Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand - a philosopher (so-called) and novelist that inspired Margaret Thatcher. Glenn thought it would be a good idea to find out more about her, so we purchased a fiction book by her ('The Fountainhead') and a non-fiction book about her work and ideas ('Ayn Rand' by Mimi R. Gladstein) and took the plunge.

What a journey it proved to be. I am glad that I did it, but I would not want to repeat such an experience too often! Want to make the most of life, enjoy life, and be forward looking and all that. Still, it was a useful learning experience.

'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' are 2 of Rand's most important novels. They are regarded as 'modern classics' and have sold loads of copies. In fact, Rand's novels sold over 20 million copies along with 25 million copies of her non-fiction works.

However, 'The Fountainhead' proved to be a pretty bad read (to put it mildly), I thought - but more about that later. Whilst the book about Ayn Rand and her philosophy by Gladstein proved to be very interesting and informative - a well-written book (unlike 'The Fountainhead' - certainly in terms of artistic fiction writing).

Rand (1905 - 1982) - a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter. Rand was a Russian Jew and was very cynical about Soviet Communist Russia. She developed a philosophical system called Objectivism. Rand moved to the USA in 1926 and was very praiseworthy of the American capitalist, laissez-faire way of life (although she didn't think it went far enough, and thought it was still too collectivist-focused - heavens!) She thought that reason was the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. Very significantly (in terms of understanding how capitalism works and perpetuates itself) Alan Greenspan, the former US Federal Reserve Chairman, was one of her leading followers.

The essence of Rand's Objectivism was: "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." (quote from Rand on Wikipedia).

Rand saw Objectivism as a systematic philosophy, with positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and aesthetics.

Rand's philosophy argued that humans should be selfish and productive; that mostly, that is the right and moral thing to do. She was against collectivism.

The book 'Ayn Rand' by Mimi R. Gladstein, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2013, proved to be very useful and informative. It is part of a series on 'Major Conservative Thinkers and Libertarian Thinkers, (Vol 20 in series). The Series Editor is John Meadowcroft.

In the Series Editor Preface John Meadowcroft has this to say:

"The novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was one of the most powerful and influential twentieth century advocates of free market capitalism.." (Meadowcroft, p. ix)

The philosophical movement, Objectivism (which she inspired and largely founded)

"...flourished during her lifetime and continues to attract followers to this day..." (Meadowcroft, p. ix)

And she believed in:

"...the moral supremacy of individualism over collectivism. " (Meadowcroft, p. ix)

Rand thought that human progress depended on the wisdom, creativeness and for-sightedness of individuals. Whilst the collectivist state was rather like a burglar, with people taking things that did not belong to them. Whereas, selfishness, in contrast, encouraged people to produce. (Heavens!) The argument can, perhaps, be seductive to some, because it is obviously the case that some people in society work hard and take risks and that others can benefit from this, and can sometimes be seen to be riding on the backs of the 'workers' and 'producers'. But this is an immature way of looking at the whole situation and is just one of the many unfortunate consequences of the capitalist system and the gross inequalities that it engenders (and the way in which it is organised under it), rather than a reason to praise capitalism.

Meadowcroft said that:

"In Rand's view, altruism was the philosophy of a society of serfs, whereas selfishness was the mindset of a society of free men and women." (Meadowcroft, p. ix-x)

Moving on to the book itself, the author Gladstein spoke about Rand saying that:

"Ayn Rand was a polarizing and controversial person in life, and her personality and ideas are of such dynamism and force that even a quarter century after her death, she still provokes strong emotions and controversy." (Gladstein, p. 1)

Her editor at Random House, Hiram Haydn, said in his autobiography that Rand always made him feel like a "soft-headed, ambivalent, tortured liberal".

In her novel We the Living, Gladstein said that:

"Rand spells out through both the narrative and dramatically that any system that values the collective above the individual is doomed to quash productivity and fulfillment as it glorifies the mediocre." (Gladstein, p.22)

Gladstein then moves on in the book  to discuss a section from Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged which is actually headed 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' (the famous Marx quote of course). How about that! Dear oh dear!

Apparently, in the plot, the able are made to work harder and produce more, in order to try to cater for the needs of the masses and those that are less able. But this meant that the efforts of the able were not properly rewarded, which de-motivated them. So the able started to hide their capabilities.

"Those who were truly responsible, reduced their draw on 'the family' funds, whereas the irresponsible and shiftless found innumerable ways to take advantage of the system, procreating irresponsibly, adding worthless relatives to the family rolls, and nurturing all kinds of sickness and disabilities." (Gladstein, pp. 39-40)

Atlas Shrugged grew out of Rand's response to the idea of what would happen if the producers, the people of the mind, went on strike. The character, John Galt, in the book builds a morality.

"Virtuous actions achieve virtuous things. As the established goal is human existence, humans should choose those values that enhance it." (Gladstein, p. 45)

The character Galt says that these values are reason, purpose and self-esteem.

"Reason is essential because it is the means to the acquisition of the knowledge that is needed to live. Purpose is valuable because it provides a goal for reason to achieve. Self-esteem is important because with it human beings can believe themselves worthy of life and able to achieve it." (Gladstein, p. 45)

Gladstein continues:

"In sum, Galt affirms that the achievement of one's happiness is the moral purpose of one's life. His rationale for government...is that its purpose is to protect human rights, to create a society wherein life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are maximized." (Gladstein, p. 51)

The character Galt says that there are only 3 fitting functions for government: the police to protect one from criminals, the army to protect one from foreign invaders and the courts to protect property and contracts from breach or fraud and to settle rational disputes according to objective laws. This was clearly a reflection of Rand's own thinking.

In addition, in Atlas Shrugged there are 3 recurring references - individualism v. collectivism, egoism v. altruism, reason v. mysticism.

"Collectivism, altruism, and mysticism all work to undermine human potential and are the tools for destabilization and a counterproductive future. The paths to a vibrant future with maximum potential for human happiness are through reason, egoism, and individualism." (Gladstein, p.55)

Rand thinks that in a free society people are free to avoid the irrational.

Talk about twisting what Marx meant in regard to Marx's quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which is about becoming truly human, finding a means for self-expression and being fulfilled etc. I say no more.

Meanwhile, Rand's non-fiction works include Capitalism: the unknown ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness and Man's Rights

In Capitalism: the unknown ideal Gladstein says that:

"In the context of Objectivism, laissez-faire capitalism is the only system appropriate for the life of a rational being. Rand stresses that Objectivists are not conservatives but radicals for capitalism." (p. 67)

Apparently, Rand thought that the book became necessary because the previous defenders of capitalism had not fought for it on a moral-philosophical basis.

"Rand identifies capitalism as the politico-economic system that has more than any previous or subsequent system in history, benefitted humankind while being attacked and misrepresented." (Gladstein, p.67)

But, even if this were the case, it is not a system that we have consciously sought out; we have not been aiming to set up a moral system; we did not morally select it. So, this makes all this argument a nonsense.

In Man's Rights:

"Rand asserts that the basis for a free society is individual rights and that historically the dominant political systems have been based instead on some form of what she calls 'altruistic-collectivist doctrine', a doctrine that subordinates the individual to some higher authority, be it in the form of religion (mystical) or state (social)." (Gladstein, p. 68)

And this is where Thatcher got her notion from that 'there is no such thing as society' - from Rand (dear oh dear!). This is what Gladstein says:

"Rand declares that there is no such thing as 'society' because society as an entity is made up of individuals and thus must not be placed outside the moral law...The United States does not regard the individual as belonging to the state or society but as an end in himself. He is protected against the state and the state's powers are limited by the constitution." (Gladstein, p. 68)

For Rand, there is only one fundamental 'right'; the right to one's own life. From that, there is derived the freedom to take those actions necessary to sustain and enjoy life.

"She is very clear on the fact that the government was created to protect individual rights and the Constitution to protect the individual from the government." (Gladstein, p. 68)

In regard to rights, she says for example that just because there is the right of free speech, this does not mean that the microphone has to be supplied. For Rand, there are only individual rights; not economic, collective or public-interest rights.

