"The root of all evil: that the slavish morality of meekness, chastity, selflessness, absolute obedience, has triumphed -- ruling natures were thus condemned (1) to hypocrisy, (2) to torments of conscience -- creative natures felt like rebels against God, uncertain and inhibited by eternal values ..."
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1884)
Please comment on the above passage. Feel free to respond in light of Dostoevsky or Raskolnikov, or to simply express your own thoughts about Nietzsche's comments.
12 comments:
This Nietzsche certainly has taken an interesting side--denounced all that is good and honest to the "root of all evil." His description of that "evil" as meekness and chastity and selflessness parallels Rodya when he chastised himself for his "cowardice." Ironically this also means people like Sonia would be the "root of all evil" and cause the corruption of the whole of society. And further ironically it is Sonia that Rodya feels he has most in common with, even though she is committing sin selflessly, and he to test the validity of his theory. Rodya's theory reveals him as a "rebel against God," obviously, since his theory is about acting against moral principles because he is superior to others...naturally going against "slavish morality" would make him an enemy against God because those are the principles on which religion stands. And I hardly think "creative natures" is a valid argument for theories developed such as Rodya's, which justify the use of violence and killing for the good of a cause. And as to "torments of conscience..." the entire reason behind why a conscience exists is to make us feel guilty when we do something completely against moral principle...to make us feel so bad, or to become so sickly and delusional like Rodya, that we are never to do it again. Does goodness cause evil, then? It sounds as if evil has come as a result of morals, since anything against them is considered 'evil,' though good people don't intentionally cause evil, I'm sure...
Since we finished Crime and Punishment today, the book is technicall done with until midterms. So, I'll give my personal opinion to one this Mr. Cinaflone (I hope your not heart broken too much).
I would have to say that I do agree with Nietzsche to a certain extent. Hypocrisy, is defintely one thing that I would agree with him is part of the root of all evil. Hypocrites have been part of society since the beginning. I mean there are stories in the Bible and messages in the Bible about how bad and evil hypocrisy is. Therefore, I would have to agree with Nietzsche that hypocrisy is a part of the root of all evil. Also, history goes to show how evil hypocrisy is. In our Western Civ class we had a brief discussion if the detainment of Japanese Americans in America was just? The statement that America is a land of freedom is equailty is put aside I suppose when the national security level is increased. I guess that's fair right?
However, these "creative natures" that go against God could be argued. I don't think I buy that "evil has come as a result of morals" as stated in Amanda's post. But rather, each individual decides what is right and what is wrong. This is cliche, but there are deffintely two sides to every story. I mean if the morals of one person are one way and the morals of another person are another way, won't that result in different beliefs about our actions. Obviously, our actions are what creates our morals. And our environment and society defines what is right and what is wrong. But I feel that it depends on what side of the spectrum you are on. And I guess you can say it will depend on how conservative you are or how liberal. But, back to the point. Mankind was/is destined to grow in every aspect. And I would argue that whatever is qualified as going "against" God is not totally going against Him. Nietzsche's statement, I believe, only has a part of the truth. I believe the other part of the truth is hidden behind that "other" story. However, I don't feel that God would condemn us based on most of our beliefs, I feel that there is a fine line with Him, and I feel that He will let you stretch it out pretty far before you actually do something that would make your action seem as if you were "rebelling".
I do not agree with Nietzsche that compassion is the root of all evil. When one surrenders to "the slavish morality of meekness..." I feel that he becomes prepared to conquer evil with good. On the other hand, when one refuses to recognize his "torments of conscience," he becomes likely to cause evil, rather than to suppress it as Nietzsche suggests. For instance, the men at the Paris Peace Conference had no understanding for one another, and therefore devised a hurtful treaty, which lead in part to WWII.
