Dostoevsky

                It is quite intriguing how Dostoevsky describes the basic inability of reason and desire to go together. That basically if one uses reason they are disregarding desire and if they exercise desire then they disregard reason. However, he does admit that some reason might be desirous but that is it highly unlikely. He says that one day we might be able to calculate what is expected of us, that we actually have no free will and that everything is already mapped out.

                However, Dostoevsky counters this with the idea that if everything is already calculated then we will find ways to break away. We will automatically rebel against the chart in order to prove that we are human and that we exercise free will. It’s impossible to say whether or not we really have free will because there’s no real way of calculating it. I think free will is all a matter of us believing we have it. If we believe we have a choice; that we can change and choose how to live life, then that’s us exercising free will.

                I think it’s highly possible that there is no way to calculate our desires. This is because sometimes we won’t even act on our desires. Other times when we act of our desires, they are irrational and unconventional. If humans were rational beings, then we wouldn’t be acting on desires. The only time a desire is rational is when someone thinks and plans it out. When they methodically analyze the pros and cons and decide what they believe to be the best choice for them. Sometimes this is a way to come up with the most desirous option. This can be seen in the case of a career path, “which job will give me the most money?” People think things through in this manner all the time. However, I don’t think this shows our true deep desires.

Our desires are based off of fundamental animal instincts to prove that we are individuals with our own right to make decisions. When we are exercising this ability we are showing that whatever choice was made, it was because we wished it. Sometimes it doesn’t always make sense though. I think that’s why Dostoevsky refers to humans as bipedal idiots (more or less).

For instance, animals are the types of creatures that learn from experience. However, humans don’t necessarily have to do that. We can learn from our parents and friends and family. If we wished, we could take someone’s word and believe it to be true without actually having experienced it ourselves. If someone saw an UFO and then told someone else, although the person hearing about it didn’t necessarily see it, they might believe that it is real. However, other times, we rely on our own experiences to make our opinions. It’s actually quite fascinating how contradictory humans really are. If we break it down and think about it, why would in some instances we believe what someone says but then in others we won’t? There really is no logical answer to that.

Just in the same that it is impossible to state why we are contradictory in that sense, shows that it is impossible to state the formula humans have for the decisions that we make. We never really know what we are going to do and when we come to the faintest glimmer of an idea, we almost shun it away. It’s as if we thrive on the mysterious and unknown. We don’t want to know no matter how much we say we do. And we want to be different and go against the norm no matter how much we say we don’t. 

Slave and Master Morality

Nietzsche makes some interesting points in regards to slave and master morality which seemed to create some disagreements within the class. I think the different perceptions on the text can result from how a person is brought up and how their mind works.

For instance, when I think of “slave morality” I think of a “follower”, a person without their own ideas, someone who just goes with the crowd and conforms. However, some classmates seemed to reference slave morality with exactly what it sounds like, slaves. Although Nietzsche could have been an advocator of slavery, of which I am unsure because I have little knowledge in regards to his life, I’m viewing this philosophical ideas from a more modern and contemporary point of view. And so, master morality, to me, is about a person who is a master of their own life, one who doesn’t conform, who lives their life the way they wish. But some classmates took master morality to mean morality of “masters”, of queens, kings, those of the upper class, etc. Some believe that if one is in that position then they are automatically a master. Although one is born into royalty, one cannot be a master unless they take full responsibility of themselves and their life.

Now I would like to go against this type of narrow thinking. Even though someone is born into their “mastery” does not guarantee that they will become a master. Although it’s thought that it is predestined what a person will be, how events will play out, I find that notion to be irrelevant to life. It disregards the fact that we still have to make decisions for ourselves that we still choose what to do and how to be. If we didn’t do so, we would just sit at home all day and never do anything. That’s why it bothers me when people talk about destiny and free will. It really just doesn’t matter.

Let’s create a scenario. There is a princess, she is born to be a master, her destiny is to become queen and that is apparently the only “choice” she has. However, this is completely incorrect. If she wanted, truly wanted to, she could leave her family, abandon the crown, and live her life in a different way. Now, this might seem dramatic and unappealing to the general public but sometimes people do what they have to in order to be “free”. Everything depends on the individual and it’s difficult to classify this type of information into stereotypes because everyone is different. When a person is subscribing to a stereotype, they are following slave morality. A queen, who is a master, can still be subscribing to slave morality because if they aren’t doing what they want, they are following what is told for them to do.

Sure, a slave can have master morality and a master can have slave morality. However, whether or not they are able to exercise that power and take action ultimately determines what that person’s true morality is. If you’re being true to yourself though, it’s impossible to take part in this contradiction.

So I suppose what I’m trying to say is that there should be different terms attached to a “slave” and a “master” in relation to having “slave morality” and “master morality”. Due to the vagueness and ambiguity of these terms it’s impossible to truly understand how I am deciphering these ideas. And maybe that’s why I struggled so hard upon writing this because I cannot tell how we should define the terms.

And so it occurs to me that the reason why there was misunderstanding in class is due to the misrepresentation of terms.

Nietzsche

This week I want to actually talk about the readings more specifically. I found Nietzsche very interesting and his concepts are something that deserves to be explored.

