Nietzsche: a flawed partner for the atheist's Will to Power?

[HumanePain]

So Nietzche said (in On the Genealogy of Morals):

"To speak of just or unjust in itself is quite senseless; in itself of course, no injury, assault, exploitation, destruction can be unjust, since life operates essentially, that is in its basic functions, through injury, assault exploitation, destruction and simply cannot be thought of at all without this character." (HP: think of lions and their prey, spiders and flies etc.)

Followed (eventually) by his comment:

"Indeed, the prospect cannot be dismissed that the complete and definitive victory of atheism might free mankind of this whole feeling of guilty indebtedness toward its origin, its causa prima. Atheism and a kind of second innocence belong together."

To paraphrase:

God and laws bring about the concept of an unjust debtor (the violator of the law), which is counter to life, which survives and even thrives by serving itself rather than for others (e.g. noblemen creating their kingdoms on the backs of the weaker indigenous population). Atheism would remove such Godly indebtedness, freeing man to return to the self serving drive that succeeds in nature.

Still reading? Still with me? So here is where the title of my thread comes from: If atheism, a progressive attribute in today's American politics does win victory, then in the same victory men operating corporations will be free too, the powerful free to do what they will without regard to lesser mortals, and yet progressives are if anything counter to ambitious corporate power achieved on the backs of the weak.

I am not saying this to shed a hypocritical light on progressives (If I must label myself politically it would be progressive), but to warn of the consequences of this argument, of using the expanded freedom atheism provides without being objective about the application in the United States and elsewhere.

The application of this kind of freedom is why China is in the ascendant: they have an oligarchy answerable to no one in classic Nietzschian freedom, leading to enslavement of individuals.

In the American scenario, corporations free to control the U.S. justice system, sell dangerous products at obscene profit and do so with impunity and disregard for justice or obligation.

I am not saying atheists are bad or should not try to become a significant, organized political power, but just warning that things may not turn out as expected.


Thoughts?

[Alan]

Nietzsche was stupidly against socialism, of course he was an individualist.
Yet you're reading him as a misanthrope. He was a romantic.

The reality of violence and destruction is not an appeal to the base rudeness we think about when we speak of violence and destruction. You mention a lion eating its prey, which is a good example, but also a mediocre one (in the sense that it only goes halfway through)
Think also of the violence of the slave to the master. Let's think of Hegel, who is mistakenly taken to be the opposite of Nietzsche when in fact it's his idealistic parent: The slave doesn't simply revolt against the master. The slave KILLS the master. It is the definition of the slave that it will be the violent death of the master by the master's own hands (more on that if that's the path you choose this conversation to go to).

This is the inevitable dialectics of violence. This is the inherent immanence of destruction. These are not oppressive; they are necessary. Nietzsche's point is precisely that nothing that is necessary can be called oppressive. We cannot revolt against violence anymore than we can revolt against the oppression of our dependence to air.


So far we can see that Nietzsche was not talking about violence and destruction in the manner we're used to talking about it (one which presupposes order, not harmony - big difference)
The question is, is there a reasonable justification for my disdain on the idea of placing brutally efficient corporations in this same level? Am I not just some utopian socialist trying to rationalize a double standard because it doesn't fit my ethics?

Not at all. It's good that you would demand me the consistency of this with no mercy, but it is indeed redeemable:
Nietzsche's philosophy is interpreted in such a violent manner in the Anglo tradition. That's just a matter of language to be honest, and Nietzsche was a very astute observer on the subtleties of language (he also once questioned whether the idea of subject is just a grammatical accident)
We must remember that Nietzsche had a reason for saying that he wrote not for the Germans, but for the French. He said that the French were the only ones who could really understand his philosophy, and the Will to Power is the best example of this.

Let's think of the implications of this sentence:
Wille zur Macht ->
Will to Power.
those are exact translations

But here's what happens in French
Wille zur Macht ->
Volonté de pouvoir
OR
Volonté de Puissance

There are two possible translations for Power in French, and Nietzsche's Will to Power is interpreted in France as the second one, and in fact Nietzsche did write about Wille zur Macht thinking about Volonté de Puissance.

