As we studied in greater depth the meaning and intent of Nietzsche’s allegory in paragraph 13 this week, I became concerned with the idea of determinism that such an argument implies, that is, the concept that the subject cannot be separated from the action, which essentially eliminates the existence of choice; if each person is imbued with particular qualities, the nature of which cannot be expressed as anything other than the essentials of that quality then, according to Nietzsche, we are necessarily unable to choose our actions, a belief in which illustrates our distortion of this fact and acceptance of the slave morality.
His chosen allegory certainly accepts this fact and implies a natural hierarchy that is independent of societal or moral constructions; it simply is what it is. However, it is this focus on the natural aspect of the relationship that I find limiting to his argument and, therefore, allows for the inclusion of will or choice. His metaphor has a naturalistic quality because of its reliance upon animal relationships; nature implies impulse, which is driven by necessity. For example, the reason that the birds attack and feed on the lambs is not simply because they are strong and must find an outlet for their strength, but that they must have something to eat, as is required by their nature. In this sense, the “what is” is dominated and governed by necessity. This remains consistent with Nietzsche’s point: the birds cannot help but to exercise their strength; it is their natures, but only insofar as nature makes it necessary to live.
This concept of necessity may have parallels in human society. For instance in economic situations: the existence of an elite, rich upper-class necessarily requires the existence of a poor lower-class. However, human existence is no longer completely governed by naturalistic boundaries, as defined by mere necessity. Modern society has created the idea of luxury beyond the necessities simply required to live. Therefore, there exist moments where we are not acting according to the laws of necessity. If that particular action is not required for us to live, how is it that we can conceive of acting on it? Where necessity does not drive, the absence of any guidance implies a choice is required. We can act one way or the other because neither action is necessary. This seems to allow for at least the need, if not existence of human will. And the existence of choice implies that a right or wrong decision has the potential of being made, which implies the existence of an inherent morality. If the strong man walks outside and punches the weaker man in the face, the absence of necessity would lead us to believe that such an action was inherently wrong; we would not accept the claim that the strong man was simply exercising his strength because he could not do otherwise…
A fine distillation of the rationale underlying Western morality (and to some extent, any normative basis for values). However much we attempt to deconstruct moral categories through a reductive naturalism, the sense and significance of real agency in our lives is not something that can be dispensed with; though notions of what exactly this agency means have without doubt changed in historical time, choice as a fundamental mode of our experience (and the ability to evaluate these choices) is inextricable from the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is a much clearer and more put-together summation of my own feelings on this topic. It has been very hard for me to reconcile with the idea that what is is, and there is no choice in the matter. I don't think that the bird/lamb analogy is the most apt, as mankind is known for having a capacity for reasoning superior to that of an animal, which operates more on base instinct.
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult to swallow that an individual can be considered strong (or anything, for that matter) indefinitely. It seems that every strong person has moments of weakness, but then how could they always be strong? Personally, choice still feels like an integral concept.
Here I am again, playing perfectly into the slave mindset...
I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments and the path of logic. Both of these coincide with my own personal understanding.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that -- though the bird/lamb analogy seems removed from us -- the point of the whole discussion is that, while we have constructed social convention and a moral system, nature exists without one. Here, Nietzsche implies that nature supersedes humanity -- a common concept -- because humanity was born out of it. He, then, questions how humans can justify there actions when it would be entirely out of place within the natural order of all other beings.
The slave mentality is the acceptance of this unnatural organization of existence. Yet, we accept it not just because it is what we are used to, or what protects us, but rather because it appeals to a higher plan of reasoning and intellect which characterizes humanity.
Therefore -- I apologize for the tangential expansion -- I can not help but be compelled to completely agree with this approach as I understand the work.
You say some good things here, Zach, but I'm afraid I'm inclined to disagree. I think that you confuse two senses of the idea of necessity. There is the idea of necessity that you are describing, in which people act in a "determined" way because their circumstances demand it of them -- so that having luxury would abolish the necessity and people can act on choice. But then there is also the more metaphysical notion of necessity, by which people act in a deterministic manner because they are bound to natural, physical laws just as any other object is. This sense of necessity operates at the exclusion of free will, and if the world -- including what we like to call agents, ourselves -- does in fact operate by necessity, then there is no way for us mere mortals to change this fact of life, even by a change of circumstances. It is simply beyond our control.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that people today are not inclined to act according to "naturalistic boundaries," as you say. But I agree only insofar as it relates to the first sense of necessity I have described (i.e., where people must act as they do because the circumstances require them to). I think we become confused when we take this sense and impose it upon metaphysical necessity, saying something to the effect of that people obviously have choice -- that is, to act outside the realm of the laws of nature -- because we don't always act out of (the first sense of) necessity. We don't have any business making this claim, and this is the sort of metaphysical leap that I believe would be beneficial to avoid.