There is something appealing to me about Nietzsche’s philosophy. In a way, it says that everything in existence has some sort of intrinsic worth, but that humans manipulate that worth by assigning different values to different things and ideas basically to comfort themselves. In assigning values (even ones that seem to make sense but in actuality are quite arbitrary), Nietzsche seems to say we are searching for comfort that comes with feeling in control of perceiving life. But in actuality, perhaps the purpose of life is not, in fact, to achieve a way of life deemed highly valuable, but instead to be what we are, and as conscious beings to accept our state of simply existing. The idea of life itself being worth living over and over again, to me, gives living a whole new dimension of value. For things to behave in certain ways simply because it is part of what they are seems like a concept that makes many human worries and concerns about the world moot.
While all of that seems oddly freeing and enticingly simple, I can’t help wonder about a very probable negative aspect of the philosophy. If it is in fact ridiculous to expect innately strong people not to express their strength over weak people, doesn’t this verify a system of complete exploitation, corruption, and inequality. Can people to do anything they are capable of and for any reason with the explanation that it is just part of what a person intrinsically is. But I am not positive Nietzsche would approve of such a world. It seems the whole idealistic freedom achieved by “loving our fate” would be completely foiled in such an extreme world. Could one actually experience such freedom in a world where they are constantly ‘enslaved’ by anyone stronger in any way? I think there is a line between accepting misfortune or mistakes or being wronged and accepting constant victimization. Am I wrong in thinking this kind of world would be the result of accepting Nietzsche’s philosophy? Could one in fact be freed by accepting such a philosophy even if it meant intense victimization?
I share your concern as i read Nietzsche myself. And i think you are giving Nietzsche too much credit in thinking that he would not approve of such a world. I believe that On tuesday of last class Dr. J did mention that he was a proponent of survival of the fittest. I think that having this in mind along with his concept of accepting things as they truly are will tell you that he would not disapprove of such a world. What he would disagree with though, I believe is the language you use. I do not think he would consider that world as living accepting "intense victimization." I think he would simply say that these are individuals acting as they do, and being as they are, in a world, where things are as they "intrinsically are" (as you put it).
ReplyDeleteBut of course I novel reader of Nietzsche, and have not been exposed to a lot of his works, so please class comments as you see fit. And Karissa, I hope I was clear.
Karissa,
ReplyDeleteIt is important to remember that in almost any philosophy, any extreme form is detrimental to society. As Mills points out, moral codes and ideas of formation can be manipulated and obscured, no matter the intended purpose.
When he speaks of the possibility of a repeated life, Nietzsche is hoping to inspire the creation of a yes-saying world. This is the same form of philosophy that many self help books repeat. In simplistic terms: One should act on unfortunate events in a way that benefit them. This form of benefit applies not to the physical body, but to our mental understanding of self. Thus, should a young individual experience the unfortunate death of a parent, they should use that death to re-examine life and take a positive message from it.
However, this message can be distorted. As you said, there is the possibility of allowing the continuous infliction of violence and harm. In cases of domestic abuse, the victim will often accept harm as a way of saying "yes" to what they believe is love. Although this SOUNDS similar to what Nietzsche says, it is not what he means. This assumption o love is a manipulation, distorted by the psychological sickness of the victim.
Further more, Nietzsche can be used to defend cases of genocide. His term of the "strong" can be used to identify those with physical strength of forms of manipulation. Thus, situations such as those in Nazi Germany and Rwanda are labeled as cases of the strong controlling the weak. Again, these individuals are stronger than those they controlled. They are not, however, the ideal form of the strong. The attacks on these countries, and extreme punishment of those involved, were the result of stronger forces. Thus, when attempting to understand extremes, try to also understand the characters as well. Though the weak can be manipulated by those stronger than them, often from the same social or economic background, this manipulation has historically been alleviated by the strongest.
To further this understanding of distortion of ideas: Let me highlight a portion of Nellie's comment. She described the Holocaust, brought up in class on Tuesday, as "survival of the fittest." This is a Darwinian term that means survival of an individual is based on percentage of offspring to the overall population. Animals seen as "fit" are those with the greater number of offspring. They contribute the most genetic material. Those not seen as "fit" are those with little to no offspring. Their genetic material was not favored, and therefore unfit. Thus, assuming our historical information is true, Hitler did not have kids and therefore is not seen as "fit."