Pouvoir is the mainstream concept of power as a violent imposition, an injustice by definition, and anyone who likes power or glorifies power must be a misanthrope and a megalomaniac. No wonder why that bitch Ayn Rand could claim she's a follower of Nietzsche when she read him in English.

But Puissance is infinitely more accurate for Nietzsche and much more sublime. I know you know a little Spanish, so let me try to quickly explain it in Spanish for better understanding.
You know in Spanish, power is "poder". That's a verb ... "poder" que?
That's the power (heh) of Puissance. It's "power to do". It's power/possibility/drive. Volonté de Puissance is basically "Will to willpower"

It will be impossible to understand Nietzsche's philosophy entirely unless we recur to foreign analogue words or make one our own that clarifies this distinction. It is perfectly possible and in fact since the 50's absolutely DEMANDED that you have to be Nietzschean if you want to be a leftist radical. No contradiction, just a lacuna, a lexical gap.
It is perfectly possible to completely destroy the concept of power, insofar as it refers to pouvoir. But of course we will always have puissance. That's the Will to Power. The power that is created through and by the act. The real individualist power that demands no sacrifice, only ritual.
Power/Pouvoir is exemplified in the words of Charlie Chaplin: Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people.
Power/Puissance is that power which does not enslave to liberate. That power which is not played in a zero-sum game. That power which is power because it's Creation, and does not contradict Destruction because as Bakunin said "The passion for destruction is also a creative passion."
The enemies of Power/Pouvoir are everything beyond its grasp, which is why it always wants more (*cough* Hobbes *cough*)
The enemy of Power/Puissance is merely stagnation.

[Alan]

Also, two more things:

1) What do progressives care about Nietzsche? It's not part of progressive philosophy insofar as progressivism entails a pragmatist and humanist approach to the relationship between the market, the state, and the people. I responded this question as a radical as I feel it should be more geared towards us.


2) I should have written puissance is "The real individualist power that demands no sacrifice, only RITES." (not ritual)

[vindicatedxjin]

But Puissance is infinitely more accurate for Nietzsche and much more sublime. I know you know a little Spanish, so let me try to quickly explain it in Spanish for better understanding.
You know in Spanish, power is "poder". That's a verb ... "poder" que?
That's the power (heh) of Puissance. It's "power to do". It's power/possibility/drive. Volonté de Puissance is basically "Will to willpower"

You would make an excellent teacher.



MUSTACHE POWAH.

[HumanePain]

Damn. Just when I think I have finally climbed high enough to breathe the crisp mountain air, I find you staring down at me from the top, watching me use a well trodden path. You are amazing.

1) They should not, that is my warning. If they do then the future results distance atheists from the masses consent and alignment.

2) I don't know enough Spanish to have known poder, but I understand your point. How typically American of me. I must remember to read any philosopher in the context of the time and place they were writing, as well as their intended audience.

I will never catch up with you. Thanks for honoring my thread with a serious reply. You teach again.

[vindicatedxjin]

Alan is always gonna be ahead, as far as philosophy goes. I read Will to Power and all I got out of it was depression.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Alan is always gonna be ahead, as far as philosophy goes. I read Will to Power and all I got out of it was depression.

Read it again when you are 20 years older, you will see it differently in the light of experience.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

God and laws bring about the concept of an unjust debtor (the violator of the law), which is counter to life, which survives and even thrives by serving itself rather than for others (e.g. noblemen creating their kingdoms on the backs of the weaker indigenous population). Atheism would remove such Godly indebtedness, freeing man to return to the self serving drive that succeeds in nature.

Yeah. You're right. God does create guilt, but only in those that can't reconcile the wager that there may indeed be a hell after life. God as an idea can inspire shame, guilt, and even benevolence. But God is ONLY an assumption. There's a problem with this. I and Despanan will address it soon.

Still reading? Still with me? So here is where the title of my thread comes from: If atheism, a progressive attribute in today's American politics does win victory, then in the same victory men operating corporations will be free too, the powerful free to do what they will without regard to lesser mortals, and yet progressives are if anything counter to ambitious corporate power achieved on the backs of the weak.

Patently untrue. Capitalism and Socialism are not hand holders with God. If you want social justice, you CAN and WILL find it within our laws. There ARE just atheists. Lots of them. So social justice does and can and will continue to exist without God.

I am not saying this to shed a hypocritical light on progressives (If I must label myself politically it would be progressive), but to warn of the consequences of this argument, of using the expanded freedom atheism provides without being objective about the application in the United States and elsewhere.

The application of this kind of freedom is why China is in the ascendant: they have an oligarchy answerable to no one in classic Nietzschian freedom, leading to enslavement of individuals.

In the American scenario, corporations free to control the U.S. justice system, sell dangerous products at obscene profit and do so with impunity and disregard for justice or obligation.

That's a terrible, TERRIBLE assumption. So in short, you are assuming that morals and decency comes from God? That's incorrect. It's been shown time and time again that good and decent things have happened outside of the Christian or even the Religious camp. These things will continue to do so.

I am not saying atheists are bad or should not try to become a significant, organized political power, but just warning that things may not turn out as expected.


Thoughts?

I think what you're assuming is mildly offensive. But you can clearly take the God flag off of the moral field and at the end of the day, they're just morals. It's the social contract. It's what we as a society agree is wrong or right.

We've made this argument before. H_P, BOTH of us could do good things and you're a believer and I am not. You believe in a spiritual system and I don't HAVE a system to adhere to. My morals come from observing and obeying the social contracts. Don't kill your own kind, don't steal from your own kind, don't be an asshole basically. While both of our benevolent efforts are praised in the public, your actions are attached to a VERY regressive set of ideals.

Another point:
The reason it's hard to bring down jerks like Fred Phelps is because he wears the armor of spiritual assumption. What he says is law according to God. We both see him for what he is, but he's not facing the actual social justice he deserves BECAUSE to take someone like that down, you HAVE to make their creed illegitimate. You HAVE to prove he's wrong and if you don't he gets the polite pardon of "Oh well, that just what he believes and we should respect it because it's his religion." Without his religion, he's just another insufferable, antisocial asshole that everyone would ignore.

[HumanePain]

Phelps is a turd in the punch bowl. But I digress:

I am afraid I must not have articulated my point well enough. I thought I did as Alan addressed the thrust of my point. But your response is back to the religion vs. atheism polemic again. That is not my point. I am not saying only religion can protect us from Big Business and only religion can do good things. (No straw men!)

What I am trying to say is that as atheistic political power grows, it is in its early stage of development where a diversion (or even dead end) may stunt its growth, or at the very least significantly delay its acceptance by perhaps even generations, and that we must all avoid a return to feudalism and barons and the like (as much as I as a closet elitist like the idea of being a baron!) that could result by embracing Nietzschian philosophy.

The good I can salvage from your response that I can agree with is what I am inferring we need to do: use social contracts. All I was originally saying is to remain on guard for the possibility of less noble entities Will to Power.

Now that Alan has enlightened me about "Will to Power" being less of a self serving imperative and more of a creative freedom, the issue is less of a threat to individuals than I feared.

[Despanan]

Alan pretty much covered the Philosophical problems with your thesis HP, so I'll cover the practical problems with your thesis.

Originally Posted by HumanePain

So Nietzche said (in On the Genealogy of Morals):

"To speak of just or unjust in itself is quite senseless; in itself of course, no injury, assault, exploitation, destruction can be unjust, since life operates essentially, that is in its basic functions, through injury, assault exploitation, destruction and simply cannot be thought of at all without this character." (HP: think of lions and their prey, spiders and flies etc.)

Followed (eventually) by his comment:

"Indeed, the prospect cannot be dismissed that the complete and definitive victory of atheism might free mankind of this whole feeling of guilty indebtedness toward its origin, its causa prima. Atheism and a kind of second innocence belong together."

First, Nietzche is not the be-all and end all of atheism. Dude was brilliant but his work is so closely tied into a rejection of traditional forms of morality, that I feel he was a bit to reactionary. Basically, smart guy but kinda a dick.

To paraphrase:

God and laws bring about the concept of an unjust debtor (the violator of the law), which is counter to life, which survives and even thrives by serving itself rather than for others (e.g. noblemen creating their kingdoms on the backs of the weaker indigenous population). Atheism would remove such Godly indebtedness, freeing man to return to the self serving drive that succeeds in nature.

Wrong. The self-serving drive DOES NOT purely occur in nature, true it is an aspect of our evolution, but just as it is the nature of organic life to subvert and consume other organic life it is the nature of humanity to work together for the benefit of all.

The reason we've survived long enough to become the dominant species on this planet is precisely BECAUSE we have the instinct to work communally hard-coded into our DNA and our psychology. Empathy and compassion ARE evolutionary desirable traits because they lead to forming a healthy stable community for all, so that we may band together for common protection.

The concept of an "unjust debtor" is simply a violator of the social contract, ie: "Don't kill your own kind, don't steal from your own kind, don't cause undue suffering to your own kind." It is a natural outgrowth of our sense of empathy and our natural emotional aversion to harming those we identify with.

Religion has nothing to do with morality, it is merely a social institution which has managed to plant a flag on it. If anything religion makes it MORE likely for the powerful to unjustly oppress the weak, simply by virtue of it being yet another system of authoritarian social coercion. By unjustly attaching itself to morality, religion grants itself a greater amount of false authority, and thus a greater potential to be used as a tool of oppression.

Still reading? Still with me? So here is where the title of my thread comes from: If atheism, a progressive attribute in today's American politics does win victory, then in the same victory men operating corporations will be free too, the powerful free to do what they will without regard to lesser mortals, and yet progressives are if anything counter to ambitious corporate power achieved on the backs of the weak.

I am not saying this to shed a hypocritical light on progressives (If I must label myself politically it would be progressive), but to warn of the consequences of this argument, of using the expanded freedom atheism provides without being objective about the application in the United States and elsewhere.

The application of this kind of freedom is why China is in the ascendant: they have an oligarchy answerable to no one in classic Nietzschian freedom, leading to enslavement of individuals.

In the American scenario, corporations free to control the U.S. justice system, sell dangerous products at obscene profit and do so with impunity and disregard for justice or obligation.

This is patently untrue. First:

1) Only 14% of the Japanese population holds that "Religion is important to their lives" yet japan has the LOWEST occurrence of violent crime in the world. 86% of the country is effectively atheist, so clearly atheism does not promote anti social behavior.

By contrast only 13% of Americans claim that religion is not important to them (though that number has grown in recent years, current projections hovering around 20%) Yet America has one of the highest rates of violent crime (particularly murders) in the civilized world. So clearly religion does not prevent anti-social behavior.

(this point is further driven home by looking at Europe, which is largely secular (though not as secular as Japan) compared to the states, and has a much lower rate of violent crime across the board.)

2) The factors around China's rise are many and varied, from the outsourcing of foreign markets, to sheer population size, to our evangelical CHRISTIAN President borrowing billions of dollars from them in order to throw us into what he believed to be a divinely mandated war without raising taxes.

While religion was outlawed for a long time in China, as Saya will point out, it never really went away, and even now is on the rise. China's human rights abuses aren't due to secularism, but instead the inherent authoritarianism that saturates their culture.

3) If religion really caused human beings to employ fair business practices, then the vast majority of Christian church's would be socialist. They are not. In fact it's the opposite; Christian voters are far more likely to vote for free-market Republican candidates, and say things like "God gave us this planet to use, so why worry about Global warming?"

I am not saying atheists are bad

Yes you are. that is exactly what you are saying, you're just not emotionally comfortable with saying it out loud.

...or should not try to become a significant, organized political power, but just warning that things may not turn out as expected.

Things rarely turn out exactly as expected. This is not a particularly salient point.

[HumanePain]

Well I read and reread what I wrote and I am puzzled about the way I expressed my question and possible concern: one person got it and two didn't so I am obviously missing something here in my writing. I even came off as offensive. Back to the drawing board.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

What I am trying to say is that as atheistic political power grows, it is in its early stage of development where a diversion (or even dead end) may stunt its growth, or at the very least significantly delay its acceptance by perhaps even generations, and that we must all avoid a return to feudalism and barons and the like

Don't you think it's a little odd that in order to combat feudalism you prescribe RELIGION, an institution which enjoyed it's heyday during feudalism?

I mean seriously, during the dark ages 99.9% of folks in Europe were Christian, and believed every word. It was actually against the law to be an atheist and if you ever said anything bad about God you would be tortured and put to death.

that could result by embracing Nietzschian philosophy.

