Athens, the “citizen state”, polis, rejects the mafia states, most of all thematizing all evil as 
Thebes, and, over and against the mafia place, the place of families, of vendettas, of irrational violence, 
it thinks eros. Eros is “tragic” because it is not able to hear the Dionysian. Its ear is for logos, speech. 
That “peculiar form of life”, consciousness, the Life Science, ‘natural philosophy’, Biology. Excursus:

In our own time philosophy becomes physics. Ergo, The intelligent mathematician John Conway and the 
physicist Simon Kochen speak of the “free will of the atom”, this notion, wholly naive of serious philisophic 
thought, stands in the place of intellectual authority. It is the most obstructing force of our age; a freak of 
nihilistic technology. Because the apparatus of measurement can not predict the path in quantum physics
, unlike in Newtonian physics (where, for example, if one had a domino, and turned it 45 degrees, and 
again, and a third time, and, once more to the first position, this would describe the meaning of time, 
exhaustively. And both backwards and forwards.) it is said that the path is “random” (when the domino 
can only be tracked backwards, but not forward, and not even backward in the case of limited data, the 
“it must have been here in the earlier position” being underivable), but that the randomness is “free”. 
A failure of calculation is passed off as a truth. What is this randomness? In the first place, one must 
distinguish a randomness bound by a sample space, from a randomness simpliciter. If the randomness 
means that a stochastic outlay is bound by a bell curve, such that the expectation is always produced, 
this “randomness” is rule-bound (true, according to the human psyche). But, if the exception is based 
on an empirical guess, such that the outliers must be, here and there, erased as “static”, 
the randomness is “free” or wholly unscientific. Either way one learns nothing 
fundamental about “freedom”. The merely formal argument given by the 
mathematician and physicist: God could as well read off a list of “random” results already prepared, 
but invisible to us, explicates randomness only so far as it is explicated into utter vagueness, and means 
nothing. 

As technology, as the meaningless frivolity of intelligent prattle, physics becomes the worst of all 
obstructions to thought. Ergo, something which has no scientific content, a mere, “it happens”, rises 
to the level of a difficulty for thought. This must be made clear: Galileo posits a thought experiment in 
the place of a inner grasp of the things: He says, in the case of a vacuum, one can think like this. So, 
that the thing keeps going by entropy if not obstructed in the empty space, lacking the resistance, for 
example, of air. Because no such vacuum exists, and there is always obstruction of some kind, a 
thought experiment is set against experience as a principle of calculation. After several centuries of 
propaganda this becomes automatic in the popular discussion, such that imaginary, though rigorous 
and calculable, phantasies are set as higher in the popular mind than what happens. Why? It is because 
they are clearer, more perfect. Einstein attacks the neo-kantians on this point, since he sees that to say 
that a human is human, a book is a book, is no more, and no less, a matter of a claim to a transcendental 
phantasy than is space and time. However, then he goes on to treat time and space by the standard 
of the apparatus! Ergo, not in the manner of experience (not of the "rough" or emperical, 
but of common sense as direct understanding or clear intuition). Such that “curved space” means nothing 
other than a claim concerning the count, by a measurement secured by an apparatus, given as a unit, 
concerning the clicks of certain measurable distance. Such that if a to c takes 3 time units, it seems bent 
when set along an a to c that takes 4 time units in another region. The radial obstruction of a empercially 
faster here, slower there, into a abstract natural calculability: this means: the imagination of man, in his 
ability to think numbers, and geometrical forms, is set ahead of the essence of things as a nature.

Man imagines: e.g., a three-dimensional shape, and advances to itself the, it is no theory, envisioned 
truth: it has 24 right angles. Ergo, at each corner three right angles, yes, according to the thinking of a 
solid square thought as truth, as what always is. This science then posits the inner envisaging of man as 
truth. This is Apollonian thinking! But, the Dionysian is no less the mark of man’s first break from 
primordial absorption in what comes to pass. The Dionysian is always already tragic by this thinking. 
It bathes in “Rausch” which will not give it leave to calculate, but, as what has “raised its eyes”. 

