2. misc-audio
  3. 173256-139155

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.)

128x128hilde45
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,846 posts
 

Humans tend to imbue things with qualities not present. Personification of animals comes to mind. Seems reasonable that we'd imbue inanimate objects with a part of ourselves as well, maybe even more than an animal since it hasn't life of it's own until we complete the process.

When it becomes a part of us, it becomes an extension of us. All of us: the good and the bad. I feel it true that pets are an extension of their owners so it must fall that our personal possessions are an extension of us as well. 

The danger lies in what these possessions, in return, enable in us, further in us.

We contribute to art with our systems, which in turn, return the compliment. It completes us. It becomes a selfless, self gratifying endeavor to reach out and share with others which is powerfully rewarding.

As mentioned, a danger lies in hubris, when some think their connection to art and system is the only true answer. 

All the best,
Nonoise

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,029 posts
 

Just a remark about anthropomorphisation of animals and the reduction, in some quarter of "civilization", of all life to be only machines, even us at the other extreme in transhumanism cult for example coming from the cartesian dualism divide...

These 2 attitude are TOOLS coming from different cultures at different times in history...Domestication of animals is linked with their anthropomorphisation, our own humanity is born from animals and plants...Cutting this link is loosing ourselves...

Which one is the most useful tool LONG TERM ? Asking the question is answering it....

It is not so much that we imbue animals and plants of a part of ourselves, which is true for sure, it is them that give us a material and spiritual life and the feeling of the "sacred" to begin with anyway...

«Plants "speaks" so to speak, and it is not so much ONLY an antropomorphism gesture than the lost of our inattentive "superiority" over which appear to be for science now no more mere materials to be used than a consciousness living on another time scale....

For sure your observation is right but must me compensated or balanced by another one.... This is the reason of my post...

Humans tend to imbue things with qualities not present. Personification of animals comes to mind. Seems reasonable that we’d imbue inanimate objects with a part of ourselves as well, maybe even more than an animal since it hasn’t life of it’s own until we complete the process.

 

nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,846 posts
 

Domestication of animals is linked with their anthropomorphisation, our own humanity is born from animals and plants...Cutting this link is loosing ourselves...

I like this part. We are part of a chain and not above or apart of it. Cutting the link is where we lose ourselves. That is hubris and an error.

All the best,
Nonoise

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,029 posts
 

Merry christmast nonoise....

 

djones51
4,947 posts
 

I’m confused how humanity is being used in some of these posts. We are animals, our "humanity" is from evolutionary and societal pressures in my opinion. Spirit isn’t something external to the mind or consciousness. I've never seen or heard of any evidence that points to any sort of universal spirit or consciousness, it’s simply part of us, it dies when we die.

More to discover