1) Once again Nietzche /= atheism. If anything he's just ONE THINKER in a long tradition of doubters.

2) You have a very deep misunderstanding of Neitzche and his philosophy.

Nietzche's morality was more of a rejection of thraditional christian morality, which he called "Slave morality" (and really that's what it is).

Basically old N said that in the beginning you have 2 theoretical classes of people, the Nobles (the strong who oppressed the weak) and the Peasants (The weak) both groups are total assholes. The nobles are stupid and cruel and tyrannical, and the peasants are poor and weak, unfit and pathetic. The nobles decide to call themselves "Good" and to differentiate the Peasants from themselves, they call the Peasants "Evil".

Good and Evil, in this context, are just words to describe groups of people, there is no moral connotation either way. It would be like if today I just made up a word like "Plib" to describe myself and everyone like me, and I called everyone who isn't like me "Nitz". Get it?

When the Peasants ask the nobles "Why do you get to run things and oppress us" the nobles say "Because we're Good and you're Evil". Once again, no moral connotation, this is like saying: "I'm the boss of you because I'm Me and you're You."

Eventually that's not good enough, and the peasants demand to know more about what makes a person "Good" and what makes a person "Evil" So what do the nobles do? They DESCRIBE THEMSELVES.

"I am Good because I am strong and powerful and fit. You are Evil because you are weak and sick and unfit."

You following?

Then, naturally, this happens: the smarter peasants, unhappy with their lot in life decide to flip things around. They turn the virtues into vices and their own vices into virtues. "I'm not weak I'm meek" "I'm not a submissive pushover I'm humble" "I'm not stupid and uneducated I'm Wise". "You're not strong you're cruel" "You're not ambitious, you're prideful" "You're not beautiful you're vain"

all of this leads to one thing: "I'm not evil, you're evil, I'm good and therefore I and not you should be in charge!"

Then all they have to do is convince a few nobles of this new idea of "Good and Evil" and BAM you have a new morality that can be used to oppress a whole new group of people. You have Christian Morality.

Neitzche didn't want a return to the nobles idea of good and evil (as you suggest), He didn't want some insane social Darwinism where the strong are justified in preying on the weak simply by virtue of their strength he wanted a NEW morality completely devoid of BOTH arbitrary concepts.

It's just that many people misunderstood him because his ideas were new and inflammitory, so they exaggerated his position into a straw man so they could take it down and promote the status quo: just like you and Saya have done time and again in an attempt to attack Kontan and my ideas.

Sorry dude, you're a cool cat, but you're WRONG and you're inadvertently placing yourself as a defender of mysticism-based tyranny. Your Christianity, actually forces you to indirectly defend the very institutions and corrupt coercive social forces you hate.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Don't you think it's a little odd that in order to combat feudalism you prescribe RELIGION, an institution which enjoyed it's heyday during feudalism?

I did no such thing.

Originally Posted by Despanan

I mean seriously, during the dark ages 99.9% of folks in Europe were Christian, and believed every word. It was actually against the law to be an atheist and if you ever said anything bad about God you would be tortured and put to death.

Yes, and that is worse than feudalism, at least the barons kept the serfs around if nothing else to harvest "their" crops.

Originally Posted by Despanan

1) Once again Nietzche /= atheism. If anything he's just ONE THINKER in a long tradition of doubters.

Yes, and I am trying to say he should not be used as a guideline.

Originally Posted by Despanan

2) You have a very deep misunderstanding of Neitzche and his philosophy.

Yes, I grasp this thanks to Alan's response.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Nietzche's morality was more of a rejection of thraditional christian morality, which he called "Slave morality" (and really that's what it is).

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Basically old N said that in the beginning you have 2 theoretical classes of people, the Nobles (the strong who oppressed the weak) and the Peasants (The weak) both groups are total assholes. The nobles are stupid and cruel and tyrannical, and the peasants are poor and weak, unfit and pathetic. The nobles decide to call themselves "Good" and to differentiate the Peasants from themselves, they call the Peasants "Evil".

Good and Evil, in this context, are just words to describe groups of people, there is no moral connotation either way. It would be like if today I just made up a word like "Plib" to describe myself and everyone like me, and I called everyone who isn't like me "Nitz". Get it?

When the Peasants ask the nobles "Why do you get to run things and oppress us" the nobles say "Because we're Good and you're Evil". Once again, no moral connotation, this is like saying: "I'm the boss of you because I'm Me and you're You."

Eventually that's not good enough, and the peasants demand to know more about what makes a person "Good" and what makes a person "Evil" So what do the nobles do? They DESCRIBE THEMSELVES.

"I am Good because I am strong and powerful and fit. You are Evil because you are weak and sick and unfit."

You following?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Then, naturally, this happens: the smarter peasants, unhappy with their lot in life decide to flip things around. They turn the virtues into vices and their own vices into virtues. "I'm not weak I'm meek" "I'm not a submissive pushover I'm humble" "I'm not stupid and uneducated I'm Wise". "You're not strong you're cruel" "You're not ambitious, you're prideful" "You're not beautiful you're vain"

all of this leads to one thing: "I'm not evil, you're evil, I'm good and therefore I and not you should be in charge!"

Then all they have to do is convince a few nobles of this new idea of "Good and Evil" and BAM you have a new morality that can be used to oppress a whole new group of people. You have Christian Morality.

Neitzche didn't want a return to the nobles idea of good and evil (as you suggest), He didn't want some insane social Darwinism where the strong are justified in preying on the weak simply by virtue of their strength he wanted a NEW morality completely devoid of BOTH arbitrary concepts.

It's just that many people misunderstood him because his ideas were new and inflammitory, so they exaggerated his position into a straw man so they could take it down and promote the status quo: just like you and Saya have done time and again in an attempt to attack Kontan and my ideas.

When have I attacked you?

Originally Posted by Despanan

Sorry dude, you're a cool cat, but you're WRONG and you're inadvertently placing yourself as a defender of mysticism-based tyranny. Your Christianity, actually forces you to indirectly defend the very institutions and corrupt coercive social forces you hate.

I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and have changed my mind in the past about serious issues (as any reasonable thinker should). When presented with facts (or at least information new to the one who is presented with such) it is unreasonable to ignore them and continue thinking as before.

But my thoughts I have posted in this thread are not about religion being right or wrong or atheism being right or wrong, it is about finding a different way to persuade and apply atheism successfully in American politics.

I think I am beginning to see what is happening here dude. There is an almost knee jerk reaction to any mention of religion and atheism in the same discussion as reverting to Religion v. Atheism polemic instead of the specific idea under dissection. Don't take it there man. Unless of course reason takes us there. I am certainly not trying to take it there. No where in this thread have I said that religion is better or that atheism is bad, but you are seeing it that way for some reason.

[Despanan]

Shit, I had a HUGE and thoughtful response to this, and GNET ATE IT. I lost like 30 minutes of typing.

Anyway, basically I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but you've gotta see where we are coming from. You employed some classic (and incorrect) anti-atheist suppositions, and you unecessarily tied your problems with Neitzche in with modern-day secularism. That red-herring, along with those classical straw-man postulates lead us to assume this was another religion vs atheism dealy.

also:

1) When I say "attack" I mean "debate" not in the aggressive, personal sense.

2) atheism is not an alternative philosophy to Christianity in the sense that Buddhism or Judiasm is, it is simply a lack of belief in god(s). Atheists are not a unified group with any sort of unifying philosophy or creed. The writings of thinkers who happen to also be atheist are not our bible.

I don't choose my political stances based on my atheism, I choose my political stances based upon what i feel the most reasonable course of action is, thus Neitzche is not a "guideline". The times my own philosophy might mirror Nietzche's would be only when our beliefs just happen to line up with something I consider to be the most reasonable course.

3) If one supposes the non-existance of the divine, then it is very easy to see that cooperation over tyranny is a desirable evolutionary trait, otherwise even WITH the coercive presence of a false diety, that "code" would never have come about. People wouldn't think the social contract was a good idea if it was an evolutionary liability.

4) Please continue to bring stuff like this up. Kontan and I welcome it. I applaud you for being a critical thinker, and please understand that we are the same way. I want you to "attack" our ideas because the result can only be positive. If you are wrong, we can show you why, and if we are wrong we can adapt your ideas to our own and thus become better people.

So yeah, props on this tread guy, sorry I got confused about your intention.