Since my last post I have composed around three or four new poems, but at this point I do not want to share them on by blog. I have been more than nervous about getting accepted to even one college, and at this point I have not gotten in anywhere. I find it unlikely that this late in the admissions game my blog will be checked, but what do I know. I have been reading a lot of Nietzsche and Shakespeare lately, and decided to write a short essay comparing our thought. Note that I am not a philosopher yet, but I still have my own take on life. I plan to add to this essay, but having been light on my posts lately I felt that it behooved me to publish.
1
I make it a know fact that Friedrich Nietzsche is my idol, or my second idol (Shakespeare being the other candidate), but the fact remains that Nietzsche is actually different from me in critical areas, and similar to me in others. Note that I will be using Nietzschean philosophy and Nietzsche as the same term, and I will use “me” to stand for my own brand of philosophy. Note that I am not comparing myself to Fred in terms of intellect, writing ability or anything of that nature, but comparing our philosophies and attempting to see where I am influenced by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is first and foremost a philosopher. He is secondarily a historian (specializing in classical history), and then a critic, musician, poet and political thinker. I am a critic, poet, philosopher, historian and political thinker, with no talent in music whatsoever.
2
A good place to begin an examination of Nietzschean philosophy and my philosophy (I do not believe that I have earned the term “Hillmanian philosophy”, so shall not use it) is our idea of god. I am still skeptical of Nietzsche’s atheism; shocking! Nietzsche the philosopher clearly does not believe in god (by god I mean any divine being, creator being, et cetera) but I still feel as if Nietzsche the man may believe in god. A piece of anecdotal evidence for this fact was his alleged plan to become a Lutheran minister! Yes, the most famous atheist of all time (for now) may have deep down believed in god. This is not to say that he believed in organized religion, but the fact that god was dead was clearly troubling to Nietzsche. I have not textual evidence of this, but considering the events of Nietzsche’s life it is probable that pure atheism is not something that he was comfortable with.
My atheism is different. It is derived from a life with scientific knowledge that Nietzsche did not have access too, a life of reading, and an upbringing that never forced me to believe in God. Of course deep down I fear that I may be destined to a life of damnation, but if I had to bet money on the existence of a divine or supernatural being I would hedge it on the lack of existence. I feel that I belong to a purer brand of atheism than Nietzsche.
Nietzsche believed that religion had no place in the modern world, and may have believed that religion would be phased out just as the belief that the world was flat no long holds any merit. Either this or it was very wishful thinking. It is my belief that religion is here to stay, and the negative and literal interpretations of religions would become the extreme, and the majority if people who look to religion will ignore the “proclaimed religious truths” and if one believes in god it will not be an entity of consequence. This change is evinced by a shift in world-wide thinking, and god is not even an integral part in the lives of most people all over the world. Granted, there is a backlash and a shift to the literal interpretation of religion, but overall most religious believers are become more open to modern interpretations of religion. I agree with Marx in his famous quip that it is “the opiate of the masses”; it quells and placates them, and makes their lives more tolerable. It is very susceptible to addiction and abuse, and wars have even been fought over it, but that is the reality of religion.
3
Nietzsche’s next critical idea is his morality. He is obviously influenced by Kant, despite his denial of this fact. In terms of his ethics, Nietzsche was beyond moral judgments, even subconscious ones. I am almost Kantian in my ethic, with a belief in moral obligations; my god is the categorical imperative. However, neither of these ethics is completely air-tight, and there are some serious gray areas. Yet overall both systems are not derived from what moral judgments to make, but how to make them. They are descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Of course they are used in making decisions, but the classifications are taken in that manner.
To elaborate upon the systems themselves, a deontological ethic is based upon a priori moral obligations, and possibly even moral absolutes. I would not say that moral absolutes exists, for paradoxes, quandaries, and impossible situations exists, e.g. kill or be killed. Deontological ethics will not help ones in such extremes, but the majority of us are not faced with such moral conundrums daily. A deontological ethics is not sufficient for settling dilemmas, but overall it is sufficient.
4
It is exceedingly difficult to analyze Nietzsche politically, but it is fair to assume that he had political opinions. It is not however fair to assume that Nietzschean ideals are applicable to politics, outside of how a politician should act if he wants to be elected; and even that is debatable. Nietzsche’s view of humanity views most people are less than intelligent, and choose to live with the herd and in most cases do not think for themselves. This would appear antithetical to democracy, and a democracy in which most of the population comprises the electorate that would be the case. Nietzsche did not however live to see the form of American democracy that we have today, so it would be to extrapolate to say definitively what he would have said with respect to it. Granted, Nietzsche was aware of America, but did not have a great vested interest in it.
If Nietzchean ideals are applied to politics, it would point on into an authoritarian system, for clearly the masses are not intelligent enough to decide for themselves politically. They are easily manipulated and could not be expected to elect the proper candidate into power. Nietzsche may have used Hitler as an example to this, but I need further analysis to get behind this possible claim one hundred percent. Regardless, Nietzschean philosophy applied to politics would present some sort of authoritarian, possibly oligarchic system, but in practicality it would more than likely fail.
My political ideals are even sometimes a mystery to me. I view democracy as a necessary evil, for I know that it would be a travesty were I not allowed the right to vote, but I feel that most of the electorate votes just to vote and are not informed enough of the candidates or manipulated by factors that have no bearing on one’s political abilities; one would not expect a librarian to perform open heart surgery, so why should the uniformed decide who is appointed to political office? But no system in practice is better than democracy, so I must admit that my ideal political system pragmatically is democracy, but I cringe at the fact that people vote just to vote, without seriously understanding the issues at hand.
5
Because Nietzsche was such a complex think, there is no limit to the topics that he can be compared to my philosophy. The next idea is his concept the overman. I shall refer to it as Übermensch whenever possible, but changing to overman for stylistic reasons. There is no “best” translation for Übermensch, but overman is my favorite. Regardless, the Übermensch is Nietzsche’s concept of the best possible man in his society. I hesitate to call him the ideal man, rather the ideal man for Nietzsche’s time. I find it hard to believe that Nietzsche, Wagner, Schopenhauer, Socrates, Democritus, Goethe or even Jesus was an Übermensch. I disagree with the ideal, because at its core an overman must succumb to nihilism to overcome it. While this is paradoxical in nature, there is some truth in it. I propose that one must understand what nihilism is to overcome it; not fall victim to it. And nihilism isn’t a necessary symptom of atheism, for the record, I would argue that atheism leads one away from nihilism; a purpose in the world is not predetermined; there are infinite possibilities for a purpose in life. Granted, many atheists succumb to nihilism, but don’t overcome it. Regardless, the Übermensch is an interesting idea, but it is somewhat pointless and impractical.
6
It is undeniable that I am more influenced by Nietzsche than any other philosopher; above Sartre, Kant and Russell. However, we have fundamental differences on the nature of morality, humanity and religion. There are certain parallels that cannot be ignored, but while I have the utmost respect for Nietzsche, I am probably not a Nietzchean at heart.
If you are reading this and are not well versed in the writing of Nietzsche (shame on you!), almost every introduction to Nietzsche I have read has been more than sufficient for a brief overview of his thought. For a great Nietzsche text, Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer is not only my favorite work of his but one of my favorite books of all time. Beyond Good an Evil is good as is The Anti-Christ. I was disappointed with Human, All too Human and his other works, Genealogy of Morals, Ecce Homo, etc. are good as well.
In sum, Nietzsche is one of the most fascinating philosophers of all time, my favorite philosopher, and while he is my greatest inspiration behind Shakespeare we are by no means similar in terms of philosophical content.
