Reexamining Nietzsche's philosophy

It's hard not to feel that, as of late, a theory raised over a century ago, one heavily criticized for being unethical, has still come to pass.

Who was Nietzsche?

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was a German (Prussian) philosopher. His writing was provocative and poetic, challenging the traditional views about morality and religion. He is most known for his individualistic ideology and polemics about human potential.

Born in Saxony into a highly educated family, Nietzsche attended private schools, excelled at theology, and led a literature club. Later, he associated with poets who were considered controversial by his school. While studying a religious course at the University of Bonn, Nietzsche experienced a crisis of faith due contradictions between historical and biblical sources, prompting him to switch to philology at the University of Leipzig, where he had commented on many scientific papers. Thanks to the support of Professor F. W. Ritschl, Nietzsche was awarded an honorary doctorate at the age of 24. He begun writing essays criticizing social culture of Otto von Bismarck's Germany. Due to his cynical views, declining health, and failings in love life, Nietzsche became isolated, though later he found new supporters. In 1889 he suffered a mental breakdown along with delusions, and his writing become more radicalized. He died in 1900 after a series of strokes.

Nietzsche's stated ideology

God is Dead

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
— The Gay Science (1882), "The Madman"

"God is Dead" is a phrase that appears in a 1882 publication "The Gay Science" (as in "The Joyous Science"), though it's not its first or last appearance, nor is the book's central thesis. The key argument is that, as the society advanced with the help of technology and science, the authority and presence of religion has declined.

Interestingly, Nietzsche did not use this as a pro-atheism statement. Instead, he argued that the religious framework of history was false, and God, if exists, does not impose any values on society. So, the morality should derive from empirical knowledge or personal values, instead of religious teachings. This isn't limited to Christianity, Nietzsche has been critical of many religions in general for various reasons.

Will to Power

Nietzsche introduced the idea that living organisms are driven by the "need to dominate" in the 1883 publication "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", but it can be also found in his earlier letters in regards to Darwin's evolution. Nietzsche argued that behavior (not only with humans) is driven not just by biological survival, but by the need to increase competitive skill, influence, and control over the environment.

It's not entirely negative, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs includes the needs for self-esteem, actualization, security, and creativity, which aligns with the idea. Notably, Nietzsche has prioritized overcoming "oneself" over overcoming others in pursuit of enlightenment. Nietzsche was making praise of those who gain power to impose their personal values instead of relying on indirect methods like bribery or begging. Still, while he hasn't actually finalized the concept, this was very close to the "might makes right" mentality.

Übermensch

In "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Nietzsche introduced the "Superhuman", an individual who transcends conventional morality and creates ethical values for themselves without using religion or ethics for reference. This figure is contrasted with the "Last Man", a nihilist who lives by the imposed morals only for the sake of shallow entertainment until they die.

Nietzsche advocated abolishing "sin" as a concept, arguing that "ideal" humans should be driven by their inner passions unrestricted, allowing them to experiment and grow. However, he never clarified how conflicts between two strong-willed individuals could be resolved without violence.

Master–slave morality

In the 1887 book "On the Genealogy of Morality", Nietzsche makes a contrast between two mentalities:

• Masters: The powerful, strong-willed, and pride, who cultivate many talents.
• Slaves: The meek, who praise humility and pity, and can't achieve anything without help.

In contrast to religious ethic, Nietzsche believed that instead of helping each other grow, "slaves" suppress human potential, that they resent (ressentiment) the strong and are trying to drag them down to their level. In contrast, it's someone of "noble" quality who can pull others to their level, though they may also exploit the "slaves" as they please. Nietzsche is making an observation about human relationships and doesn't mean slavery literally.

Nietzsche has been very vocal against mob mentality, arguing that the groupthink hinders artists, warriors and geniuses. He has admired Napoleon as someone who has reshaped the world almost by himself. While Nietzsche doesn't make a political statement explicitly, it's understood that he'd be very anti-egalitarianism and anti-democracy.

Curiously, while Nietzsche was against the idea that everyone deserves equal rights, he was promoting that humans are equal in origin, and their paths a shaped by strong conviction. We was very critical of many of his peers for their anti-Semitic writing and was skeptical of nationalism.

Eternal Recurrence

This life as you now live and have lived it, you will have to live once again and innumerable times again.
— The Gay Science, "The Demon"

In "The Gay Science" and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Nietzsche brings up a small thought experiment. The character of the chapter is proposed to re-live their entire life down to every moment, and questioned if they'd find the potential second loop a positive or negative experience if they were to be thrown in it.

It is believed that according to Nietzsche, since every event shapes us, in retrospect even the saddest or shameful moments should be embraced. Similarly, we should be living our lives to the fullest without regret in case such retrospection happens, and act with conviction that we wouldn't change our choices if such opportunity is given. However, Nietzsche is only proposing an experiment based on earlier cosmological theories, he himself doesn't comment on this.

Impossibility of Truth

While Nietzsche was critical of religion, he was also critical of science, arguing that its pursuit to spread "absolute truth" is hardly any different. In the 1873 essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" he argued that scientific method is still interpretive, can't reveal the facts to the fullest, and that no amount of rationality and reason can be objective. Even the concept of language involves interpretation and abstraction.

Contradictions and Legacy

Nietzsche's works today are believed to be speculative and open for interpretation. His declining mental health raises questions if his ideology was concrete and well-thought-out. Even in his time, his writing received criticism as potentially hypocritical, lacking in basis, or using fantastic scenarios to leave arguments inconclusive.

Nietzsche admired and even romanticized aristocratic values, yet also praised self-made figures. By "noble qualities" he refereed to individuals who have the skill and opportunity to make social changes. However, such individuals usually have to be of actual noble birth to have such opportunities in the first place. While Nietzsche talks a lot about earned greatness, in his framework a lot of it will have to be inherited or come up with luck. Conversely, he argues that "the weak" are a moral failures and not victims of circumstance, misrepresenting historical evidence. He tries to argue that true strength comes from strong will, but this is a rather surface-level quality. His ideal is where the strong-willed aren't bound by morality or ethics, but the obvious consequence of that would be a "dog eat dog" world where nobody can come to an agreement. His pro-individualistic and anti-democratic views would lead to the abolishment of social structures as of whole, something he doesn't appear of have considered, as Napoleon and even himself benefited greatly from democratic laws. He was dismissive of compassion even though it plays a big part in shaping collective responsibility and makes collaborative projects more efficient. While his subjectivity of truth aligns with modern understanding of limits of human knowledge, the way he phrased it is dismissive of subjectivity and ignores own biases.

Later fascist movements (mis)used his ideas to justify eugenics and authoritarianism, showing the dangers of his elitism.

Nietzsche's ideas for self-overcoming and life-affirmation shaped existentialism (Sartre, Camus), postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida), psychology (Freud, Jung), and even politics. His rhetoric for rationalization and attack on dogma can be considered a summation of the Age of Enlightenment's beliefs, opening a way to Modernism movement.

The later liberalism philosophy by Dewey, Rorty, and Nussbaum addresses Nietzsche's critiques while retaining democratic ideals. Dewey believed collective intelligence solves problems, Rorty valued the role of empathy in social interactions, while Nussbaum argued that human capabilities require material support. Liberalism combines civil liberties and social justice, and trades individual freedom with public responsibility. Democracy isn't treated as a rule of the mob, but allows anyone regardless of their origin and position to provide opinion on the living situation, providing them with the opportunity to do so, and encouraging contrasting perspectives.

Current picture

Despite the widely recognized sympathy for individual freedom, as of late the liberalism has been observed to be in a decline.

Liberal process supports equal opportunities and equal treatment, but as of now this still remains a social impossibility. Economic inequality means those of poor background lack the ability to receive sufficient education or to have their opinions be heard. Rather, it's the social elites and the government (who are composed of social elites) who decide who is allowed to move in society based on own views. Often, personal success is achieved by nepotism, fortunate connection, or working hard for the sake of the worldview you don't agree with.

Despite the freedom anonymized internet provides to the users, it also has a lot of negative aspects regarding social interactions. Instead of debating for the sake of problem-solving, the online collective is heavily unorganized and competitive, with people being more concerned with making statements that stand out even if they are not constructive, while devaluing the opposition. Social media influences can sway large crowds into believing any specific rhetoric, and it's very difficult to convince the crowd that the statement contracts factual evidence. Online giants like Google, X/Twitter and Reddit also support clout chaser with greater presence, while use own biases to moderate people who they don't agree with.

A lot of countries claim to be democratic, but it's actually subverted. It's not really democratic when who is allowed to vote and for who is limited. Even without control by the higher-ups, the crowd often prefers giving the leadership away to the strongmen due to how they appear, without checking their background. Often, people blame the weakness of democratic institutions for not providing the promised benefits, and default to conservative elitists who make a lot of promises but clearly never intended to provide the promised benefits in the first place. These leaders are usually strong-willed only as much as their public representation demands them to, the actual decisions are done by their massive groups who generally got their way in due to being friends or relatives instead of merit.

While anti-trust laws exist, in reality tech oligarchs not only control the market, but also the information flow and policies. We get into a situation where social freedom is not just suppressed, executives of corporations intent it to not be provided in the first place for the sake of profits. A lot of public infrastructure and hardware is privatized, media is selective, and making something new requires ludicrous amount of resources. If this continues, even what to buy is going to be decided for us.

The point is, Nietzsche would probably laugh in his grave. Morals are slowly getting dictated either by the groupthink or by by elitists who rely on their conspirators to manipulate the crowd into giving them positions. Billionaires impose their visions onto the public and abuse windows in the democracy to legislate anti-consumer practices. Bureaucratic inertia, short-term content, and the "like" system encourage mediocrity and conformity, those who utilize novelty face either limited visibility or backlash. Many countries fall into the hands of the radical right through "fair" elections with predetermined results.

The harsh reality is that the environment is shaped by the strong. Even if we opposite Nietzsche's framework, his observations happen to be true if left unchecked. If we plan to not fall into the elitist hierarchy and corporate dystopia, then we need powerful figureheads who would fight for equality. So the select few families and public figures wouldn't be able make laws, we have to strengthen antitrust enforcement, revive civic education, and redirect economy to support the general population.

---