“There
is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” –
Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare, Act 2 Scene 2.
Having
defended Friedrich Nietzsche from scars which never left a wound –
in other words, spurious accusations – I now feel comfortable in
writing an analysis which isn’t directed at making a modern
audience more comfortable with his controversial philosophy. Of
course, if our minds were truly free from prejudice and
indoctrination, I wouldn’t have had to contextualise his thinking.
However, as we are tethered to an intellectual bondage, my previous
essay was all too necessary.
This
essay shall hereafter be a pithy analysis of Beyond Good and Evil,
an excellent read which I enjoyed in the sand dunes of Saudi Arabia.
This essay will be composed of an analysis of selected quotes.
Quote
one:
“The
time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring
with it the struggle for mastery over the whole Earth.”
Nietzsche
dismisses petty politics where there is an obligation to read a
newspaper with breakfast. Consequently, he asserts that what is
needed is a compulsion towards grand politics and a struggle for
mastery.
It
seems, quite sadly, that with globalisation, Nietzsche was somewhat
prophetic: the will to power – in the form of economic greed –
has manifested itself within a culture which has an insatiable lust
for money in the form of the American economic empire.
The
will of this empire, controlled by a Bildeberger from his
billionaire’s yacht, has gripped Mankind by its genitals and
dominates it accordingly. Most humorously – although this is the
darkest of all comedies here – the American public have been
enslaved by this will, insofar as their petty morality has been
perverted into a glib interest in highly convoluted talent shows, and
in the form of redundant opinions which repeat, mindlessly, the might
of the dictator; their wills being passively subverted so that their
perception is their pseudo-reality.
Alas,
Nietzsche was right!
Quote
two:
“To
prepare for great enterprises and collective experiments in
discipline and breeding so as to make an end of that gruesome
dominion of chance that has hitherto been called ‘history’.”
It
is quite easy – all too easy – to see how Hitler cherry picked
and highlighted elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy for his own
ends. To develop an Übermensch, Nietzsche
claimed that such a visionary enterprise, such as a collective
experiment, could certify power for such a race of superior beings.
The
influence of Nietzsche on social Darwinism is obvious – but –
but(!) – he ignores the classic counter; the utmost importance of
nurture. The afore-mentioned debate is now very tired and trite.
Nevertheless, scientific experiments, whose origination and intent we
must remain sceptical of, can sometimes add a drop of vitality to an
ocean of stagnation.
Also,
I sense a contradiction in Nietzsche’s philosophy here: that is,
unless I misunderstand Nietzsche’s ideas, he seems to despise what
he calls an “obedience to uniformity”; yet, how could a
collectivist experiment occur without an agreed degree of uniformity?
Perhaps
(although perhapses are dangerous – not to mention all too human),
it is best not to take an idea to an extreme and realise that
Nietzsche will inevitably prioritise some of his ideas – or even
ideals – over others. Or, as the great man put it himself, “only
an idiot doesn’t contradict himself three times a day.”
Quote
three:
“Everything
that raises the individual above the herd and makes his neighbour
quail is henceforth called evil.”
The
veracity of Nietzsche’s statement, for me, is practically a
self-evident truth. I almost want to let it stand alone. However, I
have so much to say about it. A pertinent example would be the
English education system, and in particular, modern GCSE league
tables: successful schools are deemed one which amasses the most
numerous amount of passes. Students who are on the C/D borderline
are therefore selected and prioritised by schools as results are
deemed everything.
Mediocrity
is evidently the current ethos of British society. To ensure that the
lump in the middle is the most important is a slap in the face
towards success and progress. If we truly wanted to progress as a
society, shouldn’t we place every student with an equality of
opportunity, but accept that there will be a standard deviation of
outcomes on any given standardised assessment?
Are
we so scared of intelligence that it is prioritised so lowly by
society after society after society?
Best
selling newspapers which an eight year old could read; popular TV
shows which showcase a dancing canine; package holidays; mundane
conversation about the weather; Towie; pop music; ubiquitous comedy;
decadent hedonism; celebrity big brother...the list of mediocrity is
almost endless. How can it be that what is unique is detested, but
that the bilge of everyday banality is celebrated?
Quote
four:
“What
a philosopher is, is hard to learn, because it cannot be taught: one
has to ‘know’ it from experience.”
If
the above point is absolutely true, then the study of philosophy is,
of course, utterly redundant. However, I genuinely think that
philosophers are born, rather than created; despite that, I also
think any discipline can be taught, but whether it can be truly
learned is another matter. We also have to trust that when Nietzsche
speaks of learning that he is very much measuring learning from his
precocious and lofty position of a truly misunderstood genius.
Most
people with an interest in philosophy weren’t taught the subject in
mandatory schooling (except if you happen to be French). No. Instead,
they gravitated towards the discipline themselves – philosophers
are the thinkers, the misfits, the contrarians, the true individuals
who feel forced, yes forced, to converse, write and debate about
knowledge, truth, beauty, the self, life, death and all of the other
facets of humanity which require discussion, debate, examination and
re-examination.
To
paraphrase Nietzsche, our truths are not for everyone but that only
and justly serves makes them all the more valuable in our own esteem.
Conclusion:
In
all honesty, I could wax lyrical about Nietzsche, and perhaps I
shall. As can be determined, Nietzsche’s philosophy is very
current: his predictions were often correct. His disdain for
mediocrity was passionate and extremely well thought through. However
arrogant and judgemental Nietzsche was, his literary style (coupled
with his ability to realise an uncomfortable truth) makes him one of
the most alluring philosophers there has ever been.
Samuel
Mack-Poole
