Some time ago I read Bernard Williams' "Shame and Necessity", in many way a fine, subtle and very informative work. Williams is commonly known as a 'Nietzschean' and a fine philosopher himself, so i approached the book optimistically (it's a complex work examining mainly pre-Socratic Greek morality, especially in the context of the modern post-Christian predicament).
However, despite beginning the book by quoting from Nietzsche's second Untimely Meditation 'History' work:
". . .for I do not know what meaning classical studies could have for our time if they were not untimely - that is to say, acting counter to our time and thereby acting on our time and, let us hope, for the benefit of a time to come".
a central contrast at issue for Nietzsche is NEVER mentioned in Williams' entire book. This is the question of equality. Yes, Williams explicitly addresses the question of ('natural')slavery, showing that there were indeed good arguments against it already in existence, contra Aristotle. But the 'equality' issue, the assertion that all people, qua persons, are equally valuable and worthy is conspicuously absent from the book. In the context of a supposedly 'Nietzschean scholar', investigating and contrasting ancient Greek and modern sensibilities, this lacuna is a very large elephant in a very small room!
Why the reticence? Why the omission? This reminds one of Nietzsche (in UM111) invoking the scorn of Diogenes: "How can he be considered great, since he has been a philosopher for so long and has never yet disturbed anybody?". Nietzsche then adds "That, indeed, ought to be the epitaph of university philosophy: 'it disturbed nobody' ".
I use the term 'free-thinkers' here very loosely, to refer to the easily observed tendency among the majority of public intellectuals to affirm broadly 'liberationist' and 'left-liberal' principles, presuppositions, goals, and rhetoric. Sophistry aside, Nietzsche clearly, repeatedly, and explicitly disassociates himself from this general movement. Why?
Put simply, he sees it as the victory of the mob and its shepherds, whose valuations are essentially inadequate and hostile to the 'existential' situation we find ourselves in. Ostensibly, one could argue that Nietzsche wants to simply promote 'excellence' within a culture. Well, who doesn't?
Actually, the vast majority of us. The sort of 'excellence' Nietzsche always has in mind is premised upon the full consciousness and affirmation of an 'order of rank' between people; and this, as we all know, is commonly considered 'beyond the pale' by all the 'good men' with the largest (and most powerful) audiences. Mere talent, for Nietzsche signifies nothing of real value, and is entirely compatible with the most hollow and degrading culture! If anyone doubts this assertion, let them offer any textual evidence in support?
In my view, it's the 'egalitarian' psychology and consciousness (qua consciousness, affect, bearing), more than any specific aptitude in any particular field, that Nietzsche is concerned with and combats. Let's imagine, for example, that the 'cultural' achievements (i.e. the artifacts)of Periclean Athens and the Renaissance were the product of left-liberal societies; in an instant Nietzsche's high admiration of these epochs would immediately vanish!
This is a complex issue, because it's certainly no coincidence that both these periods, highly valued by Nietzsche, demonstrate exemplary creativity and forms of excellence. But, to value them fundamentally on that account alone is to put the cart before the horse, for the artifacts themselves are not, for Nietzsche, what really matters. What really matters is the interiority of (certain) individuals themselves.
I haven't been there for a very long time. It was interesting for a while, but then deteriorated quite noticeably, and I lost patience. I only posted yesterday to get exposure for the blog!
Generalising enormously, naturally, but it is a comedy fit for the Gods how so many champions of "humanity" and the "common man" have no meaningful contact, knowledge, empathy or affinity with those closest to their ideological hearts. From a practical point of view, mob flattery, in all it's guises, can get you a long way in the world.
"The Devil can cite scripture", Shakespeare truly said. Most simply want to be on the side that's winning, it's as simple as that; and at this point in our historical evolution, the masses are on top (perhaps destined to stay there forever, alas).
"Generalising enormously, naturally, but it is a comedy fit for the Gods how so many champions of "humanity" and the "common man" have no meaningful contact, knowledge, empathy or affinity with those closest to their ideological hearts."
I've often seen this tendency, as I live in a town that was once "conservative" now becoming "progressive." The former were, obviously, Christian, the latter, in my estimation, are on their way to becoming even better Christians, as much as they would hate to be considered such.
Everything abstract and exotic is better than immediacy. In the name of "justice" these people segregate themselves by class, rather than race, and seek to make their values The Values. They have nothing in common with the working man or with "minorities," and less to do with them outside of conceptualization: "Working Class" and "Minorities." They would never get their fingers dirty touching either if they couldn't clean their hands later with soul-redeeming world travel, "education," spiritual retreats, voting "progressive," and owning a Toyota Prius.
They've simply dropped the title "Christian" but thoroughly upheld the framework...
