[인문지능] 세미나 2회차 / 171202 / 김충한

 

 

-읽기 전에 보세요-

36절 힘에의 의지를 서술하는 중요한 절이지만 번역이 잘 이해가 안됩니다. 영어판을 참고해서 보세요. 첨부파일로 영어판 pdf 파일 올려놓았어요.

[36]Supposing that nothing else is ‘given’ as real but our world of desires and passions, that we cannot sink or rise to any other ‘reality’ but just that of our impulses—for thinking is only a relation of these impulses to one another:—are we not permitted to make the attempt and to ask the question whether this which is ‘given’ does not SUFFICE, by means of our counterparts, for the understanding even of the so-called mechanical (or ‘material’) world? I do not mean as an illusion, a‘semblance,’ a ‘representation’ (in the Berkeleyan and Schopenhauerian sense), but as possessing the same degree of reality as our emotions themselves—as a more primitive form of the world of emotions, in which everything still lies locked in a mighty unity, which afterwards branches off and develops itself in organic processes (naturally also,refines and debilitates)—as a kind of instinctive life in which all organic functions, including self- regulation, assimilation, nutrition, secretion, and change of matter, are still synthetically united with one another—as a PRIMARY FORM of life?—In the end, it is not only permitted to make this attempt, it is commanded by the conscience of LOGICAL METHOD. Not to assume several kinds of causality, so long as the attempt to get along with a single one has not been pushed to its furthest extent (to absurdity, if I may be allowed to say so): that is a morality of method which one may not repudiate nowadays—it follows ‘from its definition,’ as mathematicians say. The question is ultimately whether we really recognize the will as OPERATING, whether we believe in the causality of the will; if we do so—and fundamentally our belief IN THIS is just our belief in causality itself—we MUST make the attempt to posit hypothetically the causality of the will as the only causality. ‘Will’ can naturally only operate on ‘will’—and not on ‘matter’ (not on ‘nerves,’ for instance): in short, the hypothesis must be hazarded, whether will does not operate on will wherever ‘effects’ are recognized—and whether all mechanical action, inasmuch as a power operates therein, is not just the power of will, the effect of will. Granted, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one fundamental form of will—namely, the Will to Power, as my thesis puts it; granted that all organic functions could be traced back to this Will to Power, and that the solution of the problem of generation and nutrition—it is one problem— could also be found therein: one would thus have acquired the right to define ALL active force unequivocally as WILL TO POWER.The world seen from within, the world defined and designated according to its ‘intelligible character’—it would simply be ‘Will to Power,’ and nothing else.

 

 

 

 

-읽고 난 후 답해보아요-

 

 

[24절]

“확고하고 단단한 무지의 기반위에서 비로소 학문은 일어날 수 있었고, 앎에의 의지는 더욱 폭력적인 의지를, 즉 무지, 몽매, 허위에의 의지를 기반으로 해서 일어날 수 있었던 것이다.“

지난 시간에 나눴던 얘기 연장선상에 있는 문장이에요. 어떤 뜻일까요, 예를 들어 설명해보세요.

 

 

[25절]

“진리를 위하여 순교하지 않도록 조심하라”...“그대들이 지상에서 진리의 옹호자 역할까지 해야만 할 때, 그대들을 우둔하게 만들고, 짐승처럼 만들고, 황소처럼 만든다.” 진리를 위해 목숨을 거는 것이 왜 그 사람을 우둔하게 만든다고 말하는 걸까요? 본인의 경험을 바탕으로 생각해 보아요.

 

 

[25절]

정당함을 인정받는 것에 얽매이지 말고 ‘경쾌한 고독’을 선택하라고 합니다. 누구의 예를 들고 있나요? 본인의 경험을 바탕으로 생각해 보아요.

 

 

[26절]

선택된 인간은 성 안으로 숨어버리지 않고 세상으로 나와 귀를 기울여야 한다고 합니다. 심지어 냉소주의자들에게도. 그러나 분노한 자에게는 귀를 기울일 필요가 없다고 합니다. 왜 일까요, 본인의 경험을 바탕으로 생각해 보아요.

 

 

[27절],[28절]

이 절은 문체 즉 스타일에 관한 부분입니다. 독일인에게는 어떤 문체가 발달했나요?이해받는다는 것과 문체는 어떤 연관이 있을까요?

 

 

[30절]

“만인이 좋아하는 책에서는 언제나 불쾌한 냄새가 난다. 거기에는 소인의 냄새가 배어 있는 것이다” 이 구절을 30절에 나와 있는 저급한 영혼, 고귀한 영혼 등의 용어로 설명해보세요.

