Altering the Self: A Note on Context and Philosophy

If you can think it, you can be it…

Ok – does that mean I can be anything I think that I can become? Context holds supreme value. If I think I am a unicorn…crickets. However, if I think I am I writer, I can be one. In fact, I am a writer as demonstrated by writing this very blog. Now, if I intend on being a successful writer…well, that takes a bit more time, effort, skill, and product. This is important:  Thought requires action as a follow-through.

Henry Ford is noted for saying:  “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right” (Quote Investigator).

Excellent, but how do you apply the concept? As with many things, sheer belief is not enough. Belief in the self requires more than simply thinking, and one must act on their desires for effect in the material world. What that means is that one must apply their thoughts actively in their lives. In example, Steve believes he will become a brain surgeon. Steve knows he needs education and experience so that he may become a doctor. Steve toils away, challenging himself at university so that he has realistic tools that provide validation for his belief. Steve becomes a doctor because he believed in himself – but the only way he could make it happen was through action.

That initial belief in the self is a crucial element, but belief is not strong enough on its own and cannot produce results. Way back in Communications and Public Speaking, I learned about “self-fulfilling prophecies.” What one tells the self holds much authority with what that individual holds as true and/or possible. Consciousness is shifty like that, the more often we hear or say something is true, the more true it becomes.

“You predict something and then knowingly/unknowingly act to cause the prediction [to] come true” (KAAGMANDU).

In application, the concept works at improving or destroying one’s self-conscious opinion of what they can or cannot attain in life. This can be seen clearly in abuse. Imagine Molly has an abusive boyfriend who tells her everyday that she is unattractive, overweight, and stupid. Because Molly value’s her boyfriend’s opinion of her and trusts his judgement, she will eventually believe the negative comments are true and real. Molly’s judgment is clouded by outside prophetic limitations.

However, if she considered the statements with a positive manner, she could see that the boyfriend defeats himself with his claims. Molly cannot be completely unattractive or else she would not have attracted the boyfriend. Instead, the negatives listed are probably fears the boyfriend has in regards of himself. Abusive boyfriends often project their flaws on their victims. What Molly needs is a better self-image – and that goes back to what one thinks they can be. Molly can accept she is not a supermodel, and focus on her true qualities, hence altering her perception of herself.

“The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes” (William James).

William James’ quote caught my eye this morning on Twitter.Great quote, with excellent intentions. However, I wonder if people unfamiliar with James’ variant philosophies catch the meaning. And, I consider the dangers lurking in the Law of Attraction when taken out of context.

“Now the starting point is to see that Thought, or purely mental action, is the only possible source from which the existing creation could ever have come into manifestation at all…” (Thomas Troward).

I cannot accept concepts of the Law of Attraction. I’ve tried; I’ve read, researched, theorized, and exhausted myself searching for firm ground. I decided not to include a link because I cannot feel good about any of the sites I’ve studied. The main issue I hold is that struggle is necessary for growth, just wishing for something does not make it so.

I do recommend The Dore Lectures by Thomas Troward, but I caution that his look at Mental Science relies heavily on religious belief. Click HERE and read free online. Now, that’s not to say that there is no value in the theory of like attracting like – the fundamental holds true for implementing positive perception in life. However, perception must at one point come to terms with reality.

Ayn Rand said, “In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance” (Objectivism for Intellectuals).

And so…we must take a closer look at Metaphysics. What exists and what does not show face in reality. A deeper interest in reality has led me towards Objectivism. Ayn Rand developed Objectivism Philosophy and wrote novels that revealed societal issues, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Currently, I am about one-third through the latter, and I see numerous elements of corruption present in contemporary society as described by Rand in 1957.

The Ayn Rand Institute carries values of her philosophy and offers further study. Check out ARI and learn about Objectivism. Share your comments below. I watched Prof. Peikoff’s lecture yesterday, and I really like the sound structure of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics as seen in Objectivism. Of intense interest is how to implement laissez-faire Capitalism – it sounds scary, but I think that’s false-morality talking. Definitely deserves a .