Also Rand thought that Anna Karenina was "the most evil book in serious literature", apparently, because of its message of hopelessness - heavens! (p. 76 in Gladstein book). How dreadful - it is a brilliant book and can really help certain people in certain situations, in particular crises that they might have in their life. And the language and style is just so beautiful. It transcends so much. This one really disturbed me.

Gladstein continues:

"In Rand's metaphysical philosophy, reality is objective and absolute. For her epistemological system, the mind is capable of discovering valid information of that which exists. Because of her basic premise that man is a rational being and an end in himself, he has a right to choose those values and goals that best serve his purpose to be the best person he can be. This is in accordance with her moral theory of self-interest...a coherent philosophy that includes metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics must precede and determine politics and that politics then precedes and determines economics." (Gladstein, pp. 85-6)

Rand says that one's life should be one's ethical purpose and that values should be chosen that forward that purpose (p. 102). But this could be de-motivating (apart from anything else) - doing things for these so-called 'moral' purposes. Yet, at the same time, she argued that people should be selfish.

"Rand...sometimes called herself a radical for capitalism, thought that capitalism was the only moral politico-economic system in history. In her thinking, capitalism was a great boon to humankind, having produced goods and technology that enhance the quality of life." (Gladstein, p.103)

Moving on to 'The Fountainhead' Ayn Rand's Introduction in the Penguin, 2007 (first published in 1943) is interesting.

Rand makes it clear that she rates Aristotle, who she says, sees things not as they are, but as they might be or ought to be. In fact, he was the only philosopher she really rated, even though Nietzsche had quite a big influence on her thinking in the early days.

Rand says in the introduction:

"Since my purpose is the presentation of an ideal man, I had to define and present the conditions which make him possible and which his existence requires. Since man's character is the product of his premises, I had to define and present the kinds of premises and values that create the character of an ideal man and motivate his actions; which means that I had to define and present a rational code of ethics. Since man acts among and deals with other men, I had to present the kind of social system that makes it possible for ideal men to exist and to function - a free, productive, rational system which demands and rewards the best in every man, and which is, obviously, laissez-faire capitalism." (Rand, p.ix)

Interestingly, she also talks about Nietzsche in the introduction. She had a quote from Nietzsche at the head of her manuscript for 'The Fountainhead', which she subsequently removed (as she later disagreed with much of his thinking), but then brought it back into the Introduction.

She says:

"I removed it, because of my profound disagreement with the philosophy of its author, Friedrich Nietzsche. Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat 'Byronic' and mystically 'malevolent' universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to 'will', or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man's greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms. This is especially true of the quotation I had chosen. I could not endorse its literal meaning: it proclaims an indefensible tenet - psychological determinism. But if one takes it as a poetic projection of an emotional experience (and if, intellectually, one substitutes the concept of an acquired 'basic premise' for the concept of an innate 'fundamental certainty'), then that quotation communicates the inner state of an exalted self-esteem - and sums up the emotional consequences for which The Fountainhead provides the rational, philosophical base." (Rand, p.xii)

And this is the actual quote from Nietzsche:

"It is not the works, but the belief which is here decisive and determines the order of rank - to employ once more an old religious formula with a new and deeper meaning - it is some fundamental certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which is not to be sought, is not to be found, and perhaps, also, is not to be lost. The nobel soul has reverence for itself. - " (Friederich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil)

Also, as Gladstein said:

"Early in her career, Rand's work retained vestiges of her encounter with Nietzschean thought. However, as she honed and developed her own philosophy, she was able to expunge much of that from her texts." (Gladstein, p. 23)

I think this is unfortunate, to say the least. If one is inspired by a great writer/thinker, then it is wrong to not properly acknowledge this. Really, it is a form of plagiarism. Nietzsche inspired Rand, and then she largely dumps him. And why did she do that? Because he uncovered truths that she did not want to know or like. On initial reading, Nietzsche might seem to be 'for' capitalism, in some way, encouraging people to 'go for life', to make the most of life, and all that. And she must have liked that. But the more one reads, the more one realises the falsity of such a position. Rather, Nietzsche explore the complexities, the multi-layers and the contradictions. He was very brave, took many risks and just transcended so much. And so it sent him mad, in the end. Very difficult to marry it all up. He was a genius, and thought on levels that were completely beyond the capability of Rand.

What about the novel, 'The Fountainhead' itself? Well, it proved to be a very dull read. So dull, in fact, that I could not bring myself to finish it. I thought it might be more like Barbara Taylor Bradford's 'A Woman of Substance' - a rags to riches-type story, which would celebrate capitalism in an enticing and engaging way, but it wasn't. Presumably, this was because Rand was trying to prove that capitalism is the most rational social system, and aiming to be objective, but the result was pretty dire.

Gladstein summarises some of the main themes in 'The Fountainhead' very well, I think (pp.25-30). Rand identifies the theme of the book as 'individualism versus collectivism". The novel revolves around the story of Howard Roark, a talented and independent architect and his interaction with a number of characters. Gladstein says that:

"It is through these stories that Rand illustrates the sources, psychological and societal, which go into the making of either a collectivist or an individualistic." (Gladstein, p. 25)

In regard to the characters, there is Gail Wynand, a cynic with qualities of greatness; Peter Keating, a secondander who bothers too much about the opinion of others and Ellsworth M. Toohey, the ultimate collectivist whose real purpose is to rule others.

In regard to Peter Keating:

"For such people, it is not what they acoomplish but what others think they have accomplished." (Gladstein, pp. 25-6)

They do not act but give the appearance of acting. The live off the fruits of others.

Then, there is Howard Roark himself who asserts that:

"...it is the doers, thinkers, workers, and producers upon whom the world depends." (Gladstein, p.26)

Roark blames the acceptance of altruism for those like Peter Keating that live secondhand. Roark is an independent thinker, who produces and works and takes calculated risks.

Whilst;s Tooley's:

"...life was crowded, public and impersonal as a city square. The friend of humanity had no single private friend. People came to him; he came close to no one. He accepted all. His affection was golden, smooth and even, like a great expanse of sand; there was no wind of discrimination to raise dunes; the sands lay still and the sun stood high." (Rand in 'The Fountainhead', p. 309).

As Gladstein said, Tooley:

"Having reduced Peter Keating to a selfless and willing pawn, Toohey has no fear in revealing the methodology of his plan to kill the individual and man's soul...By setting selflessness and altruism as the ideal, an ideal that is unachievable, one fills people with guilt and a sense of unworthiness. Such people are more easily ruled." (Gladstein, pp. 26-7)

In addition:

"Killing a person's capacity to recognize or achieve greatness while concurrently setting up standards achievable by all, kills incentive to improve, to excel, or to perfect." (Gladstein, p. 27)

In the end (after a court case), Roark "...rejects the right of the government to demand the gift of his talent and refuses to exist for others; he states that he recognizes no obligation toward others except not to participate in a slave society and to respect their freedom." (Gladstein, p. 30)

In general, I just found 'The Fountainhead' to be a bad work of fiction. It was not engaging; instead it was a dull read. The characters did not seem real; they had no depth to them; no passion; no essential qualities of what it is to be human. And it was not inspirational. It was also irritating, because it was just about readable, so I kept ploughing on with it for a long time, thinking it might get better, eventually to give up (I was probably about 4/5 through it). I felt annoyed; it had wasted my time, and it put me in a bad mood. It was an extremely unsatisfying read, and if many others started to write fiction like that, it would kill novel-writing as an art form, I think - that is how strongly I feel about it. Apparently, Rand took barbiturates for years; perhaps, this is reflected in her writing. Such drugs can inhibit, or even kill, creativity. The creative spark that brings a book to life for me, was not there. Whether or not that can be blamed on drugs is another matter. But we must remember that Rand was trying to prove that capitalism is a rational system, and she was writing this novel to try to prove that. So, it aimed to be objective, but this made it very dull. Dear oh dear. Leave the likes of her to it. I want to live in the complete opposite way to that. I want to be moved and inspired by artistic works and experiences that transcend every day life and make life something beautiful or at least something interesting and worthwhile. I certainly do not want to be reading novels that give me the opposite experience. So, that's enough of that. I won't be reading any more of Rand's novels, that's for sure.

