Thoughts on Jonathan Glover’s '“Nietzsche’s Challenge.”
“In our time, the problem is how to accept his skepticism about a religious authority for morality while escaping from his appalling conclusions.”
I agree with many points that were made in relation to the idea that the world has no inherent meaning and purpose is something everyone should create for themselves. I think there is no definite way or model everyone should follow to become an ‘enlightened’ person and each individual’s passions and ‘art’ are their own. However, I think Nietzsche is going about it in kind of an overly vigorous way; he is resisting intrinsic meaning yet is trying to assign a purpose in people finding their purpose. I think it is alright for a brilliant artist to keep his art for himself, he does not have to share it with the rest of the world for the sake of advancing humanity. I think it is also okay for a man to produce something insipid, if that is what he likes. I could argue that most contemporary artists have no talent nor vision but it is not something I would protest against, because I believe that it is their right to create as they please. And for the herd to worship whatever art or idea as they please.
In my opinion, everyone should do whatever they want and whatever they believe will make them happiest, and if their desires include sharing their art with others, then they can do so. But I am a firm believer that there are no obligations for anybody (unless they are a parent responsible for a child) and anyone can do as they wish within their own subjective bounds and realm of realism (for example, someone who enjoys living in a democracy will have to be okay with the fact that their political opinion may not be the most popular nor the most favored as a condition of living in said democracy).
I also disagree that people need to have a high degree of self-control and discipline at all times. Maybe I am too immature and juvenile to understand the importance of regulation but I act on basically every impulse and I am fine. Sure, sometimes I make mistakes, and sure, sometimes I may say insensitive things, but that's how I learn and doing what I want is what makes my life fun. Suppressing my impulsive desires almost feels like shushing my subconscious, and I would like to keep that part of my psyche intact. I guess it is just not a priority of mine to reach a state of divinity in that regard, because I would rather be artistically impulsive than “hard”. Whatever that means.
“The reward of hardness towards yourself is to become what you have the potential to be: the artist and creator of your own life”
Can an artist not be impulsive and artistic? I dislike the usage of extremes. People can be two things at once (like Shrodinger’s cat). The reason I have the freedom to be impulsive is because I am the artist and creator of my own life.
I find it amusing that Nietzsche is so disgusted by weak people. Although I am not as drastic as him, I agree that weak people can be insipid. I dislike cowardly qualities in people and prefer to be around others that are self assured even if they are arrogant and disdained. I don’t think anybody should be exploited, but in terms of how society (especially ours, with capitalism and whatnot) functions, weak people tend to work for the ‘strong’ regardless of how important or ‘special’ every individual may be.
I do agree with the idea that some people use their weakness as an excuse for moral virtue, at least in certain cases. For example, I hate it when people avoid confrontation because “they don’t want to offend anybody”. In my opinion, that notion is stupid and counterintuitive, and they should simply admit that they are a coward. Just because you are afraid of consequences or risk does not mean you are sensible. But I do not think these qualities make people useless, just slightly more unbearable. But everyone has qualities that are dislikable to some extent so I usually just shrug it off as a ‘human’ trait. We are all flawed and we are all annoying. Annoying people aren’t necessarily inferior by any means, just harder to deal with. I think Nietzsche was just a really bothered man who happened to be constantly surrounded by really annoying people. Socrates probably felt that way too.
I like to sympathize with people who value being different, being apart from the majority. Nobody likes being called a sheep. However I think people who get too lost in the concept of setting themselves apart drive themselves crazy because usually nobody else cares about the same things they do. There is nothing wrong with being alike to other people, relating to the masses, and being part of a democratic majority. Maybe Nietzsche categorizing people into ubermensches and the herd was to convince himself he wasn’t an idiot, that he had a purpose, he was a prophet. But maybe he was also seeking validation from the wrong places. Calling other people useless doesn’t make him any more useful. Just different, maybe. And there is a difference between being different and being useful. And he was probably a failure too, to some standard to some extent. There is nothing beyond greatness that can be achieved in this world, so I say just embrace the cosmic. Be useless. Be a pleb. Be a sheep. Who cares?
However Nietzsche defines a “hard” man is a man I dislike. I hate stubborn people who think they’re superior to everyone else (lol I bet you’re thinking I am one to speak). You can be superior to everyone else, but I believe a big part of being superior is being open minded and understanding. I dislike people who like arguing for the sake of winning and only like to argue to win. What’s the point? Being Stoic probably just means being emotionally unavailable and rigid, in which case you must cease your pursuit of knowledge. Then are you even still a philosopher? I think not!
And also I do not care in the slightest of leaving an impact on history. So maybe Nietzsche and I just have different priorities. But as great philosophers do, we stray at a strand, which I cannot distinguish precisely but is somewhere within this thought chain. I’m just kidding. I would never refer to myself as a great philosopher because I am just a philosopher who happens to be great ;)