For example:
ReplyDeleteSome time ago I read Bernard Williams' "Shame and Necessity", in many way a fine, subtle and very informative work. Williams is commonly known as a 'Nietzschean' and a fine philosopher himself, so i approached the book optimistically (it's a complex work examining mainly pre-Socratic Greek morality, especially in the context of the modern post-Christian predicament).
However, despite beginning the book by quoting from Nietzsche's second Untimely Meditation 'History' work:
". . .for I do not know what meaning classical studies could have for our time if they were not untimely - that is to say, acting counter to our time and thereby acting on our time and, let us hope, for the benefit of a time to come".
a central contrast at issue for Nietzsche is NEVER mentioned in Williams' entire book. This is the question of equality. Yes, Williams explicitly addresses the question of ('natural')slavery, showing that there were indeed good arguments against it already in existence, contra Aristotle. But the 'equality' issue, the assertion that all people, qua persons, are equally valuable and worthy is conspicuously absent from the book. In the context of a supposedly 'Nietzschean scholar', investigating and contrasting ancient Greek and modern sensibilities, this lacuna is a very large elephant in a very small room!
Why the reticence? Why the omission? This reminds one of Nietzsche (in UM111) invoking the scorn of Diogenes: "How can he be considered great, since he has been a philosopher for so long and has never yet disturbed anybody?". Nietzsche then adds "That, indeed, ought to be the epitaph of university philosophy: 'it disturbed nobody' ".
I use the term 'free-thinkers' here very loosely, to refer to the easily observed tendency among the majority of public intellectuals to affirm broadly 'liberationist' and 'left-liberal' principles, presuppositions, goals, and rhetoric. Sophistry aside, Nietzsche clearly, repeatedly, and explicitly disassociates himself from this general movement. Why?
ReplyDeletePut simply, he sees it as the victory of the mob and its shepherds, whose valuations are essentially inadequate and hostile to the 'existential' situation we find ourselves in. Ostensibly, one could argue that Nietzsche wants to simply promote 'excellence' within a culture. Well, who doesn't?
Actually, the vast majority of us. The sort of 'excellence' Nietzsche always has in mind is premised upon the full consciousness and affirmation of an 'order of rank' between people; and this, as we all know, is commonly considered 'beyond the pale' by all the 'good men' with the largest (and most powerful) audiences. Mere talent, for Nietzsche signifies nothing of real value, and is entirely compatible with the most hollow and degrading culture! If anyone doubts this assertion, let them offer any textual evidence in support?
In my view, it's the 'egalitarian' psychology and consciousness (qua consciousness, affect, bearing), more than any specific aptitude in any particular field, that Nietzsche is concerned with and combats. Let's imagine, for example, that the 'cultural' achievements (i.e. the artifacts)of Periclean Athens and the Renaissance were the product of left-liberal societies; in an instant Nietzsche's high admiration of these epochs would immediately vanish!
This is a complex issue, because it's certainly no coincidence that both these periods, highly valued by Nietzsche, demonstrate exemplary creativity and forms of excellence. But, to value them fundamentally on that account alone is to put the cart before the horse, for the artifacts themselves are not, for Nietzsche, what really matters. What really matters is the interiority of (certain) individuals themselves.
Hi Parmeniclitus,
ReplyDeleteI haven't been there for a very long time. It was interesting for a while, but then deteriorated quite noticeably, and I lost patience. I only posted yesterday to get exposure for the blog!
Generalising enormously, naturally, but it is a comedy fit for the Gods how so many champions of "humanity" and the "common man" have no meaningful contact, knowledge, empathy or affinity with those closest to their ideological hearts. From a practical point of view, mob flattery, in all it's guises, can get you a long way in the world.
"The Devil can cite scripture", Shakespeare truly said. Most simply want to be on the side that's winning, it's as simple as that; and at this point in our historical evolution, the masses are on top (perhaps destined to stay there forever, alas).
"Generalising enormously, naturally, but it is a comedy fit for the Gods how so many champions of "humanity" and the "common man" have no meaningful contact, knowledge, empathy or affinity with those closest to their ideological hearts."
ReplyDeleteI've often seen this tendency, as I live in a town that was once "conservative" now becoming "progressive." The former were, obviously, Christian, the latter, in my estimation, are on their way to becoming even better Christians, as much as they would hate to be considered such.
Everything abstract and exotic is better than immediacy. In the name of "justice" these people segregate themselves by class, rather than race, and seek to make their values The Values. They have nothing in common with the working man or with "minorities," and less to do with them outside of conceptualization: "Working Class" and "Minorities." They would never get their fingers dirty touching either if they couldn't clean their hands later with soul-redeeming world travel, "education," spiritual retreats, voting "progressive," and owning a Toyota Prius.
They've simply dropped the title "Christian" but thoroughly upheld the framework...