1) On Morality: Why is Nietzsche’s idea of morality important? What is Nietzsche’s opinion of morality?
Nietzsche’s idea of morality in both Human all too human and The gay science seems to underpin many of his core philosophical believes. By trying to grapple with Nietsczhe’s sense of morality, I find that we can better understand why he is the harbinger of “post-structuralism”. Nietzsche decries the surrendering of our individual expression to others – any wissenschaft; political entities, religion etc. Instead, in the paper “on truth and lying” he extols embracing our responsibility as an artistically creative subject and weaving our own meanings. He denigrates simply “believing in Christianity” [HATH: 113]; thinks public opinion is just man’s private laziness [HATH: 482]; most scientists just “fanaticize their conviction for their hypothesis” selling their soul to it [HATH: 635]; most cardinally, he is wants for the notions of “sins” to be annulled and is thoroughly against dogmatic mores, conventions, faith and even morality itself! Nietzsche claims so assertorily that “One becomes moral not because one is moral and nothing in itself is moral!” [TD: 97].
His opinions are a direct corollary of his philosophical stance of realism! To face reality, be industrious and daring to pierce through the deception of a living God (he is dead), create new norms to replace antiquated ones for oneself. I find that Nietzsche’s philosophical stance and all his ideas afore given can be understood through his idea of morality whereby he seems to think that our commonsense notion of morality is simply governed and reinforced by the fear of punishment and sin (especially against God). Hence, like the analogy of the girl who surrendered her virginity to a man before marriage, she is literally compelled to be obedient, prudent and thus, “moral” by the societal mores against pre-marital sex. For Nietzsche, even if the girl were to submit to these mores and be obedient, she is not necessarily moral. For our commonsense notion of morality is fallacious. It forces people to adhere to it by instilling fear thereby hampering our creative subjective spirits of truly understanding what it is to be moral. Morality is thus, slavish and thoughtless. It suspends any judgment and thinking for oneself and it allows people to continue to live in their deceptive and illusory “seamless order and regularity” thereby discouraging people to absolve themselves from the world of appearance. This seems to be very problematic for Nietzsche.
2) Subsequently, what are some of the consequences and ramifications of his ideas of morality?
To some extent, it feels as though Nietzsche is somewhat too extreme for he advocates that we should abrogate all sense of morality and stop presupposing that being a moral person will bring us spiritual health as a “good person” [TD: 202] for what is moral is just the ‘physician’s sense of good will’ or the ‘Christian sense of good will’ being imposed on others of which detractors are castigated and ostracized as “insane” or “criminals”. As a corollary, Nietzsche extols retraction of all penal codes, overarching sense of morality and thinks that the health of a society is measured by how well it deals with parasites by which I inteprete as centrifugal individual forces. But for me, morality must not only be seen in such a negative repressive way for the most basic idea of a society is that of one whereby individuals live together. For individuals to live together harmoniously without some moral norms that will ensure some level of good conduct towards others is absurd and idealistic. But I do think that one should not “blindly” accept societal mores and penal codes as divine and eternally right. People should understand its social constructedness and ephemeral nature thereby being able to know its contingent character and suit it to their own purposes in their time and age.
3) Is Nietzsche at variance with himself with regards to rationality?
I find this interesting and perturbing because on the one hand, Nietzsche seems to be advocating for schools to promote rigorous thinking and cautious judgment which can further independent thought [HATH: 265]. Yet, in The Birth of Tragedy, he was caustic against the Socratic-Alexandrian rational tendencies of society as a suppression of our Dionysiac potentialities (which can help us arrive at the true essence and Will of the world: the world as it is in itself). To me, it seems as though Nietzsche is biting both ends of the string and being inconsistent with regards to rationality and rational culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment