'We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge - and with good reason.
For we have never sought to stick our tails in our mouths.'
I.
I've heard it said that self-reflection is crucial for personal growth and that personal growth is vital for enhancing self-awareness, thus creating a kind of positive psychological loop, which, for those content to sit with their tails in their mouths [1], is all fine and dandy.
It is not, however, something that appeals to those of a Nietzschean bent who think more in terms of radical self-overcoming rather than bourgeois self-improvement and celebrate innocence and forgetfulness rather than indulge in narcissistic rumination.
Clearly, there are a lot of terms to unpack here. But, without wishing to turn what was intended to be a bright and breezy post into a lengthy psychology lecture, let me offer some clarification ...
II.
By self-overcoming (Selbstüberwindung), Nietzsche refers to a process via which an individual (or a people)
might abandon what they are and enter into what Deleuze and Guattari
describe as a becoming-other (devenir-autre), thereby
distilling Nietzsche's psychological insights into a more radical
ontological concept. This is not a one-time event, but a constant
process or unfolding that aims for a new way of thinking and feeling, rather than a development of the same.
Ultimately, of course, if you subscribe to a philosophy of
difference, there is no originary or essential self to overcome in the
traditional sense; instead, there is only a site where different forces
(active or reactive) interact and becoming is the process by which these
forces shift and mutate, breaking away from static identities and fixed
categories.
III.
When Nietzsche writes in Zarathustra of innocence and forgetfulness - I think he uses the German terms Unschuld and Vergessen - he refers to the childlike state reached when an individual has fully
stylised an ethical model of self beyond good and evil (i.e., fixed
moral values).
Innocence, as used here, is not a form of naivety or ignorance, but
rather the ability to affirm life as is (what he terms an economy of the whole),
without qualification. Forgetfulness, meanwhile, acts
as a necessary (and active) capacity to absorb past experiences and not
be weighed down by personal history or the spirit of gravity; to be
free of ressentiment.
When working in conjunction, innocence and
forgetfulness allows, if you like, for a fresh start and to make an
affirmation of life that is both joyful and playful.
IV.
By narcissistic rumination I refer to an obsessive thought-cycle that locks the subject into a fixed state of neurosis and ultimately results in paralysis by analysis [2]. Narcissistic ruminators are thus those unfortunate individuals
who spend a great deal of time and energy attempting to make sense of
chaos; i.e., to find patterns or structures of meaning to which they are
central. They love asking: Why me? [3]
Such individuals also love,
à la Miss Haversham, recycling old conversations so that
they might finally get others to admit their logical inconsistency and
take ownership of their moral failings (there's nothing narcissistic ruminators enjoy more
than making others feel miserable about themselves).
V.
And finally, re the idea that self-reflection can be dangerous - can lead to paralysis by analysis -
let me admit that this needn't always be the case and that there are, I
suppose, benefits to be had from knowing something about the self (even
if it's only that the self is a convenient fiction rooted in grammar).
However, it can become detrimental to wellbeing when the would-be self-knower falls into the
black hole of narcissistic rumination; i.e., when they swallow their own tail and dwell on toxic negativity;
when they become so obsessed on evaluating past events and collecting
grievances that they become unable to act (or even smile) in the
present.
VI.
In sum: Nietzscheans never ask why and rarely ruminate; they leave that to those who seek that highly suspect type of self-knowledge dreamed of by Platonists, Christians, Jungians, and other idealistic herd animals [4].
Notes
[1] See D. H. Lawrence, 'Him With His Tail in His Mouth', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Esssays, ed. Michael Herbert (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 307-317.
In this short essay, written in 1925, Lawrence humorously attacks closed, self-referential styles of thinking and the obsession with interiority. With reference to the figure of the ouroboros, he also challenges the idea that the end is one with the beginning (i.e., that infinity is some kind of perfect cycle).
[2] Hamlet, of course, is the poster child for this idea of paralysis by analysis; a man whose 'powers of action have been eaten up by thought', as Hazlitt says in his landmark study Characters in Shakespeare's Plays (1817).
[3] See the recent post 'Why Me Contra So What' (6 Feb 2026): click here.
Referring once more to literature, then Melville's Captain Ahab might be said to be the ultimate narcissistic ruminator. For he cannot view the loss of his leg as a random, natural event. Instead, he anthropomorphises the great white whale, convinced it acted with inscrutable malice specifically against him. He spends his life ruminating on this personal grievance, making himself the tragic centre of a cosmic drama.
[4] Before I'm accused of being reductive by grouping Platonists, Christians, and Jungians together in this manner, let me indicate my awareness of the fact that these traditions have different understandings of the self and of what constitutes knowledge of the self, and different reasons for wanting to attain such knowledge.
