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.
Hi Lexus,
ReplyDeleteI like your post, and you make good points. I’m not sure if this could be called a disagreement, but I have a slightly different perspective of the “herd-mentality” referenced in the Nietzsche text. Morality is based on the presence of other humans, but I do not think it is dictated by what the group collectively decides is good for the group. Rather, morality is decided by the individual based on what he/she needs from the herd, what is good for them. For example, it is not advantageous to survival for someone to kill someone else in their herd. While living in a herd, or a society, each individual contributes to that society. Removing an individual from the societal structure would decrease the living standard of the society. This is difficult to see in societies today, large cities with millions of people, but imagine if the society was only 20 people. This is why on a moral landscape, murder is considered immoral, but going to war with another country, another herd so to speak, is acceptable. Rarely do people or groups of people do acts that are not in the self interest. On a larger scale of the morality of killing, take Nazi Germany for example. They drew the line at invading Switzerland, a major financial center for them.
In the idea of the lone human, “the herd” becomes almost synonymous with the necessary resources of their environment. If a certain animal, such as a deer, was food for larger predator on the island, it would not advantageous for the individual to kill too many deer. If a line of trees protected the individual’s shelter from storms, then it would not behoove them to cut those trees down. In this way, a lone human could say “oh poor tree, oh poor deer”.
It may sound slightly callous, but in both situations, I think the “herd” is simply resources that benefit the individual, be it inanimate objects or other humans. I do hate to use murder as an example of morality, but it is simply a moral construct that most people can have some sense of agreement on (a more controversial topic would be the economic reasons that motivate those who are against same-sex marriage and how the so called “social values” they claim are really a facade).
Thanks agains, and I enjoyed your post!
-Peter