Amor Fati: The Mindset of the Truth Seeker

[PhoenixRising]

"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer." ~ Nietzsche

It seems to me that one who truly understood reality in an objective way would naturally develop the sort of mindset described by Nietzsche. It is subjective bias which creates the contrast between right and wrong, and so outside of that bias there would only be experience.

If nothing is seen as unacceptable, then one would not refuse any experience or thought, or count it wrong; there would be no regret. In the place of resistance, there would likely be an interest in the reality of the process at hand, and the mind would expand to enfold the whole of human possibility rather than being limited by bias to one direction or another.

And to not only accept, but find beauty in all that one is and all that occurs, would be the mark of someone who had an admirable appreciation for reality.

Such a mindset seems ideal to me. It is a viewpoint outside of the false perspectives which perpetuate the degenerate state of the modern psyche. To reach this state would be freedom.

But I wonder if it would be possible for a human being to embrace this perspective wholly? I have my ideas about this, but I'm curious about other's opinions. What do you guys think?

 

[Cognisant]

My interpretation may be different.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful.

Sounds to me like he's not talking about aesthetic beauty but rather functional beauty, a toad may be ugly but one can admire the effectiveness of its camouflage, and by studying it learn to emulate it in one's own designs.

I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

To me this means not involving oneself in the petty squabbles of the small minded and instead pursuing grander visions so when the small minded get in your way you can silence them by merely showing them what you're trying to do. Set yourself to building a space elevator and nobody will stand in your way so long as you can convince them you're actually able to do it, because they'll look upon your work and feel small.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I do agree with your first point, he does seem to be referring to a mechanistic sort of beauty. But, the overall meaning I see in his quote is that a higher mindset would be one that doesn't discriminate between events, but sees all things as causal or "necessary". Also there is no offense from the causality unfolding before the subject (i.e. losing one's job or getting a divorce, etc.) but it is embraced for what it is and the inevitability of it is realized.

"I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation."

To me, this says that he wishes to change his mindset so that he will not judge anything as "bad" or "ugly". Not even those who accuse are ugly to him, because he sees them in an unbiased light.

This is another one of his quotes that clarifies his meaning in the first:

"My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it."

 

[Auburn]

I like this topic. ^^ There's a curious paradox in this, though, I find. Because what would one do when, upon their objective observations of everything, they come across their own body's reactions? If after all, they are also an object in the universe and a system that operates via its own dynamics, then very soon we get situations such as:

"Oh, my body is getting upset and defensive... how curious.."
If indeed acceptance of all was given, then no effort would be made to try and change that upset, no? But rather, what Neitzsche's saying is contradictory, because he'd have to stop the urge to look at things in terms of right/wrong (a human impulse that he'd have to deny) using that very same dynamic of right/wrong by embracing a new ideal of 'good' as being all-embracing, in opposition to the (bad) critique and non-acceptance.. ..no?

Perhaps at least one thing, then, he does not accept. He does not accept the human body's urge, at least not in himself. Though for the rejection of this one thing, he can embrace many others.. *ponders*

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not one to say what is right for circumstance. I only know what is my reaction. It is best to be for itself what is intrinsic to beauty. Life where nothing is negative would be preferable but then in life we would be engrossed in the obscene accepting everything with no discernment. Having taste encroaches on the biological mechanism as the metaphor. Not all is acceptable to taste. What is acceptable has the ethical of "should this be". Bad taste looked at objectively might not exist so that good does not either and what else is dull means excellence is arbitrary. Discord to exist in the psyche must be eliminated for an ideal of what is of worth to be upheld. That we find passion is the choice to look at is deserving is elevated above menial things.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I like this topic. ^^ There's a curious paradox in this, though, I find. Because what would one do when, upon their objective observations of everything, they come across their own body's reactions? If after all, they are also an object in the universe and a system that operates via its own dynamics, then very soon we get situations such as:

"Oh, my body is getting upset and defensive... how curious.."
If indeed acceptance of all was given, then no effort would be made to try and change that upset, no? But rather, what Neitzsche's saying is contradictory, because he'd have to stop the urge to look at things in terms of right/wrong -- which is a human impulse that he'd have to deny -- presumably using that very same dynamic of right/wrong by embracing a new ideal of 'good' as being all-embracing, in opposition to the (bad) critique and non-acceptance.

And so perhaps at least one thing, he does not accept. He does not accept the human body's urge, at least not in himself. Though for the rejection of this one thing, he can embrace many others.

mm yes, it seems you've had similar thoughts on this topic to the ones I have. I think though, something like this mindset could arise out of a natural evolution of the psyche, rather than a suppression/unacceptence of impulse. Once one understands the nature of "right" and "wrong" as being biases that are largely culturally instilled, it would become difficult to have any investment in these concepts. Taking it even further, if one becomes self actualized, and untangles their self-generated biases so that they become obsolete to their way of thinking, the only biases that would remain would be the very basic ones that lead to the perpetuation of life. But I don't think there would be dissatisfaction with the presence of such biases, since they would be seen as part of the "necessary".

I do think it's possible to eradicate the notion of "right" and "wrong" from the psyche. Or at least to see the occurrence of such things in the psyche from a mechanistic point of view, and therefore not be directed by their causality.

 

[Cognisant]

See now though I tend to believe the universe is deterministic and so the future and past are in some sense beyond my control, on the level of my awareness I choose to resist fate because I don't trust it to look after me, I mean if misfortune befalls me because I didn't plan to avoid it (e.g. not having floatations devices on a boat in case it sinks) was that just fate or was it my fate because I didn't avoid it? I don't know, and I can't know, but in any case I'm going to have those floatation devices at the ready just in case.

It may be vain but such am I.

 

[Black Rose]

so what happens happens

live life, sunrise sunset

what if things could be interesting?

 

[PhoenixRising]

See now though I tend to believe the universe is deterministic and so the future and past are in some sense beyond my control, on the level of my awareness I choose to resist fate because I don't trust it to look after me, I mean if misfortune befalls me because I didn't plan to avoid it (e.g. not having floatations devices on a boat in case it sinks) was that just fate or was it my fate because I didn't avoid it? I don't know, and I can't know, but in any case I'm going to have those floatation devices at the ready just in case.

It may be vain but such am I.

Indeed ^^ I don't see how the universe could be anything else besides deterministic. All things are inevitable.. It is wise to attempt to effect the causality of a situation so that it doesn't lead to one's death (unless of course that's the desired outcome). But I think, in the sort of mindset described above, that if one did forget their flotation devices, they wouldn't be upset at the event of their ship sinking, or regret what they had done. They would accept that they'd been an idiot and face the consequences of their actions.

so what happens happens

live life, sunrise sunset

what if things could be interesting?

From my perspective, having the mindset that nothing is right or wrong opens up a lot of avenues of experience and contemplation that may not be available to someone otherwise. Also, seeing things for what they are in a mechanistic sense, I think, is the most interesting way to see them. To understand the true complexity of reality rather than labeling it and fitting it into simplified concepts - what mindset could be more interesting to the truth seeker?

 

[Auburn]

I think though, something like this mindset could arise out of a natural evolution of the psyche, rather than a suppression/unacceptence of impulse. Once one understands the nature of "right" and "wrong" as being biases that are largely culturally instilled, it would become difficult to have any investment in these concepts.

So like, a dissipation of the impulse naturally via conscientiousness? So that it ceases to even be an impulse to need to deny? (:

I think this is the fight against the neocortex and lower parts of the brain, isn't it. The neocortex can override those impulses and (presumably) if done long enough (what we may be calling actualization) then the primal rash impulsivity is mostly eliminated and one has an unprejudiced consciousness.

Though from my experience, the realization that right & wrong are irrelevant isn't enough to entirely disintegrate those impulses. At very least it takes a conscious an deliberate repetition of those realizations, which can be more or less challenging depending on how erratic a person's impulses are at a given point in their life. o.o Perhaps there are some beings who are so unjaded that a simple realization is all it takes, though...

I wonder, then, for those of us who are subject to the impulses - if the complex of right/wrong can be utilized to dissipate itself. In a sense, to hypocritically count it wrong to view things as wrong, until one no longer views things as wrong, nor needs to counter it with viewing that wrong.

Spoiler

personal ramble... c//c

I say this because I've tried it the other way.
I've tried to just take the realization of right/wrong's irrelevance straight from the get-go and what I get is a result like this:

i am already and always being honest, and am an honest expression that is flawless in the universe. nobody can fault me. therefore i can be as ugly as I want and not feel guilty.i don't need to change anything about myself.
​

Because this state embraces my humanity right at that particular point, it does not grow further. It dead-locks my progress at that point because I realize the irrelevancy of wanting to change it. It becomes more hedonist than anything.