In Athens, the educated, having nomos, are set against the blood feud of what rules in the “trash heap” 
of all cities. Already what is more beautiful, dreaming with a divine absolute spark, is the “good” life. So 
far as biology becomes one attitude of thought alongside chemistry, anthropology or psychology, 
chemistry and physics, so far as life as the peculiar “consciousness”, is said against physics, the tragedy 
reaches its “End”. Physics is always said in order to set the human aside, as the what is outside of 
thought. Yet, strangely, it is wholly a matter of imagination so far as it is a science or a statement of the 
truth (as what ‘always is’). As what is outside of thought it is mere accident or phenomena by the older 
thinking. This miasma of bewildering nonsense seeps into daily speach as the “they say it”, they say it 
for they are thoughtless and reject thought. 

Being as letting be then lets be the “Je pense , donc je suis” of Descartes as the being of thought, 
and the being of “I”, such that being is said, rather than, as in Husserl, the “it can not be a mistake”, 
this foundation of investigation. 

The being as the being of what is being is then the investigation as common sense opinions as beings. 
Each being, as it comes forth, rather than being doubted, or suspended in the anxious essence of what 
is no longer natural, in the “maybe it is not so” of the gigantic abeyance of the: what has “the point” 
(e.g., of the West, which is no longer Europe, and no longer ‘indo-germanic’) been. This falling back 
into the essences as what is being is what is in question. Ergo, one must distinguish, first, carefully, 
nature form essence. The thinking of Husserl. But, then, essence form being. This we shall consider 
more carefully as we continue in the methodus. Methedus, this means not only the path as what holds 
as gratuitous source of freedom in the thinking, but rather, it is. The “it is”, too, is. This is a is as an is.

In Nietzsche, the is is a escape from the nihilism, as a “the peculiar form of life called consciousness” 
holds back the driving into the lower confusion of the primordial emergence of the Apollonian and 
Dionysian out of the abyss of the unconscious (where what is said, of course, is inadmissible as a 
conception of the Apollonian), but this thinking in speaking the “letting be”, pats dirt against the walls 
of a burrow in another way. This, “poetry” is no poem as what is illogical and unphilosophical, rather it 
is metaphor (as the dialectical counterpart at the End, of muthos) as what is prior to the noun, agenda 
simple, and the verb, agenda plus time (if thought formally).

Questions 4 Preparation for the abandonment of considerations suspect of being mere commentary on

philosophy, in preparation to learn investigation through searching

Q. Can there be a fundamental clarification which is not a Weltanschauung? In other words, the sciences,
when the word polymath no longer means anything, since math becomes a word for geometry, arithmetic
algebra and so on, rather than for the truly learnable, of which what we call math is only one example,
each of the so-called sciences are a piece of understanding, and the whole understanding is ideology as
a taking here and there from the datum of the sciences as a whole statement of “the good, the true, and
the beautiful” or the concealed value hiding invisible in the facts. How does Phenomenology, as master
science, first become being without being a mere key idea? Such reflection, we presuppose, are an
analogy which give language the possibility of bare genuine understanding of being. The analogy runs:
the confusion of the thinking is like all the clear thinking that, one after the other, is cast aside as no longer
cogent in history. Ergo, it too braces us like a cold wind which brings relief: aiming to uncover the a priority
or obviousness as the door to being, alongside the syncing together of the basic and clear datum of the
obvious or readily understood datum of life as the science of being.

Summary Statement as an inveigling trick or “Schlüsselattitüden” (key idea):  

The subject matter of culture is possible only if the subject matter of truth denies itself and is forsaken.
This never means that here and there in a studious person’s pondering something is envisaged, but rather that somewhere what is so is given clear voice. Philosophy is only genuine so far as it speaks from what is, but then every speaking is along with what is in such a way as to never be a representation but something with what is as what is. In clarifying certain basic subject matter of this kind we never become clearer in adding saving clauses such as: the speaking here alters what is, as though to say, this and this philosopher alters it. It is more so that we are denied being in such reflections. Only in the Element, which is in Catholic teaching sometimes named a “sober intoxication of the spirit”, is one moved in experience towards grasping the way play and seriousness are. Play means roughly what is called in Marx superstructure, it is what is unnecessary as the noble and the glorious which relativize and subordinate all the shameful things and ways of life. The serious, when it is understood in the Marxist sense, is the material in something like an Aristotelian sense, the props, factories, storefronts, human
beings, places, that play in the death drama which vies with what is genuinely serious through the conscious seriousness (‘second nature’ or the seriousness of play) of the despising of mere life and death which is the ruling power of all history. History means, always (thereby, paradoxically, truly), political history, and therefore a certain sense of time and sequence of what is as “posterity”.   

