The
writings from Nietzsche this week were by no means light. They have provoked
some of the most serious thoughts about consciousness and individuality that I
have encountered in my life. One of these first considerations was drawn from
Nietzsche’s parable of the “madman.” In this, the madman asserts that God is
dead, that indeed, we are the murderers of God. Needing of addressing, however,
is who this God is. Are we speaking of the actual God in all of his omnipotence?
I would believe that this is certainly not the case. Yet, who is this God, and
how are we, the individuals of society, responsible for killing him (or it)?
To proceed
from what I believe to be the most logical starting point, I want to first address
when we might have killed God. Here I believe that God is symbolic for traditional
values. That is, God represents those values that have been embedded within
society and encrypted as the norms that we see to be present. So, when might we
have killed him? I would agree with one classmate who brought up the idea that
this might have been during the enlightenment. That is, the enlightenment can
be seen as a historical turning point in which society begins to shift away
from superstitious ideas and embraces scientific rhetoric. We reject the use of
skepticism and highlight our ability to use empiricism and epistemological
outlooks.
But now we
must interpret what the madman means when he states that he is too early. He
states that “this tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has
not yet reached the ears of men” (Nietzsche in Solomon, 67). By this, it is
emphasized that the ubermensch is not prevalent, at least not at a collective
level. This idea of the ubermensch is highlighted within the philosophers,
those individuals who feel a sense of relief when they believe that “all the
daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again” (Nietzsche in Solomon,
68). This was an issue that was highlighted in class discussion and provoked a
lot of differing perspectives. To many, the death of the “old God” should be
seen as a good thing in the sense that the old God can be representative of
outdated values that should be cast aside in order to make more room for a “new
God,” One that is more representative of how current society functions.
Yet, if
Nietzsche can be said to represent the philosophers in this parable (as well as
the underlying idea of the ubermensch), why would he be so excited to witness
the death of the old God if it simply meant reconstructing a new one. After all,
morality is taught to be a functioning concept within the structure of the herd
mentality. These new values (simply dressed up morals) designed within the new
God are once more a product of the herd, which is precisely the antithesis of
what Nietzsche is trying to express when advocating for the ultimate goal of
the ubermensch. For this precise reason, I don’t believe that Nietzsche is
advocating for the creation of a new God in totality. Rather, I think that he
acknowledges, at least to some extent, that achieving the ubermensch on a
collective level is something that we may never reach. In other words, the
madman will always be too early.
Furthermore,
consciousness and language are two conceptions that Nietzsche emphasizes within
his writings. The question as to whether or not happiness is an invention of
human creation was most definitely able to produce some class discussion. I
believe that this is a difficult question to address since empiricism is
something difficult to demonstrate in this instance. However, pressed to answer
I would lean more towards the idea that no, happiness is purely relation to
emotions. While the class discussion had established that language is a given
for consciousness (consciousness if and only if language), it does not entail
that a state of being (an emotion) does not exist without it. There is a fact
of the matter as to the state of my being. That is, I currently feel something
at a particular moment whether or not I can describe it.
This is not
to say that what makes me happy is not a product of human creation. This would
be a much more difficult theme to argue. I simply believe that it does not
matter what form happiness takes, there is a fact of the matter and it exists
outside of its various forms regardless of whether or not we can communicate
the feeling.
No comments:
Post a Comment