Recently, though, I read an interesting and useful piece in the 'Sunday Observer' by George Saunders (26th May), which also helped to clarify and confirm my thinking on Rand.  The piece was 'George Saunders (People Agenda) in the 'Sunday Observer, New Review', 26th May, 2013, p. 5

George Saunders is a USA writer on Buddhism, but in his school days and slightly beyond, he was very keen on Rand. He said:

"...if you are a crummy reader sometimes bad art can do magical things. She [Rand] appeals to a certain kind of adolescent male, I think, and she definitely got to me."

He continues:

"So I went to college and read all the rest of the books and she was sort of my patron saint. Then you get an uncomfortable moment where you realise there's this little bag you're holding that's filling up with phenomena that don't really fit the model. And that bag got heavier and heavier. My family ran into some financial problems. And I thought, she would not understand what we're going through. She'd equate it with some kind of moral weakness on our part. And then after college I went to Asia and saw some things there that made the bag really heavy and at some point I just said, 'I don't get her any more, I'll set her down.' Only years later I was like, 'Oh my God, she's very dangerous'. But I like that. I like the idea that someone can change. You could be a rabid right-winger one moment and then..." (p.5)

So, let that be a warning to us.

I will end on this note, as an additional warning. I recently watched an interview with Rand on YouTube, where she was arguing against women being leaders. A nice and amusing contradiction, I thought, as she influenced Margaret Thatcher's thinking. But Rand had made it; she was a successful woman  - indeed, it was the desire for that that largely fuelled her philosophy and her writing, I think. It  made her very much stand out from the crowd, whilst at the same time, very much supporting capitalism and so she became famous. This surely says something about the manner of the woman. She should not be taken too seriously, but then again, given how much such thinking is influencing government policy in the west, on another level, such thinking cannot be ignored.

However, having now completed my own project on this topic, I will leave it to others to explore it further!

I guess it needs to be done, but not by me!

Thinking Through Spinoza

'Thinking Through Spinoza: a research symposium' - held at Queen Mary College, University of London, 24th May 2013. Organised by School of Politics; led by Dr Caroline Williams (Notes)

Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) - a Jewish-Dutch philosopher, that opposed Descarte's mind-body dualist philosophy, and instead thought that the mind and body were a single entity, and that there is only one reality. He was a lens grinder, and turned down various rewards, honours and prestigious teaching positions throughout his life, preferring to concentrate on his philosophy.

A well-attended and interesting event.

'Opening Remarks: thinking through Spinoza' - Dr Caroline Williams

TheoryLAB - study of political theory. Political theory is experimental. Laboratory builds connections and has a transformative capacity. Louis Althusser looked at Marxist theory in a laboratory setting. Trying to develop something different. Spinoza's philosophy could be seen to be a type of laboratory. Spinoza's work was often marginalised.

This is first event in this thinking lab - TheoryLab, at Queen Mary College.

'Spinoza's concept of equality' - Dr Beth Lord, Philosophy, Aberdeen
Spinoza upholds notion of equality of person. Each person has the right to do things that are good for them. Moral and political equality.

But Lord thinks that Spinoza's equality notion is ambiguous.

Can be equal in terms of laws of nature, but we can't all live according to laws of nature.

What kind of equality should we aim for?

Look at equality in economic terms? People can't all be equal in wisdom.

In 'The Ethics' Spinoza says that we have equal rights. But that it is a fairly empty concept.

Spinoza - "...the right of nature extents as far as its power extends...each individual thing has the sovereign right to do everything that it can do, or the right of each thing extends so far as its determined power extends." (Theological Political Treatise, 16:2)

Democracy encourages individuals power to be proportionate to the share in the whole. Moral equality is invented by civil law.

Spinoza has a lot to say about equality and inequality in the Hebrew state, Lord said. The Hebrews make it impossible for anyone to become a debt slave. 'Unfree man' - someone who can't pay his debt. 'Debt slavery' - Hebrews prospered because they ruled out debt slaves, Spinoza said. 'Debt slaves' - bad for the state. e.g. interest-bearing loans. A very live issue at the time that Spinoza was writing. Used Old Testament comments to argue against interest-bearing loans.

Credit and debit - should be between equals.

Rational people help each other freely, through mutual aid.

Spinoza gives us a notion of equality - equals are parts of a greater whole.

Spinoza thinks formal essence exists and that humans have common basic capacities, based on formal essence.


Comment from Professor Moira Gatens - women not under men by institution but by their nature, Spinoza said. But Beth Lord thought that was only one comment from Spinoza and should not be taken out of context, and other things he said suggests he thought differently about women. Also, of course, he was writing at a particular time.



'Spinoza's Geometric Ecologies' - Dr Peg Rawes (Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London)
Looking at architecture, maths, trigonometry, geometry.

Spinoza's philosophy based on logic.

Relation between geometry and nature.

God equals Nature

Relating architectural design to Spinoza.

But market drives lot architectural design - this cannot be denied, Rawes admits.

Spinoza's concept of 'substance'. Nature can be related to ecology and rights, in its widest sphere. The well-being of society.





'Vital Materialism: Spinoza after Deleuze' - Professor Rosi Braidotti (Director, Centre for the Humanities, Utrecht)
Decline in humanities and social sciences.

Professor Braidotti has written a book called 'The Posthuman' (Polity Press, 2013)

What is the human and the humanities, she asks?

Humanities are fragments. Explosion of some sort of structure of knowledge.

Can we use Spinoza's ontology to rescue the humanities and the social sciences?

Methodological naturalism and dynamic vitalism.

Vital organistic; whole - more than 'naturalism'.

Transcendetal consciousness.

Commodification of life; recreation of life things; synthetic material. Producing materials for creation of new worlds and for sustainability.

Multilplication of levels of life.

All species are equal for their vulnerability to be capitalised and commodified. Equal for their capacity for extinction. So, a 'negative equality'.

Humans might no longer be at centre of things. Moral panic - don't have a moral system to contain this disaster. Getting out of hand with technology.

Drones - have no human intervention. Just fire on their own. Means - man is not at centre of things. Drone technology - no human agency involved in it, Braidotti said, in the decision to fire. Should we redesign the programmes of this Post-Human technology?

Panic - our inability to deal with what we have produced ourselves.

Trying to moralise the post-human world that we have created.

Is it now - ethics v. morality?

Some try to tell Braidotti that the Humanities is over.

Moving into Study areas, and away from academic areas - e.g. Women's Studies, Death Studies, Food Studies. Seems to be never-ending - the amount of different studies that one can have. Mentality of follow the budget - see who gets the money.

Man spent 4 years looking at whether Austerity measures were right. Found out that the Maths was wrong. But they still did not change the Austerity programme. Austerity measures - a form of extinction; extinguishing/obliterating certain groups of people that are seen to be 'undesirable'.
'Creating a dynamic, resilient world' - topic at World Social Forum.
Need to complexify death, Braidotti said - it is not straightforward.

Comment from Beth Lord - no longer acceptable to be a Sole Researcher. Instead, want collaborative working. Imported from the Sciences, where they work together. Imposition of new-liberal capitalism on our working methods. OK if want to work with others, but might not always want to. Impinging on academic freedom. But need the funding, so have to do collaborative working, researching and writing.




'The symptomatic relationship between law and conflict in Spinoza' - Dr Filippo del Lucchese (Politics, Brunel)

Spinzoa's thoughts include ideas on permanent revolution.

Some good conflict produces good laws. How can relationship between law and conflict be defined?

Parallism - relationship between mind and body - Cartesian. Spinoza says that mind and body are together active. Mind and body on same ontological level. And Spinoza opposed Descarte's mind-body dualism but instead thought they were a single entity. He thought that everything that exists in nature (i.e. everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance); that there is only one set of rules governing reality.

Conflict - been kept out of much of literature on Spinoza.