 

 

*[31절] 이 절에 따르면 젊은이의 특징은 무엇인가요?

*[32절] 니체는 역사를 크게 3시기로 구분합니다. 어떻게 구분하나요? 각 시기별 특징은 무엇인가요? 도덕과 연관지어 구분하고 설명해보세요.

 

 

*[32절] 도덕 외적인 시대는 어떤 시대일까요?

 

 

 

 

[34절] 철학자는 ‘나쁜 성격’을 가질 권리가 있다고 합니다. 이 나쁜 성격은 무엇인가요?

 

 

[34절] 철학자를 높이 평가하지만 한편으로는 그들의 ‘옆구리를 쥐어박을 준비가 되어 있다‘고 합니다. 이건 무슨 뜻일까요? 진리, 가상이란 말을 써서 설명해보세요.

 

 

 

 

**[36절] 다음 영어문장을 같이 해석하며 따라가봅시다. 모르는 단어 미리 찾아오세요.

Supposing that nothing else is ‘given’ as real but our world of desires and passions, that we cannot sink or rise to any other ‘reality’ but just that of our impulses—for thinking is only a relation of these impulses to one another:—are we not permitted to make the attempt and to ask the question whether this which is ‘given’ does not SUFFICE, by means of our counterparts, for the understanding even of the so-called mechanical (or ‘material’) world? I do not mean as an illusion, a‘semblance,’ a ‘representation’ (in the Berkeleyan and Schopenhauerian sense), but as possessing the same degree of reality as our emotions themselves—as a more primitive form of the world of emotions, in which everything still lies locked in a mighty unity, which afterwards branches off and develops itself in organic processes (naturally also,refines and debilitates)—as a kind of instinctive life in which all organic functions, including self- regulation, assimilation, nutrition, secretion, and change of matter, are still synthetically united with one another—as a PRIMARY FORM of life?—In the end, it is not only permitted to make this attempt, it is commanded by the conscience of LOGICAL METHOD. Not to assume several kinds of causality, so long as the attempt to get along with a single one has not been pushed to its furthest extent (to absurdity, if I may be allowed to say so): that is a morality of method which one may not repudiate

nowadays—it follows ‘from its definition,’ as mathematicians say. The question is ultimately whether we really recognize the will as OPERATING, whether we believe in the causality of the will; if we do so—and fundamentally our belief IN THIS is just our belief in causality itself—we MUST make the attempt to posit hypothetically the causality of the will as the only causality. ‘Will’ can naturally only operate on ‘will’—and not on ‘matter’ (not on ‘nerves,’ for instance): in short, the hypothesis must be hazarded, whether will does not operate on will wherever ‘effects’ are recognized—and whether all mechanical action, inasmuch as a power operates therein, is not just the power of will, the effect of will. Granted, finally, that we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one fundamental form of will—namely, the Will to Power, as my thesis puts it; granted that all organic functions could be traced back to this Will to Power, and that the solution of the problem of generation and nutrition—it is one problem— could also be found therein: one would thus have acquired the right to define ALL active force unequivocally as WILL TO POWER.The world seen from within, the world defined and designated according to its ‘intelligible character’—it would simply be ‘Will to Power,’ and nothing else.

[39절] 정신의 강함을 재는 것은 진리를 얼마나 견뎌낼 수 있는가로 가능하다고 합니다. 왜 진리를 ‘견뎌낸다고‘ 할까요? 본인의 경험을 바탕으로 생각해 보세요.

 

 

[40절] ‘깊이 있는 모든 것은 가면을 사랑한다’ 무슨 뜻일까요? 왜 심오한 정신에는 가면이 필요하다고 하는 걸까요?

 

 

[41절] 가장 강한 독립성을 일궈내기 위해  연연하지 말아야 할 것을 찾아서 모두 써보세요.

 

 

*[42절]새로운 철학자란 어떤 사람?

 

[43절]‘공동선‘ 이란 건 있을 수 없다. 왜일까요

 

 

*[44절] 1장에서 니체는 자유의지 같은 건 없다고 말합니다. 2장에서는 자유사상가를 비판합니다. 이를 추종하는 사람들의 교리는 [ ]과 [ ]입니다. 빈칸을 채워보세요.

위의 [ ]를 니체가 비판하는 이유는?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-읽고 난후-

나만의 질문을 만들어 보고 답을 생각해 보아요.