I stayed stuck in that state for the past year or two, I think. And nothing logical in me could possibly convince me to get un-stuck because the view is legitimately logical. It takes something of a shock to the system, to get out of it. A 'non-logical' motivation but I have so little zeal if not through logic.

And even when one gets out of it, this view would tell you that you're moving backwards: away from truth and into a human impulse. But if it was so objective, then why should it matter to it? It's just as good as any fate, right?

In truth I'm still trying to get un-stuck from this as the voice is very convincing. The voice that tells me apathy is the way to go. That changing and improving the Self is just another psychological mechanism. =P

 

[PhoenixRising]

So like, a dissipation of the impulse naturally via conscientiousness? So that it ceases to even be an impulse to need to deny? (:

I think this is the fight against the neocortex and lower parts of the brain, isn't it. The neocortex can override those impulses and (presumably) if done long enough (what we may be calling actualization) then the primal rash impulsivity is mostly eliminated and one has an unprejudiced consciousness.

Though from my experience, the realization that right & wrong are irrelevant isn't enough to entirely disintegrate those impulses. At very least it takes a conscious an deliberate repetition of those realizations, which can be more or less challenging depending on how erratic a person's impulses are at a given point in their life. o.o Perhaps there are some beings who are so unjaded that a simple realization is all it takes, though...

I wonder, then, for those of us who are subject to the impulses - if the complex of right/wrong can be utilized to dissipate itself. In a sense, to hypocritically count it wrong to view things as wrong, until one no longer views things as wrong, nor needs to counter it with viewing that wrong.

Spoiler

personal ramble... c//c

I say this because I've tried it the other way.
I've tried to just take the realization of right/wrong's irrelevance straight from the get-go and what I get is a result like this:

i am already and always being honest, and am an honest expression that is flawless in the universe. nobody can fault me. therefore i can be as ugly as I want and not feel guilty.i don't need to change anything about myself.
​

Because this state embraces my humanity right at that particular point, it does not grow further. It dead-locks my progress at that point because I realize the irrelevancy of wanting to change it. It becomes more hedonist than anything.

I stayed stuck in that state for the past year or two, I think. And nothing logical in me could possibly convince me to get un-stuck because the view is legitimately logical. It takes something of a shock to the system, to get out of it. A 'non-logical' motivation but I have so little zeal if not through logic.

And even when one gets out of it, this view would tell you that you're moving backwards: away from truth and into a human impulse. But if it was so objective, then why should it matter to it? It's just as good as any fate, right?

In truth I'm still trying to get un-stuck from this as the voice is very convincing. The voice that tells me apathy is the way to go. That changing and improving the Self is just another psychological mechanism. =P

I think perhaps my point wasn't clear enough. I didn't suggest that it would be possible to remove impulse from one's self, but that it would be possible to remove the concepts of "right" and "wrong". I don't think "right" is a concept we're born with. All we know is when something hurts and when it makes us feel good. The reactivity of the body in itself could be said to be biased, yes, but I think that it is more realistic to view it as the "necessary" or "inevitable" causality of a human being and not judge it as bad or good. Just observe it for what it is without labeling it.

The way I imagine this mindset manifesting in a real human being is they would have a laid-back sort of persona, and wouldn't become angered easily. They would be open to entertaining any ideas without fear of breaking some imposed moral code, and would be rather willing to try new experiences as well. They would look at things that are usually seen as "ugly" as interesting occurrences that shed light on the nature of reality. And the truths they would observe would be "beautiful" to them, so they would have an avid desire to seek out more truth. Being non-judgemental in the way that they were, they would probably be seen as beautiful by others who judge judgement as wrong. They would tend to have positive relations with other humans because they wouldn't try to enforce a moral code upon them, but they would appreciate each individual for who they were in reality. Even though they wouldn't have a list of things that were wrong, they would inevitably end up behaving as if they had a code of conduct. Naturally, their impulses would resonate and conflict with the impulses of others, and with their own overall goals, and they would react naturally in the way that they needed to in order to attain what they desired most.

Spoiler

As for your specific situation, I can see a few holes in the logic of the complex you've described.

First, the complex is contradicting itself. It claims that you need not pursue self improvement, yet when you release yourself from it, it says you are moving backwards toward impulse. Why is that a bad thing? Because moving toward "truth" is an improvement of yourself?..