“Introduction to Objectivism” by Leonard Peikoff

 

I can think many things. I can imagine numerous thoughts. However, I must select which thoughts are worthy of implementing through action. What thoughts I will have in my reality, what is really possible. And here is where positive thoughts attract positive things. Whatever one looks for is what they will find. Why? because it was there all along, the mind just missed it because it was set to a different “channel.”

Altering one’s reality begins with altering the self, or how one perceives the self to be. Starting out basic, let’s set a sound, realistic version of who that self is, what that self can do, and how that self behaves. Think on it; really work it around in your mind. Then, realize that for the self to improve, that self must act on its desires, goals, and wants. Altering the self begins in the mind and continues through implemented action.

 

 

 

ShoutOut to SourcesQuote Investigator,

Darwinism: the Most Revolutionary Movement in Science

Which scientific revolution incurred the most change?

While revolutions in thought were present in chemistry, cosmology, geology, and physics, the most altering discoveries were in biology via Charles Darwin’s considerations for evolution through natural selection and adaptation of species. The fundamentals of evolutionary thought seized society with an urgency to unite scientific theory with everything, applying direct causation via biological matter to reality. Darwin’s dangerous ideas disrupted the religious hold on society by preferring scientific method and empirical evidence to scholastic considerations of the Golden era. Bowler and Morus said, “The original Darwinian revolution turned out to be only a transition to an evolutionary interpretation of an already-existing worldview based on faith in the idea of progress as the product of divine providence or of nature’s laws.”[1] Darwinism, and later biology, oriented the human being as an organism victim to alteration by its environment to encourage continuation of species. However, it would not be until the twentieth-century that society adapted the notion of the effects of a nurturing environment as able to improve the nature of humans. Victorians believed: “Environmental effects are powerless to alter the characteristics inherited by the child from its parents,”[2] but genetic discoveries would reveal the human ability to adapt based on external factors incorporated through experience.

 

Yes, cosmology demonstrated a scientific revolution. Astronomers of the 1930s agreed about the shape of the universe, but instead of considering the system as static they saw it as dynamic or a universe that was producing energy; Bowler and Morus said, “No longer was the galaxy that human beings inhabit to be considered as the center of the universe.”[3] The Milky Way was one of a number of other galaxies; much like humans were not unique creations but evolved animal species, the universe resided in one galaxy of many of galaxies. Bowler and Morus said, “From that perspective, the transformation might certainly be regarded as truly revolutionary in the same sense that the Copernican revolution was.”[4] Early twentieth-century held a revolution in the understanding of space and time. Relativistic physics replaced Newtonian theory, Bowler and Morus said, “…replaced with the standpoint that time and space were relative to the position and velocity of the observer.”[5]

 

In “The Elegant Universe” PBS Nova discussed Quantum Theory, a possibility that multiple realities existed in different dimensions of time. Based on statistical data, Quantum theory dealt with extremely small matter, atomic elements of protons and the nucleus, that Einstein’s theory of gravity did not effect or relate.[6] Modern scientists, since the 1970s, developed String Theory to unite “heavy” science with small science. Working with the stuff of Einstein’s dreams, as inspired by his notebooks and personal record, Alan Lightman wrote Einstein’s Dreams to illustrate the creative spirit of the famous scientist. Einstein questioned everything, and while he did not agree with quantum theories, Lightman showed that Einstein thought more than one possibility could exist. 14 April 1905: “Suppose time is a circle, bending back on itself. The world repeats itself, precisely, endlessly.”[7] And later, on 14 May 1905: “There is a place where time stands still. Raindrops hang motionless in air. Pendulums of clocks float mid-swing. … Pedestrians are frozen on the dusty streets, their legs cocked as if held by strings.”[8] Einstein allowed room for the possibility of alternate time and space, but he rejected quantum theory. Is his rejection due to gravity not be unified? What would Einstein have thought of String theory?

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

“The Elegant Universe.” PBS Nova, 10 Aug 2014. YouTube.com. Online video. 25 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AJA5JD/the-survival-of-the-fittest-application-of-darwinism-in-the-21st-century-AJA5JD.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 161.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 158.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 287.

[6] PBS, “The Elegant Universe.”

[7] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

[8] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

Science Speaks but Society Cherry-Picks Ideals

One question I still have for modern science is – have they been able to discover why the female brain is smaller than the male? Granted, I utilize deduction a good bit so my non-scientific conclusion to the brain size issue is that: men are bigger and stronger (biologically) than the female gender…therefore their brains by necessity would be slightly larger. I have always thought that organs were in proportion to their bodies.

I cannot remember which thread we were in, but I believe we discussed context – and taking things in or out of context. I see this as a huge hurdle for the historian. i.e.: Social Darwinism was the social reaction to Darwin’s theory – but they only took what they wanted, or could use, to further support their schematic. In “The Descent of Man (1871),” Darwin addressed the different physicalities of non-Europeans and Europeans, he said:

But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species… Nevertheless, all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterized would probably deserve to rank as man.[1]

Not only does Darwin credit the different races of human being as all being human, but he also extends the right of manhood to the ancient progenitor. This says that all races are human, and the species that we came from also as being human – for modern science, that could classify the Lucy specimen as more human than primate. Society shifted the concepts around to fit their liking and industrialism benefited more from deeming certain humans as unfit – because they could be paid less or nothing, taken advantage of like livestock, and worked to death without society batting an eye. If society allowed all races natural human rights, then their workforce would take a direct hit. Society read that same passage, but they focused in on the word “sub-species” to indicate that sub was below or not as good as.

I watched “Schindler’s List” last night to set the mood for my eugenics piece and to remind me how brutal and inhumane it is to look around and decide that a certain mass of people no longer have the right to take up space. This is why eugenics has such an ugly dating card – but the blame should fall on the human office, or the “what we do with our information,” and not the information itself. If eugenics were only “limited breeding” based on health factors it rather makes sense. i.e.: If I knew that I had a “bad” gene that could be passed down and would hinder or destroy my child’s life, then I would take necessary precautions to either not have children or ask science to alter the “bad” gene – I would not throw caution to the wind and leave it up to chance. I will even go farther, to address the overpopulation fear – there are too many people living on the earth, and with the growth rate of 1 birth every 8 seconds, and only 1 death every 10 seconds, the earth is in a world of trouble – at this moment the world population is 7,297,467,699+.[2] This is where it is an individual problem – why does one family need more than a normal amount of people? This is not 1862, and Farmer Elijah does not need thirteen young pups to man his field, nor do people have rational fears that their young children will not survive to ten years old. The individual responsibility is to keep one’s family at a reasonable size so that one can give each child a good life.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Darwin, Charles. “The Descent of Man (1871).” Darwin:  A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Phillip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 175-254.

United States Census Bureau. “U.S. and World Population Clock.” 2016. Web. 8 Jan 2016. http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/47/22/82/4722825fcf7a9dbd67089499cb6ee153.jpg

[1] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 245.

[2] Census, “World Population Clock,” 8 Jan 2016, 9:04 a.m.

Rant: Own your Morality

My sociology readings are becoming like an annoying rash. I argue, I debate, I scream till I am blue in the face…yet academia demonstrates to me that society is unwilling (or unable) to accept morality as biologically inherent to the individual. We let outside sources direct our lives, but society’s mainstream view of reality is not the end-all-do-all to each individual life experience. Society becomes a factor when the individual allows the authoritative voice to overshadow the subjective.

It is within the ability of the individual to be good without external direction. Accepting morals and ethics is natural for a human organism, and listening to the demands of society is truly the coming together of individuals in a grand compromise to ensure that many can live together. Humanity cultivated morality and ethics so that “we can all get along.” I think this is a grand action on the part of natural selection, these adaptive qualities of species flexing from individual into the collective. Each individual is part of that shift, it is not a melting of many but a grouping of diverse experience. And who is to credit? …Nature, as nurture is a result of modified species.

