Nietzsche
New components. I’m writing this because I’m in a very bad mood, and Nietzsche isn’t helping. Morality is designed out of the strong. Yesterday I was sitting in the hall in the library when I began running over evidence and belief itself. I was staring at a book that claimed morality is something that should take into account moral strength. In one word, it could be called social Darwinism. I began weighing the evidence for the herd mentality.
Current argument I’m supporting is that the average human is existentially concerned, or at least concerned enough about life to answer pseudo-existential questions.
Opposing viewpoints, the human community is not concerned with existential problems at large and therefore they wander around like zombies from stimuli to stimuli.
What is the answer? Have I neglected my portion of the argument? Will I support the opposing side? Nietzsche is forcing me to push that direction but I still resist. My argument still stands strong. Nietzsche claims we all have a herd instinct and that this instinct holds us back from achieving our true potential, the ubermensche. I agree with this in some senses. He goes on to say that it takes a strong will to break the herd mentality. Again I agree. The final part that I disagree with is that the majority of humanity has not made this step. I disagree wholeheartedly.
The reasons I use to support my belief are humanity’s intense subjective nature. Why do we say plants can’t think? Why do we say dogs can’t communicate? Why do we say that there can’t be life on other planets?
They do not match the current system of understanding. Plants don’t have brains, humans have brains, humans think, therefore things that think must have a brain. Is this argument valid? No. There could be different methods of thought. It doesn’t stand that just because we think, and we have a brain that these two things are necessarily linked. Thought could arise through other systems. We don’t have enough evidence to suggest otherwise.
It can be raised for the other arguments. My point is that we subjectify our experiences such that it cannot be proven otherwise. Does a person have existential dilemma? Well when I had an existential dilemma I began questioning my life and it led me to academia so therefore if anyone has an existential dilemma they must be apart of academia. A majority of humanity does not go to academia therefore a majority of humanity must not face existential dilemma. I think bullshit. Existential dilemma’s arise from and produce a variety of responses. So I think just because this individual choose to drive trucks for a living does not in fact mean that he did not at one point look around and say, “man this can’t be what life is? What the fuck am I doing here?” In fact I say most existential dilemma’s scare the shit out of people and force them into mundane chores to run from their thought processes thereby answering the existential dilemma in a roundabout manner.
I also think this can be used with our current political climate. People claim that individuals don’t think about the individual they are voting for. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think the world is full of people who think about the choice and setup ladders to make their decision easier. If he supports the right to life, then he is a “good” president. If he is a republican, then he is a “good” president. Now of course you can look at these issues and say they are horribly close-minded criteria for choosing who the president of the United States should be, but I argue it is not. We all setup these gates for information. When I look for candidates of the presidency I ask myself whether or not they do the things I think a president should do. This is a nice and roundabout manner of listing the following qualities:
1) Does he have a sound plan for economic stimulus?
2) Does he understand the global situation we find ourselves in today?
3) Does he recognize the separation of church and state?
4) Does he recognize the polarized and stratified economic structure we are facing, where there is an intense hording of funds at the higher levels and the utter destruction of the middle class? (Wow sounds like propaganda doesn’t it… I need to review this later -> so many appeals to emotion in this statement)
5) Does he have an understanding for the political system, i.e. is he dogmatic or able to change?
6) Does he support the draft?
Now just because I have 6 criteria (and I probably have more but these are all I can think of at this moment) doesn’t make my criteria any better and less biased then anyone else. We all have a set of values that we adhere to. People who say abortion is their issue of importance are coming from a deeply emotional base. When I look at the racial genocide of Sudan, I can get seriously emotional. They do the same thing. They see these children/babies/embryos etc as being destroyed and vote with their emotions. This doesn’t mean they are wrong in choosing their president using this method. I choose my president by the above emotional ties. All center on my own position in society. The Draft is serious to me. It comes from a self-preservationalist portion of my being. If Kerry said, “I will not enact the draft” I would say, “then I will vote for you regardless whatever else hell you will wreak on the world.” The only reason I’m not voting for bush, even though he said he would not enact the draft, is because he lies and he lies a lot.
Ok the above might not be entirely accurate. I might use more criteria to evaluate but it would have to be some seriously fucked up opinions Kerry would have to demonstrate to get me to deny him the presidency after stating he will not enact the draft.
Ok I’m done… sonofabitch this was a long post… I’m depressed now…
October 16th, 2004 at 3:36 pm
Interesting too. 8) Though we have disagreed on this subject in the past I see now that the disagreement was superficial and probably the result of miscommunication… I agree wholeheartedly with your description of and probable reaction to the existential dillemmas faced by most people. It’s not that I think most people [b:b973af74ce]don’t[/b:b973af74ce] think, it’s that I think when they do what generally happens is they indulge it for a bit and then get that feeling I used to get (and still do to some degree) when I try to play chess, that [i:b973af74ce]Well wait a sec there’s this and this and that and oh shit too many options to consider, no foreseeable answer, headache, headache, aggh[/i:b973af74ce] feeling only that’s describing it in words and really it’s more of just a this-is-pointless-I-don’t-see-any-real-way-to-figure-this-out-on-my-own type hopeless feeling (which I myself have felt many a time in relation to existential dillemmas), and they either say screw it and go out to get a beer (which I admit was probably a favorite tactic of mine in the past), or turn to the Church or some other prescribed system of belief–just like you described, like ascribing to a party stance–to assist them in answering the question. But yes, most people, I would argue, face existential dillemmas when they first confront the death of a friend or a family member, or when some other tragedy hits their life. I mean, I had mine when I was nine and I found out the tooth fairy wasn’t real and that led me to wonder if God was just a figment too, so I imagine there are a whole lot of various and different things that could trigger these crises… Anyway my book was conceived in the beginning as the depiction of something similar to what you’re talking about–small-town, uneducated, rural people facing and dealing with serious dillemmas. You’ve got Ava who deals with the entire situation using dogma. And you’ve got Luther, who, due to a string of deaths in his family early in his life, spent his youth and early twenties alternately thinking too much and blanking it all out with booze, until he quits later on, but he doesn’t ever really deal with it, he dies with a sort of chip on his shoulder, it’s like he’s adapted atheism dogmatically as a result of his anger, and so he never really deals. And then there’s Marie, who is similar to Luther, except she runs from her thoughts literally, from place to place and man to man distracting herself, until she finally settles later on and sits in one place long enough to figure it all out. Which, I would argue, she actually does. I probably need to edit those thematics to make it more clear, but that’s what I was trying to show… mental note… Anyway, interesting post. Appreciate you putting your thoughts down.
October 16th, 2004 at 3:49 pm
When I say Marie “figures it all out” I don’t mean she uncovers The Answer To Everything, which I would say is of course impossible–I’m no Scientologist!–I just mean she figures it all out as much as anyone can or needs to–that is they come to a peaceful acceptance about the path their lives have taken, come to some conclusion about what they think caused their lives to go that way–a conclusion they are happy with or which they can use to improve their or others’ lives in the future–and continue to apply that conclusion throughout the rest of their lives optimistically. That is, she does the same thing Ava does only she comes to her conclusions on her own without ascribing to a prescribed doctrine lock, stock, and barrel. OK, I’m done. NYU is the devil. As is the current time/space dillemma, and the distance Mother Earth chose to place between LA and NYC-area NJ. It should be shorter. Or we should be able to tesseract, a la Madeleine L’Engle and Mrs. Who and Mrs. Whatsit. I think I’m spelling dillemma incorrectly.