Friday, October 26, 2012
When Did the Roles Reverse?
Nietzsche most definitely raised some interesting points when he spoke of the essential difference between good and bad in the essay that we read in class. He defined good as being strong and useful, and bad as being weak, and somewhat helpless. These definitions of good and bad definitely differ from the norm, because we normally view good and bad as how they compare to morality. As in, if I commit adultery it is bad, but if I help feed the poor and donate to charity, I am considered good. Nietzsche made me think about the definition of good and bad in a different light, in that being good or bad is more of a social standing rather than a moral standing. However, what I noticed about our class discussion is that everything becomes misconstrued depending on what side of good or bad you are on. During class, I could not help but think about Marx's works on Communism. Virtually, in his eyes, if you are wealthy you are essentially bad, and if you are of the poor working class then you are good. Yet, from Nietzsche's view point, the weak are bad simply by nature, just as the strong are good by nature. But what Kind of comparison is that to make? Good is good and bad is bad right? Everybody has their own definition, and that whats makes an individual an individual. There was a comment made by Dr. J in class about the slave revolt which reversed the "noble mode of evolution." In my mind, I believe that is when the role of good and bad was reversed. Take today's society for instance, I know I have mentioned this before, but the Wall Street movement virtually ostracizes the rich "AKA strong" as being bad. When did this come to be? When we were all little did not we dream to grow up to become rich and famous, so why are we criticizing them now? Believe me, I came from a very humble back ground, and I have worked very hard to get to where I am today. Although that might not be much, it is a start. I cannot buy into the idea that the upper 1% are the evil aristocracy that are ruining the nation, because deep down inside I know that everybody wants to be that 1%. According to Nietzsche, you would be strong. And, who would not want to be strong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your statements regarding the 1%. Deep down, everyone knows that they would like to be as wealthy as the 1%. However, I do not believe that this concept of "ostracizing" others out of envy is one born of modern times. Naturally, we envy those we who have more than ourselves. When paired with the frustration with the unfairness of life, this envy stems ridicule and hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteYes, capitalism may be flawed in the sense that the rich tend to get richer, and the poor get poorer. However, for more than a century, we, as a country, have been able to maintain an economy with the exception of a couple crises. If the effects of capitalism were as harsh as portrayed, we would have little to no families within the middle-income bracket of our economy. The real-world economy is too complex and unpredictable to be simplified into a broad sense of capitalism that victimizes the majority of the population. In addition, I don't believe any sensible person would choose to become a communist country. While Marx' concept of capitalism is generally true, I do not believe it is as applicable as it once may have been.
I wonder about the cases when a weak person is among the 1%, which could definitely occur say by birthright, fortune, etc. And likewise, what about the cases when one is strong and yet among the lower class?
ReplyDeleteThis poses a potential argument against Nietzsche: take Kant's Categorical Imperative as a starting point. If there are universal laws that we must be able to derive as rational beings, is it not the case that these are what we would have initially willed as good? If we were to then observe an upper class member who does not obey these laws, would we not call them a weak leader? Our definitions of good and bad are just as likely to have been derived from the Categorical Imperative as from the role reversal. Is it not the case that we view some of the upper class as good, just as we observe some of the upper class to be bad? Much of what we learn comes from observations of our leadership, we could easily derive both our definitions of good and bad from their behaviors, and while the comparison of weak and strong may be factored into the equation, I know that I do not view all strong people as bad.
Wow! You present some strong and dynamic opinions. I can't say that I agree with all of them, but they are definitely worth noting. I think that strength is defined by usefulness to a certain degree. For example, a person who is active and gets out and participates in work and activities is definitely stronger than someone who is lazy and has potential but does not put it to use. I think that in some instances, people cannot define whether or not they can be strong or weak because they cannot help their circumstances. For example, we are all born into different families with different lifestyles. We can't change where we come from. Some people are born into poverty, while others have rich families with resources. if we look at the person who was born into wealth, we might say that he is stronger because he has access to more money and can do more things. However, in a sense he is actually weaker than the poor man because the poor man has to fight to attain what he wants. Its not just handled to him. In order to escape from poverty, he must have a significantly higher level of drive than the privileged kid also. So who is actually good, the kid who has everything or the kid who does without?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that most people have the desire to make more money. Thus, a poor kid probably has dreams of making it someday. There is strength in having loads of cash to a certain degree. But maybe that can be a bad thing. However, as the saying goes, "Money can't buy happiness." For example, i think that some celebrities who have money are some of the most miserable people in the world. Furthermore, celebrity kids may not turn out right and have the values. Many of them don't appreciate the value of simple things like other children do. Being able to get your way and have whatever you want can be crippling in my opinion. Thus, a person who has to work hard to earn money can actually be happier than the person who has everything. There is strength in rising from the bottom to the the top and making a way for yourself. I think that a person like that has more stamina than the person with wealth because he learns a lot more a long the way. Life is not easy,but people like that manage to succeed anyway.
I think that the reason the rich are viewed as "bad" because of the fact that the wealthy and powerful are in the minority. Since the majority of today's population is in the middle and lower classes and the minority is rich, it is easy to say that the the difference which makes the wealthy rich is considered negative. I believe that this may be true because I think that everyone wants to be good. Therefore, the majority would consider themselves good.
ReplyDelete