Scientific Military

Purposeful Science finds Funds/Usefulness in Military Effort

Military systems are ordered under the chain of command, and service members follow orders without asking questions. Soldiers who do not agree with their commands still have to follow them, that is the way the MRE crumbles. During wartime, if a soldier refuses to follow a direct command, he may be shot in the head immediately by his commanding officer. No trial, no argument – follow the orders the superiors dictate. When faced with a moral concern, the soldier is ultimately to follow orders. Science disagrees with this approach. For one thing, scientists who are able to create weapons of mass destruction are burdened with the moral issue: is it right and just to create these weapons? Once materialized, the scientists do not possess the authority to restrict the military – or rogue nations – from using the weapons to destroy life. The aim of science to understand natural life, not destroy it.

The military has a ruthless approach. The object of the service is to protect, defend, and sustain. The military accepts that certain loses must happen to better the whole, but they accept this on a literal level. If a group of 100 people can be saved by one man dying, then military reason says the one man should feel honored to die for the glory and safety of his country. There is an enlisted job/specialty that literally is an enlisted soldier who follows the Chaplin around (everywhere he goes). That soldier’s “real” job is to jump in front of the Chaplin if he is attacked to save his life because his job is to bring support to the masses. Military morality is different because it is flexible according to the demands of the nation.

Bowler and Morus noted that many scientists are pacifists. In 1939, Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt to begin constructing the bomb because he feared that the Axis forces would be able to make a bomb.[1] The Allies would need the Atomic bomb for defense purposes. The arms race (and later space race) created great anxiety for scientists because they wanted funding for research but did not like kneeling to the ways of the military.

The scientists wanted to test their theories about the atom, and due to the high cost of the research required, science found funding with the military. Science had assisted the service during WWI, and especially the Navy with technology produced to communicate via radar, sonar, and radio.[2] Using scientific method, the scientists approached the military problems with reason and theory. Scientists were advising the military – different branches including biology and physicists.[3]

Einstein was excluded from the Manhattan Project, and much to the scientists dismay, Brigadier General Leslie Groves took command. Robert Oppenheimer was a leading physicist, and his team of civilians and scientists: “…were not simply taking orders from the military and were free to think about the consequences of what they were doing”[4] in which allowed major debates about the moral concerns regarding the bombs construction. However, the members of the Manhattan Project believed they were trying to beat Germany, and therefore, they patriotically participated. Science cooperated with the military and industry so that they had practical means to back their experimentation process. Bowler and Morus said, “In a sense, the Manhattan Project was changing the way science was done, requiring leading scientists to engage in much closer cooperation with military and industrial interests.”[5]

As science continued to shift away from theoretical and abstract purposes towards practical uses, the military eagerly demonstrated the need and embraced for weapon advancement and wartime strategic technologies. Russia took over as villain once Germany was defeated, and the hydrogen bomb, along with the cold war scare, would dominate America from the 1950s on, only losing steam at the fall of communist Russia. C.M. Mody Cyrus said, “Evidence of mobilization was everywhere, from the Manhattan Project to the space race to the civil rights movement to the “wars” on poverty, drugs, and cancer.”[6] After WWII, the Cold War gripped the nations in an icy fear that: “each superpower was acutely aware that not pursuing even the most outrageous visions could result in a victory for the other side.”[7] Scientific advance was found in “big science,” which looked to funding from the military and industry.

Bowler and Morus noted that Oppenheimer had contact with left-wing organizations and fell victim to persecution by McCarthy and the Red Scare.[8] I remember during my childhood, the 1980s, the intense animosity for Russia and all things non-democratic. In elementary school, we had nuclear drills like the kids have fire drills. The alarm was even more annoying, and the students filed out into the hall, faced the wall and sat down with crossed legs. As a kid, I remember thinking, “How is sitting in the hall going to keep us safe from a bomb?” Now, I think they did it so that everyone would be together and try to stay calm as long as possible. Realistically, if the school were hit with a nuclear bomb, everyone is done – does not matter if you sat cross or straight legged. What is scary is, at that point, all humanity can do is calmly prepare to be decimated. {le sigh}



Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Cyrus, C.M. Mody. “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 38.3 (2008): 451-461. Web. 20 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 473.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 470.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 471.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 474.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 475.

[6] Cyrus, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” p. 452.

[7] Cyrus, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” p. 452.

[8] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 480.

