Was Nietzsche correct?

[SHANMAC]

Nietzsche argued that the underlying values of the Judeo-Christian religion encouraged mediocrity. Values such as love, forgiveness, acceptance and submission, on which the Judeo-Christian religion is built, arguably have the effect of locking people into a herd menatliaty where it is commendable to live in the status quo. Such values, he argued, stifle creativity, progression, self-realization, etc.

Do you agree? Would our society be in a better (capable of many meanings, I know) place if we lived by a different moral code?

 

[Kerr]

Love, forgiveness and acceptance are important values of construction (wouldn´t personally call submission something good, though). So no, I do not think he is right if he said those where bad. However, I am not sure the Judeo-Christian moral code is the best expression of those values... Also bear in mind I do not know very much about that moral code, since I come from a very secular backgroud, so I may be way off .

 

[MSizer]

I agree to a small degree in that I think he's right that people simply espouse it without any real thinking of alternatives, but I think he oversimplified it. I suspect he was extremely intelligent, and was able to see the medocrity around him as in comparison to him, but I think he was too critical of conventional moral code. I've never really understood his ubermensh thing. It seems unreasonable to me. I agree that traditional moral standards need raising and I think I know of some ways to help it along, but he seemed to have a disproportionate despise of christianity.

I think he probably pushed himself over the edge in trying to be an ubermensh himself. I find it really sad the way his sister made a spectacle of his mindless body for the last eleven years of his life, not to mention the disgusting act of falsifying his works for her own prejudicial agenda. Her brother was a mind of few equals, and she was a terrible person.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think that hate, destruction, and competition are surely needed and obviously a necessary part of existence.

But, things of suffering seem to thrive easier, so I think espousing love, forgiveness, and all that is necessary.

 

[pensive]

Creativity? Let's remember that some of the most creative works of art throughout history have been inspired by such values.

Progression? I suppose that's what you mean by progression? Progression of the individual above all else? Progression of humanity as a whole? I'd argue that the latter is actually enhanced when people manifest such values as compassion and love.

Self-realization? Again, I suppose it depends on what you mean? If one thinks of self-realization as merely the advancement of the individual's needs and greatness regardless of others, then yes. But then, is this real self-realization. The problem with being an island unto oneself is that one can quickly crumble under certain circumstances.

I do think that certain values can be taken too far. For example, there's a difference between forgiveness and being a walking doormat. But the fact that being a walking doormat is unhealthy does not render the virtue of forgiveness entirely without value.

 

[ChristineES]

Even before I had my faith, I don't think I could have been happy gaining something at the expense of another person. It has always been in my best interest to forgive others, because being angry and resentful is so uncomfortable. In that way, forgiveness can be seen as a selfish act- but even a selfish act can benefit others at times.
Maybe we could accomplish more if we didn't have things such as love, etc- but would we be happy? Could we be happy? What would be the purpose of accomplishment if we could not enjoy it and share it with others.
I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't want to live in a world of ambitious people who did not care for anyone else, no matter what they accomplished.

 

[MSizer]

Creativity? Let's remember that some of the most creative works of art throughout history have been inspired by such values.

Progression? I suppose that's what you mean by progression? Progression of the individual above all else? Progression of humanity as a whole? I'd argue that the latter is actually enhanced when people manifest such values as compassion and love.

Self-realization? Again, I suppose it depends on what you mean? If one thinks of self-realization as merely the advancement of the individual's needs and greatness regardless of others, then yes. But then, is this real self-realization. The problem with being an island unto oneself is that one can quickly crumble under certain circumstances.

I do think that certain values can be taken too far. For example, there's a difference between forgiveness and being a walking doormat. But the fact that being a walking doormat is unhealthy does not render the virtue of forgiveness entirely without value.

I don't mean to shoot you down pensive, but I don't think your words on the topics really reflect what Nietzsche believed. He was an awesomely powerful thinker. I just wish he had offered some suggestions to replace the "Christian morality" he so despised. Maybe if he hadn't gone mad he might have eventually had something more positive to say. I so wish we could have known.

 

[Kerr]

I think that hate, destruction, and competition are surely needed and obviously a necessary part of existence.

But, things of suffering seem to thrive easier, so I think espousing love, forgiveness, and all that is necessary.

Balance is the key. Rage and hate, for example, are destructive in nature. If someone is raping someone I care about, there is nothing wrong with rage or hate. It will motivate me to help the victim, just as showing that person love and compassion after, being there for them, can be important. On the other hand, I will not show compassion to the rapist and I will absolutely not go around angry all the time and start to hurt people for the sake of it.

Construction and destruction are both important, it is just a matter of balancing them.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't mean to shoot you down pensive, but I don't think your words on the topics really reflect what Nietzsche believed. He was an awesomely powerful thinker. I just wish he had offered some suggestions to replace the "Christian morality" he so despised. Maybe if he hadn't gone mad he might have eventually had something more positive to say. I so wish we could have known.

He certainly influenced a plethora of thinkers after him. But, existentialism has never been great at offering a social morality. Probably because it is based on the spirit of the individual facing existence.

Good posts, Msizer!

 

[SHANMAC]

I agree to a small degree in that I think he's right that people simply espouse it without any real thinking of alternatives, but I think he oversimplified it. I suspect he was extremely intelligent, and was able to see the medocrity around him as in comparison to him, but I think he was too critical of conventional moral code. I've never really understood his ubermensh thing. It seems unreasonable to me. I agree that traditional moral standards need raising and I think I know of some ways to help it along, but he seemed to have a disproportionate despise of christianity.

