Who's to judge who has spirit and who has not? And who will deny the non-spirited everything they desire? Pretty sure it'll be the ones with no spirit making these decisions.
Nietzsche and Runaway Audio Consumption
Came across this today. A lot of posts bring up the issue of "how much is enough?" or "when is audio consumption justified" etc.
Does this Nietzsche aphorism apply to audio buying? You be the judge!
Friedrich Nietzsche: “Danger in riches. — Only he who has spirit ought to have possessions: otherwise possessions are a public danger. For the possessor who does not know how to make use of the free time which his possessions could purchase him will always continue to strive after possessions: this striving will constitute his entertainment, his strategy in his war against boredom.
Thus in the end the moderate possessions that would suffice the man of spirit are transformed into actual riches – riches which are in fact the glittering product of spiritual dependence and poverty. They only appear quite different from what their wretched origin would lead one to expect because they are able to mask themselves with art and culture: for they are, of course, able to purchase masks. By this means they arouse envy in the poorer and the uncultivated – who at bottom are envying culture and fail to recognize the masks as masks – and gradually prepare a social revolution: for gilded vulgarity and histrionic self-inflation in a supposed ‘enjoyment of culture’ instil into the latter the idea ‘it is only a matter of money’ – whereas, while it is to some extent a matter of money, it is much more a matter of spirit.”
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1996. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Cambridge University Press. (p. 283-4, an aphorism no. 310)
I'm pretty sure @mahgister will want to read this one! (Because they speak so artfully about avoiding the diversion that consumption poses to the quest for true aesthetic and acoustic excellence.)
- ...
- 337 posts total
The reason for the question is because his statement seems rather odd to me. As I understand, we are all spirit beings. And, if so, then we all "ought to have possessions:". But I doubt that is what he means I suspect he has covered spirit and its definition in a previous paragraph/thought.But generally in casual conversation, @hilde45 definition is usually what is meant.
|
@artemus_5 My take on his comment about only spirit being able to have possessions is the same reason we don't want children to have opiates. They can take them but then the drugs would take them over. In this case, only someone with mastery over themselves can handle the danger posed by possessions. |
- 337 posts total