Chemical Warfare, WWII, the Atomic Bomb, and Einstein

Einstein the Pacifist

Due to the construction of the atomic bomb, I feel that Einstein offered the greatest impact to science for the twentieth-century. Specifically because of the mass destruction that the A-bomb enforced, science was able to create unimaginable horrors to inflict upon its enemy. The military turned to science for warfare development and gained immeasurably due to advancing technologies such as automatic machine-guns, chemical gases, and biological weapons. As a local historian, I assisted in founding in the WWII History Project for Fairmont State University in 2005-2006 by interviewing civilians and veterans involved in the effort. The process consisted of a personalized account of the individual’s experience with the war, followed by the interviewer’s questions, and recorded on video for later transcription. The documents were then transferred to the National Library for permanent record. One of the civilians I interviewed was a woman from West Virginia who applied for a government job she noticed listed in the newspaper. She applied and was excited when she found out that she would be flying in a plane for the first time to her new job. She worked in a factory making parts for the government. Later, she found out that the parts she was constructing were components to the atomic bomb. Apparently, for security purposes and to prevent society from learning of the atrocious abilities of nuclear warfare, there were only a handful of individuals who knew what was being built – and chances were that if they knew, they still would not know where the parts were located.

Bowler and Morus discussed the importance of chemical war as the military turned to science for better explosives and poisonous gases from 1914-1918.[1]Science and the military did not always agree, but the military saw scientific ability as useful for purposes of war. Even if the military asking for service did not want to use harmful substances, they did not want the enemy to be able to construct a substance that they did not understand or know how to create in terms of defense. Bowler and Morus said, “The British and the French responded much more rapidly than the Germans expected, and the rest of the war saw a succession of developments including the use of gas shells and the introduction of new chemicals such as mustard gas.”[2]

The fear of the enemy advancing to surpass their level of scientific success terrorized the Allied forces during WWII. If the Allies knew about the ability to create an atomic bomb, then the possibility that the information could be discovered by the Axis force, and used against whole cities was a real threat. In efforts to surpass Hitler, the Manhattan Project formed to develop the bomb: “When Heisenberg and his colleagues were interrogated after their capture by the Allies, it became clear that they had vastly overestimated the critical mass needed to start a chain reaction in uranium and had told the German military that the bomb could not be made.”[3] German science, fortunately, had not been able to advance as the Allies feared. The military seized control of scientific research and procedure, and “Oppenheimer realized that scientists would have to learn to work in these new ways if they were to have any influence over what was being done with their work.”[4]

While his theories may have depended on concepts formulated by Michelson and Morey, Einstein successfully married the refutation of ether with his theories of relativity.[5] Ofer Ashkenazi noted Einstein’s attachment to the peace movement even though his discoveries were used to construct the Atomic bomb.[6] Einstein interacted with political officials in efforts to work towards peace in avoidance of conflict, death, or suffrage. Ashkenazi said, “The shift of emphasis from the national to the transnational aspects of the anti-war struggle thus places Einstein’s views and activity well within the framework of the mainstream peace movement.”[7] Why then, would Einstein ever agree to formulate the bomb? Ashkenazi noted Einstein accepted the notion of defense but was a pacifist.[8] He agreed to assist the military as means of preserving peace; after Hitler stormed Europe, Einstein could no longer claim to be a pacifist.[9] Doug Long said, “Einstein’s greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built.”[10] Vannavar Bush did not trust Einstein to keep the project secret, and the scientist was excluded from production. In the end, Einstein regretted advising for the bomb to be built, but he was so afraid that Germany would build one first – Einstein made sure the Allies had the bomb first.



Ashkenazi, Ofer. “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein.” Journal of Contemporary History, 46.4 (2011): 741-766. JSTOR. Web. 19 Jan 2016.

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press,2005.

Long, Doug. “Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb.” Unk. date. Webpage. 19 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 465.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p.467.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 472.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 475.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 264.

[6] Ashkenazi, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History, p. 742.

[7] Ashkenazi, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History, p. 743.

[8] Ashkenazi, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History, p. 741-2.

[9] Long, “Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb.”

[10] Long, “Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb.”

Literature: Historical – Yes, History – No

Dangers found in Interpreting Literature as Historical Documents

{Peer} wrote: “Far too often we find people who believe there is a divide between science and religion and that you can’t believe in God and evolution.”