However, all three traditions, it seems to me, consider the unexamined life to be a very bad thing - devoid of value, meaning, purpose, etc. - and each tradition suggests that failure to know the self will have negative consequences. I'm not adopting Thomas Gray's position here - ignorace is bliss - but I do think that innocence and forgetfulness, as discussed above, can make happy and free (inasmuch as anything can ever make us happy and free).

I
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, this might be all coolly plausible within the contours of the writer's rhetorical bubble - assuming one is content to sacrifice one's complex selfhood on some kind of cultish and self-servingly curated Nietzschean altar. However, the caricaturing and writing-off of entire traditions on the grounds, apparently, of their supposed slavishness – when so much of the post is itself premised on the crudest (adverse) idealisations – turns the speck in the writer’s eye into a black hole.
A few newsflashes:
1. Forgetting can be repression.
2. Innocence can be faux naivete/denial.
3. Non-rumination can be avoidance.
Self-reflection is, of course, the very sine qua non of personal evolution. A considerable degree of discernment and self-awareness/reflection is and was a necessary condition of self-overcoming, supposing it is even possible - including for Nietzsche himself. The concept of 'Selbstüberwindung' (a term which derives from the Old German 'wintan' = to turn/twist) highlights its agonistic content. Even though, as Hillman makes clear, there are rocks in the psyche and the personality is not a merely plastic structure, it makes no sense unless it is rooted in an awareness of one’s drive(r)s, reactive patterns, and what can/must be metabolised and revisioned in the self. By contrast, self-overcoming without reflection leads readily to arbitrary sovereignty or aesthetic grandstanding.
It lowers the currency of supposedly philosophically informed writing when this is displaced by defining your opponent as pathologically inferior, then congratulating yourself for opposing them. The irony of the writer trying to lean into some kind of anti-psychological posturing while precisely making (crude) use of typological concepts is yet another case of TTA wanting to have its cake and eat it. The writer doesn't seem to understand (or, one suspects, cannot bear to accept) that we and our texts all have an unconscious (blind spots, blockages, propensity to project), which is why we need, among other things, contact with our dreams, the scrutiny of intelligent friends/critics, continuous self-observation, and often a good analyst to deal with the manifold ways we can lie to ourselves. A good test of the nobility of an individual is their capacity to admit they're wrong, to acknowledge learning, and to be at least somewhat perturbed by conversation and extenral challenge. Unfortunately, a personally curated and self-serving Nietzscheanism, tinged with a tendency toward intellectual fascism and writerly authoritarianism, isn't very conducive to same.
The parody of Jungian individuation (the clue's in the word),. which is precisely about making an individual relation to all that transcends us, is especially poor. In fact, the word ‘Jungian’ betrays an ignorance of Jung’s own protest that there was no such thing, echoing Nietzsche’s statement that there was only one Christian and he died on the cross. True ‘Jungians’ are authentic individuals, always relating themselves in a personal way to those archetypal and transpersonal containers that ensoul (and sometimes ensnare) us all.
You make some reasonable points ...
DeleteBut, ultimately, we are playing by different rules and whereas I'm writing from a superficial perspective that posits the self as a convenient fiction, you're responding from the deepest depths of depth psychology where the self is 'complex reality'.
Thus on this - and a good many other topics - there's not likely to be much agreement. Still, you'll recall what Nietzsche said; free spirits never agree on anything, least of all the comfort of a common truth.
For one who supposedly 'posits the self as a convenient fiction', there's an impressive amount of highly asserted (and indeed characteristically authoritarian) I-/ego-statements on TTA, Stephen! (Go figure, I guess!)
DeleteII
ReplyDeleteNietzsche repeatedly of course describes himself as a psychologist and called psychology, among other epithets, the ‘queen of the sciences’ (and not in the Elton John sense) - in a way that resonates fascinatingly with Jung's 'Tiefpsychologie' - that needs to think itself to the depths. In his writing, he is obsessively analytical, relentlessly genealogical, and constantly interrogating motives, drives, and affects, as well as his own nature. He speaks of philosophical systems as the personal confessions of their authors because he knows there is no impersonal philosophical objectivity/science, or anything else; and, I would argue, already understands that philosophy is inseparable from psychology, writing as he was at a time when the former was at the outset of becoming more and more absorbed by the latter (while also trying to recuperate it in, later on, e.g. Wittgenstein's philosophical psychology). Nietzsche’s acute psychic vulnerability further inspired Jung's momentous reading of his literary event, in the wake of which the likes of Paul-Laurent Assoun, Deleuze, and Foucault - not forgetting the fascinating figure of Lou Andreas-Salome - are among those who have read Nietzsche and Freud as on a vital continuum. At the same time, Nietzsche was, in some ways, a still prototypical and rudimentary (as well as ruminatory) midwife of the psyche, given, in large part, that he was writing before the discoveries of psychoanalysis. He evidently had little understanding, for example, of the need to metabolise conflict, pain, and trauma - something which has since been amplified in the psychological literature in regard to the concept of transgenerational trauma. (This is actually very topical this week, given the fascist monster Trump's scandalously self-serving promotion of the idea that the US should move on from the Epstein files - and fuck (literally) the victims! As the BBC is rightly countering, 'time does not erase harm'.) For all these reasons, the writer's smug and risibly over-stated line that ‘Nietzscheans never ask why’ is completely untrue to Nietzsche's thoroughgoingly forensic method.
III
ReplyDeleteA note on Hamlet. First, he is of course a dramatic character, not a real person, and as such primarily a vehicle for Shakespeare’s poetic art rather than a flesh and blood case study. If the idea that his is a performance of action paralysed by soliloquising introspection is by now rather well-worn, it is also untrue to his drama. (If he were merely a ruminative narcissist, we would hardly have been suffering with his countless incarnations on stage for over 400 years.) In fact, the Black Prince ultimately exerts lethal retribution against the murderer Claudius, brings about the death of his conspiring mother, and is thereby avenged for the regicide. On this basis, therefore, he is better received as a figure of nobly/poetically deferred action (in fact, in the play, when Hamlet is impulsive, an innocent man, Polonius, is murdered), whose intellect and sensitivity furnish him with a depth that sees into the drama of life and death with such protracted pathos and self-awareness that Bloom perceived him as marking the beginning of the modern, self-reflexive subject.
In conclusion, what we see here, and it's sad to see, is philosophical disagreement overtaken by crude character cod-diagnosis, broad-brush caricature, and collapsed critical distinctions, all caught up in a net of airy authoritarianism. By pathologising dissenters, one thinks again of the White House calling US citizen-protesters 'agitators' and 'lunatics' etc. Affecting to dissolve the subject means you can hardly scold and insult it. The self-legislated freedom of 'belle indifference' is not worth having unless one is happy to disappear into a solipsistic bubble. However, the irony of writing a resentfully ruminative post contra rumination seems to be lost on the blogger. It's also strange for him to keep telling us how much he loves to smile and make happy, given his relentlessly impressive photographic career made out of never smiling! In any event, it's not a post that exactly makes me grin.
Finished?
DeleteWow! Says it all, really. (The clue's in the phrase 'In conclusion', by the way.)
DeleteNot 'thanks for the time you took to respond to my writing', or 'you've given me one or two things to consider'. It reminds me of Davros addressing the scientists in Dr Who's 'Genesis of the Daleks' actually.
It's not about conversation, very clearly.
I think it would be more true to the spirit of TTA, right now, to just go ahead and remove your comments section.
I leave it for other readers to consider, but 'finished?', I think, makes it clear TTA is not a forum for cumulative (or even continuous) conversation - the expectation of which probably means I am written off as merely weighed down by Nietzschean resentment.
ReplyDelete'Such individuals also love, à la Miss Haversham, recycling old conversations so that they might finally get others to admit their logical inconsistency and take ownership of their moral failings (there's nothing narcissistic ruminators enjoy more than making others feel miserable about themselves).'
To which, it might be responded, there's nothing true narcissists do better than run away from themselves, refuse both their own continuities and contradictions, and above all not look at themselves honestly in the mirror - and damn the effects on others! They can be as exceptional as they choose, but just don't you do the same!
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteTTA is many things, but it's not a forum for emotionally wounded individuals (no matter how 'exceptional') to simply vent their narcissistic rage, recycle old conversations in an attempt to gain closure, nor mount some kind of tedious (if sophisticated) ego-defence.
I'm sorry if you feel unheard or slighted in some manner, but would suggest that trying to assume the moral high ground from which to project anger and anxiety is not the best way to regain a sense of power and self-worth.
Kind regards,
SA
Thanks for that gesture toward performative grandstanding, tinged with characteristic condescension.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy for you that you don't feel/regard yourself as wounded. Or narcissistic. Or egotistical. Or raging. Or in any way implicated in real conversations in which you have participated or been recognised, which happened to occur in an arena you quaintly call the past, but which are as real as anything in the present.
Living in such a bubble of inhuman, atemporal, evasive and self-seductive 'freedom' must be somehow consoling, I imagine, but it's hardly conducive to the cultivation of conversation, complexity, criticality, self-reflection, let alone friendship, or respect, which clearly is no part of your goal as a (supposedly philosophical) author.
As for closure, I think it is fairly clear that this is precisely what you seek to achieve by posts like this, propelled by your manifest allergy to keeping open conversations that clearly trouble you open. Try to recognise that the boot is actually on the other foot here - if that's not too truthful!
So much for cumulative conversation, but good luck with turning it into a bad version of Guernica!
God save the King!
What a shame!
Your style (and tone) of writing reminds me very much of that belonging to the Irish poet, playwright, editor, translator and tutor, Simon Solomon - someone who has frequently commented here.
DeleteWhilst respecting your right to anonymity, I can't help wondering if you are in someway related ...?