I think I'm not alone in feeling that I'm missing some things about Nietzsche's philosophy. Much as I enjoy the way he writes, I often have a little trouble following his train of thought. That said, it might be helpful to others if I try to review his ideas and give my own impression of him.
During class discussion Thursday I found myself wondering how much of what we read applied to the genealogy of morals and how much was relevant to his personal philosophy. If his words about, for example, Christian morality (such as the "turn the other cheek" stuff) are taken in a historical perspective, then we see why modern values might reflect past events such as the slave revolt Nietzsche repeatedly references. In such a context one might agree or disagree based on his interpretation of history. However, I find it easy to view his historical and cultural insight as personal philosophy when he implies that, for example, it being ridiculous for birds of prey to not use their strength to eat lambs being analogous to humans with power not using it. Examples that he uses such as this one seem to hold additional implications, more so than just stating a historical observation about changing morality over time; this example implies that strength should be used if possessed, which is itself a judgement of values and morality for humankind. If this is indeed what Nietzsche is saying, I disagree somewhat- I would argue that the problem of the birds and lambs analogy is that natural law needs not apply to humans necessarily, and that it is subjective whether the situation of a strong person not using strength is ridiculous. Thus I would agree with him that our cultural expectation that a strong person hold back or that a person ought to "turn the other cheek" is an invented and not objective expectation, but if Nietzsche is saying strength ought to be used if held, then I disagree with that because it is also an invented quality of humanity. How did you all interpret Nietzsche? Is it just a genealogy of morals or does Nietzsche bring his own biases and judgement into his work?
I believe that what Nietzsche is saying about strength and weakness with his analogy of the lambs and the birds of prey is that the idea of strength and its application is subjective, depending on who is interpreting it. For instance, to the birds of prey, strength is a quality inherent in their natural dispositions. They cannot refrain from being strong, they cannot exist as anything other than they are. If they so choose, they can refrain from exerting their strength on the lambs - that much is in their control. However, why would they? To them, exerting their strength as they do to prey is key to their survival, and is not - to them - bad, as it is to the lambs. The lambs, being the weaker of the two within the analogy, view the birds of prey as evil or bad because they prey, but if the lambs cannot defend themselves from being preyed upon, that is natural selection - that's just the way it is. This analogy, more broadly applied to humans may translate as a survival of the fittest in terms of physical, social, or economic strength. It is true that the qualities of strength, charisma, beauty, and the like are long-time praised characteristics in many societies. It is in agreement with Nietzsche that those who do not possess these qualities would be necessarily less successful, and it is a testament to his ideas that that is largely the way society functions today. I rather agree with the competitive idea that everyone should earn their place in society, and should especially compete for the best places in it. This parting idea breeches on Marx, but in my opinion a little healthy competition isn't a bad thing.
ReplyDelete