Socio-moral imbalance

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Nietzsche
  3. » Socio-moral imbalance

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 12:00 pm
I've been reading nietzsches "the will to power". It is an excellent book full of ideas that range from pleasently insightfull to violently sarcastic. Over all the tone of the book is very Anti-christian and anti-moral as it is with most of his writings. But over all the book (despite my personal religious and moral leanings) is very good.

I have found that the overall idea of the book is 1) that the moral and religious ideal is unhealthy due to the fact that it tends to nullify the instincts of self intrest and preservation through their practice. 2) That the most average individuals have been brought to the forefront of life through the practice of the moral and religious ideal ("the meek shall inherit the earth"). And that this results in the degridation of life because the exceptional individuals have been hurt through the demanded and misunderstood practice of humility and other practices. 3) That because of the concept of god, the tendency for good in man has been misaprehended to be apart from man. This has resulted in a devaluation of man. And 4) that because of the fact that good only comes from god that the end result of religious practices comes to nihilism. Because no good can come from man. He sites many cases and situations in which these things hold to be true and to be frank I agree with him for the most part.

The end result of this is one of extreems. One can throw oneself harder into religion to further destroy the preservative instincts (ending in removed discomfort) becoming a zealot as in the case of some islamics. Or one can separate from morality completly in order to destroy the morality that causes the individual discomfort as in the case of some americans.

Nietzsche says that the people who are able to prosper most in this moraly divergent world are the people who are most average and ultimately unaware of the conflict between morality and self fullfillment. I would also have to agree with him. These people just live and do not fall to far out of balance intelectualy in light of either way of being. But the most average are not the people who have "the will to power". Thoes who do, can tend towards the extreems and inflict there misapprehensions of virtue and vice upon the whole, as in the case of the curch and the media.

I think there are moments when we all see his points (especialy socialy). And I want to ask for thughts on what the solution to this problem is on the scale of the whole of society?

Thanks

Vajrasattva
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 03:53 pm
@vajrasattva,
I think your post is good. So my criticism is in regards to Nietzsche, who I think in many ways is great. Does capitalism favor the average? It depends on one's definition of average, but I would say no. Life is always a struggle. Morality, despite what Nietzsche implies, is an invention for the enhancement and empowerment of life.
I think he knew that. Did he really think the ruling class was drowning in pity?

Nietzsche himself lived on a pension. He lived the life of a travel-ling scribbling monk. He didn't work for his bread. Instead his scribbled his at-times-sublime Romantic conceptual criticism-poetry. This lone-wolf bachelor with no real capital to speak of had the charming audacity to tell man how he should be (more noble, imagine that?). And yet within his writings he criticizes exactly this sort of audacious prejudice. The man is a bundle of self-contradictions. But this is part of his value. A person could spend a few years just applying Nietzsche's critical method to Nietzsche himself and come out pretty sharp......
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:50 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;107368 wrote:
I think your post is good. So my criticism is in regards to Nietzsche, who I think in many ways is great. Does capitalism favor the average? It depends on one's definition of average, but I would say no. Life is always a struggle. Morality, despite what Nietzsche implies, is an invention for the enhancement and empowerment of life.
I think he knew that. Did he really think the ruling class was drowning in pity?

Nietzsche himself lived on a pension. He lived the life of a travel-ling scribbling monk. He didn't work for his bread. Instead his scribbled his at-times-sublime Romantic conceptual criticism-poetry. This lone-wolf bachelor with no real capital to speak of had the charming audacity to tell man how he should be (more noble, imagine that?). And yet within his writings he criticizes exactly this sort of audacious prejudice. The man is a bundle of self-contradictions. But this is part of his value. A person could spend a few years just applying Nietzsche's critical method to Nietzsche himself and come out pretty sharp......

Morality is never an invention...It is always natural or meaningless...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2009 07:53 pm
@vajrasattva,
I think "invention" is an acceptable word. The word "natural" is a complicated word. Everything is natural, in one sense of the word. If you mean natural as a matter of taste, in the way that a homophobe asserts that homosexuality is unnatural, I cannot follow you there.

I think "natural" is too blurry a word for a discussion on Ethics.. But that's just one opinion.

With Respect,
R
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 10:03 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;107456 wrote:
I think "invention" is an acceptable word. The word "natural" is a complicated word. Everything is natural, in one sense of the word. If you mean natural as a matter of taste, in the way that a homophobe asserts that homosexuality is unnatural, I cannot follow you there.

I think "natural" is too blurry a word for a discussion on Ethics.. But that's just one opinion.

