Pedagogy of seeing and negativity
06
Sep
We have already spoken of power here, the famous category of “willpower”
first in Nietzsche and then in Schopenhauer, we read in Beyond Good and Evil §36 thus: “The world seen from within, the world determined by its’ intelligible character ‘- it would justly be’ willpower ‘, and nothing more, “however, it has more, since it is also Willpower.
If Thomas Aquinas defines power by dividing into Act and Power, we may reread it in Thus spake Zaratrusta thus: “Power is what he wills in the Will. And what is potency? It’s an eternal say-yes. , and this has everything to do with our way of thinking and feeling, the German-Korean philosopher Chyul Han, sees in this a misunderstanding of Western thought in the thrust: “From that general positivation of the world, both man and society become a autistic performance machine. “(HAN, 2015, p 56).
Power affirms itself in the will when it says “Yes” in becoming, because it is the pure affirmation of its own realization, joy comes from affirmation. And sense is the result of these forces, said Nietzsche in Thus spoke Zaratrusta.
But Han to make his analysis needs to divide power into two forms: “Positive power is the power to do something. The negative power, on the contrary, is the power of not doing, to speak with Nietzsche: to say no … is distinguished from mere impotence, the inability to do anything. Impotence is simply the opposite of positive power. “(HAN, 2015, p 57).
Han’s reasoning for Thomas Aquinas, and in my view defines his ontology since I perceive this trait in his other works, is to learn to see, he explains: “enable the eye to a deep and contemplative attention, a look slow and slow. “(HAN, 2015, p. 51).
Lack of spirit lack of culture would rest in the “inability to resist a stimulus,” says the Korean HAN reader of Nietzsche, and states that he does nothing more than propose “revitalization of the contemplative life.” (HAN, 2015, p. 52)
He concludes, or almost concludes, that he goes back to this chapter to speak of negativity, makes an absurd logic if “we had the power to think only of something, thought would be dispersed in an infinite quantity of objects. It would be impossible to do the reflection (Nachdenken), because the positive power, the excess of positivity, only admits the continue thinking (Fortdenken). (HAN, 2015, p.58).
Thomas of Aquinas, Nietzsche, to some extent Hegel, and several contemporary philosophers discussed this before the virtual and machinic world, but is next post.
HAN, B.C. A Sociedade da fadiga (The society of fatigue). BR: Petrópolis: Vozes, 2015.