'Spinoza and the production of subjectivity (or the 3 kinds of knowledge and the passage between)' - Dr Simon O'Sullivan, Dept of Visual Cultures, Goldsmith)
O'Sullivan has written a book on this topic -
'On the production of subjectivity: five diagrams of the finite/infinite relation' by Simon O'Sullivan, Palgrave MacMillan, 2012

Spinoza's ethics - the 3 kinds of knowledge.

Being in /thrown into the world. Shocks of being thrown into the world. Movement and rest. Bodies and minds are modes; speed and slowness. Modes - moving.

1st kind of knowledge - isolated deposits of knowledge
2nd kind of knowledge - some deposits of knowledge joining together
3rd kind of knowledge - large area; smaller areas within it and deposits of knowledge within these 3 different areas.

O'Sullivan produced some simple but effective diagrams to illustrate these 3 kinds of knowledge.

Through 2nd kind of knowledge - get ethical dimension to ones life. Knowledge of modal essences; God and nature. Essences exist outside space and time. Not tied to the individual. More powerful in effecting the mind. Can 'become what you are' from the 3rd kind of knowledge - relate to Nietzsche.

Spinoza thought - will be part of the Eternal - similar to Nietzsche. 'Eternal return of the Same'

3rd kind of knowledge - can't really be commodified.


'Spinoza and Art' - Professor Moira Gatens (Philosophy, Sydney)
Professor Moira Gatens looked at Spinoza's attitude to the creative arts.

Did Spinoza have a theory of aesthetics?

Is there a place for art in Spinoza's philosophy?

A reconstruction of Spinoza's art might begin with a look at his work on Prophesy, Gatens said. Looked at Prophets - common moral code. Prophets deal with fiction, images, drama. In pictures - can do things that Philosophy can't.

What does Spinoza's Philosophy have to say about goodness?

Spinoza says that imagination is powerful but can get us into trouble.

Spinoza - perfection/imperfection; good/evil. Aesthetic judgement.  How can we agree or disagree with idea of a 'perfect horse' or 'perfect house'?

Spinoza says - 'good', 'evil' are useful words; ideal of the free man. Ethical path to freedom.

The more perfect the individual is, the more his power of acting, in so far as it is understood, through his nature.

Spinoza's philosophical understanding of perfection; the more perfect I am, the more real I am.

Power of thought and mind - to form adequate ideas etc.

The more real I am, the more I am at one with nature.

Spinoza sees reality as perfection.

Joyful path of freedom - have to co-operate with others.

Spinoza wanted to accommodate religion in his own time. Spinoza says there's difference between genuine and false prophets. He wasn't interested in theorising about ideal communities but looking at actual human communities.

Genuine prophets - can decide what is good for humans; a set of rules.

Imaginative insight - so we can live in relative harmony. Imaginatively; grounded knowledge.

Spirit of God - created beautiful works of art.

Enjoy art because it gives us positive feelings.

Therapy, imagination, blessedness. But how much self-awareness does one bring to this state?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N.B. Spinoza's philosophy provided an alternative to materialism, atheism and deism. 3 of his ideas, in particular, had strong appeal:

1. the unity of all that exists
2. the regularity of all that happens
3. the identity of spirit and nature

Karl Max admired Spinoza's materialistic interpretation of the universe.

The Never Ending Story

What is this about? The Never Ending Story?

Well, this is a film that I re-watched with our middle son, Victor Rikowski, over the Easter period (at Victor's suggeestion). This is one of Victor's favourite films, and indeed, it is one of my favourites too. Victor was given this by his Auntie Julie, when he was quite young (about 8 years old). But even more surprising is the fact that Glenn took Alexander to see it in the cinema in Cromer, Norfolk when he was only about 6 years old. At the time, they thought it was a bit strange. Victor, Gregory and I watched it later on (when we got the video from Aunt Julie), and we all really liked it. Well, Victor and I really loved it, in fact! And now, we have just re-watched it.

So, what is this film about? And what is so special about it? Well, it is about the land of Fantasia. And this land is only kept alive by children's imagination. But the land is dying, the people are dying, the different species are dying; the emptiness is threatening the world of imagination, and the 'Nothing' is taking over. This is because children's imagination is dying. They are being turned into consumers at ever younger ages, of course. This was not stated explicitly, but the message is there implicitly.

The film opens with a young boy, Bastian, being bullied. He escapes by going into a book shop. The man running the bookshop is reading a book, but tells him that it is not for the boy; that it is no ordinary book. That, of course, is 'The Never Ending Story'. The boy runs off with the book. He gets very absorbed in it; he seems to become part of it. How easily I could relate to that! Getting away from bullies, and into a book instead!

Meanwhile, in the story we have the boy child, Atreyu (the other side of Bastian) that is on a mission to save Fantasia; a young Artistic Warrior one could say.

I thought of Nietzsche and his ideas around the übermensch, the overman, the superman and all that. Yes, I have suddenly started pouring myself into the ideas of Frederick Nietzsche and I am really fascinated by it all! I got it wrong; I have been unfair on him. But then again, it is all so complex. Whilst now, Victor has turned right away from him. Oh well - such is life! These great geniuses and thinkers move and shake us in all sorts of ways. But they are where it is at - that is the most important thing to remember, in my view. The great books, the great thinkers, the great writers, the great artists: those people that want to transcend and indeed, are often driven to transcend, every day reality.

Such people take us on to another plane; they take us on to another level; another way of thinking, being and existing. And I am part of that. I have always been a part of that. But I have not had many of the advantages that many of the greats have had, so I am not being taken as seriously. Nietzsche had a very tough life in many ways and he was, indeed, very courageous, and he broke through so many boundaries and said just so much that others would not dare to say. Well, never dare to think, let alone say and write. But he did have the advantage of being a Professor at a young age, which gave him a head start, in terms of confidence and getting taken seriously (D. H. Lawrence was the same here). But anyway, we all find our own way and I am finding mine. But I do also think that women have to be more careful and cover themselves more (and those from less privileged backgrounds even more so). If a woman wrote as Nietzsche did she would almost certainly be accused of being head-strong, prejudicial, irrational etc. etc. And a woman is also more vulnerable to such attacks, because at the end of the day, most women are physically weaker than men. But anyway, we all find our own way, which is what Nietzsche wanted. And so, as I say, I am finding my own way.

Coming back to the Overman, this is what Nimrod Aloni says in his great book 'Beyond Nihilism' about Nietzsche's overman:

"...the overman stands as the materialisation of the theme that the primary element through which life grows in value or attains power is neither knowledge nor morality, but the creative form-giving, value-assigning, meaning-introducing human enterprise. In other words, in the doctrine of the overman Nietzsche associates the enhancement of life, the elevation of man, and man's metaphysical destiny with a self-determining creative process that is dominated by the will to power, manifested in the introduction of ever-new forms of patterning experience, and continually aiming to surpass and perfect its prevailing state of being." (Aloni, 1991, p. 176)

So, we have the creative outlet driven forward by the 'will to power'.

Then, a little later, and very near the end of the book, Aloni says:

"Nietzsche places the highest value on continual self-overcoming through the spiritualization and creative employment of the passions, identifying man's highest form of self-affirmation with 'the power of creating beyond oneself ' without losing oneself." (Aloni, 1991, p. 185)

Thus, self-overcoming; taking hold of one's life; 'going for life' etc.

Also, the 'Nothing', from an adult perspective, can be associated with Nietzsche. A nihilist state (which could be equated with 'the nothing') that Nietzsche thought had to be reached and recognised in order to then overcome it and move beyond it. Reject Christian morality, reject conformist value systems, all of which leads to sickness in humankind: 'God is dead' (Nietzsche). And so we then have a state of nihilism. Then, the overman can create a new set of values, 'a revaluation of the previous values'  (Nietzsche) and so the 'nothing' is overcome. This is one adult way in which 'The Never Ending Story' could be developed and built on.

Children, on their own, cannot overcome nihilism. The fear is that if it was all just left to children, then barbarism might well take a hold and take over instead (e.g. Golding's 'Lord of the Flies'). It is all too dangerous, and too much left to chance. So, we need to find another way; an adult way but one that is inspiring, fulfilling, creative (and not where the adult lives in an alienated and sick state). But this would build on the power and beauty of children's imagination; of taking adults when they were imaginative children and building on this.  Able, gifted and fortunate children that are able to develop creatively and imaginatively.

