"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
She went on to say how perspectives are just subjective and we don't see the world the way it really is. Her basic message that every person is entitled to their perspective and we shouldn't judge others and practice tolerance.
People will read this and give it the 'Like' thumbs up on this post. Unfortunately, this is just more subjective, relativistic bullshit being spewed and a mis-interpretation of Nietzsche. This is not to say I agree with his philosophy. On the contrary, if you read the source of this translated quote in Chapter 55 of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', he speaks a lot of the individual and exalts the subjective perspective but the precise context of the meaning for the quote is actually in man's search for self-actualization, or what he calls the 'super-man'. In that context, Nietzsche is correct. Each person must travel their own path to self-actualization because they carry their own 'baggage' which weighs them down which he refers in that chapter as 'Gravity.' The message is correct but placed in the wrong philosophical framework.
The absence of an absolute morality since his famous quote "God is dead" has been a pivotal inflection point for Nietzsche and his works. However, since an absolute morality had been demolished by him, a vacuum was created and what we replaced with God was the State, specifically democratic socialism.
Understanding philosophies is a lot like watching an optical illusion. Whatever you mind doesn't actually see, it fills in to make the illusion appear correct. And that's what a lot of people, like my facebook friend did. They pour their own ideas, biases into the gaps of a philosophy she doesn't fully understand.
How far would she practice tolerance? How about the Boston bombers? Or the the brothers who held captive those girls for 10 years raping them over and over? Are they not allowed to find their path to self-actualization? She shouldn't judge these societal predators any more than someone who disagrees on what color bedsheets to decorate their beds with.
My guess is she would draw that line. But exactly what defines that line? Most people would unknowingly recite the non-aggression principle "You are free to do whatever but just don't force it on me." How is this concept lost at the voting poll?? It floors me.
Nietzsche's missing puzzle piece is exactly how each individual person achieves 'super-man' status? Yes, they may have their own path but what happens if you believe, in the absence of a secular ethic, that impeding someone else's path to self-actualization is the path to your own? Without a secular ethic, his vision becomes an impossibility.
The other contradiction my facebook friend doesn't realize is if there is no right way or wrong way and everything is subjective then there is no such thing as "...the world the way it really is." The world the way it really is implies there is an objective truth, which the quote dismisses as non-existent. If that's what she believes, then by definition, all perspectives are incomplete and therefore even her quote and interpretation of it would also be incomplete and appear hypocritical for posting her incomplete perspective above others.
The problem is most people don't see a dichotomy where they should and create one when they shouldn't. There is a difference between personal preferences (vanilla vs. chocolate, straight vs. gay, Atkins diet vs. The Zone) and morality (good and evil). Yes, good is preferred over evil but that doesn't make it fall in the Preferences category because evil isn't voluntarily picked over good like chocolate would be picked over vanilla. Evil is picked over good because in the mind of the person, evil appears good to them. As a segue, a false dichotomy is created - Subjectivity. However, like my last post, evil only appears good as a result of faulty understanding of reality.
Morality isn't about preferences since good is always preferred over evil. However, most people cannot resolve this rubik's cube so they fill in the gaps with their own biases like moral relativism or another misapplication of another concept like the Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean (Everything in Moderation as the misinterpretation). I don't think Aristotle meant a moderation of rape or slavery would create an ideal society. When I point this out, I get the usual, "You take everything to extremes", which isn't an argument at all. It's simply a reaction to the exposure to the truth. That truth being "Everything in moderation" or "all perspectives are equally valid" is simply the illusion of universality. I'm just being Bruce Lee and shattering these illusions.
If every opinion is equally valid then we must accept an 'anything goes' society. This doesn't sit well with these people because they need to maintain the appearance of having principle. So their last gasp of any kind of resolution to moral universality is the 'majority rule' mantra. They admit it's not perfect but it's the best we have got. If that were true, why do so many people express their horror when bad things happen in society? After all, if this is the best we got and if that means a moderate amount of evil must exist, then why act surprised when it happens? It is the price we pay to avoid a universal secular ethics.