I find it incredibly amazing the way he pronounces God as “dead”. He’s saying that Christianity is dead, that it is no longer with us and that we must move on. It’s incredible and yet, he’s fully aware that not everyone is willing to accept this.

Recently I have discovered some greatly amusing ideas from this absurd world we live in. For example, I have encountered plenty of atheists, agnostics, and religious folk in my short lifespan (this seems to be a topic of great discourse amongst human beings). However, recently I have been finding many confused people.

There is one person in particular who never ceases to amaze me in beliefs he has. He does not believe in God, he considers himself atheist. However, he will not admit that there is no God due to the fact that he refuses to believe that this is all we have. He will live in ignorance if it will grant him something to look forward to. This is because, to him, this is hell. He cannot let himself come to terms with the fact that once we die, that’s it. What surprises me is this: that I can actually understand his point-of-view. It’s the whole “ignorance is bliss” type of mentality, and in this case, it is.

Another thing I find fascinating about Nietzsche is his discussion on the herd-instinct. This is something that has actually never crossed my mind before. Sure, I’ve given thought to morality and what makes something moral versus immoral. I have merely blamed our common notions of this on religion. However, the fact that it is based off of the “herd-instinct” struck something in me. At first, I was in denial, telling myself “no way, we don’t do this.” But once thought about, it’s apparent how true this is. Since morality is based upon others, then that means that morality is unnecessary whilst alone.

For instance, if someone were to be stranded on an island, alone, what good would morals do them? If anything, it could hurt them. “Oh, the poor fish”, “Oh, the poor tree”, “Oh, the poor deer”. These types of thoughts would get an animal killed. So if we are going solely based off of animal instinct, morals are unnecessary. However, once we add fellow human beings into the mix, we begin to experience a sense of morality that may arise.

Lastly, I would like to delve into his topic of “genius of the species”.  It’s impossible to say when us as a species evolved to be self-conscious. Therefore, it’s impossible to say when the need for consciousness arose. However, for arguments sake, we can continue to discuss this topic because of the interesting points he brings about. Nietzsche states that if we were solitary animals then we wouldn’t need consciousness in the manner that we do. This can be related back to the same premise earlier regarding morality. If we were not herd-like animals, if we did not have a “herd-instinct”, then there would be no need for morality as well as consciousness. What is consciousness anyways other than us being aware of our person in comparison to others? If there was no one to compare our “self” to, then for no reason would we have consciousness.

There is a surprising amount of human characteristics that have been derived from being herd-like animals. Which, when looked at psychologically, can provide great inside into other animals and vice-versa. 

Existentialism Versus Christianity

To be completely honest, when I was first reading Kierkegaard I had absolutely no idea what his purpose was. It wasn’t until class that I realized he is merely focused deeply on the individual.

So I have learned this about myself: although I try to be open-minded (I really, really do try very hard to be, honest) it’s not something I have been able to completely overcome. It’s just been impossible for me to open up to Christianity.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is background to this intense distrust over the religion. For example, growing up I was “raised” Roman Catholic. I never agreed with what I was learning and I always knew deep down I was not Catholic, not in the slightest. However, being a young one, I couldn’t ever tell my mother my dissatisfaction with the church and its ideology. So, I continued to attend for her sake.

The longer I was involved the more contradictions and more logical fallacies were brought to my attention. Therefore, I am now at the point of complete distrust in any religion.

Which goes into my question: can one be an existentialist and religious at the same time?

My answer: Absolutely not.

And now let me elaborate.

Modern day Christianity, the common notion of Christianity, has a single purpose. That purpose is to serve God, to serve Jesus Christ, and to abandon your self in order to follow them.  It’s already decided for you what your purpose is by God. Going based solely off of this, I do not see how Existentialism can be put into this mess.

For me to really describe my thoughts well, we can also analyze Kierkegaard’s Christianity. Kierkegaard’s philosophy is quite fascinating up until I realized how he was somehow Christian. I don’t understand how one can place so much emphasis upon the self when Christianity seeks so hard to destroy that. Anyways, even if we pretend that Christianity wasn’t a so-called “religion” and that there was no established church, no established doctrine of ideas. If Christianity was completely reliant on the individual’s self then there can be a slight acceptance of existentialism (which could happen at the part just shy of admitting to believing in God and Jesus). All the way until the person admits that they have a “God” that they are worshiping.

The point of religions is to do what someone else deemed acceptable. Therefore, if one considers themselves religious, they really just can’t be an existentialist. There is no room for religion for the emphasis placed upon the self. So a person who is religious can never truly be living for themselves because they are constantly thinking about the otherworldly figure they are attempting to please.

The other thing I wanted to quickly touch base on is the idea of subjectivity and objectivity.

For some reason, these concepts seemed very clear to me when I began the readings, I thought I had gotten this down! Oh Kierkegaard I deciphered you! Oh, little did I know, it is so much more complicated than the black and white thinking I was inferring it to be. Now, I continue to be at a loss of understanding. This is because I cannot determine if I believe there is anything objective ever on this planet. Thinking about it, isn’t everything subjective? Even when we collectively analyze something with the scientific method, with multiple people, and come to a repeatable, understandable conclusion, is that still objective or is it subjective to those scientists. I don’t think there is ever a point to where something is a definite objective truth aside from natural events on this Earth that could happen regardless of human existence.