But Atreyu, as a child is using the force of his personality, his strong beliefs, his courage and his bravery to try to find the Empress and to call forth Bastian in order to defeat 'the nothing' and to save Fantasia. And of course, in a story it is possible; well anything is possible in stories and in one's imagination. Also, these are very courageous and different young people of course (or the same person, but we won't go into that one here). And if stories and fiction writing in general can help to enrich our real lives, and be real lights to us in the process about how to live more fulfilling lives, so much the better. But we need more than that; we need to put it into an adult context.

And then we have these incredibly wise words from Karl Löwith, in his good book Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. He says:

"The teaching of the eternal recurrence repeats The Birth of Tragedy and makes possible the 'revaluation of all values' that follows, because this teaching pertains in its principle not to just any single value but to the now problematic 'value of existence' as such and as a whole: the reversal of the will to the nothing of nihilism, into the willing of the Being of the eternal recurrence of the same." (Löwith, 1997, p. 26)

Yes, a 'revaluation of all values', to overcome nihilism; to overcome 'the nothing'.
Also:

"To Hegel the death of God is the abyss of the nothing into which all Being sinks, in order to emerge anew in the movement of becoming." (Löwith, 1997, p. 39)

Yes, becoming and:

"A superhuman will of the man of the future, a will that creates itself and the world as its own, takes the place of God, who creates Being out of nothing." (Löwith, 1997, p.43)

And so again, we have Nietzsche's notion of the 'will to power'.

In general, I wasn't understanding Nietzsche before - well I never studied him formally. And I had got caught up in the hype with the right-wing and fascist propaganda, his many 'anti-women' remarks, the madness, the post-modernists taking him up (seen to be their godfather) and much else besides.

But Glenn and Victor's persistence and enthusiasm with Nietzsche over many years made me think that there must be something important in it all and that I should really try to get to grips with some of it. Also, then, there is my own personal love of D. H. Lawrence who was heavily influenced by Nietzsche of course. And so, this is what I have been turning my attention to of late. And in some strange way, things seem to be fitting together. And I now realise what a genius Nietzsche was.

But how could a child achieve so much? How could any child, on his/her own, save Fantasia? Well, you could argue that, of course, she/he could simply because she/he is a child, and it is a childlike world that he/she is trying to save - the world of children's imagination. So, if children have a strong enough and powerful enough imagination (which Bastian clearly did) then Fantasia can be saved. But one can take this a step further; and indeed, I think it should be taken further. That society, in many ways, tries to force us to be in the supposed 'real world'. Working and functioning in capitalism; being both producers and consumers. And only using our imagination where it fits in with capitalism; such as going to the movies, and spending money, but not getting too sucked into it all, as we need to go out and labour in capitalism again. But this is not good for us. We need our imagination; we need our fantasies; we have to escape from the real world; we have to get beyond day-to-day reality in many ways. And so we do. And so the contradictions continue.

But can all this be really achieved by a child? Well, clearly not. And that perhaps is where the confusion comes in. Perhaps, Victor thought that, in some way, he could achieve it. That would make sense, with his enthusiasm for Nietzsche. That as a child; then as a teenager; then as a young adult, he could have some big impact on the world creatively and artistically. Well, one can in various ways of course, but it is very hit and miss and it is very difficult to make a real and lasting impact. It is still something worth striving for though, as it makes life worth living. Also, it means that one is sharing one's gifts, one's work, one's creative output, one's ideas etc. with others, and thus hopefully helping to enrich the world in general in some way. Or at least, that is a good aim, I think.

And that is one way where we can go wrong with the geniuses; with the greats. We can expect too much from them. They are only human, when all is said and done. We should appreciate the fact that they give so much to the world. And so with Nietzsche - his work 'blows one's mind' and can, on one level, seem contradictory - or far worse of course. But we should appreciate the fact that he was trying to find a different way to live, and challenging conventional wisdoms. To such an extent that in the end he went, mad of course. Well, enough said on that one, for now. We also need to bear in mind that life is quite short, so any one person, any one genius, can only ever do so much. Nietzsche can't sort everything out; Marx can't sort everything out; D. H. Lawrence can't sort everything out. And on top of all of that, they had so many prejudices against them, as applies to so many great thinkers, movers and shakers.

So, coming back to Victor, he decided that it was all dangerous nonsense (after reading Geoff Waite's book Nietzsche's Corpse); and currently he has no time much for the notion of the 'Artistic Warrior' or Nietszchien-type stuff in general. Oh well! I was certainly very much against Nietzsche at one time, so who am I to talk? And I still can't really read much of Nietzsche's raw text, it has to be said, (so am reading some good books by others interpreting his work), but hopefully in time, with the help of this reading, I will be able to read more of the raw text, and continue to make more sense of it all. Having said that though, I also now realise that Nietzsche did not really intend for his books to just be read from cover to cover. He was just such a very different thinker and writer - it is often more appropriate to 'dip into them'.

I realise now though that Nietzsche's philosophy was about a way of life, and not confined to reasoning (and that is very important). As Alistair Kee says:

"...he [Nietzsche] set himself to develop not a system of philosophy, but a philosophy by which to live." (Kerr, 1999, p. 20)

And for me, that is also the essence of philosophy; although thinking rationally is also vitally important in capitalism. Because the capitalist system is just so mad, one has to use one's reason in order to be able to function in it. But people are going to be very disappointed if they think that by such sensible behaviour they will then be living in a sane and rational system! No way!

But coming back to 'The Never Ending Story' - well, I think we need a 2nd good film, showing how an adult artistic warrior can take all this forward. That is my conclusion. And, of course, that also fits in with Nietzsche (overcoming nihilism). Now, there is the film 'The Never Ending Story II: the next chapter' (this is on the same video actually). But it just isn't very good at all. It just does not capture one's imagination (strangely enough!), is not very gripping, and has too many adults in it (but not doing very worthwhile and interesting things either).

Suddenly, I wanted to find out more. Surely such a great film, must be based on a book? So, I did a search on Amazon, and - hey presto, I was right. It is based on a book by the famous children's fiction author, Michael Ende. Amazing! But I should have guessed that before! So, I had to find out more. I found out that the 2nd film was not really based on the book - so that explains that one! Some were saying that it should be a classic, and I quite agree. I then went into my local Waterstones bookshop, found it on the shelf (great!) and bought it. I will read it soon. Then, I read a really interesting review of the film by Kylopod on Amazon (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088323/reviews) They say:

"No fantasy film I've seen has tapped more successfully into the kinds of philosophical thoughts that kids have...This is the type of film that greatly appeals to introspective kids who think about things like infinity and the end of the universe. Do children think about such things? I did. People who find that surprising have forgotten how profound children can sometimes be."

I did too! That is really profound, I think. But a little later the person has this to say:

"Bastian never grows as a character, he never learns to put his feet on the ground, something the early scenes suggest will happen."

And this is, indeed, the problem, I think, and why it could confuse and mislead intelligent children in particular, and why a second, good film is needed to try to address the problem.

I also think they were right about some of the characters that the director, Wolfgang Petersen created in the film, and that he did not seem to have a clear enough idea about what age group he was filming for. As Kylopod says::

"Some of the scenes are quite scary and violent, making this film inappropriate for younger children. Yet, the muppet-like characters are presented in an annoyingly condescending way that I doubt older kids (not to mention teens and adults) would appreciate."

And I think this was what Glenn didn't like.

I checked further and found that a 3rd film has been made - 'The Never Ending Story 3' - but that is even worse that the 2nd one apparently, and actually features in the 'Badmovies.org' website, would you believe. What a tragedy. All getting worse, rather than better. Dear oh dear!