 

Picture c/o:  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aA0MfYafBwE/Upc3XlGw6JI/AAAAAAAADSA/5ItsgaGG5fA/s1600/Lovely+Quotes+for+life2.jpg

@MmePhilosopher #Dionysian

Science…Yes, please!

Good afternoon Fellow Wanderers…

Last week I offered consideration for Friedrich Nietzsche’s vivid thoughts, namely the ability of the Dionysian to reconstruct their own reality. Truly fascinating concepts – I carry them with me wherever I go.

This week, I want to turn fully towards science<> and take a look at the purely natural human ability to bend and shift the way we understand reality to roll. In that Quantum Theory exists, let us accept that many things are possible. …but I am getting ahead of myself.

I will begin with forum discussions from the course I completed in January 2016 – The History of Science in which we questioned “Was the Scientific Revolution actually a ‘revolution’?” {spoiler – Yes! the Scientific Revolution, though not fought in hand to hand combat, realigned the way that humanity understood truth and provided the scientific method, relying on empirical data over handed down stories {Nietzsche’s “add-on-liars” see previous post:  “Faith, Reason, and Consciousness”}.

Picture c/o:  http://www.studenthandouts.com/01-Web-Pages/BSA/201409/scientific-revolution-powerpoint-free.png

 

Is Compassion Restricted to Femininity?

Good morning Fellow Wanderers…

I completed my fourth essay for HUMN 571 this week, using Margaret Mead’s Sex & Temperament in Three Primitive Societies as primary text with the assistance of Peggy Reeves Sanday and Francis L.K. Hsu as strong secondary sources. Once this session is closed, I will post my piece “Margaret Mead’s Hope for American Feminism,” but until then – my research presented interesting conjecture in regards to the abilities of human beings as separate biological entities, masculine and feminine.

The term “feminine intuition” has popped up throughout my life, but I had not – until recently – considered that this intuition is exclusive to women, hence, creating a proverbial chip on the shoulders of men whom are not, biologically, able to attain it. In this sense, “womb envy” may trump “penis envy.” Graver still as few are aware of biological indicators.

Do men have “masculine intuition” to combat the advantages in feminine consciousness, or are they immune to the pull of compassion? Experience says No, as I have witnessed compassionate males in action, yet…I wander…is compassion a choice? are males able to ignore their internal conscious easier than females?

Discussion much appreciated.

Works Cited

Hsu, Francis L.K. “Margaret Mead and Psychological Anthropology.” American Anthropologist, 82.2 (1980): 349-53. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb 2016.

Mead, Margaret. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. Ed. Mary CatherineBateson and Helen Fisher. New York: Harper Perennial, 2001.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. “Margaret Mead’s View of Sex Roles in Her Own and Other Societies.”American Anthropologist, 82.2 (1980): 340-8. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://lovelifetbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/question-mark-chalk-board-woman-thinking-e1430426978852.jpg

Defining Socialism for American Society

Political momentum rallies around socialism as if it were a new “ideal.” No, sadly, socialism is still, in 2016, an unrealistic enemy. Socialism is still the avenue which leads to communism. Why? Short answer:  because we are human. Human beings are selfish creatures. We’ve been conscious roughly 100,000 years, and consciousness will further improve over time. Socialism will not be the bridge to perfection.

Socialism invokes ugly “equality” in that everyone will – in theory – receive what is deemed adequate. The questions is “Who defines adequate?” If you think modern politics would improve with socialism, please – for the love of Reason – do a quick google search. In it, one will find the Bolshevik revolution; I recommend a quick read through.

There is no such thing as a “democratic socialist.” It is a socialist. Period. Socialism says that all citizens will receive equal distribution regardless of the amount of effort the individual exerts. That means that doctors will be paid the same as fast food workers. Equality, right? I think not. The doctor made himself better via education, but socialism will punish him for self-improvement.

Capitalism takes a good bit of heat for being aimed at the “elite.” I want to remind society that capitalism replaced the Old Regime, ending heredity right and creating a platform for each person to create themselves – why would society desert capitalism, now, when such progress was made. Capitalism, if reformed, will continue to provide a stable ground for the individual who wants a better life.