For certain people, I believe that could be true. However, it is not necessarily “God” that needs proving – it is one’s religious doctrine and belief of what God entails that is questioned. Christian dogma was questioned because the young-earth creationists insist upon a 7,000 year old earth,[1] a huge contradiction with the scientific understanding of the earth being over 400 billion years old. With a bold claim as demonstrated by the biblical timetable, a reasonable scientific consideration cannot be assessed. The claim in particular is one of humankind’s and not a challenge issued by the individual ingredients that make up the ability to believe, nor is the claim attributed to any outside forces. James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh, traced Adam’s heritage through the Hebrew patriarchs in the seventeenth-century; Bowler and Morus said, “By taking the seven days of creation literally, it was then only a matter of adding on those seven days to arrive at the date of the creation of the earth and the universe itself.”[2] The religious mind consulted the Bible and religious doctrine like they were reading historical documents, believing the stories to be true. An issue science has with religion is that humanity is not the center of the universe, nor are human beings yet perfectly evolved. Science sees evolution as a process of perfecting the individual so as to better the species, whereas religion, namely Christianity, sees the human being a priori as God’s perfect creation. I see the conflict more in interpretative issues. Each individual attaches to a belief that works for them in efforts for that person to understand themselves as well as their place and meaning in life. Religious individuals see harmony in their preferred genre of faith, whereas scientifically minded individuals look for empirical truth and proof. Philosophical minds grant truth for subjective reasoning, and issue Truth for scientific method – but philosophers are able to utilize their understanding to incorporate additional factors for accepting personal truth and universal Truth.

{Peer} wrote: “All I am saying is that one should keep an open mind and to believe that you have all the answers, regardless of your beliefs, is to be a truly foolish.”

I really think it all boils down to what method works for the individual – if organized religion is not your bag, there are other spiritual methods absent of convention. Science is always available to address concrete fact, but, for the human condition, the messages relayed with feeling might resonate a “truer” personal meaning. With belief as wind in one sails, subjective truth can appear to conquer the authorities of the objective. I agree with Socrates in that a questioning mind realizes that they know nothing. The moment absolute “certainty” without evidence steps in it is almost like blinders are dropped over one’s vision. Personally, I am not certain of anything – other than that I have a lot to learn and consider.



Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Picture c/o:

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 106.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 106.

Historical Consideration for Science and Religion

Science and religion offer different methods for the human being to interpret one’s place in the universe. Prior to the Enlightenment, religion was the ultimate authority of information as to where humans came from and what their purpose in life entailed. Science utilized empirical evidence to assert truth while religion required the belief of those who practiced their faith. Both offices ask for society to believe in the policy and procedure ascribed by the officials, however, science offers observable proof to back up their claims. Religion is not empty handed, and the believers incorporate compassionate consideration for the existence of a higher power – displayed not in empirical terms but relying on sentiment, feeling, and a natural connection to their deity. Science and religion are not equal contenders. I see a place for both offices in modern society, I do not see them sitting at the same tables – they are different, and at times, opposing methods used to address the human position.

Science and religion have different theories regarding the origins of existence as well as the place and purpose of homo sapiens. William Paley offered a theory to unite science and religion. His book Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802), was required reading at Christ’s College of Cambridge University.[1] The text included the famous metaphor of the watch and the watchmaker, presenting a case for God as the watchmaker to create and tend his watch (life). BMW noted Darwin as developing his theory of natural selection from inspiration presented by Paley; he said, “…Darwin took from his reading of Paley a belief in adaptation – that organisms are somehow fit for the environments in which they live, that their structure reflects the functions they perform throughout their lives.”[2] Religion, when forced to answer difficult questions, had to accept that bad things happened even though God was granted the ability to “fix” any error in the organic world. BMW said, “Paley struggled to reconcile the apparent cruelty and indifference of nature with his belief in a good God, and finally concluded that the joys of life simply outweighed its sorrows.”[3] After all, philosophically, if one does not experience pain and sadness then one will not recognize joy and happiness.

In “Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul,” Edward Humes spoke for the Dole Institute on the conflicts of evolutionism and creationist theory. The video showed me that people are completely able to believe different realities based on their subjective perspective regarding how they want to interpret their own existence. In Dover, PA, the teacher and administrators did not want evolution taught in science class. Humes said, “During the presentation on intelligent design, the administers of the district instructed the students not to ask questions.”[4] The fundamental purpose of education is to acquire information by answering questions. Robbing the students of simply questioning authority could result in those students not trusting authority. However, I suppose the belief must fill in all the cracks – the concept is to trust in one’s religion, therefore, those with authority should be in league with the ultimate power. I agree with Humes that teaching evolution is conflictive with religious belief. I think that the offices of religion and science do not belong together, and should not compete with one another anymore than I think home-economics and history should have a duel. They do not coincide or work with each other – one is objective empirical theory and the other is sentimental expression/connection with an outside force. Both, however, are human expressions. If religion wants a school of thought to support it, I think it would be more beneficial to turn to literature and the arts and wisely leave science alone.