So, anyway, instead, a completely different kind of sequel is needed. This should be where an adult artistic warrior takes it all forward. This could be done in various ways by the adult; such as through sophisticated fiction writing, through art, through philosophical writing, through music etc. Indeed, perhaps more people writing like Nietzsche. And people writing and/or living in real and genuine ways; where they really try to become themselves; be true to themselves (and not get taken in by the propaganda etc); to 'go for life'; to be real; to be genuine. And this of course, was what D. H. Lawrence also very much took up (being inspired by Nietzsche and all that) - 'going for life', aiming to be a whole person, taking risks etc. He wrote a letter to his friend Catherine Carswell, for example, congratulating her on her marriage, saying that:

"I only want to know people that have the courage to live."

That about sums it up.

Then, at the end of his book Apocalypse (which he wrote just before he died), he said:

"What man most passionately wants is his living wholeness and his living unison, not his own isolate salvation of his 'soul'...What we want is to destroy our false, inorganic connections, especially those related to money, and re-establish the living organic connections with the cosmos, the sun and earth, with mankind and nation and family." (Lawrence, 1974, pp 125-6)

So, this childhood, innocent wonderment could be taken into adulthood and in that way, it can drive it all forward (as D. H. Lawrence did with his novels of course), and help adults to live a better life; one where consumerism does not dominate. Lead by example, and all that. Use one's adult brain, but use it wisely.

To just leave it with the child being the saviour, is rather dangerous on one level and can give people (especially children) false hopes, I think. Children thinking that they can change the world by adopting childlike ways of behaving, with their vivid imagination and that, in this way, they can do better than adults. And giving themselves too much self-importance.

But of course, this cannot be done, because capitalism is just too powerful. Take Michael Jackson here as an example. Michael Jackson trying to remain childlike, living in Neverland and wanting to be Peter Pan. But of course, it was not possible, and the cruel, capitalist, greedy society basically 'got to him' and killed him. And Thatcher as good as defeated the unions and old Labour, and much else besides, when all is said and done and crippled and debilitated the working class. How much easier it would be, and is, for the 'right' to defeat children and childlike mentalities. They don't really have a leg to stand on!

But I want to find ways forward, in general and indeed, that is what I intend to do! A way to overcome; a way to take control of one's life; a way to live a fulfilled life; a way to live life in a beautiful, creative and meaningful way, but where fantasy and escapism (which ideally should first be developed in childhood) also has its important part to play and can shine through. Yes, even guide us forward. And that is where Nietzsche's Eternal Return of the Same comes in, but that can be for another time and another day.

N.B.  In my blog entry 'Fiction Write-Ups' I make clear that I am moving away from the type of
fiction write-ups that I have previously entered on this blog. This entry builds on this (and is no deviation):

1. It is about a film, not a book
2. Only parts of the plot are revealed
3. It deals with some important philosophical issues, which not many of my other fiction write-ups have dealt with; 'The Age of Reason' by Sartre being one big obvious exception here. Also, Sartre's 'Nausea' and Douglas Kennedy's 'The Moment'.
4. It provides an introduction into my newly discovered understanding, thoughts and insights into Nietzsche.

Link to film: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Neverending-Story-Thomas-Hill/dp/B0017U09JE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366886677&sr=8-1&keywords=never+ending+story+film

Link to book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Neverending-Story-Puffin-Books/dp/0140317937/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1366886677&sr=8-2&keywords=never+ending+story+film



References
Aloni, Nimrod (1991) Beyond Nihilism: Nietzsche's healing and edifying Philosophy, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland

Kee, Alistair (1999) Nietzsche agaist the crucified, SCM Press, London

Lawrence, D. H. (1974) Apocalypse, Penguin, Middlesex (first published in 1931)

Löwith, Karl (1997) Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same, University of California Press, London

Waite, Geoff (1996) Nietzsche's Corpse, Duke University Press, USA

D. H. Lawrence: a Journey

Following on from my last but two blog, about 'Women in Love' by D. H. Lawrence, I suddenly felt driven to explore all this in much more detail.


How did that happen, one might ask? What is all this about?

Well, years ago, when I was still working in the public library service, in the London Borough of Newham, we were instructed by management to clear out/chuck out a really large collection of old and specialist books. Some of them were really wonderful and were by and about interesting, worthwhile and important people. Some even had leather bindings and beautiful covers etc. I decided to 'rescue' some of these books, and we brought them home in our car. Our front room, for a while, began to look like a library itself!

Now, part of this collection was 2 volumes of D. H. Lawrence's letters edited by Harry T. Moore ('The Collected Letters of D. H. Lawrence'), William Heinemann, 1962. Glenn read them soon after we acquired them, and thought they were absolutely brilliant. He tried to persuade me to read them but I did not 'bite' the cherry at the time. I did not see how letters could be all that interesting (and I also thought, at the time, that it could be disruptive). Then, suddenly, having re-read 'Women in Love' I wanted to give them ' a go'; I wanted to read them; I wanted to find out lots more about Lawrence the person, and in particular, to make sense of this so-called 'Nietzscean influence'.

And what did I find? I was amazed. I was intoxicated; I was overcome; I was in love. It was as though, through his letters, I was talking to Lawrence himself directly. His personality comes across just so powerfully in the letters. And what a wonderful person! As Brenda Maddox says in ‘D. H. Lawrence: the story of a marriage’ (Simon & Schuster, 1994):

“No one could read Lawrence’s letters and not like him.” (Maddox, p. 12)

How could I ever have doubted him at all? - see my ‘Women in Love’ blog. I had my reasons, over the years, but still - I felt disloyal. So, a thousand apologies D. H. Lawrence! I discovered that the letters form one of the best and most comprehensive collection of letters and correspondence ever. Harry T. Moore said in the Introduction to the letters (in Vol 1) that:

“Lawrence’s letters are virtually without parallel in literature; in recent times, only those of Keats, Flaubert, Hopkins and Rilke are anywhere near as rich.” (Moore, p. xiv)

Also, as Keith Sagar said in ‘D. H. Lawrence: Life into Art’ (Viking, 1985):

“His [Lawrence’s] imagination flowed into whatever he wrote, even casual letters.” (Sagar, p. x)

So really, given my love of Lawrence, no wonder I was so moved by them! Incidentally, these are only a selection of his letters - there are actually 7 volumes of his letters published with Cambridge University Press, 2002, edited by Keith Sagar and James T. Boulton.


I guess that is one of the advantages of becoming a major success at quite a young age and certainly in one's lifetime. Lawrence was recognised as being a genius in his early 20’s, and no-one ever really doubted it after that (although that did not stop him from getting a lot of criticism of course). So, even if people had disagreements with Lawrence, they knew he was really something, so decided to keep his letters, I guess.

Elaine Feinstein in ‘Lawrence’s Women: the intimate life of D. H. Lawrence’ (Flamingo, 1994) said that Ford Madox Hueffer, the editor of the English Review (the journal that Jessie Chambers first sent Lawrence’s work to – some poems and short stories) recognised Lawrence’s genius as soon as he read a little of his work. He saw:

“…the first paragraphs of the story ‘Odour of the Chrysanthemums’ as so clearly talented that he put the manuscript into his tray of accepted work without reading further. As was his habit, he began mentioning Lawrence as a genius he had discovered, and so it was that Lawrence’s name became known to writers like G. K. Chesterton and H. G. Wells before he himself knew that Jessie’s attempt to secure publication for him had been successful. Lawrence owed a great deal to Hueffer. To appear in a journal like the English Review, which also published such writers as Joseph Conrad, Henry James, Thomas Hardy and John Galsworthy, ensured that his work would receive attention.” (Feinstein, pp. 57-58)

Wow! Also, in connecting up with such an editor he was a lot more fortunate than I was when I started out on my writing and publication path!

Lawrence - you transformed my life! Basically, if it had not been for you I would probably never have gone to university at all. You gave me the inspiration; you gave me the confidence; you gave me the determination to make it all happen. There were other forces and influences, but when I think about it and reflect, I realise that you were the main force; the underlying and most powerful force.

