One of the main things about the Genealogy of Morals that caught my attention was its distinct lack of a clearly proposed alternative to the master and slave moralities. Nietzsche spends a good deal of his first essay deconstructing and criticizing the weakness that slave morality encodes as good in contrast to the strength of humanity that the master morality glorifies. This master morality, however, does not completely meet Nietzsche’s ideal either. He values its emphasis on strength but acknowledges that slave morality has the advantage in areas like depth and cleverness and such qualities that make humanity “interesting.” He seems to desire some sort of combination of the two, holding on to the strengths of each and eliminating all he labels weakness, but he embraces no path to such a system.
Based on our class discussion, Nietzsche would demand personal responsibility for life instead of using a god or other human created value as an excuse. However, this is exceedingly challenging in a culture so thoroughly based in slave morality. Even the language we use – our tendency and ability to say “the cup ought to fall” instead of “the cup will or did fall” – reflects the intrinsic bias toward the side of slave morality. To truly adopt a Nietzschean “morality” at least for a large group of people, would require an entire re-creation of culture.
Just as the transition from master morality to slave morality required a 2000 year revolution, so would the shift to this new, yes-saying, responsibility accepting system. One particularly key aspect of this revolution would have to be language. At the very minimum, such a revolution would require complete redefinition for many terms in the style of the redefinition of good between the master and slave moralities. More efficient, however, might be the creation of a totally new language, designed to be free of the biases of slave morality ideas, just as a created language like Lojban was synthetically designed to be free of the logical inconsistencies and ambiguities of modern languages.
So what do you all think? Is a re-creation of culture a necessary path to a more Nietzschean world? Would such a world even be desirable?
I don't believe that a re-creation of culture is NECESSARY to the illumination of a Nietzschean world. However, I do agree that it is one pathway. Our use of language has a powerful connection to our understanding of the world and our place in it. Terms are enhanced or weakened based on the percentage of use and miscommunication of ideas. This recognition of culture being linked to a vernacular makes it likely that a change in word use would alter culture and thus guide us to a more Nietzschean world.
ReplyDeleteHowever, popular slang forces us to acknowledge the quick degradation of terms. Prominent slang, such as Ghetto, completely distorts the original meaning of the word. The expressions of culture, such as fashion and art, also constantly fluctuate over time.
Suppose this scenario: A major catastrophe has happened, and has destroyed a significant amount of the world. Humanity recognizes their immediate responsibility for this event[maybe it was a bomb or something]. Leaders of this system step forward and declare a need to shift cultural ideas. The population then accepts a re-creation of culture and use of language. Enculturation leads to the following generation following this system of word use.
However, such a system would degrade over time. Without a complete understanding of philosophical idea, which would only come with time, this culture wouldn't last. Even assuming an understanding - it is important to recognize our own culture's pathway through time. The acceptance of a Nietzschean world would last for multiple generations, but would eventually fall as different philosophies come about.
Thus, though a re-creation of culture and language would lead to a quick acceptance of Nietzschean values - this acceptance would quickly fall to popular philosophy.
Victoria, thanks for your perspective on the limitations of the power of language. In stories like 1984, it's always just assumed that the language engineering must be successful, and I hadn't considered that perhaps people have sets of ideas that need to be expressed in any language and they might adjust/degrade their language to fulfill these needs.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like your point that language could not be the only factor involved in this shift to a Nietzschean world. If the population didn't truly understand the philosophy, I agree that the system could not stand. It might not even be truly Nietzschien if inflicted from above. I have a feeling Nietzsche himself would take issue with this kind of violation of man's individual strength.
I'd also like to explain why I think the shift to a more Nietzschean system would require a dramatic overthrow instead of the slower evolution that marked the transition from master to slave morality. The knightly-aristocratic seems to have had a much looser grip on their valuation system. They defined goodness in reference to themselves and the bad of the other was just a byproduct. The slave valuation system however, focuses on labeling the other as evil and identifying themselves as good is secondary. They seem more completely invested in their system and must do more to actively maintain this counterintuitive understanding. Therefore, it would require more active work to shift into an alternative system than the passive evolution that the more natural aristocratic system fell victim to.
ReplyDelete