The real issue I see is found in education – the information that is presented to the youth. Science offers evolution, and biology rather relies on it to justify medicine, surgery, and technological advances – withholding this information from young minds seems criminal to me, and also when they find out later in life, they may look back spitefully at both science and religion, or really, authority in general. Not providing any answer is still going to present a negative outcome because it makes it look like authority itself does not know what is really going on, therefore, why would anyone believe what authority said sometimes if it was not always aware. Before the Enlightenment, religion was not questioned but accepted as true. Look what happened when the scientific method stormed the stage – society still feels the shudder.




BMW. “William Paley (1743-1805).” 21 Aug 1996. Web. 12 Jan 2016.

Humes, Edward. “Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and theBattle for America’s Soul.” YouTube, 11 May 2012. Web. 11 Jan2016.

Picture c/o:

[1] BMW, “William Paley.”

[2] BMW, “William Paley.”

[3] BMW, “William Paley.”

[4] Humes, “Monkey Girl,” 20:35-20:40.

Science as Purposeful

I agree; the minds of the Scientific Revolution took another look at the natural world. {Peer} wrote: “The fact that Cohen describes Newton and his contemporaries as “rediscoverers” is in line with Cohen’s statement that the word “revolution” was first used as a technical term in the sciences.”

It was a revolution of thought, a reordering of the understanding of the natural world as well as humankind’s place in that world. However, the Scientific Revolution is a term that would be coined after the original participants were long deceased. One thing that I think may be a factor is that the “new science” wanted to be useful instead of just for appearances. In “The Scientific Revolution in Seventeenth-Century New England,” Rose Lockwood addressed the concerns of agrarian farmers in the new world. Noting the calendar year and aspects of the heavens above, Lockwood said, “It is clear from the essays and poetry of the almanac compilers that the new science affected the ideas of New England puritans before the age of Jonathan Edwards.”[1] The New Englanders understood a need to consult science for direct application to their livelihood – crops. The Puritan mindset and Protestant ethic encouraged the people to tend the earth, and by turning to science humankind was able to up the produce of the earth.


Lockwood, Rose. “The Scientific Revolution in Seventeenth-Century New England.” 1980. The New England Quarterly, 53.1: 76-95.

[1] Rose Lockwood, “The Scientific Revolution in Seventeenth-Century New England,” p. 77.

Empirical Science – Question Everything

the scientists’ choice to utilize empirical evidence instead of traditional thought is historically significant. Philosophically, I see Rene Descartes assertion from 1637 intrinsic to empirical science; he said, “And perceiving that this Truth, I think; therefore, I am, was so firm and certain, that all the most extravagant supposition of the Scepticks [sic] was not able to shake it …”[1] On one hand his theory presents the dichotomy of humankind – the experience of mind and body – but it also constitutes a specific need for science to find out for themselves, via research and experimentation, instead of accepting what was “true” for the past.

{Peer} wrote: “One thing that really struck me about the battle between the Sociologist and the scientist was how Scientist was looked upon as less important during this time.”

I agree; science was not credited with much authority – but I think that could be because for hundreds of years society had believed scholasticism to be true. The Great Minds were honored almost on a deific platform until the Enlightenment thinkers decided to question them. This could be why the original position was afforded only to gentlemen – a means to make society see the scientist as valued and respected. I, too, am shocked by the history, and horrified that prior to doctors there were barber-surgeons. I spent twenty years in the beauty industry and am no way qualified to issue any medical procedure, lol. As historian – science itself is not truly that “old” in the modern sense. If we start the clock with modern science, that puts it at little over a couple of hundred years – and that further backs up the questionable authority of science. [Not for me, personally, I would take science over religion any day, but I’ve got a thing for evidence over belief.] Darwin is coming with biological mind-boggling discoveries, and sociology is left with picking up the pieces. Society has to swallow the biological truth: humanity is an organic creature; a lesson still considered today with conflicting sides.


Descartes, Rene. A Discourse of a Method for the Well Guiding of Reason and the Discovery of Truth in the Sciences. Online. iBooks. London: Thomas Newcombe, 1637.

Picture c/o:


[1] Rene Descartes, Discourse, pp. 58-9.