Yes, there were a number of influences, but really Lawrence was the key to it all. I was fascinated to read what Frieda Lawrence (his wife) herself said about Lawrence after he died, about how much he influenced so many young people. She wrote to Professor Fay, saying:

“Many young people have come and told me how reading Lawrence has completely changed their lives. They would not say that when reading Somerset Maugham…Lawrence was trying to find a new way of life.” (Frieda Lawrence in Maddox, 1994, p. 505)

It was not Lawrence's fault that university life did not live up to my teenage romantic expectations. That is just life; the hard facts of life; and in particular, the hard facts about capitalist life, of course. Lawrence put forward/advocated a certain type of life; a certain way of living, but to actually try and live and be that way is something else. It is extremely difficult; but that still does not mean that it is not something that it is worthwhile to aim at – indeed, far from it.

But through this summer journey (and reading some 20 books on the topic in all, would you believe!), I also discovered that Lawrence had various personal problems of his own and could not always live up to his own expectations anyway. So, in one sense he was not living this 'ideal' life himself - but in reality I don't think he tried to make out that he was anyway.

That was just my misunderstanding, as well as me getting too 'hooked' into 'Women in Love' itself. 'Women in Love' was written in the early days of his relationship with Frieda. But times changed and life moved on, of course and his writing and his own thoughts also changed, developed and moved on. But I remained rather hooked on the type of life that was portrayed in ‘Women in Love’. But F. R. Leavis in ‘D. H. Lawrence: novelist’ (Chatto & Windus, 1964) thought that ‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’ were his greatest works, so perhaps in a way, I was right. Leavis says that:

“It is The Rainbow and Women in Love that most demand attention. The need is to get recognition for the kind of major achievement they are. Together they constitute his greatest work, or perhaps it is better to say that, in their curious close relation and the separateness, they are his two greatest works.” (Leavis, p. 18)

Maddox, in addition, thought that Women in Love was his most ambitious work. And Lawrence made it clear in his letters that he also thought it was his best book. He wrote to B. W. Huebsch on 10th February 1920, saying:

“I am more keen on Women in Love than on any of my books.” (p. 621, in Vol 1 in ‘The Collected Letters of D. H. Lawrence’ edited by Harry Moore)

Then, again, he wrote to Thomas Seltzer on 7th November 1920, saying:

“Secker intends Women in Love for February. I still think it is the best of my books.” (p. 635 in Vol. 1 of the Letters)

Although, it is possible that he might have changed his mind after having written some of his other novels; I don’t know, although I suspect not.

So, why did he not continue writing in this Women in Love way, one might ask? Was it the influence of Frieda? Would a ‘softer’ woman that helped him more practically have been better? Or was it the fault of the English and the way they treated him after writing The Rainbow and Women in Love? Or was it something else, or a combination? Who know? It is all pure speculation. And does it necessarily really matter? Lawrence produced great work – that was and is the most important thing.

And F. R. Leavis concludes his book ‘D. H. Lawrence: novelist’, saying:

“I live in hopes that Lawrence’s recognition is at last to come…I mean, his recognition for what I am convinced he is: the great creative genius of our age, and one of the greatest figures in English literature.” (Leavis, p. 317)

Absolutely!

What I think is also very important to realise is that Lawrence was very much about ‘going for life’, and that he put this above any particular way of living – and that this was the main, the most powerful Nietzschean influence and effect, I think. Lawrence said:

“I only want to know people that have the courage to live.” (Boulton, Letters, Vol 2, p. 225, in Feinstein, p. 121)

And in regard to his wife Frieda, Feinstein also said that:

“Frieda had no intellectual ambitions. She simply wanted to live life more fully.”

(Feinstein, 1994, p. 75)

Although Maddox was of the opinion that:

“Frieda was undisciplined but not unintellectual.” (Maddox, p. 97)

Frieda certainly read a lot and proof-read and edited some of Lawrence’s work. In particular, Frieda was very keen on Nietzsche – and in fact, this was the main way in which Lawrence was influenced by Nietzsche. I concluded through my reading that Lawrence was influenced by Nietzsche more indirectly through Frieda than through any direct reading of his own of Nietzsche’s writings. Lawrence, on the whole, preferred reading and writing literature.


In regard to Frieda Lawrence and Nietzsche, Maddox said that:

“Frieda became…devoted to Nietzsche. In later life she referred to him as ‘my old friend’ and from a Lawrence poem she took as the title of her own autobiography a Nietzschean phrase, ‘not I, but the wind’, implying that her own powerful personality was nothing but the life force that blew through her. The sisters [Frieda and Else] liked Nietzsche for the same reason that writers such as Shaw, Yeats and Wells were attracted to him: he was aphoristic, full of memorable, scientific-sounding nuggets of wisdom.” (Maddox, p. 100)

In addition, taking Nietzsche’s ideas forward, Frieda very much wanted to nurture a male genius, and so, she left her husband and 3 young children for Lawrence, in order to nurture and help this genius; as well as to live life more fully herself of course.

Anyway, Lawrence went with Frieda and produced all this genius work. These are the facts of the matter. So, let us just celebrate this and have done with the rest. That is what I have concluded. And Nietzsche played some part here (re encouraging geniuses, especially male ones and ‘going for life’), so we must celebrate Nietzsche as well. Hallelajah! The Saints be praised and all that!

There is so much more that could, should and needs to be said on this amazing topic. This is, perhaps, just the openings of my ‘D. H. Lawrence Journey’. But enough said for now; the rest can wait for another time and another day.



References

Feinstein, Elaine (1994) Lawrence's Women: the intimate life of D. H. Lawrence, Flamingo

Leavis, F. R. (1964) D. H. Lawrence: novelist, Chatto and Windus

Maddox, Brenda (1994), D. H. Lawrence: the story of a marriage, Simon & Schuster,

Moore, Harry T. (ed.) (1962) The Collected Letters of D. H. Lawrence (2 Vols), William Heinemann

Sagar, Keith (1985) D. H. Lawrence: life into art, Viking

'Women in Love' by D.H. Lawrence

I decided to re-read 'Women in Love' by D.H.Lawrence. The book (and film) had a tremendous effect on me in my late teens. I thought it was all incredible.

How would I feel about it so many more years down the line, I wondered?

I was also intrigued by the Nietzschian influence/effect. What sense would I make of all that? Now, I know so much more about Nietzsche. When I was in my late teens I knew very little about him, other than the fact that his Philosophy influenced Fascism. At the time, it was something that I decided that I should keep well clear of.

Well, I very much enjoyed re-reading ‘Women in Love’. I could understand why it had the powerful effect that it had on me on my late teens. But I also had some reservations about it, which I did not see at all then. On one level, I was quite surprised about this.

Death and suicide, for example, plays quite an important part in it all, and the Nietzschian undertones are clearly apparent. Here is Ursula talking to herself about death and suicide.

"It was not a question of taking one's life - she would never kill herself, that was repulsive and violent. It was a question of knowing the next step. And the next step let into the space of death. Did it? - or was there - ?

Her thoughts drifted into unconsciousness, she sat as if asleep beside the fire. And then the thought came back. The space of death! Could she give herself to it? Ah yes - it was a sleep. She had had enough. So long she had held out and resisted. Now was the time to relinquish, not resist any more.

In a kind of spiritual trance, she yielded, she gave way, and all was dark. She could feel, within the darkness, the terrible assertion of her body, the unutterable anguish of dissolution, the only anguish that is too much, the far-off, awful nausea of dissolution set in within the body." (p. 200)

Her thoughts continued:

"Monday, the beginning of another school-week! Another shameful school-week, more routine and mechanical activity. Was not the adventure of death infinitely preferable? Was not death infinitely more lovely and novel than such a life? A life of barren routine, without inner meaning, without any real significance...One might come to fruit in death. She had had enough. For where was life to be found?" (p. 201)

This is all pretty heavy stuff, is it not? D. H. Lawrence did not like school teaching, of course, but even so – the death wish?, suicide?

Moving on to the romance in the novel in general; that is not at all simple either; it is beautiful but also very heavy and intense for quite a lot of the time. And this was something that I could well relate to in my late teens. I can remember very clearly just how much I identified with it on one level; how moved I was by it, but could not quite remember why. But that also, of course, reflects the intensity of my own upbringing.

Then, there is the topic of relationships, responsibility and freedom. We have Birkin who wanted to be with Ursula but also wanted to be free with her.

