ExXception Draft

Wrote this a while ago.
—————————————————————————
“On January 3, 1889, Nietzsche suffered a collapse which seems to have triggered a psychotic break. Two policemen approached him after he caused a public disturbance in the streets of Turin. What actually happened remains unknown, but the often-repeated tale states that Nietzsche witnessed the whipping of a horse at the other end of the Piazza Carlo Alberto, ran to the horse, threw his arms up around the horse’s neck to protect it, and collapsed to the ground.” – This was taken from the Wikipedia page on Friedrich Nietzsche… Now, I have heard a version of this story where it was told that when Nietzsche went up to the horse to protect it, he said to the horse, “Plato did this to you.” At least, that is my rememberance. Can anyone corroborate this story? I mean if you were there or are Nietzsche reincarnated or something. There seems to be some discussion about what actually was whispered. I was thinking about what could have driven Nietzsche mad… If in fact he did whisper ‘Plato did this to you’… he could have been speaking of the dichotomy between Plato and Aristotle where Plato sees things from the Universal to the Everyday – his idea of ‘the Forms’ as heavenly and detached from everyday life… and then Aristotles ideas of everyday life objects and universals both informing our senses… as is stated also on Aristotle’s wiki page: Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle’s philosophy aims at the universal. Aristotle, however, found the universal in particular things, which he called the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar. For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal Forms (or ideas) to a contemplation of particular imitations of these. For Aristotle, “form” still refers to the unconditional basis of phenomena but is “instantiated” in a particular substance (see Universals and particulars, below). In a certain sense, Aristotle’s method is both inductive and deductive, while Plato’s is essentially deductive from a priori principles.[14]

There is certainly a difference of thinking in Aristotle’s point of view that could detach one from the major thinking of the majority of mankind today, and I believe this is where most insanity comes from, from taking this other option of thought… the deductive and inductive of personal experience, regarding metaphysics of substance… per meaning…
Wiki again:
Today’s philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the scientific method. In contrast, Aristotle’s philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.
“In the larger sense of the word, Aristotle makes philosophy coextensive with reasoning, which he also would describe as “science”. Note, however, that his use of the term science carries a different meaning than that covered by the term “scientific method”. For Aristotle, “all science (dianoia) is either practical, poetical or theoretical” (Metaphysics 1025b25). By practical science, he means ethics and politics; by poetical science, he means the study of poetry and the other fine arts; by theoretical science, he means physics, mathematics and metaphysics.”
That word ‘dianoia’… sounds like a similar word, with different prefix, to ‘paranoia’, does it not?
Hmm…
Perhaps… something is missing from a strictly, (to coin a phrase), “Platonic” relationship with the world, or “reality”. (I don’t usually employ or like to employ the word reality, because it makes one conscious of oneself as agent of production against the real, thus… etc.)
Anyway, this is just something I have been thinking on.
If you see someone beating a horse, or hitting their child at a supermarket, just maybe wonder a little bit, if they weren’t a little more dejective about exactly how they were supposed to behave in the supermarket, or maybe even just a little less cocksure that forcing a child to sit through going up and down aisle after aisle of smiling packages of consumer faced products…
But then where does one stand… ?
Perhaps… we should look to causes…
According to Aristotle: * The material cause is that from which a thing comes into existence as from its part, constituents, substratum or materials. This reduces the explanation of causes to the parts (factors, elements, constituents, ingredients) forming the whole (system, structure, compound, complex, composite, or combination), a relationship known as the part-whole causation. Simply put it is the influence of the material substances on the event. So imagine two dominos, the first of which is lighter. The first is knocked over into the second but does not have enough power to knock it over, this is Material cause. * The formal cause tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis or archetype. It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (i.e., macrostructure) is the cause of its parts, a relationship known as the whole-part causation. Plainly put it is the influence of the form (essence) of the things on the event. So take the two dominos again except this time the second is shaped to prevent it from falling *eg. triangular.* this is formal cause. * The efficient cause is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies ‘what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed’ and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause and effect, this covers the modern definitions of “cause” as either the agent or agency or particular events or states of affairs. More simply again that which immediately sets the thing in motion. So take the two dominos this time of equal weighting, the first is knocked over causing the second also to fall over. This is effectively efficient cause. * The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, all that gives purpose to behavior.
the science of passions?
or the magic of wanting what one knows?

I had a dream a few years ago, after months of reading many philosophers… Well, I had neglected to read Aristotle as of then… And in this dream I had the most pleasant walk through the world I could have ever imagined… And I knew in the dream it was because I knew Aristotle at heart… And myself, at mind…
As Mulder says in an episode of the X-Files… “dreams are often answers to questions we haven’t yet learned how to ask.”
I’m just saying…
One day a long while back when I was having a bad time for a long time I wrote on my wall… Believing in the world of the X-Files is more important than knowledge. This was without having seen every episode. I still haven’t seen the full series. But some systems I am keen to live within. Peachy keen.