I'd say childhood trauma is more something that distorts the emotions, causing changes to personality that are difficult to trace and to resolve. The individual's decision to act in one way or another based on their trauma narrative is secondary. I agree, and it's a widely held view, FKN is a far better psychologist than he is a philosopher. His eternal recurrence is almost cosmology. And when he says things like, 'there's no such thing as cause and effect, only events...' you might choke on your soup! Of course' he's right when he says that, but it doesn't get us anywhere philosophically.
I'd venture to say everyone has some amount of trauma in early childhood, if only because our development takes place in a fully-formed and complex world. The trauma that happens a little later, when we are moving out of infancy into youth and beyond has to be more concrete. Samuel Beckett, 'every day deforms and is forgotten' is another gem!
I don't believe his eternal recurrence has anything to do with cosmology. It's just a neat mental tool to put your actions into perspective, is all. And I'm personally certainly of the stance that I don't care about philosophy as an abstract subject (as to your "it doesn't get us anywhere philosophically"): I don't seek breakthroughs in sophistry, I seek practical advice. And FN is good at that, especially in The Gay Science.
For similar reasons I don't like the trauma discourse. Because it is just that, a discourse. Vague upon vague: what is it, when can we tell it happened, when can we tell you're cured? Is it really a trauma, i.e. the consequence of something from the outside damaging you, or was it just your own immature response to a fairly ordinary thing? Anyway, my prolem is, that this discourse validates too many emotions/reactions/behaviours that shouldn't be validated, not in the least because that validation hinders the person that shows them in the first place.
I'd say childhood trauma is more something that distorts the emotions, causing changes to personality that are difficult to trace and to resolve. The individual's decision to act in one way or another based on their trauma narrative is secondary. I agree, and it's a widely held view, FKN is a far better psychologist than he is a philosopher. His eternal recurrence is almost cosmology. And when he says things like, 'there's no such thing as cause and effect, only events...' you might choke on your soup! Of course' he's right when he says that, but it doesn't get us anywhere philosophically.
I'd venture to say everyone has some amount of trauma in early childhood, if only because our development takes place in a fully-formed and complex world. The trauma that happens a little later, when we are moving out of infancy into youth and beyond has to be more concrete. Samuel Beckett, 'every day deforms and is forgotten' is another gem!
Well done for caring!
I don't believe his eternal recurrence has anything to do with cosmology. It's just a neat mental tool to put your actions into perspective, is all. And I'm personally certainly of the stance that I don't care about philosophy as an abstract subject (as to your "it doesn't get us anywhere philosophically"): I don't seek breakthroughs in sophistry, I seek practical advice. And FN is good at that, especially in The Gay Science.
For similar reasons I don't like the trauma discourse. Because it is just that, a discourse. Vague upon vague: what is it, when can we tell it happened, when can we tell you're cured? Is it really a trauma, i.e. the consequence of something from the outside damaging you, or was it just your own immature response to a fairly ordinary thing? Anyway, my prolem is, that this discourse validates too many emotions/reactions/behaviours that shouldn't be validated, not in the least because that validation hinders the person that shows them in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzp7iCaWNvE