[lit-ideas] On Nietzsche's Superman and Faulty Opinions
- From: "Henninge, Richard" <henninri@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:20:34 +0000
Jesus was, and Lawrence is, worried about the "blind guides" of the people, for
Jesus, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, for Lawrence, the "Journalists [his
capitals] and political hacks who use nothing but their extremely-faulty
opinions to influence the ordinary descendants of those who lived during a
time" (long gone, 1650) when better people than nowadays still knew how to "use
their 'freedom' to formulate their own philosophy." When Lawrence was in his
20s he was "a great admirer of Nietzsche" and read all his works then
published, but now, to refresh his memory in answering my critique of his
understanding of Nietzsche's Superman, he Googles a Michigan State English
major in his 20s who says that Nietzsche, "[i]n eliminating the idea of God and
the values attached to it in his system ... is forced to give us a parallel
substitute, that is, another god like figure from whom we may receive our new
values in order to fill the void which is created." The young man's essay will
eventually end on a "thumbs up," at least for the time being, for the Christian
over the Nietzschean "doctrine" of beliefs and values: "So though we are here
given two equally important doctrines it seems for this present day and age,
though it may be dying out, the idea of Christianity is more useful in that we
as a whole are still far too reluctant to part with its ideas about life."
Whether the real problem is Fukuyama's (mis?)conception of "Nietzsche's fear
for the future and his belief in the necessity of Superman," I cannot say, but
I do seem to be having, perhaps "faulty" visions of capes and big Ss. And that
cannot be attributed to Nietzsche. Until he wrapped his arms around the dray's
head in a Turin street and began addressing postcards to friends signed by the
Crucified One, he had no particular fear for the future, his personal, Europe's
or the world's, and only knew what a burden it was to use his freedom to
formulate his own philosophy, and not rely on a deity, or whatever hardwiring
Lawrence has, to determine what is a "faulty" opinion or idea or value or
belief.
Richard Henninge
University of Mainz
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
On Nietzsche’s Superman and Faulty Opinions
Richard (see Richard’s comments below),
I was once a great admirer of Nietzsche and read all the works of then
published, but this was back when I was in my 20s and I am now half way through
my 70s; so when I see a comment like yours I wonder whether I have forgotten
what I read in some respect. Rather than reread Thus Spake Zarathusthra, I
checked the Internet and the first comment I discovered matches my
recollection: "We see that an understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy would
not be complete without an understanding of the idea of the superman, the
central and most crucial aspect about it. In eliminating the idea of God and
the values attached to it in his system he is forced to give us a parallel
substitute, that is, another god like figure from whom we may receive our new
values in order to fill the void which is created." This is from
https://www.msu.edu/user/bradle45/nietzsche.htm
I've discussed Nietzsche elsewhere from time to time, especially in regard to
Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man. While Fukuyama's "end
of history" addressed Hegel, Marx and Kojeve, his "and the last man" addressed
Nietzsche's fear for the future and his belief in the necessity of Superman. So
I can't tell what your concern is -- unless you are quibbling about my use of
the word "leader" for superman or ubermensch.
As to your second concern, that there is really no such thing as a "faulty
opinion, let alone an extremely faulty opinion" I must also disagree, at least
about the former expression. I mean by this an opinion based upon faulty
evidence; which I believe is the common understanding.
Here is the legal use of the term: ". . . a mistaken or incomplete legal
opinion may be grounds for a professional malpractice claim against the
attorney, pursuant to which the attorney may be required to pay the claimant
damages incurred as a result of relying on the faulty opinion." [from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion]
I think I understand what you mean, however. If someone were to voice an
opinion about the future, then there would be no evidence about whether it was
true or false, valid or invalid, accurate or faulty, but if someone were to
voice an "opinion" that can be judged against facts or evidence (as in the
legal definition) then it becomes like an argument. It can be valid or invalid,
accurate or faulty.
In the Biblical reference you allude to, Jesus was referring to the Pharisees
and the Sadducees, the "blind guides" of the people. They voiced their opinions
and their opinions were widely accepted at the time. Were Jesus to follow your
suggestion he would not be willing to touch those opinions. He would not be
able to call them faulty, and yet he did -- not in those words of course, but
that was the intent. Their opinions or beliefs were their own and in a certain
sense genuine. Nevertheless Jesus criticized them as hypocrites and blind
guides. Their opinions can therefore be termed faulty without violating the
meaning of the Biblical text.
Lawrence
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Christopher Hill and thinking for oneself
To what extent [d]o we rely upon others to do our thinking for us? ... [From
Lawrence Helms's blog this past Monday under the title in the subject line]...
While today neither the Church nor the State imposes their authority upon us,
we are not free of the authority of the Journalist. Many, as a recent
discussion I was in suggested, would rather invoke a Journalist of the Left or
Right than think the various issues they are concerned with through for
themselves. While this phenomenon seems to go against the Leftist view that man
is in a state of continuous "progress," it wouldn't surprise such philosophers
as Nietzsche ... who argued that the common man would always need a "leader" to
tell him what to think.
It would, for instance, be a sorry thing to invoke this as an example of
Nietzsche's philosophy, "that the common man would always need a 'leader' to
tell him what to think."
There is a Biblical concept that would probably occur to any Christian during a
discussion of the Nuremberg trials, namely that we shall be held accountable
for the teachers we set over us. The blind that follow the blind shall both end
up in the ditch. But in this age where many, perhaps most, fear neither God nor
man, it is interesting that they do not use their "freedom" to formulate their
own philosophy, but instead rely upon Journalists and political hacks who use
nothing but their extremely-faulty opinions to influence the ordinary
descendants of those who lived during a time in which "The World Turned Upside
Down."
"Extremely-faulty opinions": did you ever ask yourself why it makes no sense to
call opinions "faulty"? That would be like criticizing someone for his false
beliefs or her faulty imagination. Even the tacking-on of the qualifying
"extremely" is a tacit acknowledgement of the faulty construction "faulty
opinions," as if to say, "OK, all opinions are of course a little faulty, but
these go beyond the acceptable extremes of off-base, out-of-line, wacko
opinions, so don't go there; don't be persuaded by them." On the other hand,
"faulty memory" seems to make perfect sense. Why is that?
I'll tell you why. It's ordinary language (philosophy).
Richard
University of
Mainz------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] On Nietzsche's Superman and Faulty Opinions - Henninge, Richard
