Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Nietzsche 2nd Essay Sections 11-25

In Nietzsche's final sections he tries to wrap up his arguments. His main thesis seems to be the idea of the will to power. He speaks about justice, that it is "quite senseless to talk about it in itself" because "'just' and 'unjust' exist, accordingly only after the institution of the law". He then talks about how punishment is "supposed to possess the value of awakening the feeling of guilt." Criminals do not have this feeling of guilt which allows then to do what they want. This is tied to the "instinct for freedom" or in Nietzsche's language: "the will to power". To me, here Nietzsche confirms finally that he is a skeptic. The only feeling that should compel human action should be self-interest. Feelings of self-denial are unnatural and are "tied to cruelty". In the final sections he criticizes the Christian and Greek gods. The Christian god "was therefore accompanied by the maximum feeling of guilty indebtedness on earth." God is just a form of social control while the Greek gods were "reflections of noble and autocratic men, in whom the animal in man felt deified and id not lacerate itself, did not rage against itself." The Greek god represented the true human nature. I think Nietzsche makes some good observations but I would like to critique two points. Firstly even though his argument that our morality is based on guilt, and that our true human nature is that of animal-like competition, I believe it also makes for a difficult society to live in. Humans are much more efficient when working together as opposed to doing everything on their own. For cooperation to work there has to be some kind of self-denial. Second;y, I agree that the Greek gods were reflections of how humans are, but I argue that it wasn't the gods who people wanted to emulate, it was the heroes. The men like Aeneas, Heralcles, Perseus, were self-sacrificing men who often were at odds with the gods.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Nietzsche "On the Genealogy of Morals" Preface and First Essay Parts I-II

Nietzsche writes about the origin of our concepts of good and evil. He goes back to his childhood, when he first began questioning the origin of evil and he "gave the honor to God, as was only fair, and made him the father of evil." So he first attributed the cause of evil to God, but after a while he learned to "separate theological prejudice from moral prejudice and ceased to look for the origin of evil behind the world." The more he examined the topic the more it pushed him to believe that good and evil are just social constructions that are meant to shape societal behavior to benefit the ruling class: "Rather it was 'the good' themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian." In the following sections he goes on to describe how in many languages the words for good come from words that mean noble or ruling class while words for bad come from words that mean common or simple. I think this is a very good observation. It's obvious that the etymology of these words have connotations that imply "high class" tendencies. I also agree that they play a part in shaping social attitudes. However, Nietzsche sounds identical to the ancient Sophists in defining good and bad.They believed they were purely subjective terms for reasons similar to Nietzsche. I have to be like Socrates and disagree with Nietzsche on this point. I believe that there are things which are intrinsically good and intrinsically evil. That which is beneficial to mankind is good, while that which is harmful is evil. Although my definition is very vague, I can't bring myself to believe that there really is no objective good in the world.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

"Alienated Labor" by Karl Marx

In Marx's manuscript "Alienated Labor" he explains how labor in a capitalist system estranges man from his nature. He first describes man as a conscious animal: "Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from life activity of the animal." This is very similar to Plato's description of man as a rational animal. Marx then goes on to  say that labor in the Capitalist system is unnatural. Labor is meant to be used for the benefit of the worker, but in the Capitalist system it does the opposite. "In these two respects, therefore, the worker becomes a slave to his objects; first... as an object of labor... and secondly that he receives the means of subsistence." It forces the worker to use his skills for the betterment of the owner of production.  He argues that there is a direct reciprocal relationship between the "value" of the worker and the "value" of the product. The better the worker produces a product, the more he devalues himself. He likens it to religion: "The more man attributes to God, the less he retains in himself." This type of labor makes man believe that his essence or true nature is only to work. This is not the true nature of man. Man, as a conscious being has the right to choose his own essence. I think Marx offers a very interesting perspective. I'm sure many people might feel very similar to his sentiments. Many blue collar workers may feel that they are "slaves" to the system because the more work they put in it seems like their bosses get richer but they stay the same. It reminds me of the scene in the 1999 film Fight Club when Tyler Durden is talking to the narrator in the bar and says "The things you own end up owning you." Although I might not agree entirely with Marx's arguments, I believe there is a valid sentiment in that our work doesn't directly pay off the way the Capitalist system claims to.