The Nietzschean Odyssey: Beyond Good and Evil
...Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. But to understand why this can only be a philosophy of the future, we must know how things are with the present (and, to help understand this, the past). This is Nietzsche's task here, to give a diagnosis of the "present state of things" as of 1886 Europe. The diagnosis, needless to say since we've gotten this far in Nietzsche's work, is not good.
Nietzsche starts with a review of the current problems of philosophers (really, the problems of philosophers in general). For Nietzsche it essentially boils down to a lack of honesty. A philosophers' claim to be aiming for the "objective" is laughable. Every one has his own goals he intends to validate through a nice system backed up by "philosophy". When it doesn't quite work out some special provision or fix is made (see Immanuel Kant). Now this in itself isn't immoral, it isn't even really bad (this is merely the will to power in action, as each of us wants to impose his own vision onto the world around him or her). What is irritating for Nietzsche is that these philosophers go parading around as if they've found ultimate truth, only to find themselves refuted by everyone a week after death (if not during their lives).
Philosophy, then, is being used wrongly, that much we can see. But just what is the philosopher supposed to do according to Nietzsche? This it seems to me is perhaps the tying theme in this rather diverse work. In Zarathustra Nietzsche told us about the higher man who would apparently spend his days dancing in the mountains with snakes and eagles and whatnot. Here we find out what actually must be done here, now. Here is Nietzsche's social theory in action.
First, what is (was) 'current society'? Democratic society, which may also be called: herd society. Herd virtues are the virtues of the day. What is important is what keeps the whole content, often at the expense of individual members. This is epitomized in the utilitarian philosophy, something that it is hard to exaggerate Nietzsche's hatred for. The herd, being a being of sorts with its own will to power, wants to exercise the things that allow it supremacy, what it calls its 'virtues'. These include selflessness, pity, and shame. The individual is not allowed to be more than those around him, and in fact is despised when he puts up airs of being so. Mediocrity is the true value here, and art and culture suffer as a result. It is called, in a word, slave-morality. It is where everyone is equal and the goal is to goal is to end all suffering and reach a sort of ideal Epicurean state of contentment.
Nietzsche, in his usual fashion, calls bullshit. People are not equal. True, we can say, a savant and Joe factory-worker are not exactly the same, but they are at least moral equals. No, says Nietzsche, and this is where I started to get really irritated on my first reading of this book a while back. My irritation may have been somewhat justified, but that may be due more to Nietzsche's old-style idiosyncrasies than his overall theory. Nietzsche makes comments here and there about mixing blood and the like and his explanatory framework uses terms like aristocracy and master/slave in ways that any contemporary democrat will get pissed at. But, as one needs to do when reading Nietzsche seriously, you have to strip away all the wit and sarcasm and strange phraseology if you want to pull out the serious message.
The message goes something like this: People are not equal. There are masters (aristocrats, if you will), who are distinguished as being above and beyond others by, first and foremost, their ability to create. They are creators of values, they know they are creators of values, and they are rightfully proud of it. There are also slaves (the herd) who, simply put, follow and are not creators in any real way. When the creators are at the top in society, society improves as a result. It does not necessarily become safer, more relaxed, or more secure; in fact, the opposite is much more likely. However, as a result of that mankind as a whole will come out better. A life of contentment, one where the concerns of every little trite problem and discomfort take precedence over grand acts of creation, in other words a life according to the herd where everyone wants something for nothing, leads to a society of the last man. As a species we will become weaker, since everything man works, fights, lives and dies for will wither away as we all sigh in aimless contentment (blink). Nothing will be created; all will decay. That is, if the herd has its way (Nietzsche thought they did then, and he would definitely think they do now, raising a picture of Britney Spears and proclaiming the dark hour of victory for the last man). If the creators/philosophers/aristocrats/higher men in general have their way, life will flourish. People will live with a sense of purpose. At least, the higher men will. As it is, most people are herd, and as such should be left in lower positions in life where they can scamper about in their pointless existences without bothering those among us who have better things to do. It's not anything personal against the lower men; it's simply that they don't belong in charge of anything, and in fact are better off where they are (of course, the opportunities for abuse here are limitless).
This, in summary, is what society should be. It's not easy to find public men willing to argue this way these days, but then again we really are something of a herd society when you think about it. Nietzsche had a knack for hitting the elephant in the room more often than people felt comfortable with (though, to give Nietzsche more credit than the analogy allows, the elephants in Nietzsche's sights were ones others not only ignored but feared). Of course, whether a new aristocratic state would be better has its own issues besides the complaints from the now-voting peanut gallery. What makes aristocratic values so much better? If my life is best lived through Britney Spears, who are you to tell me I'm a lesser man? Nietzsche's rejection of concrete values opens him up to this objection relatively easily throughout his work. His response would probably be to appeal to our sense of decency, which, while the point probably wouldn't be lost on us, isn't exactly a philosophical argument. He also mentions in the book that when a threat is removed society always seems to revert to the more comfort based mentality. If that is so, how long could we continue to "evolve" our higher men before they run out of threats and start to move in this direction anyway? Shall we create war for the sake of our art? Nietzsche is someone who may in fact say yes to this, though. Lastly, there's a big difference between an aristocracy of higher men and the aristocracies that appear in reality. Nonetheless, Nietzsche has made his point, and it's not the stupidity my younger self (a.k.a. me six months ago) thought it was.
Considering I was initially having trouble figuring out what to write for this book, I'd say this has turned out rather well. There are, as always, other interesting topics in this book, like his thoughts on European culture and women (Nietzsche, unsurprisingly, wasn't a ladies' man), that I will not be covering since I'm not going to write that much in a day. Next, "On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic".
Nietzsche starts with a review of the current problems of philosophers (really, the problems of philosophers in general). For Nietzsche it essentially boils down to a lack of honesty. A philosophers' claim to be aiming for the "objective" is laughable. Every one has his own goals he intends to validate through a nice system backed up by "philosophy". When it doesn't quite work out some special provision or fix is made (see Immanuel Kant). Now this in itself isn't immoral, it isn't even really bad (this is merely the will to power in action, as each of us wants to impose his own vision onto the world around him or her). What is irritating for Nietzsche is that these philosophers go parading around as if they've found ultimate truth, only to find themselves refuted by everyone a week after death (if not during their lives).
Philosophy, then, is being used wrongly, that much we can see. But just what is the philosopher supposed to do according to Nietzsche? This it seems to me is perhaps the tying theme in this rather diverse work. In Zarathustra Nietzsche told us about the higher man who would apparently spend his days dancing in the mountains with snakes and eagles and whatnot. Here we find out what actually must be done here, now. Here is Nietzsche's social theory in action.
First, what is (was) 'current society'? Democratic society, which may also be called: herd society. Herd virtues are the virtues of the day. What is important is what keeps the whole content, often at the expense of individual members. This is epitomized in the utilitarian philosophy, something that it is hard to exaggerate Nietzsche's hatred for. The herd, being a being of sorts with its own will to power, wants to exercise the things that allow it supremacy, what it calls its 'virtues'. These include selflessness, pity, and shame. The individual is not allowed to be more than those around him, and in fact is despised when he puts up airs of being so. Mediocrity is the true value here, and art and culture suffer as a result. It is called, in a word, slave-morality. It is where everyone is equal and the goal is to goal is to end all suffering and reach a sort of ideal Epicurean state of contentment.
Nietzsche, in his usual fashion, calls bullshit. People are not equal. True, we can say, a savant and Joe factory-worker are not exactly the same, but they are at least moral equals. No, says Nietzsche, and this is where I started to get really irritated on my first reading of this book a while back. My irritation may have been somewhat justified, but that may be due more to Nietzsche's old-style idiosyncrasies than his overall theory. Nietzsche makes comments here and there about mixing blood and the like and his explanatory framework uses terms like aristocracy and master/slave in ways that any contemporary democrat will get pissed at. But, as one needs to do when reading Nietzsche seriously, you have to strip away all the wit and sarcasm and strange phraseology if you want to pull out the serious message.
The message goes something like this: People are not equal. There are masters (aristocrats, if you will), who are distinguished as being above and beyond others by, first and foremost, their ability to create. They are creators of values, they know they are creators of values, and they are rightfully proud of it. There are also slaves (the herd) who, simply put, follow and are not creators in any real way. When the creators are at the top in society, society improves as a result. It does not necessarily become safer, more relaxed, or more secure; in fact, the opposite is much more likely. However, as a result of that mankind as a whole will come out better. A life of contentment, one where the concerns of every little trite problem and discomfort take precedence over grand acts of creation, in other words a life according to the herd where everyone wants something for nothing, leads to a society of the last man. As a species we will become weaker, since everything man works, fights, lives and dies for will wither away as we all sigh in aimless contentment (blink). Nothing will be created; all will decay. That is, if the herd has its way (Nietzsche thought they did then, and he would definitely think they do now, raising a picture of Britney Spears and proclaiming the dark hour of victory for the last man). If the creators/philosophers/aristocrats/higher men in general have their way, life will flourish. People will live with a sense of purpose. At least, the higher men will. As it is, most people are herd, and as such should be left in lower positions in life where they can scamper about in their pointless existences without bothering those among us who have better things to do. It's not anything personal against the lower men; it's simply that they don't belong in charge of anything, and in fact are better off where they are (of course, the opportunities for abuse here are limitless).
This, in summary, is what society should be. It's not easy to find public men willing to argue this way these days, but then again we really are something of a herd society when you think about it. Nietzsche had a knack for hitting the elephant in the room more often than people felt comfortable with (though, to give Nietzsche more credit than the analogy allows, the elephants in Nietzsche's sights were ones others not only ignored but feared). Of course, whether a new aristocratic state would be better has its own issues besides the complaints from the now-voting peanut gallery. What makes aristocratic values so much better? If my life is best lived through Britney Spears, who are you to tell me I'm a lesser man? Nietzsche's rejection of concrete values opens him up to this objection relatively easily throughout his work. His response would probably be to appeal to our sense of decency, which, while the point probably wouldn't be lost on us, isn't exactly a philosophical argument. He also mentions in the book that when a threat is removed society always seems to revert to the more comfort based mentality. If that is so, how long could we continue to "evolve" our higher men before they run out of threats and start to move in this direction anyway? Shall we create war for the sake of our art? Nietzsche is someone who may in fact say yes to this, though. Lastly, there's a big difference between an aristocracy of higher men and the aristocracies that appear in reality. Nonetheless, Nietzsche has made his point, and it's not the stupidity my younger self (a.k.a. me six months ago) thought it was.
Considering I was initially having trouble figuring out what to write for this book, I'd say this has turned out rather well. There are, as always, other interesting topics in this book, like his thoughts on European culture and women (Nietzsche, unsurprisingly, wasn't a ladies' man), that I will not be covering since I'm not going to write that much in a day. Next, "On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic".
posted by Derek at 10:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home