To Philosophize with a Hammer or with Wine?
Let me elaborate. The first part of the title is inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer” and the second part by how ancient Greek and Roman philosophy being the very foundation of philosophy.
The question I’m posing here is: Do we adapt Nietzsche’s approach of tearing down everything previously established in favor of the new or do we keep closer to the ancient Greek and Roman schools of thought that established what we now know as philosophy?
Let’s first take a look at Nietzsche. He was quite the revolutionary in a sense that he sought out to abolish most of the pre-established traditions and norms in favor of new ones. He argued that new schools of thought cannot be established without destroying or at the very least majorly transforming the old ones.
If we cast our gaze into philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome, it’s obvious that everything we know about philosophy today is due to learning and sticking to those ancient principles.
And here’s where we get into a little conflict. While Nietzsche does seek to somewhat ‘rebel’ and abolish the established morals and philosophy in favor of new ones, he does admire the ancient Greeks. While at the same time criticizing the ancient Greeks.
Of course, Greek philosophy and principles weren’t the leading ones in Nietzsche’s time, but nonetheless I think an argument could be made that Nietzsche contradicts himself a bit in trying to depose the Christian tradition in his time, since he himself is guided by ancient philosophical tradition (in a way).
Here we can see how these seemingly opposite ways of approaching philosophy collide. Which once again highlights the nuance of figuring out human existence.
Now that I’ve presented the two ways of philosophizing. Is there truly an answer to the title question? And as most things in life that answer is evasive and it lies somewhere in balance and nuance.
As much as I love philosophy and nuanced thought, I can’t help but think: What if we had to choose only one?
To abolish the established and make the new or to accept the old as the correct? To philosophize with a hammer or with wine?
Personally, if I had been presented with this choice, I think I’d rather choose to always abolish the old and make the new. The reason being that change is always better than stagnation.
What would you choose if you had been presented with this ultimatum?
