Amor Fati

Nietzsche, Krishna, and Marcus Aurelius walk into a bar... The bartender? He would grow up one day to become FatPat.

One of the big debates on the right, outside of the Christosphere (sometimes including), is the argument of “Nietzsche vs. Plato” or “Nietzsche vs. Traditionalists” or “Nietzsche vs. Dharma” or something along these lines. Throughout this, I have noticed that there is a surprising amount which actually ends up in common between these groups, mainly the means they use for their end. In fact, the primary difference seems to be wound up in the idea that one can either achieve reunion with the Godhead or simply the vanquishing of the self. Some people think this is both possible and desirable. Others think it is not possible, but would be desirable. And others think it is neither possible nor desirable, and that provisional reality is an inevitability which should be embraced.

This doesn’t really have anything to do with cosmology, in my opinion. Compare, for instance, the Buddha versus Heraclitus. Buddhism and Heraclitanism are both constructed on the premise that there is no ultimate reality, that everything is provisional. Any ultimate substance must be “empty”. Things only exist with respect to other things, basically. However, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to self-disintegrate, to escape suffering by escaping existence. Heraclitus, on the other hand, considers strife an inescapable and intrinsic part of existence. The reason the root cosmology isn’t important is because whether or not you believe in a 1st principle or a 0th principle, things after that axiom can go many ways and sometimes intersect.

Anyways, throughout witnessing people fight back and fourth about this, I think I have seen somewhat of a common thread which the two sides regularly share. That is, “amor fati”. Or, love of fate. Maybe it is naive of me. But, the Nietzschean-Heraclitan praxis of accepting the joy and hardship of the world as necessary and ultimately good and just, ends up operating similarly to the Stoic and Karmic praxes of acting without attachment for the results of their actions. Perhaps you cannot call this “love” of fate, but nobody actually loves when bad things happen to them, but it is a rejection of hating fate. Most importantly, they encourage action rather than asceticism. I wouldn’t say Stoicism and Karma Yoga are anti-ascetic per se, but it is certainly an encouragement of its adherents acting within the world rather than trying to achieve liberation through inaction.

I would recommend reading the Bhagavad Gita if you want to understand what exactly is meant by attachment. Importantly, acting without attachment doesn’t just mean acting for a reward. It also means not rejecting the fruits of your labor. It just shouldn’t be your motivation. Achieving this outcome, basically, should not be attached to your very being. It’s just a natural byproduct. This is always the problem I have had with ascetic compassion, it’s clearly motivated. It’s actually quite passionate. Compassion I think, can only be attempted through acting by your nature. Becoming a vessel of fate. Arjuna’s nature was to fight. He is a warrior and he has to fight. A warrior becoming an ascetic and not hurting a fly is shirking his duty in this world, which is motivated activity not indicative of detachment. I think this is somewhat similar to the Zoroastrian argument against asceticism.

This is functionally pretty similar to the “life-affirming” mantras around Nietzsche et al., even if the motivations are radically different. Both hedge negative outcomes as undesirable, but unable to instigate some sort of existential crisis. Ultimately, even though I myself am an Idealist and a pantheist, I gravitate more towards life affirmation as an end and not just a means to some sort of henosis or self-destruction. To me, it is the nature of the Godhead to self-differentiate, and so even though there is this ultimate substance it is its nature to qualify itself. There is no reason to believe that one can will themselves out of Samsara, and since we are born into this world then there is no reason to think that there is something improper about being born into this world... Some will argue that it’s the work of an evil “demiurge”… But we love the demiurge here! I ought to explain some of my views on Soteriology another time. And the demiurge. And Idealism. Really just something on my cosmological beliefs. This is just a short one.