My MacBook, Archimedes, ate all my categories. And now it is self-selecting for this post. {gnashing of teeth} Trying to fix, hope it works.



My Introduction to the History of Science

Today began my last session of courses before my projected Capstone in the Humanities. J The light is on at the end of the tunnel, but much like the Las Vegas desert, the distance is still intimidating. I have been altered by my graduate experience, and my goals have similarly shifted along the way. What really shocked me, however, was that science was the authority that turned on the lights – and this alone prompted me to take this course. After I completed HUMN 551, Evolution of Life and Intelligence, I was able to see the influence of biology at work on nearly every platform. Never a supporter of religion, I was, oddly enough, further shocked to accept the lessons of the Enlightenment in which humankind was understood as part of the animal kingdom, exposing nature as able to alter the physical – though dependent on long periods of time.

All that’s fine and well…but who am I? I graduated from Fairmont State University in 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts in History, minors in English and Philosophy. I guess I am sort of a trifecta – I must find truth, expression, and be able to disprove it all {haha}. The more I advance in studies the more I listen closer to philosophy, or rather, the more I see avenues of altruistic possibilities as per philosophic notion. The thought patterns of human capabilities fascinate me<>…and I think that in the future, a connection will be seen between philosophy and science, in that the intrinsic patterns of thought in the brain are evolving in efforts to further lesson the struggle of life. Science plays a big part in that, and genetics, so I need to learn the history of science to properly grasp modern science. {that’s the historian in me, I always need to go back to the beginning to understand the present} I chose Humanities over History because I want to include literature and thought as human experience along with who won what war; interdisciplinary studies mirrors how I interpret education to benefit the individual – a diverse arena offers multiple lessons.

{Originally created for HIST 586 graduate studies}

Picture c/o:,_Cyclopaedia,_Volume_1,_p_164.jpg


“Renegade” by X Ambassadors as Message to Dionysian Mind

Granted, Wagner, the X Ambassadors is not, lol, but… Nietzsche saw music as the best way for humans to express themselves or as an avenue to happiness. You asked about commercialism – combing through our text, I find it interesting that there is not heavy influence in capitalism, commerce, or materialism – only reference to seeking a pleasure filled life. However, there is a note from Bernard Williams in the introduction, that I feel supports my inclusion of the modern song; Williams said, “[The Gay Science], like all his others, makes it clear than any life worth living must involve daring, individuality and creative bloody-mindedness” (Nietzsche xiv).

Yes, the message I see in the song indicates that the lyrics are addressed to the Dionysian. It is a call to arms, so to speak. Another piece, “Am I Wrong” by Nico & Vinz from 2014, has a similar connotation where the individual rejects the modern understanding of right/wrong. One of the chorus verses altered from “I” to “We” indicating that one person’s concept became mutual understanding – “collective thought” (Nico & Vinz). Before the song hit the charts, Nico & Vinz were addressing the modern group “Anonymous”; the first time I heard it was when I was tagged on a link in Facebook from one of my groups. My experiment with social media is still on-going, so I have not been exposed to collective thought for nearly a year now – I am not certain that X Ambassadors is addressing the same audience as Nico & Vinz, but I can deduce relation. It could be a ploy on consumerism, but I do not think the average person gets the same message from listening to the song as few are well read in Nietzsche. If it is just for the money, all they got from me was $1.29, so I can live with that. The message is worth far more – it is one of hope.

Here is my breakdown of the song. Enjoy!

“Run away with me / Lost souls and reverie / Running wild and running free / Two kids, you and me” (1-4). The X Ambassadors are encouraging the individual to break free from the norm and to find oneself – to release adult hibition and return to natural carefreeness of youth. I sense dualism; you and me could be two versions of one person, or body/mind.

“… Living like we’re renegades …” (Chorus 5-11). The word choice of “renegade” means one who leaves one system of order or belief for another path – one can then create a new path for themselves.

“Long live the pioneers / Rebels and mutineers / Go forth and have no fear / Come close the end is near*” (12-15). These are the types of individuals, Dionysian for Nietzsche, who are brave enough to challenge the norm. Renegades can be comparable to the Overman or ManGod because they refuse to accept what is given so that they can create what they want. They are more human than human – more than the average bear. X Ambassadors ask the Dionysian to come closer because normality is nearing its end, society will need Nietzsche’s physicists to rebuild.

