Given the opacity of much of Nietzsche's thought and written style I considered it prudent to better refine what I understand him to be discussing within this first chapter because it's pretty good stuff. I hope to get around to looking at other chapters shortly but I'll outline what I understand so far below...
This first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil could be described loosely as both a criticism of (a) what human beings value, and (b) critical thinking as a way to discover what is valuable. Nietzsche notes that human beings for thousands of years have sought to distinguish "truth" from "untruth". Lately this has led questions such as "What is truth?", "What can I know?" and "Why do I want to know what is true?". What Nietzsche suggests is a more salient question to ask is why is this important? Or more precisely why is this of value? Why should individuals not prefer untruth? Nietzsche acknowledges that despite the human preoccupation with truth-seeking, ideas that are false appear to be those most indispensable. For example fictitious and false fabrications of the imagination lead society forward, offer visions of a better future, reveal fantastic worlds and can be found in the greatest works of literature. Yet these are not true representations of reality.
Nietzsche asks the question that if nature is indifferent to what human beings value; is it not possible that there is greater value in pretence? Is it possible that things humans value most greatly are only valuable because of their insidious relationship to that which is evil? If nature is truly disinterested, why believe that such things exist at all, or that what truth-seekers claim to have found is anything more than a sample? Nietzsche would suggest that this highlights the need for philosophers to reflect upon their own critical faculties. He asserts that we are predisposed to particular ways of thinking; this is no more apparent than in how we value certainty over uncertainty, justice over injustice, love over hatred. He notes that our "discoveries" in critical thought reflect this. Philosophers claim to have formed opinions based on the "cold indifferent dialectic", yet if this dialectic was truly disinterested how could a synthesis be achieved? By this I mean why choose one outcome over the other? To achieve such a synthesis would be to offer a confession of your own value base, it would demonstrate what you consider to be of greatest value. Critical thought is therefore forced into very definite channels contingent upon what we esteem: justice, certainty, truth. In our pride we construct the world in our own image and perceive nature differently than it actually is. We perceive it falsely. Our own prejudice is all too perceptible when we perceive the world as an abhorrent mess. Yet if nature is indifferent why is it a mess? It is a mess to us because we see it so through the lens of our own moral prejudice.
Nietzsche identifies other common value judgements that impair critical thought such as the assumption that sense data is all there is. That there is nothing beyond what can be seen, tasted, touched, smelt or heard. Yet he acknowledges this was not always a prejudice common to man. Plato sought to develop conceptual networks of ideas and disregard sense data entirely. Nietzsche suggest then that perhaps such a sensualist prejudice is necessary now for the survival of human beings, in the same way that conceptual networks were to Plato then. Nietzsche highlights other elaborate assumptions such as a belief that "freedom of the will" is anything more than the complex state of delight in triumphing over obstacles and attributing this to our own liberty of the "will". Or a belief that "non-freedom of the will" is able to employ symbolic language [logical fictions to aid mutual understanding], develop pure concepts such as "cause" or "effect", mix such ideas with reality and not produce a cocktail of mythology in much the same way as religion.
Nietzsche notes that philosophical ideas much like the flora and fauna of a continent spring up from the value base appropriated by humans at a particular time. Such values are as fickle and whimsical as those that embody them; our discovered truths nothing more than elaborate fictions pending replacement in a millennia or two much like Plato's. What then can be of lasting value for human beings in an indifferent world? Perhaps this is the wrong question for such a world, perhaps we should ask the question what will keep me alive? What is life-promoting or life-prserving? What is it that makes human beings flourish? Nietzsche notes that herein lies the danger in such thought. In such a world what is life-furthering or life-promoting may be the most insidious or greatest thing; yet irrespective these must be further developed if life is to be further developed. By accepting such a view Nietzsche notes man blazes a trail away from what is valuable to join nature in cold mutual disinterest; positioning himself beyond good and evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment