Brandon Lienhart
Phil Oliver
Section 4
4/27/2021
Friedrich Nietzsche: Self-Realization
Nietzsche first sparked interest in the idea of
self-overcoming after discovering the works of Herbert Spencer; a sociologist
who famous for his hypothesis of social Darwinism. Spencer also coined the term
“survival of the fittest”. Nietzsche
would mostly agree with Spencer’s hypothesis, however two of his ideas regarding
the very nature of evolution he was opposed to. The first being that Nietzsche disagreed
with Spencer’s idea that evolution resulted in the inevitable progress of life.
He expresses his belief in his book, The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche; where
he quotes “Mankind surely does not represent an evolution toward a better or
stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This “progress” is
merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of today, in
his essential worth, falls far below the European of the Renaissance; the
process of evolution does not necessarily mean elevation, enhancement,
strengthening.” I believe that Spencer was suggesting life will continue to
thrive and adapt to new circumstances and environments. While Nietzsche was
suggesting that progress in his terms has not yet been achieved by mankind.
The second idea of Spencer’s that Nietzsche disagreed with
was the idea that all organisms ultimately strive after self-preservation. In
the words of Gregory Moore, Spencer had said “The ultimate end of all conduct
is the prolongation and increase of life- in other words, the preservation of
the individual organism and the species to which it belongs”. Nietzsche opposed
this view mostly due to his assumption that Darwin shared the same idea that
Spencer had. The idea that all an organism’s behavior was aimed at self-preservation,
and it was this false assumption that led him to disagree with Darwin and favor
his own view of evolution based on the will to power. However, according to Darwinian
evolution, an organism does not explicitly aim at survival, only that the
advantages of certain behavior are naturally selected for survival; and this is
where I believe Nietzsche misunderstood. Nietzsche was against the idea that a
will to live or drive to survive was the fundamental drive within all
organisms. You can see this in his book Twilight of the Idols where Nietzsche
refers to himself as “anti-Darwin” due to his rejection of the idea that organisms
seek above all else the perpetuation and prolongation of their existence.
In his book Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche elaborates
on his issue with this view “Physiologists should think twice before
positioning the drive for self preservation as the cardinal drive of an organic
being. Above all, a living thing wants to discharge its strength – life itself
is will to power -: self preservation is only one of the indirect and most
infrequent consequences of this.”. In the will to power Nietzsche states “It
can be shown that every living thing does everything it can not to preserve
itself but to become more.” Showing his belief in self- overcoming start to
form. To say that as will to power all things have a insatiable desire to
manifest power is to say that they have an insatiable desire for unending
growth.
In order to grow and expand and thus fulfill the fundamental
desire of life itself, Nietzsche thought it was first necessary to desire
something – an individual who sits around without a care in the world is an
individual who will remain stagnant.
“One must need to be strong”, Nietzsche tells us, “otherwise one will
never become strong.” He therefore believed that an individual must set a lofty
goal that they desire to attain above anything else, and especially above what
he thought to be the petty desire to feel satisfactory, as Nietzsche put it: “That
something is a hundred times more important than the question of whether we
feel well or not: basic instinct of all strong natures…In sum, that we have a
goal for which one does not hesitate…to risk every danger, to take upon oneself
whatever is bad and worst: the great passion.” (the will to power). When
someone sets a goal, and strives with all their will to attain this goal
through pain, suffering and being mocked or whatever adversity comes their way
only then have they met the preconditions for growth to increase ones power according
to Nietzsche. Nietzsche states in the will to power, “human beings do not seek
pleasure and avoid displeasure. What human beings want, whatever the smallest
organism wants, is an increase of power; driven by that will they seek
resistance, they need something that opposes it – displeasure, as an obstacle
to their will to power, is therefore a normal fact; human beings do not avoid
it, they are rather in continual need of it.”
In conclusion it is important to note that Nietzsche didn’t
think the ideally powerful individual was a physically strong individual or
even an individual with power over others – psychological and spiritual
strength represents the ultimate power, he thought, and it matters more than
one has power over one’s own self rather than power over others. And to achieve
power over one’s own self, Nietzsche thought it necessary to set a lofty goal
and strive with all one’s might to achieve such a goal. In doing so, an
individual will live a life of self-overcoming, and thus fulfill one’s purpose
as a manifestation of the will to power.
Fredrich Nietzsche “The Will to power”
Fredrich
Nietzsche “Beyond good and evil”
Fredrich Nietzsche “ The Anti-Christ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfyCzLbcAvk
Nietzsche was surely misled by Spencer, to the extent that they both endorsed something like social Darwinism and "survival of the fittest" thinking applied to human society. Darwin was not a social Darwinist, evolution is not a rationale for cruelty. "Poor Nietzsche's antipathies," Wm James called his various ranting critiques of modernity. And yet, Nietzsche saw himself as a life-affirming philosopher. The question, then, is WHOSE lives did he affirm? He clearly was no democrat, no utiliarian friend of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, his value to us as a thinker is in his example of "self-overcoming," of persevering to achieve goals in spite of serious obstacles and impediments. The best spin we can put on his work is that he did not advocate domination and overcoming of other people, but of one's own weaknesses and fallibilities.