"And if you look long enough into an abyss, the abyss will look at you." Nietzsche
I still do not know what he meant (precisely) to say by this, one can assume that he often leaves a freedom of interpretation of his texts, I personally do not adhere to this form of writing when it comes to philosophy.
There are many opinions. When you are an author, who gives advice in addition, it seems to me better to be precise. I am used to this kind of reading.
I believe the additional context, that is often not included in quotes, helps a bit here.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster"
Essentially, the 2nd phrase is emphasizing the prior, in that whatever you focus your attention on often results in you being captured by that same thing. We sometimes become the things we fear. Something of the abyss has now become part of us.
It could also be described as the type of thinking where the ends justify the means. When you do evil actions to destroy some evil. The fear of that evil changed you until you were willing to become evil to combat it.
Thank you for this clarification, I had also thought about that. But as I discovered a lot of contradictions in his works, following or not, the possibilities of interpretations by lack of precision, voluntary or not, I could not be certain.
He is not the only one to use this scheme, it leaves the door open to interpretations some times erroneous, such as the acceptance of what happens to us without remedying it, which I absolutely do not share. I am for action if need be to counter evil, only as you have well expressed it without using evil. His writings do not always enlighten those who do not look for other available options on their own, thus allowing the situation to worsen.
Exchanges and debates on this subject are often lacking.
"And if you look long enough into an abyss, the abyss will look at you." Nietzsche
I still do not know what he meant (precisely) to say by this, one can assume that he often leaves a freedom of interpretation of his texts, I personally do not adhere to this form of writing when it comes to philosophy.
There are many opinions. When you are an author, who gives advice in addition, it seems to me better to be precise. I am used to this kind of reading.
Good post too, I fully share the "If I was..."
I believe the additional context, that is often not included in quotes, helps a bit here.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster"
Essentially, the 2nd phrase is emphasizing the prior, in that whatever you focus your attention on often results in you being captured by that same thing. We sometimes become the things we fear. Something of the abyss has now become part of us.
It could also be described as the type of thinking where the ends justify the means. When you do evil actions to destroy some evil. The fear of that evil changed you until you were willing to become evil to combat it.
A similar concept was also captured nicely by Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734664/
Thank you for this clarification, I had also thought about that. But as I discovered a lot of contradictions in his works, following or not, the possibilities of interpretations by lack of precision, voluntary or not, I could not be certain.
He is not the only one to use this scheme, it leaves the door open to interpretations some times erroneous, such as the acceptance of what happens to us without remedying it, which I absolutely do not share. I am for action if need be to counter evil, only as you have well expressed it without using evil. His writings do not always enlighten those who do not look for other available options on their own, thus allowing the situation to worsen.
Exchanges and debates on this subject are often lacking.
Your texts are always beautiful and relevant.
I will look at your link.
Thank you!