Our group was charged with the task of discussing Nietzsche.
For such an influential and controversial philosopher, our group had a hard
time spending so much time talking about his ideas.
We started our talk with Nietzsche’s idea of a übermensch—that there are superior men who by their own superiority are charged
of essentially ruling over the standard citizens.
The idea that society should value the superman far beyond
the lowly citizen, rubbed my group the wrong way, because it is in the “lowly,”
average citizen that the next superman may appear—and we’ll never know if it
doesn’t give them the chance.
quote by a potential übermensch himself
Besides, how would the übermensch be determined? The Nazis
thought that it was in the superior race, although it is pretty clear that Nietzsche
thought it was about the super-individual, not race. Genius and super heros aren't always loud.
In a way, they have to be self-promoted and declared, which
reminds me of the Monty Python sketch of questioning the authority of the king; besides, I would personally be worried about a dictatorship happening.
The ubermensch are supposed to declare and regulate values,
but would we need them as “value keepers” if the world suddenly recognized “God
is Dead?”
What I believe my group ultimate decided is that morality
has come from a mutual social contract to ensure that mutual destruction does
not happen (think nuclear disarmament), and this social contract has sense
turned into a government that recognizes and upkeeps each culture’s morals—and
hopefully changes as it’s morals are changed. (My own thoughts, and is probably
grounds for a DQ).
Beyond government, churches would likely adapt and continue to exist as moral-training centers as opposed to worshiping of a specific religion and higher religion, not too unlike what Unitarian Universalists do.
Beyond government, churches would likely adapt and continue to exist as moral-training centers as opposed to worshiping of a specific religion and higher religion, not too unlike what Unitarian Universalists do.
So. Our group’s conclusion was that Nietzsche’s ubermensh is
not only undesirable, but also unneeded.
I agree with idea of a social contract. I think it came about with the fact that people discovered quite quickly that if you punch someone that you will likely get punched yourself, so maybe it came from our survivalist nature. But somehow we have blurred the lines between a social contract to "keep the peace" and a moral code that we abide by. (which deserves a discussion itself). Because if it is only a social code, that does not make us any better than animals. Even my dogs understand that unless they want to get attack by one another they better not lay a paw on one the other ones food. Social contracts change and vary by culture and region, but moral codes seem to be consistent.
ReplyDeleteAny hoo.
DQ: What did "God is Dead" actually mean?
FQ: Who is accredited with saying "God is dead"?
Note, I really liked the Monty Python clip.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the übermensch, as you said Matthew, does seem to be, at its core, a god-like substitution. Personally, I'm wary of morality built upon popular social contract. In my limited experience and knowledge, governments are just as poor as "supermen" when it comes to moral authority.
FQ: What is a colloquial term for emotivism?
DQ: How do you define truth?
I agree with Nate, I like the Monty Python as well.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Matthew and the rest of our group on the ubermensch; it's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to unanimously agree that one person is better than all the rest of us, so we should listen and do whatever he/she says. Everybody would start saying that they're the ubermensch, and we should all start listening to THEM. Plus, I don't think we should base what's right and wrong on someone else's opinion. We should decide for ourselves what our morals are and why, not have them spoon-fed to us by someone with a superiority complex.
But as for Nietzsche's ideas on God is Dead, I believe that human beings are reasonable (for the most part) and intrinsically desire to survive. If we all of a sudden had nothing but ourselves to base our morals on, I believe we would see a similar world that we see today (minus religious wars, religious churches, etc.); humans know that in a state of nature anything can happen without reprimand, and that's a scary thought to most rational humans. Therefore I believe that we would establish a moral code or contract in which we give up the right to harm others while they give up the right to harm us or something like that. I don't believe the world would erupt into mindless chaos is God was proven not to exist.
DQ: Can we truly know ourselves if our subconscious is hiding thoughts and suppressed feelings from ourselves? Should we all go to a shrink to see what we're hiding from ourselves?
FQ: Who stated that dreams are the "royal road to the unconscious"?