#SelfMadeMan #Capitalism #AntiSocialism

Picture c/o:  http://libertyalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/free-cheese-mousetrap-socialism.jpg

Dionysian Origins

, I have not found a specific term to label Nietzsche’s alternative considerations, but he advised individuals to create themselves by experiencing pain and pleasure, allowing room for one’s own selfish concerns, and acknowledging progress to belong to evil intentions. Or, rather, asked for a redefinition/understanding of the terms “good and evil.” I think Nietzsche wants us to be honest and ask ourselves, “What do I think I want? Let us see…I’ll have to try each flavor, as I cannot rely on a universal demand to tell me I prefer lemon. I think I like chocolate better.” Here, duty would demand that lemon was the flavor and sucking a lemon tart was the moral thing to do. “Evil” urged that another flavor would not be as tart. Experience showed chocolate as personal preference. Evil encouraged change. {Imagine room full of stiff philosophers sucking on lemons, and Nietzsche stretched out with a box of Godiva. lol<>}.

Nietzsche saw the qualities of good and evil as motivating forces for humankind to determine their own path. However, the ability to improve fell on the side of evil and not good; Nietzsche said, “The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity… they forced men to pit opinion against opinion, ideal model against ideal model” (4). Real change were implemented by men of evil intent – the people who were not satisfied with current rule and used force to upend reality – while the men of good intent were attempting to keep life nice and easy. Nietzsche saw anything “new” as linked to evil because it disordered the previous good. Nietzsche said, “All refined servility clings to the categorical imperative and is the mortal enemy of those who want to deprive duty of its unconditional character…” (5). He saw duty as created obligation used as means to ensure that the average human fed the artificial system of society. He advised humanity to give up their moral high-horses and to recognize their own selfishness; Nietzsche said, “For it is selfish to consider one’s own judgement [sic] a universal law, and this selfishness is blind, petty, and simple because it shows that you haven’t yet discovered yourself or created for yourself an ideal of your very own…” (335). Selfishness is not all bad, as we have seen in previous texts this session. What matters is what one does with their selfish considerations.

The message I receive from Nietzsche is that we are all master’s of our own universes and not limited to strict morality as society understood it – individually, people are able to create themselves, and they do not need society to tell them how to do it. Dionysian pessimism was predicted for the future, in the hands of anarchists – those seized with romantic pessimism that extended their torture on the lot of humanity; Nietzsche said:

 

The desire for destruction, for change and for becoming can be the expression of an overflowing energy pregnant with the future (my term for this is, as is known, ‘Dionysian’); but it can also be the hatred of the ill-constituted, deprived, and underprivileged one who destroys and must destroy because what exists, indeed all existence, all being, outrages and provokes him (370).

 

Is this ‘Dionysian’ his term to replace morality? The becoming process was a path for unique and incomparable individuals who wanted to create their own laws as well as themselves, he said: “Sitting in moral judgement [sic] should offend our taste” (Nietzsche 335). Life was a process that required physicists to create reality.

 

Works Cited

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

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thank you for the picture:  http://content2.beyondretro.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/THE_DIONYSIAN_STILL_21.jpg

Faith, Reason, and Consciousness according to Herr Professor

{Peer} noted that faith and spiritualization, for Nietzsche, are separate from instinct. Let’s look for balance between faith, reason, and consciousness.

Faith:

  • in oneself – hard to come by; people spend too much time convincing their inner skeptic that the self is worth supporting; may require genius (284).
  • errors of – Nietzsche sees many truths exposed as erroneous and the weakest form of knowledge; to include: “that there are enduring things; that there are identical things, kinds of material, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in and for itself” (110).
  • cause and effect – Faith relies on belief, not factual evidence or empirical truth. It is an extended working of the imagination. Nietzsche noted that one’s belief would change dependent on experience; he said, “Before the effect one believes in causes different from those one believes in after the effect” (217).