"...he wanted to be with Ursula as free as with himself, single and clear and cool, yet balanced, polarised with her. The merging, the clutching, the mingling of love was become madly abhorrent to him. But it seemed to him, woman was always so horrible and clutching, she had such a lust for possession, a greed of self-importance in love. She wanted to have, to own, to control, to be dominant...It was intolerable, this possession at the hands of woman." (p. 209)

This is all very Nietzschian, is it not? After all, Nietzsche had quite some attitude to women, he said many disparaging things about them and found it difficult to get over the all-female household that he was brought up in. Whilst at the same time, D. H. Lawrence also used his writing to help him get over/come to terms with various aspects of his upbringing, of course. He also had a rather domineering and possessive mother, who had high, middle-class ambitions for her son. And this gave Lawrence some difficulties when trying to form relationships with girls, which he wrote so eloquently about in ‘Sons and Lovers’. But of course, that was his view of the world and of women. But then novelists are almost bound to write that way.

Then, we have the whole thing about the working class struggle, with Gerald’s father owning the mine and Gerald’s thoughts about all of this.

“Gerald was satisfied. He knew the colliers said that they hated him. But he had long ceased to hate them. When they streamed past him at evening, their heavy boots slurring on the pavement wearily, their shoulders slightly distorted, they took no notice of him, they gave him no greetings whatsoever, they passed in a grey-black stream of unemotional acceptance. They were not important to him, save as instruments, nor he to them, save as a supreme instrument of control. As miners they had their being, he had his being as director. He admired their qualities. But as men, personalities, they were just accidents, sporadic little unimportant phenomena. And tacitly, the men agreed to this. For Gerald agreed to it himself.” (p. 242-3)

And Lawrence’s father was a miner; his work was heavy and demanding. We see the class struggle, and again, this was brought out just so eloquently in ‘Sons and Lovers’ with the father being a miner and the mother being middle-class. And I myself had a mother that came from a much more middle-class background than my father. Indeed, I was brought up with an acute awareness of the social class struggle.

Then, there is the beauty pervading so much of ‘Women in Love’. Lawrence’s writing can be just so powerful, beautiful, eloquent and enticing. He writes in such a unique and stylish way.

Gudrun thinking about Gerald:

“He looked aside, and did not answer. Save for the extreme beauty and mystic attractiveness of this distinct, strange face, she would have sent him away. But his face was too wonderful and undiscovered to her. It fascinated her with the fascination of pure beauty, cast a spell on her, like nostalgia, an ache.” (p. 362)

Then, the lovers, Gudrun and Gerald –

“She looked up, and in the darkness saw his face above her, his shapely, male face. There seemed a faint, white light emitted from him, a white aura, as if he were visible from the unseen. She reached up, like Eve reaching to the apples on the tree of knowledge, and she kissed him, though her passion was a transcendent fear of the thing he was, touching his face with her infinitely delicate, encroaching wondering fingers. Her fingers went over the mould of his face, over his features. How perfect and foreign he was – ah, how dangerous! Her soul thrilled with complete knowledge.” (p. 350)

Meanwhile, there is the fight between Birkin and Gerald:

“So they wrestled swiftly, rapturously, intent and mindless at last, two essential white figures working into a tighter closer oneness of struggle, with a strange, octopus-like, knotting and flashing of limbs in the subdued light of the room; a tense, white knot of flesh gripped in silence between the walls of old brown books. Now and again came a sharp gasp of breath, or a sound like a sigh, then the rapid thudding of movement on the thickly-carpeted floor, then the strange sound of flesh escaping under flesh.” (pp. 283-4)

And again, mixing up passion, sex and beauty with death. Gerald:

“…had come for vindication. She [Gudrun] let him hold her in his arms, clasp her close against him. He found in her an infinite relief. Into her he poured all his pent-up darkness and corrosive death, and he was whole again. It was wonderful, marvellous, it was a miracle. This was the ever-recurrent miracle of his life, at the knowledge of which he was lost in an ecstasy of relief and wonder. And she, subject, received him as a vessel filled with his bitter potion of death. She had no power at this crisis to resist. The terrible frictional violence of death filled her, and she received it in an ecstasy of subjection, in throes of acute, violent sensation.” (p. 363)

Then, the lovers Ursula and Birkin:

“In Ursula the sense of the unrealised world ahead triumphed over everything. In the mist of this profound darkness, there seemed to glow on her heart the effulgence of a paradise unknown and unrealised. Her heart was full of the most wonderful light, golden like honey of darkness, sweet like the warmth of day, a light which was not shed on the world, only on the unknown paradise towards which she was going, a sweetness of habitation, a delight of living quite unknown, but hers infallibly. In her transport she lifted her face suddenly to him, and he touched it with his lips. So cold, so fresh, so sea-clear her face was, it was like kissing a flower that grows hear the surf.” (p. 410)

Then, Gudrun:

“…was driven by a strange desire. She wanted to plunge on and on, till she came to the end of the valley of snow. Then she wanted to climb the wall of white finality, climb over, into the peaks that sprang up like sharp petals in the heart of the frozen, mysterious navel of the world. She felt that there, over the strange blind, terrible wall of rocky snow, there in the navel of the mystic world, among the final cluster of peaks, there, in the infolded navel of it all, was her consummation.” (p.432)

Returning to Gudrun and Gerald:

“Her heart beat fast, she flew away on wings of elation, imagining a future. He would be a Napoleon of peace, or a Bismarck – and she the woman behind him…But even as she lay in fictitious transport, bathed in the strange, false sunshine of hope in life, something seemed to snap in her, and a terrible cynicism began to gain upon her, blowing in like a wind.” (p. 440)

Lawrence says so much and he does it so well; he writes so eloquently; he encapsulates so much. On one level, there is little need for me to say much more. One can just get swept along with the tide; with the pure magic of it all; with the pure beauty of it all.

However, I think there is the point that the novelist does/should have some sense of responsibility sometimes. I went to university, for example, thinking I could have a world something like this Lawrencian-type world: a world full of interesting, alternative, intense, intellectual, original, passionate and beautiful people. A world that was rich; a world that was alive; a cultural world! I thought, for example, that perhaps it was possible to have relationships with and without responsibility all at the same time. I was of course, disappointed; I was disillusioned; I was young. I had to find a way through it all. And that, I think is also the danger of Nietzsche himself. Whilst I have not been enticed by Nietzsche’s work directly, I was certainly enticed and very influenced by him indirectly, through the work of D. H. Lawrence. And of course, Nietzsche has influenced just so many different people (writers, artists, musicians, politicians etc) in this and other ways. We need to be wary; we need to try to think more about what we are dealing with. Geoff Waite goes into all of this in great depth in ‘Nietzsche’s Corpse’ - a tremendous book. Leading on from all of this, Glenn wrote a long piece, trying to make sense of it all, and inserted this on our website – see http://www.flowideas.co.uk/print.php?page=160&slink=yes.

Perhaps, at some point, I will write something more myself – but will have to see. If I did, I would also want to marry it up with Freud and Marx.

One other point here that I want to note though, is the responsibility that teachers have, particularly when teaching A’ Levels to 16-18 year olds, I think. Victor and I were both swept along on the crest of a wave in this regard, whilst studying for our A’ Levels at 16-18 years of age; Victor by Nietzsche directly and me by D. H. Lawrence, and thus, indirectly by Nietzsche. Reading this text led us to think that the world was different to how it actually was; it gave us romantic illusions. We also thought that we could control and change our lives in ways that really we could not. Thank goodness I studied Sociology which was the opposite, and helped to ground me. Romance, beauty and wonder are also vitally important of course, but it can be dangerous if one is lead to believe that a certain way of living and being is possible when it is not – or at least it isn’t in capitalism. This is the great illusion and is one of the things that can make Nietzsche dangerous.

Marx and Nietzsche both offer ways in which ordinary people can try to take more control of their own lives, but Marx’s way is a much clearer and better one, it does not give people false illusions about capitalism and is something that everyone can strive towards, not just the ‘Uberman’.

At which point, I will stop and perhaps revisit this on another occasion. Or like Lawrence himself, I might just encapsulate it in novel-form instead!