With Respect,
R

Just the opposite...Invention is a difficult concept and natural is an easy concept... What is natural grows out of our navals (Natals), natural law grew out of the Roman law of nations... Natural society is what some may call gentile society from the Roman Gentes, their tribes...There are natural relationships based upon our nation, or identitification with one group or another, usually traced to a common mother, but our nation state is an invention, with a mother of social ideals: Liberty and justice for all, and with the model of the nation in fact as a guide...We learn morality in our first relationships, our natural relationships, where our families prize us for who we are, and do not see us for what can be got out of us...Only later do we come to judge morals on scant evidence...It is learned before we learn by reason, and reason can seem to tear it up, and it never can destroy it completely...Reason does not apply to morality...
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:05 am
@vajrasattva,
Nietzche has created nazism. I know all works of this philosopher. Its romantic superman. But he does not speak about a place of this superman in a society. If such "Hero" appears in the USA - can tell goodbye your freedom and the Constitution.
 
Razzleg
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:50 am
@Marat phil,
OP, please keep in mind that The Will to Power is a collection of Nietzsche's notes edited and published by others posthumously. The editors had their own agenda, and it did not coincide with Nietzsche's. So while all of the notes are his, they are arranged to suit a different point of view, and sometimes placed in a context that goes so far as to reverse the meaning that he gave the same thought in books the publication of which he supervised.

That being said, I don't think that your interpretation is untenable, and I've heard others express similar interpretations. If you want to read some of his views on the topics you brought up in a more structured format, I'd recommend his book Beyond Good and Evil. The ideas are developed there with a lot more depth than in his notes, and they are given more nuance. For example, he didn't think that Christianity was nihilisitic because it dulled our sense of indulgent self-interest. He was in favor of overcoming our more brutal instincts. He felt that Christianity was nihilistic because it placed a higher priority on the afterlife, and discouraged an interest in the world. He thought that the extremely pious, who were extremely strong-willed in his opinion, were hobbling and harming themselves and that it was more noble to turn that strong will to more worldly pursuits.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 09:58 am
@vajrasattva,
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:57 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;142950 wrote:
Nietzche has created nazism. I know all works of this philosopher. Its romantic superman. But he does not speak about a place of this superman in a society. If such "Hero" appears in the USA - can tell goodbye your freedom and the Constitution.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 05:05 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;142950 wrote:
Nietzche has created nazism. I know all works of this philosopher. Its romantic superman. But he does not speak about a place of this superman in a society. If such "Hero" appears in the USA - can tell goodbye your freedom and the Constitution.

Hey Marat...I loved you in the tub scene... What freedom and what constitution...Government does what it wants and leaves the people hanging... Superman is a little dink with a keyboard in front of him and a formal education between his ears...
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:16 pm
@vajrasattva,
"What freedoms would you loose ? Any cartoons ?
It would adjust some imbalances, but create some as well I agree".

O.K. Cartoons create art groups (!). The civilisation basis is freedom create and to break communications between people. The first that the tyrant (superman) does it directs nets of communications and cooperation about itself. Others cannot create communications and corporation (!). People on the single become weak, passive and not creative. But a portrait of the superman on each building.

"Government does what it wants and leaves the people hanging..."

I do not think so. The democracy government is a social function. It works correctly even if is exist shadow corruption.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 10:00 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;143333 wrote:
"What freedoms would you loose ? Any cartoons ?
It would adjust some imbalances, but create some as well I agree".

O.K. Cartoons create art groups (!). The civilisation basis is freedom create and to break communications between people. The first that the tyrant (superman) does it directs nets of communications and cooperation about itself. Others cannot create communications and corporation (!). People on the single become weak, passive and not creative. But a portrait of the superman on each building.

"Government does what it wants and leaves the people hanging..."

I do not think so. The democracy government is a social function. It works correctly even if is exist shadow corruption.


[CENTER]:bigsmile:
I agree with big posters on the walls; it is really confronting. Did U ever go to a country like that ? Turkey is a fine example of seculareligeous admiration of the founder of Modern Turkey.

What is the difference with putting Gods Name on Banknotes and coins ? Did Jezus Himself not protest about banking in the Temple ? Dutch and English still put His Name on pound and Euro.

In modern Holland the Bede is an old-fashioned relic; the Queen does it once a Year in Public, and once a Year extra with X-mas, but that's her personnal adress.

Pepijn Sweep, magister TyMass:lol:


[/CENTER]
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 04:55 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;143333 wrote:
"What freedoms would you loose ? Any cartoons ?
It would adjust some imbalances, but create some as well I agree".

O.K. Cartoons create art groups (!). The civilisation basis is freedom create and to break communications between people. The first that the tyrant (superman) does it directs nets of communications and cooperation about itself. Others cannot create communications and corporation (!). People on the single become weak, passive and not creative. But a portrait of the superman on each building.

"Government does what it wants and leaves the people hanging..."

I do not think so. The democracy government is a social function. It works correctly even if is exist shadow corruption.


