Today, I‘m gonna be brave and try to talk about some of the highly complex statements of Nietzsche, we touched in class. Surely, the majority would agree with me that reading Nietzsche, one sometimes cannot help but laugh or shake his head. „God is dead“ is one the examples that show his provocative way of making us think, but guess what - he made me think a lot, especially about the master and slave theories of a pre-moral world. What I had to think about the most, was what Dr. J said right before the end of class, namely that Nietzsche‘s main criticism of religions and especially of Christianity was that it is an obeying value-system and people are not value-creator on their own. Sure, at first sight, it seems weird to call every believer merely an obeyer, but if we think about that in detail, it begins to make sense - at least to me. Let me know, if you can agree on the following.
What is the main advantage of religions? Clearly, it is the fact that people can rely on a higher power that helps and secures them, but what does that mean? It can mean that it literally takes away responsibility, because humans are not powerful enough to design their own lives, but live within divine frames, which would be the position of very strong believers. On the other side, it can also mean that it gives people an imagination of what is good and bad, that means something that non-Nietzsches would call a moral value system. That exactly is the point that Nietzsche tries to make: Accepting the moral value system of an institution is the same like obeying these rules and values without any personal effort. It degrades everybody to a slave, because their wills are now dependent on what their religions tell them to do. Instead of that, Nietzsche wants us to realize our nature as value-creating animals and therefore to create our own value systems.
We could compare that to the two ways of feeding yourself: According to Nietzsche, religions are the fast food chains of values, you just go there, without knowing where the food comes from, without making any effort to prepare the food, but in fact, you are (at least a kind of) satisfied at the end. The master way of eating is to use your own garden to grow food and to prepare that on your own, so to speak, the high cuisine.
Of course, that is not to say that you are not satisfied after a fast food burger, but it says something about the quality and so does Nietzsche about the quality of a value system.
Flo, I think you do a solid job of identifying some of the highlights of Nietzsche's work. You captured his worldview well with his fast-food values analogy
ReplyDeleteOne thing i would be cognoscente of, however, is the first sentence (and claim) of your second paragraph.
"Clearly, (main advantage of religions) is the fact that people can rely on a higher power that helps and secures them..."
While, yes, this is Nietzeche's view, it is important to keep in mind that this statement assumes the falsity of those religions. By that i mean that, the underlying assumption that all religions are false is one that most objective readers won't grant you.
If we accept your assumption though, just for the sake of argument, then i think you raise some solid issues regarding the utility of religion and personal responsibility
Thomas,
ReplyDeletethank you for your comment. Maybe, I should change the sentence into: "What are some advantages of religions? Clearly, one is the fact that people can rely on a higher power that helps and secures them".
Would you agree now?
Flo,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thomas that your post draws attention to some interesting key elements of Nietzsche's work. Mainly: the moral codes developed within religious framework serve to guide people in a some-what adequate manner. However, the acceptance of a moral code without true thought leaves one unsatisfied and unable to argue their ethical theory without falling back on religious text.
I believe what Thomas is trying to point out to you is the underlying assumption in your second paragraph: that these religions are false. in order to side step this assumption it is important to recognize that the debate of the existence of a Divine Power can not be fully concluded. Regardless of your strength of belief, there will always be others who will reject it.
Therefore, it is best to place a statement in a context that is true, regardless of the truth/falseness of religious doctrine. By doing this, you strengthen your argument.
Again, I'm not sure if this is what Thomas meant. However, this is what came to mind when reading it.