Reason:

  • Nietzsche sees reason as clouded because humanity assumes too many false truths to really work out any hard-core expressions of reason.
  • e. How can one find reason in a soup of belief?
  • the add-on-liars – Custom, or handing down one tradition from a previous age and forcing it on a new age, results in people supporting false notions. Nietzsche said, “… one lied to oneself, inventing reasons for these laws, simply to avoid admitting that one had become used to them and would no longer have it any other way. … And that is what one does, and has always done, within every prevailing morality and religion: the reasons and intents behind habits are invented only when some people start attacking the habits and asking for reasons and intents” (29).

Consciousness:

  • The aware, knowing element to the human mind. The singular force inside each human that must determine what is true and how to roll through life.
  • {much notation present in forum discussions}

As displayed over these past weeks, I like to break things down to see how they may be connected. If one of those things disprove the other, then I cannot see how a bridge could be formed – though there may be a way, I just cannot kin it. Consciousness is dependent on being aware of the truth, and reason further addresses the truth to discover motivation and intent as well as process and expectancy of outcome. Faith is dependent on belief. One of these is not like the other<>. Truth and belief are nemesis, on a serious level. Truth requires proof, evidence, and empirical considerations while belief is secured to superstition, religion, mysticism, spiritualism, occultism (and Santa Claus}. While Yin and Yang balance the other out, Truth and Belief are not comparable – one makes the other false, not equal. Imagine Truth as a baseball field and you are running the bases. Belief comes into play, and suddenly the ground is made up of water. Try to continue running the bases. You cannot. The bases are gone. There is no balance because one cannot reason themselves out of the situation. The moment one realized it was water and started to swim, the mind was already twisting around “how in the world did this happen? If the field is a pool then why would my coach tell me to wear cleats?” There is no reason here, no logic to deduce. Anything could happen. Down the rabbit hole we go! Reason and truth do not live in belief.

 

Works Cited

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

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thank you for the picture:  http://ldsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IllusionofMind-1024×768.jpg

Morality as noted by Nietzsche

Nietzsche’s concept of morality was described as a natural human factor based on the societal urges of the individual – something he refers to as herd instinct. Social media displays a plethora of references to the masses of modern society as sheep – and the participants could easily have gotten this notion from Nietzsche; he said, “With morality the individual is instructed to be a function of the herd and to ascribe value to himself only as a function” (116). Humans require motivation to perform actions, but Nietzsche saw this as a biological expression not afforded nature, in other words – nature would not be defined by man’s laws.

He viewed the universe as accidental chaos, or a lack of order and said, “… in no way does [nature] strive to imitate man! In no way do our aesthetic and moral judgements apply to it! It also has no drive to self-preservation or any other drives; nor does it observe any laws” (Nietzsche 111). He viewed matter as an error and therefore an exception to what should be natural law. Nietzsche called for a re-evaluation of a de-deified nature – allowing room for nature and species to continue to change along it’s exceptional chaotic path. I see it as workings of evolution. Morals belonged to the herd instinct and were not dependent on religious factors, or God. Humanity itself, with the natural adaptive qualities of an organism, adapted to become godlike, erasing the need for God – Nietzsche felt the concept of deity would become a thing of the past, but he noted that the time he spoke was too soon; he told a parable of the madman: “This tremendous event is still on its way, wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. … This deed is still more remote to them than the remotest stars – and yet they have done it themselves!” (125).

Nietzsche saw culture as a product of social experience, but morality as an active motivator for the human species – accredited to the overriding demands of the community. Nietzsche held “…where need and distress have for a long time forced people to communicate, to understand each other swiftly and subtly, there finally exists a surplus of this power and art of expression, a faculty, so to speak, which has slowly accumulated and now waits for an heir to spend it lavishly” (354). Culture was what expression caught from experience, and though he felt artists lacking, it was their responsibility to form culture for society.

People are often upset when reading Nietzsche. Is this because we are still, even in the modern sense, not ready to accept natural lessons?

 

Works Cited

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

Josefine Nauckhoff and Adrian Del Caro. Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Thank you for the picture:  https://jackflacco.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/zombie-herd-mentality2.jpg