*I’ve listened to the song over 100 times now, and it rather sounds like they say “Come close and bend an ear” for line 15. Maybe it is just stage 3 madness, lol, of over-listening, but just in case, it still fits: gather the unique thinkers together to sort out the plan of action.


“All hail the underdogs / All hail the new kids / All hail the outlaws / Spielbergs and Kubricks” (22-25). More Dionysians: Underdogs – those that should not win but will pull through despite the odds, New Kids – evolved thinkers with fresh concepts, and Outlaws – those that reject directed order and law. And finally, the dreamers of the future, modern artistic expression – directors and writers sculpt concepts into film and literature allowing the individual mind to imagine altered conditions for life.

“It’s our time to make a move / It’s our time to make amends / It’s our time to break the rules / Let’s begin” (26-29). X Ambassadors is prepping the Dionysian. Social media allows like-minded individuals to find one another over vast geological separation. Unique individuals, the physicists, realize that they are not alone, and that by uniting with other’s of similar disposition a new understanding is possible. Down with the old order, in with a new; le roi est mort, vive l’auto.[1]

“… Living like we’re renegades” (Chorus 30-35). Nietzsche’s belief that evil upset good in efforts to create a new understanding. Good did not change, it clung to what was “good” for the past – keeping society in stasis. But humanity, like existence itself, is static and must be able to change/adapt or species will not survive in the constantly evolving world. The opposite of adaptation is extinction. Nietzsche did not say there was no morality – he thought that societal opinion had morality wrong from the start. Good and evil were masks created to cover the true self. Evil looked for improvement, and many results are definitely good: modern necessities like indoor-plumbing, roads, electricity, and technology. However, Nietzsche was not expecting people to turn into cartoon villains – he suggested a closer look at human consideration for the term and expanded possibilities removed from black-or-white configuration.


Works Cited

“Am I Wrong” by Nico & Vinz, 2014.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans.

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

“Renegades” by X Ambassadors, 3 Mar 2015.

Picture c/o:

[1] “The king is dead; long live the self.”

#PursuitofOptimism #DionysianLifestyle

Dionysian Roll-On

it seems to me that Nietzsche’s Dionysian is comparable to Kierkegaard’s aesthetic, with the main difference being that the Seducer was viewed negatively while Nietzsche does not leave room for others to critique the man-god Dionysian. Or…Kierkegaard [in my opinion] did not like the aesthetic and sided more with Judge Wilhelm and ethics; whereas, Nietzsche was a Dionysian himself and was attempting to encourage society to embrace new concepts while letting go of past misconceptions.

The Dionysian was a man-god: a human person with exceptional abilities in which one utilized personal preference to shape one’s experience. Based on Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, the Dionysian movement encouraged participants to live fully and to try anything interesting that crossed their path. They were expected to experience severe misery because they were able to know the fullest joy. In a way, they were extremists – when they loved it was true, when they cried it was agony – there was no middle ground. Nietzsche said, “He who is richest in fullness of life, the Dionysian god and man, can allow himself not only the sight of what is terrible and questionable but also the terrible deed and every luxury of destruction, decomposition, negation …” (370). The Dionysian knew that they were creating themselves, and they were able ignore labels such as “good/evil” because, as gods, they knew that there could be good as a result of evil and evil from good intentions – it was not their playing field. Their goal was to experience, to live, and most of all, to create.

Aesthetic value is found in art and music for Nietzsche, here lay the true beauty of the human experience. Once Nietzsche stripped away the need for a god, what was the human left with…music. Art and music were the human engines of creation. I have loved Nietzsche for roughly half of my life. My motto used to be: Live one’s life as art! I still find pause with process, I see much beauty in the ability to express, not just the final project. I would pay five times as much for the same piece of art if I were able to watch the art being created before I purchase it, because later, when viewing the art, I would remember the moment the artist took his stroke or the scent of paint and mad creation in the air.

Overall, I see the Dionysian as opposite to moral expectations of the masses. Dionysian is very close to “pleasure living” with their concerns fixed in the present – they want to live life while they can because there is no afterlife, this is it. Now, I know Nietzsche gets attacked from every angle, but look at what he was arguing against – set belief aside and work with only organic natural possibilities – the religious belief system is not very believable if one is not raised with the message harped into one’s existence. Christianity, boiled way down, basically says that the physical life [the one each person actually lives] is nothing compared to the afterlife [the one we have zero proof or evidence of]; that living is just a phase before one can spend eternity in heaven. Please take a moment and truly consider this. Now tell me why it is that Nietzsche is the one off base?


Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans.

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Picture c/o: