Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Freddy Nietzsche and The Fall-ibility of Man

Philosopher Freddy Nietzsche and God’s Death

Philosophy is a very eccentric topic.  Like most topics that were studied since the time of Aristotle and Plato most of everything that can be discovered, previously was discovered.  As technology advances, new tools may enhance the study of a topic.  Conversely, the study of man's beliefs, allowing for adaptations to technology and concentrations, remains consistent.  Mankind, man, and the societies they form, have a finite set of critical, essential, needs and resulting behavior options.  Human needs proscribe the majority of “viable” options. However, the desire for fame and the wealth the generally accompanies fame, remain strong motivations for some men. The limits of reasonableness and unassailable credentials are valued by, and define the behaviors of those men deserving study.  Others, not so much.  These are they who seek importance regurgitating, or re-sharpening the finest points and nuances ad nauseum, eventually creating a redundant echo of the past – in a shiny new container.   Therefore, to gain notoriety and recognition and the incomes arising from those events modern philosophers – (post age of enlightenment; late 1700s) performed mental abuses within their professional efforts that include irrationality.  Men like Frederique Kant developed a knack for detailing the obvious in convoluted, tedious exercises that require a degree of masochism just to finish reading their works.  Re-labeling millennia old behaviors and pursuits of man under a new heading, asserting the new perspective is not the same one seen many times past, and positing a new rationale for so doing, does not make what is penned unique – or – importantly, worthy of study or acclaim. Acclaim more often arises when an audience is pleased.  When their pleasure are heightened by the efforts of a person, they acknowledge that person and reward them - regardless of eventual bad outcomes the pleasure provided may ensue.

Within this environment - enter Freddy Nietzsche.  In a quantum evaluation, Fred was a self loathing, hedonist who wanted a world with no restrictions placed upon his appetites or views.  Fred lashed out at mankind and the Germans in particular for “being” what they were, defined in part by the values they cherished and the morals they adopted – regardless of their ability to conduct their lives in fulfillment of those objectives and evaluations.  Fred hated them – and religion; God.  Fred’s comments and conclusions indicate he preferred to live the life of an animal – unrestrained by mankind’s spurious morality and other rules of conduct that denied man’s essential, basic “needs”.  Fred was also a cowardly sort – he refused to actualize his conclusions - become a hermit and live his life outside the conditions society placed upon him.  We may conclude he valued his comforts, fame, and wealth, more than he valued his admitted preferences.  Nietzsche may be noteworthy for at least one accomplishment – his assertions, conclusions,  and actions developed into a new term used in philosophy and/or psychology – Projection.  Projection – casting aspersions upon another – the aspersions are, in fact, extracted from performing a self evaluation.  The failures and shortcomings Fred identified in his life, he alleged were prevalent throughout society - writ large.  He mocked and ridiculed his fellowman.  Those who practiced and operated religions were acutely in his sights.  Hypocrisy is a simply made analysis that neither requires great effort nor a keen intellectual insight. Hypocrisy is central to Fred’s analysis. 

Fault finding is one of the simplest exercises mankind entertains.  The least intellectually gifted can drawn sound conclusions based upon simplistic observations – a person’s asserted goal and their ability or willingness to sacrifice attaining the goal.  Hypocrisy provided Nietzsche the ability to find fault and criticize most every where he looked.  But Nietzsche’s ability to lump legions of human beings into the hypocrisy hopper is entirely based upon his famous premise: God is Dead.  From his perspective, and those who share his perspective, the failures of men who claim a religion and practice that religion are worthy of significant numbers of pages of analysis and condemnation. 

With God dead, all the morality associated to God expires upon his demise.  The basis of common law is intrinsically tied to God’s commandments.  Approved behaviors are largely forged upon God/ religious atonement.  The number of behaviors that are not linked in some form or fashion to religious commandments are few.  Logic declares excising God from society sanctions permissiveness of any behavior a mind can create.  Only the real losses of property arising some behaviors stand past the permissiveness quotient – but theft too is a commandment and thus can be argued irrelevant if permissiveness will be sanctioned.  The resulting conflict, theoretically, is where men like Nietzsche “potentially” serve a purpose.  If the laws of religion that act to restrain human behaviors will be done away with, then secular, reasoned, replacement rules needs be adopted to prevent chaos and anarchy… if those two outcomes are antithetical to society’s goals. 