Second, if you truly weren't counting anything as ugly, or counting other's potential judgement of you as "bad", then there would be no reason to say "I can be as ugly as I want and not feel guilty". This indicates that something inside you probably does feel guilty at some level. I think an actualized view would be more neutral, something like, "I am a system that operates as I do, no matter what judgement others may pass upon me. The very act of their judgement does not offend me, but is an interesting reality."

Third, the desire not to change is equivalent with the desire to change. They both rely on an impetus, they are both psychological mechanisms. Which one you act upon may be irrelevant from an objective point of view, but you are a subjective being (no escaping it ;p). Your complex is deeming your impulse for self improvement as "irrelevant" (which seems like it has a negative connotation). But the truth is, self improvement is relevant to you as the system you are. You may not "need" to change anything about yourself, but if that's something you want to do, then it is unauthentic to your self not to pursue this impetus.

*hands Auburn some good ol' emotional zeal* ^^

 

[Minuend]

My mind is a bit foggy, and in such condition I sometimes miss elements of what I read

The "mindtstate itself" would not consider the mindtstate ideal because there is no right or wrong, no better or worse. If it is be acceptance of all, it would also accept the lack of acceptance of all. Though, if we imagine nothing is better or worse, where is the motivation to strive to accept?

So I'm not entirely sure what's imagined, so this might be missing the mark.

The more I think about it, the less ideal it seems.

It's difficult, because you have to try to simulate how it manifest. Are we talking about certain individuals striving to reach that mindtstate? Are we thinking about raising people into it? Do we envision a species that has taken this to mind?

It becomes problematic in every scenario. The first one because it would obviously clash with every individual exposed to perceived injustice.

If we choose to be observers of acceptance, then we would cease to attempt change, no? With full acceptance, there is no imagined need for growth, change. Stagnation is as neutral as growth. Whether applied to the individual or societies.

If some move into this frame of mind, how do you imagine rules, justice, behavior? Would we still try to regulate development, destructive forces, behavior? Would there be any basis for it?

Again, this depends on from where the mindtstate arises and what conditions we use. If there are a certain few starting to accept, then they will also fully accept their society regardless of injustice or flaws as we know them now.

If one is raised from the start to accept rape, violence, abuse as something part of life to be accepted. It's difficult to predict what would come of it. The human psyche would be something very different than it is now. In some ways it might even be primal. Less frameworks for philosophical thought, perhaps. There is no basis to discuss opinions, because that which we base them on is gone. Discussing building plans, even buildings that collapse after a week are no better or worse than those that don't.

In any situation, I think the idea becomes problematic in relation to individuals who haven't developed a neuron network with sufficient amount of empathy and self control. There would always be those who prayed and used those who would not object. There would be a few wolves herding sheeps to their pleasure. Because why would anyone resist wolves creating dictatorships based on their own desires and whims?

In the face of greater stress; betrayal, abuse, violence- maintaining the mindstate of acceptance becomes something of a dreamy, dis-respective thing. Because how can one look at the greater injustice and claim it is neutral, or even beautiful?

But the truth is, self improvement is relevant to you as the system you are. You may not "need" to change anything about yourself, but if that's something you want to do, then it is unauthentic to your self not to pursue this impetus.

I don't see how this need would arise unless there is some sort of bias that it is positive.

I guess my post is mainly about getting clarification about what you imagine the concept to entail.

I also wrote most of this post before the last posts were posted, so I have only skimmed those so far.

 

[PhoenixRising]

@Minuend

I think I meant the implications of this mindset a little less absolutely and a little more singularly. I don't imagine all of society embracing this sort of mindset, at least not any time very soon. Maybe in a few hundred years when the singularity has provided brain enhancements and an overall more deterministic viewpoint for us ^^

I am not saying that someone in the state of mind described would find it or anything else "ideal". I find it ideal right now, because I'm quite far from embracing the viewpoint entirely. The way I interpret Nietzsche's concept is that someone who had embraced this mindset would not have preconceived concepts of "right" and "wrong", but would in fact still be biased. He describes a bias toward acceptance and love, and against negative judgement. So they would still be human, but they would tend to see things in a neutral light and not be directed away from concepts by preconceived moral biases.

In actuality, I don't believe that a human being is capable of pure objectivity. The nature of the psyche is subjective, our minds build a proxy of reality from our perceptive experience, so there isn't anyone who has a completely unbiased view of reality. Impulses that perpetuate our survival and reflect the specific nature of our psyche are biased by nature. What I am suggesting is a shift in mindset to see things as causally inevitable and not judge them as "right" or "wrong" or expect other's behavior to fit into preconceived expectations. It would generate an unfettered character that would be liable to understand the particulars of a situation and respect it for what it is, rather than become caught up in their expectations or emotional reactions to what is perceived as "wrong".

If we choose to be observers of acceptance, then we would cease to attempt change, no? With full acceptance, there is no imagined need for growth, change. Stagnation is as neutral as growth. Whether applied to the individual or societies.

I think there's a certain degree of this mindset that's practical for humans. This reflects back to Auburn's point as well. Nietzsche indicates a desire for beauty in his concept, so I think it's logical to deduce that desires for things like knowledge, growth and change would exist in this mindset as well.

I'm not entirely sure of the practicality of this mindset in light of the process that occurs in the psyche to manifest the impetus to grow. From my personal experience dabbling with it, I think there is a balance one could achieve to maintain a mechanistic view of things and still find the motivation to grow. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a human being to eradicate all emotional bias and ideals from their psyche. Personally, I don't think this would be preferable, as the psyche needs both of these elements to function in a healthy way.

From a broader perspective, it is an intrinsic part of human nature to pursue growth. This is an impetus that has existed in all cultures in some form throughout time. So, a mindset of acceptance would be to embrace this reality along with the rest of human nature. From this perspective, one could see the act of pursuing growth in a mechanistic manner, but still act upon it nevertheless.

(Sorry I keep editing this.. super tired and keep thinking of points to add XP)

 

[Auburn]

I think I see your view much more clearly now. ^^
If I'm not mistaken you're viewing amor fati as a sort of practical attitude to one's lifestyle? ...as an attitude of emotional disposition and response to situations, and less so a rationally deduced or necessary stance. Indeed, we start running into paradoxes when we try to take purely objective and rational stances when it comes to the psyche. We can't have an objective motivation for the psyche to follow, as 'objective motivation' is an oxymoron.

As far as attitudes toward life go, I think amor fati is among the more beautiful ones. I've often also really admired its opposite; the zealous revolutionary and defier of suppression and injustice [i.e. like Lyra] but its a style not suited to my being.

Spoiler

I think my own fail comes when I try too hard to make my thoughts (and consequently, actions) make logical sense and have a defined, principle based origin. It makes it so if I can't reconcile a principle properly due to a paradox I get stuck, when instead I may just be better off flowing with my body's wisdom. Too much Ji rigidity. c_c

 

[PhoenixRising]

I think I see your view much more clearly now. ^^
If I'm not mistaken you're viewing amor fati as a sort of practical attitude to one's lifestyle? ...as an attitude of emotional disposition and response to situations, and less so a rationally deduced or necessary stance. Indeed, we start running into paradoxes when we try to take purely objective and rational stances when it comes to the psyche. We can't have an objective motivation for the psyche to follow, as 'objective motivation' is an oxymoron.

As far as attitudes toward life go, I think amor fati is among the more beautiful ones. I've often also really admired its opposite; the zealous revolutionary and defier of suppression and injustice [i.e. like Lyra] but its a style not suited to my being.

Spoiler

I think my own fail comes when I try too hard to make my thoughts (and consequently, actions) make logical sense and have a defined, principle based origin. It makes it so if I can't reconcile a principle properly due to a paradox I get stuck, when instead I may just be better off flowing with my body's wisdom. Too much Ji rigidity. c_c

Well, in the the OP I intended to take amor fati in a more literal sense, and hoped to have a more theoretical (if not idealistic) discussion about the philosophy (i.e. in the perfect circumstance, could a human embody the extent of this concept?) But I think the implications of the question of it as a concept within a human being made things go in a literal direction - as in, what degree of this concept is practical in a real-life scenario.

In a practical sense, I do view amor fati as a possible approach to one's worldview. I, too, find this philosophy particularly beautiful. But unfortunately you're right, objective motivations don't exist for us humans. So if one were to apply this philosophy to their outlook, it would have to be a version that compromised with human subjectivity.

Spoiler

Good for you attempting to embrace the concept in full though! I think that it is quite possible to have one's worldview derive from rational axioms, but it's important not to take concepts to an unrealistic extreme. Where Ti would have the world in black and white, I've found it usually takes shades of gray.

To be honest, I was inspired to write this post because I have begun to see the attitude in question develop in myself as a natural result of my current line of thought (which is why I mentioned it as a developmental occurrence). I was contemplating whether or not it might be possible to embrace the extent of the philosophy, but realized that this was unlikely =(