The “problem-solution” thinking and the “you can you up” logic

(translated from my Chinese blog)

This is my new project, “Nietzschean Philology”. In each installment, I’ll read a passage from Nietzsche’s original writings. By practicing text analysis, we can enhance our ability to understand the world.

The reading of "We Philologists" continues. From Section 17 onwards, Nietzsche begins to discuss the should-be issues of philologists. Section 18 directly addresses this issue and proposes two topics: "gratitude" and "praise." However, underlying these two topics is Nietzsche's sharp criticism of the “problem-solution” thinking and the “you can you up” logic. *

Busying ourselves with the culture-epochs of the past: is this gratitude? We should look backwards in order to explain to ourselves the present conditions of culture: we do not become too laudatory in regard to our own circumstances, but perhaps we should do so in order that we may not be too severe on ourselves. 

"We Philologists" 18, Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by J. M. Kennedy 

The 17th section is a significant turning point: sections 14-16 are all critical of the philologists, while the 17th section criticizes the philologists and seems to propose Nietzsche's solution (“slow reading”). The 18th section continues the discussion of the should-be, outlining what "we" philologists should do in the field of philology.

This section introduces two new topics: gratitude and praise. However, before delving into these, I would like to address a preliminary issue that has been mentioned earlier. Specifically, is it necessary for philosophers to propose solutions alongside their questions? Additionally, should we take philosophers' solutions seriously, such as by implementing them and then judging the philosophers' competence based on the outcomes of these implementations?

How would Nietzsche answer to this question? He said that those born philologists could see the echoes of their current predicaments in history, so he would likely agree that philosophers are better at asking questions. But when it comes to solutions, Nietzsche's position is much more complex. In Section 6, Nietzsche hinted that the genius individual should exploit the masses in a manner akin to provocation ("they [the exceptional ones] need many helpers"), so Nietzsche is opposing the traditional "problem-solution" structure. The philosopher's question itself is an intervention in reality; if he presents something to the masses that appears to be a solution, it is actually not a solution but an action in itself, provoking, enticing, and eliciting a response from people. Any response is better than none.

The traditional critical structure of "problem-solution" implies an assumption that everyone is at least potentially equal in all abilities, but the reality is clearly not so. For instance, when I translate Nietzsche's words, "ninety-nine out of a hundred language teachers should not become language teachers," the most typical reaction in the comments section is the typical "you can you up." If 99% of language teachers are not suitable to be language teachers, who should be? What is your solution? What qualifications do you have to criticize language teachers? But has anyone ever thought about it, if these ninety-nine language teachers should not have become language teachers, what should their lives have become? It is of course possible that if they are not suitable to be language teachers, they can excel in other professions, but people seem to default that once someone has become a language teacher, they cannot and should not change careers. Moreover, any criticism pointing out their unsuitability is seen as malicious attacks on language teachers. If the qualification to criticize can only come from professional experience and the solutions it brings, then experts can easily set an unreachable threshold for critics, making everyone shut up. This is the hooligan logic of "you can you up."

Nietzsche's writings are highly provocative, and he does not intend to provide any "solutions," as reality changes with every intervention by the philosopher. Everything is "occasional," and there can be no meticulous planning. Therefore, even if a solution is provided, if it ultimately backfires, it does not mean that the philosopher or critic is incompetent. It is likely that it is precisely the criticism that makes the solution ineffective, as people's value coordinates are shaken. Those who belittle Nietzsche because he did not provide a solution or because his words are too harsh do not truly understand the logic of reality: when Nietzsche's writings caused great controversy, reality was rewritten. As for those uncontroversial correct words, they cannot stir up a single ripple on the surface of reality, so they are worthless. (Unless you believe that people do not need to live towards the future, that people can find a static form of life that solves everything once and for all, thus questioning all changes.)

Nietzsche's discussion in this section on praise is also related to the controversy of the "problem-solution" mentioned above. His point is that people will "stand on the sidelines" and sing praises uncritically only when they are not personally involved. Once it becomes a matter of personal interest, no one will sing praises without complaint. Everyone is dissatisfied with their own life, which is human nature. Men are inherently unable to be satisfied with their current state. Therefore, demanding that critics "you can you up" is unreasonable, unless the person being criticized is willing to completely abandon their position in life. For example, if I am in my position, only I am fully "involved" and take full responsibility for it. If someone criticizes me now, they are criticizing me for not performing well in my position. If I were to retort with "you can you up," wouldn't that be equivalent to saying, "Here, I'll step aside, you take my place, you control my life"? Has the person who says "you can you up" ever considered this? Since none of us can replace others' positions, and since we must live in an interactive world ("man is a political animal"), criticism is a mode of interaction among us. Rejecting criticism is rejecting interaction, and rejecting interaction is rejecting living together.

Everyone has complaints about their own life. However, Nietzsche also opposed the state of life filled with complaints about oneself, saying that we should perhaps praise our own life instead of looking at everything with a grudge. Nietzsche was most wary of the puritanical serious attitude, believing that in order to loosen the overly tense life we live, to innovate and transform our lives, we need a spirit of playfulness and frivolity more. Innovation is all about play.

The serious attitude corresponds to the engineering-like "problem-solution" thinking. Playing always breaks established rules and creates new ones, causing the previous structure to weaken -- this is of course the point that the Chinese most fear, because we are too fond of stability and order, to the extent that once an order is formed, even if life gradually becomes unbearable, most of us would rather maintain the status quo than seek new changes. We even maintain order by complaining, satisfying ourselves with complaints, getting pleasure from complaints, and telling ourselves that action and change are impossible. Nietzsche particularly despises this way of life. In his eyes, every step of life should shake reality.

The same logic extends to the issue of "gratitude." Philologists praise and embellish the ancients because they do not face the survival dilemmas of ancient peoples directly. They can comfortably enjoy the safety and convenience of the modern world, observing the feats of the ancients from afar and fawning over them with ease, taking pleasure in it. However, in doing so, philologists avoid their own existential questions, avoid the issues of their own times, and avoid their responsibilities as modern individuals.

"Is this gratitude?" – Towards whom?

Towards life. Life gives everyone the possibility to start anew, but philologists hold their life lottery tickets and turn to the ancient, even abandoning the chance to redeem it.

It could also be towards the ancients. If you have seen how the ancients opened up completely new paths in such harsh conditions ("dao," which is a way of life, how a person should live their life), and you haven't learned the courage to face life and the wisdom to open up paths from it, wouldn't you be a failure as a philologist? Wouldn't you be ashamed facing the ancient sages you have studied?

* The "you can you up" (你行你上) is a typical Chinglish online expression, meaning "If you're so capable, why don't you do it yourself?"