Interesting - How would you raise traditional moral standards to help combat a sense of mediocrity?

I think he probably pushed himself over the edge in trying to be an ubermensh himself. I find it really sad the way his sister made a spectacle of his mindless body for the last eleven years of his life, not to mention the disgusting act of falsifying his works for her own prejudicial agenda. Her brother was a mind of few equals, and she was a terrible person.

Agreed.

 

[MSizer]

Interesting - How would you raise traditional moral standards to help combat a sense of mediocrity?

I think that moral philosophy should be thought of as basic education, just like math and science. I don't think anybody's conclusions about what is ethical and what is unethical should be forced on anyone (which means I don't think it would be right to say "Nietzsche was correct about..." or "Jesus was correct about...") but I think the exercise of thinking from various perspectives on modern moral hot topics would give poeple a more informed opinion about the matters. With things like war, abortion, euthansia and farming, I think we're hurting ourselves by not making an effort to consider moral philosophy part of basic education.

 

[SHANMAC]

Sounds like a good idea. I'm on board.

Your sentiments are certainly relevant to the question of our society seemingly having no problem with mediocrity. Although Nietzsche might have taken it to a completely other level, I think there's quite a bit of truth in it. For those people who do not seek out truth, who do not question what they're told, living in the status quo becomes an expectation; almost a goal if you will. There's so much more this world has to offer.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The big problem with socializing moral philosophy is that it seems to infringe upon what many people would consider the "rights" of the parent. If someone wants to teach their child morals or not teach their child morals, then that is supposedly their prerogative. I disagree with this notion, as I think "rights" are a product of a social contract and not actually inalienable qualities of our mere existence. The very fact that our "rights" are abrogated on an almost daily basis means that the rights are granted and cannot be ascribed to some facet of existence.


I agree that a solid foundation in morality would be beneficial for the future, but I do not think the current political climate in the US could support it. The combination of staunch libertarianism appearing amongst the conservatives and the problems associated with the current depression have essentially convinced politicians that any form of governmental spending is a waste of tax payer dollars including education. To which I say: What the h*** do we pay you for then? I certainly don't think all forms of government spending are a waste of tax payer dollars, but I can certainly think of one form of government spending which is a huge waste of tax payer dollars: YOUR SALARIES.

But with that said I think one should consider the goals of the elites. We are in this mess in part because Greenspan, and others like him, were not convinced that the actors in the market would be willing to do things which were clearly harmful to one's self (economics basically presumes rational actors in much of their theories, and as such a bias towards that belief is easy to understand) and because the elites are still thoroughly convinced that since slavery would be beneficial to them that all of society would be better off if some form of slavery were implemented. The middle class should have fought back according to economic theory, but it didn't? Why fight when we are still comfortable? And that's just it; it is not until abuses reach beyond the point of intolerability that people actually bother to do anything. History has taught us this, and the elites know this.

MTF

 

[Gino Cerutti]

I wrote a similar post:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/85686-slaves-nietzsche-weil.html

 

[Mr Cheese]

Nietzsche argued that the underlying values of the Judeo-Christian religion encouraged mediocrity. Values such as love, forgiveness, acceptance and submission, on which the Judeo-Christian religion is built, arguably have the effect of locking people into a herd menatliaty where it is commendable to live in the status quo. Such values, he argued, stifle creativity, progression, self-realization, etc.

Do you agree? Would our society be in a better (capable of many meanings, I know) place if we lived by a different moral code?

nietzche ended up in an asylum...

need more be said?

 

[Sunstone]

nietzche ended up in an asylum...

need more be said?

I think at the very least you would need to demonstrate that his ideas had anything to do with his later life in an asylum. This you have not yet done.

 

[MSizer]

nietzche ended up in an asylum...

need more be said?

So did Woodie Guthrie and Van Gogh went crazy too.

Of course more should be said. They, like Nietschze, had incredible congnitive talents prior to their illnesses.

Nietschze was the first to challenge absolute meaning narratives, and he did it boldly. He challenge the idea that science can create a world view just as harshly. You also have to remember that it wasn't the inherent christian doctrines he was criticizing, he was saying that christianity was no longer what it had been. That it no longer required the courage to call yourself a christian as it had centuries before, when that would possibly have you killed. That's what he meant by "god is dead". He meant that "god" as it had traditionally been thought of, could no longer exist (not is He real or not) but that the way the world order had been explained in the past using "God" as an answer couldn't continue.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Nietzsche argued that the underlying values of the Judeo-Christian religion encouraged mediocrity. Values such as love, forgiveness, acceptance and submission, on which the Judeo-Christian religion is built, arguably have the effect of locking people into a herd menatliaty where it is commendable to live in the status quo. Such values, he argued, stifle creativity, progression, self-realization, etc.

Do you agree? Would our society be in a better (capable of many meanings, I know) place if we lived by a different moral code?

I see Nietzsche as the first post modern thinker. A true great mind that was willing to follow truth ( his view of it ) even to madness. Every since Nietzsche throw down the gantlet folks have been trying to find a way out. This is was 20th century existentialism is all about. I just don't see the existentialism as being as honest as Nietzsche. Thus the leap of faith as a way out.

I am not so sure that Nietzsche post modern reality is not arguably the most dominate paradigm of the western world. I hope to live long enough to see how this experiment in morality works out.

 

[strange_lupe]

I believe Nietzsche was correct that by denying the relevance of material existence modern christianity has the affect of allowing people to accept hardship and unfair treatment. Christianity is a servants religion. I think he overestimated the uniformity of christian thought, but maybe that was just to make his point.

 

[Gino Cerutti]

Mark 10

29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.