I'm writing a paper (need opinions)

[Rex]

Here is what I have so far, this isn't elaborated much but it's more of an outline.


Rex Bowden

Phil- Topics in Nietzsche

Dr. Berkeley

Handout: 11-10-04

Presentation: 11-17-04





According to Nietzsche what is it about the herd mentality that makes their members weak.

[Introduction]​

As we all know Nietzsche was critical with views on the herd mentality. He neither thought of himself as part of the herd nor saw anything good coming out of the herd. From his notes on the eternal recurrence, the will to power, the antichrist, the morality of people, becoming, and his views on evolution; that none of these lead to the herd being a good group to belong to. I am going to argue against Nietzsche and try to prove that his views of the herd mentality are neither accurate nor provide an easier way to his evolution of man into the ubermensche. On a further note this will be my opinions of Nietzsche’s work in a literal sense.​

[1st Argument]​

Nietzsche emphasizes his idea of the eternal recurrence throughout his works. The idea that time (in ) infinite before the beginning to the( after the end), with a finite amount of choices in which somebody experiences their life over and over. Since this time has a finite amount of choices then this is not your first go around in the eternal recurrence. I think his argument of picking what you want to do eternally as a moral guideline holds no (wait sp)(weight). It holds no (wait)(weight) because you have presumably already picked what you’re going to do at every instance, thus neither evolving into something better or becoming into a next evolution of man, the ubermensche. Nietzsche writes:​

The greatest weight. -- What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your live will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!' Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change, you as you are or perhaps crush you. (GS 341)​

​

As far as we know today time is infinite in both directions, but our place here in this world is only actualized once. Last time I checked I have not seen the same babies born and died over and over, I have seen the age of today bringing people further into life than has been foreseen in the past. So as for the eternal recurrence having any bearing on the morality of life doesn’t seem plausible to me. People over time have tried and tested with experience to what we feel as humans are moral, and these morals are ever becoming and evolving with time as we learn from more experiences. The herd has the understanding that these morals are what makes us civilized.


[2nd Argument]

Nietzsche argues that one's will to power is their own ultimate weapon, per say. If you give up your will to power then you have given up your ability to become. Nietzsche writes:


"And do you know what the world is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income...with tremendous years of recurrence ...this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self- destroying...my "beyond good and evil"...do you want a name for this world...This world is the will to power-and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power-and nothing besides!" (WP 1064)


He applies this thought to herd saying that if you give up your will to power to God then your not making any advancement in life. I have no argument that one's will to power is an amazing piece of life, but if everyone uses their will to power to their own benefit then we as mankind could never prevail. If everyone were to take their own will to power and hand it over to one specific being then that one being could be the ultimate will to power for us all. If you would in essence pool the will of power of the collective group then everyone could tap into that awesome power. This to me is what makes the herd to strong. They don’t have to just depend on themselves to become, they can also depend on others to help them become.

 

[Lightkeeper]

I did a little editing and put parenthesis around some words that might not be correct. I think it sounds good. Referring to the power of the herd, I thought of a stampede. The herd can have a lot of power, whether or not they work together for good or evil.

 

[Rex]

Yah it's still very raw. I'm just letting it flow as I think it.

 

[Pah]

Yah it's still very raw. I'm just letting it flow as I think it.

The are studies on mob mentality and I think Eric Hoffer spoke about the mob in The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Yes he did - I found the book)

-pah-

 

[Rex]

here is the continues part I have done:


cont from up above:


Some would argue that in the herd there is one leader to think and give orders, and all the humans within the herd just follow that one person, and believe what he says thus giving up all will to power where I am suggesting only the herd giving up a portion of the will to power. I don’t believe the herd is giving up their entire will to power because then everything will fall onto the plate of fate. If that was the case all of the herd members would be zombies running around not doing anything and getting stuck into the idea that their place has been predetermined. This is almost coming back to the thought of the eternal recurrence, where you have already made the choices and are just repeating, why would you worry about your actions?

[Argument 3]

Nietzsche argues that the morality of man is not morality that the herd preaches. He would think morality is something that is earned over time, something that you would will to do eternally, and not one man can press his moral ideals onto you. The idea that the herd has an overall moral system to regulate all man to him is static. It is static in that man cannot overcome these thoughts of good and evil. I find it hard to believe that the morality of the herd is static. Already since Nietzsche’s death man has evolved from other traditional morals and have evolved them to meet the times today. Nietzsche writes:

Nevertheless. -- however credit and debit balances may stand: at its present state as a specific individual science the awakening of moral observation has become necessary, and mankind can no longer be spared the cruel sight of the moral dissecting table and its knives and forceps... the older philosophy... has, with paltry evasions, always avoided investigation of the origin and history of the moral sensations. With what consequences is now very clearly apparent, since it has been demonstrated in many instances how the errors of the greatest philosophers usually have their point of departure in a false explanation of certain human actions and sensations; ...a false ethics is erected, religion and mythological monsters are then in turn called to buttress it, and the shadow of these dismal spirits in the end falls even across physics and the entire perception of the world. (HATM s. 37)