Friedrich Nietzsche. What an interesting person! So punchy, so captivating, so thought-provoking. He goes against the grain of so many other modern political thinkers, and yet with such vigor. Of Nietzsche's philosophical beliefs, I find his theory of where "good" and "bad" come from particularly interesting, and even more so who those terms came from. Nietzsche claims that at some point in the history of morality,"bad" was applied by the powerless to the powerful, or in other words it was applied by the oppressed/enslaved/resentful to the strong/noble/masters. The powerless, as Nietzsche claims, desire to exalt themselves through self-restraint, self-sacrifice, and in general infliction of pain upon oneself in order to show how much better they are than the rest, both their oppressed comrades and those who they resent; and they are ingenious and calculating in their execution of these "tactics," as Nietzsche refers to them.
To a certain extent, I see truth in his argument that people who exercise self-restraint and self-sacrifice do so in order to appear "better" in the eyes of other, or to reach a higher level on the scale of morality. People do sometimes only do "good" deeds so as to make themselves appear "better" than those who have not or do not do such deeds. For instance many people give money to those who stand at the freeway off-ramp asking for it; some give the money because they want the people to better their situation, some only give the money to make themselves feel better from the act of doing so. However, these days, whether they give the money to better the other person's situation or to make themselves feel better, a great deal of people, both some "powerful" and some "powerless" consider such an act to be universally beneficial. It is a beneficial act, because when you give that "powerless" person some of your own money you are in essence removing some of your own power and transferring it to that person to use (assuming the two of you equate money with power), which in turn condescends you closer to their powerless/poor outlook on life and elevates them closer to your powerful/wealthy outlook on life. This brings the two of you closer to equality of opportunity, a quality that our current society/government believes is beneficial to have in a state, yet often fails to succeed in making a reality. If the society as a whole, the government as a whole does not try to improve the situation of the powerless, then the powerless will remain without much ability to change their situation through peaceful means. If no one helps the powerless to get into a better situation, then it will be necessary to their survival to begin taking what they need rather than looking for a helping hand that does not exist. That is not a beneficial situation for anyone, because then people have to start looking out for thieves, and as soon as a thief does not get what they want by taking it, they will either have to eliminate what hinders them from taking it or die. By eliminate I mean to get rid of in some way or another, whether it be by trickery, destruction, killing etc. That situation is beneficial for no one, because then everyone begins to worry about when the thief will come to get them, or perhaps they instead choose to arm themselves with every weapon imaginable so as to utterly annihilate their opponent (the thief). The outcome is that either the thief is killed or the person protecting what the thief wants is killed. Neither of those outcomes sound very agreeable to me, for sooner or later someone is bound to die; that is, unless those who have what the thief needs decide to give it to him.
Maybe the majority of people see those who would become thieves as powerless, no-good, scoundrels who deserve to be left behind by the powerful. I, on the other hand, see those people as a poor, hopeless souls who have no idea how to survive on their own, and require the generosity and assistance of others in order to refrain from becoming a thief, or even worse a murderer. If one is born into a tumultuous world where they have little resources and knowledge to help them survive, then of course they will be unhappy and scheming! They spend all of their time simply trying to survive because no one will help them get on a higher road; and the resentment of those who could help them get on a higher road begins to brew. Would you not be unhappy if that was your situation (Nietzsche)?
The true good, the good that Nietzsche seems to have had trouble understanding, lies in strengthening others, not sapping them of the little strength they have left; for in genuinely strengthening others, without ulterior motives, the desire to reciprocate such a good deed can grow. What bad is there in peacefully and with all good intentions, strengthening one another? Why is it imperative (in Nietzsche's opinion) that we turn our backs on the powerless? Are all of them really trying to trick the rest of us?
Nietzsche says on page 876, "While the noble human being lives with himself in confidence and openness...the human being of ressentiment is neither sincere, nor naive, nor honest, and frank with himself."
What? if the opposite were true? What? if it is the powerful who are most insincere, dishonest, and discreet? And it is actually the powerless are the most possessive of sincerity, honesty, and openness? What? if it is the powerful who are the greatest haters? And the powerless are capable of the greatest love? What? if it is difficult to see this capability of the powerless, because they are rarely given the chance to escape their constant pursuit of survival in order to pursue the happiness of others?
No comments:
Post a Comment