Majority rule is still rule, usually by a small minority or bureaucracy acting in the name of the majority for the benefit of the minority...The government throws us a sop once in a while; but it does not work...It does not work as true self government, but; we haven't the qualities necessary to self government... We are not personally responsible, and we celebrate injustice so long as we benefit, and so we cannot complain when we suffer injustce... No immoral people are fit for self government and no people are less moral than Americans... Worst of all, is the fact pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, that we are accustomed to our forms and because we have grown up with them we cannot conceive of them changing...Yet, all human progress involves a change of forms, so what seems impossible must be made possible...
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 05:58 am
@vajrasattva,
"Changes of form" in the USA? This suicide of World trade. Americans is much better, than itself think. All nations follow example the USA. It was wanted by your Founding fathers.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:08 am
@Marat phil,
The Founding Fathers were elitish slave-owning British who revolted against their legal King. The Origins of the USA are way past and have little to do with Modern Times.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 07:01 am
@vajrasattva,
"The Founding Fathers were elitish slave-owning British who revolted against their legal King. The Origins of the USA are way past and have little to do with Modern Times".

Yes. To be morale & to teach moral - not identic. Modern American society (after 1865) in my opinion perfectly combines advanced republican system of Rome (to Caesar) and dynamics of cultural processes of the Ancient Greece. Fridrih Nietshe could estimate today's New-York or Los Angeles. It seems to me that its art taste wouldn't be disappointed.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 11:54 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;143454 wrote:
"Changes of form" in the USA? This suicide of World trade. Americans is much better, than itself think. All nations follow example the USA. It was wanted by your Founding fathers.

Where are you from???

And, as I tell my children: Do not campare yourself to your peers, but to your potential... We have lost out potential in this land... Are we still better off...Yes, but the world is worse of for us...
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:05 pm
@vajrasattva,
I from Russia. Our liberal Constitution of only 20 years, but in the household and material plan. We live now better, than 20 years ago. I think that the economic and social structure of society of Nietshe didn't interest. It considered socialism as illness related to Christianity. He didn't see alternative to freedom. The Nietshe's hero, - on ideal of the superman is Genius or the high-class professional. In the modern liberal West so it is simply to become the super professional in the selected liked business. Unless it not Nietshe's ideal?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:02 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;143825 wrote:
I from Russia. Our liberal Constitution of only 20 years, but in the household and material plan. We live now better, than 20 years ago. I think that the economic and social structure of society of Nietshe didn't interest. It considered socialism as illness related to Christianity. He didn't see alternative to freedom. The Nietshe's hero, - on ideal of the superman is Genius or the high-class professional. In the modern liberal West so it is simply to become the super professional in the selected liked business. Unless it not Nietshe's ideal?


You had a better Constitution under Nicolas II (last Czar), more liberties for the people, abolistion of the serf-thing and a Doema which actually debated the Laws.

No you live in the romp-state of Russia, ruled by Oligarchs or the One Party Doema and it's harder to tell by the day who's President and who is actual head of the Government.

But if your happy, I am Happy too...

Your country is beautifull. Of course I saw not much but let me name you a few memorable sites.
1. Cathedral on the Kremlin
2. Admirality in Saint Petersburg / Aurora
3. Golden peacock mechanically (!) clock in Hermitage
4. Monestry derelict outside of Moskou *
5. Memorial 4 Soldiers

I did not go to the last since it was unclear who was meant by it. I am a pacifist myself, but would fight 4 Justice to the People. Anywhere. Fortunatly 4 mei there are other ways. I would go and pay my respects now for the Sovjet Peoples. You suffered heavily last wars. I am truly sorry.

Pepijn TYMagister
* do you know this site ? Lots of black birds making noises...
 
Rwa001
 
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:07 am
@Marat phil,
Quote:
Nietzche has created nazism. I know all works of this philosopher. Its romantic superman. But he does not speak about a place of this superman in a society. If such "Hero" appears in the USA - can tell goodbye your freedom and the Constitution.


I disagree with this post. Almost every political ideology of the 20th century flaunted Nietzsche as a supporter. Anarchists, Fascists, left wing and right wing. You may be familiar with all of his works, but your focus on his idea of the ubermensch seems to be limiting your full understanding. I don't argue that there are several passages and concepts that could fit with nazi ideology, but there are just as many that would not follow the party's lines.

As for the ubermensch's role in society, he makes it clear that this new species should be neither ruler nor slave. So that just about gets rid of the hierarchy necessary to achieve nazism.

Quote:
The Founding Fathers were elitish slave-owning British who revolted against their legal King. The Origins of the USA are way past and have little to do with Modern Times.


Any American will tell you that the origin of our country is embedded in our minds. It's the very reason we cling to odd liberties in the face of evidenced reason to adopt policies that limit any liberty.

I guess I'm slightly taken about at this pejorative analysis of our Founding Fathers. Why should their being a part of the aristocracy matter? Slave-ownership in 1776 was commonplace. Is that a jab at their morality? We could surely debate the idea of a 'legal' king all day long. I think you're taking a chrono-centric view when it isn't that easy to defend. Everything is relative to the context.

/being a patriot.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Nietzsche
  3. » Socio-moral imbalance
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 09:21:55