xoc

One of the common subjects of philosophy is society and government, and what the perfect society would be, or the best form of government. Not all philosophers and philosophies touch on this subject, but it seems to me a critical issue that a truly complete, or perfect, philosophy could not do without. Even if the subject(society and government) is not mentioned directly it has a relevence- and a philosopher's view on other things, such as conduct and lifestyle etc. relate directly to a philosophy of "society."

What brought this up in my mind was my recent reading of Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. What ever else I may have liked and disliked about the book, one thing occured to me as to why I would consider Zarathustra's philosophy imperfect: it did not seem like it could really work for greater society.

Zarathustra is the "godless prophet" that deigns to lead man in the way of the Overman, and to overcome their selves, in a way somewhat different than the religious teachers have taught to overcome the self. The story is mythic, and not infused with a practicle realism. One of the key messages of Zarathustra is the inequality rather than the equality of man; and he teaches his disciples to not "be of the rabble", and, "You higher men, go away from the market place." (not be buyers and sellers of goods, something real people do to survive) (p.256) Zarathustra is not a real person, and the life he lives is not a realistic life... is the life he teaches his disciples to live a possible life? As the book is in the form of the story, it is very easy for the kings, the voluntary beggar, the ugliest man etc. to go find Zarathustra and listen to his words. But as Zarathustra counsels against the mundane life of the "rabble", I have to ask how these men would eat if they were not fictional characters who have no need of food. My impression is that having a job would be too mundane a thing for Zarathustra, not fit for the "higher men."

Obviously it would be impossible for the world to follow Zarathustra's philosophy(and apparently he does not care about this, as the rabble is not fit too understand his philosophy anyway). So Nietzshe does not form a philosophy for society in this work, and his doctrine of the "inequality" of man perhaps excuses this(he does not expect everyone to follow his philosophy and does not worry overmuch about "lower men"). Personally I consider the "society" factor to be a crucial way of judging a philosophy- by that I mean, the question: "What if everyone did this, or lived like this, or believed this?" seems like an important question in evaluating a philosophy. Never mind that Zarathustra's doctrine does not leave much room for the common practicle elements of existence(which we, unlike the characters in Nietzsche's book, are stuck with), a world where everyone tried to follow the Zarathustrian philosophy could not practically exist. We could not have a world without the "market", and the other mundane lifestyles Zarathustra counsels against. By that criteria I strike a mark against it.

The question is, is this a fair criteria to use when judging a philosophy?

philechat

I would say philosophy has always been targetting a select group of audience, and only a small percentage of people would actually dwell into all the different political/social theories the philosophers purported. Philasophical ideas take root into the greater society only through (very selective) applications of some politicians, which is also now NOT exactly relevent given that most politicians in modern states are based on popular votes, who deem practical issues (How much would we be taxed? Will I get more personal benefits from the government? etc. ) more important than theoretical issues.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra would therefore always be a philosophy for the minority. Whether people choose to follow or not based on its values would still be an individual choice, and not a means to reform the world. This book has been utterly and stupidly misused (much to Nietzsche's demise) by the Fascists, who attempted to recast Nietzsche's philosophy into something it did not aim to do.

Most political theories had been abused in the past, by the politicians' selective choice on the philosophical works, i.e. the politicians made the philosophers speak what the politician wants to do, and not the other way around.

AnthonyAdams45

Sure, why not? Of course, I'm not so pessimitic about Nietzsche's world as you are. (Under his view, the lesser persons "know their place" and keep it.) A world of uebermenschen would be unthinkable even for Nietzsche, and was never his expectation.

However, whether Nietzsche's world works or not, I do think the possibility of a reality counts for or against the worldview that defines it. But only the logical possibility, not the actual possibility, for calculating whether or not something is actually possible is far too tricky for me. I mean, neither slavery nor rape would ever have occurred to me, and yet, there thay are.

xoc

A valid point. I was thinking after that my use of Z.'s scorn of the "market" and suggesting that this was promoting an impossible world might be invalid. There is no inherent need for the "market" in reality, at least in theory. Earlier societies (tribal) did without a market place- and while the life of the hermit is certainly not possible for everyone these days it is not beyond possibility for everyone.
The fact that Nietzsche does not expect everyone to be "higher men" is actually a more realistic view than is found in many philosophers who do try to produce a philosophy of society(a obvious example being Plato's Republic). And the politicians of course raid the tombs of the philosopher because they see that the power is in thought, the power to inspire, greater than military force. Hitler's success(to rise to power) is in part by raiding Nitetzsche's tomb and combining it with Aryan myth, and in another part by learning to be a powerful speaker, to inspire the Germans with this powerful, impassioned kind of rhetoric. It is the politician's talent to take a philosophy and form a policy, and then to explain to the people how the two fit together (the power of interpretation) even when in reality they are quite disjointed. That's the skill of subtlety or sleight-of-hand, and only
can succeed because the "herd" will not read between the lines or ask the hard questions. It also works because of our desire to have government take care of us, to "Escape From Freedom" as Erich Fromm put it. Freedom is frightening, hence the appeal of fascism, but even all other kinds of governments exist to restrain the terrifying notion of perfect Freedom(called Anarchy in terms of government).

Actually my favorite thing about the existentialist philosophers is their emphasis on the individual rather than society- which as Kierkegaard put it is not even really real but rather a mere abstraction. The individual self is the real thing we are always in contact with- society is the slippery thing that is spoken of much but hard to define in more definite, discrete terms. Our need for it is based on our own weaknesses- for our protection, protection from the physical dangers, and protection against our selves(alone.) Joining in with the crowd and herd is far easier than to cut your own path, and comforting.

Saying this I guess I am tempted to say "no" to my initial question- only a question of "universality" or universal validity seems to still sugest it has some kind of validity. When Nietzsche wrote that what is good for me is good for me but not necessarily for you, I acknowledge a validity on many grounds and instances. But this can't hold true in absolute terms- I couldn't agree with a position like "it is good for me to beat my wife, it is just not good for you." The absolute positioning of morality for Kierkegaard as it were was "to will the good"; this good must extend beyond the mere self or even exist beyond the mere self. And it is only with a concept of what is good, a universal good, that a society can exist. And since they do and must exist and individuals are born in and proceed from "society", there must be something good about it.

(apologies for the lack of succinctity, I just "need to write to think" more than I 'need to think to write." My thanks for all who respond.)