Next, I disagree further with the point that God would mistreat "creative natures," and also that these individuals are "inhibited by external values." God sheds His grace on all, no matter what shapes someone's identity. Svidrigailov, an unfaithful husband, a rapist, and a murderer, is a perfect example. The rain dousing his body in his final appearence in Crime and Punishment is an indicator that even he is not immune to salvation. In addition, Svidrigailov is an example of a person who is not inhibited by his environment. Clearly, Russian society did not encourage any of his inappropriate actions or misbehavior, yet he still followed through.
Personally, I believe that the root of all evil is the fact that there is no universal root which is considered a root in the eyes of every human being. Our differing view points of what is evil and what is not and how it comes about result in several forms of evil, whether it simply be arguing or stealing, killing, etc.
I have to say that I disagree. Certainly, the suppression of "creative natures" is an unjust thing, but calling selflessness, chastity, meekness, and obedience evil is going a bit too far. Apparently the "creative natures" that Nietzsche is refering to are our capacities to be violent, selfish, perverse, and rebellious. In that case Nietzsche's ideal person would be a sociopath; someone completely disconnected from any sort of moral constraints; the 'extraordinary' person. I love how he is saying that this "root of all evil" "has triumphed", as if there was ever a time when morality wasn't the law of the land. Morality has always been there; I think it's a bit out of place to refer to its presence as a "triumph', which implies novelty. Anyways, we cannot assign the cause of all that is evil one one singular thing. What is evil anyways? Everyone has different ideas of what is good and bad, so therefore there can be no one cause. A human beings' conscience might just be that root, because without it, there would be no evil; eveything would be permisable. So i guess, I kind of understand what Nietzsche is talking about. The way he is refering to it makes him sound sociopathic though.
the root of all evil is men like Nietzsche who honestly think that being honest and good is a bad thing. if people would stop thinking of themselves as superior beings and "napoleons" we wouldn't really have crime. therefore no need for punishment. people are equal. call me a commie i dont care, this whole idea of superiority is sickening and the root of all evil itself. capitalism and money are also a part of this idea. in this world, the rich people are the supreme beings and basicly do whatever they want, and where does that get us in society? on the brink of a nuclear war! and im just not gonna go into the whole god thing because i dont believe3 god exists.
Well this backwards....he seems to be condemning all that is good, everything that people strive for and hold dear, as evil. I think he is saying that being 'good' and exhibiting things like meekness, chastity, selflessness, and obedience is actually stifling our creativeness. He is maybe suggesting that these "eternal values" are not in our best interest, that they crush our human desire to be creative and that is why they are so evil. I cannot say that I agree because I hold with many of the "eternal values" but I can see his point.
Nietzsche's comment is undoubtedly deep, and undoubtedly confusing, but after dissecting the sentence I developed my own understanding of what he said. Previous posts are choosing to disagree or agree on what he said based on what he says is the root of all evil, however, I think his comment should be examined in terms of how he defines evil.
I don't think he's saying that chastity and selflessness and obedience are evil. Instead, I think he's saying that from those good aspects comes evil. The definition of evil is mraked by the opposites of what we consider good in this world. Things like meekness, chastity, selflessness, etc, allow us to condem their opposites. So in a way, the root of all evil is found in what he listed. And from them, comes hypocrisy and torments of conscience. The people who choose to rebel against God and comitt crimes or be evil, are uncertain and inhibited by the values that society drills into them. So once again, they are defined by what they aren't.
Nietzsche says that “ruling natures were thus condemned to hypocrisy.” This is after he says that the root of all evil is “meekness, chastity, selflessness, and absolute obedience.” He seems to think that people who wanted power believed that those who followed should be meek, selfless, and completely obedient to their ruler. However, if person was preaching that people should be these thing, they are preaching things that are ‘bad’ or the “root of all evil.” But who is he talking about that has this ruling nature. The only time I remember hearing people preach about “meekness, chastity, and selflessness” was in church. He is then calling the church hypocritical. He then goes on to say those with “ruling natures” were “rebels against God.” So does he believe that the church is corrupt?
In deeming "morality, meekness, chastity, selflessness, absolute obedience" as the root of all evil, it appears as if Nietzsche is attacking religion more than anything else. He does have a valid point, nevertheless, that institutions such as Christianity that preach the concept of morality very often hypocritically contradict or violate their very own established principles. However, his anti-morality and anti-religion views are the very justifications that perpetuate crazy and immoral theories such as Raskolnikov's. Raskolnikov's theory is deeply rooted in concepts such as Nietzsche's "Ubermench." Because Nietzsche argues that an "Ubermench" has the task of imposing morality upon humankind, many individuals such as Raskolnikov misconstrue his theory and try to transgress all previously established moral boundaries. Dostoevsky's staunch fondness for Christianity thereby defeats Nietzsche's immoralist pleas. Nietzsche's theories only prove to be destructive and confirm that humanity does need a governing moral body consisting of a religion ruled over by God.
I think that this quote is a great quote for anyone that finds these theories and philosophies about the inadequacies of modern morality and ethics interesting (like me!). I think that you could even relate it to modern problems and concerns that (in my opinion) ought not to exist, but due so because of antiquated beliefs regarding them. Now, not all of this statement I agree with, as chastity and selflessness can be virtues in small quantities, however the qualities of meekness and obedience are shackles that ought to be cast off without a second thought.
Some of these issues that I am talking about include issues such as the controversies surrounding research such as embryonic stem cell research or cloning. Some of the most overly passionate opposition state sources such as religious morality and the Bible as their most powerful allies. This generates the feeling that "creative natures felt like rebels against God" because of the fact that the majority of people are at least wary around religion and all of the zealots that damn them for what they do, calling them evil, when in fact the ones doing more harm are the religious, the supposedly "moral", ones.
This quote by Nietzsche really confuses me to tell you the truth. He believes that good things are evil. that good deeds should be condemned. I never really knew much about Nietzsche but i thought he was a valued scholar, and i never thought he had ideas like this. why would anyone believe that good things such as "selflessness" and "absolute obedience" are bad and should be thought of as evil. this quote has really changed all my opinions on Neitzsche and I officially do not like him very much.
I read this excerpt from Nietzsche and the first thing that came to my mind is Satanism. I know you're all like woah,Natalie chill out... But no, seriously. I completeley agree with Mike, in that this remark directly relates to some issue he has with Christianity. In the religion of Satanism, followers aren't necessarily taught to "follow the devil," they're led to live in excess, without moral bounds, extravagantly. There is no concern for others, and anything that hinders what you want or think you "need" is a nuisance. Nietzsche, as I'm sure EVERYONE from period five remembers, was said to have been the death of my beloved, James Douglas Morrison. Technically he died of a heart attack, but what really weakened that muscle was his excessive indulgence in drugs and severely risky activity. He did everything to the extreme, with no regard for others, his own body, or himself. Nietzsche believes that selflessness is stupid because YOU should be most important to you. His warped sense of caring for oneself is significantly detrimental. He believes that in order to get ahead, to make progress, to be happy, is to please yourself, not others. Thus making selflessness, chastity and meekness "the root of all evil." If you're chaste, you aren't having sex for pleasure. In Christianity (and especially Catholicsm) masturbation and practicing birth control (however extremely different they may seem) are deemed sinful and looked down upon. If you've ever seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I'm sure you know the song about the protestants and catholics... Anyway, the wasting of "seed" for one's own pleasure is a sin against God and against creation. To have sex not for the purpose of reproduction is considered wrong. Sex however, was made to feel good, so Nietzche, denying that God really is almighty, believes that you should just do it for the pleasure. Don't be chaste and be a virgin, there is no divine, omniscient figure above concerned with your fate and whether you want to procreate or just...have a good time.
Uh, am I getting too tangential?
Anyway. I'll continue.
Nietzsche is really just an extremist in this "yourself first" mentality.
P.S.
I love Jim Morrison no matter what.
Post a Comment