It must be noted Nietzsche didn’t murder God.  Nietzsche merely identified the obvious and academically recorded the death.  This is the real reason for his notoriety.  What he noted is what the majority of academics and aristocracy thought - and wanted codified in law and “reasoned” pursuits in academe.  Science and reason would assume God’s mantel. 

A cabal of men officially murdered God in 1859.  Fred was 15 years old when the crime was committed.  God’s death was planned decades in advance of the actual date.  The first time the murder of God was discussed is not recorded. The Catholic church adopting the inquisition probably initiated the discussions.  Many in the aristocracy enjoyed great wealth which enabled them to enjoy their appetites.  The problem arises when boredom sets in.  Exhausting appetites that religion permits naturally leads some to explore appetites beyond what religion permits.  Sexual licentiousness, the brutality of child sex, homosexuality, and other dalliances placed some very wealthy people outside their professed religion and public approval.  Religions in that time enacted practices of penance, or worse, for sinners.  The aristocracy, as the country’s leaders, were expected by the churches to behave in line with religious tenets - to set a good example for their subjects – to assist in securing the eternal salvation of their subjects. Science too experienced difficulties expanding their domain and publishing discoveries that appeared to contradict the Bible. Those who dared were punished.  Galileo was fingered.  Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake – for asserting the sun as the center of the solar system.

As the Renaissance passed, and the Age of Enlightenment placed an elaborate punctuation upon man’s intellectual discoveries, the behaviors of the aristocracy grew increasingly bold and profane.  Gambling, sexual perversions, and other behaviors flaunted the Ten Commandments.  The French Revolution is an example of a public response to the excesses of the aristocracy.  The aristocracy, and others who emulated and copied their behaviors, feared the church and/or the public acting in religious fervor.  They long ago chose their appetites over worship.  Killing God was a pragmatic act.  The aristocracy saw God and his commandments as an impediment to fulfilling their carnal desires.  By the end of the 1700s, the aristocracy concluded science could be used to end God’s control over their lives.  The amount of evidence discovered that allegedly contradicted scripture was significant enough to state a problem existed – between Bible and Science. 

Chucky Darwin was a biologist who saw the divide and knew both sides of the arguments.  He also saw an opportunity.  Great fame and wealth awaited the man who could provide the ammunition to murder God.  Darwin’s theory of evolution – articulated in Origin of Specie – provided the means to accomplish the murder. 

Nietzsche was astute enough to see the value and recognition available to a philosopher who had the guts to claim God is Dead.  Darwin and Nietzsche shared a desire for fame and wealth.  The immediacy of their conclusions proposed several conundrums – but neither foresaw the conflicts these would place upon society – and themselves.  Nietzsche went insane – due to the conflict arising when no controls exist on man’s (his) mind and behaviors.  Darwin too, suffered from a conflict of conscience and that led to a tormented soul.  Unable to place Pandora back into her box, Darwin grieved over his actions. He was an intelligent man and saw the early signs of the abuses arising from the application of his theory. Science took his theory to extremes and unsound lengths.  They lied and contorted existing protocols to wholly embrace God's Death and the individual freedoms that death sanctioned. 

The scientific method – that when ONE conflicting, or an aspect of the theory contradicts evidence/law accepted in another discipline, is discovered requires rejecting the: theory; or re-evaluation of the conflicting discipline; was, and remains ignored by science and academics who prefer access to their appetites unfettered.  More, science purposely avoids investigating the aspects of Darwin’s theory that stand to fundamentally disprove it. Several definitions of purposeful Ignorance are part and parcel to Darwin’s theory and the embrace of the theory.

A set of beliefs cannot be evaluated using the failures and abuses witnessed by men claiming to practice the religion.  The religion is not the product arising from man’s practice of it.  Nor do the failures evident in the practice define the religion.  The successful practice of the religion is so difficult and contrary to the natural state of man, only one has come close to success – Christ.  The purpose and value of the religion is not found in man’s inability to successfully practice the religion.  Control of man’s appetites and innate desires - to secure a physical state capable of enduring eternal translation - is the main purpose of Christianity.  The ancillary components of practicing religion also improve man universally and impart benefits to the society of man.  The “GOOD” generated in a failed practice greatly outweigh a society absent controls and hedonism that materializes from man’s fear and uncertainty.  The degenerate social conventions embraced today preclude the abuses of the past specifically because the RIGHTS given man by God are the central premise used in the founding of the USA and the original laws enumerated.  Sadly, man has successfully sought to eradicate these rights and impose laws that sanction and endorse the appetites leading to destruction of man and mankind.  

No comments:

Post a Comment