That might have been the most eye opening thing i've read.... ever.
woah.
Hm... and yet keep in mind what was posted was, by and large, Nietzschien philosophy, which is just another system, as it were (though, even as you said of the post, he can be rather eye opening in his own way.) Keep in mind that if there is absolute truth (speaking hypothetically), and it exists apart from one's self, then looking only inside oneself will avail nothing. It's obviously a tough call to make, but such claims as these may be no less constrictive in their own fashion. The problems I have with such arguments are the selfsame ones I might have with Nietzsche.
I suppose the question that must be asked is... if we are to break our moral chains, as it were... what happens if there are, indeed, unescapable chains? There is a strong desire in Nietzsche to break out of the herd, as it were. To some extent I find that commendable, but it must be wondered... are we just deceiving ourselves into a delusional freedom thereby? Basically I'm asking, what if freedom is, in fact, not only freedom of will, but free knowledge (knowledge free of ignorance), and as such one becomes less free, though they think themselves more free.
It's popularly considered in some circles that religion, and in particular Christianity, is a system for the weak. That may well be... strike that, it definitely is. But the question we must ask is... what if we are all, inherently, weak? What if, as much as we will ourselves otherwise, we cannot be strong, and in doing so do not end up truly free, but only put ourselves under another form of control that we perceive even less... that is, merely exchange the names in things. A cow that leaves the constraints of its pasture may soon be subjected to the necessity of finding food on its own... self determination, perhaps, but it is still bondage, after a fashion. But we call one 'free' and the other not... why? Or for another example, take Democracy... it is freedom's cry, but how many of us are truly free under it? And how many of us live under the illusion of freedom whilst still enthralled to the demagogues? So I wonder if this idea that's put forward of individual strength is not a similar delusion which promises freedom, but instead will only give us bondage to masters we cannot perceive so well as the old tyrants which governed us. So you must consider if someone can ever even be strong or free, or if those are merely titles we give to things in order to shift around our chains so as to make them easier to bear. Now such a thought is reprehensible to some. But just because it is reprehensible in opinion, doesn't make it not so. A prisoner might hate the chains, but that doesn't mean the chains aren't there.
Just some further things to consider. It is very easy to question the standing morality and the social norms these days... in fact, it has come into vogue and fashion in many places. But how about we question the question? Not in that one should not consider why one hold the beliefs they have... but you must also ask yourself... why do so many consider their base beliefs wrong by default? That is, why do we so unquestioningly question, as if the doubt is more important that the pursuit of finding what is real and not. Doubt is an important part of a fulfilled mind, it's true, but if you doubt only to doubt, only because you think 'well, I obviously am not going to go just with what I was taught', be careful. What you were taught at first may not be right... but it may also be. Why, after all, are we believing that because the majority believes it, because it's the ruling theocracy, as it were, that it must be wrong? Is this not the indocrination of a type of philosophy that disdains any sort of rule whatsoever? And if so, aren't we then just buying into another belief system in order to judge that whatever is believed by the majority is an oppression by matter of necessity? What validates that?
For example, we have had it questioned why this all is good for one day, but not for many. It seems hypocrisy. And yet, by what laws shall we be governed? By anarchy? Perhaps, and yet even there we will have discontent. The thing is, custom is not something that we should just flout because we think it is a blind indoctrination: many things are, indeed, most of what makes us human is. Look at our forms of speech... it's not by accident that the ancient Greek Hesiod said of speech to be 'dividing thought.' We organize thought into certain forms in order to bring across ideas. How are we capable of this? Because those organizational categories are constructed into us as we grow. We are, in a sense, civilized as we mature, and in fact that process is indoctrination: we become a slave to the organization of thoughts in the human fashion. We take what is abstraction in the mind and we formalize it. What was once instinct becomes conscious. It becomes chained and ruled by the reason of our minds. And what's to be said for this? We have become indoctrinated into civilization.
Language is but one aspect. Others are the social customs we have. Now the point is... it might seem very attractive to cast out certain aspects of our constriction, but don't assume we're suddenly making ourselves free or, indeed, that much seperates the use of language from the regular use of clothing. The use of writing. The 'use' of anything. Morality, social morality, is a system which, over the length of time, has been shown to work and to keep us continuing. Call it an evolutionary byproduct of culture. Now, feel free to cast out what you will, but you'll be making a grave mistake to do so so blithely... because we, in our limited scope of vision, cannot always perceive what use things have. There was a time when doctors did not know the use of many parts of the body, but that did not make them useless or redundant. What if they'd tried to remove them? So there's your answer for the question of the public nudity. Social norms exist for a reason. The reason might be outmoded, or it might not. But for individuals to suddenly choose to remove them is an unwarranted and unlearned leap. As, I would add, is the stance that religion is uneccessary. What if it performs a useful social function that we are unaware of consciously?
Right, right, we can all be strong on our own... we think. But what if we can't. Well, I guess we need some to dare it. But I don't think the person has yet existed who has not had faith or reliance in something. And as long as there is faith, we'll have religion, or at least the spark which is at the core of the religious temper. At any rate, I think we're always willfully deluding ourselves. Unless we return to the base instinct of animals, we will always live under some delusion... but beneficial delusions! Maybe not to the individual... but even that which is harmful can have lasting benefits. A clever man once said that there can be no such thing as an evil person for that even those named evil have only spurred us to be better than before. Perhaps our delusions work in similar fashion. Perhaps our only hope is not escape from the delusions, as some would have, but merely understanding which ones govern us. Hm?
Of course, we need our plowmen of evil, too. So I'll not grudge those trying to turn over the soil. We will be better for it, I admit. I'm one of those old farmers still trying to coax what he can out of the old field. That's my part in all this.