When there is truth history is not chiefly at issue, because history is always of a people and a country, a national, volkisch, with a geographical place has a history, but truth has no history. Truth has no time when thought philosophically. It is the possession of the sage who knows what to do in each situation not by emotion (as with the “beautiful soul”), but through angelic vision and direct prophecy (these being technical terms). Angelic vision means that the difficulty of “bounded rationality” is overcome because whatever is not trivial is known, which is to say, not that all “information” or “facts” have been gathered, but that what matters most is known. This direct prophesy means that the law-like power of rationality is grasped perfectly rather than through art as in recta ratio, or through accumulation of the tradition to
“working the law pure” in a thousands of years old fined and refined tradition. It’s never that here or there someone unable to think such subject matter as other than “ideal types” or some sort of defective
‘formal’ manner of taking bearings is the main issue. Rather, what is denies them such that
their fragrance no longer envelopes human beings, as what is a spontaneous support of their being, as
offer advantage from this gratuitous source.

Truth: mere superstructure. Truth, notion of worldview, “interpellation”. Truth: what burns all thinkers of the

absolute: those who want to become a “hive of bees” and to be done with all truths in sheer practical life

= commodity. Truth ends in the thinking of commodity. Commodity, modus, the convenient and the

comodius. Superstructure = it is noble to destroy the teaching of the “truth”, of what is higher than

commodity, all is commodity, man is commodity to himself. It is shameful to turn form the political, from

this country which is all countries. Commodity = the whole world is a carburetor, and we will all now

become a fuel injection system. The world is an engine that needs air for combustion, but now it will take

electricity and drive itself. The “bees” forget themselves in this practicality or commodity “comfortable self

preservation” as what is “sorge” or sorrow = sorrow is what is real. Ergo, in Marxism, in Classical

Libertarianism, these two being the same, there is no science, whether in the sense that survives in the

word polymath, the sense that still was alive until the year 1900, or in the sense of technology, the current

meaning of physics as fundamental or “key” science. There is no science, but there is the glory of the

commodity as = “bee” which on the sly drinks in the “sober intoxication”, “An elite is tempted by Russian

neo-Marxism not so much because of its humanitarian gospel as because of its vision of a

totalitarian civilization linked to the cosmic powers of matter.” gives the interpretation of the

intoxication, of the “they are drunk but not in the way you imagine” of the absolute ones who no

longer can have a science. Here, we should find our analogy much more fruitful, as the clearing to

think Heidegger, as we do, with Strauss. This is because what is creative is alongside what is still

able to think common sense. We thus think this way: The most essential thing in our time is the

inability to understand what common sense means. Common sense as what would be perfected in

wisdom, and so as what is, to use Schmitt’s manner of thinking, a polemical concept which we first

understand through the contrast and only while it is alive. Common sense is not thinkable without

wisdom, and only so far as we think science and the commodity in the place of wisdom do we grasp

the old meaning of common sense. Common sense, sleep when tired, eat when hungry, follow the

laws when living in a country with somewhat effective police, and so on. Such simple things are no

longer rebelled against by a few philosophers, but one is by instinct and habit always in revolt or

turning in revolutions of thought.

This should inform us, as question, as what might be only phenomenon, which means only true in a

way that we don’t know what it has to do with us or our needs or what is not needed (as with dying

for the world that will go on without us so far as we are not deceived by projecting ourselves into our

children as though it were really us living on).

--

Note about a silly publicly powerful or vulgar prejudice to be dispensed with by the thoughtful: the whole
of Hume is systematic forgetting of the "brain" itself, as what is able to take in from the so-called senses
at all (Daniel Dennett is at least able to see and so answer for this in his own way unlike the many thoughtless
followers of the mere name Hume). Ergo, a freak or naive faith in this organ and its standard of
correctness of reality against which all error is then naively measured as though humans were created for this world and reality itself.
Such childishness is no folly, but for this sober thinker (Hume) the result of being before Evolution.
Leibniz, true, did not suffer this mistake. One must remember that even Kant, when thinking of the new
discoveries concerning remote planets, thought only of the moral development of remote rational beings,
which he naturally assumed as humans. No excuse can be given the present day subscribers to Hume
except simple-mindedness and lack of freedom of thought which they, in utterly pitiful foolishness,
demand as though it where a matter of government or external assaults. Only so far as one speaks of
the education of children can this "freedom of thought" be counted as a matter of government
policy and law.