People will read this and give it the 'Like' thumbs up on this post. Unfortunately, this is just more subjective, relativistic bullshit being spewed and a mis-interpretation of Nietzsche. This is not to say I agree with his philosophy. On the contrary, if you read the source of this translated quote in Chapter 55 of 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', he speaks a lot of the individual and exalts the subjective perspective but the precise context of the meaning for the quote is actually in man's search for self-actualization, or what he calls the 'super-man'. In that context, Nietzsche is correct. Each person must travel their own path to self-actualization because they carry their own 'baggage' which weighs them down which he refers in that chapter as 'Gravity.' The message is correct but placed in the wrong philosophical framework.
The absence of an absolute morality since his famous quote "God is dead" has been a pivotal inflection point for Nietzsche and his works. However, since an absolute morality had been demolished by him, a vacuum was created and what we replaced with God was the State, specifically democratic socialism.
Understanding philosophies is a lot like watching an optical illusion. Whatever you mind doesn't actually see, it fills in to make the illusion appear correct. And that's what a lot of people, like my facebook friend did. They pour their own ideas, biases into the gaps of a philosophy she doesn't fully understand.
How far would she practice tolerance? How about the Boston bombers? Or the the brothers who held captive those girls for 10 years raping them over and over? Are they not allowed to find their path to self-actualization? She shouldn't judge these societal predators any more than someone who disagrees on what color bedsheets to decorate their beds with.
My guess is she would draw that line. But exactly what defines that line? Most people would unknowingly recite the non-aggression principle "You are free to do whatever but just don't force it on me." How is this concept lost at the voting poll?? It floors me.
Nietzsche's missing puzzle piece is exactly how each individual person achieves 'super-man' status? Yes, they may have their own path but what happens if you believe, in the absence of a secular ethic, that impeding someone else's path to self-actualization is the path to your own? Without a secular ethic, his vision becomes an impossibility.
The other contradiction my facebook friend doesn't realize is if there is no right way or wrong way and everything is subjective then there is no such thing as "...the world the way it really is." The world the way it really is implies there is an objective truth, which the quote dismisses as non-existent. If that's what she believes, then by definition, all perspectives are incomplete and therefore even her quote and interpretation of it would also be incomplete and appear hypocritical for posting her incomplete perspective above others.
The problem is most people don't see a dichotomy where they should and create one when they shouldn't. There is a difference between personal preferences (vanilla vs. chocolate, straight vs. gay, Atkins diet vs. The Zone) and morality (good and evil). Yes, good is preferred over evil but that doesn't make it fall in the Preferences category because evil isn't voluntarily picked over good like chocolate would be picked over vanilla. Evil is picked over good because in the mind of the person, evil appears good to them. As a segue, a false dichotomy is created - Subjectivity. However, like my last post, evil only appears good as a result of faulty understanding of reality.
Morality isn't about preferences since good is always preferred over evil. However, most people cannot resolve this rubik's cube so they fill in the gaps with their own biases like moral relativism or another misapplication of another concept like the Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean (Everything in Moderation as the misinterpretation). I don't think Aristotle meant a moderation of rape or slavery would create an ideal society. When I point this out, I get the usual, "You take everything to extremes", which isn't an argument at all. It's simply a reaction to the exposure to the truth. That truth being "Everything in moderation" or "all perspectives are equally valid" is simply the illusion of universality. I'm just being Bruce Lee and shattering these illusions.
If every opinion is equally valid then we must accept an 'anything goes' society. This doesn't sit well with these people because they need to maintain the appearance of having principle. So their last gasp of any kind of resolution to moral universality is the 'majority rule' mantra. They admit it's not perfect but it's the best we have got. If that were true, why do so many people express their horror when bad things happen in society? After all, if this is the best we got and if that means a moderate amount of evil must exist, then why act surprised when it happens? It is the price we pay to avoid a universal secular ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment