Nihilism, Nietzsche, and our Cultural Crisis
Article by Wen Wryte in "The American Thinker":
Nihilism
is now a pervasive feature of Western society. Friedrich Nietzsche
gave us the formulation of nihilism that is now commonly accepted: a
sentiment that nothing really matters, and that there is no point in
life. In the most extreme manifestations, life itself is considered
worthless.
Passive
nihilism consists of simply withdrawing from life-affirming activities
(this was Nietzsche’s verdict on Schopenhauer’s pessimistic
philosophy). It is demonstrated in the hopelessness and despair of
those seemingly condemned to a life constrained by adverse circumstances
or their own lack of imagination or resourcefulness. Some go further
than resignation -- for example, the slow suicide of opioid addicts
attests to the life-denying motivations of passive nihilism.
Active
nihilism – Nietzsche’s own contribution to the philosophy of nihilism –
consists of seeking the destruction of what is viewed as being
worthless. Contested values -- and their expression -- are marked for
abolition and destruction. The idea of value itself may be replaced by
the goal of getting one’s own way, which does not qualify as a value in
itself because it could involve the destruction of the world and
everything in it -- the ultimate expression of active nihilism.
The
political activism of the radical progressive liberal-Left is actively
nihilistic in that they are intent on destroying all that stands in the
way of imposing their worldview on others. They do not seem concerned
that their dismantling of Western culture and civilization will result
in the collapse of the West. All that matters is getting what they
want: political power.
Nietzsche
viewed a culture of nihilism as being a necessary stage in the renewal
of Western civilization. But he knew there had to be a solution to
nihilism before this could happen. His first attempt was in the form of
a theory of aesthetics. Art and artists would provide the means by
which a culture of “noble souls” would be fostered by helping us learn
about what lies beneath the surface of ourselves, good and bad, so as to
inspire us to do something constructive with both.
A
noble soul is a person who has courage but seeks no recognition, who
strives for excellence, who has a self-sufficiency of being, a sense of
dignity, and a serene self-assurance that impresses itself on others.
But
Nietzsche also observed that artists were easily seduced by the
attractions of catering to the superficial conceits of the idle and the
rich. For the idle, such artists create popular art with all its
temptations to perpetual mediocrity; for the rich, they create
pretentious pseudo-intellectual nonsense that panders to vanity. Both
are exercises in self-deceit.
While never giving up on the idea that great
artists and the art they create contributes to a culture of excellence
of being, Nietzsche recognized that something more was needed. Hence
his concept of the Übermensch. The German word is ambiguous
between “Overman,” “Superman,” and “Beyond-man”; all fail to capture the
subtlety of Nietzsche’s ideas. A better characterization would be
“super-ethical-self,” or “perfect moral being.” The terminology is
clumsy but is far closer to the explanation he gives.
The Übermensch
is often presented as an ideal of supreme elitism based on oppressive
political power, and its “beyond good and evil” aspect as an exercise in
amorality. But careful reading of the relevant texts supports an
alternative interpretation.
The Übermensch
can be understood as a conceptual exercise in methodological
individualism -- the idea that values and ideas originate with the
individual and then impact on others in society to form a culture. And
the evaluative context -- of personal choice, and even creation, of
values -- does not do away with the concept of value, as some have
claimed, it just abolishes the idea that value is something that can be
imposed by others.
The
ideal of a perfect moral being is something we can each strive to
achieve knowing we’ll never attain perfection (Nietzsche thus betrays
his Christian roots), whilst the idea of value as something that one
must choose for one’s self places moral responsibility solely with the
individual. Nietzsche is a moralist after all, but one who does not
impose any values.
Nietzsche
unknowingly anticipated the (rejected) defense used by a defendant at
the Nuremberg war trials. “I was only following orders” is not an excuse
in Nietzsche’s moral universe. But there is a startling corollary to
this, because if we are each, individually, personally responsible for
selecting and even creating our own ethical values, then moral virtue
does not even attach to following instructions that lead to good conduct. To possess moral virtue is to act solely
from one’s own freely chosen values, not the imposed values of others.
The mere appearance of virtue (conformity) is not enough. Nietzsche
has thus offered a new formulation of moral character.
This
is highly relevant to our situation today, because instruction about,
and the development of, moral character has been slowly removed from the
public education system and even from the realm of public discourse.
The demands of moral character -- taking personal responsibility for the
conduct of one’s life, living according to one’s own values, striving
for excellence, setting a good example to others, and independence of
thought and opinion in defense of one’s own value-system -- all these
have almost disappeared from public view as the collectivist ideology of
radical progressivism has come to dominate in the West.
An
individual lacking in moral character has no defense against either
passive or active nihilism. Such an individual will easily succumb to
hopelessness and despair. And the availability of an outlet for the
more destructive motivations is provided by radical progressivism, which
demands only ideological conformity and suppresses independence of
thought and opinion.
Nietzsche
never considered that a solution to nihilism might lie in the renewal
of teaching on moral character, in Christian values and the moral
training that goes with them, and in the sense of a moral culture and
community that arises from this. Nietzsche’s views on Christianity
acknowledged its role as a bulwark against nihilism, but he believed it
had failed due to the rationalistic impact of the Enlightenment, and in
any case enslaved its followers with its “slave morality.”
He
also argued that the Christian moral conscience had become an
intellectual conscience under the secularizing influence of the
Enlightenment, thus bringing about the “death of God.” Nietzsche was
looking for a way forward without Christianity.
But
now the Enlightenment too has failed (which Nietzsche also predicted)
and been replaced by the pathological irrationality of radical
progressivism and its anti-Western post-modernist philosophy. With no
sign of a Nietzschean “perfect moral being,” or anything close to it,
the time is ripe for a renewal of Christian moral teachings.
Western
culture and civilization are rooted in Christianity. Remove
Christianity and the foundations crumble to dust. Which is exactly what
we are seeing today as nihilism pervades our culture and society.
Teaching
moral character as part of a Christian education and moral training
benefits all who receive it, even those who, like myself, later lose
their faith. It can also benefit those of other faiths, and those who
never had one to begin with, which is perhaps why so many non-Christian
families seek to send their children to Christian schools.
The positive lessons remain with one for life.
Post a Comment